The former mayor of Wasilla, Alaska has more on her animal welfare record than hailing from the town where the Iditarod makes its annual start. However you feel about this famous sled-dog race, its potential welfare issues pale in comparison to the sport of aerial hunting and the opposition to endangered designations for needy species.
Though it won’t necessarily drive my vote, knowing how my fellow Americans and Presidential ticket candidates take on issues of animal concern is important to me. But there’s not much in our two top candidates’ voting records to go on—beyond the wider issues of environmental policy and a comparison of their pet-keeping records. (For me, Obama wins on the former issue while McCain beats him soundly on the latter.)
That’s why I was impressed to hear of Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin’s record on animal welfare. Sure, she’s the governor of Alaska and that’s almost always a negative when it comes to environmental policy in general, but this goes even deeper.
Nope, it’s not just the pit bull joke that rankled me (where she likened hockey moms to pit bulls with lipstick), though the comment stuck in my craw for her obvious insensitivity to the need to obliterate this butt-kicking image of pit bulls. It’s also her opposition to the endangered status of polar bear and beluga whales, the latter as a direct response to how this designation would affect her state’s oil industry.
And then there’s the aerial hunting thing…
Aerial hunting is a sport where animals (in Alaska, usually wolves and bears) are chased via helicopter and killed with guns. Though this technique is often used to cull animals out of an arguably environmentally sound need to control populations, the Alaskan interior doesn’t exactly qualify as a location where population control is an overriding issue.
Alaska is vast and as close to pristine as the Earth can muster, so populations of wild animals here are fairly independent of human intervention and subsequent population imbalances. There is no environmentally sound rationale behind killing animals in this way, even if “culling” via helicopter could ever be said to merit the term “sound.”
Governor Palin embraces this gruesome sport so fully, as governor she even offered a $150 bounty for each wolf forelimb brought before her. How Caesaresque! The barbaric image of her medieval nod to this bloodsport won’t soon fade for me. I just can’t square this with her “right to life” persona and beauty queen presentation.
I can only imagine what she'd do to a pit bull if she ever caught one. Oh, right, she'd probably trap it...or, more likely, she'd let someone else do the dirty work.
How about you? Does knowing “too much” about a candidate’s animal welfare record affect how you’ll vote?
Add Comment69 Comments
I'm not a Palin fan for many reasons but was aware of her because of her Draconian views on wolves. The pit bull reference just added to the bile, I found it especially offensive because I find her views so incredibly distasteful that comparing herself to the wonderful pit bulls I've met is really laughable. Perhaps if the analogy had involved screwworms it would have been more apt.
But yes, animal welfare is something I feel strongly about and if a politician has such radically repulisve views on it I won't vote for them. Though it hardly seems to matter.
Esmee September 5th, 2008 09:37:00 AM
Here's a UK story on how her environmental/animal welfare record may affect international relations:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/e...
And here's a YouTube video on her stance on Aerial Hunting (a bit dramatic, bet there you have it):
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iGPFPBmzRrQ
Dr. Patty Khuly September 5th, 2008 09:56:00 AM
I mentioned the pit bull comment to the BF. He looked shocked, glanced at the sleeping bullies at his feet and said "no way, pit bulls are way more adorable."
As for Palin? To be frank I haven't found many redeeming factors. I didn't know about aerial hunting, but it certainly didn't help her case - buh-bye governor.
AdoptedAPBTs September 5th, 2008 10:43:00 AM
Yes, her views on the environment and animal welfare and hunting methods are only a few of the reasons why I would walk ten miles to vote against someone like her. Everything she stands for - teaching creationism, book banning, pro-life, etc are some more reasons I will vote against her. The fact that she compared herself to a pitbull with lipstick is even more sickening considering all of the publicity with dog fighting lately. She isnt a pitbull. The pitbulls I have met through our rescue - she should be ashamed to compare herself to them.
Bobuddy September 5th, 2008 11:42:00 AM
Her animal welfare and environmentalism policies will be added to a long list of reason why she horrifies me. Not that I would ever vote MCcain/Palin even if a gun were put to my head, but still. It's important to pay attention. The chances of McCain dying of natural causes in the next 4 years are on the high side, so this nut job could be President.
Nothing like putting the lowest common denominator (and I do mean COMMON) forward to lead the free world. Way to go America!
Creature of Habit September 5th, 2008 12:39:00 PM
Put this on the CNN Blog!!! Anderson Cooper 360
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/01/comments-how...%c2%b0-approval/
Dana Marcus September 5th, 2008 01:02:00 PM
Well,
I am not a fan of her animal issues, but if I compare her to the other side on issues that are not animal oriented, I find she is way more appealing than the Obama/Biden ticket...
This is a difficult election for me where I feel like I am voting for the best of the worst, not the best of the best.
I was hoping that the VP choices would help me choose the better candidate, but it really hasn't changed my original opinion very much.
I however found her pit bull comment amusing, but I find a lot of off color things amusing. But I knew when I heard it, it would have the pit bull community up in arms.
LorriM September 5th, 2008 01:04:00 PM
I don't object to her being a hunter, but I do object the the wanton disregard she has for nonhuman life. I saw a quote (I have not verified the authenticity of it) that states that she and her husband shot a whole bunch of caribou one year, and guess what, the caribou were back the next year. I really, truly, hope that's not true.
As for her parties positions on other issues, I only have to look at what deregulation and outsourcing have done to food safety (including pet food) to have to disagree with LorriM.
And for the record, she doesn't remind me of cute wiggly-butt pit bull, but of a whiny, yappy little lap dog.
2CatMom September 5th, 2008 01:15:00 PM
I've surprisingly found mixed responses in the pit bull community re: the lipstick comment. I suppose it depends more on whether you like Palin in general or not. Those who like her found it cute- pit bulls are tenacious and loyal, etc. Those (like me) who find her Really Freaking Scary found it icky- more playing on the media image of the pit bull than the breed itself. The media headlines tell it all, imo: "Pitbull [sic] Palin sinks teeth into Obama", "Running with a 'pit bull'", etc. Yuck.
katie September 5th, 2008 01:22:00 PM
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU
for writing about this.
