In response to peeps who like to run their mouths when they don't know what they're talkin' 'bout, I've got a few tidbits to add on the Ashley Judd vid I posted yesterday.
1. Ashley Judd is not a PETA spokesman as far as I know. She does do a lot of charity work but to my knowledge, she is not on board with PETA. That said, I don't follow celebrity PETA endorsers all that closely so can't say I know every star PETA has roped into their foolishness. For the sake of argument, let me say this: Even if Ashley Judd is affiliated with PETA, I am supporting her position on the wolf aerial assault issue. Yes I detest PETA's pet extermination agenda and I do not support them in any way. That doesn't mean I disagree with every single thing they do. For example, they offer spay-neuter services to those owners who want it but that doesn't mean I have to oppose spay-neuter just because PETA offers it. I like to think I'm a leetle smarter than that. I can strongly disagree with PETA's motivation for offering those services but still support the practice in a general sense.
2. The video posted is Ashley Judd speaking on behalf of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund. To my knowledge, that group is not affiliated with PETA but my same view applies: I support their position on the aerial wolf assault, even if I may not support their positions on other issues. I don't know much about them to be honest so I may think they're the nazz overall or maybe they suck overall - not making time to investigate right now.
They do have a political disclaimer on their website which states "Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee" and I take them at their word unless it is proven otherwise.
3. The reason the wolves are being killed is not to prevent them from starving to death due to overpopulation. Quite the opposite actually. The wolves eat big game such as elk, moose and caribou which attract wealthy hunters from out of state and brings in revenue for Alaska. In order to have more big game available for rich people to spend their money hunting in Alaska, the state government decided to take out some of the natural predators - wolves. At least that's the idea they're touting. Many remain unconvinced (article from Sept. 2008):
A raft of scientists has argued that Palin has provided little evidence that the current program of systematically killing wolves, estimated at a population of 7,000 to 11,000, will result in more moose for hunters. State estimates of moose populations have come under scrutiny. Some wildlife biologists say predator control advocates don't even understand what wolves eat.
[...]
Last year, 172 scientists signed a letter to Palin, expressing concern about the lack of science behind the state's wolf-killing operation. According to the scientists, state officials set population objectives for moose and caribou based on "unattainable, unsustainable historically high populations." As a result, the "inadequately designed predator control programs" threatened the long-term health of both the ungulate and wolf populations. The scientists concluded with a plea to Palin to consider the conservation of wolves and bears "on an equal basis with the goal of producing more ungulates for hunters."
Apparently Palin wasn't fazed. Earlier this year she introduced state legislation that would further divorce the predator-control program from science. The legislation would transfer authority over the program from the state Department of Fish and Game to Alaska's Board of Game, whose members are appointed by, well, Palin. Even some hunters were astounded by her power play.
The legislation would give Palin's board "more leeway without any scientific input to do whatever the hell they basically wanted," Mark Richards, co-chair of Alaska Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, wrote in an e-mail. The legislation is currently stalled in the Alaska state Senate.
4. Lastly, I say again - This is not hunting. It violates the reasonable hunter's ethic of fair chase. I am not against hunting but this ain't that.
Posts
1 comment:
I saw a quote attributed to her during the election in which she said that she does what she wants until someone stops her. So, no boundaries, no restraint, no accountability. Totally amoral. Scary.
Re:Defenders of Wildlife. I was a member for a number of years. They're the folks who have paid close to a million dollars to ranchers in the West to compensate them for wolves that killed their livestock. Which maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Defenders didn't ask. They just wrote the checks, as far as I understand it.
I had to cut back on the number of environmental groups I was supporting and dropped them. But when Terrierman was explaining in a comment last year about how some organizations are more money-raising machines than anything else, Defenders was one of the ones he named. Still, I think they've done good work, at least in the past.
Post a Comment