Hillary supporters Unit #3 ..yes we are still here!

[moon]

I didnt watch the video. YUK! I live in HUNTING country...but I dont hunt. There are very valid reason for hunting. From the articles I read the wolves destroy other animals in Alaska. Because of the size & vastness of the terrain, they have to be hunted from the air.
Now this is not my cup of Tea, but I really would like to know why she offered $150 for every wolf killed. I really dont think because she has a evil streak, and will give her the benefit of the doubt, that indeed there was a reason for this.. BTW the $150 was turned down by the State Supreme Court.

http://www.slate.com/id/2199140/

From what I read aereal wolf hunting in Alaska hurts the environmental balance. It has actually been banned twice by voters.

Alaskan voters banned aerial hunting of wolves in 1996, and then again in 2000 after the state legislature reinstated it. The Alaska Wildlife Alliance notes that in a recent poll commissioned by the Alaska Wildlife Alliance but conducted by Dittman Research Corporation shows that 72% of Alaskans, including hunters, oppose aerial predator-control as a means to increase moose and caribou populations, and continues to state that in November 2000, 147,043 voters or 53.5% of Alaska’s population voted to reject the practice of same-day aerial wolf hunting2.

The return to aerial wolf hunts in Alaska is shocking if you consider the opposition by the clear majority of Alaska voters (and an even larger percentage of Americans, overall), the lack of legality those votes brought, the complete void of a legitimate reason for the aggression, and the unmitigated cowardliness of it all. Then again, this is entirely unsurprising if you consider this nation’s history of extremists getting elected to political office only to ignore public opinion and the law in the service of their own irrational views and/or campaign contributors’ wishes.

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/1430/Alaskan_Government_Overrules_Voters_Reinstates_Aerial_Wolf_Hunt

So this practice is largely repudiated even by hunting standards.

Here's more about the bounty she offers:

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Court to shut down Governor Palin's $150-per-wolf bounty program citing the fact that Alaska's bounty laws were repealed in 1984 and the State has no current legal authority to implement the bounties.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.

http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/p...ge_asked_to_shut_down_wolf_bounty_program.php


SP isn't doing this to help the environment or anything like that. There are laws regarding this matter, and she's violating those laws.

What good reason can there be for doing this? And why give her the benefit of the doubt?

 

[moon]

One more article about areal wolf hunting. It's quite long, so I'll just post a part of it:

The state is misleading citizens when it claims it needs to rebuild moose and caribou populations to provide food for Alaskans. The facts show the Alaska Board of Game is unnecessarily trying to inflate moose and caribou populations to historical high numbers, which will ultimately re-sult in the same eruptions and subsequent crashes that occurred in the late 1960s and 1970s. There are nearly 175,000 moose and more than 1 million caribou in Alaska. No areas exist where moose or caribou are biologically threatened or endangered.

A “biological emergency” this is not. But, for the sake of argument, if there were a dangerous decline in prey populations, it is highly improbable that wolves were the cause of it. Humans are responsible for all the seriously declining numbers and disappearances of species. Even the Biblical Flood that killed off the dinosaurs and prehistoric beasts could be pinned on humans, for it was their wickedness that made it possible in the first place. Now according to the 2001-2002 Alaska Big Game Harvest Summary, hunters killed 4,197 bear, 6,575 moose, 17,547 deer, and 1,741 wolves. 30% of the wolf population was destroyed during the period without the aid of aerial culling. With the estimated number of 900 wolves intended to die this winter due to the aerial gunning toll, more than one third of Alaska’s entire wolf population will be wiped out. That is a biological emergency; the large scale “surplus killing” of wolves who are in no need to be killed. Karen once again sheds some light on this subject.

The numbers of wolves slaughtered from aircraft will only increase un-less this gross mismanagement of the state’s wildlife resources is kept in check by the Federal Airborne Hunting Act. Already the Alaska Board of Game has tripled the area covered by the aerial killing program in 2005 to a total of 30,000 square miles of land. If not reversed, this decision is a death sentence for nearly 2,500 wolves over the next five years. Slaughter of this magnitude has just one purpose; to radically and illegally alter the ecological balance of large parts of Alaska.

http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Copse

She is championing something which is damaging the ecological balance. Why?

Some think it is because she's an avid hunter; hunting is one of her biggest passions, and the slaughter of wolves will mean more Caribou and Moose populations so she can have more to hunt, but I doubt it.

This isn't done being done because of any threat to animals, I think rather it is to boost the moose and caribou population for Alaska's trophy hunting industry. It is driven by lobbyists, and funded by taxpayer money.

Even if you (no you DISUNC, I mean you in general) don't mind the torment these animals go through, (and this goes beyond regular hunting. The cowardice and cruelty of this practice disgust many hunters). or the ecological damage being done in Alaska, there's another issue here, and it is the abuse of power diplayed by SP on this matter.

 

[DISUNC]

http://www.slate.com/id/2199140/

From what I read areal wolf hunting in Alaska hurts the environmental balance. It has actually been banned twice by voters.



http://www.gnn.tv/articles/1430/Alaskan_Government_Overrules_Voters_Reinstates_Aerial_Wolf_Hunt

So this practice is largely repudiated even by hunting standards.

Here's more about the bounty she offers:



http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/p...ge_asked_to_shut_down_wolf_bounty_program.php


SP isn't doing this to help the environment or anything like that. There are laws regarding this matter, and she's violating those laws.

What good reason can there be for doing this? And why give her the benefit of the doubt?

One more article about areal wolf hunting. It's quite long, so I'll just post a part of it:



She is championing something which is damaging the ecological balance. Why?

Some think it is because she's an avid hunter; hunting is one of her biggest passions, and the slaughter of wolves will mean more Caribou and Moose populations so she can have more to hunt, but I doubt it.

This isn't done being done because of any threat to animals, I think rather it is to boost the moose and caribou population for Alaska's trophy hunting industry. It is driven by lobbyists, and funded by taxpayer money.

Even if you (no you DISUNC, I mean you in general) don't mind the torment these animals go through, (and this goes beyond regular hunting. The cowardice and cruelty of this practice disgust many hunters). or the ecological damage being done in Alaska, there's another issue here, and it is the abuse of power diplayed by SP on this matter.

Whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Im not saying you are wrong. I am giving her the benefit of the doubt because...Has she stated why she did this? The DIS may not be a court of Law, but still a person should have a right to defend themselves. I would like to even see a article, not written by a animal entusiast.

Honestly I know a little about this whole issue. But whatever I read, including the articles you attached, seem very one sided, and actually leave me asking MORE questions then they answer. This type of articles ALWAYS leads me to doubt as to what I am reading is a unbiased account.

For instance, in this article http://www.slate.com/id/2199140/ which I originally posted says

Palin tried last year to have the state pay $150 for every wolf killed, but the state superior court shot that down as an illegal use of bounty payments, which were outlawed in that state in 1984

A GOOD reporter would say WHY she is giving out $150. This article dont.
They also say it was outlawed in 84. But dont mention Why Palin is allowing this & giving cash incentives for it. This makes me leery as too the articles authenticity..

Then in another article, that you posted http://www.gnn.tv/articles/1430/Alaskan_Government_Overrules_Voters_Reinstates_Aerial_Wolf_Hunt

Alaskan voters banned aerial hunting of wolves in 1996, and then again in 2000 after the state legislature reinstated it.

& in the same article

Just over a year ago (article written in 2005) this sort of thing would be against the law in Alaska as voters had thought their votes had assured, but last summer Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski signed legislation that brought back aerial and what’s called “same-day airborne” wolf hunting1. Aerial hunting is when you fire directly from the aircraft. Same-day airborne hunting refers to the practice of using an aircraft to chase your prey until you exhaust them, then landing the helicopter or plane as close as you wish to the animal, putting one foot on the ground, and firing.

All leaves me that the "law was changed in 1996, then reversed, then back in effect in 2000, then again reversed....then put back again in 2004! WHEW!
This all leads me to think, something stinks about these articles. A law was changed 3 times in 8 years...and not once they ever mention why?

Besides both articles go into waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much detail about the Lives & evolutions of Wolves. One even goes back 500 years!

This is why I doubt the whole wolf kill thing. You may be absolutely acurate, but I am not convinced by any of these articles. In fact, they cause me to hesitate.

As far as the torment, I could not hunt. But I do know there are Legitimate reasons for hunting, even for Sport. Yup it sounds sick, but it is for real. However The Jury is still out for me on this.

 

[jacksonsmom]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";27763199]I want one that says that...where did you get it ?
[/QUOTE]

I got my "Another Democrat for McCain" sign at my local Rep office

The guy in the Rep office said they just got them in a few days ago. Check your local Rep office and see if they have any.

 

[jacksonsmom]

I was just curious, If Biden was to drop out/forced out, and Obama wanted Hillary, would any of you feel even more like a slap in the face? Just curious what you all think if that was the situation.

Yes it would be a slap in the face, to Hillary, to her supporters and to Biden.

It would show Obama is very desperate to win.

