... the state pays the dog owner $2,500. And we taxpayers were on the hook for 41 dogs last year.
What's going on? Hunters put "millions of gallons of food byproducts" in the woods to lure bears and then dogs are used to chase the bears up into trees where they can be shot. The food also attracts wolves, and the wolves kill dogs. Some people think the hunters deliberate "run bear hounds through wolf packs" to get the $2,500.
I'm not expressing any opinion here, just asking for yours.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१०२ टिप्पण्या:
Seems like a waste of money to me.
I wonder how 'confirmation a dog was killed by a wolf' is done.
I don't understand why the state is liable for the loss; seems like it's a risk the hunter should underwrite.
Have you ever tasted bear meat?
Yeah....me neither.
If there is a loophole, some moral degenerate cheap ass will exploit it.
I would look first to see the distribution- 41 dogs, but is this 41 hunters being compensated?
However, like Sparrow, I don't see any justification for paying the owners in the first place. It should be a cost born by the hunters, even if they are paying for the right hunt bears.
@sparrow
I think it has to do with bringing wolves back into Wisconsin. They were exterminated back in the 1970s, but later, people thought it was good to have wolves, and they were a protected species. Then complaints arose that the wolves were killing people's animals. The compensation is a political compromise relieving pressure to reduce the wolf population. I'm not sure if that's completely accurate, but it's something like that.
Just shoot the wolves. Problem solved.
Sometimes the introduction of predators back into the environment has a beneficial side effect. For example, in California Bay area in the 90s, they had a problem with people sleeping in the hills due to high rents. Rangers had to work hard to keep them out.
Once the mountain lion population became large enough, the Rangers work load decreased significantly.
I think it would be simpler to ban bear-baiting than to shoot the wolves.
If you want to bait, you should live with any consequences. Don't ask the taxpayer to subsidize your dog loss.
The $2500 wouldn't cover the cost of raising, training and maintaining a good hunting dog. It should be more like $10k.
I did a little research and found that one breed that can be used for bear hunting is the Karelian Bear Dog. Puppies seem to go for around $850 to $1500. Considering the time taken to train a dog it looks like $2500 is not unreasonable.
However, I really don't understand why anyone hunts bears. From what I have heard the meat is greasy and not good tasting. I have hunted (deer and turkey) but chasing mostly inedible predators using dogs just seems wrong to me somehow.
Some people think the hunters deliberate "run bear hounds through wolf packs" to get the $2,500.
Depends on the hound. Some are worth considerably more than $2,500. But I would guess they are using low-value hounds. It does sound like it could be a scam. IMO, there should only be reimbursement for livestock or pets on one's own property. Free range, you are on your own. Likewise, hunting. That said, it was probably a stupid idea to re-introduce wolves into areas where they have been absent for many years. Wolves do what wolves do.
rcocean, I was living in the Bay Area in the 90s, and I don't remember this. OTOH, I also remember my husband's school in San Anselmo, and the insane deer population there. I think the mountain lions had quite enough to eat without attacking hobos.
And bear meat isn't worth it, but I suppose the state also has keep the bear population manageable. Or students might need guns to shoot bears on campus.
It would only make sense if you were subsidizing the bear hunt because you needed to control the bear population. I don't know if that is the case.
It might be a little suspicious if the claim was for a chihuahua mix adopted from the shelter last week.
"Have you ever tasted bear meat?"
Several times cooked several ways. Never tasted good.
"chasing mostly inedible predators using dogs just seems wrong to me somehow."
Fox hunting involves chasing inedible predators. I'm not sure in what sense it would be wrong. Reasons for the sport include (i) protecting domestic poultry and pets, (ii) appreciation of the skilled work of the pack of hounds, and (iii) enjoyment of galloping through the woods. Those all seem like good enough reasons to me, except maybe number (i), where traps or shooting might be more effective.
My opinion is, the IRS should tax the state dog reimbursement at 400%.
Baiting bears equates with hunting bears? Krikey! What's happened to Wisconsin?