There has been so LITTLE coverage of this "angle" on Sarah Palin by the press, that I've started wondering if its a deliberate blackout of sorts.
Why is it that the press is so willing to endlessly discuss her teenage daughters pregnancy (which I find rather salacious and possibly even mean), but they will not address these aspects of her record on the enviroment and wildlife?
Is it because the unlawful slaugher of 14 wolf pups (a scandal from this summer -- her Department of Natural Resources or whatever they are called staff killed a wolf pack, and then found 14 pups in the den -- they are supposed to look for wildlife rescue placement for them, but instead, they shot them all) doesn't jive with the "committed pro-life mom" image they are crafting of her?
Why so little discussion of the fact that she has SUED the Bush Administration to try to keep the polar bears off the endangered species list, because of the impact the listing would have on oil extraction activities in her state? (Don't forget -- her husband works for BP). I mean, she's to the RIGHT of Bush on the environment for crying out loud!
Why no discussion of her efforts to increase hunting of nearly tame human-habituated bears, or the "$150 for a dismembered wolf leg" bounty you brought up?
Why aren't the pictures of her sitting on the dead bear being discussed?
The ones of her bedecked in obscene furs with a group pretending to be "barbarians"?
And they've barely mentioned the fact that she doesn't believe humans have anything to do with global warming.
Not only that, she has shown that she is willing to TAKE AWAY citizens rights in the name of her environmental assault.
The aerial wolf hunting was twice banned by referenda, but this summer, there was another referendum.
Palin spent $400k of STATE MONEY promoting aerial wolf hunting, in a move of questionable legality where she used state funds for political ends. It worked -- the refendum to ban the practice was defeated, but many voters claimed it was worded in a very misleading way and they didn't know how they were voting.
Palin also has pushed legislation -- passed in the AK house -- TO REVOKE ALASKANS RIGHTS TO EVER VOTE ON THIS MATTER AGAIN via referendum. AK is a referendum state, and no doubt, the unpopular and unsporting (I wouldn't call it sport) practice would be on a ballot measure again. That's why Palin is pushing through legislation that declares all wildlife a "resource" and outlaws future referenda on anything that has to do with wildlife.
I guess the high and mighty ruler Palin thinks she knows better than the citizenry how to manage resources, especially since her husband works for BP and she allegedly has ties to Safari International, a bunch of rich white guys who fly around the globe killing nearly tame lions, buffalo, etc.
At a time in our planet's history when we need to become, at last, true STEWARDS of the environment and its creatures, the last thing we need is a gun totin Palin who believes that wildlife and the environment need to be dominated, exploited, subjected, destroyed, and usurped for pleasure, gain, and something she calls "sport" which is merely legitimized sadism.
I wasn't going to do much for this election, but the selection of Palin motivated me to give money to Obama and go hit the streets for him.
Anyway, THANK YOU for speaking about this. I don't know why the media aren't.
Stefani September 5th, 2008 01:55:00 PM
PS --
Here is a great editorial on the topic
http://www.alternet.org/election08/97207/sarah_pal...%27s_big%2C_sleazy_safari/?page=entire
Stefani September 5th, 2008 02:13:00 PM
There are just so many reasons I do not like her to begin with. Her stance on animals is just the putrid cherry on top of this particular turd-cake.
*pardon my indelicacy*
Jen M.
Jen M. September 5th, 2008 02:15:00 PM
I am all for animals, and was also not happy with the hockey mom/pit bull remark, nor her views on the aerial hunting - HOWEVER, the other conservative issues that she stands for are extremely important in the dangerous times we are living in. Not to say that animals are not just as important....but when it comes down to her or Barack Obama, I can't base my choices on her attitudes towards animals alone. I doubt stopping aerial hunting is very high up on the list of Osama's priorities either.
I certainly plan to contact her concerning these issues, though, as soon as she is sworn in.
jennifer September 5th, 2008 02:35:00 PM
I can't stand Sarah Palin. The Iditarod is a a dangerous abusive sport that should be outlawed and aerial hunting of wolves nauseates me. Her comment about PitBull's and lipstick was disgusting. I also think McCain is a piece of trash for the way he left his disabled wife and then turned around and married that wealty witch. He's all about himself and cannot be trusted in anything he says. He changes his stance to suit the times and has no real opinions of his own. Palin's speach made me sick to my stomach, it was like she was mocking people, animals and Obama. And her speech was even racially motivated when she said she has been a proud American ever since she was a baby (or something to that effect), like Obama wasn't an American because he is black. I am absolutely appalled that anyone could defend her or McCain for their stances on evironmental issues and animals. They must have their blinders on.
Vicki T September 5th, 2008 03:58:00 PM
Not to delve too deeply into political debate, but given all of the issues we're currently dealing with, animal welfare doesn't even rate for me. I want to hear their places for balancing the federal budget, effective strategies for dealing with foreign affairs, homeland security, the economy, etc. These are the important issues to me. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with pointlessly killing or prolonging the suffering of animals, but when it comes down to it if it's between saving and creating jobs for hardworking Americans or legislating protection for Polar Bears... I've got some bad news for the Polar Bears.
As far as Palin's views on animal welfare, Alaska is a whole different world. It takes someone with a different mindset to survive up there for any length of time, and that type of person generally is not going to be too concerned with offending what someone with "metropolitan sensibilities" (to coin a phrase) defines as animal welfare. Frankly, I'm sick of voting for the lessor of two evils. I am registered GOP, but the chances of me checking off the box next to McCain/Palin is only marginally better than checking off the box next to Obama/Biden. Right now I'm leaning towards a write in for Ron Paul.
Stefani - Todd Palin does work for BP, but it's not in any management or decision making capacity. You might as well blame the petroleum engineers who build the rigs and truck drivers who deliver petrol to your local stations while you're at it.
