Not for being a woman or a hunter or angler. For being a patsy for Big Oil, yes.
Here's a statement from Defenders of Wildlife's Roger Schickelson on Palin:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 29, 2008Shocking Choice by John McCain
WASHINGTON-- Senator John McCain just announced his choice for running mate: Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. To follow is a statement by Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund.
“Senator McCain’s choice for a running mate is beyond belief. By choosing Sarah Palin, McCain has clearly made a decision to continue the Bush legacy of destructive environmental policies.
“Sarah Palin, whose husband works for BP (formerly British Petroleum), has repeatedly put special interests first when it comes to the environment. In her scant two years as governor, she has lobbied aggressively to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, pushed for more drilling off of Alaska’s coasts, and put special interests above science. Ms. Palin has made it clear through her actions that she is unwilling to do even as much as the Bush administration to address the impacts of global warming. Her most recent effort has been to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the polar bear from the endangered species list, putting Big Oil before sound science. As unbelievable as this may sound, this actually puts her to the right of the Bush administration.
“This is Senator McCain’s first significant choice in building his executive team and it’s a bad one. It has to raise serious doubts in the minds of voters about John McCain’s commitment to conservation, to addressing the impacts of global warming and to ensuring our country ends its dependency on oil.”
###
The Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund (www.defendersactionfund.org) provides a powerful voice in Washington to Americans who value our conservation heritage. Through grassroots lobbying, issue advocacy and political campaigns, the Action Fund champions those laws and lawmakers that protect wildlife and wild places while working against those that do them harm.
Now, I get statements from the Defenders pretty regularly, and their organization has a lot of complaints about Palin. One of their biggest beefs with Alaska's governor is her stand on wolf hunting. As the Black Bear Blog notes:
Gov. Palin supports the use of aerial killing of overgrown populations of wolves in specific areas of Alaska that threaten other species, specifically the caribou and moose, needed for subsistence hunting by the natives. She is also suing the Department of Interior on behalf of the state of Alaska to overturn the DOI’s decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species.
What that means in plain English is Palin supports hunting and killing wolves -- for money -- from aboard helicopters.
WaPo quotes Gregg Erickson on Palin and wolves here:
Gregg Erickson: Palin, like about 60 percent of Alaska voters, favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Her environmental credentials are, at best, mixed. She favors what we in Alaska call "predator control," including, if necessary, the hunting of wolves from the air. Just recently her Dept. of Fish and Game pulled some wolf cubs from their den and shot them as part of a program to improve moose survival. [italics mine]
This woman has that "have dominion over the earth and everything therein" creationist notion down dead solid perfect. The balance of nature is always less valuable than the exploitation of profitable extractive industries -- oil, natural gas, guided big-game hunts (moose).
But wolf cubs are not the only wildlife interest Palin opposes. Palin's no fan of polar bears, one of Alaska's best-known megafauna.
Palin's sued the federal government over listing polar bears as a threatened species, a move she opposed -- that quote is her op-ed for the NYT; by now her "drill drill drill" mentality is as well-known a meme as McCain's "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" quip. Her record on the environment is also illuminated at US News' Fresh Greens website:
Things Sarah Palin Believes About the Environment
August 29, 2008 02:28 PM ET | Maura Judkis | Permanent LinkAs America begins the process of getting to know surprise McCain VP pick Sarah Palin, here are a few of her positions on the environment.
1. Palin believes that we should drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which McCain has previously opposed. He's wavered on the issue before, though, so his nomination of Palin may be the tipping point. She also supports offshore drilling.
2. Palin is a proponent of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska's North Slope.
3. Palin has sued the Department of the Interior about putting the polar bear on the endangered species list.
4. Palin supports mining in Bristol Bay, which may disrupt salmon, bears, and caribou.
A quote from the McCain campaign: "Governor Palin has challenged the influence of the big oil companies while fighting for the development of new energy resources. She leads a state that matters to every one of us—Alaska has significant energy resources and she has been a leader in the fight to make America energy independent."
What do you think of the pick?
What I think of the pick and five bucks will get you a tall latte at the coffeehouse, but not only does Palin's conservatism land somewhere farther right than does McCain's, and not only am I opposed to her anti-choice politics, I find her record on the environment appalling.
She's also apparently got some, ahem, questionable behavior regarding using her office to settle personal scores in her closet. But if she didn't she wouldn't be in politics, let alone a Republican politician.