Rae,
They won't need guns to shoot bears on campus (you're channeling a recent politician, yes?), but the mountain lions are another matter; they now turn up in urban/suburban settings all the time.
I'm guessing shooting wolves is frowned upon, or requires an expensive permit. If this is so, the bear hunters can't protect their dogs from wolves, while wolves attempt to acquire a killed bear.
I'm thinking Wisconsin needs to add a requirement for bear hunters to have an insurance policy on their dogs. That removes the possibility of fraud to the taxpayer. As far as insurance fraud, that's up to the insurance company.
What a clusterfuck.
In the USA, people have this weird thing about wolves, and even more so about coyotes. They think they're all around, killing cats and dogs. It's an accepted premise.
They're not all around. They're few, far between, and likely to run if you get within a hundred yards of them. They're more like foxes (which really are all around) than vicious predators trying to eat Snappy the terrier.
Wikipedia on the uses of the bear carcass:
"Pelts[edit]
A bear's fur consists of two types of hair: the underfur and the outer guard hairs. The underfur, which is soft and dense, serves primarily as an insulator. The outer guard hairs are much thicker, longer and coarser, and while they also insulate, they primarily serve to protect the body from dirt, debris and insects, as well as to repel water.[8]
Black bear fur was considered more valuable in the American West than that of grizzly[1] and was once used to fabricate bearskins, which are tall fur caps worn as part of the ceremonial uniform of several regiments in various armies. The Inuit of Greenland use polar bear fur for clothing in areas where caribou and seals are scarce. Polar bear hide is wiry and bulky, making it difficult to turn into comfortable winter garments.[9]
Meat[edit]
In the Middle Ages, the eating of bear meat was considered more a symbolic than culinary act. The paws and thigh of the bear were considered the best parts.[10] It was significantly consumed in traditional Russian (Siberian) and Ainu culture. Even throughout modern Russia, bear meat is commonly cooked into dumplings.[11] Polar bears are a primary source of food for Inuit.[citation needed] Polar bear meat is usually baked or boiled in a soup or stew. It is never eaten raw. Polar bear liver is inedible, as it contains large amounts of vitamin A and is highly toxic.[9] Bear meat, with its greasy, coarse texture and sweet flavor, has tended to receive mixed reviews.[citation needed] Bear meat should be thoroughly cooked as it can carry a parasitic infection known as trichinella and is potentially lethal to humans.[3] It is the single biggest vector of trichinosis in North America.[11] Flavor is extremely variable[11] and dependent on the age and diet of the bear. The best meat apparently comes from two-year-old bears which eat more berries than fish.[4]
Fat[edit]
Bear fat has historically been used as cooking oil by both American settlers and Native Americans.[12] Bear fat can also be used as lamp fuel, with 40–50 grams being sufficient to last up to an hour.[10] Some Native American tribes used bear fat as a form of medicine.
Gall bladder[edit]
According to Traditional Chinese medicine, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) taken from bear gall bladder, fresh bile liquid, or in dried crystal form, may work for rheumatism, poor eyesight and gall stones. Useful bile is said to be produced by all species of bear except the giant panda.[13]"
I looked at a discussion among bear hunters and saw comments approving of the meat, but it looked like the main idea was to get something to be taxidermied.
I would have guessed that the hunting was to reduce the population of bears. I wouldn't like bears in my neighborhood.
Two women are out walking their dogs together.
One woman says,"You know what? I feel like a drink. Want to go into that bar across the street?"
The other woman says, "Sure, but what about the dogs? I don't think they let dogs in bars."
The first woman says, "I've got an idea." She pulls a pair of dark glasses out of her purse, puts them on and says, "Watch this." and goes inside.
When she goes up to the bar, the bartender says,"I'm sorry, Ma'am. We don't allow dogs."
The woman says, "But this is a seeing eye dog."
The bartender says, "A Doberman Pinscher?"
The lady says, "Oh yes. They're excellent." So the bartender lets her in.
The second woman puts her dark glasses on and approaches the bar.
The bartender says, " Sorry, no dogs in the bar."
The woman says, "But this is a seeing eye dog."
