Sarah Palin: Wolf Killer... Is this woman insane?
Mr. T
2008/09/10 19:53:46
|
|
|||||
|
319 votes
|
|
32% | ||
|
76 votes
|
|
8% | ||
|
346 votes
|
|
35% | ||
|
249 votes
|
|
25% | ||
As the republican governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin has taken the bait as most brutal animal killer by Alaskan Wildlife activists. in 2003, Palin signed a bill telling people of Alaska to hunt down wild wolves from airplanes, and shoot them. What makes it worse is that Palin doesn't just believe Alaskan citizens should be ABLE to hunt down wolves, but they SHOULD, and are encouraged to do so. Palin wants her citizens to shoot down wolves so badly, she put a bounty out on their left foreleg!
The reasoning behind Palins madness, supposedly, is that Palin is worried about Alaskan hunters, who must compete with the wolves when it comes to hunting other game, such as Moose. Alaska is home to many hunters who rely on the occasional moose to make ends meet.
The reasoning behind Palins madness, supposedly, is that Palin is worried about Alaskan hunters, who must compete with the wolves when it comes to hunting other game, such as Moose. Alaska is home to many hunters who rely on the occasional moose to make ends meet.
How many populations did they wipe out?
I call BS. You saw pictures of massive hunts maybe. But there is noway you saw pictures that proved a specied was wiped out in any region.
what have you seen outside of georgia?
I've seen all of the South, Oklahoma, California, The East Coast up to Maryland, Germany, Utah, Montana, Iraq, Kuwait, Egypt, Scotland, England, France....
Talked to (face to face for more than a month at a time) Urugyans, Colombians, Canadians, Norwegians, Hungarians, Panamanians, Guaminians, Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Italians, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Syrians, Iranians (Persians), Venezalens, Philipinos, Indians, Afghani and Pakistani.
And empirically speaking, you can NOT have seen "overhuting" through a photo. You cannot have gotten an accurate picture of the overall population from a simple photo. To prove "overhunting" you would have to have sourced tracking information on the populations before, after, and the number of such critters can support. This is not provided in photos, so much as ecological studies.
In short- you're lying.
And how in the hell would you that i haven't seen pictures of animals being killed by non other then men, with their big egos. and i'm not lying. you my friend are the one who is lying. good research though.
Better to be a dick that fucks everything than a pussy. (thanks Team America)
And yes, I am in the Army. Did you think it was only filled with ass-grabbing lily fluffing liberals who wanted peace and love? Alot of us are rough. Deal with it.
And I didn't say "pictures of animals killed..." I said "pictures of overkill".
The only way to prove overkill is to have population statistics- which would NOT be in a picture.
You're full of shit.
We are not discussing how full of shit we both are.
And the photo by its very nature (shy of being a photo of a study) cannot prove a case of overhunting.
And a photo can prove a case of overhunting my showing exactly how many animals are dead in the picture, and buy how the law in that state allows.
And I've been an asshole my entire life. My father was an asshole, my son will be an asshole. We're a family of assholes.
But we aren't the neighbors. They're a family of dumbasses.
And my dad was an asshole for 12 years of my life, then he divorced my mother and is no longer. And i don't think being an asshole passes on from generations, i doubt your son will be an asshole unless you teach him to be.
And I was joking about the family thing. Lighten up.
I was kidding about the family thing too.
This still goes back to my originial point- you don't know overhunters.
And a picture of the man should be more than enough to run against a data-base. They don't need names. How do you think they catch fleeing suspects? They match descriptions- it doesn't get much more descriptive than a photo.
And i said that they could have ran it through the data-base, but they wouldn't. Thats why the law sucks up here.
If God Created it, It must be good! think about that for a second!
you wouldnt like to be in the open, eating your natural meal, then being blown to bits would you?
Like Anthrax, and Cobras, and Wasps!
God Created us too! We're only acting the way He allows us to act (just like all other creature on this planet)
And no, I wouldn't like it. but then, that would be because I'm a human and the only other animal of "blowing me to bits" is another human.
We're on this planet with other predators. We are competing with them. We are winning!
Go team!
Wolves are not overpopulated; they do not need extra culling -- this is just to benefit other hunters -- the human sorts.
