Why Does Ashley Judd Want Wolves To Suffer Cruel Deaths?
by John LottShooting animals is so “brutal,” especially if they are shot from the air, right? Slamming Sarah Palin for “casting aside science” and “championing the slaughter of wildlife,” one would think that Ashley Judd’s stance in a new ad on hunting is beyond reproach. After all, Judd certainly cares more about animals, right?
Yet, sometimes the emotional response isn’t the most responsible one. In this case, hunting is done to keep animals from dying from starvation and to maintain higher quality populations. The problem is that in the wild, animal populations go through what are called “boom and crash” cycles – animal populations expand to consume the available food supplies and when those are exhausted, the animals starve and the populations crash. Starvation also makes the animals more susceptible to disease. Hunters stabilize populations, and keep those problems from recurring.
Ironically, the hunters and Sarah Palin seem to know a lot more of what is in the wolves’ and their preys’ interests than the wolves’ supposed defenders. Shooting might not be perfect (despite the ad’s exaggerations, the wolf might not die instantly), but stabilizing the wolves’ population through shooting some animals is probably a less painful way for an animal to die than through starvation. In addition, starvation would have impacted virtually all the wolves, but only a fraction of the animals risk suffering any trauma from being shot.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Wildlife Conservation explains the situation fairly clearly:
If prey numbers fall to very low levels, reductions in predation and harvest must be more dramatic. When implemented in a timely manner, predator control can result in shorter-term programs where prey numbers are stabilized and improved more quickly and efficiently. In such cases, the age and sex structure of prey populations can be maintained at optimum ratios of young to adults. When populations boom and crash, age structures can become skewed, and create difficult management situations long into the future. Harvest regulations also change regularly as the sustainable harvest numbers fluctuate year to year. Predator control programs are designed to maintain stability of elevated harvests while maintaining viable numbers of prey and predators alike.
In control programs, predators are reduced in number but never permanently eliminated from any area; viable populations of predators are a requirement of law. The long-term goal of a successful program is increased prey density, increased harvest, and stable populations of predators. Biologists determine the level of predator removal needed to allow growth of prey populations. Biologists determine predator population objectives for areas that can achieve desired levels of harvest. Intensive management efforts, including predator control, focus on achieving those objectives.
Indeed, with all this hunting, wolves are thriving and occupy virtually their entire traditional habitat throughout mainland Alaska.
In case Judd didn’t know it, Alaska is a big place with lots of very remote areas where it’s difficult to regulate animal populations on foot. Beyond the biologically related reasons for hunting in winter, Judd should realize that making hunting difficult is not in the general interest of the wolves. Judd is concerned that hunters “kill in winter when there is no chance for the wolves to escape,” but if the wolf population as a whole benefits from hunting and making hunting difficult makes stabilizing the population more difficult, won’t wolves be the ultimate losers?
As it is, since 1972, the federal government has heavily regulated aerial hunting of animals – only allowing it for predators by government employees or licensed hunters and even then, contrary to last year’s campaign ads and Judd’s latest, animals can’t be shot from the air. While the planes can be used to find and track or chase the wolves, the wolves can only be shot by hunters who are on the ground. The pictures used in the ads inaccurately depict the policies that have been in effect for the last 37 years.
Judd is outraged that “Palin even proposed a $150 bounty for the severed foreleg of each killed wolf. And now she is encouraging even more aerial killing.” But if hunting produces benefits, why not pay to have it done? The sentimentality of those who obtain all their food from the grocery store might be upset by hunters having to provide evidence of their kills, but a severed foreleg seems a simple way of providing proof.
Not just in the case of wolves, but hunting produces a lot of benefits for Americans.
This isn’t Judd’s first foray into politics. Last year she noted that “a woman voting for McCain/Palin is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders.”
Possibly the most telling point of Judd’s ad is that the ad first mentions Sarah Palin and not the wolves. But how often are fundraising efforts directed against the losing candidates in recent national elections? Never? The ad probably says more about Democrats still viewing Palin as a credible future opponent than it does about the Defenders of the Wildlife and Judd’s inaccurate claims about hunting.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
108 Comments
I wrote a book about the Judds. Even though I respect her mother, Ashley’s always struck me as someone who acts like she was raised by wolves. There’s a seething anger in her that doesn’t make sense; she’s as irrational as Susan Sarandon. Ashley’s probably suffering from crazy by association.
