I am reproducing every single word of this article below. Its speaks the truth and needs to be said. What a discouraging day for Wisconsin citizens and mainstream hunters who value science-based, not preference-based wildlife management. Another sad day for Wisconsin wolves. After all, more than one out of two will be dead within the next year. I oppose the wolf harvest quota of 156 proposed for the 2014-2015 hunting and trapping season, not merely for the devastation it poses to Wisconsins wolf population but for its blatant shortcomings. The last thing Wisconsin should be advancing after last years quota is another aggressive wolf hunt, especially in the absence of any compelling reason beyond an arbitrary and outdated wolf population goal of 350 devised 15 years ago. Yes, it is easy to read the latest headlines to understand the real impetus behind the push for another no-holds-barred Wisconsin wolf hunt — another certain slaughter facilitated by deadly traps, hound dogs, bait piles and electronic calls. No doubt, fringe and out-of-state hunting lobbies have been well-served by wolf quotas to date. But what about the far greater numbers of Wisconsin citizens and mainstream hunters who value science-based, not preference-based, wildlife management? Honestly, where is the science behind Wisconsins mad rush to drive its wolf numbers down? According to the latest deer research, summarized in a Pat Durkin column, reducing the wolf population will not benefit our states deer hunters. Livestock operations wont benefit, either, because findings show that once hunters break up functional wolf packs, depredations by lone wolves are likely to increase. Why not, then, consider easing off the quotas and promoting non-lethal, good husbandry practices, shown to surpass hunting in effectiveness? It defies common sense to further erode pack stability through another high quota. Nor can a quota of 156 be justified in light of the significant numbers of wolves killed each year by causes other than hunting and trapping, especially illegal kills and disease. When this additional projected mortality is added to the quota kills, it really starts to hit home that, under a 156 quota scenario, over half of all Wisconsins wolves — more than one out of two — will be dead within the year. How can Wisconsins wolf population sustain such an assault? What species could, much less one as social and pack-dependent as wolves? For example, Minnesota experienced an unexpected 30% decline in its overall wolf population following a harvest far more moderate than the one proposed for Wisconsin. A quota of 156 for Wisconsin amounts to state-sponsored eradication, plain and simple. I was not alive the last time mans ignorance and ugliness wiped out Wisconsins wolves, but I am now, and I will not be a bystander. Nor should members of the Natural Resources Board allow themselves to be participants in this senseless destruction by approving a wolf quota based on so tenuous a scientific and legal footing as to place Wisconsin in legal and ethical peril. ~Jodi Habush Sinykin #WaronWisconsinWolves #Wisconsin #Wolves #WolfHunt #Quota
Posted on: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 19:35:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015