Sarah Versus Ashley...

@anniepa (27236)
United States
February 8, 2009 7:57pm CST
...and it's not mud wrestling or female boxing! http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18406.html Actress Ashley Judd recently made a video against Governor Sarah Palin's policies regarding aerial wolf hunting. Here is part of what can be heard in the bideo: "Palin even proposed a $150 bounty for the severed foreleg of each killed wolf," Judd says. "And now she is encouraging even more aerial killing. It is time to stop Sarah Palin and stop this senseless savagery." Palin called the ad, paid for by Defenders of Wildlife, "reprehensible and hypocritical." She also called the organization an "extreme fringe group". What do you think? Whose "side" are you on in this? My money's on Ashley! Annie
4 people like this
13 responses
@irishidid (8563)
• United States
9 Feb 09
First off body parts for bounty is not unusual. When I lived in the country you could get $50.00 for a coyote ear. We don't know the facts about the wolves in Alaska. Only what we're hearing from the anti-hunting groups. Thinning out animals has proved to be a way to help the population by making sure they have enough resources for the animal in question. That's why there is deer hunting and other types of hunting. These groups don't always tell the facts and more often than not their celebrity backers don't ask for the facts. They seem to be most upset by the fact the killings are done by helicopter. Evidently they don't realize there aren't that many roads in Alaska. Or as someone tried to stupidly convince me, think it is all a big city. http://outdoorsdirectory.com/magazine/Alaska_wof_control_works.htm
2 people like this
@irishidid (8563)
• United States
9 Feb 09
If Ashley is so concerned about these animals then there is legislation in Texas for aerial hunting of feral hogs. Is she going to make a statement against the politicians of Texas? If she doesn't she's nothing but another Palin basher who looks for any excuse.
@jerzgirl (8013)
• Gloucester City, New Jersey
9 Feb 09
Sarah Palin calls everybody and anybody who disagrees with her publicly "extreme". As for fringe groups, she is a pot calling the kettle black what with her association with her church group and the Independent Alaska group. She's as fringe as they come, and I'm not talking about her bangs. She needs to start learning what shame is.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27236)
• United States
9 Feb 09
I agree! It's been said time and time again here on myLot among other places that people don't like her because she's a conservative woman. "Conservative" is one thing but she's a right-wing extremist in the truest sense. Annie
• United States
9 Feb 09
I am against anyone, regardless who they are, who condones cruelty to animals therefore KUDOS to Ashley.
2 people like this
@Latrivia (2889)
• United States
9 Feb 09
Well, I have a special place in my heart for wolves. If you couldn't tell by my profile picture, they're my favorite animal. However, in Alaska wolves aren't endangered, and therefore not protected by anti-hunting laws, so their fair game as far as hunters are concerned. I'm not against hunting non-endangered animals, even if they are my favorite animal. I think aerial hunting is just plain cheating. Where's the challenge? Where's the hunt? Do people actually feel proud of picking off animals from high above all the danger? It goes against everything I was ever taught about hunting. When I was a kid, we weren't allowed to kill anything we weren't willing to eat (unless it presented a threat to us or our livestock). When we did hunt, you can bet we didn't do it from the back of a truck. I'm of two minds on this. Every fiber of my being causes me to dislike hunters who hunt from inside the safety of a vehicle. I can't fault hunters for hunting wolves that aren't endangered, though. Just because I love wolves doesn't mean I should expect hunters to uphold my standards. I would first have to know if aerial hunting is absolutely necessary to the safety of the hunter to hunt in winter. I would also need to know if frequent aerial hunting presents a danger to a maintained population of wolves. I can see the logic of pulling it off in winter, though, and I noticed the video on your link failed to mention it. Food is more scarce in winter, and wolves may be dying off due to starvation anyway. A lower population of wolves in winter means less mouths to feed, more food for the remaining wolves, and less possibility of wolves helping themselves to livestock. So the big question is, does aerial hunting help or harm the ecosystem more?
