Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no claim that it's "sportsmanship" whatsoever. It's purely population control. I wouldn't support it if it weren't needed, and wildlife biologusts have determined it is needed.
How needed is it? According to whom? Jans, a 53-year-old writer in Juneau, contends that wildlife management decisions in Alaska are being made by a small group of sport hunters and professional hunting guides who are cozy with game board members.
"It is obvious to us that the predator control program, as it currently exists, is not a matter of scientific management but policy that is being basically stuffed down the people of Alaska's throats by a well-connected minority," he said. link Wolf control
Zoos said they weren't asked if they wanted pups (http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/wolves/story/501770.html - broken link) Biologists shot 14 wolves from a helicopter in June. On the ground, they discovered and killed 14 pups orphaned by the shooting.
Quote:
The fur is probably being sold (there's nothing wrong with fur, it's a renewable/sustainable resource if not overused and the animals are hunted or trapped humanely, unlike the petroleum based synthetics the animal rights activists favor), though they've in fact had trouble attracting enough people to take part precisely because the value of the fur doesn't bring in enough money to make participating in these predator control programs attractive.
Perhaps the wolves have canid lice, making the pelts unattractive
Not easy being a wolf.
I don't have a problem with hunting on the ground, though I deplore trophy and canned hunts.
I do have a problem with shooting bullets from a plane.
Wolves vie with hunters for moose; I realize Alaska wants to keep the hunters happy.
Wildlife management might think about keeping environmentalists happy, too; wolf viewing can be profitable and it provides much better publicity than dangling wolf bodies missing their left front legs.
A letter Gov Palin received last year: 172 Scientists Protest Aerial Hunting
How needed is it? According to whom? Jans, a 53-year-old writer in Juneau, contends that wildlife management decisions in Alaska are being made by a small group of sport hunters and professional hunting guides who are cozy with game board members. "It is obvious to us that the predator control program, as it currently exists, is not a matter of scientific management but policy that is being basically stuffed down the people of Alaska's throats by a well-connected minority," he said. link
From that link: "Nick Jans, co-sponsor of Ballot Measure 2, expects victory again in the Aug. 26 primary election. Alaskans for Wildlife collected nearly 57,000 signatures to get the initiative on the ballot. Defenders of Wildlife, a national wildlife conservation group, is one of its principal supporters.
"This is an issue that has been addressed and addressed again. It is a clear matter. The will of the people has already been known and we are just reasserting it here," Jans said. "We are both puzzled and enraged that we are back at this point again."
I do believe the opposite is true. It's radical animal rights groups trying to force an end to the use of these methods, trying it over and over again in the hopes of it eventually passing (but they're not getting anywhere), or suing to try to wear down the state through expensive court fights. The people have spoken in Alaska, more than once, and they support the predator control programs.
I didn't see any references to this writer having any scientific background that would make him qualified to say what he has said and be credible. Scientists have backed up the predator control programs, the opponents seem to be emotional animal rights activists.
"The hunting efficiency of wolves in winter is what led state wildlife officials to support aerial wolf hunting -- or wolf control as it is commonly called"
"However, most opposition to the hunts is built around an affection for wolves by proponents."
I don't have a problem with hunting on the ground, though I deplore trophy and canned hunts.
I do have a problem with shooting bullets from a plane.
Wolves vie with hunters for moose; I realize Alaska wants to keep the hunters happy.
Wildlife management might think about keeping environmentalists happy, too; wolf viewing can be profitable and it provides much better publicity than dangling wolf bodies missing their left front legs.
There is no keeping the animal rights activists happy. Once they ban aerial hunting, they'll be after ground hunting, or trapping, or whatever else they decide to target next. They want to entirely eliminate all hunting, keeping of pets, etc., and they're merely doing it in increments. A little bit at a time. First wolves, then something else...
And there isn't going to be any "profitable wolf viewing" in most of these areas, too remote and difficult to access (hence using planes...). Try the bus tours in Denali instead.
Going to have to try harder, I'm familiar with that letter, the vast majority of those listed are active in the radical animal rights movement, some of them blatantly obvious (like Brennan of defenders of wildlife).
