Steve, that link you posted can't be viewed by everybody. The image in it could either be satirical or idiotic; but, judging from the intro line beneath it, I have to assume the latter.
I really think it is abhorrent to hunt for sport. If someone has to hunt to feed themselves (they either can't afford or can't get to store bought meat), then I am fine with them hunting any animal that is not in danger, considered a companion animal (horses or dogs for example - depending on the culture), or of higher intelligence (dolphins, certain primates, etc.). If someone can afford a helicopter ride, then they can afford chicken... there is no need for them to hunt, so they are just getting off on destruction. As for population control, there are many humane, affordable options. That being said, the hunting issue for Palin is my least problem with her.
I agree about not hunting for pure sport. Those people give hunters a bad name.
However, a lot of the people where I grew up hunted not out of need per se, but out of economy. A few deer provide a lot of meat, and if you butcher them properly, you can freeze it and have a sizable store to get you through a long winter. You can also mix it with store-bought beef and thus reduce your food bill. The hide can be used for a variety of things, and so on and so forth. Certainly you don't need to hunt, but in economically depressed rural areas, it sure as hell isn't a bad idea.
As for population control, I can't really think of too many humane methods that don't involve relocation. If you relocate, you're not really fixing the problem; you're just pawning it off to someone else. Deer and red squirrels are good examples of this; deer populations, when unchecked, will overgraze land to the point of ruin, and red squirrels, if not dealt with, will continue to invade homes and destroy electrical lines. The goal is to use hunting to properly manage a population.
Population control via helicopter is idiocy. Just give out more game tags and let hunters do their thing. That way, somebody gets some use out of the animals.
And Palin is a terrible choice for reasons beyond the hunting thing, I most certainly agree.
However, a lot of the people where I grew up hunted not out of needper se, but out ofeconomy.A few deer provide a lot of meat, and if you butcher them properly, you can freeze it and have a sizable store to get you through a long winter. You can also mix it with store-bought beef and thus reduce your food bill. The hide can be used for a variety of things, and so on and so forth. Certainly you don'tneedto hunt, but in economically depressed rural areas, it sure as hell isn't a bad idea.
As for population control, I can't really think of too many humane methods that don't involve relocation.
I lived in such a depressed area and I can attest to those benefits. However, when people I knew hunted, they didn't hunt birds that had been drugged/tied down/had their pin feathers cut like Cheney does and they didn't run down an animal until it was exhausted, wound it from the air, and then allow it to suffer during the time it takes to land and track it down like Palin does. It's that extra heaping helping of cruelty that I find so objectionable, not only because it's disgusting, but because I believe that it's a strong indication of how liable the participant is to be cruel as a political leader.
I mostly fear if McCain gets in we are really voting for his vice president due to McCain's health issues in the past. Being a president is stressfull and at his age and health I don't see him lasting too long.
Population control via helicopter is idiocy. Just give out more game tags and let hunters do their thing. That way, somebody gets some use out of the animals.
You do realize the scale of Alaska, no? This would work in Michigan, but Alaska has some insanely remote areas.
Population control via helicopter is idiocy. Just give out more game tags and let hunters do their thing. That way, somebody gets some use out of the animals.
You do realize the scale of Alaska, no? This would work in Michigan, but Alaska has some insanely remote areas.
And there are plenty of hunters willing to make the trek. There is no need for population control via helicpoter. It's wasteful and unnecessary.
Besides, if those areas are so remote, why is there a need to control them? The only time you really need population control is when there exists tension because of human/animal cohabitation. If there's an unspoiled area of wilderness, you leave it be and let it do its own thing.
And there are plenty of hunters willing to make the trek.
Source? We're talking about some insanely remote areas.
Besides, if those areas aresoremote, why is there a need to control them? The only time you really need population control is when there exists tension because of human/animal cohabitation. If there's an unspoiled area of wilderness, you leave it be and let it do its own thing.
This is only true to a certain extent. With any predator-prey relationship there are periods where either the predator or the prey are immensely stressed. Seeking to balance this keeps both the predators and the prey healthy at all times.
In a harsh environment such as Alaska, I can see why you don't want to chance it with a stressed animal population. A couple of harsh winters, and the population will get way out of whack.
So yes, they would take care of themselves naturally. However, this is not an ideal situation for the animals.
See, the "population control" angle is not to control the number of animals living on limited resources. It's to make sure that other pleasure hunters have enough to kill.
Source? We're talking about some insanely remote areas.
Source? You're kidding, right? How about the numerous safari companies and hunting guide companies that specialize in taking hunters out to remote areas? The market wouldn't exist if no hunters wanted to go there.
Besides, if those areas aresoremote, why is there a need to control them? The only time you really need population control is when there exists tension because of human/animal cohabitation. If there's an unspoiled area of wilderness, you leave it be and let it do its own thing.
This is only true to a certain extent. With any predator-prey relationship there are periods where either the predator or the prey are immensely stressed. Seeking to balance this keeps both the predators and the prey healthy at all times.
In a harsh environment such as Alaska, I can see why you don't want to chance it with a stressed animal population. A couple of harsh winters, and the population will get way out of whack.
So yes, they would take care of themselves naturally. However, this is not an ideal situation for the animals.
Bullshit. Utter bullshit. If the population gets out of whack, the ecosystem will correct itself; a new predator will take care of prey overabundance, or prey will die because of lack of food, etc. This is how evolution works. When WE meddle with the predator/prey relationships in an environment, WE throw things out of whack. What's "ideal" for the animals is to allow the ecosystem in the area to thrive on its own with minimal to no disruption. If a population is stressed, well, it adapts or dies. That's how things go. It's typical human arrogance to think that we can "improve" the situation in an ecosystem. We need to balance it where we coexist and leave it the hell alone everywhere else.
But starting in 2003, Murkowski opened the airborne shooting to citizens with special permits and expanded predator-control programs to cover 60,000 square miles of state and federal land, the largest wolf-killing operation since Alaska became a state. The stated goal is to reduce wolf populations in some areas by 60 to 80 percent. Teams of pilots and gunners have killed at least 795 wolves since 2003. Conservationists counter that the total number of wolves trapped, shot from airplanes, chased down by snow machines, and killed legally and illegally in Alaska every year is more along the lines of 2,000.
Scientists insist that the Palin administration is systematically killing wolves with an inadequate understanding of the relationship between the carnivore and hoofed animals. The state responds that predators kill over 80 percent of the moose and caribou that die each year, while hunters and trappers kill less than 10 percent.
Haber says the state's numbers are wildly inflated. His decades of wolf research have shown that wolves are, in fact, mostly scavengers. "Sixty to 70 percent of the moose they eat are scavenged, not killed," he says. He adds that the state's wolf population estimates, based on secondhand observations and extrapolations, are also high.
Palin offered the $150 bounty for wolf paws in 2007 after efforts to kill wolves from airplanes that season were, in her view, coming up short. State officials had hoped that 382 to 664 wolves would be killed during that predator-control season. State officials were disappointed when only 115 wolves were killed from the air.
Palin thought the $150 cash bounties would do the trick. Haber has another explanation for the dry spell. "I can tell you from my own research that the reason they didn't get many wolves in certain years, particularly last winter, is because they have scraped those areas clean," he says.
Bullshit. Utter bullshit. If the population gets out of whack, the ecosystem will correct itself; a new predator will take care of prey overabundance, or prey will die because of lack of food, etc. This is how evolution works. When WE meddle with the predator/prey relationships in an environment, WE throw things out of whack. What's "ideal" for the animals is to allow the ecosystem in the area to thrive on its own with minimal to no disruption. If a population is stressed, well, it adapts or dies. That's how things go. It's typical human arrogance to think that we can "improve" the situation in an ecosystem. We need to balance it where we coexist and leave it the hell alone everywhere else.
This may happen in Alaska but not in suburban PA with deer... Just a note :-p
This may happen in Alaska but not in suburban PA with deer... Just a note :-p
He said anywhere that humans WEREN'T.
Kilarney! Duh, already! You are being deaf to the fact that this is WOLF hunting to increase caribou population for human hunters. How often have we said that?
Frankly, I see the Palin bashing as playing into the Republican hands. Obama has a great message, but it's gotten entirely lost. The Dems are looking like old school whiners - not agents for change. And they aren't even attacking the actual presidential candidate! Even some femenists are warming up to Palin.
A far-left blog that I read hit the nail on the head: Because the polling news hasn’t been good. While the lib-Dems have been blogging and pontificating themselves into a stupor over all the stupid stuff about Palin, the American people have been moving away from Obama and toward – say what? – the McCain/Palin ticket. And the movement has been significant enough for the likes of Kos, AmericaBlog and Talking Points Memo – three leading liberal blogs – to use words like “panic,†“worried†and “overestimated†while describing the current state of affairs.
Worse, the lib-Dems are refusing to look in the mirror while trying to come up with a reason for the Obama/Biden slip in the polls and the near-derailment in its messaging. Instead, they keep hitting the whining button and doing what they hate most in their conservative counterparts: Blaming the media and getting slimier and slimier with their personal attacks. Anything, in fact, but face the fact that their candidates and their party have all but abandoned “the issues†at the very moment when voters are beginning to ponder them.
