Palin takes on Ashley Judd’s ‘extreme fringe group’

[Tyr]

We haven't heard dear Sarah's incohernat rambling for a few months...so

Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s support for aerial wolf-hunting has sparked a heated cross-country war of words between the governor and an environmental ad campaign fronted by the actress Ashley Judd, with Palin calling the organization funding the ads an “extreme fringe group.”

The squabble began Tuesday when the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund unveiled a campaign called “Eye on Palin,” targeting the governor for what they call her “extreme anti-conservation policies.”

The group is highlighting “Palin’s championing of the brutal and unnecessary aerial killing of wolves and other carnivores” — a controversial practice allowed by permit in Alaska since 2003, with the goal of protecting populations of moose and caribou.

Judd, who has in the past lent her voice to AIDS prevention and reproductive health campaigns, signed on with the group and is featured in a YouTube video. “It is time to stop Sarah Palin, and stop this senseless savagery,” she says in the clip.

 

[Avro]

We haven't heard dear Sarah's incohernat rambling for a few months...so

Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s support for aerial wolf-hunting has sparked a heated cross-country war of words between the governor and an environmental ad campaign fronted by the actress Ashley Judd, with Palin calling the organization funding the ads an “extreme fringe group.”

The squabble began Tuesday when the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund unveiled a campaign called “Eye on Palin,” targeting the governor for what they call her “extreme anti-conservation policies.”

The group is highlighting “Palin’s championing of the brutal and unnecessary aerial killing of wolves and other carnivores” — a controversial practice allowed by permit in Alaska since 2003, with the goal of protecting populations of moose and caribou.

Judd, who has in the past lent her voice to AIDS prevention and reproductive health campaigns, signed on with the group and is featured in a YouTube video. “It is time to stop Sarah Palin, and stop this senseless savagery,” she says in the clip.

So what's the problem?

Reducing predators to protect another species isn't all that new.

 

[Tyr]

So what's the problem?

Reducing predators to protect another species isn't all that new.

Reducing predators to protect another species isn't all that new

Are you referring to Cheney's hunting trips with his buddies? I'd count that as "predator" reduction

 

[Avro]

Reducing predators to protect another species isn't all that new

Are you referring to Cheney's hunting trips with his buddies? I'd count that as "predator" reduction

That's not answer.

 

[Tyr]

That's not answer.

..."an answer" or "the answer?"

 

[Avro]

..."an answer" or "the answer?"

Something other than nothing.

 

[Tyr]

Something other than nothing.

There was "nothing" asked....

But you dio seem to have missed the point

"Palin calling the organization funding the ads an “extreme fringe group.”

when she herself is part and parcel of an extreme fringe group - the Alliance Church]

Try to read the article before posting

 

[Avro]

There was "nothing" asked....

But you dio seem to have missed the point

"Palin calling the organization funding the ads an “extreme fringe group.”

when she herself is part and parcel of an extreme fringe group - the Alliance Church]

Try to read the article before posting

Who called the alliance church an extreme fringe group?

 

[Tyr]

You're right.... A few people haven't called them fringe (3 or 4), but they also thought David Koresh was misunderstood

 

[Ron in Regina]

At this point and in this context, Palin belongs to the Fringe Group
called the State Government of Alaska. This article is about laws
put in place (or to be put in place) in Alaska. Palin would have been
elected into office by a majority of Alaskans (I'm assuming), which
takes her out of the concept of a Fringe Group, wouldn't it? How
about this Ashley Judd though? Is she a legislator (or even a resident)
in Alaska?

There's not enough details in this article to really dig in.

If I told you that I live in a place (this was the early '70's) where for
at least one winter (a really bad winter), land owners could legally
hunt predators (usually coyotes) while on snowmobiles, as long as
they had a permit from the Province, it would sound horrible in
today's day and age without enough context. At the time it was not
only reasonable, but very necessary. Without knowing the details
though...we could have had an "Ashley Judd" type up in our business.

 

[Avro]

You're right.... A few people haven't called them fringe (3 or 4), but they also thought David Koresh was misunderstood

Why am I right?

Did I say they were a fringe group?

All I asked was who called them a fringe group?

Was it a difficult question?

 

[Tyr]

At this point and in this context, Palin belongs to the Fringe Group
called the State Government of Alaska. This article is about laws
put in place (or to be put in place) in Alaska. Palin would have been
elected into office by a majority of Alaskans (I'm assuming), which
takes her out of the concept of a Fringe Group, wouldn't it? How
about this Ashley Judd though? Is she a legislator (or even a resident)
in Alaska?

There's not enough details in this article to really dig in.

If I told you that I live in a place (this was the early '70's) where for
at least one winter (a really bad winter), land owners could legally
hunt predators (usually coyotes) while on snowmobiles, as long as
they had a permit from the Province, it would sound horrible in
today's day and age without enough context. At the time it was not
only reasonable, but very necessary. Without knowing the details
though...we could have had an "Ashley Judd" type up in our business.

aerial wolf-hunting
​

'nuff said?​

 

[Ron in Regina]

aerial wolf-hunting​

'nuff said?​

Not yet. Yes aerial wolf hunting is the Thread you started. Why "aerial" hunting?
Why would the Alaskan Government introduce such a controversial method
without some very valid reasons (even it only in their minds) which are...???

