*I'm not a hunter but I don't have much of a problem with other people hunting.
*I'm going to vote for Obama, so yes, I'm "in the tank" for him.
I see a certain hypocrisy in Palin's support of Alaska's predator-control program. You can read about it here as it relates to a political ad which decries the use of aerial hunting techniques.
Palin is a republican who thinks free market economies work best. Government, in her opinion, should not meddle in the affairs of business in order to create a magical community where money falls down from the pockets of rich people into the mouths of the poor. OK, my cynicism was laid on a bit thick there, sorry.
But when it comes to wildlife, she supports a government program that is designed solely for the benefit of the hunter in order to bring the number of fun-to-shoot animal populations up.
Lets call this Hunter Socialism.
But there is something sick about killing animals to allow other people to kill even more animals. I understand that Alaska is like a whole different country. I understand that living there might require survival instincts that a city boy like me doesn't have. So by all means, if a wolf is threatening you or your family (which I'm not sure they actually do) then do what you have to.
So, she is totally against the government trying to use its power and influence to pull people up by their bootstraps, but she's all for the government helping hunters have a better selection of animals to kill...by killing wolves.
I don't know if anyone else sees the hypocrisy in this, or even cares, but I thought I would at least bring it up for discussion.
<-- Gratuitous image of dead wolf.
3 comments:
Very good point, and one more example of right wing hypocrisy.
I'm a pro-gun, pro hunting atheist. Definitely puts me into the dark corner by my self at parties.
Your comments on this are right on the button, as far as moral ethics of hunting go. The whole idea of being a hunter is knowing that you could support yourself from the land. That you enjoy wild meat, and the thrill of the hunt. Having the government engage in polices to make hunting easier on you is just ludicrous, from a sportsmanship point of view.
To play devils advocate, what if these policies have more to do with economics than sportsmanship? I imagine that a good portion of Alaskas income comes from hunting tourism. Rich suburban hunters pay large sums for the chance to shoot an Alaskan moose or elk. But if they fail to even see one, they are far less likely to return the following year, or to tell a friend.
If we manage our forests as a renewable resource for timber, why not manage the wildlife population as a resource for return tourism?
Thats just a devils advocate argument. I personally find the actions deplorable. Hunting for meat is just fine, but slaughtering apex predators to keep a herd overpopulated so that lazy urbanites can find easy kills is pathetic.
bart, I guess my response would be that if the hunting prospects are so bad that it doesn't make for a viable business then they should find another business and not kill the predators.
Thanks for the comment!
Post a Comment