To bad they are going to make it tough to get a tag

MADISON -- A bill to establish a wolf hunting and trapping season is necessary to control a "burgeoning" wolf population in order to protect livestock and pets, state Assembly Majority Leader Scott Suder told a legislative committee Wednesday.

The Abbotsford Republican introduced legislation (AB 502) last week that would permit annual wolf hunting between Oct. 15 and the end of February, and for part of the season allow the use of dogs, traps, bait and night hunting to gradually reduce the wolf population from an estimated 800 to 1,000 animals to a targeted goal of 350.

"Many constituents of mine would say there's more than (1,000 wolves), but 350 is where we need to be," Suder said.

Suder also said he has worked on the bill with the Department of Natural Resources to set harvest limits on a "top predator" that caused the state to pay more than $300,000 last year to reimburse farmers who lost livestock to wolves.

"This (doesn't establish) an open wolf killing season. It's a management tool, like the bear season, to protect pet and livestock owners, natural resource users and the burden (wolves) are causing," he said.

Democrats on the Assembly Natural Resources Committee cautioned Suder to go slow on hunting an animal that only recently was removed from the federal endangered species list. Unexpected hunter success could cause the wolf population to drop below 350 and invite the federal government again to put the wolf on the endangered species list.

State Rep. Roger Rivard, R-Rice Lake, who co-sponsored the bill, said wolves aren't easy to hunt.

"These aren't dumb animals. They are difficult to trap ... and I doubt we'd drop the population to 350 in the first season," he said.

Both state and federal agencies agree that 350 wolves are sufficient to sustain the species' population in Wisconsin.

The bill authorizes the DNR to close the wolf season within 24 hours if hunters are unexpectedly successful, Suder said.

State Rep. Louis Molepske Jr., D-Stevens Point, objected to the bill allowing landowners without a license to shoot wolves on their property. Suder said that provision will be removed from the bill, and without a license, landowners only will be allowed to shoot a wolf that is in the act of attacking livestock, a pet or a person.

If Wisconsin has 800 to 1,000 wolves, state Rep. Chris Danou, D-Trempealeau, said an annual harvest of 100 to 150 wolves would allow the state to sustain its wolf population. Given the amount of interest in wolf hunting, Danou said hunters should expect to wait several years before receiving a license.

"It could be similar to bear hunting, where the wait varies from five to nine years, depending on the area of the state," said Kurt Thiede, who heads the DNR's wildlife and endangered species programs.

The bill has the support of several organizations, including the Wisconsin Farmers Union, the National Rifle Associations, Wisconsin Wildlife Association, Cattlemen Association and United Sportsmen.

The bill prices a wolf harvesting license at $99.25 for residents and $499.25 for nonresidents, with the revenue funding reimbursement to those who lost livestock or hunting dogs to wolves.

The committee took no action on the bill Wednesday but should schedule it for a vote later this month.

I'am glad Wisconsin is taking a step in the right direction.

If they wanted to bring in the money charge the $99.25, unlimited licenses and close the season when the quota is met.

I would bet the first year the quota would be met, but the years after that it would be a long season. It will get harder and harder as the years go by.

Wolf range in the Midwest is a lot more forested than out West, making it harder to spot a wolf.

If they allow use to use hounds. Like they do for bears it would be a great fun hunt.

Haveing seen the hounds run a wolf accidently when chasing bears or yotes. Man oh Man can they cover miles.

I would like to see it open until quota is met

That would make the most scense but then the DNR doesn't allways use scense.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
The bill prices a wolf harvesting license at $99.25 for residents and $499.25 for nonresidents, with the revenue funding reimbursement to those who lost livestock or hunting dogs to wolves.

First off the price is ridiculous and I think I read somewhere that it would cost $10 to apply. Boy are they looking to make some money off of this.

Second, how are they going to do the reimbursement? How many thousands of dollars are going to go out for each hound that was killed? I've heard of guys trying to get $20,000 out of WI for a dog.

Third, those harvest goals aren't near enough if they want to "sustain" the population or get it down to 350 animals. They'de need to at least double them to keep them at somewhat current levels.

I'm skeptical that hunting with hounds would even be marginally successful in WI.

Avg pay out per hound is 2500.00 I've seen good hounds go for 5 to 7 thousand.

You are right about the price but leave it to Wis to rape you for money.

Don't about other packs but the ones I hunt with when they get on a wolf they run them well.

If I had a tag I have no dought I could fill it in a couple of days with hounds.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
Avg pay out per hound is 2500.00 I've seen good hounds go for 5 to 7 thousand.

You are right about the price but leave it to Wis to rape you for money.

Don't about other packs but the ones I hunt with when they get on a wolf they run them well.

If I had a tag I have no dought I could fill it in a couple of days with hounds.

If they keep paying that out for hounds then it is BS. It's BS in the first place. Taking your dogs in the woods is dangerous and taxpayers shouldn't be obligated to pay out for a hunters loss.

No kidding. I thought I moved from a bad state. This one is almost worse. Plus we finally get a good Governor and they want him gone.

Do they actually get them cornered to where you can shoot them?

quote:

Originally posted by AXEL19:

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
Avg pay out per hound is 2500.00 I've seen good hounds go for 5 to 7 thousand.

You are right about the price but leave it to Wis to rape you for money.

Don't about other packs but the ones I hunt with when they get on a wolf they run them well.

