Direct Anger At DNR and Legislature, Not Judge Anderson

08 Jan
Wisconsin DNR: What century do we live in?

Wisconsin DNR: What century do we live in?

Since the mixed ruling of last Friday by Dane County Judge Peter Anderson on the lawsuit over the use of dogs against wolves there has been a rash of anger against the judge from wildlife advocates. While none of us are happy with the ruling it must be noted that the judge’s hands were essentially tied from the beginning due to the archaic and pandering laws that protect cruelty against wildlife in Wisconsin. When the lawsuit was first announced the leaders of groups like the deceptively named kill everything group the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation and extreme hunting group shills like Rep. Scott Suder (R-ALEC) came out and defended cruelty against wolves and other wildlife because of laws protecting the abusers.

Do not direct your anger at Judge Anderson. Direct your anger where it truly belongs, with the Legislature and DNR. The so called “leadership” in the DNR have been furiously defending the use of dogs against wolves from the beginning. This email from the Wisconsin DNR came out today:

We are pleased that Judge Anderson removed the injunction that banned the use of dogs for hunting wolves. However, we are disappointed with Judge Anderson’s decision to prohibit training of dogs to hunt wolves.

We will continue to seek input from the public and from stakeholders – including tribes – as we continue to develop permanent rules on the wolf season, and the use of dogs for both training and hunting of wolves.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Cosh, DNR, (608) 267-2773; Dana Brueck, DOJ, (608) 266-1221

What kind of state is this? An agency that is supposed to represent the “will of the people” has essentially spit in the face of wildlife advocates, the courts, and even most of the hunters that they claim to represent by pandering to the minority within the minority bear hounders. How much backlash is it going to take before political hacks like Kathy Stepp actually listen to anyone other than the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association,  George Meyer, and their paid lobbyists like Bob Welch? The vast majority of people in Wisconsin have made it very clear that they oppose the use of dogs against wolves and a smaller majority oppose the entire wolf killing program. But none of that matter when you have an agency and legislature that only cares what Bob Welch and George Meyer want and to hell with the rest of the citizens.

Now is the time to make our voices heard more than ever. Call the DNR and your legislators and let them know that the vast majority oppose the archaic practice of hounding and that it is shameful for our state to have the dubious distinction of being the ONLY one in the country to allow packs of vicious dogs to go after wolves. This and other forms of hounding are legalized animal fighting that are not only allowed but actively promoted by the state.

Find you legislators here:

Who Are My Legislators?

Contact the DNR here:

Enough is enough. The DNR and legislature have a responsibility to ethically represent the will of the majority, not pander to a few extremist groups. We cannot let up the pressure on these two government bodies. Call and write each day if you have to to make your voice heard. Remember it is not Judge Anderson that you should be angry with. He did not create this disgusting bill.


Posted by on January 8, 2013 in Hunting, Wisconsin Insanity, Wolves


Tags: , , , ,

5 responses to “Direct Anger At DNR and Legislature, Not Judge Anderson

  1. Jerold

    January 9, 2013 at 10:53 am

    It seems this is very easily fixable. Most that are passionate about their interest have no problem supporting a cause in a monetary way. Might I suggest that we ask our legislators to put in place a fee system where money would be used to fund the fight against those that hunt and trap. I think that since we have the majority (and we say we do), we need to show that we are not just talk and we want the state to charge us instead of hunters for items like conservation protection and enforcement, watershed management, animal herd health monitoring and all of the conservation practices that are needed. Liken it to the fees that the hunters and trappers and those that are passionate for those sports get charged for licenses (the number one income of the state for conservation and animal protection/ management right now). The fee could be accessed against anyone that hikes, photographs, ect. (all of the ‘silent sports’), and to that end anyone that benefits from the health and well being of our animals. This would show that we do not need hunters income and the billions that they bring to the states economy both directly and indirectly. This solution could be proposed at any level of government form conservation congress meetings to state legislative sessions by anyone willing to put in the effort. So yes we should call our legislators and tell them that not only do we disagree with there decisions to allow hunting and trapping but we are also willing to fund the state to do it the right way.

    • rali74

      January 9, 2013 at 11:16 am

      We have floated that idea for a long time but the hunters and trappers won’t allow it because the would then have to give us a seat at the table. That would be a threat to their monopoly on power. I am all for paying my share but you can bet that I want my seat at the table too. However now that we have more people paying attention we make some progress. Thanks you you input on this. You articulated it in an outstanding way.

  2. Jerold

    January 9, 2013 at 2:38 pm

    Make no mistake; no one has a seat at the table. Money has a seat at the table. A legislators allegiance is not with an ideal or group but, in cases like this, is with who will provide the most income both at a personal level and a state legislative/ budget level. This problem is not unique to this situation but can be overcome. While we sit typing about problems, the hunting public has organizations specifically designed to channel hunters donated money to the area in which they feel the most need of “influence.” At the same time the hunting public also voluntarily pays for the opportunity to hunt and trap. That is a lot of money coming from a group of individuals that we say that we outnumber. It makes me wonder if the ‘silent majority’ are willing and passionate enough about these issues to replace that kind of state budget income, or do we want all of this as long as someone else will foot the bill. Unfortunately, I think the answer has shown itself in the inability of anyone to effectively organize enough funds, resources, or man power to replace what hunters effectively sustain in our state.

  3. Maureen

    January 11, 2013 at 7:14 pm

    This story made it onto 334 comments by outraged readers and counting:

    • rali74

      January 11, 2013 at 7:17 pm

      Thanks for sharing this. The groundswell is building and the Moore people who learn about this the more outraged they become. The overreach and disconnect by people like Suder and his puppet masters are astounding. They are feeling the heat but I doubt they care what we think.


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: