The financial aspect? Like investing all your money in 1 stock? Like Wisconsin only having deer, to feed hunters, bears and wolves?
Yes, the financial aspect. I'd rather have my money invested in GE, than a lot of small start up companies.
Hope you understood that analogy.
On a serious note though, my pain, is for all of the hunters in Northern WI more so than anywhere else in the state. I was never for the state re-introducing wolves. As an avid bird hunter, it made me sick to my stomach. When I read about people walking their dogs, and them getting killed by wolves, it frustrates me. Northern WI has harsher winters, less available food sources and wolves that the deer herd has to deal with.
If we lost 20-30% of the deer hunters (the whole northern 1/3rd of the state), because of people stop hunting deer in this area all alone, that would total about $240,000,000 to $360,000,000. Let's keep in mind the loss of jobs from sport shops, young hunters not starting because it's not "fun".
Let's face it, there isn't going to be a bison season, or elk season any time soon. So the money the DNR figures they might gain from licenses for those animals will never total the loss of deer hunters. More food for the wolves is going to make the wolves a healthier and stronger population. With the wolves here as well, the rate at which the elk are re-populating right now is minimal at best. The amount of area the elk can actually graze, and live isn't that large, without them too becoming an issue to farmers in WI. With the wolves being re-introduced and exploding to such a high population, it is going to be extremely hard to re-introduce ANY big game animal and be successful. Am I against the re-introduction of elk and bison? Not really. What I am against is how the wolves are taking control of the state and making the sport that has been around in WI for over a century, miserable.
I like your optimistic thoughts, however what you need to look at is long term. Something the DNR did not do, when they re-introduced wolves. You can't assume that if you re-introduce other Big Game species, that everything will fall into place, we'll have seasons for everything in a couple of years and the money spent will all be justified. There is going to be a lot of money spent trying to re-introduce these new species to a greater population, and who's to say that they won't go and do some crop damage of their own? People will shoot these animals, just like some people shoot Elk and wolves in WI already. No direct offense to you Wack, but you're making a lot of assumptions. The main goal here is the Wisconsin Deer herd, and the re-introduction of other big game species isn't going to solve the problem, other than possible cause more. There is no guarantee that those other species will help feed the wolves, because those other species don't have the area to roam like they once did, also, they don't have the food sources they once had such as the native grasses. Since Wisconsin has had such a face-lift from what it once was when all of these species roamed the prairies, meadows and rolling hills (which are non-existant now) those Big Game species will not flourish. I understand what the DNR had in mind about reducing the herd, but I think their numbers of reducing the herd are a little too low to keep people interested, especially in areas where deer sightings are almost non-existant during the hunting season.
In conclusion, the "financial aspect" that I spoke of in my last post, was simply getting what works well to stay the same, since it has changed so drastically in the past few years. I don't know about your financial advisor, but when so much money is involved ($240,000,000 to $360,000,000), I'm pretty sure they would tell you to put the money in stocks like GE. I'd hate to wake up, and see that much money per year disappear because stocks like Enron took a dump, even though they kept telling you to buy and reassuring you that everything will be OK. Once the Deer situation is under control, and figured out, then WI can move on to other topics like Elk, Bison, Water Buffalo and Hippo's. There's no sense in abandoning Wisconsin's greatest tradition and money maker, to take a shot in the dark and hope it hits it's mark, or surpasses expectations.
I can see it now, Green Bay Packers, Milwaukee Brewers, and The Milwaukee Elks (can't be the Timberwolves).
I'm sure I left out some topics I wanted to post, but I'm tired, and need to catch a little bit of sleep tonight. Hope you don't take my post the wrong way, but my priorites and your priorites are different. Mine is keeping Wisconsin's main big game animal what it is now. I'm not against giving the other animals a shot, but the habitat doesn't suit them, like so many hunters hoped it would, to get a season for them or to help balance the food chain.
If a harsh winter did that much damage on a "large population" already, I wonder what it would do to a herd of 700,000 animals? Snow is snow, cold is cold, I doubt there were as many animals that starved over the winter because they couldn't find a food source. There are plenty of places south of Highway 29 in WI that provide animals lots of food, even many north of Highway 29. My point is since the gun season is over, and the whole state was saying there were less deer harvested in every zone, the food source available to these animals wasn't the issue. They were down just as much in Central WI and Southern WI as Northern WI.