Sarah Palin supports aerial hunting

The Defenders of Action Wildlife Fund put out a strong ad addressing Sarah Palin’s position on aerial hunting.

This is a must-see for all animal lovers.

And for the hunters out there from both parties – this is not hunting. This is not sport. This is just mean and cruel.

This is the mission statement from the Defenders of Action Wildlife Fund

Mission Statement: The Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund provides a powerful voice in Washington to Americans who value our conservation heritage. Through grassroots lobbying, issue advocacy and political campaigns, the Action Fund champions those laws and lawmakers that protect wildlife and wild places while working against those that do them harm.

For more information, go to Defenders of Action Wildlife Fund

Advertisements

14 responses to “Sarah Palin supports aerial hunting

  1. The term for this is predator control; not ariel hunting. The wolf populations were out of balance with game animals. Although, Anti-hunting groups don’t like it – the practice is really no different than selective thinning of urban deer populations.

  2. There’s very little selective thinning of urban deer populations. I live near Valley Forge Park and there is NO thinning going on.

    This is not predator control. The wolf population will not grow larger than it’s food supply. You mentioned the real issue… it is game animals. The shooting of wolves is for the benefit of hunters.

    Let’s compare wolves and hunters. When wolves take down an animal, they eat until they are full and then they move on leaving uneaten portions which then feed other wildlife. Good for the ecosystem. Hunters kill their prey then take it all with them leaving no droppings for other, smaller animals. Bad for the ecosystem.

    I’m not against hunting as long as the animal has a fair chance in beating the hunter. Aerial hunting is NOT population control. It is killing an animal by an giving the hunter an unfair advantage. By the way, I have friends that hunt and would not call shooting an animal from an airplane or helicopter hunting. They call it murder and brutal. And explain, why shoot the wolves with buckshot? What’s wrong with a clean shot to the head or vital organs? Maybe the shooter is a bad shot and needs the buckshot spray, huh?

  3. Here’s a document from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. They call it “Predator Control for Wolves” (see page 4). They also say, “…that this program is wolf control, not wolf hunting.”

    As the the statement that there is no “deer thinning” going on. All you have to do is look at the Dept of fiah and game sites in states with large Metro areas to see specially managed hunts to reduce deer populations.

    http://www.wc.adfg.state.ak.us/regulations/pdfs/predator_control.pdf

  4. Shawn,
    Last July, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission released a report stating that the high oil prices are due to supply and demand so we should believe it since it was released by a government agency. Even when Masters Capital Management released their report with detailed explanations saying that the price was mostly caused by speculation.

    I guess the government intel saying that Iraq had WMD’s was believable because it came from a government agency even though experts who were on actually on the ground said that they didn’t – including Scott Ritter who did speak out and then was smeared for speaking against the administration.

    So when a government agency calls it predator control, we should believe them.
    Aerial hunting is lazy and elite. It’s not like everyone can take a plane up to shoot at animals. Cats makes a great point that the animal should have a fair chance at beating the hunter. But then again, how does that compare going into a pen and shooting at quail with limited flight?

  5. Shawn – The heads of the departments of Fish and Game are usually political appointees so of course, they are going to support Palin’s position. This “predator control” is just like George W Bush’s “clear skies” bill… phony. My2Bucks makes a good point in comparing these false statements made by the government by using the WMDs in Iraq as an example.

    No way, no how will I ever trust a Republican in office.

  6. Hmmm….ariel wolf control compared to WMD’s ???

    I guess I’ll have to ponder that one.

    Not everyone is going to agree with methods of animal and predator population control. I’m just saying that those who are “charged” with this task are calling it what it is: predator control….not hunting.

  7. Shawn,
    Not comparing hunting to WMD’s. I’m implying that you can not always trust what the government agencies say.
    I agree, people will not agree on the terminology.

    Dr. Jack Kevorkian assisted people who were terminally ill and suffering with ending their lives putting the patient and their family (who had to watch the suffering) out of misery. Some call it euthanasia, while others called it assisted-suicide but the law still called it murder. As a result, Kevorkian was convicted of murder.

  8. I think the attempt to see “politics” in game management is a stretch. I attended a university that had a strong program for those going into Fish and Wildlife conservation as well as other natural resource conservation.

    Most of the people in this field are passionately interested in their field of study – not the politics of those above them. They are interested in conserving our resources appropriately for the public and future generations to use.

    Unfortunately, sometimes politics can come into play with their policies. But I would say it is the rare exception, not the rule. Thus, the people and agencies that are responsible for natural resource conservation are not swaying their reports and policies based on the political winds.

    There is also the attempt to emotionalize sport hunting and game management. Unfortunately, this just comes down to opinion and often not facts – especially in a political season where any reason discredit an opponent is grasped at – on both sides.

    Just my humble opinion.

  9. Also, for Cat r Flyfishin,

    Deer control by lethal methods is being considered for Valley Forge Park. Since it is a national historic site hunting cannot be used, it would be federal employees or contractors using lethal methods (firearms and/or archery equipment):

    http://www.nps.gov/vafo/parkmgmt/upload/Final%20Internal%20deer%20Scoping%20Report.pdf

    The PA Dept of Game has a plan for urban deer control:

    http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=465&q=167793

  10. Cats…

    They are considering controlling the deer in Valley Forge National Park throgh lethal means. Since it’s an historic site they can’t hold managed hunts; it will be federal employees or contractors using lethal means (firearms or archery equip), if they go this route…

    http://www.nps.gov/vafo/parkmgmt/upload/Final%20Internal%20deer%20Scoping%20Report.pdf

    The state of PA does have an urban deer management strategy which includes removal by lethal means; hunting in this case:

    http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=465&q=167793

  11. Sorry! Double post.

  12. Airborneranger

    Your quoting Scott Ritter one of the biggest dingbats going and a paid mouth piece of Iraq, prior to liberation. The assholes a traitor to put it bluntly.

    Give animials a fair chances? Maybe we should arm them. That seems fair.

  13. You know Air, your comments are getting dumber and dumber. Scott Ritter was right, wasn’t he? Your opinion of Ritter shows everyone that you are getting all of your information from the right wing hacks. Their mantra is trash anyone who disagrees with their position. Ritter got slammed because he stated facts – facts that would have alerted Americans to the lies of the administration and possibly kept us for going to war with Iraq in the first place.

    Ritter said there were no WMD’s in Iraq and he was right.

  14. fishing on dry ground

    Cats r Flyfishn,
    i read your first comment and i think there’s some clearing up that needs doing. First, if you were a wolf, how would you rather die? Gunshot or starvation? If the wolf population gets out of hand not only will they not be able to get enough food but the population density will open paths for disease. gunshot, even if its not a clean kill, is still more humane than letting them starve to death or get sick and die.

    Second, no animal will EVER have a fair chance at beating hunters. That’s why we’re at the top of the food chain. Unless your suggesting we try to kill wolves with our teeth and nails? Then what happens when the wolf does win? You’ve got a HUMAN death on your hands.

    Thirdly, have you ever tried to shoot something in the head from a distance? how about in a moving vehicle? rifle shooting is a much more difficult sport than you know. I have trouble hitting a deer in the neck from 200 yds in a stationary blind with a rifle rest! wolves are a lot smaller than deer. and the hunters are in an airplane!!! what happens if they aim for the stomach or shoulder and hit the spine instead? not dead just paralyzed and in agony. Buckshot is much more effective for this cause.