Given the shift in momentum. it's time for the Dems to rethink their strategy. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Nobody cares about wolf hunting when they are worried about losing their job and national security. The Dems have been totally sidetracked. Time to get back to the core message. It's their election to win or lose. Which path will they take? Obama should easily be 10-15 points ahead right now. Anything less indicates that not all cylinders are firing.
As loathe as I am to admit it, I truly believe that Hillary would have been a better choice. It may be academic, but there will be a lot of sweating until that time.
Translation: I cannot credibly counter any of Palin's huge negatives, so I'll simply ignore them and tell myself the post-convention bump means that McCain is winning.
Translation: I cannot credibly counter any of Palin's huge negatives, so I'll simply ignore them and tell myself the post-convention bump means that McCain is winning.
Joe, I've stated that I'm no longer willing to debate you. Please don't antagonize me anymore so we can keep things more civil here. Seriously, our going back and forth serves no purpose anymore. If you've noticed, I have refrained on commenting on your posts. That's because I was serious when I said that I wanted to clean things up here.
Translation: I cannot credibly counter any of Palin's huge negatives, so I'll simply ignore them and tell myself the post-convention bump means that McCain is winning.
Joe, I've stated that I'm no longer willing to debate you. Please don't antagonize me anymore so we can keep things more civil here. Seriously, our going back and forth serves no purpose anymore. If you've noticed, I have refrained on commenting on your posts. That's because I was serious when I said that I wanted to clean things up here.
News flash . . . this is a public forum. This is not a personal conversation between any two people. People on this forum are free to comment on whatever they choose. Posts that become public on this board are subject to comment.
Man, you people are so hilarious. I'm the one always talking about how everything is just bullshit, and you are all talking about how much everything matters, and it's somehow your duty to pay attention. Yet, everything you talk about is just media circus nonsense. Scandal this, opinion poll that, strategy this, media bias that.
If this shit really does matter, and isn't just a farcical media circus, then the only thing that matters should be issues and candidate's stances on those issues. Polls shouldn't matter, because you shouldn't be picking based on what other people think. You should pick based on what you think. Advertisements shouldn't matter. People's ability to "stay on message" shouldn't matter. "Momentum" shouldn't matter. All those things are just the media.
You're not actually judging these candidates themselves. You're picking a winner based on the TV show about these candidates that is the news. It's not their actual positions, and actual effect on the future, that you are deciding. You are deciding based upon who is better at playing the show business and PR game.
It's just hilarious to see everyone talk about all the other voters out there as if they are pawns in a game to be won, when it is you who are the pawns.
Ignore the show, and only consider the reality, if you can.
Polls shouldn't matter, because you shouldn't be picking based on what other people think. You should pick based on what you think.
There are two separate issues here. Polls don't matter to me in determining who to vote for. Polls, however, matter greatly in trying to predict who will win an election. Different tools for different jobs.
Polls, however, matter greatly in trying to predict who will win an election.
And in this case, all your polls have shown me, not to my surprise, is that the closer a candidate is to what I believe, the less likely they are to be elected. Americans seem to want terrible leaders, lies, and sensation. They vote against their own self-interest, and pursue agendas/issues that display a frightening lack of foresight.
I'm not willing to compromise my own opinions based on the uninformed opinions of the masses. The things the Democrats would need to do to substantially raise those poll numbers would remove any reason I had to vote for them in the first place.
Americans seem to want terrible leaders, lies, and sensation.
No argument there. When you think that, out of 300 million people, we've narrowed it down to these two, it's shocking.
The things the Democrats would need to do to substantially raise those poll numbers would remove any reason I had to vote for them in the first place.
I disagree with that. Obama seems to do his best when he delivers a positive message. While I'm not enthused by either candidate, there is a lot that Obama can say that is positive and is good. Historically, he's done very well when he has pointed out what he can do right - and what he has to offer that's good for the country.
Well, one "feminist" who regularly contributes to FOX News.
I love how you put it in quotes, as it should be. RymLove++<3</p>
Alan Colmes, Bernie Sanders, Geraldine Ferraro, Juan Williams and Al Sharpton all appear regularly on Fox News. Discrediting her for her appearances, without knowing the context, is not fair. It's also irrelevant. The point is that this woman identifies herself as a feminist. There must be others like her out there.
The $64,000 question is how many women who supported Hillary will jump ship. It doesn't seem to be a flood by any stretch, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Any so called feminist who votes for Palin just because she has 2 X chromosomes is doing it wrong.
Comments
It won't take very long for people to remember that Bush is a republican :-p and McCain is the same :-p
Meanwhile, Palin shows that she doesn't know what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are, which should be very encouraging for the people who claim that Republicans are the better candidates for financial responsibility.