The bartender says, "A Chihuahua?"
The woman says, "Chihuahua?! They gave me a Chihuahua?!"
CS Lewis, in one of the Narnia books, says that bear that has eaten a lot of meat tastes nasty, but bear that has mostly eaten veg is nicer. How he knew that is anyone's guess.
In the USA, people have this weird thing about wolves, and even more so about coyotes. They think they're all around, killing cats and dogs. It's an accepted premise.
I've seen coyotes in my neighborhood plenty of times over the last twenty five years, and my family has lost several cats to them.
Ann,
I would have guessed that the hunting was to reduce the population of bears. I wouldn't like bears in my neighborhood.
I'm gathering that you wouldn't like wolves, either. Or any other apex carnivores.
Gahrie, keep your cats indoors. That is all.
I've had Bear meat, and Cows tongue. For my money, the dog meat is the better choice.
I live in the suburbs and had a pack living Behind us.
They don't run unless they are alone. Or they move back just out of distance and sit and watch.
One followed my mom and our dog down the street as she was walking the dog.
And at least one was the size of a German Shepard. He didn't run.
They also as a pack took down a 135# dog behind us and almost got another.
Perhaps the state believes the hunters are providing a public service by culling the bear population. I've always heard that hunting licenses are an effective means of regulating wildlife populations, in particular deer which have few natural predators in many places. Allow the people to do something they enjoy, but responsibly within certain limits, and make them pay some small amount to the state for the privilege.
The rationale is pretty much the same, except the state is subsidizing the activity, possibly because hunting bears is more dangerous and fewer hunters are willing to accept the risk. If bears are a problem, then the other option is the state hiring a larger workforce to manage the population.
Bob, like most things, it depends on where you live. In Southern California, both in suburbs and the mountains, the coyotes are fairly bold. There aren't any house cats found outside in the mountain areas. I heard coyotes most every day nearby our house, and saw them frequently. They did track people walking dogs and if dogs were off-leash, they'd bait them away from their owners. We had coyotes who knew how to open car doors to get at what was inside, though only if they were unlocked.
I used to chase them when they came too near the house, they'd lope off looking confused and annoyed, looking over their shoulder as I chased them barefoot through the forest.
When I lived near a county park in eastern LA county, same thing, and the coyotes were even less wary. I had two very close encounters, one where a coyote was approaching me on the sidewalk and we had about a 8 yard standoff where he stared at me and clearly was eyeing me up. I made a lot of noise and waved my hands and he ran off. Another time, I was sitting on a lawn chair in an open field, and had a coyote family amble from the sidewalk into the brush about 40 yards away. All but one, who wandered my way and did a circle (about 10 yard radius) around me. He was more curious than aggressive, but he certainly wasn't afraid.
There was a local rottweiler who used to chase coyotes regularly. But most other dogs didn't get away with that.
Obama ate dog.
American pioneers used bear fat for cooking (not many sources of fat in the forest)and to rub on deer hides to make them softer and translucent so that they could be used to cover window openings. Glass was expensive and difficult to transport. You couldn't see through the impregnated hides, but it did allow sunlight to enter and were water-proof.
Early donuts and fritters were called 'bear-sign' because of their resemblance to ursine scat. Makes me wonder if 'bear-claw' is a derivative term.
Honestly, if wolves were not a protected species, there would be less of a justification for this kind of payout. Hunters would just kill the wolves to protect their dogs.
Paddy O, I grew up in the desert southwest in AZ. We had coyotes up to our ears.
They're timid creatures. That's why they persist. They're all over North America. They're very good at staying alive.
My most beloved dog, Nika, the beautiful, golden shepherd mix of some kind, once got out the front door and trotted down the street. A guy came to my door and said to watch out, because there was a coyote on the loose. It was Nika.
Go see a coyote. They're beautiful animals, and very wary of humans.
Unless the coyotes kill a little girl on a tricycle as happened not three miles from my home in the Los Angeles suburban foothills a few years ago.
We do have coyotes up to our ears here--and like Bob Ellison I grew up in and still visit the desert Southwest. The combat life expectancy of a cat in my neighborhood is about six months.