And yet Judd advocates killing babies by the millions.
She’s a dumbass that knows nothing about animal populations. Or, she’s out of work and needs publicity. She’s probably one of those that thinks water will rise if ice melts. I guess they should just let them hunt themselves to starvation as well as the people that rely on those game animals. I think they should institute aerial hunting on packs of liberals running around looking for the next cause to get behind.
Great job! Judd is another knee-jerk fool whose opinion is presented with an incendiary emotional delivery, but of course lacks any kind of logical or critical thinking, let alone any facts.
If we are to manage our wildlife, forests, and other resources, such programs must be part of that management.
Judd is simply a Palin-hater, and as you mentioned, the left fears her greatly. If the first fortnight of the Obama presidency is any indication, they have good reason to be concerned. He seems a weak and capricious figurehead at this point in time, at any rate.
The theory of controlling the wolf population is exactly the same as that of human population control (which includes abortion). The difference is that every one of those wolves you see being shot has at least enjoyed some years of life, time in the sun and rain, from playing with its litter mates to learning to hunt, and probably mating, which is a lot more than can be said for any aborted fetus.
Ms Judd’s priorities are different from mine, that’s for sure.
This is clearly an example of a celebrity shooting off their mouth without educating themselves on the issues first.
In other words; the usual.
I also agree with the point that this isn’t about the wolves. It’s an attempt to undermine Palin before she gains too much popularity.
Can anyone tell me the last movie Ashley Judd was in, or at least the last one she was in that made any money. Because, honestly, the only movies I know she wa sin were the ones she did did with Morgan Freeman. That was her in those moevies, wasn’ it?
Dave, she is not relevant anyway you look at it, she’s dumb and has very small boobies
There is NO AERIAL HUNTING of wolves in Alaska, period. What they do is commission pilot/gunner teams to carry out predator control. Hunting involves sport, this is not sport therefore there is no ‘fair chase’ applied. It is purely a game management technique and nothing else. In fact, across the US’s largest state, there are only six areas where predator control of wolves is permitted, and only 38 teams of pilot/gunners who take out less than 100 wolves a year (amount hundreds of thousands throughout the state, with over 90% of the state where they are not under ANY aerial predator control).
About the only way the State compensates the pilot/gunners is allowing them to keep the hides to sell, and even then its only a break even proposition (cost of fuel!). What we find infuriating about “defenders” of wildlife is the fact that they are so against hunting that in most State and National Parks across the country BLM and Fish and Game services have to do similar things using tax dollars and they bury the animals, meat hide and all in mass graves. By allowing trappers with predator control permits and who qualify as pilot/gunner teams, Alaska saves tax dollars because its private individuals working for Fish and Game. That, and the hides don’t get buried and go to waste.
Nothing gets Alaskans angrier than outside wildlife protectionists coming into our state and getting anti-hunting and downright anti-human legislation on our ballots. Its bad enough that the EPA, BLM, and other federal agencies get in the way of building roads out to the villages (thereby creating a government dependency on fuel subsidies when the price per gallon reaches over $10.00 in some places due to the fact it has to be flown in!), we don’t need some group ‘protecting’ wolves by saying they never attack humans (I know people who have been attacked by wolves, and tried to report it to the Alaska Fish and Game wolf biologist, who just ignores them…).
We still have people who hunt for subsistence, yes, they survive on what they hunt because there is no other way for them to survive. Predator control areas are in place over these areas to increase the yield of moose for those who subsist on the moose. What we should be asking is why Whats Her Face hates Alaskan Natives who still live the old ways. Humans are natural predators of moose, wolf, bear, whale, and polar bears. When Fish and Game and other wildlife management and protection groups interfere, that’s when the un-natural population fluctuations occur!
I constantly get into this same argument with city-types, with their understanding of the natural order, constantly bitch about deer hunting, yet have never had to drive the country backroads at night during the rut and have to play Frogger with your brand new SUV.
President Palin in 2012!!!