I made the comparison to a situation in Saskatchewan in the early '70's allowing
the culling (hunting) of predators (mostly coyotes but wolfs too) while on
snowmobiles. Without knowing the reasoning behind that decision to allow
hunting while on a vehicle at that time, can you condemn it also? 8O

 

[Cannuck]

Yes, Sarah can be considered fringe. So can Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund. Generally when any organization tries to use the halo effect instead of dealing in science, one always has to question their validity.

 

[Cliffy]

Wolves can be compared to sharks - land sharks. Like sharks, wolves are an essential part of the eco system and without them we have the same problem that we are experiencing in the sea. Without natural predation, the eco system become imbalanced and we start to see the system fall apart.

Guiding and Outfitters bring in big bucks and taxes. Most go for the trophy bucks which would be the top breeding stock of any herd. But killing off your top breeders will cause the calves to become weaker and weaker over time and thus vulnerable to predation since the wolves job in the system is to cull the sick, weak and elderly. When you kill off the dominant bulls you create weak herds and the wolf population has to grow to meet the growing need for culling more sickly animals.

The Guiding and outfitters see this rise in the predator populations as a threat to their income and pressure the government for a predator cull. Aerial killing is the most efficient way to kill off large numbers and so is preferred by guides and government. This practice is going to lead to a sudden massive die off of big game animals and predators. This cull is only going to prolong the inevitable.

Humans are stupid beyond all logic!

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I made the comparison to a situation in Saskatchewan in the early '70's allowing
the culling (hunting) of predators (mostly coyotes but wolfs too) while on
snowmobiles.

Ron, don’t compare coyote with wolf. Wolf is an essential, integral part of many ecosystems, while coyote is a true pest. The number of coyotes increased without limit precisely because of hunting of wolves almost to extinction.

Wolves are mortal enemies of coyotes, and they keep the coyote population down. Anyway, Joan of Arc (that is my nickname for Palin, it shows the devotion her adulating followers show towards her) displays the old attitude towards wolves, mainly inspired by an extreme interpretation of the Bible.

Traditionally, wolf has always been the big bad wolf, much maligned throughout the ages. I understand she even put a bounty on wolf legs. Presumably a killer kills the wolf, cuts off his legs and brings them to show to Joan of Arc, to collect his 100$ booty.

The fact is, wolf is an essential part of many ecosystems. When they introduced wolves into Yellowstone, most naturalists were surprised how far it improved the general appearance of the park, and also how beneficial the wolves were to many other species (elks, eagles, even bears, they also cut the coyote population in half).

However, I don’t think any of this would penetrate into the Biblically brainwashed mind of Joan of Arc. To her, wolf is a big bad wolf, must be killed at all costs (hence the 100$ bounty on wolf legs) and that is that.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The Guiding and outfitters see this rise in the predator populations as a threat to their income and pressure the government for a predator cull.

Quite right, Cliffy. Predator population may increase (especially if they have been hunted almost to extinction by man). However, there is no way it would naturally increase to such an extent that a culling is necessary.

Predators live hard life; it is not easy being a predator. Deer, elk have it easy; they don’t have to fight their dinner, like wolves do. Many wolf cubs die naturally during the harsh winter, due to lack of food.

Indeed, Mother Nature does a very good job of keeping the predator population down. Look at the lion. He has no natural enemy, he is top of the line predator, yet lion population in Africa remained stable for millions of years.

So it is total nonsense to say that culling of wolves is necessary, Mother Nature takes care of the culling. Culling of herbivores such as deer or elk may be necessary, if man kills off all the predators such as wolves. With no predator to keep their population down, deer or elk multiply without limit, eat up all the grass, trees etc, thereby devastating the ecosystem, and culling of herbivores may be necessary, but culling of predators, never.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So what's the problem?

Reducing predators to protect another species isn't all that new.

Avro, really? Tell me of one example in history where it has been necessary to kill the predator (lion, tiger, wolf, polar bear, sharks etc.) to protect another species.

As I said in my previous post, Mother Nature does a very good job of keeping the predator population down. Culling of herbivores may sometimes be necessary, especially if man has killed off the predators such as wolf. But culling of predator is never required; Mother Nature always builds in enough safeguard to keep the predator population down.

Man interfering with predator population by killing them almost always makes matter worse, not better.

 

[Cannuck]

Ron, don’t compare coyote with wolf. Wolf is an essential, integral part of many ecosystems, while coyote is a true pest. The number of coyotes increased without limit precisely because of hunting of wolves almost to extinction.

Wolves are mortal enemies of coyotes, and they keep the coyote population down.

I always thought the coyote was his own worst enemy

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Cannuck, surprisingly I think the portrayal of the coyote in Bugs Bunny cartoons has some truth to it. In the cartoon, coyote gets hurt, gets trashed time and again, but he always manages to get up and try again. He is almost indestructible.

And that is how he is in real life; he is almost like a cockroach, highly adoptable, almost indestructible. He will live in almost any condition, eat almost anything, will live in packs or singly if necessary, give birth to the pups almost anywhere.

Ever since the white man came to North America, he has been trying to get rid of the coyote, but without success. On the other hand, the white man was able to wipe out the wolf, the grizzly bear, the buffalo, the passenger pigeon etc, very easily. But the coyote will always be around and keep harassing the farmer, same as he keeps harassing the Road Runner.

But in this respect also, the wolf performs an essential service, he keeps the coyote population down.