My dog(s) have slept inside at night for many years since I woke up to find three coyotes chasing my dog in the backyard late one night.
Don't get me wrong: I like coyotes---but they can be dangerous.
Michelle: I wasn't talking about mountain lions attacking hobos. I'm saying the existence of Mountain lions in the Santa Cruz mountains cut way down on the number of people - not hobos - living in the woods 'cause rents were so high. It was fear, not actual attacks.
But obviously, I wasn't personally monitoring the situation. I'm just repeating what several Ranger friends told me at the time.
People have this strange love for deadly predators. They're glad the Grizzly has come back. They're happy the mountain lions have come back. They're glad the alligators have made a comeback.
Myself, I don't enjoy backpacking and having to worry about meeting a Grizzly.
@sean
I'm not down with fox hunting either. On the other hand, I'm not saying my feelings about it are rational. I don't gamble either. But I don't feel the need to make it illegal.
@Bob Ellison
https://www.nycgovparks.org/programs/rangers/wildlife-management/coyotes
Coyotes are common throughout New York State, including urban areas. Recent sightings confirm that coyotes live in New York City and are active in the Bronx.
Then you have Coywolves and Coydogs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coywolf
In fact, I would be surprised if the coyotes in the Bronx didn't have some dog admixture.
Bear has a taste similar to Golden Eagle but less fishy. Old joke
Thanks Ann,
That makes sense: so if the cost is seen as part of what's needed to ensure a healthy wolf population I'd say it's cheap.
In the absence of the harassment of coyotes practiced by rural people, urban coyotes are losing their fear of humans, which is further worsened by people intentionally or unintentionally feeding coyotes. In such situations, some coyotes have begun to act aggressively toward humans, chasing joggers and bicyclists, confronting people walking their dogs, and stalking small children.[2]
Although media reports of such attacks generally identify the animals in question as simply "coyotes", research into the genetics of the eastern coyote indicates those involved in attacks in northeast North America, including Pennsylvania, New York, New England, and Eastern Canada, may have actually been coywolves, hybrids of Canis latrans and Canis lupus, not fully coyotes.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_attacks_on_humans
Attacks on humans are pretty rare, and most of them are directed at small children. No predator is going to attack something able to fight back if they can help it. Coyotes will eat cats and small dogs though. Why wouldn't they?
Coyotes are not rare or endangered so they aren't really comparable to wolves.
And to make it all more complicated, wolfs are a protected species. Coyotes are pests that can be shot on sight at anytime without need for a hunting license. So what is the status of a hybrid?
As with most government programs, this is probably an off-shoot of the program to reimburse ranchers for livestock lost to endangered wolves that are reintroduced to certain areas.
That these dogs are engaged in a hunt -- one that uses bait that attracts wolves as well as bears -- seems to justify an "assumption of the risk" factor that should negate any obligation to reimburse for lost hunting dogs.
A younger fella bought the 10 acres across the road from my place. He asked, and I let him bait for bears in my woods last year. He set up a trail camera on the bait area, and it was at 7 pm. The next day, he stopped out and the bait was consumed. The camera said 8 pm (1 hour after we left) when the first bear showed up. 2 more smaller bears showed up at midnight.
After the season ended he said he'd be back at it next year, and I said no way. Bears show up without baiting and I didn't need the headache that bears can cause.
The biggest black bear shot in Wisconsin, was in Hudson a couple of years ago. For those who don't know about that area, Google Hudson WI, and see how close it is to St Paul and Minneapolis, MN.
Blogger is a little sticky this morning.
At least they've stopped using Gerald Ford to attract the wolves.
Around here, lots of country people plant corn and soybean patches in the woods to feed the deer, which they then shoot or charge city folk to shoot.
Are any Federal $$ involved here?
Fox hunting involves chasing inedible predators
Wilde: The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable.
If you setup a system that can be corrupted, it will be corrupted. Probably some of the dog claims are fraudulent in some way. No law is perfect unless we have perfect people and if we had perfect people we wouldn't need laws.
