Shawnee
member
http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2008/08/30/animals-and-money-palins-fiscal-weakness-for-hunters/
may be "grain of salt" time.
may be "grain of salt" time.
Interesting Article re: Alaska & Palin
- Thread starter Shawnee
- Start date
- Status
cooch
Member
I'm not sure that much credence should be given to an article that is based on the proposition that hunting and wildlife viewing are mutually exclusive and opposed to each other.....
The "grain of salt" needs to be applied more to an author who offers an opinion based on such superficial evidence.
Respectfully.......... Peter
The "grain of salt" needs to be applied more to an author who offers an opinion based on such superficial evidence.
Respectfully.......... Peter
MCgunner
Member
Sounds like some ivy league liberal pontificating from his ivory tower, to me. Definite attempt at a "hit piece". I won't draw any conclusions from THIS, pit it that way.
Matt-J2
Member
Sorry, but no Ivy League grad, liberal or otherwise, is going to make that many grammatical mistakes.
And the author is a woman.
Now for teh serious: Lame article. Seems to have a point, just wasn't well written at all.
And the author is a woman.
Now for teh serious: Lame article. Seems to have a point, just wasn't well written at all.
Shawnee
member
One of the neo "psuedo-facts" (read: enviro-lies) the enviros are fond of repeating over and over in hopes it will become true in the Public Mind is: "Hardly anyone hunts anymore".
Anyone who believes only 11% of the (adult) population of Alaska hunts is in line to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
Anyone who believes only 11% of the (adult) population of Alaska hunts is in line to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
Old Grump
Member
Carol Vinzant edits animaltourism.com a website on where to go to see animals. She has written about personal finance and the stock market for 12 years.
Nuff said
Nuff said
MCgunner
Member
Sorry, I didn't realize ivy league schools banned women.
Now, I'm picturing the author as a NOW member women's activist type cat petting PITA member who's idea of wilderness is central park. Whatever, obviously a biased air head who knows absolutely nothing of the subject matter about which she writes.
cooch
Member
Matt....
The reason that the article doesn't have a point, is that it makes false assumptions about the relationship between animal viewing, and hunting.
Points to consider.
(1) Animal viewing tourism tends to concentrate in specific areas such as National parks, which are close to transport facilities and higher class accommodation...... not spread over the majority of the environment, as is hunting.
(2) Many of the "big-ticket" attractions for would-be wildlife viewers are either completely unaffected by the hunting of certain land-based predators - such as whales and birdlife - or , like the bigger grazing animals, are actually increased in numbers.
Let's face it, under natural conditions, the higher level land predators tend to be far less common and more difficult to spot than are prey species.
If I, as a mug tourist, go to Alaska, what am I most likely to see? What am I most likely to see most of, and where?
Or to put it in another way, is my decision to visit Alaska any less likely because there is a slightly lower probability that I'll see wolves ........ in the areas that I'm not likely to go anyway?
I doubt it.
Peter
Nathanael_Greene
Member
For those of us who live in the Lower 48, it's hard to imagine Alaskans' views on wildlife and hunting. I toured there recently, and nearly everyone we met (seasonal workers aside) was a hunter and viewed wildlife as a resource to be respected but put to good use.
One bus driver at Denali gleefully told us how she'd found a roadkill moose the previous winter. (Apparently the rule in Alaska is that whoever reports roadkill to the state police gets to keep it.) She and her husband had bagged a moose earlier, so this extra one was gravy. Bonus mooseburgers!
As for polar bears, it's hard to imagine a species with increasing numbers being endangered, but there's an example of the triumph of politics over reason. Wolves...well, I like wolves and would never hunt one, but I don't live alongside them, either. I was shocked when I first saw wolf pelts for sale as souvenirs (triple shock: that they had them, how big they are, and how expensive--$600), but trapping wolves is a way of life for some people. Who am I to say if it's right or wrong for them?
I think Alaskans (especially outside of Anchorage) are forced to think of everything as a potential resource. The isolation of most of Alaska is incomprehensible to people who just run down to WalMart to buy something they want. When you're in an Alaskan town, and that town is 125 people, and there's one dirt road in or out, and the nearest "store" is 150 miles away, you need a degree of self-reliance way beyond what most of us could handle. Caribou--eat 'em. Moose--eat 'em. Wolves--they're competitors for food. Bears--respect 'em.
Sarah Palin knows a lot more about wolf management than I'll ever know. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on this one.