Going to have to try harder, I'm familiar with that letter, the vast majority of those listed are active in the radical animal rights movement, some of them blatantly obvious (like Brennan of defenders of wildlife).
Sure they are blatantly obvious--they have nothing to hide. How about Safari International?
I am originally from Colorado, where wolves once roamed until the ranchers managed to shoot, trap and poison the last one--long before aerial hunting.
My point (and that of Defenders of Wildlife, which pays (http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/solutions/wolf_compensation_trust/frequently_asked_questions.php - broken link) ranchers for livestock wolves kill) is that there can and should be room for more than human hunters, and that wolves can be "managed" without airplanes or helicopters.
Send some wolves to Michigan, if you don't like them in Alaska. In Michigan, 70,000 cars a year are damaged ramming into deer on the roads. That averages out to about two per day per county. If wolves would eat 90% of Michigan's deer, there would still be plenty left for hunters. They are rats with antlers.
Nationwide, car-deer crashes kill 150 people a year, and do more than a billion dollars in damage to cars. The worst ones are when the deer is not killed, and comes through the windshield, and cuts passengers to pieces with their sharp hooves trying to escape in panic. Send in the wolves.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,779,335 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc
The following is an exerpt from an article that I have provided a link to. I wonder what the ratio of the current Republican Party are hunters as compared to the current Democratic Party. Just something I have been pondering after I read about Sarah Palin's aerial hunting practices. How can one claim to be an observant religious person if there is no compassion, heart or soul? It's all a facade.
“One thing I have frequently observed in children is that when they have got possession of any poor creature, they are apt to use it ill; they often torment and treat very roughly young birds, butterflies and other such poor animals which fall into their hands – and that with a seeming kind of pleasure. This, I think, should be watched in them, and if they incline to any such cruelty, they should be taught the contrary usage, for the custom of tormenting and killing beats will, by degrees, harden their minds even towards men.....†John Locke, 1705.
The wise words of a philosopher almost 300 years ago. He’s right. According to a 1997 study, people who abused animals were five times more likely to have a record of violent crime. The link between cruelty to animals and violence towards humans has become common knowledge in the USA. The source of information in this article is the USA but the conclusions drawn and warnings sent out are equally applicable to South Africa and elsewhere in the world. They are warnings worth heeding.
NSPCA - Cruelty to animals, violence to humans (http://www.nspca.co.za/page.aspx?Id=111&CateId=13&Category=Education&SubC ateId= - broken link)
This is interesting. How does this relate to hunting, though? I suppose I can understand how someone who has no concept of what hunting really is might see a connection between a hunter and a child who tortures small animals, but there really is a vast difference between responsibly and respectfully harvesting game and torturing a neighborhood cat.
Watch out. They sent wolves to Montana/Yellowstone, and they have wiped out almost all the elk. The outcry up there? "Wah, we have nothing to hunt anymore b/c the wolves ate them all."
We have evolved beyond the point of hunting for food. Clearly, most (if not all) people who go hunting are doing it for fun. I don't find that tasteful, but if you eat meat, you really can't say anything about that.
Also clearly not the same as torturing neighborhood animals. A good hunter goes for the clean kill.
Sure they are blatantly obvious--they have nothing to hide. How about Safari International?
I am originally from Colorado, where wolves once roamed until the ranchers managed to shoot, trap and poison the last one--long before aerial hunting.
My point (and that of Defenders of Wildlife, which pays (http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/solutions/wolf_compensation_trust/frequently_asked_questions.php - broken link) ranchers for livestock wolves kill) is that there can and should be room for more than human hunters, and that wolves can be "managed" without airplanes or helicopters.
And they lack credibility or sense. As has been repeated in this thread, the animal rights acivists' positions are based entirely on emotions, not sound science.
There are no plans in Alaska to wipe out wolves like they were elsewhere, just keep them under some degree of control. Just watch, if you eliminate the predator control programs in AK, the wolves will overpopulate and become a big nuissance to people. Then you will have a lot of people becoming anti-wolf. You really should think ahead of the consequences of what you advocate.
