Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-12-2008, 04:50 PM
 
Location: Beautiful Lakes & Mountains of East TN
3,454 posts, read 7,409,159 times
Reputation: 882

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
So what's your "solution" to overpopulation of humans?
Abortion.

But let the animal population expand because we have to be nice to animals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-12-2008, 04:53 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 10,276,662 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donna7 View Post
Yes, I agree. There seems to be a trend of her breaking the law in order to further her agenda. How can we let someone like this in the highest office of the land (and she will have it if something happens to McCain)? How can we let her have access to security codes that can and will send us all to death and destruction? Is this what she really wants? How can we be sure that the "rapture" and "Armeggedon" mantra that has been instilled in her isn't calling for her to take us to war, death, and a nuclear holocaust? Even though I've been a Christian my whole 45 years on this earth, this woman, who claims that the war in Iraq is a task from God, that the Alaskan pipeline is a task from God; how can we be reassured that taking us to war won't be another "task from God"? Why is it even a remote possibilty that someone like this could rule our nation??
Here's one Christian's view:

Daily Kos: State of the Nation
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 04:54 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 10,276,662 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbkaren View Post
Abortion.

But let the animal population expand because we have to be nice to animals.
No. We have to reponsibly manage development because if the animals die, so do we. It's called "Ecology 101."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 05:47 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,358 posts, read 26,489,954 times
Reputation: 11350
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimimomx3 View Post
Aren't there more humane ways of killing wolves for population control? Oh well....once we tear apart ANWAR for drilling, this will be a non issue, right???
Maybe setting out some sort of poison but that's illegal and not selective enough, it could easily kill something else, and I don't like the idea of dumping poison out in the wilderness. Heavy trapping pressure for a short period of time might work but these areas are too inaccessible for the average trapper and if the overpopulation has resulted in disease problems as it very well could have the furs may not be worth enough to attract interest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 05:51 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,358 posts, read 26,489,954 times
Reputation: 11350
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovingForward View Post
The manner in which she did this was: 1) illegal, and 2) in direct opposition to wildlife experts in Alaska, who told her that predator control needed to be carefully assessed, in terms of the eco-balance between predator and prey within a particular eco-system, and that to arbitrarily go around shooting wolves was dangerous and could cause irrevocable environmental damage down the line. She didn't care because, like Bush, Sarah Palin doesn't understand the Rule of Law. She's perfectly willing to break the law if it gets in the way of her agendas.
It's the wildlife biologists who said it was needed, and she's following their advice. It's not really arbitrary, it's wolves in a selected area up to a maximum number that the biologists feel need to be removed. It's quite carefully controlled, it's not just people flying out killing wolves wherever they can find them anywhere they want. Bounties were tried because they've had trouble getting people to take part, partly because diseases are common when they're overpopulated, ruining the value of the fur. They weren't clearly illegal, the law was more open to interpretation than the animal rights groups would lead you to believe, on bounties for predator control purposes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2008, 09:22 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
20,292 posts, read 37,174,791 times
Reputation: 16397
Quote:
Originally Posted by tluv00 View Post
If this is the best that Obama and his team can come up with then I feel really bad for him. How does wolf hunting speak to the majority of America? Why would 90% of the country care? How is this more important that the war, the economy, gas etc? What a buffoon.
Not only that: it's not hunting, since hunting from the air is illegal in Alaska. However, the Sate of Alaska implemented a Wolf Control Program before Palin became governor of Alaska, and the program continues. A majority of Alaskans just voted NO to the opposition to the wolf control program from Animal rights groups based in Washington, DC and others in Alaska. So, under the supervision of F&G, a group of hunters, trappers, etc. have been killing a certain number of wolves from the air using fixed-wing aircraft, simply because it's almost impossible to reach the areas targeted by land vehicles, or because one can't see the wolves in the tall brush, or because as soon as the wolves hear a motor they disappear.

Palin herself is not involved in hunting from the air, since this is highly illegal in Alaska. Only F&G and those authorized by F&G can kill wolves (only wolves), from airplanes (fixed-wing aircraft), and only in the designated areas the control program is taking place.

Moose, caribou, and other game animals can be legally hunted according to the AK Hunting Regulations. For example, I can drive to, fly to, or reach the hunting grounds on boat. However, if I use an airplane to reach the hunting grounds, I must wait 24 hours upon landing before I can hunt. The use of helicopters is prohibited, even to transport hunters back and forth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2008, 09:25 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
20,292 posts, read 37,174,791 times
Reputation: 16397
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovingForward View Post
No. We have to reponsibly manage development because if the animals die, so do we. It's called "Ecology 101."
Perhaps "We" as you and your buddies somewhere can do that, but this is done differently in Alaska. Fish and Game follows the Alaska Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2008, 09:30 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 10,276,662 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK View Post
Perhaps "We" as you and your buddies somewhere can do that, but this is done differently in Alaska. Fish and Game follows the Alaska Constitution.
Fish and Game is a political organization, as are many U.S. so-called protective agencies. Ask the Navajo and Hopi about the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs). What Sarah Palin and the aerial shooters did to those animals is immoral. Predator control is important, but ethical and morally bound implementation of it is more important. To torture animals under the guise of "wildlife management" makes me want to puke. All the fancy rhetorical footwork in the world will NEVER excuse such viciousness. The truth is out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2008, 09:32 PM
 
9,890 posts, read 10,821,477 times
Reputation: 3108
Much ado about nothing, what freaking diference does it make if you are in a helicopter on the ground or in a tree when you shoot a wolf its still dead. For most Americans, this just makes those big dealing this, look like fanatics. To bad you cant seem to get as worked up about a human life. I guess shooting a wolf from a helicopter is just so much more tragic than partially delivering a little baby and then STABBING it in base of the skull and scrambling it's brains until it is DEAD! Those poor wolves!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2008, 09:33 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 10,276,662 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by silas777 View Post
Much ado about nothing, what freaking diference does it make if you are in a helicopter on the ground or in a tree when you shoot a wolf its still dead. For most Americans, this just makes those big dealing this, look like fanatics. To bad you cant seem to get as worked up about a human life. I guess shooting a wolf from a helicopter is just so much more tragic than partially delivering a little baby and then STABBING it in base of the skull and scrambling it's brains until it is DEAD! Those poor wolves!
You're an idiot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top