Wolves under Pall(in) of slaughter

Dawn posted this. I feel very disheartened to know that after 8 continuous years George W Bush and his wars on terror and the environment (with the second 4 coming out of nowhere), we may get even more of the same… or worse. Talk about the difference between a pitbull with lipstick and a hockey mum. I do not mind either in the White House, just as long as he/she does what is right and needed. But with Mrs Palin, lipstick may well grease the barrel mouths of both hunting rifles and patriot missiles alike, oil-drilling bits and the marker pens scribbling denial of climate change. It will also mark the day my zombified faith in humanity and reason dies yet again.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Defenders of Wildlife Advertisement

This is certainly very disturbing. Shooting wolves from planes? Factcheck does add some clarifying details, but it certainly seems that most of it is true. Shooting animals is already terrible in my book – shooting animals with an unfair advantage is much, much worse.

I left a comment too, with links attached:

This has been going for a goodly number of years. It is SLAUGHTER pure and simple, just like the Japanes/Nowegian/Icelandic whale killing.

Wolves are supposed to be protected – a CITIZENS initiative banned aerial gunning since 1996, but the last two governors forced through aerial hunting of wolves as necessary protection for prey animals and people, when it is human hunters who are decimating them and taking more lives for useless trophies than the wolves do to survive. (Ref: Aerial wolf hunting flies again in Alaska)

Again, like whale slaughtering, aerial wolf gunning is something that the general public would disapprove of but is continuing due the sheer power of lobby and political pandering.

Shooting one wolf kills many even without the aerial advantage of increasing the potential of shooting more than one.

The wolves of Alaska are extremely disadvantaged. This is extra cruel for the species’ survival especially if it is one or both of the alpha pair that gets shot since only the alpha have the right to breed. Due to the social hierarchy of wolf packs, the pack disintegrates under the intense sudden stress to the social fabric. The remaining pack members will likely disperse, and die one by one. If the alpha female has new babies – the young pups starve to death.

There’s quite a few sites and movements to overturn this barbarism. Disturbing, it is being applied to bears as well. Even more perturbing, other states with strong hunting lobbies are trying to ape them.

Good ref site: http://www.alaskawolfkill.com/

Another one: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/8/31/22337/7183

While I am aware that the other ticket may not be the ideal answer, the question is do we really really need more of the same old beating around the bush, all that whacking the environment senseless, generating war business  and tax breaks for those who don’t need tax breaks?

I feel the answer can only be a “Yes” if we want to see more and worse of the same problems the current Ptesident of the United States has shovelled onto the world. We’ve seen enough of the George W Bush version of governing, and it ain’t making the world better in my books. But the cruz is of course: How stupid is the American voter?

(Source: Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller. Click on the comic to view the original)

PS: Visit this site for more info on voting for conservation: League of Conservatiob Voters. They have scorecards, reports and the lowdown on candidates and current office holders of all stripes, from the President down to lil’ old governors wielding lipstick and hockey sticks.


Comments are closed.