Animation Source Forums

All I'm going to do is give you link. I've cried too much over this.

I'm sending a petition to Sarah Palin, just to show her how many people care. If you wish to be on this petition, please PM me the request, along with a two sentence comment.


Here is the link to this article: http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/09/08/sarah_palin_wolves/

Look, just because it might seem to have a liberal (or any other political ideology) "bend" to it doesn't mean that it's inherently "bad politics." I mean, am I inherently a bad, uneducated individual who only wants to start flame wars because I have liberal views? I certainly hope that doesn't make me a bad person...

But since political discussion is forbidden on this site, that's the last I'll say about that part.

Secondly, this article linked to can be a source of discussion. It is one-sided, but it leaves the option for people do disagree with it. I do not at this point have much of a reason to believe that this will cause a flame war (even though I feel it might, I can't lock it unless it's outright calling for flames, or has devolved into a flame war already). However, I will keep an eye on this topic. What I don't want are people saying that one is insensitive because they don't agree with the article, or something akin to that effect.

For the sake of venting a bit on this subject, before I act un-mod-like I will speak on the matter.

If you ask me, and this is me trying to be most professional, the situation, especially with the "you get paid some number of dollars for each left-front leg of a wolf you bring in to the government," really sounds eerily reminiscent of King Leopold's Congo Free State, where officers would ask for the hand of an African for each bullet the soldiers serving under him used, in order to prove that they used it for a "legitimate reason" rather than something like hunting. What this lead to was people cutting off hands without killing them first so they could go hunting in the African jungle.

From the research I conducted, (and I still do not claim to know the wolf situation in Alaska better than the people who live there or biologists who specialize in the field) I've only really found that there isn't a whole lot of scientific proof that they're in any danger of being overpopulated, and most reliable scientists (at least the ones I've heard about) find that wolves are far too shy to do anything to humans or their livestock unless they're desperate (that, and there are less deadly measures to keep wolves out of your farms.) My personal belief is that the only reason hunting prey animals is justified (even though you'll never find me out hunting anywhere... I'm far too squeamish for that) is because humans killed off most of the other natural predators of, say deer, for example, and we've been hit with the burden of picking up their slack. Plus, it's also my personal opinion that shooting from airplanes is really over-the-top and unnecessary.

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm ranting. I tend to think with emotions more than anything, and I just believe that shooting any animal except for self-defense and the defense of others, or for food, is unethical.

That is not a parallel to this situation. To consider it a parallel would be to equate animal life to human life, which is despicable. I have never heard of this practice of cutting off human hands for each bullet, but regardless, should not be compared to monetary compensation for the limb of a wolf.



I concur, it is unnecessary and in my opinion lazy. It should most definitely be banned.



This I also agree with, but I don't find regular hunting as unethical. Aerial I do. Regardless, the animal killed should be used, be it as food or clothing. If it is not, it is wasteful.

That said, I do not harbor strong feelings for this topic.

However, I will say this. Sarah Palin was bashed primarily for her policies on hunting. In my opinion, this alone cannot render someone ineligible for executive office. I don't know what kind of political effect it had on the campaigning, but some were adamantly opposed to her for this reason. Especially people of the internet, and I imagine a lot of wolf roleplayers. Hey - I can enjoy wolf roleplay (I am even writing a book which is essentially a tragic love story between two wolves) but I can still recognize that wolves are far, far below the worth of human life. I guess some other people just cannot accept this.

Besides, you don't mess with a woman who shoots M16s.

Just read a book called "King Leopold's Ghost" and you'll find just about everything there is to know about that topic. The main reason why I equate it as such is that back then (at in the turn of the 20th century era) Africans were seen as less than human. I'm not saying that I agree with that, but the situation, when I first heard about it, had the same ring as the atrocities committed in the Congo back then; bringing in a limb for compensation. I studied the topic for a year in high school (in fact, it was last year, so it's still relatively fresh in my mind). I just get the feeling that people are going to find a lot more three-legged wolves in Akaska if this carries on...

Let me say first I did not put up this topic to speak about Palin's policies and views. I put it up because it is a despicable thing to do to a wolf, or to any other living thing. I was appalled when I read it. I'm glad some people saw that.