One bus driver at Denali gleefully told us how she'd found a roadkill moose the previous winter. (Apparently the rule in Alaska is that whoever reports roadkill to the state police gets to keep it.) She and her husband had bagged a moose earlier, so this extra one was gravy. Bonus mooseburgers!
As for polar bears, it's hard to imagine a species with increasing numbers being endangered, but there's an example of the triumph of politics over reason. Wolves...well, I like wolves and would never hunt one, but I don't live alongside them, either. I was shocked when I first saw wolf pelts for sale as souvenirs (triple shock: that they had them, how big they are, and how expensive--$600), but trapping wolves is a way of life for some people. Who am I to say if it's right or wrong for them?
I think Alaskans (especially outside of Anchorage) are forced to think of everything as a potential resource. The isolation of most of Alaska is incomprehensible to people who just run down to WalMart to buy something they want. When you're in an Alaskan town, and that town is 125 people, and there's one dirt road in or out, and the nearest "store" is 150 miles away, you need a degree of self-reliance way beyond what most of us could handle. Caribou--eat 'em. Moose--eat 'em. Wolves--they're competitors for food. Bears--respect 'em.
Sarah Palin knows a lot more about wolf management than I'll ever know. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Mountie855
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 170
There are several THR members who live in remote AK...maybe they'll post their take on this subject.
I certainly will give Gov. Palin credibility over an obviously biased anti-hunter's distorted opinion. Gov. Palin's record says it all.
I certainly will give Gov. Palin credibility over an obviously biased anti-hunter's distorted opinion. Gov. Palin's record says it all.
Last edited:
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
This is the same tired drivel that's usually babbled against all of us who hunt. This time, it's a political babble against a non-liberal candidate.
The tirade is worth reading just to study how real-world facts can be twisted around and interpreted to allow irrational, illogical conclusions which stem only from emotion and preconceived notions. The typical grade for such is
.
The tirade is worth reading just to study how real-world facts can be twisted around and interpreted to allow irrational, illogical conclusions which stem only from emotion and preconceived notions. The typical grade for such is
.ReadyontheRight
Member
As always...there are lies...damn lies...and statistics.
I question the authors number of "national wildlife watchers" vs. "hunters" and the money they each spend. I would guess that, at the very least, many hunters do both and are double-counted.
I question the authors number of "national wildlife watchers" vs. "hunters" and the money they each spend. I would guess that, at the very least, many hunters do both and are double-counted.
Cosmoline
Member
Wildlife and hunting laws and political fights in Alaska are COMPLICATED. It's almost impossible for anyone from the lower 48 to understand what's happening without sufficient detail, and the room for misunderstanding is enormous. There are over a dozen GMU's and dozens more sub-sections within those GMU's, each with its own ecosystem and rules on fishing, hunting and trapping. On top of that there are layers of federal law regulating everything from birds to polar bears. Not to mention the complication of federal land. Not to mention the complication of subsistence rights under ANILCA and native property rights under ANCSA.
What seems to happen is the national media will pick up on something like the fracas over listing Polar Bears, plus the culling of certain bears and wolves, and mix the two together. So Palin is hunting Polar Bears or destroying the last wolves. It's a lot of nonsense, so read all such reports with a big grain of salt.
There are many rival factions vying for control over the resources. Hunters vs. guides vs. native vs. non-native vs. rural vs. urban vs. commercial vs. sport vs. wildlife watching vs. wildlife eating vs. trophy hunting etc etc. It goes on and on. You can't change the rules for one without impacting everyone else. That's the nature of the beasts. Trying to make this out into some kind of simplistic hunters vs. environmentalist debate is predicable, but overlooks all this complexity. These reports almost all overlook the fact that Alaska alone still has its wild lands intact. We're not "playing god" but we do have a responsibility to manage the wildlife on those lands to keep them healthy
?? Roadkill are salvaged under a state program and the meat distrubuted to the needy. Ditto with beached whales.
What seems to happen is the national media will pick up on something like the fracas over listing Polar Bears, plus the culling of certain bears and wolves, and mix the two together. So Palin is hunting Polar Bears or destroying the last wolves. It's a lot of nonsense, so read all such reports with a big grain of salt.