Do I think it's a good thing McCain picked a woman?
If you want to look at it in light of the subtle-as-a-flying-battleaxe ploy to entice disgruntled female Democrats (and former Democrats) to vote for him, eh. Go ahead. My understanding is he picked Palin more or less out of a hat after being assured that picking his BFF Joe Lieberman would get him run off the Twin Cities podium by The Base. So the cynic in me thinks he picked a woman for political pull.
The voter in me wonders why on earth he'd pick this woman, if he were trying to position himself as NOT just like W.
But what do I know?
After all, I'm a woman "of a certain age," I'm an honorably-discharged veteran of the US Air Force, and I believe that it really doesn't matter if we save a nickel on every gallon of gas for six months or so 20 years from now -- if we give up our home places to do it, we won't really be saving anything. Wyoming's Walt Gasson is on to something.
- Sarah's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
outdoors press
the outdoors press is very pro-conservation and pro-endangered species act. Democrats have an opening.
Far better than the experience argument
which is such a loser. So as I can tell, of the set of four candidates, the set of candidates with actual executive experience numbers 1: Palin. Sigh.
Yes, shooting animals from helicopters is pretty Cheney-esque, but is she a global warming denialist?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Her position seems to be
that global warming exists but she isn't sure human activity is responsible - which might as well be denialist, since altering human activity is the fix. But according to Wikipedia, she has climate advisors and is looking at lowering AK's GHG emissions. You begin to wonder if she has multiple-personality disorder. grist.org has an assessment.
I'd reserve judgment on doing predator control from helicopters until I knew the facts of the situation. Fish and Wildlife people in states I've lived in generally know their jobs and the need for management is a fact of life - there is no mechanism which will automatically restore the "balance of nature", and even if there was, we're so far out of balance it wouldn't function.
Given the size, terrain and climate of AK, if controlling the wolf population is necessary (and I have no idea if it is, but again, wouldn't dismiss it out of hand), helicopters might be the only feasible way to do it.
I wouldn't favor helicopter hunting for "sportsmen" - I agree that would Cheney-esque.
Is aerial killing worse than other kinds?
It seems as if every time reducing the wolf population is mentioned, a point is made about it being aerial. Is it worse than trapping? Or just more effective? (I really don't know, I'm askin')
I think the biggest pr problem is the polar bears, which are fuzzy and attractive to people, but when it's bears vs. oil, I don't know how that plays with gas at more than 4 bucks a gallon.
I'm very glad that environmentalism has come to the fore in the past few years, it's an excellent development. However I think a lot of the green movement is based in trendiness-- it's cool to care about the environment. Also good, because unless something's popular with the mainstream, or near-mainstream, it's not happening. But it's also a double edged sword. Trendy greens tend to fold when it means inconvenience or costing $. The oil bill sitting on your desk waiting to be paid is a lot more compelling to many folks than the polar bear 1000s of miles away, no matter how fuzzy and adorable.
dominion over the earth
is one thing. Domination and destruction is an entirely different notion.
I'm really surprised that as a fisherwoman, Palin supports #4 in the list.
The hunters, fishers have become allies with many enironmentalists on many issues, because they know that hunting and fishing depend on having a clean environment, with healthy wild animals to hunt and edible fish to catch. So Palin is being very contradictory. No way is she a conservationist. Maybe she does her salmon fishing the way cheney does his quail hunting.
As for the wolves, if the population is too large and needs to be thinned/controlled, nature will take care of that. Of course that won't generate the hunting license/fee income for the state, or the helicopter rental income for the helicopter company. And then we would have to acknowledge that sometimes nature is cruel and some of the wolves starved. & As if those helicopter hunters were all ace sharpshooters, and no animal limped away to die a slow painful death.
The way that nature took care of it
Before Europeans arrived and eventually decided that wolves should be protected (because they previously decided wolves should be exterminated), nature took care of it by having other large predators (humans) kill wolves and probably vice versa.
It's unlikely that there's been a time in recent Alaskan history (the last 10-12,000 years) when wolves, caribou and moose didn't co-exist with humans. Before that the ice was 2 miles thick and none of those existed in Alaska.
So the unnatural solution is to not control wolf populations through human killing. I think the height of environmental irresponsibility is to alter and/or destroy an ecosystem (for example, by removing the indigenous human population to a reservation) and then stand back and say "nature will fix it".
That's basically an experiment in creating at random an ecosystem that never was and one that probably won't conform to your expectations, since human expectations are not normally part of natural laws.
