• Melanie Weberg

    There were 3.5 million cattle on 60,000 farms in Wisconsin in 2012. There were 18 verified cattle depredations in 2012. Any way you cut it, livestock has a minute amount of depredation. That’s really not the issue. It’s simply bear hounding, hunting and trapping special interests lobbying at the capitol entangled with corrupt politicians.

    • Reality22

      Wow…. Melanie, I love how you do your cherry picking! 1.5 MILLION dollars in damage by this disgusting animal & you pick the 18 verified cattle depredations in the year that they started the hunt & control of depredating wolves! You forgot to tell them that only a small percentage of those 60,000 farms are the ones on the front lines dealing with the vermin! If Dr Mech is correct and only one in six true depredations are confirmed than another 7 million dollars have come out of the pockets of the people YOU scam with this disgusting animal!

      • Reality22: I’m a reporter for News Publishing Co. working on a story about the wolf hunt. I’m currently looking for sources on each side of the issue. Would you be willing to talk about your opinions with me?

        Matt Geiger
        Editor, Middleton Times-Tribune

  • Wisconsin needs to do more science based research on methods of wolf management in the areas of predator friendly farming and ranching. Wolves aren’t to blame here and people have the responsibility to learn methods for non-lethal ways to coexist with our wild wolf populations. This “blanketed” wolf hunt does not solve the problems of how to coexist with wolves. As evolved human beings I would hope that we could find a way of solving conflicts between people and wolves. France is training their wild wolves not to attack livestock. This specialized method of wolf management uses a paintball gun to mark offending wolves. We need to design a plan for wolves and people to learn to coexist. Sending dogs in after wolves will create even more conflicts. Let us take the hound out of the hunt, develop methods to coexist with wild wolves using non-lethal methods first, then we will be re-writing the wrongs of the past. http://www.facebook.com/WolvesOfDouglasCountyWisconsin
    Rachel

    • Reality22

      If the 35000 black bears of Wisconsin depredated at the same rate as the 800 wolves they would KILL and maim every livestock animal in the Northern 1/3 of the state. WOLVES have limitations and the people that pimp them in order to get Donate Now buttons pressed need to be held accountable!

    • Joan

      Well said Rachel. Other countries have been using livestock guardian dogs and fencing for years. That’s where we get the livestock guardian dogs from. Also, these people know exactly where they are living. It’s not like it was a surprise that some bears or mountain lions or wolves might be around. It’s called coexistence with the natural world. The predator/prey populations were doing their thing way before we came along and since we invaded their lands it is up to us to find ways to coexist.

  • Bc

    http://cryingwolfmovie.com/#about
    This is the same principle with the Great Lakes grey timberwolves
    Too many years of federal government keeping the balance unchecked as our state watched not being able to do Anything. Not any more. Shoot straight.

  • Rebecca Katers

    A limit of only 350 wolves in Wisconsin makes the population much more vulnerable to extinction from a new disease or other unexpected threat. Such a small population also leaves little room for maintaining essential genetic diversity. (It risks inbreeding damage over time.)

    The entire regional Great Lakes wolf population is still too small to be considered fully “secure.”

    It’s disturbing to learn that Wisconsin’s official wolf management committee now excludes key scientists, key DNR staff, and wolf hunting opponents … creating a deliberately rigged, biased committee dominated by Republican political campaign donors and wolf haters.

    This is typical of today’s Republicans, who seem pathologically incapable of honest, open, respectable, knowledgeable government management. This minority population in Wisconsin seems to rig EVERY government activity they control to fit their own Party’s goals … while ignoring the wishes of the majority of Wisconsin residents.

    Republicans serve only themselves, not the entire public they pledged to serve.

    Stepp claims she must bend to the demands of several northern County Boards who voted for 350 wolves. But do those County Boards truly represent all the people in those counties on this SPECIFIC wolf population question? Were all the Board votes unanimous? Who got those Board members elected? (Local Republican committees and donors who hate wolves?) Were those County Board members fully and ACCURATELY informed before voting for 350 wolves, or were they lobbied aggressively by small groups of well-organized, well-funded wolf haters, and fed INACCURATE anti-wolf propaganda before they voted?

    It sounds like the County Board votes were part of a well-targeted, highly orchestrated anti-wolf campaign, because all the County Boards seem to have centered their votes around the number 350, which is suspiciously consistent and specific.

    But even if the County Board votes were truly representative of local public views at the time, that still wouldn’t mean that our state government should simply fall in line with those County votes.

    If DNR wolf experts, independent specialist scientists, and federal wolf experts believe a 350 wolf goal is a serious mistake, then the state (which is supposed to serve ALL of us in Wisconsin) needs to work harder to FULLY SHARE all the details of this scientific information with the public and elected officials in those northern counties, and work much harder to ACTIVELY PROMOTE better ways of addressing specific problems posed by wolves in specific areas.

    Wisconsin and federal taxpayers have already invested several decades and millions of dollars in Wisconsin wolf research and restoration efforts. Republican wolf-haters can’t be allowed to destroy that investment with simplistic emotional voting that ignores scientific truths.