Wildlife Advocates Finally Fighting Back In War on Wolves

18 Sep


In recent weeks wildlife advocates have finally began to stand up to those who wish to see the gray wolf exterminated once again from our landscape with government backing. The modern government sanctioned War on Wolves officially began in April of 2011 with the disgusting “Tester Rider” that set the stage for the full scale, no-quota, slaughter of wolves in Idaho and Montana. Neither state wasted any time implementing massive no holds barred killing seasons that culminated with the slaughter of over 500 wolves. This year Idaho has implemented year round wolf killing, again with no quotas, and Montana has jumped onto the no quota, shoot and trap bandwagon. The future of the gray wolf in these states is very bleak to say the least.

Not to be outdone the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Wyoming just had to jump right into the wolf killing spree with insane proposals of their own. Minnesota went back on their plan not to allow wolf killing for five years following delisting and have initiated a full-scale legislative backed killing season for this fall. Of course Wisconsin had to out do all of them by having Rep. Scott Suder (R-ALEC) introduce legislation the very day wolves were removed from the endangered species list that included every form of killing short of artillery. Then we have the recent removal of the gray wolf from federal protection in the wolf hating state of Wyoming. The Secretary of the Interior, “Cowboy Ken” Salazar, and the head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dan Ashe, conspired with Wyoming officials to let them have their own wolf killing fest where wolves can be killed by any way possible, at any time, in most of the state. This all happened in the past year and a half under the watch of a supposedly “progressive” president.

The Tester Rider had specific wording that prevented the law from being challenged in court. This was a slap in the face of our democracy and the opening shots in this new War on Wolves. After being shellshocked for the past year plus, wildlife advocates are finally fighting back. This started when a group of concerned Humane Societies and citizens filed suit to stop the legalized dog fighting that Rep. Scott Suder (ALEC) and his bear hounder puppet masters rammed through the Wisconsin Legislature in the form of Act 169. This brutal and sadistic bill was also voted for by many so called Democrats who also consider themselves to be “progressive.”

The next step in fighting back came following the delisting of wolves in Wyoming when wildlife groups made the government aware that they will be challenging the state’s “shoot on sight” law. Of course Wyoming plans to kill as many wolves as possible before the lawsuit is even heard.

Finally news broke today that the Center For Biological Diversity and Howling for Wolves announced that they too filed a lawsuit to stop Minnesota’s “kill them because we can” wolf hunting season. The lawsuit contends that the public was essentially shut out of the decision making process. Sound familiar? The same thing happened here in Wisconsin.

Here in Wisconsin you now have another chance to make you voice heard loud and clear. On September 24th, 25th, and 26th the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board will be holding hearings to develop “emergency” rules regarding the use of dogs against wolves in response to the lawsuit. Because as we know it is such an “emergency” that hounders be allowed to have their legalized dog fights this fall. Public comments are again being accepted for the hearing. Of course at the last hearing where the wolf kill provisions were rubber stamped the vast majority of public comments spoke out against the wolf slaughter and were unanimously ignored. That is because the Natural Resources Board has become just another arm of kill everything agricultural and extreme hunting groups like Safari Club International. In fact one of the NRB members, Gregory Kazmierski, runs an “outfitter” business and is a leader in Safari Club International. And this guy gets to make decisions about issues that can help his business financially? Conflict of interest anyone? Gee, I wonder how he will vote?

Back to the point, please submit your comments about the insane legalized animal fighting that the DNR and the bear hounders continue to fight for here:

Speak your opinion as a CITIZEN and DEMAND that they listen to your voice. Here are the comments that have been submitted thus far:

Public Comment as of Sept 17

It is very encouraging to see wildlife advocates finally coming together and fighting back against the extremists who seek the second eradication of the gray wolf. Let’s keep that momentum up. This is just the beginning. It is time to take our public lands back from the kill everything crowd and demand that living wildlife advocates be represented in the same manner as the kill everything types.


11 responses to “Wildlife Advocates Finally Fighting Back In War on Wolves

  1. Bobette Traul

    September 18, 2012 at 11:48 pm

    Good news about Minnesota. Quite a line up of speakers, terrific. This jerk Greg K. how did he get on that board? Definitely corrupt. I hate Saf. Int. , they dumped $400,000 into Alaska and $100,000 in Montana. The CEO of this outfit has a kill list that includes every animal on Noah’s Ark. Look them up on Wikepedia[sp.] I did research on them for a comment I made in the paper. They’re a two star operation. They have a charity on the side for tax purposes only. Joke.

  2. gannonned

    September 19, 2012 at 9:22 am

    Anybody know anything about Scott Loomans, the presenter for the board meeting?

    • rali74

      September 19, 2012 at 9:37 am

      I don’t , but considering he works for the DNR I assume he will talk about how “essential” it is to allow dogs to go after wolves. If the NRB allows this hounding crap to continue the whole process needs to be challenged in court. When you have aboard that is stacked with hunting and agricultural interests from the get go it is impossible for wildlife to get a fair shake. Apparently Wisconsin has no concept of “conflict of interest” when it comes to wildlife. It is time the ethics investigators do their job and start looking into this garbage.

      • gannonned

        September 19, 2012 at 1:37 pm

        Maybe you know this already, but the Board of Natural Resources is not the Department of Natural Resources. The BNR is a political entity that has assumed many of the decision-making responsibilities for wildlife. The DNR I think is actually split on a lot of this. I know people at the DNR who are scientists and upset with how the BNR has stuck their nose in all of this. Loomans is part of the BNR which is a political entity appointed by more recent governance. I agree, though, that the whole thing is mishandled and treated with special interests in mind.