I also fail to see why a wolf starving to death is preferable to a wounded wolf bleeding to death. From the wolf's point of view it's about the same thing.
the polar bear 1000s of miles away
is only one of many different species on the planet.
It doesn't matter if they're fuzzy and adorable. If their lives are being threatened because of climate/environmental change, then that threat will probably come to visit other life forms on the planet, in time.
Dfferent varieties of frogs have become extinct the past several years. Definitely not warm and/or fuzzy, their bodies are more sensitive (I know there's a more scientific way of putting it), and react more quickly to environmental changes.
On the other hand, I agree totally that what's called the Green Movement tries to appeal as being trendy -- here's some new trendy green stuff for you to buy! Yes, those type of trendy greens fold when it might be inconvenient.
I suspect that's why Gore called it the inconvenient truth.
Yeah, not an enviro governor
Can't say I'm surprised, though. BTW, Governor Granholm, here in Michigan, and a Democrat, no less, has approved all kinds of enviro-unfriendly development including, most recently, a grossly destructive acid-mining facility in the UP, which sounds worse than anything that happening up in Alaska. I only bring this us, because I haven't lived under an environmental-friendly governor. It's all I know.
I can't say this is unexpected or a surprise. Palin is a Republican, after all.
When the environmental movement....
...has to lie to make its point (Palin's husband quit his job when she became govermor, to avoid the appearance of any conflict of interest) one has to suspect the entire presentation.
So what's he doing now, Paul? She's just spent $400K in state
moneys to fight a ballot initiative aimed at ending aerial hunting of wolves. Tells me her budget priorities are out of whack -- and tells me that she's more into making money than taking care of the wildness and the wilderness remaining in Alaska.
From her official biography:
That last sentence is damn near word-for-word the same indictment I tried to raise against W in '99, because while he was "reducing taxes" and destroying our schools with NCLB, he was also wrecking our state's infrastructure in an effort to make Texas "a business friendly environment" and "draw in new industry".
Also from her official bio, her husband's work:
She is married to Todd Palin, who is a lifelong Alaskan, a production operator on the North Slope and a four-time champion of the Iron Dog, the world's longest snowmachine race.
Sounds to me like the environmental movement isn't lying about Mr. Palin at all, Paul.
Sounds to me like the Palin environmental legacy is
"a crock of shit, and it stinketh." Of course, the spin is, "it is a container of fertilizer, and it is very strong."
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
So now....
...sarah thinks that states should not ensure that indigenous populations be able to "live off the land" (or tundra, in this case).
I know sarah! Lets put them all on reservations! Heck, we can even give them blankets that were used by smallpox victims, and call it "recycling!"
Truthiness
indeed.
I'm disappointed to see this screed of half-truths posted on Corrente.
Some of y'all reflexive environmentalists need to do a little reading up on Alaska and particularly the condition of its indigenous people before applying Sierra Club standards to it.
The idea that "nature will take care of the wolf" population is simply mind-blowing. So is the idea of debating whether "letting them starve" is either more or less noble than shooting them from the air.
What will starve, folks, is the human beings, overwhelmingly indigenous people, who have to compete with the wolves for food. The wolves are quite simply better at it, and my understanding is the wolf population is growing and expanding to the point that it is actually a threat to the human food supply in those parts of Alaska.
Alaska is an ecosystem entirely different from anything else in the U.S., and you cannot apply Yellowstone Park rules to it.
Same goes for the Polar bears, although I know less about that. But for environmental groups to screech about Palin's position on polar bears without so much hinting at the reason for her position is so wildly dishonest and grossly manipulative that I'm almost (!) at a loss for words.
My understanding from what I've read is that the polar bear population is robust and growing in Alaska, and listing them as endangered would criminalize indigenous people in their territory who absolutely must rely on them for food, fur, etc. Palin, to my understanding, would not oppose listing them as endangered if there were an exception for subsistence killing by indigenous people only.
I'd honestly like to know what other position she could possibly take on both wolves and polar bears as governor of Alaska. I HATE killing animals in any circumstance, but unless somebody's prepared to move all these folks onto nice reservations where they can be put on the public dole and fed government surplus food (sound at all familiar?), I don't know what the alternative is. Maybe we could teach them all to be vegetarians? I'm so sure you can grow enough produce in northern Alaska to feed yourself year-round.
