The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Sarah Palin supports Aerial Hunting of Wolves
Blackrend
Registered User new member
Registered User new member
As a huge fan of wolves and an animal-lover in general, learning that Sarah Palin actually supports the barbaric act of Aerial hunting leaves me speechless. Although, after examining her record on environmental issues, I'm not surprised in the least.
Warning: The following video is a bit graphic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T85cOGc8L0
This is an article from Defenders of Wildlife. The source can be found here.
March 27, 2007
Defenders of Wildlife Asks Judge to Shut Down Palin's Wolf Bounty Program
Bounty Law Repealed in 1984 – Alaska Does Not Have Regulatory Authority to Impose New Incentives
Anchorage, AK -- Today Defenders of Wildlife, the Alaska Wildlife Alliance and the Alaska Chapter of the Sierra Club asked the Alaska Superior Court to shut down Governor Palin's $150-per-wolf bounty program citing the fact that Alaska's bounty laws were repealed in 1984 and the State has no current legal authority to implement the bounties.
"The Governor is overstepping her legal authority by offering cash payments for each wolf killed by aerial gunners," stated Tom Banks, Defenders of Wildlife's Alaska Associate. "That's a bounty by anyone's standards regardless of what they call it."
Hoping to boost the number of wolves killed this year by permitees, Palin announced the state would pay $150 for each kill. According to an Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) news release, the bounty was instituted to "motivate permittees to redouble their efforts and to help offset the high cost of aviation fuel, ADF&G will offer cash payments to those who return biological specimens to the department." The state's press release, issued last Wednesday, indicates that "Permittees will be paid $150 when they bring in the left forelegs of wolves taken from any of several designated control areas."
"Governor Palin needs to take a close look at wildlife management practice in her state and restore the use of sound science," concludes Banks. "She said would heed the will of the public, but it's increasingly clear she's only listening to that segment that is willing to sacrifice Alaska's natural heritage for the benefit of a few."
The judge is expected to make a decision fairly quickly.
Defenders and the co-plaintiffs expressed an additional concern that the bounty offered by the State will encourage the illegal killing of wolves outside the control area.
Defenders of Wildlife is represented by Mike Frank of Trustees for Alaska, a public interest law firm, and Valerie Brown, an Anchorage attorney in private practice.
So much for love and respect of God's creatures.
Also, it would be nice if we can keep this thread on-topic. I'd rather not dive into the realm of abortion. Seriously, if I hear one more "So you like to murder babies but you're against the killing of dumb animals"... *shakes fist*
Warning: The following video is a bit graphic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T85cOGc8L0
This is an article from Defenders of Wildlife. The source can be found here.
March 27, 2007
Defenders of Wildlife Asks Judge to Shut Down Palin's Wolf Bounty Program
Bounty Law Repealed in 1984 – Alaska Does Not Have Regulatory Authority to Impose New Incentives
Anchorage, AK -- Today Defenders of Wildlife, the Alaska Wildlife Alliance and the Alaska Chapter of the Sierra Club asked the Alaska Superior Court to shut down Governor Palin's $150-per-wolf bounty program citing the fact that Alaska's bounty laws were repealed in 1984 and the State has no current legal authority to implement the bounties.
"The Governor is overstepping her legal authority by offering cash payments for each wolf killed by aerial gunners," stated Tom Banks, Defenders of Wildlife's Alaska Associate. "That's a bounty by anyone's standards regardless of what they call it."
Hoping to boost the number of wolves killed this year by permitees, Palin announced the state would pay $150 for each kill. According to an Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) news release, the bounty was instituted to "motivate permittees to redouble their efforts and to help offset the high cost of aviation fuel, ADF&G will offer cash payments to those who return biological specimens to the department." The state's press release, issued last Wednesday, indicates that "Permittees will be paid $150 when they bring in the left forelegs of wolves taken from any of several designated control areas."
"Governor Palin needs to take a close look at wildlife management practice in her state and restore the use of sound science," concludes Banks. "She said would heed the will of the public, but it's increasingly clear she's only listening to that segment that is willing to sacrifice Alaska's natural heritage for the benefit of a few."
