Jason Jordan
Blog Entry
NRES 320
November 3, 2011
I had just spent the better part of the morning grouse hunting near my hometown. I was now in my tree stand waiting for any sign of deer movement. This allowed me to reflect on this morning’s successes (in this case lack of success). I was thinking about how I used to hunt with my German Shorthaired Pointer named Sadie. Sadie had died a few years back and my successful grouse hunts have dramatically dropped since her passing. Being a fulltime student, I feel I wouldn’t have enough time to properly train a new dog, so for now I am hunting alone.
Anyways, that is beside the point. Thinking about Sadie had evoked a memory about a segment I had seen on television. This segment was about hunters that used dogs to hunt bears, grouse and other various prey. These hunters were complaining about dog loses due to wolf encounters; rightfully so. But what bothered me was the fact that they wanted to be compensated for their loss by the state agencies such as the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The hunters felt entitled to compensation because the DNR did not have a legal hunt on wolves and they believe that the populations, of wolves, are too high in Wisconsin. So in their mind if the populations are great and there is no hunt than we deserve the compensation for lost dogs.
I am a dog lover and have hunted many years beside my dog. Dogs become a beloved family member. That being said I still believe that no compensation should be awarded. I understand that a lot of time, money and effort go into training these dogs but the owner must accept that there is a factor of uncertainty when using dogs. I for one would be devastated to find my dog ripped up by pack of wolves but when I took Sadie out hunting, I accepted the level of risk that was involved. Well, what about compensation of livestock deaths? That is a whole different realm in my opinion. Farmers with livestock are relying on that for their livelihood. The majority of hunters running dogs to aid with a hunt are not depending on that hunt for survival. Yes, some are training dogs for other people and have a business based around that but then they should think about insuring those dogs because then they could be possibly considered commercial property.
I do believe that a dog owner should be allowed protect the dog from predators. Now whether this is legal or not is a different matter. Hunters that are using dogs to hunt need to understand that there is the risk of a dog being attacked. It is their responsibility to protect that animal and if they are willing to fight for compensation well then they should be fighting for the protection of their dog to begin with. The dogs are the responsibility of the owner and not the Department of Natural Resources.
5 comments:
I would have to agree, there should be no compensation if your dog is killed during a hunt bu wolves. Even for live stock there should be no compensation, that is the risk of the business. If that is a concern of theirs then perhaps they should increase the fences around their livestock. Wolves are a natural part of Wisconsin and more than likely they are here to stay.
You picked an interesting topic to write about. Not being a hunter, I have not heard of this controversy, but it still captivates my attention. I agree with you and Jered when you state that hunters losing their dogs to wolves should not be compensated. I think it is an unrealistic expectation to have. I read not too long ago about someone who lost their hunting dog to what was probably poisonous algae or an organism in water that the dog had drank from. It was heartbreaking to hear how sad the owner was; like you, his dog became part of the family. Maybe people’s grief and trying to find a scapegoat cause such an irrational expectation on the state. It is sad, but I do feel it is the hunter’s responsibility and risk when taking his or her dog out.
You picked an interesting topic to write about. Not being a hunter, I have not heard of this controversy, but it still captivates my attention. I agree with you and Jered when you state that hunters losing their dogs to wolves should not be compensated. I think it is an unrealistic expectation to have. I read not too long ago about someone who lost their hunting dog to what was probably poisonous algae or an organism in water that the dog had drank from. It was heartbreaking to hear how sad the owner was; like you, his dog became part of the family. Maybe people’s grief and trying to find a scapegoat cause such an irrational expectation on the state. It is sad, but I do feel it is the hunter’s responsibility and risk when taking his or her dog out.
Joann Elizalde
Good post and comments! The dog issue is certainly part of the wolf controversy.
Comment from Joann: You picked an interesting topic to write about. Not being a hunter, I have not heard of this controversy, but it still captivates my attention. I agree with you and Jered when you state that hunters losing their dogs to wolves should not be compensated. I think it is an unrealistic expectation to have. I read not too long ago about someone who lost their hunting dog to what was probably poisonous algae or an organism in water that the dog had drank from. It was heartbreaking to hear how sad the owner was; like you, his dog became part of the family. Maybe people’s grief and trying to find a scapegoat cause such an irrational expectation on the state. It is sad, but I do feel it is the hunter’s responsibility and risk when taking his or her dog out.
Post a Comment