Video: Palin-championed program executed 14 wolf pups

Didn't the voters twice pass a law forbidding hunting of wolves from
the air? *And the legislature overturned it both times? *Whatever
happened to the will of the people?

Good Point. I guess votes don't count much anymore...then again the
last election had a different winner and we ended up with the weiner
in the whitehouse. What a long strange trip it has been too!

In article
,
Lloyd wrote:

Didn't the voters twice pass a law forbidding hunting of wolves from
the air? And the legislature overturned it both times? Whatever
happened to the will of the people?

And is it true that killing pups is against the law?

Not if the Board of Game, authorizes it... Read the Statute......

In article
,
" wrote:

Didn't the voters twice pass a law forbidding hunting of wolves from
the air? *And the legislature overturned it both times? *Whatever
happened to the will of the people?

Good Point. I guess votes don't count much anymore...then again the
last election had a different winner and we ended up with the weiner
in the whitehouse. What a long strange trip it has been too!

Yep, but the problem WAS, that you can't enforce an Initiative that
Violates the State Constitution, and therefore the Legislature was
correct in overturning the passed Initiative.

On Oct 12, 5:10*pm, Me wrote:
In article ,
*Mike Vandeman wrote:

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:48:25 -0500 (EST)
From: "Rodger Schlickeisen, Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund"

Subject: Video: Palin-championed program executed 14 wolf pups
Organization: Defenders of Wildlife

Bull****, snipped for smell......

It is just too bad, the above idiot, can't READ the Statutes of the
State of Alaska..... *It isn't a violation of Alaska Law for our ADF&G *
to kill wolves from the AIR, when it is "Deemed Necessary" by the
Commissioner, and authorized by the Board of Game, as was the above
action.

And why was it deemed "necessary?" So there'd be more caribou for
hunters to shoot. Uh-huh.

And why did the agency omit any reference to killing the pups in its
news releases?


When will you "Flatlanders", leave us Alaskans alone to manage our OWN
Wildlife, as WE see fit. Alaska isn't your Personal Wildlife Sanctuary.
Some of us, actually, have to LIVE here, and do so in a Subsistance
Lifestyle, that requires our Large Herbivore Herds to increase at a
sustainable rate. *


Huh? That's really a silly statement. Hello, we have grocery stores.

It was deemed, by OUR State Wildlife Biologists, that
to keep this particular herd viable, the predator population needed to
be thinned. Since the Adults were killed, it made NO Sense, to leave the
Pups to "Starve to Death". So they also were killed, as humanly as
possible.

Bet you the state wouldn't post pictures of them doing it.


Untill you come up here, and live a few winters in "My Shoes", Shut the
**** Up..... and worry about your 401K, swirling down the drain.......

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks.........

On Oct 14, 1:04*pm, Me wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
Didn't the voters twice pass a law forbidding hunting of wolves from
the air? *And the legislature overturned it both times? *Whatever
happened to the will of the people?

Good Point. I guess votes don't count much anymore...then again the
last election had a different winner and we ended up with the weiner
in the whitehouse. What a long strange trip it has been too!

Yep, but the problem WAS, that you can't enforce an Initiative that
Violates the State Constitution, and therefore the Legislature was
correct in overturning the passed Initiative.

If it was unconstitutional, the legislature didn't need to overturn it
-- it was simply not valid.

And please cite the section of the constitution these 2 initiatives
violated.

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:50:34 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Jensen
wrote:

On Oct 13, 9:46*am, Kid Mustang wrote:
If those pups had not been shot, then the Mike
Vandemans & the Rodger Schlickeisens would have
been up in arms that they were allowed to start to
death.

And if the predators not been culled, then they
would be up in arms that the herbivores were
staving to death.

KM7

Are you people all idiots or something? Sheesh...

Bruce

If you have to ask, then YOU are the idiot (what else is new?).
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:03:54 GMT, Me wrote:

In article ,
Mike Vandeman wrote:

And if you want to love in a place where you can shut people up

Well Mikey, I do "love" in this place and I also LIVE here as well.
I also have the "Right" of "Freedom of Speech"..... So,I say to YOU,
Shut the **** Up...

Thanks for demonstrating exactly what the Palin People are like: CRUDE
and IGNORANT.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

In article
,
Lloyd wrote:

On Oct 12, 5:10*pm, Me wrote:
In article ,
*Mike Vandeman wrote:

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:48:25 -0500 (EST)
From: "Rodger Schlickeisen, Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund"

Subject: Video: Palin-championed program executed 14 wolf pups
Organization: Defenders of Wildlife

Bull****, snipped for smell......