Clearly a bad sign... Unless of course the amount of volunteers was 5... :-p
However, a lot of the people where I grew up hunted not out of need per se, but out of economy. A few deer provide a lot of meat, and if you butcher them properly, you can freeze it and have a sizable store to get you through a long winter. You can also mix it with store-bought beef and thus reduce your food bill. The hide can be used for a variety of things, and so on and so forth. Certainly you don't need to hunt, but in economically depressed rural areas, it sure as hell isn't a bad idea.
As for population control, I can't really think of too many humane methods that don't involve relocation. If you relocate, you're not really fixing the problem; you're just pawning it off to someone else. Deer and red squirrels are good examples of this; deer populations, when unchecked, will overgraze land to the point of ruin, and red squirrels, if not dealt with, will continue to invade homes and destroy electrical lines. The goal is to use hunting to properly manage a population.
Population control via helicopter is idiocy. Just give out more game tags and let hunters do their thing. That way, somebody gets some use out of the animals.
And Palin is a terrible choice for reasons beyond the hunting thing, I most certainly agree.
Besides, if those areas are so remote, why is there a need to control them? The only time you really need population control is when there exists tension because of human/animal cohabitation. If there's an unspoiled area of wilderness, you leave it be and let it do its own thing.
In a harsh environment such as Alaska, I can see why you don't want to chance it with a stressed animal population. A couple of harsh winters, and the population will get way out of whack.
So yes, they would take care of themselves naturally. However, this is not an ideal situation for the animals.
Scientists protest aerial wolf hunting.
See, the "population control" angle is not to control the number of animals living on limited resources. It's to make sure that other pleasure hunters have enough to kill.
Kilarney! Duh, already! You are being deaf to the fact that this is WOLF hunting to increase caribou population for human hunters. How often have we said that?
Wow...Wonder what she did to her...
Numerous polls have McCain leading. Indpendents are flocking to McCain. (Mind you Obama is still doing well with the electoral college.)
Frankly, I see the Palin bashing as playing into the Republican hands. Obama has a great message, but it's gotten entirely lost. The Dems are looking like old school whiners - not agents for change. And they aren't even attacking the actual presidential candidate! Even some femenists are warming up to Palin.
A far-left blog that I read hit the nail on the head:
Because the polling news hasn’t been good. While the lib-Dems have been blogging and pontificating themselves into a stupor over all the stupid stuff about Palin, the American people have been moving away from Obama and toward – say what? – the McCain/Palin ticket. And the movement has been significant enough for the likes of Kos, AmericaBlog and Talking Points Memo – three leading liberal blogs – to use words like “panic,†“worried†and “overestimated†while describing the current state of affairs.
Worse, the lib-Dems are refusing to look in the mirror while trying to come up with a reason for the Obama/Biden slip in the polls and the near-derailment in its messaging. Instead, they keep hitting the whining button and doing what they hate most in their conservative counterparts: Blaming the media and getting slimier and slimier with their personal attacks. Anything, in fact, but face the fact that their candidates and their party have all but abandoned “the issues†at the very moment when voters are beginning to ponder them.
Given the shift in momentum. it's time for the Dems to rethink their strategy. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Nobody cares about wolf hunting when they are worried about losing their job and national security. The Dems have been totally sidetracked. Time to get back to the core message. It's their election to win or lose. Which path will they take? Obama should easily be 10-15 points ahead right now. Anything less indicates that not all cylinders are firing.
As loathe as I am to admit it, I truly believe that Hillary would have been a better choice. It may be academic, but there will be a lot of sweating until that time.
If this shit really does matter, and isn't just a farcical media circus, then the only thing that matters should be issues and candidate's stances on those issues. Polls shouldn't matter, because you shouldn't be picking based on what other people think. You should pick based on what you think. Advertisements shouldn't matter. People's ability to "stay on message" shouldn't matter. "Momentum" shouldn't matter. All those things are just the media.
You're not actually judging these candidates themselves. You're picking a winner based on the TV show about these candidates that is the news. It's not their actual positions, and actual effect on the future, that you are deciding. You are deciding based upon who is better at playing the show business and PR game.
It's just hilarious to see everyone talk about all the other voters out there as if they are pawns in a game to be won, when it is you who are the pawns.
Ignore the show, and only consider the reality, if you can.
I'm not willing to compromise my own opinions based on the uninformed opinions of the masses. The things the Democrats would need to do to substantially raise those poll numbers would remove any reason I had to vote for them in the first place.
Any so called feminist who votes for Palin just because she has 2 X chromosomes is doing it wrong.
The $64,000 question is how many women who supported Hillary will jump ship. It doesn't seem to be a flood by any stretch, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I Absolutely agree.