The populations of both wolves and polar bears, from my understanding, are thriving in Alaska, so there's zero impact on the species from these hunts.
Oil is a whole 'nother subject, but I'll just point out that nobody gets elected to dogcatcher in Alaska who isn't in favor of opening up ANWR, offshore drilling and drilling everywhere else. I don't like it, but it's hardly extreme, and totally de rigeur for Alaska.
IOW, for God's sake, let's get a grip here.
talk about dishonest
You say pointing to Palin's big-oil over polar bears is dishonest.. and then you put these word into her mouth??!
If anyone is being wildly dishonest, it is you. Umm.. try and read what she HAS said, and no, it's not because she cares about anyone but large corporations.
ADN:
ADN:
Perhaps the both of you...
could take a step back, agree what you're contending on, and what it would take in terms of linky and quote-y goodness to prove each other's contentions.
Thanks....
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Fair points
Except that I said repeatedly "to my understanding." I'm very willing to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I object, and still object, to throwing out accusations, as the environmental orgs are doing, without even the faintest attempt to honestly and rationally combat the actual arguments of the "other side."
Sorry if that offends you.
My questions remain. What would you do with the indigenous populations who depend on them and the caribou for subsistence?
I'm certainly not arguing that Palin is some kind of saint, but I would really, really, really like to see even a modicum of rational discussion of her positions on this stuff that honestly attempts to examine both sides, and I'm not seeing it.
I'm not interested in a battle of flung sound bites and quotes and accusations. Haven't we had enough of that?
Environmental issues in Alaska are far, far different than they are in the crowded and largely defiled East, and I'd like to see a more rational discussion of them instead of knee-jerk "Oohhhh! Palin hates polar bears! Icky-poo! Bad, bad, bad!"
Sorry, but I am now way, way past the ability to accept the talking points of the Dems. and Dem.-aligned groups as gospel. They've lost all credibility with me, and that's only accelerating as this goes on.
I do apologize if the ferocity of my response offended, but my frustration with the apparent lack of even willingness to sort through the pooh is reaching a boiling point.
I guess it goes back to the battle cry that "Hillary is a warmonger!" Maybe her AUMF vote was a bad one, maybe there was a good reason for it. We never got to the point of talking it through.
And I'm seeing the same thing with Palin, who is reflexively branded as a villainess because she's a Republican evangelical, and then everybody rushes out to find quotes to back up that pre-determined storyline.
Sorry, not buying it anymore.
show me a quote
Please, before I call you a blatant spreader of truthiness, please cite your bold statement:
This is the biggest example of truthiness I have read in awhile..
You're missing something
I didn't state it as truth, only as my understanding.
You're doing the same thing to me as you're doing to Palin, frankly, seeing what you want to see because anybody who questions the orthodoxy must be the enemy.
Of course, that's just my understanding of what you've said. :-)
not quite
I provided actual quotes of what Palin has actually said. I also provided a quote of what you actually said.
See, you implied that Palin doesn't want endangered status for polar bears because of indigenous hunters, and even went so far to say that if there was an except clause, she would have been all for it.
I called bullshit, because as much as I would like to see her quoted somewhere, I cannot find any reference to hunting and Palin and polar bears.
I do find her saying that polar bears happen to live in the same place as big-oil and big-gas corporations, and that is what she cares about.
I'm doing nothing to you except point out that you shouldn't get away with "as I understand it".
Some people say that you can keep attributing words and thoughts into some fictional narrative all that you desire.
The problem does not seem
The problem does not seem to be that placing animals on the endangered species list will force native Alaskans onto reservations. It's more about oil companies spoiling the habitat of large sea mammels which some native villages in the north depend on. Placing bears on the endangered species list interferes with commercialization of their habitats.
Their are plenty of links to be found. Here is just one from the NY Review of Books.
It’s not a matter of preferring
starving over bleeding to death. Nor is it a matter of which death is more “noble.”
Like I said, the result is the same.
Why is the wolf population a threat to the human food supply? I suspect the wolves are hunting caribou. Are the caribou numbers so low? Are people not allowed to hunt the caribou? Are they allowed to hunt wolves other than aerially? Or is it a matter of land encroachment?
Someone asked was trapping less humane than aerial shooting? How did people used to hunt wolves thousands of years ago?
And by using the words “nature will take care of it,” I was in no way saying that nature would “fix” the problem (to our liking). Nor did I say that there should be no management of the ecosystem. If we can make the right choices, nature will respond as we hope.