Chip September 5th, 2008 03:59:00 PM
While I do agree with you Chip that there are many issues for Americans to consider, the environment is kind of a big deal. Everything is interrelated and quite frankly I would not vote for someone who disregards the science of climate change...not to mention evolution.
There are so many other problems plaguing the GOP in this election, in my obviously liberal opinion, that the Palin controversy is just the cherry on top.
Esmee September 5th, 2008 04:43:00 PM
I agree with Jennifer that you can’t allow a single issue to make up your mind in an election but animal welfare should be a big issue even if you aren’t an animal person. It’s been proven that people who abuse animals often go on to abuse humans. This is because animal abuse shows an innate lack of compassion and respect for other living beings. I think this translates to animal welfare issues as well. Someone who shows a lack of compassion towards other species (aerial hunting certainly qualifies here) probably doesn’t have much compassion towards people in other demographics (poor people, minorities, anyone that has an opinion different from yours).
It doesn’t take much of an imagination to take a similar view on her environmental stance. She chose the interests of a mining company over a salmon fishery, the salmon and watershed in question, plus the people and animals that eat salmon. Blatantly showing she is willing to put the interests of “big business” over that of the local community and the employed workers.
Financially I’m still lucky enough to support my family so the current economy is more of a nuisance than a serious problem for me. However, everyday I see the serious consequences suffered by my family, friends, and community. I just don’t trust a person like Palin to take care of them.
Shannon Watts September 5th, 2008 04:53:00 PM
It is wonderful that not only do we live in a country where we can freely vote and elect whomever we choose to support, but we also live in a country where we can freely share our opinions about how we feel about those people as well.
There is NO land of the free without the brave. We wouldn't be able to have the choices we do without people willing to fight for their beliefs for others.
And while many of your have valuable points,on both sides of an issue, there is always someone who thinks and acts differently. Because I choose to eat meat, or choose to wear animal products, it neither makes me a bad or unethical person. Nor does it mean that I do not value animal life.
It is the same in the political arena. People think and do different things. It is one of the many joys of living in a country where we are free to think and act on our beliefs.
Everyone's values are not the same, and there are few if any politicians that have clean hands.
I am sure that 100 years ago there were common practices that we think are barbaric now, and in a 100 years there will be common practices of now that the future will considered barbaric.
We need to try and consider the most important issues as we vote, and truthfully each person values different things.
let's just keep it friendly.
LorriM September 5th, 2008 05:18:00 PM
I believe that hunting and aerial killing are both very wrong. I also believe that killing animals to eat meat is very wrong. I think that Sarah Palin is a wonderful, refreshing choice for Republican vp and I was wowed when I heard her speech. I think the joke about the pit bull was simply meant to be funny, with no bad connotation to the breed. (And I also know and love some great pits.) About the ONLY bad thing I can say about the woman is on her hunting/killing stances. And I will be in the effort to try to change her on these!
All said and done, if you hate aerial killing, how can you condone the killing of animals in the slaughter houses, who are often mistreated and very frightened? We don't need meat, and contrary to popular belief, it's not good for humans. Just because it is an American custom doesn't make it right.
Donna September 5th, 2008 05:44:00 PM
IMHO, any world leader, esp. the President of the US, needs to have the attitude of an environmental steward and caretaker at this critical time.
I have fondness for both John and Cindy McCain; I don't think anyone shoulld say a bad word about Palin's daughter. But her attitudes on the envrinment and wildlife disqualify her for my vote.
It may take a special kind of person to survive in Alaska, but that's kind of to the point: If your view is myopic, hewn in a very narrow and specific environment, than you are probably not well suited to be the leader of the "free world."
I recently heard that 1 out of 3 VPs becomes president. Palin needs to be vetted as a potential president, not vice. Our world needs global environmental leadership that I don't think she can provide.
It's not just animals. Tonight on NPR, they played a quote where she was saying something about it being God's will for some corporations to build a gas pipeline in Alaska.
God talks to Bush and tells him what to do, he has said. Now we have someone else who thinks God is telling them to do things like build pipelines. She also thinks that we are doing God's will waging war in Iraq, on behalf of God.
Stefani September 5th, 2008 06:21:00 PM
If a person didn't care for dogs or cats, as far as having them as pets, that would not determine if I voted for them, however, Sarah Palin is a whole different ball of wax. I am not a hunter, but I do eat meat, but it seems, from what I've read and heard on television, she seems to take hunting up a few notches.
I do not agree with any of her views on anything, and I believe that she does not give a hoot about animals, trees, nature, or the environment. All she cares about is drilling for oil in Alaska - to hell with the environment.
She has been referred to as a feminist and an environmentalist - give me a break!
Actually, I don't like anyone who doesn't respect animals or believe that they have as much of a right to be on this planet as humans.
Karen K September 5th, 2008 07:07:00 PM
Hey there Dr. Khuly -
Thought you'd be amused that you're now being called a "left-wing political pundit" on the frog-dog message boards. Today's posting seems to have rankled the ire of some of the gun-toting conservatives. Anyway, don't worry. I'll watch your back.
Tatiana September 5th, 2008 08:05:00 PM
While her views on hunting etc. certainly lower my opinion of her as a person…I'm not sure it's something I would base my vote on given that as VP those views would be unlikely to make any policy differences.
I'm no hunting fan, but I also don't see the distinction between aerial hunting versus hunting on the ground. Possibly one could argue aerial hunting is less humane because the animal might be more likely to be injured vs. killed...but I really don't know. Hunting for any reason other than absolute necessity (like starvation or population control) is pretty repugnant to my sensibilities, but hunting from a plane vs. on the ground is a distinction that does not make a lot of sense to me.
One thing that does disturb me a bit is when those of us in the lower 48 apply our sensibilities to Alaska. It is such a vast, and vastly different, place and culture that it makes me somewhat queasy when we tell Alaskans how they should run their state.
