Concerned for the safety of hunting dogs brought along during Wisconsin's first wolf hunt this fall, the Wisconsin Humane Society has joined other groups in a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resoures and Natural Resources Board.
The lawsuit, filed in Dane County Circuit Court, asks the court "to stop the DNR from authorizing the use of dogs for wolf hunting until reasonable rules are established to protect dogs from injury or death, according to a press release from the society. Other plaintiffs include outdoorsmen, hunters, volunteer trackers, and other Wisconsin animal welfare organizations.
When the state passed a law permitting the hunt, it included use of dogs for tracking and trailing — and it directed the DNR to set in place rules for use of these domestic animals, said Anne Reed, executive director of the Wisconsin Humane Society. She added: "They didn't do it."
"Wisconsin has just become the only state to allow dogs in wolf hunting, and we have done it with rules that do virtually nothing to protect dogs from being ripped apart by wolves," she said.
Wolves were given federal protection in the early 1970s, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal. The paper wrote that farmers and citizens reported more threats to dogs, deer and cattle as the wolf population grew out from northern Minnesota.
In January, the gray wolf was removed from the federally endangered species list in Wisconsin and other Midwest states, according to the Wisconsin DNR website. The DNR said it hoped to maintain the population at a healthy level and address problem areas of wolf attacks. A New York Times blog item said the Wisconsin wolf population is about 800.
"Wisconsin regulations will treat the gray wolf as a protected wild animal, which means that authorization from the DNR is required before a person can attempt to 'take' or kill a wolf," the website said.
More than 10,000 applications for wolf hunt permits have been submitted, and only 2,010 will be chosen via a lottery system, according to GazetteExtra.com. The hunt runs from Oct. 15 through the end of February. Applications cost $10 and are being taken through Aug. 31.
The Humane Society and others involved in the suit believe that wolf attacks on dogs being used in other animal hunts are proof that stronger regulations are needed before this season starts up.
"The DNR has paid more than $427,000 since 1985 to hunters whose unleashed hounds were killed by wolves while pursuing bears in known wolf pack areas," Reed said. "One-hundred and ninety-two dead hunting dogs in total, not to mention the 40 more treated for injuries at an additional cost of $20,000." (See attached PDFs.)
Reed said the law lacks training requirements for dogs, and leash restrictions that would keep hunting dogs in "safe proximity to their handlers," do not exist.
Bill Cosh, a spokesman with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, has said the DNR is "disappointed" by the lawsuit, but added little other comment, according to the New York Times.
I'd have to agree with the sentiment that the new law without any rules or guidance seems a bit ill-conceived. What kind of hunter would send a dog after a pack of wolves? We are talking about a hunt that is really tiny in scope compared to deer hunting, though, since the wolves are still very few in number, so the consequences are somewhat limited. Those wolves were eliminated the first time to help create a huge overpopulation of deer for more deer hunting profits, after all, nevermind the rampant disease it caused. The least valuable animals of all, of course, are my fellow humans. We have surpluses in the billions in that population, most of whom have nothing but a modest to large net negative contribution to the functioning of this world, with the largest amounts of waste and destruction per capita originating in this country. But our lives are more important because we wrote books that say so, right?
1. Do not procreate. 2. Off yourself without harming others. 3. Off yourself soon.Suicide is the most sincere form of self criticism.
The three rules apply to you as well. You are wasting my precious air keeping you alive. If you don't like people, then it is unfortunate that your mothers' didn't abort you or drown you at birth.
I will contact the Natural Resources board and recommend they allow every landowner aggreived by wolf predation to allow them to shoot them on sight (with lead bullets, not drugs) and make it punishable to interfere with the landowners right to do so. This should make the Mary A. Disney's scream with horror. We do exist. Have for a long time like the native's of this country and those like myself whose ancestors came from old Europe. Oh, the horror! The horror! (hehehehehe) Best go get some more Kleenex Mary. Your tears and angry spittle are shorting out your keyboard.
I live in wolf country and raise livestock, I get them on my game cam, If they caused me problems I'd could practice the 3 S's instead of whining about the "big bad wolf". I know... "the horrors". That's a big difference from hunting the whole population during the denning/heat cycle using dogs. This issue should never have become an absolute. However if you can't/won't use critical thinking and instead prefer acting as a sheeple then I can imagine there are only 2 colors in existence for you.
In reality it the complete overabundance of coyotes and the fisher. Which also raise havoc with the ruffed grouse and red fox population. Maybe we need MORE wolves to keep them in check. Or at least push their abundance farther south to Shawano Co.
"Kinda funny we have very few feral cats or dogs in the North woods." When my family lived in Shawano Co. we made sure of the same thing. Strange how a shotgun or rifle took care of that problem, along with the excess coyotes. Uh, oh. I just set off the Disney types again. Shame on me!
My kids have been raised with the same respect I was towards others' property - stay off unless invited. Not sure about the stealing and destroying part unless you apply that to hunting which I love. Venison is delicious. "you as a dog walker allowing your pet to crap in and destroy my flower beds. allowing your pet to crap in and destroy my flower beds". True, I have a dog but he stays in our fenced in yard. Never once crapped or peed on someone else's property. And he is "fixed". Do I know you? "Lock and Load? You better think again. Yes, I have the Castle Law. Still I will be arrested, Jailed, arraigned, possibly allowed bail if I can afford it and freed if I can obtain good defense." What is that about? The topic is wolves that went to feral/free running pets. Now you are gearing up to shoot people? Way too much info there pal. Get some help. "You support killing unsuspecting defenseless life." Guilty as charged. I have unwittingly contributed to the supply of road kill on our highways but have not gone out of my way to make it a reality, So, you got me there. Should I have swerved and taken out the motorist and their occupants in the oncoming lane to avoid the travesty of killing the defenseless critter? "Go back to Europe and take your descendants with you." Unless you harken from Asia or Africa, I think your share the same beginnings. Share the ride back?
dogs I know.
"So you ARE a city dweller! Feral cats and dogs don't have a snowballs chance in hell in the wilds of WI. They are free meals here. No need to get the 30-06, not to mention that it's the wrong gun for the job, unless you're a sloppy shot." Yes, a village dweller with lots of land in nothern WI. Step out to 300 yards and I will show you, standing behind me because I am not threatening you, that I can plant the hurt on a wolf, deer or anything else to be connected with at that distance. A 22 or shotgun does not cut it. Your favorite caliber at that distance?
Thank goodness someone with two brain cells quashed the dogs. Gah! I can't believe it was even advocated.
Your without voice per your voting so live with it or examine who you are voting for. VOTE the deadbeat INCUMBENTS OUT.
http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html