Honestly Ashely Judd shoula appear on the O’Reilly Factor to explain herself about why she’s attacking Gov Palin on this issue. O’Reilly explained it last week it was for wolf population control. Let’s have Bill Grill Ashley on this issue.
The few wolves killed in these hunts pales in comparison to the millions of animals that a routinely euthanized in Humane Society animal shelters for humanitarian reasons. If Judd is concerned about killing animals she should aim her attacks at them.
Ashley Judd should shut her pie hole.
i know this one wolf’s cousin, this coyote, that lives in southern california, that was so hungry that he grabbed a baby playing on a playgroung by the head and tried to drag it away to eat it. ain’t nature grand!
Ashley Judd needs to spend a month living off the land in Alaska alongside the local natives. Perhaps then she’d shut up.
Recall Obama; elect Sarah Palin!
Don’t confuse Ms Judd with the facts.
Ashley Judd truly has no clue! She wouldn’t know how to change a tire. As far as Sarah Palin, I think Sarah is very intelligent but was thrown to the wolves by McCain and his advisors. Sarah had no reason to go on Couric or SNL other than McCain told her to, because McCain also has no clue. His claim to fame is getting shot down in Viet Nam. Other than that, What?? Shortly afterwards she truly ripped Biden apart with her knowledge. She has a lot to learn still but she has plenty of time. I love Sarah and know she’s gonna advance in politics!
“Possibly the most telling point of Judd’s ad is that the ad first mentions Sarah Palin and not the wolves. But how often are fundraising efforts directed against the losing candidates in recent national elections? Never? The ad probably says more about Democrats still viewing Palin as a credible future opponent than it does about the Defenders of the Wildlife and Judd’s inaccurate claims about hunting.”
BINGO!
Although actually I think “the most telling point” is that their website address is not eyeonwolfcontrol.com or eyeonshootingfromhelicopters.com, is it?
Nope, it’s http://www.eyeonpalin.com! Ayep, this is not about wolves at all. Oh yes, and go to the website to see a huge, soft-focus pic of Judd there contrasted with a harsh lens pic of Palin. Not about Judd, much?
Exhibit evidence #3: When was the last time Judd appeared on Larry King for her own work? … And yet she got on last week to criticize Governor Palin’s work.
Which maybe says as much about CNN as it does about Judd. And did you notice Larry moaning again about how “we invited Sarah Palin on the show but her office declined.” He moaned about her during the election and even moaned in his introduction to her when she did appear from the RGA conference in November.
The media are truly beflummoxed by this gal … I like it, I like it.
As usual a hollywoodite is running off at the mouth about something they no nothing about. “Sudsy” has a great response. A few years they had problem with wild mustangs on the aircraft runways in the SoCal desert. The US Gov. BLM hired a hunter to fly over shoot almost 300 of them. The PETA types screamed and yelled saying that they should be allowed to die naturally although that included starving or dying of thirst. What a heart these liberals have. Remember PETA stands for People Eating Tasty Animals
I wonder when the Hollywierd, looney, lefty, killing-animals-is-bad-crowd has reached IT’S maximum sustainable numbers and we have to do some “population control”, so they don’t get the rabies…..
Oh wait.. they are already rabid?
I’m sorry, that’s my bad.
I apologize.
We should stop all huntiong immediately and add to the proposed stimulus bill provisions for feeding any overpopulation of animals.
Seriously, I’m kidding.
I think that A Judd had 1 or more abortions, that’s why she can’t stand Sarah Palin…It’s not about the killing of wolves, it’s about Sarah Palin.
It would be refreshing if the F–ing loudmouth do-gooders would for once in their lives check the facts before they spout off. Where are the loudmouths when ranchers/sheepherders livestock is killed? Or packs of Wolves destroying herds of Deer and Elk? That’s right sitting around other pompous asses bragging about how good they are.
IF she wasn’t a Professional Pretender and a Genuine Wildlife expert etc, she would be a worthy voice to listen to and have her ideas considered.
In this case, her opinion versus that of Gov. Palin?, is a no brainer the Governor has an entire staff of Game and Fish’s expertise to rely on to make her decisions and Ms. Judd just has her cute butt to speak out of.
One has to wonder what people like Ms. Judd thinks happens to unwanted/stray dogs and cats by Animal Control?
Something these animal lovers fail to realize is that starving predators do not make good neighbors. If hungry enough they’ll go after pets & humans.
I’m not a fan of either of these women, but building on this logic (or lack thereof) does that mean we should start executing people in Africa and other areas with prevailing starvation? Their situation is even more dire than the wolves, the wolf population will boom and crash as you state, the human population in these areas only climbs. Obviously executing them will be a quicker and less painful death than starving.
Why does Ms. Judd want baby reindeer to be eaten alive by wolves?
Would she oppose the aerial hunting of the unborn?
Re: Alaska is a big place with lots of very remote areas where it’s difficult to regulate animal populations on foot.
Why not regulate human population as well? We’re getting way to overcrowded here on the earth.
Hey Blake–
Logic? Where is your brain? How by ANY logical means do you equate killing wolves (or any animal) with killing people? You are sick.
Although, now that we are again in the international abortion financing business, thanks to our ghoulish, abortion loving President NOBAMA… we will no doubt be financing the slaughter of many Africans.
Come on. Why don’t all you sport hunters just be honest? You kill the competition to keep the prey to yourself…..the same as the wolf killing the coyotes. Stop pretending you are such enlightened stewards of nature.
Take off your shirt and show us your little boobies! That’s all your good for.
Why don’t you just keeping killing babies so that Nancy Pelosi won’t have to spend too much money on children’s health care because you guys KILLED THEM ALL!
Hey Howard, it is pretty sick when you think of it that way isn’t it? My point is, if we have to resort to killing off a percentage of the 11,000 wolves, what do you plan to do with the millions or starving people in the world? I mean they’re starving yet their population still grows, and just like a hungry animal causes problems they too will resort theft and violence.
I think there are more humane ways of dealing with population control than a redneck paws for cash program.
PS I too am against abortion.
Blake… overpopulation does not cause the starvation of humans. Politics does. Famine in humans is generally a case of one group using famine as a type of war on another group. Babies starve while food sits undistributed on docks because it’s all a power play.
Your logic is anything but, because logic implies understanding.
Nor is there any evidence whatsoever that either abortion or war reduce human populations. Even famine and plague result in post crisis fertility bubbles that restore population levels in only a generation or two.
Lastly, we tend to take on faith that nature self-corrects imbalance, but the fact is that nature really doesn’t care if one species or another dies out forever. When corrections to restore the “balance of nature” do occur the methods are as cruel as only Mother Nature can be. In the end, humans *are* part of nature, the ultimate apex predator. There is nothing “unnatural” about us doing Mother Nature’s work.
I mean they’re starving yet their population still grows, and just like a hungry animal causes problems they too will resort theft and violence.
Actually… this isn’t true either. Though a whole lot of people don’t question what seems so obvious, that overpopulation causes misery and violence. But it can be tested… identify the most densely populated areas of the world and test it. There simply isn’t a correlation between population density, quality of life, or social unrest.
“When corrections to restore the “balance of nature” do occur the methods are as cruel as only Mother Nature can be. In the end, humans *are* part of nature, the ultimate apex predator.”
When nature does it work, which animals are first to go?
When a lion hunts, which animal out of a heard will it target first?
When uncle Joe goes hunting, which animal is he going for? Which animal is most challenging for him? Which animal would he like to brag to his friends about? When being rewarded, will uncle Joe care about how he collects these paws?
“Though a whole lot of people don’t question what seems so obvious, that overpopulation causes misery and violence. But it can be tested… identify the most densely populated areas of the world and test it. There simply isn’t a correlation between population density, quality of life, or social unrest.”
Very true, however lets focus on the areas where starvation is present. If everyone can’t eat, theres obviously more people than available food, whether it be from political or natural problems. Now lets think about what people without food will do for food? You shouldn’t be surprised to know we won’t act much different than any other animal.
When nature does..work, which animals are first to go?
Healthy babies.
And you still fail at your little mind-thing suggesting that reducing predator populations is the same as if we decided to kill starving people.
An actual analogous situation would be if our solution to the starving and dying people was to kill, not *them*, but those who are causing the starvation by blocking the distribution of food or running them off their farms and property or preventing them from migrating to areas where they could find work.
First off- great to see some fellow Alaskans have found this site. Hello!
Second- This issue get thrown on a ballot every couple years, and has so far been voted down. Let’s keep their laws off our state, Alaska!
Take that Ashley Dudd. >)
Ashley Judd obviously knows nothing of what she’s speaking about. She would best be served by reading up on this topic. In other words, SHUT THE HELL UP!
[...] Posted on February 10, 2009 by Michael Hawkins John Lott has an article up attacking Ashley Judd. She does not favor aerial hunting of wolves and is part of an organization that is active against [...]
So I take it from Judd’s fervor for saving wolves, that, if us humans did a little “family planning” by aborting fetuses from the “air by helicopters” she would be against abortion.
Well, that’s good to know.
Or, supposedly if we get a law passed that we capture pregnant mother wolves and “humanely abort the fetuses” without giving the mother wolf a sonnagram picture of the real babies in her womb, Ms. Judd would then plead for the mother wolf’s right to choice and the loving role of a mother and not allow her to suffer post abortion trauma?
It’s real special how the lefty loonies are so concerned for the rights of young wolves to be born into the world.
You don’t get it CTS22, that is exactly why Ms. Judd wants more wolves, we as humans can’t kill babies fast enough. She is calling on all her wolf and coyote bretheren to help her in her quest to kill as many as possible. By the way she is a feminist right? I wish I could photo shop her picture where she is wearing that shirt “This Is What A Feminist Looks Like” to “This Is What A Baby Killer Looks Like”. Can’t you here her howling? Awhooooooooooooooooooooo….Awhoooooooooo…Aw…Aw…Awhoooooooooo
Well, I guess I did it for her. Bob, you do have something besides your wacky beliefs in common with Ms. Judd, herr little boobies and your little. . .
I submit that Ashley doesn’t give a rat’s patootie about wolves. All that matters here is that Sarah Palin is the real target. She embodies everything NOW and NARAL are against- being married to one man, having babies, and STILL achieving success. That message can’t get out to America’s ‘liberated’ women.
[...] if you have two brain cells that you can rub together and make a spark, you might have guessed that Ashley Judd is completely full of crap. Thankfully, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game is smart enough to explain in simple words why [...]
Jon, you have feelings for your kids, too, and those feelings are *why* you put them through a number of really unpleasant experiences, possibly some even excruciatingly painful. You wouldn’t love them at all, if you avoided the hard things for them.
It’s not necessary to be *happy* about killing wolves to understand that it’s necessary and must be done. That “self-regulating” eco-system is going to cause more pain than getting shot from a helicopter. It’s not kinder nor gentler to wait until enough caribou die off that the wolves starve to death. That’s what self-regulation means, nature style, and it won’t be avoided by stopping people from hunting caribou or moose.
I don’t understand why a deer or moose hunted for food (and “sport” hunters certainly eat them) is morally different than eating a cow. In fact, it seems far more moral to eat something that got to live out in the beautiful forest than an animal who spent it’s life in a feed lot.
You want to know what else really pisses us Alaskans off, when groups like GreenPeace decide to visit Alaska and in the process break our state Environmental Laws.
That’s right. GreenPeace was found guilty of violating Alaska environmental laws during a 2004 trip to Ketchikan. As a result, GreenPeace is no longer allowed to dock a boat in port in Ketchikan.
Hopefully that means we won’t have to see them any longer out there protesting our logging, hunting, and fishing.
Ahsley’s motto:
Kill wolves: Never!
Kill babies: Sure, its my right!
Explain this to me again?
[...] makes Ashley Judd sad to see a dead wolf. Has Ashley ever lived anywhere where there were real, wild wolves? Wolves that kill [...]
She should research things before she runs her mouth.
Sometimes, there’s a shortage of wolves.
Seems that, in the last 3 or 4 thousand years, there hasn’t been a shortage of people.
And yet, “human life is of infinite worth”…???
Why? Because we are self aware? Or made in God’s image? Or because we say so?
