Sometimes, you can learn a lot from the comments that follow an online story (even here on Realtree.com). Often entertaining, sometimes educational, these posts usually swing from one end of the opinion spectrum to the other, no matter what the subject. 

So when Kate Wong with “Scientific American,” expressed her disdain with the latest plan put forth by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, that being to hold a month-long Burmese python catch-and-kill contest beginning Jan. 12, 2013, you can bet the some of the comments appear, well, venomous. Others squeezed hard on her naivety regarding wildlife and the ecosystem.

The facts: We have reported here on the problem with the burgeoning population of Burmese pythons in the Everglades and other places in Florida. Here’s what the Conservation Commission proposes for its inaugural Python Challenge: 

• Anyone over the age of 18 may register for the contest

• Registrants must take a 30-minute online training course on how to detect, capture and humanely dispose of said snakes

• The contest is also open to those who already hold a python permit 

• The contest begins on Sat., Jan. 12 at the University of Florida Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center in Davie

• There is no fee for registering

• Contestants may register throughout the month

• Python Pickers are eligible for the Grand Prize of $1500 for the most Burmese pythons captured and $1,000 for the longest python, on Feb. 16 at Zoo Miami 

Wong, in an article titled “Why Florida’s Giant Python Hunting Contest Is a Bad Idea,” is worried that contestants will not properly identify the snakes and that the snakes will be mishandled. She further wrings her hands and writes, “And obvious human safety concerns aside, can someone who has never handled snakes before really be counted on to kill a large constrictor humanely in the heat of the moment? Check out those euthanasia guidelines -- they're more complicated than you might think.” 

I bet “Scientific American” loves the response to Wong’s opinion, which numbered more than 2,500 in two days. Several of the readers noted that Wong offered no other ideas other than a Debbie-Downer attitude about the whole thing. 

My favorite comment (and I admit, I did not read all 2,500+), came from Frank, who wrote, “Kate Wong, nice editorial. If you do not like the contest, do not enter it.”

My feelings exactly. 

What do you think? Do you like the idea of a contest to kill more Burmese pythons in Florida, or is there a better solution?

Last year, the Wisconsin legislature passed the Sporting Heritage bill. Some of the measures in the bill included a $5 license to first-time hunters and trappers, online hunter education and trapper courses and opening all state parks to hunting and trapping. 

According to "The Capital Times," the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is reeling from the realization that it must accommodate not only hunters and trappers, but also cyclists, horseback riders, bird watchers, hikers and marathon runners. (You could probably throw in a few family reunions, weddings and birthday bashes, too.) Although the soft adventure folks pay about $18.5 million  for their share of usage fees like camping and parking permits (compared to hunters’ paying about $40.2 million in hunting license revenues), they speak with a large and loud voice. 

After all, the parks belong to them, too. 

We know that Wisconsin is not replacing its hunter population. That's obvious by the “hunter replacement ratio,” which is the ratio of hunters who quit or die being replaced by fresh blood. Elementary, or even modern math dictates that the number needs to be 1.0 to stay even. Across the country, the ratio is purported to be around .69. In 2000, Wisconsin’s number was .53. And things are not looking up. Granted, that study that gave Wisconsin a .53 for Families Afield was conducted in 2000. "The Capital Times" affirms the trend, and reports that in 1996 Wisconsin residents purchased 656,546 gun deer licenses. In 2011, they purchased 585,736. You do the math. In fact, "The Capital Times" reported, "One recent report from UW-Madison’s Applied Population Lab projects the number of deer hunters in the state could fall to 400,000 by 2030."

On Dec. 11, the Natural Resources Board will meet and discuss ways to accommodate hunters, trappers and recreational sportsmen. The board may decide to shorten some seasons or designate certain areas off-limits to either hunting or recreating. Although in the case of rifle hunting, liability insurance and roped-off areas would have to be huge numbers. 

I like to hike, run and ride horseback. Would I want to do those things in close proximity to where people are shooting? Heck, no. Would they want me running or galloping through their hunting grounds? Of course not. And, would I want to have to look for coyote traps along a hiking trail? No way. 

It sounds like the board will have a very interesting meeting – trying to refine a big fat measure that makes no one happy. Good luck.