 

[jacksonsmom]

To me he is the Democrat version of W! I find him self serving, arrogant, and HIGHLY ELITIST! I think he is more of a conniver than a thinker. For all his autobiographies he wrote, its always HIM HIM HIM...and how bad HE had it, etc. Nothing was ever really his fault...etc.

This was proved to me by his famous "Race Speech" after the Rev story broke. It was Everybody else had a problem (inc his grandmother ) but he is above it all.

IMO Barack will always do what is best for Barack, first & foremost.

I do know that Hillary really wanted to do what was best for the Country.

I just want to say I 100% agree with you

Hillary wanted what is best for the Country, Barack wants what is best for HIM!

 

[LuvDuke]

A GOOD reporter would say WHY she is giving out $150. This article dont.

I'm sure a GOOD reporter would love to ask Palin a series of questions if the McCain campaign would only let them.

 

[jacksonsmom]

I'm sure a GOOD reporter would love to ask Palin a series of questions if the McCain campaign would only let them.

Funny, the same thing can be said about Obama, but we all know certain things are off limits according to Obama

 

[LuvDuke]

Funny, the same thing can be said about Obama, but we all know certain things are off limits according to Obama

Okay, who had "within 5 minutes"? You won the the pool.

 

[punkin]

Okay, who had "within 5 minutes"? You won the the pool.

It never ceases to amaze me how profound your contributions to this thread always are.

 

[Planogirl]

I personally don't care why Palin has been in favor of aerial hunting. I think it's cruel and barbaric and there's no reason on earth that will justify this for me. This is a definite demerit for Palin IMO.

Maybe this will be brought up at the debate? She got some 'splaining to do.

 

[punkin]

I personally don't care why Palin has been in favor of aerial hunting. I think it's cruel and barbaric and there's no reason on earth that will justify this for me. This is a definite demerit for Palin IMO.

Maybe this will be brought up at the debate? She got some 'splaining to do.

I just do not understand ANYTHING about Palin. This is he best that McCain could come up with?

Anyway, Biden is a very smart man and a good debater. She is toast in any debate with him.

OTOH, I really don't get hunting at all, so aerial or on foot really doesn't matter to me. The poor animal suffers no matter what. I really don't now enough about the issues involved to make an informed opinion.

 

[beachblanket]

I Biden is a very smart man and a good debater. She is toast in any debate with him.

Please keep up the snippy overconfidence. Palin's prior political opponents have always done the same thing...

..and look where they are now.

Candid of the week: Bucky!!!

 

[KikiFan]

Beachblanket I am absolutely not a Palin supporter but I have to say your pink banner is kinda cute.

Of course I think it highlights her strong points.... hair, glasses and half a head - so I probably like it for different reasons then you.

Disunc, I have to tell you this is the first time I've actually been disappointed reading one of your posts. Your insistance in giving Palin "benefit of the doubt" on an issue that's pretty clearly documented is really a stretch.

Palin's actions in the aerial wolf hunting speak louder then any words out of a politicians mouth. If she had a reasonable explanation - don't you think she would have made it by now?

I come from a family of hunters, I understand the value of hunting in controlling animal populations. I don't like it, but I get it. But it's been clearly documented that aeral hunting is not necessary, it's cruel, and inhumane and most of all, it's not ecologically smart or necessary.

Beyond all that, it is blatantly obvious that Palin isn't acting in ways that represent the majority of the citizens she's supposed to represent or the legal system she's supposed to up hold. So how much hope do we have that she'll abide by those things should she (heaven forbid) wind up as POTUS?

ETA: I just had to come back to this because I'm not sure I explained my self clearly.

Disunc, you have consistently complained that Obama lacked a record, that all he had were his speeches. (A criticism I totally agree with BTW) But now, when you're presented with Palin's record you decide to "give her the benefit of the doubt until she talks about it" Can you not see how hypocritical that stance is?

Don't get me wrong, I still think Obama is a slimy scum sucking pig. and I think the same thing about McCain/Palin. But that doesn't make hypocrisy any tastier.

 

[Brianne]

An article from the Humane Society:

https://community.hsus.org/humane/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=27497157

While McCain's positions on animal protection have been lukewarm, his choice of running mate cemented our decision to oppose his ticket. Gov. Sarah Palin's (R-Alaska) retrograde policies on animal welfare and conservation have led to an all-out war on Alaska's wolves and other creatures. Her record is so extreme that she has perhaps done more harm to animals than any other current governor in the United States.

