WI senator seeks end to compensation wolf-killed dogs

[Koa]

A very interesting read, considering Wisconsin is the only state to reimburse individuals for hunting dog losses to wolves (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/senate/26/ri ... wolf-hunt/). What are your thoughts? Do you agree or disagree with Senator Risser?

Hunter welfare? Sen. Risser wants state to stop paying hunters for dogs killed by wolves
by Doug Hansmann and Denise Thornton, Feb. 1, 2018
ISTHMUS

Wisconsin is the only state that reimburses hunters for dogs who are killed by wolves. The state pays up to $2,500 per dog and 2017 was a record year for payments.

In 2017 the state of Wisconsin paid a record $99,400 to hunters whose dogs were killed by wolves. Since the program began in 1985, the state has paid hunters more than $700,000 for dogs that were killed by wolves. No other state pays hunters for dogs that are killed this way — and Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison) wants to end the practice.

“It’s not society’s job to reimburse individuals who voluntarily jeopardize the wellbeing of their dogs by putting them in harm’s way,” Risser tells Isthmus. “People get insurance for this kind of risk. Why should the taxpayers pick up this cost? There are better ways to use the state’s resources.”

Read the full article here: http://isthmus.com/news/news/senator-ri ... by-wolves/

[Isela]

Hmm...honestly, I'm more on the fence about it. Both sides make good arguments. There is a risk that without the compensation program in place, people may feel more inclined to kill the wolves, since they no longer hold any benefits (which isn't entirely true, but that's a different topic). However, it's also true that if someone wanted to poach wolves, they would do it. Poaching is a crime, and when someone wants to commit a crime, they will do it. So, revoking the compensation isn't completely full proof.

I do agree with Risser on the fact that the hunters are willingly putting their dogs in harm's way, and should know the risks involved when taking their dogs out into the wilderness. Also, when compensations were set in place, there were fewer wolves. The population has risen to a sustainable amount, more than the state has seen in years.

So, after jotting down my thoughts, it looks like I'm leaning more toward Risser's point of view haha. But yes, I feel like the money could be used in more productive areas now that the wolf population has grown substantially.

[Noctis_]

Hmm...honestly, I'm more on the fence about it. Both sides make good arguments. There is a risk that without the compensation program in place, people may feel more inclined to kill the wolves, since they no longer hold any benefits (which isn't entirely true, but that's a different topic). However, it's also true that if someone wanted to poach wolves, they would do it. Poaching is a crime, and when someone wants to commit a crime, they will do it. So, revoking the compensation isn't completely full proof.

I do agree with Risser on the fact that the hunters are willingly putting their dogs in harm's way, and should know the risks involved when taking their dogs out into the wilderness. Also, when compensations were set in place, there were fewer wolves. The population has risen to a sustainable amount, more than the state has seen in years.

So, after jotting down my thoughts, it looks like I'm leaning more toward Risser's point of view haha. But yes, I feel like the money could be used in more productive areas now that the wolf population has grown substantially.

I agree, especially the second paragraph. I don't think hunters should be given money for putting their dogs in danger and getting them killed; taking away the compensation may be motivation to take better care and keep a closer watch on their dogs.

Thanks for referring me to this topic, Koa.