I've always found Ashley hot to look at but it sounds like there's an awful lot of "wide open spaces" between those cute little ears.
dont pretend like this isnt an issue of your desire to kill an animal to feel superior…you research and argue your point only to over shadow you thirst to kill…you only hate abortion because the schooling it takes to become a doctor is outside your ability to read….
you people make me want to lobby to have a law passed to remove any and all warning labels that exist and let you all suffer a painfull death.
I have to points: a) Poor Ashley is a living proof of the fact, that one can fix everything except stupid.
b) Being a mediocre actress with a pretty face, she managed to make a small fortune. Why don't we tax this useful idiot with "special" Hollywood Undeserved Wealth Tax. (95%, no deductions allowed).
We will see, how this elitist hypocrite is going to change her tune. Getting naked for the camera isn't any achievement Ms Judd, governing a city or state is.
What we really need is the fluffy Judd to lace up the gloves and fight Sarah in the ring. After Sarah cleans her clock then Barry (Obama) can save the day. We will have Barry play one on one against Todd Palin in a game of streetball. When todd throws a few elbows as he is backing down barry in the post. Obama will whine pack his bags and go home and cry to poor little Michelle. Then we will have some real entertainment we will fire up our planes and go wolf hunting. We will finally have a worthy opponent.
too bad we cant kill all humans that arent "perfect", right sarah? then human population would be better controlled! palin is supposed to help run the country and she cant even keep track of her seventeen year old daughter keeping her legs closed.
Your sick sue…leave the room….liberal!
I agree with Sue. Don't call me a liberal! I'm all for hunting to feed your family. I disagree with humans controlling populations, there is a thing called circle of life. You know, everything eats something.
Aren't you the bright bulb in the group. Do us a favor and keep your own legs closed.
Hey Mistie, ever hit a 10 point buck at 65 mph? It is not fun, the nice thing is that 30 06 will take care of this.
Yes, I am bright. Unfortunately, I am always mentally 1-2 steps ahead of people like you, so I have to wait while you catch up.
So you have to qualify to speak of the killing of wolves? Do you really care what ANY celebrity says? We dont live in the same world as them, Northstar. Celebrities live inside helium balloons.
The wolves took care of their own population for many, many years before humans got the bright idea to massacre them. Do you really buy into the story that Palin is trying to do good for Alaska by killing wolves from her helicopter? Come on people; are you so easilly conned?
Biggy, You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Killing is killing. Ya' all talk that by controlling the wolve population this actually helps the wolves live a better life; yet Bigness-you admit that the wolves at least had fun in the sun and rain, played with their litter mates, and enjoyed learning to hunt. Which is it Bigness, LIFE or DEATH?
You say "killing is killing." My response: one sure measure of intelligence is the ability to make distinctions. How about this statement: "Mammals are Mammals." I suppose if your mind is like a block of wood, you might say something like that. But most of us are able to make further distinctions.
Sue, you didn't speak specifically to anything I said. (this is my last post)
Most wild animals, when all is said and done live shitting lives. They die by predators, sickness, fighting over the right to mate or when abandoned by their own kind when they get too old. Humans are the only specie that has hospice care.
One more thing, I've noticed, over the years, that with great consistency, left-wing animal rights causes center around good-looking (cute, majestic, gorgeous) animals, like wolves, dolphins or baby seal.
Ever seen a "Meishan pig?" I wonder how much love you or Ashley Judd could muster for that animal.
It's just very Hollywood to think the good-looking are more worth of love than others.
Bigness, In this post you say most wild animals live shitting lives. But in your first remark you mention that the wolves play in the sun and rain, and are able to hunt and mate. That is a good life. Personally, I am not into killing anything, even bugs. Have you ever seen a victim of child abuse—broken bones, black eyes, burns from being placed in scalding water, or fetal alcohol syndrome? Havent you ever been in a department store and witnessed some beast screaming at her kid? Do you think these kids are living a good life? Dont you wonder why the adult bothered to procreate? Why do people assume that human is superior to everything? I am the anti-Ashley Judd, Susan Sarandan, or anything Hollywood.
I dont want to argue about slaughtering wolves or abortion anymore.
gosh, some of you are so hostile!
You must be logged in to post a comment.