I am rarely a political person, however...

[Tawmis]

Please sign - and PLEASE pass this around. Post it everywhere.Tell #Disney not to fund Sarah Palin's nature show! http://bit.ly/deLnGL Pls RT http://tinyurl.com/stopsarahpalin - That last URL is a difficult video to watch but MUST be seen to be understood why I want this stopped.

[Tawmis]

Several have asked why this targets DISNEY and not Discovery - it's in the first few paragraphs:

Disney is a long-time advertiser on The Learning Channel, and unless the company specifically demands that its ads not be shown during this Palin show, that ad revenue may be funding this monstrosity.

Disney is very sensitive to customer feedback, and has done the right thing in the past when challenged.

[DeadPoolX]

I'm not a hunter, but you do realize that killing wolves from a plane isn't about sport or brutality, right? It's about predatory animal population control. That doesn't mean "wipe out the wolves" at all.

In fact, those who kill wolves from planes are regulated by federal legislation that allows state employees and licensed individuals to kill wolves in order protect "land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life, or crops." The idea is that by keeping the wolf population in check, there will be more animals for human hunters to kill and take home for dinner.

None of these people are paid for their work. That was the basis for Palin's attempt at having the state pay $150 for each wolf killed.

On a personal note, I don't really care for hunting. I don't have the patience for it and in many ways I don't think it's entirely necessary. While I do agree with you in many respects, my issue is with the extremely biased information presented.

[Collector]

Wow. Talk about extremely biased info.

I'm not a hunter, but you do realize that killing wolves from a plane isn't about sport or brutality, right? It's about predatory animal population control. That doesn't mean "wipe out the wolves" at all.

In fact, those who kill wolves from planes are regulated by federal legislation that allows state employees and licensed individuals to kill wolves in order protect "land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life, or crops." The idea is that by keeping the wolf population in check, there will be more animals for human hunters to kill and take home for dinner.

None of these people are paid for their work. That was the basis for Palin's attempt at having the state pay $150 for each wolf killed.

Just because the state decides it's a good idea to "control" a population does not mean that there is any legitimate scientific reason to do so. Plains ranchers have been forced to exterminate prairie dogs because cattle may step in a prairie dog hole and break a leg, even though, in reality, this is practically unheard of. The presence of prairie dog colonies not only provides wider biodiversity with a more robust ecosystem (read less subject to things like drought and dust bowls), but provides much richer, more nutritious grazing ground.

Public policy is often made based on popular misconceptions (the prairie dog example) or moneyed interests (our energy policy was made in closed door meetings between Dick Cheney and lobbyist from the oil industry, which removed most regulation and oversight) rather than reasoned research.

For wildlife management, aerial hunting of wolves does not accomplish much of any real tangible benefit outside of a supposed notion that it will increase prey for human hunters. Even in range land used for cattle grazing, wolf kills are negligible. They prefer other prey. Wolves are highly social creatures with complex social structures. The killing of a single animal has devastating, highly disruptive effects on those societies.

[Tawmis]

I'm not a hunter, but you do realize that killing wolves from a plane isn't about sport or brutality, right? It's about predatory animal population control. That doesn't mean "wipe out the wolves" at all.

None of these people are paid for their work. That was the basis for Palin's attempt at having the state pay $150 for each wolf killed.

I didn't say anything about wiping out all the wolves. And "predatory animal control" is all fine and dandy - if done in a humane manner. Popping a wolf in the hindquarters with a gun so it can't move, so that you can - at some point, whenever - land your plane and "claim its foot" is one of the (many) issues I have. Obviously when the wolf is shot, it doesn't look like it's a clean kill. So the wolf, bear, whatever animal it is - is shot from the plane. So now it's not a clean kill, so the plane doesn't instantly land, I would assume. So that means the animal is there suffering with a gaping wound in its body, to either suffer in pain, and eventually die - or wait until Mr. Brave Ass Hunter In A Plane decides to come down and finish the animal off.

On a personal note, I don't really care for hunting. I don't have the patience for it and in many ways I don't think it's entirely necessary. While I do agree with you in many respects, my issue is with the extremely biased information presented.

No $#!+ the information presented is one sided. That's what you get from a campaign. Rarely does a campaign for something tell you both sides. I have done my research on the twit that is Sarah Palin, long before now (this past voting session was the first time I have ever voted - and I dug deep, because I wanted to make sure I was making the right choice - or as right as one could possibly make, as I believe all politicians are liars, you just need to vote for the lesser of evils).

[Datadog]

Time and time again, humanity has proven itself incapable of controlling the environment. No matter how many scientists they bring in, they can never get the right numbers necessary to bring populations down to acceptable levels. Shoot a bunch of wolves, and another species will have a population boost in it's place and eat our crops. Don't shoot enough, and the wolves overrun our farms and eat our livestock.

While I don't approve of gunning down wolves from planes for sport (a real man uses his BARE HANDS,) I do see the necessity of what they're doing. This has been going on for decades, long before Sarah Palin. Wolves all along that coast constantly have population explosions, and with a lack of natural enemies they reproduce a lot faster than any humane means of population control can handle. It's the catch-22 of nature. We can't protect the wolves unless enough of them are dead first. Sad, but true. It's them or us.

