New ad re Palin and wolves - Page 3

A link to an article written by a wildlife biologist. Obviously not all support or suggest the shooting of wolves from planes..

http://www.wolfsongalaska.org/pred_mythology_wolf_control_alaska.htm

Yes, she is an advocate of killing wolves by running them into exhaustion. She also pays $150 if someone brings in thecut off forelegs. She wants polar bears take off the endangered species list. She is NOT someone I could ever vote for or want in the white house. i find her to be conniving and she never would have been on the ticket of Obama took Hillary. To think of her, one heartbeat away from the presidency s frightenening.  What has happened to the brains in this country?????

As a woman, this woman scares the hell out of me.

Isn't this nice?  Here's your hero with a cute little doggy.  He's holding this cute doggy because he's going to be in the pocket of every Animal Rights activist in the country.

Say goodbye to your fancy purebred GSD's reproductive organs when this guy gets in office.

http://www.tripawds.com/2008/05/31/three-legged-dogs-bark-for-obama/

Obviously two camps here, pro and anti Palin. Fact is, she has more executive experience than the 3 men on the tickets. Among them they have, let's see...zero executive experience. At least McCain and Biden have a lot of legislative experience. Obama has very little legislative and no executive experience. What was his qualification for being nominated? Oh right, he's been running for president for two years now. I'd rather see one of my dogs in the Oval Office. At least they have good instincts about friends and enemies.

Defenders of Wildlife is a pack of lawyers who sue where ever they can to "protect" wildlife, thus wildlife overpopulation and the need for culling. In Colorado, we have a problem with too many deer and elk because of too much protection and not enough hunting. Starving deer and elk are a very ugly sight and there's absolutely nothing wrong with increasing hunting permits to thin the herds. Nothing wrong with shooting predators either. Having said that, I don't think hunting by airplane is a sporting way of hunting. It may be a way to cull but it isn't a way to hunt. People don't want to hear the word "cull"  (see Yvette's article in this month's Schutzhund USA magazine.)  But if nature isn't allowed to take it's often ugly course, hunting and culling are necessary.

We should all hope we are on God's side. For those who think there is no God, well, we'll find out when we die, won't we? If I'm wrong and there's no God, believing didn't hurt me. If I'm right and there is, non-believers are in for some trouble.

That's interesting, Angusmom, since I just read that the bank of China is going broke and is in dire need of money.

No way. China is one of the richest countries in the world. They have massive foreign investment funds to help keep from messing up their own economy from all the foreign money they are making through their exports. In addition, the individuals in China have, by and large, massive savings that they have yet to put into the banks or economic markets. Want to know more? Here's a book all about it:

http://www.booksonbiz.com/estore/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&cPath=141&products_id=1439

Christine

blackthornkennel.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/business/worldbusiness/05yuan.html?_r=1&ei=5070&emc=eta1&oref=solgin

According the the NY Times the central bank of China needs money. This page might take a while to load and you may have to refresh it.

This is totally off-topic, of course, but if you read the article, it's saying that the central bank's foreign investments have gone down drastically in value. This doesn't mean that China itself is short on funds. Interesting article, though. Thanks for sharing the link.

All I'm going to say is I agree with Sparrow, and Hodie as far as the hunting goes. Hunting is hunting when you do it on their level, but when you take an airplane, snowmobile, etc to chase them down until they are exhausted is murder. It is similiar to canned hunting where the big bad hunter (yeah right) walks up to a drugged lion and shoots it!!! You call that hunting? Hunting is when you go on their own turf on the ground and hunt them in their own enviroment, not from a plane, snowmobile, etc. That is not hunting by any means. If the wolve's etc are so over populated they can find other means like birth control that has been used and works, or other means. I also agree with Blitzen, "Palin et al want to kill off the wolves to allow the caribou etc to grow larger and make more desirable trophies for people like Ted Nugent. Don't be fooled, it's not about saving the livestock; it's about the same old - lining the pockets of the elite".

Interesting articles on the subject:

http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/09/08/sarah_palin_wolves/

http://www.akwildlife.com/ADNCompass.html#Anchor-Pa-45901

The hunting of any animal from aircraft has to go. Better to shoot them with syringe launchers full of birth control if they want to curb population growth IMO. Other than that, though, I stilll like McCain/Palin. This is going to be a very interesting few weeks ahead.

I saw Obama on Bill O'Reilly the other night. Why can't that man hold a conversation sitting in a chair? Stammering, uncomfortable, messing up his pre-chosen lines. Seems if he isn't in complete control of his environment, depending on his stature standing up, he can barely put a sentence together. No wonder they laughed at him in Europe. I doubt the man can lay straight in bed. I haven't seen a candidate so out of touch with the average citizen since... KERRY! Everything he says and does is staged. He can't ad lib for diddly and when he tries his campaign advisors are left with a mess to try to clean up with spin. .

How come all we get to make our election decisions on these days are promises (universally, all candidates) and NO FIRM PLANS to review regarding HOW those promises are to be fulfilled? Too much campaign money spent on image enhancement (wardrobe, make-up, clever jabs at the opposition, geographically "adjusted" campaign appearance strategy...) and not enough on respectable expertise capable of addressing the specifics of "fixing" the problems at the hearts of the issues with a firm, intelligent, CREDIBLE solutions? Apparently the voting public is more interested in the People magazine and USA Today take on the most important election in the US, more in tune with "image" than they are in the Economist-level publications' global variety of views on the issues. (not that I read the Economist faithfully myself at their rack price, or agree with everything written in that publication...)

Interesting that some of the best discussions of election issues is here on a dog dB. The cross-section of both US and foreign opinion available on this board, outspoken and opinionated, ad the minimal censorship, is one of the things I like best about it.

Time to go out and train some dogs.

SS

.