However if it's for food and what you're hunting will be put to good use and not wasted that doesn't pose a problem, circle of life and all that. But nothing should be shot and just left just because you're competing for the same food. If there was one burger left on the menu at a restaurant would you go around and shoot the other person that wanted it so that you could have it? Unless you're seriously sick in the head, I don't think you would.
Congress passed the Federal Airborne Hunting Act of 1972[65], which made it illegal for hunters to shoot animals from a plane or helicopter. The federal legislation does have a loophole for predator control, permitting state employees or licensed individuals to shoot from an aircraft for the sake of protecting "land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life, or crops."[66]
Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska in 2007 approved to use this provision in the law to shoot wolves and bears while flying for the purpose of protection of property[67].
“ A kill of 124 wolves would thus translate to [the survival of] 1,488 moose or 2,976 caribou or some combination thereof.
~Craig Medred
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
From Salon Magazine
http://www.salon.com/env/feat...
The opening paragraphs:
Sept. 8, 2008 | Wildlife activists thought they had seen the worst in 2003 when Frank Murkowski, then the Republican governor of Alaska, signed a bill ramping up state programs to gun down wild wolves from airplanes, inviting average citizens to participate. Wolves, Murkowski believed, were clearly better than humans at killing elk and moose, and humans needed to even the playing field.
But that was before Sarah Palin took Murkowski's job at the end of 2006. She went one ste...'''
''
''''
Congress passed the Federal Airborne Hunting Act of 1972[65], which made it illegal for hunters to shoot animals from a plane or helicopter. The federal legislation does have a loophole for predator control, permitting state employees or licensed individuals to shoot from an aircraft for the sake of protecting "land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life, or crops."[66]
Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska in 2007 approved to use this provision in the law to shoot wolves and bears while flying for the purpose of protection of property[67].
“ A kill of 124 wolves would thus translate to [the survival of] 1,488 moose or 2,976 caribou or some combination thereof.
~Craig Medred
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
From Salon Magazine
http://www.salon.com/env/feat...
The opening paragraphs:
Sept. 8, 2008 | Wildlife activists thought they had seen the worst in 2003 when Frank Murkowski, then the Republican governor of Alaska, signed a bill ramping up state programs to gun down wild wolves from airplanes, inviting average citizens to participate. Wolves, Murkowski believed, were clearly better than humans at killing elk and moose, and humans needed to even the playing field.
But that was before Sarah Palin took Murkowski's job at the end of 2006. She went one step, or paw, further. Palin didn't think Alaskans should be allowed to chase wolves from aircraft and shoot them -- they should be encouraged to do so. Palin's administration put a bounty on wolves' heads, or to be more precise, on their mitts.
In early 2007, Palin's administration approved an initiative to pay a $150 bounty to hunters who killed a wolf from an airplane in certain areas, hacked off the left foreleg, and brought in the appendage. Ruling that the Palin administration didn't have the authority to offer payments, a state judge quickly put a halt to them but not to the shooting of wolves from aircraft.
I could post 10 more sources -- it's not made up. You might consider it to be just fine to gun down wolves from planes -- I don't, but you can choose to. You can't, however, choose to say it's not true, because it is.
This is about sports hunters, period.
use of airplanes to hunt or harass wolves and
other wildlife by passing the federal Airborne
Hunting Act (AHA). This barbaric and unethical
practice has been resurrected in Alaska under the guise
of wildlife management. Voters in Alaska have tried to
stop aerial hunting twice through state ballot measures,
only to have their efforts largely overturned by the
Alaska Legislature. A state law allows the Legislature to
overturn legislation passed through the ballot-measure
process after two years. Alaska legislators and the Board
of Game have circumvented the will of Alaskan voters
and the intent of Congress by exploiting a loophole in
the AHA to resurrect aerial hunting, under the term
“wildlife management.” The state’s program lacks a
sound, comprehensive scientific foundation and aims
to virtually eliminate wolves in nearly 60,000 square
miles of Alaska for the sole purpose of artificially
inflating specific game populations largely for urban
and out-of-state hunters. It also targets brown and
black bears by promoting the use of aircraft for
“land and shoot” hunting of bears in more than
12,000 square miles of the state. Other states are
considering similar programs. It’s time to stop this
practice again, this time once and for all by passing
the Protect America’s Wildlife (PAW) Act.