Where Do the Veep Candidates Stand on Animals?

Originally posted by blackbox
Wolves are one of the most beautiful and family oriented creatures on the planet in my opinion and I cherish and adore them as a species. I can't, in all good conscience, vote for someone as cold-hearted as this person in regards to such wonderful creatures.

Yes they are.
As has been expressed throughout this thread, for some this is a non issue, for others it can mean everything. Maybe we buy our mirrors at different stores.

CAUTION: This is a disturbing video.

Sarah Palin Supports Aerial Hunting of Wolves

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Just soul crushing.
What else can you say?

This just came out on the issue at hand:

Environmentalists have nicknamed Palin the "killa from Wasilla," a reference to the small town where she formerly was mayor.

"Her philosophy from our perspective is cut, kill, dig and drill," said John Toppenberg, director of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, maintaining she is "in the Stone Age of wildlife management and is very opposed to utilizing accepted science."

While acknowledging the climate is changing, Palin expresses doubt as to whether emissions from human activities are causing it. McCain, on the other hand, supports legislation to reduce heat-trapping pollutants, primarily from the burning of oil and coal.

"John McCain was all about global warming and the integrity of the science. The selection of Sarah Palin is a complete reversal from that position," said Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C., who traveled to the South Pole with McCain in 2006 to visit with scientists studying climate change. "She is disturbingly part of the pattern of the Bush administration in their approach to science generally and the science of the environment in particular."

—Her administration disputes conclusions by the federal National Marine Fisheries Service and its science advisers that the beluga whale population is in critical danger. The state argues that 2007 data shows the whale rebounding.

—Palin opposed a state ballot initiative to increase protection of salmon streams from mining operations. It was defeated.

—She also opposed a ballot initiative barring the shooting of wolves and bears from aircraft except in biological emergencies. It was also defeated.

newsday/ap

She just gets sweeter and sweeter.

Sarah Palin preferes to stand on the front shoulder or neck.

Standing near the hind quarters of a wounded moose or polar bear can be a dangerous manuver. Once a firm stance is achieved a final killing shot can then be easily taken finishing off the beast!

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Let's talk issues for a sec. This particular one is high on my personal list. As an animal owner and wildlife admirer I feel very strongly about the issues that affect those living around us whom have no voice to defend themselves.

Gov. Sarah Palin:

As of today, the contrast could not be more clear: While Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) has been a leader in the Senate to protect marine mammals and exotic wildlife, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) has denied the threats facing polar bears and has led her state's efforts to gun down wolves from airplanes and helicopters...

Last year, the state offered a $150 bounty as an incentive for pilots and aerial gunners to kill more wolves. And leading up to this week's statewide vote on Measure 2 to stop the aerial shooting of wolves and bears, Palin's Board of Game spent $400,000 of public money on brochures and radio ads to influence the election. She not only took an inhumane and unsporting position at odds with the principles of wildlife management and fair chase, but did it in an undemocratic and underhanded way.
Huff Post

Anchorage daily news
msnbc
Humane Society
AP

If you think that Wolves are cute, cuddly creatures that should never be shot, then you know nothing of Alaska, or the Wilderness in general. As for Bears, do you know how densely populated they are in Alaska?

I will simply assume you do not know the reality, so I hope you truly take my words with insight and not insult.

For one, I am a huge Animal person. I have had pets my entire life, and I can tell you no one has ever been more upset at the loss of animal life than I. I also am the type of person that could never hunt nor shoot an animal unless it was for survival, or in absolute self-defense. On the same note though, I have absolutely nothing against hunters in general. Hunters not only serve a critical function in our society, as they bring food to many of our tables, but they also serve to keep wild animals from overpopulating. I am all for conservation, but what many conservationists forget is that humans have been a natural part of the food chain for millions of years. Now we all know that if you completely eliminate or greatly degenerate a section or element of the food chain, chaos will ensue. So what do you think happens when people are restricted or completely eliminated from hunting wild animals? Well, it depends on the affected animal.