The judge is expected to make a decision fairly quickly.
Defenders and the co-plaintiffs expressed an additional concern that the bounty offered by the State will encourage the illegal killing of wolves outside the control area.
Defenders of Wildlife is represented by Mike Frank of Trustees for Alaska, a public interest law firm, and Valerie Brown, an Anchorage attorney in private practice.
So much for love and respect of God's creatures.
Also, it would be nice if we can keep this thread on-topic. I'd rather not dive into the realm of abortion. Seriously, if I hear one more "So you like to murder babies but you're against the killing of dumb animals"... *shakes fist*
Blackrend on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Speaking of wolves
Anwaaaaaaaaar!! XDD
What the hell?
Also: aerial hunting makes population control easier, I'm guessing? If so, I'm super pro-aerial hunting
Just check out some of the comments beneath the youtube video. =\
http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/policy_and_legislation/aerial_hunting_q_and_a.pdf
#4 and #12. If the control involved the use of more accurate weapons that could guarantee a one-shot kill, then it might not be as bad. But shotguns!? From a plane?
Is the recreational hunting much of an income generator for the state and/or its citizens compared to other activities?
Really? What I find disgusting is people who get all emotional over the cute and cuddly animals. Its stupid, wooly thinking. Wolves are a valuable top predator, but keeping their numbers limited isn't evil. Certainly poor land management, but getting all emotional about stuff like this isn't a great idea.
Then I don't think the expense of an ongoing cull is justifiable. If the population gets out of hand it may need correcting (happens here with kangaroos), but continually suppressing numbers in a local area is wasteful and I strongly doubt it can be justified scientifically.
I don't give a shit why they were doing it, or what they're trying to accomplish - I think it's disgusting. I'd love for these pussies to hunt these wolves on foot - Maybe they'd get a taste of their own medicine.
edit: I'm kind of in agreement with dublo..kind of. I don't have a problem with population control, but this seems like a rather barbaric way to do it, I mean we must have poisons that could put down wolves quicker, more efficiently and with less pain wouldn't you think?
You're conflating the act of hunting with the methods used here. The methods used in this case are terrible, but there's nothing wrong with (regulated) hunting in itself.
Well, the thing is the people who live in rural Alaska (who are overwhelmingly Alaska Natives) have no money and no jobs and terrible schools so we try to make it easier for them to kill animals so they can eat. Though it does make the hunting easier for white people too.
Ah, fair point. I missed the significance of the word subsistence, and went on assuming we were talking about recreational hunters. Still, there are better ways to manage the local wildlife, and using the (apparently) cheapest method to help the locals strikes me as dodgy.
What's the reason not to use a helicopter and a rifle? More stable platform to get a clean shot from which allows for the use of a more accurate weapon. Plus you'd think it'd be a more practical vehicle to land and pick up the corpse.
Sixth one this week I think. Palin is more powerful on PA than Cloverfield!!
Speaking of numbers needing culling, they should really institute some sort of program in the Tri-State area to bring back some natural predators of deer. Shit, instead of shooting the wolves in Alaska, bring them down here and let them eat these roaming insurance premium raisers. :whistle:
But then again, I've never been an expert on much. (I just hate deer!)
As I recall, the 'wise use' (hah) crowd decimated the wolf population in your area a decade or two ago. I'm kind of fuzzy on the details of that one, though.
Edit: But yeah, deer went from a prey animal straight to Pest animal in less than a century, all from removing its biggest natural predator. Who woulda thunk it?
i used to know a guy who swore that hunting wasn't fair because the deer didnt have guns.... to which i replied "sure give em all guns, they can fire them with their opposable hooves"
i guess you are the same kind of special person.
btw the reason for using a helichopter is the range and terrain involved in the areas its used. a one week treck into the snow to find and kill one wolf and then drag it a week back to town isnt practical. neither is driving a vehicle that can get stuck run out of gas or break down and leave you stranded 1 week from town.