it is more acceptable to many folks though.
but if I ever wind up on a jury, in such a case the violator will be found guilty if it is at all in my power.
Poaching, why is it acceptable on predators, but not on ungulates?
- Thread starter tim
- Start date
but if I ever wind up on a jury, in such a case the violator will be found guilty if it is at all in my power.
Prerylyon
Veteran member
Its not easy, esp in the present dysfunctional political climate; and I say this with limited knowledge of the representation currently in office in places like the Upper Great Lakes (I have no idea how gerrrymandered those districts are, people in St Paul having more say than they should up north, etc); but if there are majorities of folks in those northern tier areas where they are reaping the harvest of impractical wolf management (livestock kills, adverse impact in moose/deer) they need to mobilize politically, and vote representatives in to set it right, create legislation to allow state management (hunting) of a recovered species: timberwolves.
dan maule
Veteran member
I agree with what you are saying, all of the elected officials in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan strongly support scientific wolf management. The problem is our voice is so small, the decisions are made by politicians in the Lower Peninsula where there are no wolves. I am sure this is the same situation in Minnesota and Wisconsin it is very frustrating.
Colorado Cowboy
Super Moderator
In some areas (Colorado for example) it really doesn't depend on our local and state politicians positions on reintroduction/management of wolf and grizzly populations. It is almost totally federally controlled. Here in Colorado the state has resisted reintroduction of the wolf into our areas where historically they lived. Then a citizen ballot initiative was passed by a bare majority to reintroduce them. Our elected officials had no choice according to our state laws. As I understand it, there is an attempt at another initiative to undo the one that passed. Here all we can do is support and elect people who agree and support our views. That is another problem as national politics and the views of local candidates support for them unfortunately have huge impacts on who gets elected. Candidates views on the wolf situation here took a backseat to other more controversial politics. The questions about views on the wolf ballot never got asked. Too bad, now we have to deal with the results and how to manage a bad decision.
RICMIC
Veteran member
All these various referendums should also have a part B that states that those who vote in favor will also pay for it if it passes. A common ref. on the county level are votes on a school levy. When they pass, at least all the taxpayers pay for it. On the wolf refs. it is likely that the costs are largely born by those who are inclined to vote against it.
Colorado Cowboy
Super Moderator
Actually here in Colorado the Parks & Wildlife Dept is what is called an "Enterprise", which means it is self funded and gets no money from the state. So the hunters, fisherman, campers and ohv'ers are paying for it, not the general taxpayers. Pretty stupid !