Official Language, Policies Sanitize WI Wolf Hunt

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Every line of work - - even clubs and hobbies and games - - have their insider shorthand, jargon and specialized vocabulary.

But language that is dense or obfuscatory when used by government officials - - word chaff, if you will, like "enhanced interrogation techniques" - - can block or overwhelm the public's mandatory need to know and fully understand what's happening in its name, and with its money

No offense to the particular speaker below because he's reflecting his agency's culture, but take a look at how a DNR official earlier today disclosed and explained the major reduction in the state's estimated wolf population following the 2013/14 hunting and trapping season:

The state’s wolf population was estimated at between 658 and 687 animals in late winter, down from 809 to 834 in late winter 2012-’13... 

“The goal for the season was to apply downward pressure (on the wolf population),” said Dave MacFarland, DNR large carnivore specialist. “The increased mortality associated with harvest was the difference.”

"...downward pressure...increased mortality associated with harvest..."

Courtesy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Let me make a suggestion: If you are interested in the less-sanitized reality behind those terms, Google "trapped wolves images." 

The Internet and social media are filled with pictures, videos and first-person accounts and comments about trapped/and or shot wolves hoisted aloft like found treasure, or otherwise posed.

The Wisconsin Legislature and Governor Walker created the wolf hunt in 2012, and have allowed dogs into the fray of behalf of special-interest bear hounders and other lobbies close to the NRA. 

No state other than ours lets dogs chase down wolves in the hunt because the other states know that the worst-case/wolf vs. dog confrontation pictures, pain and public protests are not going to be pretty.

In fact, if a bear hounder loses a dog to wolves, Wisconsin will pay the hunter up to $2,500 per dog. 

Even to a scofflaw. Even if the dog's death takes place in a known wolf activity area, or near bait put out by bear hunters.

No state other than Wisconsin does that, either. (One post about all this, among many on this blog, is here.)

A mature and transparent state government would honor its stewardship role on behalf of wildlife it holds in trust for all the people of the state.

And would be more honest with its citizens in explaining and justifying how state wolf hunting policies are implemented, rather than cluttering their meaning and outcomes with terminology and extra syllables.


source