you are exactly right. The statute isn't actually setting the limit. Its allowing the DNR the ability to set a limit.
The DNR already has that authority.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
you are exactly right. The statute isn't actually setting the limit. Its allowing the DNR the ability to set a limit.
Correct, they do. The statute is however requiring them to do it which since they do it with everything else, I don't see how this is bad.The DNR already has that authority.
The DNR already has that authority.
It isnt setting the population goal, but where does it grant authority beyond a statewide management goal?you are exactly right. The statute isn't actually setting the population objective. Its allowing the DNR the ability to set a population objective. It doesn't have to be state wide even. It can be by whatever they want to set. Just like with the elk, just like with the sturgeon.
Nope, not what that bill would have done. Its cut and dried, would have taken away adaptive management and based it 100% on a statewide management objective.
Its a long but very good read. I did it on the plane last week and really enjoyed it.
Look starting at page 49 called ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
This is exactly what the statute that just got vetoed would force the DNR to include in the wolf management plan going forward.
Here is what the wolf management plan by the state currently has:
View attachment 321251
I agree, but again, I would be real careful about what is said, and not said in statute. The way that bill reads, not a chance I'd support it.I think we need to be careful before awarding either side the moral high ground on this issue. It is political, with political motivations compelling both sides.
As I understand it, the purpose of this was to hold the DNR’s feet to the fire and make them do the bare minimum- assign a state population goal. Wisconsin DNR has done this with wolves in the past, but now refuses. Nothing I have read would have excluded a more detailed management plan under this umbrella.
Those in the DNR and state government view this as a way to apply leverage towards forcing future wolf hunts- they are likely not wrong in that assumption. Many are obviously against a wolf hunt, and it leads to the brinksmanship we have seen in Wisconsin over the past several years.