There are many rival factions vying for control over the resources. Hunters vs. guides vs. native vs. non-native vs. rural vs. urban vs. commercial vs. sport vs. wildlife watching vs. wildlife eating vs. trophy hunting etc etc. It goes on and on. You can't change the rules for one without impacting everyone else. That's the nature of the beasts. Trying to make this out into some kind of simplistic hunters vs. environmentalist debate is predicable, but overlooks all this complexity. These reports almost all overlook the fact that Alaska alone still has its wild lands intact. We're not "playing god" but we do have a responsibility to manage the wildlife on those lands to keep them healthy
?? Roadkill are salvaged under a state program and the meat distrubuted to the needy. Ditto with beached whales.
onemsumba
Member
the numbers quoted in the artical are very suspect. I don't know if I've ever heard of someone going on vacation to view wildlife... maybe some of those fly in bear camps in alaska.... I'm thinking that the counted any vacation in which somoene might view animals as wildlife viewing.
So for instance, drive to Yellowstone to see bison.
Park entrance fee ~$30
Gas $1000
hotel $300
so you went to yellowstone to go to yellowstone, you viewed a bison so you spent all that money on bison viewing...
I don't know anyone that spends $1000's on wild life veiwing accessories. One guy i know was a bird watcher, his wife bought him a pair of high end binoculars (imported) 10 years ago, and the cost for him to watch birds since then is $0.
To go hunting.... I'm always spending tons of money.... even if i don't need anything new i generally get at least 1 thing new... in addition to the fees, licenses etc...
it just logically doesn't make sense.
So for instance, drive to Yellowstone to see bison.
Park entrance fee ~$30
Gas $1000
hotel $300
so you went to yellowstone to go to yellowstone, you viewed a bison so you spent all that money on bison viewing...
I don't know anyone that spends $1000's on wild life veiwing accessories. One guy i know was a bird watcher, his wife bought him a pair of high end binoculars (imported) 10 years ago, and the cost for him to watch birds since then is $0.
To go hunting.... I'm always spending tons of money.... even if i don't need anything new i generally get at least 1 thing new... in addition to the fees, licenses etc...
it just logically doesn't make sense.
Hard to believe that most of the people that are against hunting eat cows, most people that "poll for the environment" drive SUV's and live in urbania.
One thing to point out is the Europe has no predators, hardly any game... Certainly not in the numbers or diversity that they had in 800 AD. That is what really happens when you quit hunting. Most of people Europes population is falling off the table. Why don't the liberal nuts move there? I mean national health care, no hunting, and all that other nonsense is already law there.
One thing to point out is the Europe has no predators, hardly any game... Certainly not in the numbers or diversity that they had in 800 AD. That is what really happens when you quit hunting. Most of people Europes population is falling off the table. Why don't the liberal nuts move there? I mean national health care, no hunting, and all that other nonsense is already law there.
harbinger_j
Member
I always check the data that reporters site and often it gets misrepresented.
Her #s of the amount of people who watch wild life include looking out the window at birds etc. the number of people who travel more than a mile to look watch animals is 23 million and 7 million of these are feeding the wildlife. I wonder how many of the 12 million hunters are counted in this #. 3.5 billion dollars on birdseed is nice but let's not pretend that this supports a diverse wildlife population and public land preservation.
Her #s of the amount of people who watch wild life include looking out the window at birds etc. the number of people who travel more than a mile to look watch animals is 23 million and 7 million of these are feeding the wildlife. I wonder how many of the 12 million hunters are counted in this #. 3.5 billion dollars on birdseed is nice but let's not pretend that this supports a diverse wildlife population and public land preservation.
deaconkharma
Member
They're likely counting alaskan cruises.
the alaskan cruises etc and the whale watchers maybe?
then they take the numbers of the passengers on the cruises and call them animal watchers. and they take the total cost of the cruise and apply that against that of a hunter I'd bet. anyway, just maybe...
the alaskan cruises etc and the whale watchers maybe?
then they take the numbers of the passengers on the cruises and call them animal watchers. and they take the total cost of the cruise and apply that against that of a hunter I'd bet. anyway, just maybe...
I didn't shoot anything on our Alaska cruise. They didn't allow firearms on the ship.
Some people paid a lot of money to go fishing, though.
I did do some fish viewing, because salmon spawning is something I had never seen before.
We brought boots, and came back with them muddy, every day. But a lot of people brought nothing but sneakers and credit cards. I'm not sure if they were aware that "wildlife" existed in Alaska, though they bought some "wildlife art" here and there.
Some people paid a lot of money to go fishing, though.