2 people like this
@pyewacket (44036)
• United States
9 Feb 09
LOL...my money is on Ashley Judd as well. I had done a discussion sometime ago, while Palin was still in the running for VP and it had come out about her wolf slaughter especially aerial hunting. I mean it be one thing if they were killing wolves for food, but this is just "trophy" hunting and now of course the incentive is greater to kill wolves due to the bounty she has set up for each wolf killed. There's even worse news I heard that I think this was a leftover from the Bush administration to lift wolves in general off the endangered species listing.
2 people like this
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
9 Feb 09
I think it's unfortunate that Ashley Judd is so eager to jump on the cause without researching what is really going on there. It's called predator control and it happens in other states as well. This is done to protect the caribou and moose populations in Alaska. The wolf is not endangered there. I personally feel that any wolf killed should be cooked and eaten. That's just the way hunting is meant to be. The aerial killing seems extreme, but you have to take into consideration that these are being killed in mountains and dangerous terrain where you can't simply drive a jeep and being on foot poses the risk of dying from avalanches and exposure. One last point, this policy has been in effect since long before Sarah Palin took office. Nobody objected to it before and people are only making a big deal out of it now to bash Palin. Nobody has mentioned Minnesota or other states where the same thing happens.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27236)
• United States
10 Feb 09
She seemed to be pretty well informed when she appeared on Larry King Live. Out of curiosity, why are the moose and caribou "worthy" of being protected but the wolves are not? As far as eating wolves, that idea literally makes me nauseous because it would be almost like eating a dog! For the record, I don't eat deer or any other wild game, not because I'm some kind of an activist but simply because I don't like the wild taste or the thought of it. My thoughts on this issue aren't because of any desire to attack Palin, it's just that I'd been hearing of the slaughter of these wolf cubs for some time now and I find it very disturbing and I really don't understand the need to do it from the air. What I don't get is if it's such a remote area they can't get to them any other way than why does it matter if they're there or not? Who or what are they protecting from them? Am I wrong to assume that if they're in such a remote area they have to be shot from a helicopter there probably aren't any people or livestock in danger of becoming their prey? If, on the other hand, they're killing the wolf cubs in order to protect the moose and caribou so someone can hunt them for sport, also from the air, I find that a bit ironic and more than a little hypocritical. Annie
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
10 Feb 09
You can't hunt moose or caribou from the air. The only people who can do it with the wolves are people with very specific permits. People like Ashley Judd make it sound like a free-for-all where anyone with a plane or helicopter gets to unload on every wolf in sight. They grossly exaggerate while omitting the facts about predator control in this country.
@Latrivia (2889)
• United States
18 Feb 09
"People like Ashley Judd make it sound like a free-for-all where anyone with a plane or helicopter gets to unload on every wolf in sight." Since when has any celebrity jumped aboard an animals right's cause with a fully loaded arsenal of facts?
• United States
9 Feb 09
Has anyone looked to see if wolf numbers are so big that it is causing a danger to the general public? OR if they are getting to close to populated areas? Before we jump on any band weagon we need to see if there is a real reason for this to happen. No it is not a good thing to kill animals for the fun of it. But there are legitimate reasons to do it. Here they allowed alligator hunting this year for the first time. Why? beacuse the population was getting so big that it was causing problems and was endangering the public.. Want to freak out? wake up one morning and find a huge gator in your front yard. It is very common here. They are causing big problems. Attacking people, tearing down fences to get into people's yards to eat their pets. A chain link fence is not real problem for them. A smaller one even got into a woman's house by going through her doggy door. Not good. The state said that if a hunting season did not get the numbers under better control that they might start a bounty. I agree.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27236)
• United States
9 Feb 09
First of all it must be PRETTY SCARY to see a gator in your yard! I certainly can't complain about it being legal to kill them since they pose a definite threat to humans and pets. However, I wouldn't be in favor of going deep into the swamp where there aren't any people for miles and miles and killing them from the air just to say you could. I think that's what is going on in Alaska with the wolves. If I'm wrong it would be a different story but I still can't see any reason to allow aerial hunting. Annie
