Associated Press
Wisconsin is the only state to allow the practice of dogs being used to hunt wolves.
Even in a perfect world, politics overlaps with conservation.
The citizens' Natural Resources Board, created in Wisconsin in the early 20th century, includes politically appointed members.
And the Legislature has always had the power to make fish and game laws. In some cases, in fact, they must make statutory changes to react to new realities or opportunities.
When the gray wolf was removed from protections of the federal Endangered Species List and returned to state management in January, the Legislature was required to take action to allow for a public wolf harvest.
They didn't have to do it this year, of course. The state's wolf plan recommended a several-year lag between delisting and public hunting and trapping. In the meantime, farmers and landowners would be issued wolf kill permits to address depredations.
And wildlife control agents would be used to kill problem wolves.
But the Legislature responded to pent-up demand from frustrated farmers and others who believe the wolf population is too high and needs to be reduced.
It's one thing to change state law to approve a new hunting and trapping season. It's entirely another to write so many details of the season into law.
The law, known as Act 169, specifies the season dates (Oct. 15 to the end of February), allows the use of bait, allows night hunting and allows the use of dogs to hunt wolves.
All of these points have attracted substantial opposition, including from the hunting community.
The last half of October is prime time for ruffed grouse hunters. Many grouse hunters are unhappy that their flushers, retrievers and pointers will be, in their view, unnecessarily exposed to traps.
William Andrews hunts for grouse and woodcock near Clam Lake.
"Please do not allow the use of leg traps for wolf hunting during grouse and woodcock hunting season," Andrews said. "I can't imagine the possibility of a beautiful bird hunting dog having a leg caught in a wolf trap."
Others point out that the quality of a wolf pelt is often poor or at least less than prime until much later in the year.
Minnesota, also in its first year of a regulated wolf hunt post-delisting, has approved a season that runs from November to the end of January.
Allowing the use of bait has also drawn opponents. Many fear habituating wolves on human-placed food.
And perhaps the most opposition to Act 169 comes from its legalization of dogs to hunt wolves. Wisconsin is the only state to allow the practice.
Dick Thiel, former head of the state's wolf program and longtime leader of the Learn To Hunt program at Sandhill Wildlife Area, has strongly opposed the use of dogs to hunt wolves, warning of multiple "unintended consequences."
The legislation was rushed, obviously, and was not supported by many in the scientific and hunting community.
Here's what Jane Wiley, Natural Resources Board member, had to say about it in comments directed to DNR secretary Cathy Stepp at the Tuesday board meeting in Stevens Point.
"I'd like to ask Cathy to use her considerable powers of persuasion as well as the strength of her position to convince legislators not to use their collective heavy hand to enact laws rather than go through the usual administrative rule process.
"We've seen with Act 169 what happens when the professional DNR staff and the Natural Resources Board are excluded from the process.
"And if the Legislature ignores you, Cathy, I hope you can appeal to the Governor not to sign environmental laws forwarded to him.
"We need public hearings beyond the Natural Resources Committees of the Assembly and Senate. We need our professional staff's input, we need the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, we need environmental and conservation organizations and interested citizens' input.
"And we need the NRB to review the process and set the policy.
"We need total transparency for Wisconsin citizens to trust and value what DNR does and that will not happen if we are continually forced down this awkward and unreasonable path."
The room filled with applause.
The Legislature succeeded in legalizing a Wisconsin wolf hunting and trapping season less than a year after delisting.
But it also has provided another example why politicians should allow the DNR, NRB and Wisconsin Conservation Congress to work out details of such seasons.
And ultimately, Act 169 may have served to increase the likelihood of a lawsuit to stop the season.
source
The citizens' Natural Resources Board, created in Wisconsin in the early 20th century, includes politically appointed members.
And the Legislature has always had the power to make fish and game laws. In some cases, in fact, they must make statutory changes to react to new realities or opportunities.
When the gray wolf was removed from protections of the federal Endangered Species List and returned to state management in January, the Legislature was required to take action to allow for a public wolf harvest.
They didn't have to do it this year, of course. The state's wolf plan recommended a several-year lag between delisting and public hunting and trapping. In the meantime, farmers and landowners would be issued wolf kill permits to address depredations.
And wildlife control agents would be used to kill problem wolves.
But the Legislature responded to pent-up demand from frustrated farmers and others who believe the wolf population is too high and needs to be reduced.
It's one thing to change state law to approve a new hunting and trapping season. It's entirely another to write so many details of the season into law.
The law, known as Act 169, specifies the season dates (Oct. 15 to the end of February), allows the use of bait, allows night hunting and allows the use of dogs to hunt wolves.
All of these points have attracted substantial opposition, including from the hunting community.
The last half of October is prime time for ruffed grouse hunters. Many grouse hunters are unhappy that their flushers, retrievers and pointers will be, in their view, unnecessarily exposed to traps.
William Andrews hunts for grouse and woodcock near Clam Lake.
"Please do not allow the use of leg traps for wolf hunting during grouse and woodcock hunting season," Andrews said. "I can't imagine the possibility of a beautiful bird hunting dog having a leg caught in a wolf trap."
Others point out that the quality of a wolf pelt is often poor or at least less than prime until much later in the year.
Minnesota, also in its first year of a regulated wolf hunt post-delisting, has approved a season that runs from November to the end of January.
Allowing the use of bait has also drawn opponents. Many fear habituating wolves on human-placed food.
And perhaps the most opposition to Act 169 comes from its legalization of dogs to hunt wolves. Wisconsin is the only state to allow the practice.
Dick Thiel, former head of the state's wolf program and longtime leader of the Learn To Hunt program at Sandhill Wildlife Area, has strongly opposed the use of dogs to hunt wolves, warning of multiple "unintended consequences."
The legislation was rushed, obviously, and was not supported by many in the scientific and hunting community.
Here's what Jane Wiley, Natural Resources Board member, had to say about it in comments directed to DNR secretary Cathy Stepp at the Tuesday board meeting in Stevens Point.
"I'd like to ask Cathy to use her considerable powers of persuasion as well as the strength of her position to convince legislators not to use their collective heavy hand to enact laws rather than go through the usual administrative rule process.
"We've seen with Act 169 what happens when the professional DNR staff and the Natural Resources Board are excluded from the process.
"And if the Legislature ignores you, Cathy, I hope you can appeal to the Governor not to sign environmental laws forwarded to him.
"We need public hearings beyond the Natural Resources Committees of the Assembly and Senate. We need our professional staff's input, we need the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, we need environmental and conservation organizations and interested citizens' input.
"And we need the NRB to review the process and set the policy.
"We need total transparency for Wisconsin citizens to trust and value what DNR does and that will not happen if we are continually forced down this awkward and unreasonable path."
The room filled with applause.
The Legislature succeeded in legalizing a Wisconsin wolf hunting and trapping season less than a year after delisting.
But it also has provided another example why politicians should allow the DNR, NRB and Wisconsin Conservation Congress to work out details of such seasons.
And ultimately, Act 169 may have served to increase the likelihood of a lawsuit to stop the season.
source
No comments:
Post a Comment