Blogging About Critters Since 2007

Friday, August 29, 2008

Bring Palin a Wolf Leg, Get $150.00

In addition to killing wolves from airplanes, Palin supports paying cash to those that cut off their left leg and bring it in for a cash prize. How's that for state socialism?

4 comments:

Jeanine said...

Is there some ritual that requires a left leg of a wolf?

Anonymous said...

The bounty on wolves claim is political mis-information to try to smear Gov. Palin. No matter what your politics, it's not fair to anyone to allow lies about either side to circulate on the net. I researched this claim on the Alaska Legislature site and submitted it to Snopes.com.

If you look at the official Alaska site, the bounty was proposed by the Alaska Dept of Fish & Game (not Gov. Palin) to be used within a certain remote area where the wolves were decimating the caribou and moose herds as a means to protect help protect the herds. The wolves in this area are overpopulated and each spring during calving season they are killing off most of the newborn calves, homing in on them by the scent of blood. The wolves not only endanger the prey species in the area, but are invested with lice due to overpopulation. Wolves are difficult and expensive to control in this part of Alaska, so the bounty was proposed to help offset some of the expense. The proposal was never implemented. Bounties were historically paid to entice people to help control Wolves but they were ended in the 1970's. It is also notable that they do not issue "hunting licenses" for wolves only "control permits" because the sportsmen have no interest in them and they are not used for food. There are also some areas in Alaska where wolves cannot be killed at all because there is no threat to other wildlife.

While I am an avid animal lover and wildlife conservationist, I also realize there will always be hunting. Some areas of the country depend on hunting for a good portion of their food. Alaska has a long history of shooting wolves from low flying aircraft in the most remote areas (not everywhere). I am not advocating nor condemning this method because I understand the argument from both sides. Shooting from low flying aircraft is not something people do for "fun". They must remove the door from the plane and fly in sub-zero temperatures during winter months when the wolves can be tracked. The wildlife management reports I read, indicated that "wound & injure rates were very low" and they reported wound & injure rates associated with other hunting methods as well. The report also states one of the main reasons for collecting the forelegs is to ensure that animals are actually killed not just wounded. I think law makers have a responsibility to make and enforce laws that require humane hunting practices. As I read the 144 pages of the report I was impressed at the amount of thoughtful study and detailed information that it contained and that they actually are concerned with "wound & injure" rates, lice etc. - and that they outlawed shooting of wolves in areas where they are not a threat. I'm not saying they are perfect or can't be improved upon, but I don't believe this is as big an issue as some are trying to "spin" it to be.

I'm not sure what Mr. Obama’s position on killing wolves (or any other wildlife) is. However I do know he is personally responsible for blocking a bill that would have allowed doctors to give medical treatment to babies born alive after botched abortions. He listened to personal testimony from nurses who were only allowed to hold these babies for their short lives and watch them inhumanly suffer and fade away which often takes hours. Obama personally blocked the state bill even after wording was changed be the same as the Federal Bill which passed the US Senate unopposed (Both Hillary & Kerry voted in favor of the bill). I cannot vote for someone who has that little regard for human life. I also cannot imagine that someone who is not concerned with the humane treatment of newborn babies would somehow be concerned with humane treatment of animals.

Here are links to the full congressional testimony of some of these nurses- no spin added.
http://nobamanews.blogspot.com/2008/07/jill-staneks-full-testimony_05.html
http://nobamanews.blogspot.com/2008/07/allison-bakers-full-testimony.html
the federal law - no spin added
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/BAIPAFederal.pdf

Jill Stanek is the nurse who took this issue to her state legislature. This is the link to her full report in Citizen Link (non-partisan)
(Yes, she does have an agenda too - she is pro-life, however her objective in this case was only to fight for babies born alive - not to fight all abortion.)
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm#

Anonymous said...

Why would you wish that a baby born of a botched abortion be "saved"? If the mother intended to abort the pregnancy, then it was three months or less into it's gestation period. That means that the chances of it surviving anyway are minimal at best. This child would be underdeveloped in every way and have no quality of life. It would be merely a medical experiment and here only to make you feel good. Sounds crueler to me than just letting it go. Not all lives make it. It's just fact. Ask the wolves.

Anonymous said...

totally agree.
i personally had an abortion and while it hurts me every time i think about it and yes sometimes i do regret it, but i got the abortion for a reason. if my baby was born that would hurt me even more and wouldnt want it to suffer but lets face it, if i put it up for a adoption, how many parents would want it? its the cruel way america is. oh i was adopted to and its made me attempt suicide a few times. adoption isnt always the answer and i wish almost every day i wasnt adopted.