[Maiandra]

I think any cruelty to animals is inexcusable. If it's necessary to control wild animal populations because they pose a real danger to human settlements (which is pretty much the only reason I see as a valid one), then the people doing it have a responsibility to do it humanely. If they have to use a gun, then they should be doing it as cleanly as possible, without making the animal suffer.

I don't see killing wolves so humans have more wildlife to hunt as necessary. Humans have many other food sources available to them. If deer, elk, caribou, or whatever were the only food source available to the people in the given area, then I could possibly understand it, but I find it hard to believe that it is.

On top of that, we can't even manage to treat our domesticated animals humanely much of the time, whether they are food sources or pets. Many of our domestic animal food sources are treated far worse than those in the wild that we have contact with. People really need to start acting more ethically all around.

I haven't actually watched the video yet, but I have a good imagination and I can guess its contents from the comments here. I would like to look into it a little more. The issue at hand isn't about whatever political agendas were attached to it, but the issue of animal cruelty. I don't care who is doing it, but if it is as bad as it sounds, then it needs to stop.

[DeadPoolX]

Whoa! I think some here may gotten the wrong impression by what I said.

I don't think killing animals, except for certain specific reasons, is necessary. Population control is a necessary function, but as many have already said, the kill should be quick and clean. There's no point in making the animal suffer.

As I said before, I'm not a hunter. I've never gone hunting. The only animals I've killed are in video games, which oddly enough, are usually wolves (and sometimes bears).

My issue was simply the bias presented in that video. I don't really care for Palin, but I don't rabidly hate her as some people do. Unfortunately, I feel using Palin simply politicizes the situation and that's a shame. Perhaps the focus should be on the wolves themselves instead of the knee-jerk reaction many have to hearing Palin's name.

And no, I'm not suggesting any here have acted like that. I just know, from prior experience, that some people will immediately jump to a conclusion based upon certain individuals without looking further into the situation. That annoys me since life is rarely as simple as "so-and-so supports this so it's bad."

[Jules]

As long as she’s not talking politics and as long as she’s strictly talking about nature, I don’t see a problem with her having a show. I’d have to see more about the show or watch an episode or two first. She does know a lot about nature and she hunts and fishes. Respectable hunters know very much about nature and help fund nature facilities greatly by buying hunting licenses. They also help keep the land pristine and help keep the population balanced so there will always be hunting in the future. Both my parents are hunters and they both love nature very much and always always always try to leave the forest exactly how it was before they arrived.

After watching the video, I am horrified to see this happen and that she funds it. On the other hand, the video is one-sided because they don’t show what harm the wolves are doing from overpopulating. One thing is for sure that when hunting, a respectable hunter uses as much of the animal as possible and tries not to leave any waste. Shooting from the air is positively an awful way to hunt. If there is an animal overpopulation crisis, I believe Mother Nature will eventually handle it naturally. It all works out in the end eventually. It seems silly humans are trying to do it themselves because it will never stop, especially if there’s money involved. Nature will handle it on its own.

This kind of reminds me of Tiger Woods. Even though he’s done some horrible things, he still can play an awesome round of golf. To me, as long as she doesn’t spout politics and only if she strictly talks about nature, I don’t mind her having a show.

[Tawmis]

As long as she’s not talking politics and as long as she’s strictly talking about nature, I don’t see a problem with her having a show.

To me it'd be like having a known child molester talking about how great he is at baby sitting...

She has no respect for nature. None that I have seen. How could she possibly talk about it?

Other than hoping to perhaps redeem her reputation so she can make a better political run next time.

[DeadPoolX]

I don't think she'll ever be able to run for any political office. The amount of misinformation attributed to her has doomed any prospects she might have once had.

For instance... lots of people really think she once said: "I can see Russia from my house." That line was spoken by Tine Fey (dressed up like Palin) as a skit Saturday Night Live.

What Palin actually was: "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." This was in response to a question posed by Charles Gibson while interviewing Palin on his TV show, World News with Charles Gibson.

My point is no matter what her positions are on this subject (or just about ANY subject), her chances of successfully acquiring any political office is slim. This is partly why I feel politicizing the entire aerial wolf killing issue is wrong. That has nothing to do with politics. People on both sides of the aisle have hunted in the past, currently enjoy hunting and probably agree with the concept of aerial wolf killing.

[Tawmis]

That may be true (each is entitled to their opinion, no matter how wrong or misguided they may be! ) - but in the long run, I'd much rather have someone who truly understands and respects nature host a show about nature - not some twit b!tch like Palin, who even without her political background, strikes me as clueless - and thus, I'd rather not have her hosting the show.

[DeadPoolX]

In that respect, I agree. I want Teddy Roosevelt! He understood the idea of balance between entities like conservation and business.

[Collector]

In that respect, I agree. I want Teddy Roosevelt! He understood the idea of balance between entities like conservation and business.

We could use another Roosevelt again in so many ways.

[Rath Darkblade]

In that respect, I agree. I want Teddy Roosevelt! He understood the idea of balance between entities like conservation and business.

I actually think the world could use another Franklin Delano Roosevelt to bring us out of this economic depression.