• United States
9 Feb 09
Yep it is scarey. You have to go out and look BEFORE you let the kids out to play in the front yard. Most people here have put up privacy fences to help keep them out of their backyards. But you have to get the really tall ones because the gators can dig under neath them so you have to bury a good foot of it in the ground to keep them from getting under it. The police will not come out and remove a gator if it is just sunning itself in your front yard unless it is over 8 feet so sometimes you just have to not go outside if a smaller one (in my opinon 5 or 6 feet is still too big when its in YOUR front yard) has decided to use your front yard for sun bathing. But if it acts aggresively than no matter the size they will come and get it. They do not relocate them. THey do kill them because relocating an aggressive gator that has not fear of people just causing problems for the people in the area they move it to. I agree they need to control the population of the wolves for one reason...if they population grows out of control there will not be enough food for them all and they begin coming into populated areas in search for food. Plus too many wolves would hurt the animal populations of the animals the wolves eat. They do need to do it humanely. A single hunter that comes up on a large pack of hungry wolves could get killed. Even a group of two or three hunters if the wolves are hungry enough and the pack is big enough could get killed. So I would imagine they use the helicopters for safety (not just againts the animals but against the severe weather too). I am not defending the torture of animals. But sometimes populations have to be controlled for not just the human population but also for the other animal species in the area.
@Bd200789 (2994)
• United States
9 Feb 09
I agree with Ashley Judd. I think aerial wolf hunting shouldn't be allowed. I can't see how Defenders of Wildlife is a fringe group, can you?
1 person likes this
@iriscot (1290)
• United States
9 Feb 09
Go Ashley, I'm rooting for you! Sarah is a "dimwit" and I think most people realize it.
1 person likes this
• United States
9 Feb 09
actors pick a cause they think will keep their name in the lime light.she will in all likelihood go home take her fir slippers out of the closet,eat a stake,and hope her latest stunt keep her name in print.
• United States
9 Feb 09
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27236)
• United States
9 Feb 09
There probably are some actors who fit your description but certainly not all of them. Ashley Judd was on Larry King the other night along with a representative from the wildlife organization and she said she had been giving anonymous donations for some time until recently she decided to get more involved and contacted them and that's when they had her do the video. I don't there are too many celebrities these days who wear furs, although there are some, but what's the big deal if they eat steak? There is a difference between eating meat and being against the inhumane slaughter of any animal. Annie
@suspenseful (40316)
• Canada
9 Feb 09
I went to Alaska and it is very difficult to get out of some of those areas into the forests where the wolves are. So I would gather shooting them from the air would be the best bet and would mostly done to cull the packs. I am in favor of farmers defending their property and their animals against wolf attacks. I was wondering if there was a more economical and more humane way of protecting against wolf attacks on livestock? I think it is more the method than then necessity. So I am on the fence here. Is this Defender of Wildlife just for protecting the wildlife at all life or against the use of cruel methods. And if it is something that those who are ignorant about the situation in the wild will latch onto? Besides I know you are against Palin no matter what her side. I would rather listen to someone who is knowledgeable like someone who has been hunting or farming in Alaska. They know the situation. I doubt Ashley does. Has she been to Alaska? Has she got information from the Wildlife Bureau or photographs, etc. showing the danger or lack of danger of wolf attacks, the cost to livestock, or lack thereof?
@Aingealicia (1906)
• United States
17 Feb 09
Annie, I say go Ashley...She is right and what Palin is doing is once again wrong. Ainge
• Lubbock, Texas
9 Feb 09
Considering that I grew up in New Mexico in the early 1940's, where wolves were a serious threat to livestock in ranching country, and there was a bounty on their heads,(so to speak, I don't remember what part you had to present to receive the bounty) I'm sorry to say I'm with Palin. Alaska is still a frontier. The rewards for the fore legs are an incentive to get non ranching citizens involved in protecting the domestic animals and possibly even humans in remote rural areas where wolves threaten the livelyhood and food supply. I can see where modern day city dwellers would see this as cruel to the wolves, but in the eyes of those threatened, it's survival of the fittest.