http://www.care2.com/news/member/338686546/863818

Animals & Money: Palin's fiscal weakness for hunters

*Carol Vinzant

Aug 30th 2008 at 9:45AM When John McCain picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, wildlife lovers cringed for two reasons. The first is that she seems like just the kind of smart, young leader who has battled corruption and government waste that could get not so environmentally friendly Republicans elected. The second is that Palin herself has been on the side of hunters instead of wildlife watcherseven when the fiscal numbers are not on hunting's side. Palinin addition to vowing to sue to

stop the listing Polar Bears as an endangered species--has put the weight of the state behind defeating a ballot measure that would have limited the aerial shooting of wolves. Nationwide aerial hunting has been banned since 1972's Airborne Hunting Act, but Alaska gets around that by saying the hunters are working for the state to control predators. The idea is to produce more moose and caribou to hunt. The Alaska Fish and Game Department has been allowing aerial wolf huntingeven though voters said no to it twicefor since 2003. (The legislature later overturned the voters' decision.) But this time Alaskans voted 92,781 to 74,124 to allow it.Why did Alaskans change their mind? It could have been, as the Anchorage Daily News suggests, because the wording was confusing: "Some who voted no on Measure 2 thought they were banning the practice, when in fact it took a yes vote to stop private hunters from gunning wolves and bears from the air." And others blame the state for spending $400,000 on an "educational campaign" on the issue, alongside nearly as much fromhunting groups. Spending state money on the campaign, drew lots of criticism, but eventually the Alaska Public Offices Commission said it was okay. But that's only the beginning of the cost of the program. John Toppenberg, director of Alaska Wildlife Aliance says the program costs about $1 million a year to run. A pro-hunting blog, Black Bear Blog, said the state spent $640,000 on predator control studies in 2006. For a while the state also tried to offer a $150 "cash incentive" to "wolf control volunteers" for each left front leg they brought in. The state insisted it wasn't a bounty, a judge said that's exactly what it was and ordered it to stop. The predator control program has been a controversy in Alaska for two decades. They've knocked off about 800 wolves since it started. That's not that many among a population of about 7,700 to 11,200. Some think that predator control programs don't really have much impact on the population in any given area because it will just make other wolves move in. The big argument for government to get involved in playing God in the wolf population is that it will increase the money spent in the state on hunting. But the hunting numbers don't add up. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 2006 survey of outdoor recreation, wildlife watchers outnumber those who went fishing or hunting in Alaska. For every three Alaska residents who go hunting or fishing, four go watch wildlife. And lots of them would like to see wolves. And when you include non-residents enjoying the outdoors in Alaska the ratio goes to almost three to five. Even in Alaska, only 11% of the population hunts anymore. The argument to kill wolves to support hunting is that hunters spend more money. But of $1.3 billion spent in Alaska on enjoying the outdoors, only $125 million was spent on hunting and fishing. That compares to $51 million spent on fishing and $581 million spent to watching wildlife. Tourism is a big business in Alaska and bear viewing tours are now part of that. Wildlife biologist Stephen Stringham, who wrote Bear Viewing in Alaska also runs bear viewing tours, says that the program has also killed off a bunch of bears that people used to like to watch. "While this has been underway, numbers of bears in prime viewing areas has crashed," he says, threatening lots of jobs. "Whether she really cares is questionable." Nationwide wildlife watchers outnumbered hunters (71 million to 12.5 million) and outspent them, too ($45.7 billion to $22.9 billion). Politically, I have no doubt Palin's pro-hunting policies will help her out. But that's more of a cultural stance than one against wasting government money. Economically, they don't make sense. Reader Comments 1 +8-30-2008 @ 10:23AM+

RobertsJim said...

However you cut it, she's an inflexible right winger albeit one with more practical experience as a manager and administrator than Obama. Despite her 19th century views on the abundance found in untamed, wide open spaces, which Alaska has in spades, her saving grace is her fiscal conservatism and willingness to smite even fellow Republicans who show ethical lapses. On the other hand, unless she can show some mastery of foreign affairs, reveal a plausible explanation for not wanting to protect Polar Bears, whose plight is shared by most Americans, and persuasively explain why she fired her police commissioner, she will join Geraldine Ferraro as a historic footnote. Reply 2 +8-31-2008 @ 4:47AM+

Karen said...

Jim You stated "However you cut it, she's an inflexible right winger albeit one with more practical experience as a manager and administrator than Obama." While I'll agree with "inflexible right-winger" you're forgetting Obama spent 8 years in the Illinois State House representing the district of a major metropolitan world class city of Chicago. That district is many times larger than the 5,000 population city and had to have far more complex issues than a small city in the middle of nowhere. (No offense to small towns in the middle of nowhere but...) In searching the web there's some interesting info on just how fiscally well and more like how NOT well she ran that city. It takes far more skill, diplomacy, intelligence, and thoughfulness to be a working member of the Illiniois House than to run a city of 5,000. To accomplish getting things done for your district you have to understand and get along with others and in Illinois that means the downstate agricultural folks. I understand this having lived along the North Shore of Chicago. As a mayor of small town diversity of opinions, population and economics is minimal. She could run it like a monarch and with her inflexible hunting stance and her "troopergate" scandal under investigation it sounds like Queen Palin is what she truly is. Wow, not even two years in office as Governor and she's under investigation by her own legislature for abuse of power what a true blue Bush/McCain Republican! That's just what we don't need, four more years of ideological and "cowboy" mentality from annointed leaders. And unlike Alaska, Illinois has a huge diversity in population, economics, and industries. Obama first as a Representative and then for 2 years as Senator has had to understand a multiplicity of issues, and again represent a great diversity of economics, people, and cultures. Give me a break, more management experience? On top of every experience Obama had in Illinois he probably had bigger managment challenges running the Harvard Law Review than Palin had running that city. 3 +8-30-2008 @ 10:35AM+

Richard said...

I wonder at the sincerity of these people who worry about wolves and polar bears, but think it is okay to kill babies because they are "inconvenient" or because they want to get out of the responsibility of raising them. Reply 4 +8-30-2008 @ 1:58PM+

Sherry said...

McCain is already suffering from dementia. Reply 5 +8-30-2008 @ 7:53PM+

Chris said...

she is a soccer mom. There is noooo way I could see her replacing McCain when he kicks the bucket... can u see her going after Osama? what a joke Reply 6 +8-31-2008 @ 4:51AM+

Boll said...

I totally agree with this article. As a european tourist, I had the chance to observe a wolf in the Denali. It was the highlight of the trip! A lot of people are coming from every parts of the world to admire the alaskan wildlife. I cannot understand how the alaskans allows such stupid, useless and expensive predator management. All the wildlife of the Alaska has been given to the hunting lobbies... With such things, I'm not ready to go back there anymore. Reply 7 +8-31-2008 @ 4:12PM+

Suzanne said...

Thank you for letting us know where she stands on wildlife. I am one of the people who signed the poetition against aeriel shooting of Alaskan wolves. I was devastated when that was defeated, allowing these massacres to continue. Now that I know she was FOR this, I think for the very first time EVER, I am not going to vote in the election. Neither candidate is a good one. Reply

Add your comments

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2008/08/30/animals-and-money-palins-fiscal-weakness-for-hunters/