If the animal is a Herbivore, such as Deer, Elk, and Moose, they overpopulate and begin to cause an increase in: car accidents, negative human interactions, and cases of starvation as their food supply can quickly become exhausted. If there is not a large enough water source to support their population jump, they then die of thirst. I know first hand from many hunters/farmers that there is NOTHING worse than watching a starving animal. Especially bad is when that starving animal is a fawn, or juvenile, and/or their starvation is brought about by the death of their parent due to the very same thing. In such a situation for instance, if more Bucks (Males) are hunted, and Does (Females) with Fawns left alone (which is a Hunter's code for all Animals), then you will rarely ever cross such a preventable situation.

Now on the other end of the Spectrum we have Carnivores such as Wolves, Bears, and Mountain Lions. Mountain Lions are rarely of concern since they live very solitary lives, and cats are (naturally) only inclined to attack fast moving objects (ie, bicycles), or when they are cornered. Wolves and Bears are a MUCH different story. Bears vary depending on the species. Black Bears attack People for Food, Brown Bears attack for Territory, and Polar Bears attack People as their Next Meal. Sows (Moms) with Cubs are the same all around however, and they will charge and attack outright with no mercy (can you blame them?). To generalize however, Bears can naturally be wary of Humans as long as they have experiences which teach them to avoid them. In some places, such as Campgrounds in UpState NY, they drive "Bumper Cars" around and hit Bears that become too curious, but it does not hurt them, it only spooks them. The wild thing is, it actually works. The Bears walk around the campground, but they don't overly harass the people, which is a miracle given the number of naive individuals that try and actually hand them food. Anyways, the lesson is that if you cease any and all hunting of Boars (Male Bears), then you take away the only form of Human induced fear that they know. As a result, Human attacks increase, as do Home break-ins, and Vehicle Accidents.

In regards to Wolves, they lose any and all fear of Humans after only one Generation of No Hunting. It is SO bad in Alaska, that in One December Alone, 165 Pet Dogs were snatched out of City yards in Fairbanks, AK, and consumed. People are being stalked in broad daylight, and Wolves are even attempting to snatch dogs right off their leashes while being walked. Elmendorf AFB in Anchorage, AK is actually incorporating a new method of reinstating fear without killing, so that it passes down throughout the Elmendorf Pack. They are luring Wolves in using bait, then opening up on them with pyrotechnics, rubber bullets, and explosives. So far it has worked. However, Wolves are smart and they will learn. For example, they even know that Huskies are easy meals, since sled dogs are typically chained down. The scary part is, all Wolves know this, almost as if the instinct has passed over the entire state. Bottom line, the Wolves need to be hunted, they are running out of control with little concern for human interaction.

There are around 15,000 Wolves Populating Alaska ALONE.
There are OVER 100,000 Bears Populating Alaska, ALONE.
Over 50,000 Brown Bears (Brownies, Grizzlies, Kodiaks),
Over 45,000 Black Bears,
Over 12,000 Polar Bears.

ALL of this, JUST in the Great State of Alaska.

BTW, a distinction should be made between "Hunters", and "Poachers". They are NOT the same.

[edit on 9-5-2008 by TheAgentNineteen]

Op I agree, when I read about the arial hunting it bothered me too, in fact I brought it up in another thread. On the otherhand, the NRA and other hunting organizations are often very pro wetlands and pro wildlife habitat. The wildlife issues thing is a big deal to me too, and I thought about it during the domestic drilling debate, but now that both parties say they will drill it has become somewhat of a wash.

Both McCain and Obama have scored as high as 75% Humane Society Legislative Fund's "Humane Scorecard” some years, and much lower other years.

Senator John McCain, perhaps the most colorful character in the early race, certainly has the most colorful menagerie. The McCain family shelters four cats, three dogs—two mini-Dobermans and a springer spaniel—three parakeets, two snakes, one rabbit, one turtle, one hamster, one mouse, one iguana, one gecko, and 13 fish. In summer 2000, the family also cared for one orphan jackrabbit and one iguana egg (courtesy of the McCain iguana, Henrietta).

"Any man who does not like dogs and want them about does not deserve to be in the White House," President Calvin Coolidge

How many pets does Obama have? Errrm…none. But he says his kids want a dog, so they may get one (yeah see his KIDS want one, no mention that Michelle or Barack want a dog, which makes sense because if they really liked dogs they would have one!).


[edit on 5-9-2008 by Sonya610]