Palin engineered a campaign of shooting predators from airplanes and helicopters, in order to artificially boost the populations of moose and caribou for trophy hunters. She offered a $150 bounty for the left foreleg of each dead wolf as an economic incentive for pilots and aerial gunners to kill more of the animals, even though Alaska voters had twice approved a ban on the practice. This year, the issue was up again for a vote of the people, and Palin led the fight against it -- in fact, she helped to spend $400,000 of public funds to defeat the initiative.

What's more, when the Bush Administration announced its decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, Palin filed a lawsuit to reverse that decision. She said it's the "wrong move" to protect polar bears, even though their habitat is shrinking and ice floes are vanishing due to global warming.

 

[jacksonsmom]

It never ceases to amaze me how profound your contributions to this thread always are.

Some OS are just so witty, you know

 

["Got Disney"]

I hate hunting or killing of anything. I am not a gun lover either. However....I have to agree with some of what DISUNC says. The articles are one sided and would like to here her say more on the issue of why. I try to avoid reading articles that are from the SPCA or PITA because they never tell the whole story just there side of it.

I am an animal lover and we save bees out of our pool even if we are sitting down watching TV we get up go outside and save them......we scoop up ants in the house and any other bug and put them outside...so I hate the killing or dying of anything. I don't like the killing of deer either but get it's reasoning.

We may hate the ideas of the wolves being killed and so may many other animal lovers in the state....I want to here more about it from her before passing judgement on her for it. Reading one sided articles from animal lovers will not do it for me.

Just as reading one sided articles on a liberal thread or a republican thread or news media or news paper articles is the whole truth what it is...one sided.

There are many things from all the candidates I don't agree with or like....As for POTUS McCain for me is the best choice and he is moire a Moderate....Palin is to far right for my taste. Obama is not right for me and he and Biden are to far left for my taste. And his supporters well......

So there ya have it....my view for the day .......and Oh don't forget...live long and prosper

 

[jacksonsmom]

First I want to say I am a vegetarian, no hunting in my blood --- I do not LIKE hunting BUT as I am getting older I do understand that hunting is a way of life for some families. Some families hunt to eat, although I don't LIKE it, I guess I can understand it. Does that make sense?

Now with this whole Palin & wolf hunting, at first I was disgusted with it, but then I researched and research BOTH sides of the story (not just from PETA or another liberal media). Palin is not just out there killing to kill, there is a reason. As far as from the airplanes, you ahve to remember Alaska is a different world. Some parts are very remote and the only way to travel is by air or sled.
Now what is the difference that Palin is doing what people in the lower states do to coyatoes or deer? I thought I heard states like Wyoming and other western state have paid for coyatoes that are killed? (someone correct me if I am wrong)My state will every so often will have open hunting for deer (to help control the population is what is being told) and this is not just during regular hunting season, but something separate time. What is the difference????
Why not the outrage over that, is it because a wolf's life is more important then a deer's? Or is it just because people like to find something to hate about Palin?

Grant it I do not agree with her 100%, probably not even quite 50%, but I can not hate her because of the wolf hunting and this is coming from a vegetarian who has never, ever even thought about shooting an animal.

 

["Got Disney"]

I just want to say I 100% agree with you

Hillary wanted what is best for the Country, Barack wants what is best for HIM!

That shows about Obama more and more......I also think Biden is struggling with some of the stuff he has to say about Obama...there is much he did not agree with and felt Obama was not a good pick. But guess when that "Not a Good choice to be POTUS" asks you to be his VP....flip flopping is allowed...OH that's right Obama does not ever flip flop he just changes his mind...sorry my bad.

I'm sure a GOOD reporter would love to ask Palin a series of questions if the McCain campaign would only let them.

Hi dear friend I missed you

It never ceases to amaze me how profound your contributions to this thread always are.

That's because the staunch OS are in love OBAMA OBAMA

Some OS are just so witty, you know

Gotta love them....if anything they are devoted for sure...no matter what he says or does or anything. Ya gotta admire them for that.

 

[moon]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";27778383]I hate hunting or killing of anything. I am not a gun lover either. However....I have to agree with some of what DISUNC says. The articles are one sided and would like to here her say more on the issue of why. I try to avoid reading articles that are from the SPCA or PITA because they never tell the whole story just there side of it.

[/QUOTE]

The articles I posted are not from PETA or other Vegetarian type organizations. I avoided that precisely because I'd get that kind of response. I do not conser organizations like the Sierra Club an extreme, never kill type of association.

Funny that I've never seen other article sources here questioned as much as the one I posted. I doubt that any came from a 100% unbiased site, yet they all have been good enough to back the poster POV. Until now.

As for the benefit of the doubt phrase, I said it because we really don't do that much here in this thread. Even Hillary has been sometimes harshly questioned. So I wondered why SP was to get a diffrerent treatment.