It is a peculiar law, apparently motivated by the fact that wolves were reintroduced and then made a protected species by a federal judge (who does not live in Wisconsin or anywhere near Wisconsin), combined with the fact that bear baiting hunting is traditional in the state and hunting is a right in the state constitution.
They won't need guns to shoot bears on campus (you're channeling a recent politician, yes?), but the mountain lions are another matter; they now turn up in urban/suburban settings all the time.
In Wisconsin?
And yes, I was referring to Betsy DeVos confirmation hearing.
Here in Michigan, it's open season on coyotes, literally; the state approved yearlong coyote hunting. We don't a mountain lion problem, although there are a few.
I'm not fond of either bears or wolves. Such animals belong in a zoo. I've learned to adapt to living in NYC. I don't see why bears and wolves can't adapt to living in zoos. That should be their natural habitat.......I do like dogs. I would never breed a dog to hunt bears. That's like raising your son to be a suicide bomber........I don't like to concept of wolves eating dogs. That's too much like cannibalism,.
Wisconsin has a thriving bear population, so WI game management says. WI also has a thriving bear hunter industry-More than 109,000 hunters applied for 11,520 permits in 2016. At $251 for a nonresident license plus all the tourist revenue the tradeoff to the dog owners is probably okay.
I think if you go bear hunting, you kind of assume the risk associated with Mother Nature.
If the purpose is to control the bear population, the rational solution is to offer a bear bounty high enough to compensate the hunters for their risk of losing dogs, and to rescind compensation for lost dogs. Hunters would still have an incentive to go after the bears while losing their incentive to cheat by sacrificing their dogs.
Etienne said...
I've had Bear meat, and Cows tongue. For my money, the dog meat is the better choice.
6/9/17, 10:30 AM
Loser. If you want to eat some good beef tongue, get it at a Jewish deli. (Try it with raisin sauce.) And you didn't say if you've eaten dog meat.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Preliminary assessment of a ballot initiative banning two methods of bear hunting in Oregon: Effects on bear harvest.
A 1994 general election ballot measure. (Gah, 19 measures on the ballot that year.)
The rural-urban battle continues this year over the 1994 ban on hunting cougars with dogs.
Bear baiting is illegal in WA. And probably unnecessary. Where we lived for ten years in the Selkirk Mountains of NE WA, we had bears in our yard on a regular basis. We had to keep our garbage can locked in a shed.
I'm not fond of either bears or wolves. Such animals belong in a zoo. I've learned to adapt to living in NYC. I don't see why bears and wolves can't adapt to living in zoos. That should be their natural habitat.
William, I do hope you're not serious.
I've learned to adapt to living in NYC. I don't see why bears and wolves can't adapt to living in zoos.
The analogy is telling.
Why can't career criminals live in zoos with the bears and wolves? On Saturday nights you could have some good gladiator shit. I'm serious.
Allen, I rather like your idea. But it might be cruel to the animals.
In the USA, people have this weird thing about wolves, and even more so about coyotes. They think they're all around, killing cats and dogs. It's an accepted premise.
Gahrie said...
I've seen coyotes in my neighborhood plenty of times over the last twenty five years, and my family has lost several cats to them.
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
Gahrie, keep your cats indoors. That is all.
And with these words the great feline indoor/outdoor debate began, of which it has been said that none before or after was more vituperative; none more savage and depraved.
Alliances formed and shifted. Obdurate cruelty held sway over the passing days and weeks of the campaign. Friends betrayed, trophies taken, frenzied lunatics bayed at the moon.
Good times.
Paddy O said...
We had coyotes who knew how to open car doors ...
But could they drive a stick shift?
Assumed risk.
The hunters, not the taxpayers.
How hard can this be?
My sister and her family in Idaho hunt bear. I've had a roast. About as greasy as pork, but gamier and stronger tasting. They put most of their bear meat in sausages - usually little smokies. They are very good - hard to identify as being bear. Bear skin as a rug or bed cover feels great. Expensive though.