  3. gannonned

    September 19, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    Here’s a copy of my letter sent to Linda Ross, the Natural Resources Board’s Liaison. (I had to hold back a bit).

    To: Linda J. Ross, Board Liaison
    Re: Board Order: WM-01-13; Act 169
    Members of the Natural Resources Board,
    The following comments argue against the training and use of dogs in the impending wolf hunt. I will begin with specifics regarding the use of dogs and work back to the broader issues at stake.
    I. First, I believe the burden of argument should fall to the supporters of the use of hounds in the hunt. The reasons are as follows.
    A. No other state currently allows dogs in the service of wolf hunts, though other states certainly have a history of wolf hunting, including Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
    B. Hunting wolves with dogs is often compared to big cats and bears and also coyotes. Cats and bears are typically “treed” and coyotes are more solitary and smaller. Though Wisconsin wolves often disperse over wider territories during the winter, they are still likely travel in roving or roaming packs. The current plan likely will result in fierce fights between wolves (who will not be treed) and dogs. This amounts to little more than legalized dog-fighting.
    C. No consideration has been given to where predations occur and limiting hunting in those areas to decrease predations. Since predations are the most often cited reasons for controlling wolf populations, this seems as though it will put the wolves on the offense with little consideration for the livestock owners who suffer the only real consequences of wolves living in the woods of Wisconsin. Furthermore, exceptions for wolf-killing permits were already allowed for farmers, ranchers, or livestock owners losing livestock to predations. There is no evidence to back up the notion that a state-wide, unspecified hunt will reduce future predations. Whereas the argument for allowing hunts in areas of predation seems to make much more logical sense.
    D. There is no way to properly train dogs to hunt wolves that will not result in many killed and maimed dogs.
    F. There is no current verification method for reimbursing hunters whose dogs are killed by wolves when hunting other animals versus dogs that are killed while hunting wolves.
    G. The only logic the public has heard to defend the use of dogs is that hunters will not catch wolves without the use of dogs and traps. But this is not a logical defense against the charge that hounding is a brutal practice. Wolves have been killed with rifle and even bow and arrow in other states. Yet we continue to insist hunters will not catch the quota without traps and dogs. Why must the maximum quota be met when ultimately, over years’ time, the number is unsustainable?

    II. Secondly, the comments made over the Chippewa Indian’s right to a portion of the wolves reveals a mindset of some in the state who are most vociferous proponents of the wolf hunt. It reveals the underlying argument that they have a right to kill these animals. I would like to suggest that that right is not an inherent right and that it may be taken away if it is not treated responsibly, either by the citizens of the state, or the interference of the Federal government due to lack of responsible management.
    A. It is a fact that wolves, as part of the wildlife of Wisconsin, are entrusted to all members of the state, not simply the ones that are vocal or wish to hunt them. The use of dogs has involved citizens who normally let well enough alone despite feelings of distaste toward hunts.
    B. It is a likelihood that if management of the wolf is not treated responsibly, Federal intervention is likely to ensue.
    C. Wildlife management should be viewed as a caretaking process, but in this state has been reduced to management in terms of a battle over how much of each kind of animal can be killed each year. This is not caretaking and really does not constitute management in any responsible sense. Hunting wolves with hounds is irresponsible management.
    III. The numbers of wolves the state currently states as goals for the wolf population at large, as well as the number determined for the hunt, is based on political pressure and arbitration and not on the best available science or any consensus on the value of wolves to the state.
    A. Hunting numbers, zones, and methods should be determined to best suit the ongoing sustainability of entire ecosystems and wildlife biodiversity. The numbers generated as maximum capacity for wolves in Wisconsin in the 1970s when wolves were first re-colonized need to be reviewed based on contemporary science and a fair and impartial debate about the reasonable numbers and expectations of wolves in the state.
    B. Voices of citizens of Wisconsin that are not avid hunters should be valued as stakeholders of the wildlife trust represented by the animals and domains of public and unspecified land. An individual’s hunting experience or lack thereof does not logically exclude them from making a valid argument for the presence of wolves in this state and country.
    C. Finally, on a personal note, I urge the political portion of the Natural Resources Board to listen to voices of experience and expertise that have been so far silenced or diminished in this discussion. This animal has an unquestionable history of being persecuted. Let’s make wise decisions that allow for a long sustainable diversity within the cherished wildlife in Wisconsin.

    Thank you for hearing my comments.
    Ned Gannon
    Citizen, Eau Claire, WI 54703

  4. gannonned

    September 19, 2012 at 2:08 pm

    I just added this. D. I object to the allowance that state has made for out of state hunters to hunt wolves that belong to the state of Wisconsin.

  5. gannonned

    September 19, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    Whoops, it’s Laurie Ross. Just caught that too.

  6. Pete Braun

    September 20, 2012 at 12:12 am

    Watch out, hunters, ranchers, trappers, etc.! You’ve awoken a sleeping giant! Now, prepare for a major thrashing that you will have no hope of surviving!

  7. Bobette Traul

    September 20, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    Mr. Braun, who in the hell are you?

  8. Bobette Traul

    September 20, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    I agree with you Peter- we need to make this thrashing very public.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: