Before I get into the main topic of this post it must be noted that as of this morning, October 21, 2013, Wisconsin wolf haters have “reported” killing 85 (EIGHTY FIVE) wolves since last Tuesday. And those are just the reported ones. Even more disturbing is that the Facebook wolf hating site is showing pictures of multiple wolves killed at the same time none of which have been “tagged” in clear violation of state law. That site continues to post comments advocating poaching and eradication of the entire Wisconsin wolf population. If the DNR truly cared about enforcing the law and promoting so called “ethical” hunting they would monitor that disgusting website and investigate the blatant law violations. Sadly they do not care and the unethical boasting and promotion of poaching will continue. Now on to the “Bunny Slayer,” Patrick Durkin and his tripe.
Last year DNR apologist, “outdoors writer,” and kill everything by any means possible advocate, Patrick Durkin, boasted about how the outrage over Wisconsin’s wolf slaughter would blow over and we would all “accept” it just as we supposedly have accepted the mourning dove killing. What? I don’t know about you but I have never accepted the killing of those docile birds for sport and I damn sure will never accept the yearly sport/revenge killing of wolves in Wisconsin. If anything the outrage has grown substantially since last year and will continue to do so until the DNR listens to the majority of citizens that oppose this reckless slaughter. But that was Durkin’s garbage from last year. This weekend he published and article that can be described as nothing more than a hit piece against University of Wisconsin Professor and world renowned carnivore expert Adrian Treves. From the article:
As Wisconsin’s second wolf season got underway Tuesday we heard claims that the Department of Natural Resources was ignoring science and risking a destabilized wolf population by setting a kill quota of 251.
And those who attended The Wildlife Society’s annual national conference in Milwaukee on Oct. 7-8, heard University of Wisconsin professor Adrian Treves claim wolf poaching is rising. During the conference, Treves also said the DNR’s 2013 wolf quota is “not sustainable nor responsible.”
Such claims pack punch because we like to think university researchers are detached, objective folks who disdain emotion, shun advocacy and avoid predictions they can’t support with data.
In other words, we expect professors to stay above the fray of us caterwauling commoners. Maybe that’s asking too much of mere mortals who deal with wolves.
Further, of those who killed a wolf, 60 percent took its hide to a taxidermist for mounting, and 33 percent tanned and kept it. Why would so many wolf hunters pass up iffy shots, and 93 percent preserve their kill for display if they hate the sight of wolves?
Granted, we’re only one year into state-regulated wolf hunts, so it’s too soon to draw lasting judgments. But isn’t that the point? We should be studying these hunts to learn more about wolves, wolf management and those who hunt or trap them.
So let’s not accuse others of ignoring science and research unless we’re practicing both ourselves.
Really Durkin? They hate the sight of LIVING wolves. That is why they killed them so they could look at DEAD wolves. Why don’t you make a visit to that disgusting Wisconsin Wolf Hunting Facebook page to see how much wolf hunters “respect” wolves. If “respect” is grinning over bloody carcasses and advocating poaching then Durkin lives in a different world than I do. How dare a hack “outdoors” write whose only qualification is that he gets off on killing wild animals insult and question the research of a world renowned expert on the topic at hand. This clown even goes so far as to say that somehow it would be “scientific” to allow bating and hounding because there is no data about it? What?
In his 2012 testimony to the DNR Board, Treves also said: “There is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support the safety or efficacy of hunting wolves with hounds … (nor is there) scientific evidence to support the safety or efficacy of hunting wolves with bait.”
Both statements are true, but how could we expect peer-reviewed scientific studies when regulated wolf hunts didn’t exist until the past few years in the United States, and only Wisconsin is pursuing a hound hunt? And if peer-reviewed research of wolf-baiting and wolf-hounding is our goal, we certainly won’t get any data if we don’t offer any tests.