So, what is the verdict? Was the introduction of wolves a success? Is the balance of wild animals better/worse? Besides some dead hunting dogs, what other people and domestic animals are being killed? The state might be justified in making this type of payment while doing an "experiment," but if the experiment is over, people have to insure themselves or take precautions against the new natural environment.
It's not just bear hounds that are at risk; it's bird and rabbit hunting dogs plus companion pets that have been killed by wolves. Pet dogs have been killed in back yards of rural houses, and snatched off rural roads as they were walked by their owners.
The DNR management plan is for a WI wolf population of ~350 animals; due to the politics surrounding removing wolves from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) the wolf population is growing unchecked, and is currently estimated at ~900 animals. There is no hunting of wolves in Wisconsin currently, again due to the ESA. Hence the spike in wolf vs dog interactions.
I'm a bird hunter that uses dogs; I share the woods with wolves and coyotes and bears. There are lots of risks out there for my dogs; predictable risks like roads with cars, and unpredictable risks like coyotes and bears. Wolves are a whole different kind of risk right now, as they are completely unmanaged and are at a population level far above what's been recommended to minimize wolf/dog interactions while allowing an established wolf population to exist.
In Washington, where I grew up, there is black bear hunting but baiting is forbidden. I never hunted bear but knew people who did and they were fairly successful sans bait or dogs.
Mountain Lion hunting requires dogs, you will never see one on your own.
Mountain Lion hunting requires dogs, you will never see one on your own.
Unless you know where to look. They're at the grocery store.
dpb said "I never hunted bear but knew people who did and they were fairly successful sans bait or dogs."
In the west, where bears can be seen in the open they can be hunted without bait or dogs. A hunter can find bears by watching open areas for bears, and then get closer for a shot. In the east, where terrain is flat and bears hunt primarily wooded areas, we don't have the conditions where hunters can find bears without bait or dogs. There are ~28,000 bears in WI; there are ~1,000,000 deer in WI. You can't just sit on a stump and wait for a bear to wander by like you can with deer.
Quality hounds from accomplished bloodlines are very expensive. Why would anyone assume the risk if they weren't compensated for loss?
We're not talking random litters of Black Labs here.
Also the very real investment of time and experience to train the mutts.
@Dave,
Interesting points, I hadn't thought of.
I am from eastern Washington and never bothered with bear hunting since, even though I spent a lot of time in woods, I don't think I ever saw a bear. (I may have seen one while huckleberry picking, but I don't remember now if we were on the WA side or into ID) All the (successful) bear hunters I knew lived in western Washington, where it is more densely wooded and bushy.
Whenever I went backpacking in western WA or especially the Olympic Peninsula, I never failed to spot a black bear. I think they were just super-abundant in the west and more spread out in the east.
My friend, Max, recently posted on bounties and market forces here:
http://maxredline.typepad.com/maxredline/2017/06/not-what-was-intended.html
.
What's being requested is discrimination against hunting dogs. Pet dogs killed by wolves would still be reimbursed.
When you hunt bear, sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear/wolf gets you. Comes with the territory.
Bad Lt,
I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood and have eaten at plenty of delis. I tried tongue and it did not taste bad. I prefer pastrami and corned beef.
The problem is texture. Foods have a mouth feel that people react differently to. I love raw oysters and sushi, but most of my acquaintances gag on it. Tongue feels exactly like what you would expect it to feel like. Not my cup of tea.
Blogger sparrow said...
"I don't understand why the state is liable for the loss; seems like it's a risk the hunter should underwrite."
You are all missing the point.
The state is paying the hunters to not shoot the wolves.
Francisco, tongue isn't my top fave (my dad goes ape over it), but it's gotta be better than bear or dog meat. Obviously you turn to tongue when the pastrami, corned beef and brisket run out, but it's food.
I check you on the texture issue. Kinda like chicken feet - even if good, I always give those a miss at the dim sum places; one chicken foot surfeits me, I can't finish a bowlful.
They aren't paying hunters for the dogs. It's a bribe to keep them from politicking against wolf restoration.