And again, saying they can be managed without planes or helicopters is just speaking of your (and your sources') ignorance. You don't seem to get it that you really can't get around Alaska into these remote places otherwise, especially in the winter and spring. And it only makes sense to use the most efficient methods available when the goal is population control rather than ordinary hunting and trapping.
Watch out. They sent wolves to Montana/Yellowstone, and they have wiped out almost all the elk. The outcry up there? "Wah, we have nothing to hunt anymore b/c the wolves ate them all."
Are hunters complaining? According to the National Park Service, the Yellowstone elk herds are healthy and there has been "only a slight decrease in hunter harvest." link
Quote:
A good hunter goes for the clean kill.
I agree. I don't hunt, but (other than bear baiting) I don't have a big problem the practice. And I do not associate hunting with problematic politicians.
And it only makes sense to use the most efficient methods available when the goal is population control rather than ordinary hunting and trapping.
It may be more efficient, but that does not make it ethical.
On August 26th, 44% of Alaskans disapproved of aerial hunting--but 55% did indeed approve. link
Can assure me of Safari International's credibility? And how do you feel about those pups being summarily dispatched?
Or should we just agree to disagree? Believe me, plenty of Colorado used to be remote--some of it still is. But all of Colorado's wolves are now gone.
Seems to me that the wildlife management is awfully trigger-happy.
Are hunters complaining? According to the National Park Service, the Yellowstone elk herds are healthy and there has been "only a slight decrease in hunter harvest." link
I agree. I don't hunt, but (other than bear baiting) I don't have a big problem the practice. And I do not associate hunting with problematic politicians.
It may be more efficient, but that does not make it ethical.
On August 26th, 44% of Alaskans disapproved of aerial hunting--but 55% did indeed approve. link
Can assure me of Safari International's credibility? And how do you feel about those pups being summarily dispatched?
Or should we just agree to disagree? Believe me, plenty of Colorado used to be remote--some of it still is. But all of Colorado's wolves are now gone.
Seems to me that the wildlife management is awfully trigger-happy.
Depends on who you ask. I've seen on boards where hunters who've been around Yellowstone for a long time have noticed quite a decrease in the elk since wolves were brought back. That there hasn't been a big decrease in hunting yields may only speak for the skills of the hunters.
I knew you'd find another target. Bair baiting now? Bear baiting is banned in my homestate of VT. It's legal in others. I think it's in fact better to hunt bears over bait than not, because it gives you more time to make a decision about whether or not to take the bear, shot placement, etc. I, and many other hunters, try to avoid shooting mothers taking care of cubs, in order to help the population. That's more difficult when you can't bait and don't have much time to make a decision as a bear wanders by...FWIW.
The defender of wildlife propaganda film appears to use 1970's (?) film footage. Old anyways, not current stuff. Quite misleading as it doesn't represent what's going on today accurately. I'd be curious as to their source for the film footage.
Regarding your last link, the data should in fact make you happy. The populations of those animals that were once in trouble in many areas are now recovering quite well. Many hunters and trappers as well as farmers and ranchers could tell you that's the case. Hence, increased number of problems (nuissance animals) as the population rises, but since they're doing well population wise it won't harm the population as a whole. For example, the supposedly endangered Canada lynx is seen relatively frequently by many people I know in Northern VT. They are likely overpopulated in Canada and spreading down in search of food.
Watch out. They sent wolves to Montana/Yellowstone, and they have wiped out almost all the elk. The outcry up there? "Wah, we have nothing to hunt anymore b/c the wolves ate them all."
We have evolved beyond the point of hunting for food. Clearly, most (if not all) people who go hunting are doing it for fun. I don't find that tasteful, but if you eat meat, you really can't say anything about that.
Also clearly not the same as torturing neighborhood animals. A good hunter goes for the clean kill.
So if left unchecked and they devour all the local game what will they eat next?
Each other? Hikers who stray to close to their terratories? Or will they simply starve to death?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