If I had a tag I have no dought I could fill it in a couple of days with hounds.

If they keep paying that out for hounds then it is BS. It's BS in the first place. Taking your dogs in the woods is dangerous and taxpayers shouldn't be obligated to pay out for a hunters loss.

No kidding. I thought I moved from a bad state. This one is almost worse. Plus we finally get a good Governor and they want him gone.

Do they actually get them cornered to where you can shoot them?

I would agree with you but for the fact that when the state gives wolves UNLIMITED PROTECTION then the state is responsible for the damage they cause.

It would be one thing if the hounds got killed hunting wolves. I see no houndmen asking for money when a bear rips one of their hounds apart.

Running wolves with hounds would lead to more dead hounds than wolves.

Maybe a single wolf will run, but a pack would kill ever hound.

quote:

Originally posted by coyote wacker:
Running wolves with hounds would lead to more dead hounds than wolves.

Maybe a single wolf will run, but a pack would kill ever hound.

Haven't see it happen I been on several wolf chases by accident. When the hounds chase them instead of the bear/yote or bobcat they were surpose to be chasing.

Looking at the hound, wolf kills more of them in the summer then fall and winter

As hounds man you take a chance of having a dog killed any tme you let them out of the box.

I've seen more killed my cars and trains then any thing else.. If you are more worried about losing a hound then hunting you well never let them run.

Where you see wolves killing hounds is during the summer around their pups. A lot of times it is just a single or pair of hounds getting killed.

If a pack decided to attack a group of hounds the hounds would come out on the worse end of it. But it doesn't seeem to work that way. Except as mentioned above.

In years gone by running wolves with hounds worked very well. It was a common means of hunting them.

A wolf covers a lot more miles then any bear or yote thats for sure.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

Originally posted by AXEL19:

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
Avg pay out per hound is 2500.00 I've seen good hounds go for 5 to 7 thousand.

You are right about the price but leave it to Wis to rape you for money.

Don't about other packs but the ones I hunt with when they get on a wolf they run them well.

If I had a tag I have no dought I could fill it in a couple of days with hounds.

If they keep paying that out for hounds then it is BS. It's BS in the first place. Taking your dogs in the woods is dangerous and taxpayers shouldn't be obligated to pay out for a hunters loss.

No kidding. I thought I moved from a bad state. This one is almost worse. Plus we finally get a good Governor and they want him gone.

Do they actually get them cornered to where you can shoot them?

I would agree with you but for the fact that when the state gives wolves UNLIMITED PROTECTION then the state is responsible for the damage they cause.

It would be one thing if the hounds got killed hunting wolves. I see no houndmen asking for money when a bear rips one of their hounds apart.

You mean the taxpayers are responslble for the damage they cause, correct? Either way, if a wolf decides to kill your dog then there is nothing you can do as usually the dog is dead in no time anyway and long before the hunter gets there. The wolves will still be protected when guys are running their hounds for bears or training. It's not like you be able to go in and start shooting them up now that they aren't under federal protection. Dogs will still be killed when there are pups around. I just don't see why it is the taxpayers problem.

So on the accidental chases you've been on, have the hounds ever gotten the wolf to stop so you could have shot it?

quote:

So on the accidental chases you've been on, have the hounds ever gotten the wolf to stop so you could have shot it?

Could have shot several of them just as I have shot yotes running/walking in front of the dogs.

They don't have to be standing still to shoot them. Matter of fact most yotes, bob cats and some bears are shot running in front of the hounds.

quote:

You mean the taxpayers are responslble for the damage they cause, correct? Either way, if a wolf decides to kill your dog then there is nothing you can do as usually the dog is dead in no time anyway and long before the hunter gets there. The wolves will still be protected when guys are running their hounds for bears or training. It's not like you be able to go in and start shooting them up now that they aren't under federal protection. Dogs will still be killed when there are pups around. I just don't see why it is the taxpayers problem.

It will be interisting what the state doses under the new rules allowing you to kill wolves to protect your property.

Why does the state pay for crop damage from deer and bear.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

You mean the taxpayers are responslble for the damage they cause, correct? Either way, if a wolf decides to kill your dog then there is nothing you can do as usually the dog is dead in no time anyway and long before the hunter gets there. The wolves will still be protected when guys are running their hounds for bears or training. It's not like you be able to go in and start shooting them up now that they aren't under federal protection. Dogs will still be killed when there are pups around. I just don't see why it is the taxpayers problem.

It will be interisting what the state doses under the new rules allowing you to kill wolves to protect your property.

Why does the state pay for crop damage from deer and bear.

If you can shoot them for legitimately harming your property then so be it. To have tax payers pay $7000 for a hound is rediculous.

Good question. Give out permits to shoot the animals at any time of year and donate the meat to the needy.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

Could have shot several of them just as I have shot yotes running/walking in front of the dogs.

They don't have to be standing still to shoot them. Matter of fact most yotes, bob cats and some bears are shot running in front of the hounds.

Yeah I know they don't have to be standing still. Just curious as to how many you've actually had in gun range in a somewhat reasonable shooting position.

quote:

Yeah I know they don't have to be standing still. Just curious as to how many you've actually had in gun range in a somewhat reasonable shooting position

Enough to know it can be done and we were not really trying to. To busy catching up the dogs once you found out it was a wolf.