How many hunters are going to go out and buy wolfhounds for this hunt? Most of those that will use dogs will use the same dogs that they use for hunting bear and that type of hound is no match for a wolf. Also the law as passed requires the state to pay hunters if their dogs are killed by wolves. Why should our tax dollars be used to reimburse some idiot who's stupid enough to pit his dog against a wolf? There is already insuffient monies available to reimburse farmers and pet owners and this will only worsen the situation.

I do know a thing or two about hunting, dogs and management. I've got no problem with a wolf hunt. But Wisconsin is the only state to allow the use of dogs and without any restrictions whatsoever. I guess all of the others are populated by minority idiots and ignorant tree huggers or maybe judicial systems controlled by democrats.

It's not always about the table.
http://www.furfishgame.com/fur_auctions/...

For the record, I have no problem with hunting for the table, but it bothers me a great deal when people want to kill things just for the fun of it. Hunting wolves falls in the latter category....

Again, as my dad taught me when I started hunting, you shoot it, you eat it.

It is as if people think hunters that use dogs will be out with pointers or labs. Has anyone googled wolfhound? Does any of the people complaining know anything about hunting or even dogs? How about population management? No? I didn't think so, the lawsuits arguing dog safety are the same as the last time wolves were put back on the endangered species list because of a procedural error. I don't care for the current hunting bill, but I trust the DNR to control harvest numbers and I trust the wolves to make hunting difficult. Luckily, politicians don't get to decide that.

You shoot 'em, you eat 'em. Otherwise leave them alone.

And here we go again with the Morons...
My Gosh, ~The state Department of Natural Resources failed to include any provisions to protect HUNTERS FROM HAVING A HEART ATTACK, KIDNEY STONE ATTACK, DIARRHEA, FALLING AND BREAKING A BONE, OR JUST PLAIN GETTING LOST...OH WAIT...GOTTA ADD THE WOLVES MIGHT ATTACK AND INJURE THEM TOO~ and blah blah blah...
It continues to amaze me how these MINORITY idiots can get these stupid actions even close to a court system.
This is just plain pathetic, and an insult to normal thinking.

If the majority won't use dogs why not take that part of the law out and then the legal challenges will end?

I guess in redsconsin a trip to the great outdoors isnt complete without putting a bullet in some animal to show how manly you are.

theflick: Agree. Wolves do not climb a tree like a bear when chased by dogs. They do not circle back to the spot they were chased from like a rabbit chased by a beagle. They will stand and fight and be successful. They also run in packs so the likelihood is there will be more than one wolf killing the dogs. Not very many sane hunters would even risk using dogs. One of the issues now is when bear hounds or any dogs enter an area claimed by very territorial wolves, those dogs often end up maimed or dead. And many areas that contain wolf packs have not been identified by the DNR as such. A poorly written law by the legislature to include the use of dogs or hunting at night but do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The wolf population in Northern Wisconsin is way too large and needs thinning. I think you are probably right that this is just an end around tactic by some of these groups to stop this hunting and then move on to the next animal.

Democrat appointed judge. Any guesses on which way this will go?

http://youtu.be/tFUDEmMjC-c