And if I lived in Alaska global warming might not sound like such a bad idea to me. ;-)
Larry September 5th, 2008 08:18:00 PM
i didn't care for Sarah BEFORE the pit bull remark, and I still don't care for her. One thing you can say about McCain- he likes pretty women. And in the spirit of trying to be nice, that's all I have to say about that........
Agadoresmama September 5th, 2008 08:36:00 PM
I loved how Maureen Dowd described her. . . Trophy Vice!
Larry September 5th, 2008 08:56:00 PM
Jennifer, honey, it is spelled Obama, not Osama.
People like you give conservatives a bad reputation.
Erich Riesenberg September 5th, 2008 09:35:00 PM
Larry, you said:
"One thing that does disturb me a bit is when those of us in the lower 48 apply our sensibilities to Alaska. It is such a vast, and vastly different, place and culture that it makes me somewhat queasy when we tell Alaskans how they should run their state."
By the same logic, it would also follow that people from Alaska shouldn't run for office in which they will apply their sensibilities to the lower 48. We are no longer talking about running a state, we are talking about running a country.
And for what it's worth, aerial shooting isn't a clean kill, those wolves get shot many times often as they run desperately, the rationale for doing it is highly questionable in the first place. Killing 14 pups for no reason when you are supposed to place them in rescue -- I would decry that if it occured in the lower 48 too.
There is some morality, actually, that isn't relative.
Killing in cruel ways for no reason or flimsy reasons (not for food) is just as wrong up there as it is down here. Living in Alaska is no license for behaving any darned way you please and running roughshod over stuff.
Should murder and theft be legal in Alaska too? Ah, moral relativity, a true believer in states rates.
Stefani September 5th, 2008 11:02:00 PM
I just saw the YouTube video - how disgusting. Those poor animals, it makes my stomach hurt. I'm sending a copy of that video to everyone I know.
Karen K September 5th, 2008 11:09:00 PM
I'm a hunter. I was an environmentalist first, an animal trainer first.
I don't know a single hunter (including trophy hunters, whom I despise) who thinks that "aerial hunting" is hunting, or any kind of "sport."
Which is why pathological wolf-hater Palin doesn't want it up for a vote again. Regular Alaskans have a sense of fair play that doesn't embrace rich bastards hiring an airplane to terrorize an animal that they will then slaughter.
It's no different from a canned hunt, except in the requirement for better marksmanship, and the cheerful possibility, however seldom realized, of an airplane crash that converts the shooter into wolf-meat.
H Houlahan September 5th, 2008 11:52:00 PM
Tatiana: "Left-wing political pundit." Too funny. I guess they don't know I'm Cuban-American. ;-)
It's interesting that placing blame where it's deserved--on one issue--automatically pigeon-holes you as thinking a certain way on all the others.
For the record, I'm registered as an Independent voter--for whatever that's worth.
Dr. Patty Khuly September 6th, 2008 07:09:00 AM
I was just sent a link to this video. I urge everyone to watch it -- it's not the one that's been going around that just shows shooting. (Although, warning: There is some of that in here).
This is an extremely educational, 10 minute video about the history of aerial wolf hunting in Alaska. It includes interviews with hunters, outdoorsmen, a field guide, a former Dept. of Natural Resources officer.
It is not a video that takes a stand against hunting in the larger sense, in fact, it seems quite the opposite, but it is a video presenting a viewpoint against this practice.
It does not mention Sarah Palin's name once.
It was apparently made in the run up to the referendum this past summer.
I learned a lot from this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mu_rqmFpL8
Stefani September 6th, 2008 01:21:00 PM
http://www.slaughterhousecam.com/cams/index.html
I hope that all meat eaters will take a look at this site.......
Donna September 6th, 2008 03:53:00 PM
Erich,'honey', Please notice that Jennifer spelled Obama correctly the first time. The second spelling likely was a typo. A lot of us are in a hurry and don't have the time to proof-read.
I normally wouldn't comment on this, but 'giving conservatives a bad name' was a bit much.
Donna September 6th, 2008 04:00:00 PM
oooh. I just knew you were setting off a land mine when you dipped you toes into a political post Dr. K. !
Stefani - I think you need to read my post again. I thought I made it clear that I am no fan of 'recreational' or 'non-essential' hunting. (repugnant was the word I used).
My point was that, absent any real knowledge on the topic, I didn't see recreational hunting from a plane as morally inferior to recreational hunting on the ground.
I stand by my comment about casually imposing our sensibilities on Alaskans. It's seems mighty presumptuous to tell Alaskans that vast swaths of their state should remain 'pristine' to satisfy our environmental sensibilities. Anwar is twice the size of Maryland for pete's sake.
I'm sure if VP Palin decided to ban trapping soft shell crabs and recreational boating on the Chesapeake because she thought the bay should remain 'pristine' there would be a few citizens in Maryland that would beg to differ. Crabs have rights too!
Larry September 6th, 2008 06:04:00 PM
It is a misnomer that we do not need to hunt for food these days in this country. I live in an area where hunting means food on the table, not trophys on the wall. (tho some hunters also mount their deer and bear if they can afford it)
My husband hunts and also runs a game butcher shop during hunting season. Not only does it mean food on the table, for us AND the dogs, but it is also a good organic source of healthy meat, low in cholesterol and not shot full of antibiotiocs. Plus the deer and moose aren't being shoved into a slaughterhouse for their last moments on earth.
My area has alot of people who count on deer and moose meat in their freezer to get through the wanter. This year the wardens expect to see more poaching due to the higher fuel costs. Saving money on food means you can afford to heat your home after all.
While hunting isn't for everyone, (or eating meat) it is still an important part of life for others.
I dispise trophy hunters (the biggest animals do NOT make for good eating) and canned hunting isn't hunting. Neither is hunting from a helicopter if you ask me. How can it be considered a sport if you have an unfair advantage? I am not for hunting on prepared field farms for the same reason. In the woods to get a deer or moose there is work that you need to do to be successful. To me it isn'treally a sport at all, just a way to get food. Of course it also means being in the outdoors and seeing nature as it was made. Because you typically need to go hunting alot before you are actually successful.