I think you're right. Everything holds special value in life. Just because "wolves are better than humans at killing elk and deer" doesn't mean you have to start shooting them from airplanes.

I don't know about Alaskans...but if I was an Alaskan citizen, i would undoubtedly take pride that my state is the state that is the LAST FRONTIER. This act of shooting from planes to "even the playing field" is savage, and if I were an Alaskan citizen, I would be appalled the Government was trying to take the beauty from the place I live.(No politics intended)

I agree this is awful. I agree that regular hunting, if the animal hunted is used, is perfectly fine, but paying people to kill wolves? That's just wrong. That's why wolves were nearly driven to exstinction in some parts of the US, simular thing. If there's absolutely any reason the wolves are becoming a problem, its the fact humans often times don't consider the effects of what we do have on animals. I'm not for us all becoming vegaterians or something like that, humans are omnivores, that's how we're designed, we've got both sets of teeth for meat and plants and can digest both so eating meat doesn't both me. The fact of hunting animals just to mount it on your wall or get some cash payment seems wrong to me.

Jersey, first off, yeah you're defiently right, no human is flawless. If someone was perfect, they'd be a dull person.

Anyway, I agree that wolves attacking pets and people is a problem, but there are better ways of dealing with it that just killing them. The fact is, if they do start killing wolves just to let the moose population get up to hunting levels, it'll cause a magnatude of other problems as well, such as overpopulation in the wolves other prey species, if memory serves, quite a few of those prey, mostly the small mammals, are considered pests by humans. Second, shooting them from the air is just wrong, if they hunt them on foot, the wolves will at least assolate humans as a threat and learn to fear them. Shooting them from a plane will make them assosiate the plane as a threat, not humans, which is what they need to fear to fix this problem. And lastly, if the payment is for proof of killing wolves, what's to stop hunters from going into places wolves aren't becoming a problem and killing them there? Paying people to kill wolves isn't a good solution. The best solution is probably, and I know this might sound brutal, allow limited ground hunting where the wolves can learn clearly that humans can be a threat to them, then they'll fear them again. I understand humans hunt moose but killing an animal just because its hunting the same prey as you isn't right, they're wild animals, if anything, humans are hunting the wolves prey, not the other way around.

I was not directing that at you, only the first part of my post, the rest was just how I feel about this and the reproconsions it could have, not directing it at you, I'm sorry I was misunderstood.

Look, I know that Kodi Girl called Palin a 'sick puppy' but she never said anything like you said. It is sick, at least in my mind, that Palin is planning to pay people to kill wolves then bring their severed legs as proof. Kodi Girl is one of my best friends on this site, so I do know how she thinks. She's not being political about it, she's merely stating her opinion on Palin's policy of dealing with wolves, which she considers sick and wrong and I happen to agree with her. I respect the Alaskans need to hunt for food, but the simple fact is, killing wolves from planes isn't going to help the situation, it'll just make the wolves fearful of planes, not people, which is what needs to be done.

Ok, sorry I may have went a little far with that, its just Kodi Girl is one of my best friend and I didn't like how you were talking about her. She was just stating her opinion, yes she wants to have a petition made, but she's not bashing Palin in politics, just trying to stop something she feels is wrong.

I will not respond to that, except to say "don't generalize too much" since I do not know any other way to respond without contributing to a political discussion, which is forbidden here.



Actually, I can control my emotions! In fact, it's a lot easier to do so online, since I don't have to respond right away.

And I edited out the comment at the end of the first post.


Anyway, as to your last section of comments, you do make good points, and your research does appear to be well-founded. I actually agree with some of your points (except about helping sport hunters. I honestly couldn't care any less about hunting for sport, but I guess what helps one group of hunters, like sustenance hunters (who actually have a good reason to be hunting) helps all) so I rest my case.

However, I must again reiterate to not bring up any political terms, names, or figures into this discussion.

This is the only way this will not go into a political flame war, and this goes for everyone. We did establish that the above-mentioned policy was made long before the current governor of Alaska, so it is not the fault of anyone who is currently in power.

This is the last I'll post on this topic, except to give reminders if this topic becomes flaming.