Irony, Thy name is Treehugger

F

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
Palin wolf-thinning project worked

posted at 8:35 am on November 12, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

During the campaign, some critics of Sarah Palin ridiculed her efforts to thin the wolf population by shooting them from helicopters, painting her as cruel and anti-nature. The Anchorage Daily News reports that the caribou population might dispute that. Thanks to the limitation of the predators, the survival rate of young caribou has dramatically increased:

Slaughtering wolves on the Alaska Peninsula appears to have had the desired effect — more caribou got a chance to live, according to biologists with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

As ugly and as politically incorrect as the wolf killing might seem to some, they said, the helicopter gunning that took place earlier this year saved caribou, especially young caribou, from being eaten alive.

Fall surveys of the Southern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd completed in October found an average of 39 calves per 100 cows. That’s a dramatic improvement from fall counts of only 1 calf per 100 cows in 2006 and 2007.
The state wildlife board needed to take dramatic action on behalf of the caribou in the southern herd. The population had dropped from 6,000 to 500. Wolves and bears had wiped out the offspring for too long, and left alone, the herd would have disappeared altogether.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, critics didn’t bother to find out why Palin’s administration thinned the wolf population by the most efficient manner available to them. Critics of responsible wildlife management seem to live in Cartoon World, where the wolf and the bear and the caribou all become best friends and have adventures together with the plucky little kid from the local village. In fact, the wolf and the bear will eat the caribou until there are none left, and would have the plucky little kid for dessert if they could.

The biggest irony, of course, is that the critics of drilling in ANWR like to invoke the caribou as a reason to block extraction of the vast oil resources in the region. The wolves present a far greater danger to caribou than drilling ever did, but I guess caribou are only valuable as a means to block drilling.
 
TheDude said:
Wonder how the caribou survived before the hunting of predators?
Click to expand...
Well, if you'd actually read the article, you'd know. They weren't.


The state wildlife board needed to take dramatic action on behalf of the caribou in the southern herd. The population had dropped from 6,000 to 500. Wolves and bears had wiped out the offspring for too long, and left alone, the herd would have disappeared altogether.
Click to expand...
 
Perhaps Foss, Dude was referring to long ago - before we started to upset the predator/food balance in Alaska. Eskimos lived there for centuries with no problems.

We have the opposite problem in Colorado - the elk are taking over everything - because we have decimated the wolf population.

Too bad they can't relocate the wolves to the national lands here in Colorado.

Hey- do you hunt? They never get enough hunters here to use the available licenses - we have the best elk hunting in the country.:)
 
fossten said:
Critics of responsible wildlife management seem to live in Cartoon World, where the wolf and the bear and the caribou all become best friends and have adventures together with the plucky little kid from the local village.
Click to expand...
The author obviously hasn't read the book of Genesis.
 
TheDude said:
Wonder how the caribou survived before the hunting of predators?
Click to expand...

Probably a lot of them were either torn apart by wolves or starved to death.
That's of little importance, unless you're suggesting humans devolve and start living in small nomadic tribes.
 
Calabrio said:
Probably a lot of them were either torn apart by wolves or starved to death.
That's of little importance, unless you're suggesting humans devolve and start living in small nomadic tribes.
Click to expand...

Na, there was probably a nice balance, before.

Obviously that isn't the solution/going to happen, but mass killing the wolves probably isn't smart in the long run either.
 
TheDude said:
Na, there was probably a nice balance, before.

Obviously that isn't the solution/going to happen, but mass killing the wolves probably isn't smart in the long run either.
Click to expand...

It's called "over population." You don't "mass kill" you limit the population numbers so that the environment can sustain them. I presume that these are fairly remote areas, so it might be difficult to find enough sport hunters to sell hunting permits too.

Also, if you don't manage the situation, the wolves will decimate the caribou population. After that, they'll probably starve to death too- or sometimes they'll engage in uncharacteristic behavior like stalking in towns or eating children or something...
 
Could it just be the small crunchy republican children? ;)
 
The Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms wasn't meant to protect the fundamental right of individual self defense. It should have been, but unfortunately it wasn't.

According to the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms is merely the means to a well regulated militia; and, a well regulated militia is merely the means to the security of a free state. To Congress, the individual right to keep and bear was nothing but an expendable means to a greater good and more important end of a secure government.

Applying James Madison's principle that the means should be commensurate with the end, we are reluctantly compelled understand the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear to be limited to that which is necessary to achieve a well regulated militia. Therefore, the only people with a right to keep and bear are those are acting in their official capacity as members of an organized, armed and disciplined militia that is at all times submissive to civil authority.
 
You can't have your cake and eat it do, dude. You can't say the Amendment grants an individual right to have guns, then turn around and say it allows the states to arm their militias, if Congress doesn't.

You phony "gun rights advocates" don't fool me. I know you're all Commies and that what you really want is for Congress to be able to destroy the state militias by neglecting them.
 
foxpaws said:
Could it just be the small crunchy republican children? ;)
Click to expand...

No, the Repubilcan children are strong, fed fresh red meat, spend their time outside, know how to protect themselves, and are taught self reliance.

The wolves will eat the liberal children. They are slow and weak from being raised on soy milk and vegan hotdogs. When things are difficult they try to rationalize and compromise with aggressors, then they call for help. Their parents are too weak and afraid to take matters into their own hands, they have no weapons to protect themselves with, so they have to call the government to "do something" as their kid is carried off into the woods. After all that, they decide they should have just aborted it.

And when the wolves munch on them, the chocolate covered granola in their pockets has a nice crunch to it.
 
***This message is hidden because Mick Jagger is on your ignore list.*** :D :D :D
 
The butt monkeys who wrote the Second Amendment wanted it to be ambiguous. It's obvious they were trying to deceive.

We could speculate until George Bush grows a brain about what exactly they were trying to do. Fortunately however, we don't have to do that, because there was a rule of legal interpretation in 1789 which covered situations where the lawmakers got all butt monkey and wrote a law with parts that didn't coincide.

You would know about the rule of which I speak, if you had read the 1788 work James Madison wrote on "The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government."
 
Calabrio - very funny -:D I adore the chocolate granola part!!!!
 
The individual right to keep and bear arms interpretation of the Second Amendment advanced by the NRA and other Anti-American groups is just a way those who attach their affections to tyranny disguise their real goal, which is to take away the right of the several states to provide for an organized, armed and trained state militia.
 
Mick Jagger said:
The individual right to keep and bear arms interpretation of the Second Amendment advanced by the NRA and other Anti-American groups is just a way those who attach their affections to tyranny disguise their real goal, which is to take away the right of the several states to provide for an organized, armed and trained state militia.
Click to expand...
You must be the dumbest human being on the face of the earth.

The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is the entity that squashes militias, not the NRA.

Read a newspaper more than once every 25 years.

Jeez, what stupidity.

Hey, by the way, did you hear that 9/11 was an inside job?
 
fossten said:
The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT squashes militias, not the NRA.
Click to expand...
Where did you flunk government? Congress, under the power granted to it under Article One Section Eight Clause Sixteen of the U. S. Constitution, has provided for the organizing, arming and training of the state militias.
 
Don't argue with the Mick Jagger bot! There must be a broken line of code or something...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 101 (members: 0, guests: 101)
Back
Top