I will grudgingly admit we have deer and bear heads on our wall. Honestly I think they are silly and grotesque. (I swear it is a man thing.) But I support my husbands hunting efforts because of what it provides for us as a family. Because he makes money during hunting season with the butcher shop I suppose I have a very biased viewpoint as well. But just because you can go to a grocery store and buy meat in plastic doesn't mean you are better than a hunter because they choose to kill their own food. All meat comes from animals. They are all killed at some point to become your burger or steak or chickent nuggets. Some of us just aren't in denial about it. I have more respect for vegetarians who are against hunting than grocery store buying meat eaters. At least they are living their principals and group all meat eaters together. (regardless if you think they are right or not)
Marie September 6th, 2008 06:23:00 PM
Um, this aerial hunting has nothing to do with food.
They don't eat the wolves.
Stefani September 6th, 2008 11:45:00 PM
I'm an Alaskan. I voted for stricter regulations on aerial hunting. Unfortunately, my husband misunderstood the measure (he believes as I do that it should be banned completely) and voted against them. The Nays had it. :( I'm okay with hunting for food. I'm not okay with hunting for sport. And I think it's absolutely disgusting when they justify aerial hunting by saying they're doing it to control the population. Sorry, Mother Nature controls the population just fine by herself. Wolves eat the sick, the weak, the old... not the strong who will build a better herd. Wolves kill only what they eat... not what would look good hanging on their wall or splayed on their floor as a horrific rug. You want to control the population? Place stricter limits on who can hunt, when, and why. People throw things out of balance far worse than any of the other creatures on this planet.
Brandy September 7th, 2008 02:07:00 AM
I agree with you Marie, when hunting is done for food I have no problem with it. (as long as every effort is made to limit the animals suffering or course) Your post illustrates the point I was clumsily trying to make above. . .us city folks should not be rash in judging a lifestyle & upbringing we're unfamiliar with. (and Alaska is probably even more 'foreign' to us "urbanites" than the lower 48 rural hunting culture)
I would be a McNugget chomping hypocrite if I condemned 'sustenance hunting'. Hunting certainly seems more humane to me than factory farming.
> Neither is hunting from a helicopter if you ask me. How can it be considered a sport
> if you have an unfair advantage?
A helicopter is an unfair advantage? It seems to be a pretty minor one compared to say, a rifle! If you really wanted to give the animals a sporting chance you'd limit yourself to rocks and sticks! ;-)
Larry September 7th, 2008 02:23:00 AM
"A helicopter is an unfair advantage? It seems to be a pretty minor one compared to say, a rifle! If you really wanted to give the animals a sporting chance you'd limit yourself to rocks and sticks! ;-)"
Alright I'm taking two groups of people out to be hunted. You get hundreds of acres of land to hide in. One group of hunters is on foot with rifles and the other group is in helicopters with rifles with sites. You get a 20 minute head start. You don't have a preference which group you want to be in?
I'm not from Alaska and I don't personally hunt but I live in one of those "lower 48 rural hunting culture" areas. Some people do think rifles are unsporting so they use a bow and arrow. Others are hungry and don't care about fair so they use rifles. Plenty of people in between. I can guarantee 95% of the local hunters would say chasing an animal with a helicopter until it is too worn out to run and then shooting it point blank is much more unfair than stalking it on foot. They would also put down any hunter that required more than one shot to down their kill. A good hunter kills with their first shot. They don't main, chase some more, maim again, and eventually let the animal bleed to death since they can't manage a killing shot. All the animals end up dead, but huge difference in the amount of pain/fear inflicted during their final minutes.
Shannon Watts September 7th, 2008 11:20:00 AM
Larry, I'm not following you.
The topic is aerial hunting of wolves.
You are speaking out in defense of subsistence hunting.
But that was never the topic in the first place . . . ???????
Stefani September 7th, 2008 01:46:00 PM
ok, this is my very last post on the subject as it's getting rather silly. I'll try to be as clear as I possibly can and avoid any attempt at humor.
Q. Do I endorse in hunting purely for sport?
A. No, I find sport hunting repugnant
Q. Do I endorse hunting for food or population control
A . Yes, as long as it is done as humanely as possible
Q. Do I endorse hunting from helicopters, planes, or other flying aircraft?
A. Assuming, as several have implied here, that it is an inherently inhumane method to kill, than, no I don't support it.
Larry September 7th, 2008 01:51:00 PM
Please join Animal Lovers Against Sarah Palin on Facebook!
Kristina Sensing September 7th, 2008 02:50:00 PM
Sorry I got off track. I saw the hunting topic and went with that.
Nature doesn't always regulate the number of animals in a herd/group because some of those animals don't have enough predators in their area to keep their numbers in check. (or any in the case of wolves) OR their numbers interfere with the space that man wants to use. If you take away their natual habitat where do you think they end up? In our back yards and in our roadways of course. Research how many people are killed by deer car accidents each year in over populated deer areas. In nature WITHOUT man in the picture that argument might hold true.
I don't know why they are killing wolves in alaska but one would think there must be some good reason (or perhaps there used to be) or wouldn't the people revolt against the idea? Are farmers losing their animals to wolves? Are they to many in number and killing to many animals in their natural habitat? Are they so overrun that some are starving to death and this is a way to cull them so more can live naturally?
I don't know enough about the big picture to comment on it directly. It is definatly food for thought though and something to look into.
Marie September 7th, 2008 05:11:00 PM
They're protecting the caribou and moose for the sake of the trophy-hunting tourists.
Lis September 7th, 2008 11:43:00 PM
Marie, people HAVE revolted against the idea. Please watch the video I posted a link to.
Twice this has been voted down by referendum.
It is unpopular.