Bad Lt.,
I took my visiting brother-in-law to Chicago's Chinatown for dim sum. He ordered the chicken feet.
He got exactly what he ordered. They had no taste, and felt like eating erasers, but they were texturally less offensive than curry cow foot that a Jamaican friend once made.
"I used to chase [coyotes] when they came too near the house, they'd lope off looking confused and annoyed, looking over their shoulder as I chased them barefoot through the forest."
It's the well shod coyote you have to worry about. Very clever they are.
What's being requested is discrimination against hunting dogs. Pet dogs killed by wolves would still be reimbursed.
Now it all makes sense. It's about compensating for bringing back wolves period. This is just one aspect of it.
> I'm not expressing any opinion here, just asking for yours.
Easy, anytime the government is handing out $2500, somebody will immediately start looking for a way to game the system. Easy fix: prorate payout based on the worth and age of the dog. Nobody should get $2500 for a $50 mutt from a rescue shelter.
Some people think the hunters deliberate "run bear hounds through wolf packs" to get the $2,500.
Anyone who entertains that theory longer than it takes to read is... well, stupid is an overused word but it applies here.
I'm not expressing any opinion here, just asking for yours.
Frequently when man thinks he can take on Mother Nature, Mother Nature rips him a new *$$hole.
"Paddy O said...
We had coyotes who knew how to open car doors to get at what was inside,though only if they were unlocked."
Hahahaha! See a coyote with a key fob and you are fuxored.
Good hunting dogs are quite expensive. Then vet bills and food, and I'd say $2,500 is not extreme. A really good dog may be insured for a lot more than that! A hunting hound pup can cost anywhere from about $450 to more than $1,500. Training costs anywhere from $500 to $1,000. It's hard to buy any decent trained hunting hound for less than $1,500. If a good female has three litters of four surviving saleable pups each, that's at least $4,000 in gross income. So a lot of these dogs are insured if they are really good.
41 dogs killed by wolves isn't that many either. Lot of people hunt with dogs. I'm kind of surprised it is so few given the stats I found.
If the financial losses mount up, the people in the woods with guns encountering wolves are going to shoot them. Nor is 41 dogs killed a year a lot, or a figure that in any way justifies some bizarre theory that people are deliberately getting wolf packs to kill dogs. According to WI state, you've got on the order of 28,000 bear in the state. In 2016 4,682
bear were taken by hunters. So 41 dogs is not in any way out of line. Plus, most people in the woods with hunting dogs will be after other prey. That's a really small number, to me.
Googling (astonishing the information you can find) gives a 2016 list of dog depredations:
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/wolf/dogdeps2.html
The state maintains a warning list of where these attacks happen, and it looks to me like people are using it to avoid the danger.
Blueticks, walkers, Plotts etc are all hunting breed dogs. These are not dogs from the pound. There is NO EFFING WAY anyone would deliberately off a good hunting dog for $2,500. I don't know who came up with that theory, but it smells of Madison-level madness. Hunting hounds are particularly vulnerable because they are bred to find the scent and follow it without any diversion. Many breeds of dogs would realize that there are wolves in the area and turn and escape, but if the hounds have the scent, they are going to go. So collisions are inevitable.
Beats sitting in front of a screen.
Several things don't seem right about this story. I've hunted lots of bear with dogs....Most hunters bait bears with left over Dunkin' Donuts or other sweet sh*t that is easy and cheap to obtain. If you're using meat to bait bears you're asking for trouble. I'm not a huge fan of the bait pile, but I pass no judgement. Bear populations must be kept in check and that's a reasonable way to do it.
A good "strike dog" can smell a bear off the hood of the pick up truck is worth many times more than the 2500 dollar fee paid by Wisconsin. Most of us who spend time in places wild enough to keep wolves know they kill for the pleasure of killing............and there's far too many of them. They've decimated elk and deer populations in Montana and Idaho and their numbers must be trimmed dramatically. Then this type of contact with bear dogs will become minimal. If humans don't trim their numbers...nature will surely do so and it will be far more inhumane.
The three S rule applies; Shoot , Shovel, and Shut Up.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा