House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Approves Of Animal Slaughter

If you don’t like that headline then perhaps you should also not like one that states that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is an animal killer and an abuser. There are however a few marked differences between what some are accusing Gov. Palin of being and what I am accusing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of being but both bear striking similarities………..that is if you are willing to look at things from a honest perspective.

There will always be people who will have an issue with the killing of any animal and some to the extreme of any living thing whether plant or animal. We witness everyday people who ignorantly support the protection of a handful of animals while being responsible for the deaths of more than they saved. For that, I offer no cures nor do I pretend that I can in all honesty have any marked alterations to their beliefs. I expect nothing different in return either.

With that being said, we have all come to learn, some of us much sooner than others, that Alaska’s Sarah Palin is an “outdoors” person, having grown up in the wilds of Alaska learning to hunt and fish and like many of us growing up in similar geographical locations that provide us outdoor activities, it has become very much a part of our lives. Some people have a problem with that much because they didn’t grow up in it and have very little tolerance for those of us who have. Life goes on.

What Sarah Palin is being haunted by is her support of the use of planes and helicopters to manage wolf populations in a few remote areas of Alaska and some, including hunters, have a problem with that. For those Alaskan wildlife experts, whom Sarah Palin listens to for advise and recommendations, they see aerial wolf management as a bad thing but a necessary thing, albeit controversial. More on this in a moment.

Back to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi has been a U.S. Congresswoman for the state of California since 1987. She was elected as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 4, 2007. We can only conclude then that Speaker Pelosi approves of the slaughter of as many as 40,000 animals in the state of California from just one event!

The end of September, just about one year ago, the state of California, with the approval of the California Fish and Game Department, poured 16,000 gallons of rotenone, a chemical commonly used to kill fish, into Lake Davis in Plumas County northwest of Lake Tahoe. This action resulted in what the San Francisco Chronicle described as leaving 41,000 pounds of dead fish to be scooped out of the lake.

Some 41,000 pounds of dead fish have since been scooped from the lake at the northern headwaters of the Feather River in Plumas County. The carefully hatched plan was to kill virtually every living thing in the high Sierra lake and its tributaries, assuring that the pike would be exterminated.

The goal here was to kill unwanted species of fish in order to then be able to restore the lake to provide better recreational and fishing opportunities for California residents. In fairness here, members of the California Fish and Game Department really didn’t want to have to do this but felt it was necessary.

“No one wants chemicals dumped in their lake to kill fish and we don’t like doing it, but you have to look at the big picture,” said Steve Martarano, a spokesman for the Department of Fish and Game. “It’s something we needed to do and we gave it our best shot.”

So, where’s the outrage?

Actually, the use of rotenone to kill off what is commonly referred to as “crap” fish from waters in order to restore “game” fisheries, is perhaps more common that many of us know. Of course it doesn’t come without some disputes but the facts remain the facts. 41,000 pounds of dead fish equates to an awful lot of dead animals. Again I ask, where’s the outrage?

It’s true that California F&G spokesman Steve Martarano isn’t on the ticket with John McCain as his vice presidential nominee. It’s also true that there are fewer of those who stand up for the rights(?) of fish than do wolves. Aside from “Finding Nemo” most fish stories are about deadly sharks.

Granted there is a mysticism about the wolf, mostly because the majority of people don’t understand the animal. Their perceptions are mostly built from story books, pretty pictures and a movie or two.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I do not and would not approve of hunting, in the classic definition of what us hunters do, from an airplane, a helicopter or any other airborne mechanical device or balloon, etc.. For those that know me, they know that I even have a difficult time with the use of tree stands to hunt from and other things like bait and hounds. Most of that is because I never grew up with any of that so it isn’t a part of my hunting past.

Shooting wolves from an airplane is a tough pill to swallow no matter who you are, but as Cal. F&G spokesman said, “…you have to look at the big picture.” You also have to look at the entire picture as why Alaska feels they have to do this.

For one, the Alaska Constitution says that game animals have to be managed to provide game for its citizens, including subsistence hunting for the natives. Unless you are willing to find a way to travel into these remote areas, we have to believe that the caribou and moose populations are in danger of reaching a point where they can no longer sustain viable populations. It would be irresponsible for Alaska’s wildlife managers and the governor, to do nothing about it. They would be violating their own laws.

Secondly, these areas are remote. They are open to the hunting and trapping of wolves and other animals but it is so difficult to access, nobody will venture in to hunt a wolf because there is little value in doing so. The pelts aren’t worth that much and the cost of getting into these regions makes the effort far from worthwhile.

It is far reaching and disingenuous to state, as I have read countless times, that Sarah Palin is offering high-priced wolf hunts from airplanes in order to make money for the fish and wildlife department. If you think I’m kidding, give the Alaska Department of Fish and Game a call and tell them you want to book an aerial wolf hunt. You’ll soon discover you can’t and you’ll also find out what is involved in being able to get a permit to go on a shoot.

It’s a terrible thing to be a part of something like that but it has to be done, much the same way as killing 41,000 pounds of fish in Lake Davis, California. Is there a difference between the life of a fish and the life of a wolf?

While Alaska continues to struggle to find effective ways to control wolf populations, while protecting herds of caribou and moose, some will continue to call Sarah Palin an animal killer. That is of course their choice to do such and I assume, because this isn’t merely a political stunt, then Nancy Pelosi should also be considered an animal killer.

Wildlife management takes on many forms, much of it the vast majority of Americans are ignorant to. I could have quite easily picked on any politician from just about any state in the Union in order to show that we all contribute to the death of living things everyday. Some we refuse to look at and others we focus on.

If we can get beyond the gruesome images the animal rights groups put up and with an open and honest approach, we soon can come to realize that taking a few wolves conserves the life of many others.

Tom Remington