True the most recent referendum to outlaw it didn't pass (this summer) but:
a) voters say it was very confusingly worded and many of them intended to vote to ban it and accidentally voted not to because of the wording
b) Sarah Palin spent $400,000 of State (Alaska Taxpayer) money prior to the vote PROMOTING and defending the practice WITH GOVERNMEBNT MONEY which some have questioned as patently illegal (use of government funds for political activities)
They are killing wolves to ARTIFICIALLY inflate caribou herd numbers (accoding to the professionals and experts interviewed in the film) and also because there are ignorant A-holes who love to kill wolves and apparently, pleasing ignorant sport hunters who kill for thrill is more important than being humane to thei primary ecotourist attraction, the wolf.
Stefani September 7th, 2008 11:55:00 PM
People are googling "obama on animal rights" and hitting my site pretty often these days, so I thought I'd see what else is out there. It turns out Obama has a pretty decent record on animal welfare issues.
This is the most informative post I came across:
http://www.catanna.com/obama-animal-welfare.htm
During Barack Obama’s eight years as an Illinois state senator he voted in favor of at least twelve animal protection laws. These included state legislation
to allow creation of pet trusts to provide for long-term care of companion animals,
to upgrade penalties for cruelty to animals,
to require psychological counseling for people who abuse animals,
to require veterinarians to report suspected acts of cruelty and animal fighting,
to ban slaughter of horses for human consumption—significant because Illinois was one of only two states (with Texas) where horse slaughter plants operated,
to create additional restrictions to make it more difficult for puppy mills to operate.
And I loved this statement:
"I've repeatedly voted to increase penalties for animal cruelty and violence and, importantly, to require psychological counseling for those who engage in this behavior as part of the punishment. In addition to being unacceptable in its own stead, violence towards animals is linked with violent behavior in general, especially domestic violence, and we need to acknowledge this connection and work to treat it. Strong penalties are important and I support them, but we know that incarceration alone can't solve all our problems. As president, I'd continue to make sure that we treat animal cruelty like the serious crime it is and address its connection to broader patterns of violence."
KathyF September 8th, 2008 07:22:00 AM
Hi ,I have been fighting for poultry rights for about two years. This has been a frustrating painful thing to do but I will continue. If Mccain Palin wins in Nov. I will really have a hard time. But I will continue the fight. If these Christian wannabees truly believed in God , they would have respect for ALL living things. Instead they choose what suits their evil agenda. Money! Money is power and that is what republicans are all about. It really makes me steam that they think we are all so stupid . God said that "the Meek will inherit the earth" This guarantees that animals will all be chosen I am so sure. They bring such joy!
I do not know how Palin can say pro-life and shoot and injure wolves,Moose(which I hear are very easy targets) and say she does not care about the polar bears ,even though they are on the endangered list thanks to melting ice on the north pole. She does not believe in global warming either. All that C02 has got to be going somewhere. Most of it from the meat eating population. Thats another topic.
She is full of double standards, the same old same thing. Another 4 more years of hell for animals? I was an undecided voter. Not anymore Obama got my vote He was ranked #2 in animal welfare issues (second to Hillary C linton) .
Animals kill other animals to survive, SOME people kill animals because they believe that you can not survive without meat, and some like Palin to inflate her enormous ego!
Tierney Grinavic September 8th, 2008 11:11:00 AM
Stefani, AMEN, to your comments about the lack of press coverage. I totally don't get it although I too have wondered if there's some purpose that we'll eventually recognize. Like, is there going to be a huge backlash at some critical moment? The negative side of me wonders if animal welfare and environmental issues will ever be discussed. The optimistic side believes that people feel very strongly about animal welfare.
So many people look at issues in terms of "How will it affect me?" Progress occurs around those people who can look at how policies affect others as well as themselves.
Georgette Madak September 8th, 2008 12:59:00 PM
Georgette: I think these issues can be somewhat dealt with in the context of energy policy. Viewed in this light, many environmental issues, including respect for animal life, can be brought around to average Joe relevance.
Dr. Patty Khuly September 8th, 2008 01:29:00 PM
Georgette,
Thanks.
It's only the blogs educating people about this stuff.
Here is a fabulous piece, written by a Philadelphia writer . . .
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/35799
Stefani September 8th, 2008 02:11:00 PM
Wow after downing street was a tear jerker. I love birds. That got me after all I have seen and heard once again. Defending animals is a tough job. Somebodies got to do it. Thanks for that article. Palin is worse than I even imagined. You know what they say about people who harm or kill animals-they start doing it to humans. Serial killers start that way. I wonder what she has on her agenda besides animals?
Tierney Grinavic September 8th, 2008 02:35:00 PM
this comment is for erich, donna, jennifer, and pitbulls against makeup everywherer...
misspelling "Obama" as "Osama" is as much of an innocent typo as my accidentally spelling the republican party's current VP nominee as "Sarah Stalin" or "SATAN Palin." just because sarah palin is a womb terrorist, whale blubber based cosmetics smearing, global warming ain't caused by humans believing lady doesn't mean i think she's the reanimated body of a past russian dictator. that's the kind of psychological terrain i'd rather shoot at from a helicopter, thank you very much.
thanks for the post & blog dr k, and to everyone for their fantastic comments.
shirley September 8th, 2008 03:34:00 PM
Tierney - You wonder why you have such a sisyphean endeavor when it comes to advancing poultry rights? Attitudes like yours are very off-putting to the VAST majority of Americans. Like it or not, meat is part of a balanced diet and that's not about to change. When you call people evil, it tends to shut them off completely to whatever else you may have to say. You realize that not everyone who kills animals does not turn into a serial killer? I, personally, have killed thousands of animals... but not one human yet. If you don't want to hunt, fine... but don't lay your proclivities to abstain on me.
And the Dave person in that blog had no business with a gun in their hand. Any idiot who mistakes a great horned owl for a turkey should be open to public ridicule and scorn. Responsible hunters practice, in order that their shots are placed in a manner to kill the animal quickly. And holding the animal out while your friend blows off his head? That sounds like a Dick Cheney technique.
