Sarah Versus Ashley...

First off body parts for bounty is not unusual. When I lived in the country you could get $50.00 for a coyote ear. We don't know the facts about the wolves in Alaska. Only what we're hearing from the anti-hunting groups. Thinning out animals has proved to be a way to help the population by making sure they have enough resources for the animal in question. That's why there is deer hunting and other types of hunting. These groups don't always tell the facts and more often than not their celebrity backers don't ask for the facts. They seem to be most upset by the fact the killings are done by helicopter. Evidently they don't realize there aren't that many roads in Alaska. Or as someone tried to stupidly convince me, think it is all a big city. http://outdoorsdirectory.com/magazine/Alaska_wof_control_works.htm

Sarah Palin calls everybody and anybody who disagrees with her publicly "extreme". As for fringe groups, she is a pot calling the kettle black what with her association with her church group and the Independent Alaska group. She's as fringe as they come, and I'm not talking about her bangs. She needs to start learning what shame is.

I am against anyone, regardless who they are, who condones cruelty to animals therefore KUDOS to Ashley.

I think it's unfortunate that Ashley Judd is so eager to jump on the cause without researching what is really going on there. It's called predator control and it happens in other states as well. This is done to protect the caribou and moose populations in Alaska. The wolf is not endangered there. I personally feel that any wolf killed should be cooked and eaten. That's just the way hunting is meant to be. The aerial killing seems extreme, but you have to take into consideration that these are being killed in mountains and dangerous terrain where you can't simply drive a jeep and being on foot poses the risk of dying from avalanches and exposure. One last point, this policy has been in effect since long before Sarah Palin took office. Nobody objected to it before and people are only making a big deal out of it now to bash Palin. Nobody has mentioned Minnesota or other states where the same thing happens.

Well, I have a special place in my heart for wolves. If you couldn't tell by my profile picture, they're my favorite animal. However, in Alaska wolves aren't endangered, and therefore not protected by anti-hunting laws, so their fair game as far as hunters are concerned. I'm not against hunting non-endangered animals, even if they are my favorite animal. I think aerial hunting is just plain cheating. Where's the challenge? Where's the hunt? Do people actually feel proud of picking off animals from high above all the danger? It goes against everything I was ever taught about hunting. When I was a kid, we weren't allowed to kill anything we weren't willing to eat (unless it presented a threat to us or our livestock). When we did hunt, you can bet we didn't do it from the back of a truck. I'm of two minds on this. Every fiber of my being causes me to dislike hunters who hunt from inside the safety of a vehicle. I can't fault hunters for hunting wolves that aren't endangered, though. Just because I love wolves doesn't mean I should expect hunters to uphold my standards. I would first have to know if aerial hunting is absolutely necessary to the safety of the hunter to hunt in winter. I would also need to know if frequent aerial hunting presents a danger to a maintained population of wolves. I can see the logic of pulling it off in winter, though, and I noticed the video on your link failed to mention it. Food is more scarce in winter, and wolves may be dying off due to starvation anyway. A lower population of wolves in winter means less mouths to feed, more food for the remaining wolves, and less possibility of wolves helping themselves to livestock. So the big question is, does aerial hunting help or harm the ecosystem more?

LOL...my money is on Ashley Judd as well. I had done a discussion sometime ago, while Palin was still in the running for VP and it had come out about her wolf slaughter especially aerial hunting. I mean it be one thing if they were killing wolves for food, but this is just "trophy" hunting and now of course the incentive is greater to kill wolves due to the bounty she has set up for each wolf killed. There's even worse news I heard that I think this was a leftover from the Bush administration to lift wolves in general off the endangered species listing.

I went to Alaska and it is very difficult to get out of some of those areas into the forests where the wolves are. So I would gather shooting them from the air would be the best bet and would mostly done to cull the packs. I am in favor of farmers defending their property and their animals against wolf attacks. I was wondering if there was a more economical and more humane way of protecting against wolf attacks on livestock? I think it is more the method than then necessity. So I am on the fence here. Is this Defender of Wildlife just for protecting the wildlife at all life or against the use of cruel methods. And if it is something that those who are ignorant about the situation in the wild will latch onto? Besides I know you are against Palin no matter what her side. I would rather listen to someone who is knowledgeable like someone who has been hunting or farming in Alaska. They know the situation. I doubt Ashley does. Has she been to Alaska? Has she got information from the Wildlife Bureau or photographs, etc. showing the danger or lack of danger of wolf attacks, the cost to livestock, or lack thereof?

I agree with Ashley Judd. I think aerial wolf hunting shouldn't be allowed. I can't see how Defenders of Wildlife is a fringe group, can you?

Go Ashley, I'm rooting for you! Sarah is a "dimwit" and I think most people realize it.

Annie, I say go Ashley...She is right and what Palin is doing is once again wrong. Ainge

Considering that I grew up in New Mexico in the early 1940's, where wolves were a serious threat to livestock in ranching country, and there was a bounty on their heads,(so to speak, I don't remember what part you had to present to receive the bounty) I'm sorry to say I'm with Palin. Alaska is still a frontier. The rewards for the fore legs are an incentive to get non ranching citizens involved in protecting the domestic animals and possibly even humans in remote rural areas where wolves threaten the livelyhood and food supply. I can see where modern day city dwellers would see this as cruel to the wolves, but in the eyes of those threatened, it's survival of the fittest.

Has anyone looked to see if wolf numbers are so big that it is causing a danger to the general public? OR if they are getting to close to populated areas? Before we jump on any band weagon we need to see if there is a real reason for this to happen. No it is not a good thing to kill animals for the fun of it. But there are legitimate reasons to do it. Here they allowed alligator hunting this year for the first time. Why? beacuse the population was getting so big that it was causing problems and was endangering the public.. Want to freak out? wake up one morning and find a huge gator in your front yard. It is very common here. They are causing big problems. Attacking people, tearing down fences to get into people's yards to eat their pets. A chain link fence is not real problem for them. A smaller one even got into a woman's house by going through her doggy door. Not good. The state said that if a hunting season did not get the numbers under better control that they might start a bounty. I agree.

actors pick a cause they think will keep their name in the lime light.she will in all likelihood go home take her fir slippers out of the closet,eat a stake,and hope her latest stunt keep her name in print.

I just want the wolves to have a safe environment to do what GOD intended them to do, they never hunt if they aren't hungry and they don't make trophies out of the heads of deer nor do they stuff the hides of animals to show off. I really don't care about either one of these women, I don't know them.