New website: Sarah Palin's Predator Holocaust
By Ralph Maughan On October 2, 2008 · 14 Comments · In Bears, Politics
New website: Sarah Palin’s Predator Holocaust. This was done by the Bear Viewing Association
Tagged with: grizzly bears • Sarah Palin
Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University. He was a Western Watersheds Project Board Member off and on for many years, and was also its President for several years. For a long time he produced Ralph Maughan's Wolf Report. He was a founder of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. He and Jackie Johnson Maughan wrote three editions of "Hiking Idaho." He also wrote "Beyond the Tetons" and "Backpacking Wyoming's Teton and Washakie Wilderness." He created and is the administrator of The Wildlife News.
14 Responses to New website: Sarah Palin's Predator Holocaust
Subscribe to Blog via EmailJoin 970 other subscribers
- We Lost Jim Bailey–Wild Bison Advocate. May 31, 2023
- Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges May 27, 2023
- Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green May 26, 2023
- Senator Daines Ill-advised Forest Management Advocacy May 25, 2023
- Save Our Sequoias Act–A Stealth Attack On NEPA, ESA and Our Sequoia Groves May 21, 2023
- Kevin Bixby on We Lost Jim Bailey–Wild Bison Advocate.
- Lyn McCormick on We Lost Jim Bailey–Wild Bison Advocate.
- Jannett Heckert on We Lost Jim Bailey–Wild Bison Advocate.
- Rick Meis on We Lost Jim Bailey–Wild Bison Advocate.
- Ida Lupine on Save Our Sequoias Act–A Stealth Attack On NEPA, ESA and Our Sequoia Groves
- Mary on Save Our Sequoias Act–A Stealth Attack On NEPA, ESA and Our Sequoia Groves
- Rambling Dave on Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges
- Ida Lupine on Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges
- Mary on Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges
- Jeff Hoffman on Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges
- Jeff Hoffman on Senator Daines Ill-advised Forest Management Advocacy
- laurie on Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green
- Ida Lupine on Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green
- Jeff Hoffman on Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green
- Ida Lupine on Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green
Whilst I agree with what is said on the site – especially Alaska’s outright slaughter of predators – it is not ‘detached’ enough to be taken seriously.
It takes more than a few enlightened individuals to change things.
This has been going on pre Palin and will be going on post palin. Its called the state looking out for the Majority of its residents.
You must be kidding? How is killing bears and wolves “looking out for the Majority” Alaska’s residents?
70, 000 Alaskans ignored, thrice.
“This has been going on pre Palin and will be going on post palin. Its called the state looking out for the Majority of its residents.”
Kinda like the majority of Wyoming residents are against wolves, eh.
jeff E – – Then Wyoming needs to come up with a realistic and viable — not “shoot on sight!”
It’s that Wyoming arrogance — like Dick Cheney saying he doesn’t have to make any of his notes accessible to the public because he ‘reports to the U.S. constitution.’
My as– he reports to the constitution. Last I understood, his salary was being paid by the American people.
But… the real question…. what is he trying to hide?
“70, 000 Alaskans ignored, thrice.”
In favor of 500,000 alaskans.
It was a majority vote against the aerial gunning of predators.
Need I also add the international disapproval of these practices, as well as the bad reputation that follows quickly afterward?
Not many people know that Alaska is one of the few places that does not respect the sanctuary of National Parks either.
Here’s the clincher too, the Alaskan Board of Game does not have one biologist working for them who has the spine to speak out against such flawed culling programs.
The state allowed the sale of over 2000 moose tags last year and still they have the gall to state that there is a crisis.
If you shoot a wolf to save a moose, then shoot the moose: you’re either insane… or in Alaska.
There is a fundamental flaw in your logic.. First of all only non residents even have to buy a moose tag.. Secondly do you have any clue how big AK is? If there biologists aren’t speaking out about it, maybe they agree with it? The only hunting allowed in National parks is subsistence or LE, that being said there are more National parks and wildlife refuges in AK (as far as size) than any place in the US.
Let me ask you this, why should Alaskans care what international people who have never been there think?
Prove your majority quote too while your at it?
If your going to run your mouth, get your facts straight before you start..
Looks like majorities too me.
1996 — Year Alaska voters passed a ban on aerial hunting of wolves except in a “biological emergency”
58.6% — Total “yes” vote on that ban
1999 — Year the Alaska Legislature removed the “biological emergency” restriction on aerial wolf hunting
2000 — Year the Alaska Legislature re-legalized aerial wolf hunting by private individuals, over Gov. Tony Knowles’ veto
6 — Months that elapsed before Alaska voters in 2000 overturned the Legislature’s action and restored the previous ban on aerial hunting
53% — Total “yes” vote to restore the previous ban on aerial wolf hunting
2003 — Year that the Alaska Legislature and Governor Murkowski re-legalized aerial wolf hunting by private individuals
“If your going to run your mouth, get your facts straight before you start..”
Now that right there is funny s*** coming from Ryan.
Yup, Cheney with lipstick.
National Parks are National Parks, Ryan. Places reserved for natural events to unfold untouched by humans.
How many there are or how big the state is should not make any difference to what they stand for. Alaska’s tourism industry for international citizens is one of the key industries of the state. Big money in seeing living animals, not dead ones. And its not just seeing the animals that eco-tourism has to offer. Annoy the tourists and you lose that source of major income.
Tags: Last time I checked, wasn’t it a legal requirement to have one regardless of where you are from?
As for the ‘maybe they [biologists] agree’, its the fear biologists have for their jobs.
Manipulation of herbivore populations whilst the population is stable is not ecologically sound and causes a devastating effect on the landscape. Culling of predators because they have caused this stabilisation and hunters need a destabilised ecosystem to have a ‘decent harvest’ (set at a high level) is just plain anti-environment.
Anyone with a brain can tell you that, its not rocket science.