Chip September 8th, 2008 04:05:00 PM
Even worse than her stance on aerial culling of wolves, she also sanctioned or voted for legislation that allows hunters to kill brown bears from the Katmai preserve that have become attenuated to humans. If the bears leave the preserve, they can be shot. The bears do not even try to run, they think the hunters are like the other tourists that take photos of them, so the "hunter" can just walk right up to within a few feet and shoot them. It would like shooting cows in a pasture here. There is video of this online on a grizzly bear website in alaska - can't remember the name, but you should be able to google it. Hunting fairly may be one thing, but these people are not true hunters, just evil hearted cowards.
T. Gilbert September 8th, 2008 10:52:00 PM
Well, McCain just lost my vote. We don't need Mike Vick in the White House
tvnewsbadge September 9th, 2008 11:05:00 AM
I would like to respond to Chip who took my comments a bit to seriously. First off the reason poultry is so hard to defend is that people will not give up eating meat. Which I totally understand.I do not force my opinions about not eating meat to people ,instead I teach them about chickens which I have as pets only. They meet them I talk about them end of story. I used to be a meat eater. I stopped when I saw the horrible lives of factory farmed animals. I refuse to be a part of it. It may surprise you being a hunter, that I wish more people would hunt and eat what they kill.Why? Because those wild animals have a50/50 chance to make it , and they have not suffered in a cage. It would not only be healthier, but also reduce the need for factory farming. The difference I see in the type of hunting that Palin does is lack of respect for animals. She is a member of the Safari club. Awful canned hunting, poaching. She seems to have no respect for an animals life. I used to catch fish and clean them and eat them, also crabs, fun to catch when your a kid. My mom would cook them . I also know many hunters including expert bow hunters who respect what they kill. My opinion was meant for a not so nice Palin .Oh by the way you are wrong about having to eat meat to be healthy. Not true. I do not believe every one turns into a serial killer. I was not born yesterday!
Tierney Grinavic September 10th, 2008 04:45:00 PM
Go, Obama, Go!
I think Palin stinks; & if anyone wants to insinuate (& that alone is EXTREMELY subjective) - they'll still have my vote.
Any animal anything is going to have a harder time than what they already do, if she comes in.
One actually wonders what on earth she had to offer McCain that he chose her in the first place?
c September 10th, 2008 09:51:00 PM
I'm appalled by Governor Sarah Palin's treatment of animals and the environment!
It's very disturbing to hear that Sarah Palin supports the barbaric practice of aerial hunting of wolves and bears and that Palin reportedly came out against legislation introduced by Rep. George Miller, a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, that would "end Alaska's policy of allowing people to shoot wolves from airplanes."
Miller is among a large number of folks who believe the practice is not only cruel, it's unnecessary (proponents say it is to keep caribou and moose numbers up for other hunters) and a violation of federal law banning airborne hunting.
Ms. Palin also wants to take both the Polar Bear and the Beluga Whale off the Endangered Species List (since they're getting in the way of more oil drilling) and supports oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
Add to this Ms. Palin's right wing stance on abortion and opposition to stem cell research and her lack of any foreign affairs experience compared to her rival Senator Joe Biden (who is a six-term Senator known for his foreign affairs expertise) and I know that I'm voting for Obama and Biden.
Sarah Palin seems to not only lack experience but also compassion and concern for many different issues and concerns of the American people.
Scout September 11th, 2008 03:24:00 AM
I have my own "litmus tests" for candidates, and THE ENVIRONMENT, including ANIMAL WELFARE, are way toward the top.
But, I firmly believe the American public in general is becoming that way too. For instance -- re the environment -- you can hardly see an advertisement anywhere that isn't touting its "greenness".
And regarding animal welfare, I think the sea-change in thinking happened because of Katrina. The government agencies were SHOCKED! SHOCKED! that many people refused to leave their homes if they couldn't take their pets with them. Notice how trucks for pets were made available recently during Gustav!
So Gov Palin is archaic with her devotion to aerial hunting, and just shows (despite the hockey-mom getup) that she is out of step with the American people.
I recommend an excellent book, "Wilderness and the American Mind" although I believe it's out of print now.
Cathy Horan September 11th, 2008 02:40:00 PM
My vote was decided mostly way before the VP pick, but it was written in stone afterwards. I can not vote for someone that supports exactly what humans are. We are animals in the natural world and although she doesnt hunt humans, she hunts other species that dont need to be and does not like the endangered species list because it prevents her from gaining more money. It is understandable to want your economy to thrive, but at what cost. That economy won't matter once its natural habitat is gone.
It is not just her views on animals that bug me, she was on tv the other day making a speech, cant recall channel, but I was listening in on it and it sounded like she was trying to say we are all going to be sucked up by the aliens and by that I mean murderers(september 11). I am so tired of hearing america say its our job to police the world, and even more so now that the economy has been run into the ground by someone suspicious enough to need an investigation but no one will do one because a little shotgun happy guy is in the VP spot and thats the guy that would take over. It is america's job to take care of america first and to help our alies. I love my country, but what it is doing currently is a repeat in history, think vietnam, and I am not proud of it and do not want to continue it, which McCain has promised to do. Palin just added to his problems.
At this time our country needs some TLC. Our economy is in the toliet and our dependence on foreign oil needs to be changed. I dont mean drill here, I mean find a new resource. Palin's past should be huge concern for a country that wont exist if it continues in its current direction or gets worse. We are already in a debt that will take more than a decade to get out of and being taken advantage of by the bush administration by wiretaping. Does anyone else realize that the government likes to use fear as a way to get votes and illegal things passed? Withholding(yes, the governement takes money out of your check before you even see it, then gets more with taxes), wire taping, etc. They are all against the constitution if this is truly a free country.
Palin is the last thing this country needs if we are going to find a way out of what Bush's administration has done.
Stefani: You literally read my mind.
Jennifer:Dont you think its a little late to ask after they are sworn in?