I did do some fish viewing, because salmon spawning is something I had never seen before.
We brought boots, and came back with them muddy, every day. But a lot of people brought nothing but sneakers and credit cards. I'm not sure if they were aware that "wildlife" existed in Alaska, though they bought some "wildlife art" here and there.
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
So THAT's your thang? Pervert!! J/K
Palin rocks. It's also funny how that article implies the following:
"If there are FEWER wolves, then that means you will see ZERO wolves when you visit" - fallacy of logic. Somehow, a reduction of 25% or 33% from their former numbers alla sudden means you won't EVER see one.
Last edited:
waterhouse
Member
I read the article and thought the same thing as deaconkharma. We just got back from a couple weeks of cruising in Alaska.
We saw a lot of wildlife, and our ship had over 3,000 tourists on board. There are several ships, and they make passages from (I think) May through September. If you polled the 3,000 per ship, I bet zero would say they came for hunting (cruising and guns/hunting don't really mix, although there was some fishing available when in port). If you asked the same 3,000 people if they liked seeing wildlife, probably 98% would say yes.
If you ask the questions the right way, that is hundreds of thousands of people who want to see animals, but that did not come to shoot them. Then if you ask how much those people spent in the touristy stores, you get a big number. So now you have several hundred thousand people per year spending boatloads of cash that want to see wildlife. These tourists may enjoy hunting, and they may wish they had the opportunity, but that isn't why they came on a cruise to Alaska. It is fairly easy to come up with statistics like that if you ask the right questions of the right folks.
We saw a lot of wildlife, and our ship had over 3,000 tourists on board. There are several ships, and they make passages from (I think) May through September. If you polled the 3,000 per ship, I bet zero would say they came for hunting (cruising and guns/hunting don't really mix, although there was some fishing available when in port). If you asked the same 3,000 people if they liked seeing wildlife, probably 98% would say yes.
If you ask the questions the right way, that is hundreds of thousands of people who want to see animals, but that did not come to shoot them. Then if you ask how much those people spent in the touristy stores, you get a big number. So now you have several hundred thousand people per year spending boatloads of cash that want to see wildlife. These tourists may enjoy hunting, and they may wish they had the opportunity, but that isn't why they came on a cruise to Alaska. It is fairly easy to come up with statistics like that if you ask the right questions of the right folks.
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
waterhouse, doesn't your anecdote kind of proving the opposing viewpoint? (that is, the viewpoint of the author of the article?)
Glad we have Cosmo to give us the inside scoop on the intricacies of what's going on up there. The media is looking for anything and everything to demonize Palin and thus prop up their divine savior, Mr. Obama. But that's getting into political, so let's not go there any further...
Glad we have Cosmo to give us the inside scoop on the intricacies of what's going on up there. The media is looking for anything and everything to demonize Palin and thus prop up their divine savior, Mr. Obama. But that's getting into political, so let's not go there any further...
mnw42
Member
I think it is important to note that the figures listed in the article don't tell the whole story. While the total revenue generated by tourists may be higher; the majority of it does not go towards conservation.
I'm willing to bet that hunters, fisherman, and trappers contribute more directly to the environment through fees, licenses, taxes,etc. I wouldn't be surprised to read that sportsmen spread the wealth out into the interior and north more that tourists.
I'm willing to bet that hunters, fisherman, and trappers contribute more directly to the environment through fees, licenses, taxes,etc. I wouldn't be surprised to read that sportsmen spread the wealth out into the interior and north more that tourists.
Shawnee
member
Methinks all those shipboard folks who paid their money "to see the wildlife" just might have really paid their money to enjoy the amenities and service about a luxury liner and the right to tell the Joneses back in Brooklyn all about their oh-so-expensive Alaskan Cruise.
Methinks the number of those "wildlife viewers" and the amount of money they spent might have been a wee dram less if they had had to walk or drive.
Methinks the number of those "wildlife viewers" and the amount of money they spent might have been a wee dram less if they had had to walk or drive.
Yeah, there were a number of people with MOBU jackets, shirts with shooting patches, etc. on our boat. Got into a few conversations with people about our hunting dogs back home, too.
I'd hate to be on a 3000 passenger boat, though.
The reason we (and the other people who wore muddy boots) went on the cruise is that you can't walk or drive to some of the places. The cruise is the cheapest way to see some of these places. I can't afford a hunting trip by float plane. Someday, though, I'd love to do it.
- Status