It is just too bad, the above idiot, can't READ the Statutes of the
State of Alaska..... *It isn't a violation of Alaska Law for our ADF&G *
to kill wolves from the AIR, when it is "Deemed Necessary" by the
Commissioner, and authorized by the Board of Game, as was the above
action.

And why was it deemed "necessary?" So there'd be more caribou for
hunters to shoot. Uh-huh.

No, It was deemed necessary, so that the herd in that GMU could recover
from the previous predation caused by a significant increase in the wolf
population in that GMU....

And why did the agency omit any reference to killing the pups in its
news releases?


When will you "Flatlanders", leave us Alaskans alone to manage our OWN
Wildlife, as WE see fit. Alaska isn't your Personal Wildlife Sanctuary.
Some of us, actually, have to LIVE here, and do so in a Subsistance
Lifestyle, that requires our Large Herbivore Herds to increase at a
sustainable rate. *


Huh? That's really a silly statement. Hello, we have grocery stores.

You may have grocery stores in your neighborhood, but in that GMU, there
aren't ANY, what you would call a "Grocery Store", and ALL
non-subsistence Foods have to be flown in, on small bush planes that use
$6US/Gallon AvGas which makes a pound of meat, about $25US/pound, a
Gallon of milk, $8US IF you can get it, and a bag of Fritoes $3US,
at the local Trading Post..... Sonny, you have no idea, what it takes to
live in my world......


It was deemed, by OUR State Wildlife Biologists, that
to keep this particular herd viable, the predator population needed to
be thinned. Since the Adults were killed, it made NO Sense, to leave the
Pups to "Starve to Death". So they also were killed, as humanly as
possible.

Bet you the state wouldn't post pictures of them doing it.

No bet required, of course they wouldn't post pictures, No sense getting
all the "fuzzy, cute, Wolf Puppy Lovers" upset.....


Untill you come up here, and live a few winters in "My Shoes", Shut the
**** Up..... and worry about your 401K, swirling down the drain.......

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks.........

In article
,
Lloyd wrote:

On Oct 14, 1:04*pm, Me wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
Didn't the voters twice pass a law forbidding hunting of wolves from
the air? *And the legislature overturned it both times? *Whatever
happened to the will of the people?

Good Point. I guess votes don't count much anymore...then again the
last election had a different winner and we ended up with the weiner
in the whitehouse. What a long strange trip it has been too!

Yep, but the problem WAS, that you can't enforce an Initiative that
Violates the State Constitution, and therefore the Legislature was
correct in overturning the passed Initiative.

If it was unconstitutional, the legislature didn't need to overturn it
-- it was simply not valid.

And please cite the section of the constitution these 2 initiatives
violated.

It was deemed so by the Attorney General of the State of Alaska, and
therefor the Legislature, voted to overturn the Initiative, TWICE, for
the same reasons.

Do your own research into the situation, Smart Guy. It shouldn't be a
big deal for YOU, to look the Case Law up, that was used to overturn
this, cause your such a talented Goggle user.....

On Oct 15, 2:20*pm, Me wrote:
In article
,



*Lloyd wrote:
On Oct 14, 1:04*pm, Me wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
Didn't the voters twice pass a law forbidding hunting of wolves from
the air? *And the legislature overturned it both times? *Whatever
happened to the will of the people?

Good Point. I guess votes don't count much anymore...then again the
last election had a different winner and we ended up with the weiner
in the whitehouse. What a long strange trip it has been too!

Yep, but the problem WAS, that you can't enforce an Initiative that
Violates the State Constitution, and therefore the Legislature was
correct in overturning the passed Initiative.

If it was unconstitutional, the legislature didn't need to overturn it
-- it was simply not valid.

And please cite the section of the constitution these 2 initiatives
violated.

It was deemed so by the Attorney General of the State of Alaska, and
therefor the Legislature, voted to overturn the Initiative, TWICE, for
the same reasons.

Do your own research into the situation, Smart Guy. *It shouldn't be a
big deal for YOU, to look *the Case Law up, that was used to overturn
this, cause your such a talented Goggle user.....

So what section of the AK constitution did it violate? And courts
determine constitutionality. And further, if it was unconstitutional,
as I said, the legislature didn't need to overturn it -- it was
invalid from the start. In fact, if it were unconstitutional, it
should not have been allowed on the ballot.