Chip: Didn't Ron Paul run as a republican for years? How does that suddenly make him a libertarian?
LorriM: When this is a free country, I will be able to say **** **** **** **** when I want to and not be arrested, searched, etc. for it. When this is a free country, my views will be respected by the government and the way I raise a child will not be questioned as long as it is not abuse(the country tends to think if your child is not raised to societies standards, then you are abusing your child or if your child doesnt hug the stranger from defax/child takers then thats weird). Please keep in mind that popular vote you put in, doesnt count. It is the electoral college that decides who gets in, not the public although there has been talk about letting the electoral college go. That would save time and tax payer money and make votes from the public count. We could spend that saved money to pay off the outrageous debts we have, but it will go to something we dont need(a baseball museum) or a lost cause(oil).
Larry: Isnt alaska part of America? Then they have to follow americas rules. I am not saying force anything on anyone, you want to hunt, hunt for over populated animals. My carnivorous dogs would love the meat, but I dont think its appropriate to continue on with something thats proving itself wrong, oil is going sky high in prices and continues getting worse with each passing hurricane. Drilling for more is not going to change those prices. Also it is the middle men jacking up the prices. Price margins for both the oil companies and the gas stations show it is not either of them. It is time for a new renewable source of energy.
Tierney: Personally, I do not eat meat or dairy, but my carnivorous pets eat raw meaty bones and organs. They are all rescues so I did not condone breeding them, but I do think that now they are in my care and they deserve to have the diet their species needs. That is raw meaty bones and organs. I can not force my moral views on another species. I dont think its right to mistreat the animals that give their lives, but I cant stop buying meat because my dogs live off of it and are not naturally made to live as vegans or omnivores.
Overall I support species appropriate diets. Humans, in my opinion, should be herbivores.
Emily September 13th, 2008 05:40:00 AM
check out www.fund.org It is the legislative watchdog branch of the USHS. It gives Scorecards for al the reps in both the senate and the house. On the most recent mid-term report on the 110th congress : Joe Biden scored a 75% as did Barak Obama. Mccain scored a 25%. With Palin's record it kind of makes you wonder between the two of them what kind of animal rights policies they would have in office, if elected.
ed September 15th, 2008 08:30:00 PM
STAND UP AMERICA for those who cannot with your vote. We need to pay alot more attention to whom we vote into our government. Let's send a message loud and clear this November. No to animal cruelty, no to this Repub. ticket.
katie belle September 16th, 2008 02:01:00 PM
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-stanek...
http://nobamanews.blogspot.com/2008/07/allison-bak...
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)
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm#...
george September 16th, 2008 03:33:00 PM
That heartless poor excuse for a human will never get my vote. Too much contradiction in her presentation and what really lurks inside of her. Her "experience" in Alaska hardly defines her as someone who has their finger on the pulse of America. What's next with her, aerial hunting of illegal immigrants and she pays the bounty hunters for each hand or foot they drop on her doorstep?
Steve September 16th, 2008 04:18:00 PM
To George: I may or may not agree with abortion issues on all levels and I do think that what you are bringing up is terrible,but did you know that unless you hunt and kill your own meat, billions yes Billions of animals and poultry are kicked beaten dismembered skineed alive and boiled to death every day!!!! God created all living things ,not just humans. We have no right to kill off entire species or kill this magnificent planet that God created either. Why don't you republicans get that?? Let me guess you only follow your own little agendas. Stay out of mine.
Tierney Grinavic September 16th, 2008 05:43:00 PM
Please watch
http://actionfund.defenders.org/palintvwolf
Stefani September 18th, 2008 04:45:00 PM
Now Doctor, I can't have all the smart, beautiful women in my life fighting.
I don't see the location of the shooter as all that relevant. Up in a helo, on a snow machine, in a blind... the animals are still dead, no? Location seems to speak to how sporting the "sport" actually is, but so does the gun and the bullet and the scope. Helo hunting is sensational, but IMO focusing on it takes away from the issue at the core, as you say, of what kind of pruning measures we really need in Alaska.
Also the Pit Bulls, you can't pin that on Palin. And you can't pin that on society at large. Their VERY NAME speaks to their use, their history isn't rosey and cute, and if you really want to change their image you have to ditch the name first. And if you want a new image you also have to concede that the supposedly benign version isn't existentially a pit bull, just a look alike, or perhaps a "defanged" version. And if it's defanged, what's the purpose in even having them if not for what you didn't take out... mostly their looks.
And why do you want to have a dog that looks like a once vicious bull baiter but isn't? That's sending mixed messages.
I also worry about the breeds like the PB, say the Doberman, who has been pushed from normal, to vicious, to normal again and as a result is a genetic mess. 50% of them have a lethal heart condition?!!
It makes you wonder if some breeds shouldn't just wander off into obscurity or extinction.
No answers, just observations.
Christopher September 21st, 2008 06:35:00 AM
If the wolf hunting was actually for population regulation, well... I still think it sucks to use aircraft. I really wish they'd hunt more deer around here though -- for the deer's sake. I think animal welfare is THE issue for any election -- not because I think humans don't matter, but because if a country and society can't even keep its animals happy, safe, and thriving (who are content with so much less than humans demand!), then there's no way it's doing right by its people. And if what's good for people turns out to be bad for animals, then we need to rethink what's good for people. (And what's good for animals, as it happens, is NOT always to be left to their own devices in the wilderness!) As for Obama and McCain's records -- given what a screw-up federally mandated environmentalism has turned out to be, I was interested to know that some very serious conservationists were actually leaning Ron Paul. (And banning horse slaughter for consumption just means that the horses are being shipped to Mexico where it's still legal -- actually much worse off for the horses.)
sarah September 21st, 2008 10:07:00 PM
Thank you God for Obama's win last night!!!!!!!! Thank you California for passing Prop.2. A small victory for factory farm animals leading to a giant step to END factory farming!!!!! Thank you God!!
Tierney Grinavic November 5th, 2008 10:21:00 AM
Add Commment