Categorize the comment on the basis of obscenity. If the comment is obscene output Yes, otherwise output No.

I'm probably a non-conformist on this thread - I don't oppose ethical wolf hunting as such, though I am thoroughly disgusted by the State's wolf "culling" operations.
However, this wolf was taken along after the pelt would have been completely past 'prime'; and I seriously doubt the hunter has any intentions of consuming wolf meat. So the killing was a wasteful use of a State's resource that would have been much more beneficial alive.
And I don't think it particularly wise to allow the taking of wolves over bait for the same reason I object to the practice for bear: Wolves are just as capable of becoming habituated as bears.
No

Senator, what fools do you perceive us to be? Not one word in your writing about oil, the real cause of our financial woe. You sir, are arrogant, devoid of principles, corrupted by greed, shameless, and nothing more than a paid shill for your employer Conoco. Your employer is part of a cabal to steal Alaska's resources and get hit men like you to vote to pay for the theft from the state's treasury on the backs of good Alaskans including children, widows and seniors. It is time for you and your accomplices to go, whether by indictment, failure at reelection, or recall. You insult the intelligence of the readers of this newspaper by trying to pass blame on the few honest legislators standing in the way of the cabal. The rape of Alaska is nearly a done deal, thanks to you and your ilk, Senator. It must be difficult for you each day to pick which hat to wear, a Conoco employee cowboy hat, Senator's beanie, or "Corrupt Bastards" ball cap.
Yes

The News Minor has an article that has better specifics, and they are reporting that the money would still come from the earnings reserve, and not the fund itself. The fund would continue to grow.
No