Exposing the Big Game

Forget Hunters' Feeble Rationalizations and Trust Your Gut Feelings: Making Sport of Killing Is Not Healthy Human Behavior

Exposing the Big Game

The Misplaced Fears About the United States’ Declining Fertility Rate

SETH WENIG / AP
America’s fertility rate is in steady decline: In 2018, it dipped to an all-time low, down 2 percent from the year before, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report published Wednesday. American women are now predicted to have an average of 1.73 children over their lifetime. The absolute number of births has also fallen to a historic low: Roughly 3.8 million babies were born in the United States last year, the smallest tally since 1986, when the country was just starting to emerge from a recession.

Some observers are worried that the ongoing decline will have grim economic consequences in the not-so-distant future. Without enough new babies, the theory goes, America’s demographic makeup will tip further toward older generations, whose members will grow needier and less productive with age. A shrinking workforce could, over time, make this imbalance all the more unsustainable.

If the trend holds fast over the next few years, those fears may prove valid, Karen Benjamin Guzzo, a demographer and sociology professor at Bowling Green State University, told me. But, she says, the trends revealed by the new report are more complex than just the declining fertility rate, and it contains some hopeful news as well: The teen birth rate dropped by 7 percent from 2017 to 2018, according to the CDC’s analysis. Meanwhile, the rate for women ages 30 through 34 was virtually unchanged, and their counterparts in their late 30s and early 40s experienced a slight uptick in birth rates, up 1 percent and 2 percent, respectively. Generally speaking, the older a woman is when she has her first child, the better that child’s socioeconomic outcome.

Against this backdrop, Benjamin Guzzo argues, using that 1.73-children-per-woman stat to predict catastrophe doesn’t make sense. The common measure of a country’s fertility rate is known as its total fertility rate, or TFR. The TFR predicts the expected number of children an average American woman will have in her lifetime. Importantly, it isn’t some ongoing tally—rather, it gathers the actual fertility rate of, say, U.S. women in their 40s and extrapolates from that number to assert what the rate for women currently in their 20s will be two decades from now. TFR is a useful metric because it’s simple and enables apples-to-apples comparisons globally, Benjamin Guzzo says. But in a country and an era in which more and more women are delaying motherhood, she argues, TFR is an estimate that is bound to be skewed.

That’s especially true because, by and large, the rate at which American women of childbearing age express an interest in starting a family hasn’t changed much in the past decade, suggests research presented at a recent meeting of demographers. Nor have notions of the ideal number of children in a family. Meanwhile, a growing body of research challenges traditional assumptions about the risk factors of so-called geriatric pregnancies. Women, Benjamin Guzzo notes, have long had children in their 40s—it’s just that, in the past, they were often having their third or fourth kid.

While some of this apparently declining fertility rate may be attributable to delay, notably, a woman’s decision to delay a baby does increase the likelihood that she won’t end up ever having one. “We need to be changing how we talk about this from mostly a story about delayed births to, increasingly, a story about births that these women are simply never going to have,” Lyman Stone, a researcher at the Institute for Family Studies, told me in an email.

Whatever’s going on, people decide not to have children, or to delay having them, for all sorts of reasons, not always because they’re not interested. For instance, a 2018 study surveying healthy, egg-freezing women in the United States and Israel on their motivations found that “lack of a partner” was the primary driving force. Specifically, the study participants pointed to a “massive undersupply” of men who are university-educated and committed to fidelity, marriage, and/or parenthood.

Other would-be parents are likely putting off kids because of insufficient resources, or a sense that their environment is too unpredictable. “Economic instability and unaffordable care could be factors for people deciding to have children later in life, or not at all,” said Josie Kalipeni, the policy director of the caregiving advocacy organization Caring Across Generations, in an email. Numerous studies have attributed the growing desire to delay motherhood to financial stressorseconomic uncertainty and overwhelming student debt, for example, or job instability and limited access to health insurance. Meanwhile, anecdotal evidence suggests that societal problems such as climate change—which may eventually affect some women’s ability to procreate—could discourage some prospective parents from becoming parents after all.

All of which is to say: The record-low fertility rate likely isn’t a sign that the United States’ younger generations are rejecting having children. Rather, the way Benjamin Guzzo and many other observers see it, it’s a sign that the country isn’t providing the support Americans feel they need in order to have children.

————————————————

And here’s a letter to the editor from a friend in response to the above:

 

I understand the author is seeking to assuage fears being reported about our country’s declining fertility rate but I strongly object to both this professed fear and the need to mitigate it. Grim economic consequences because people aren’t populating fast enough to become working drones? It’s hard not to laugh at the absurdity of such a thought when everything indicates the opposite is actually the cause for grim writing on the wall. If humans don’t change our global industrial economic model, and soon, human civilization will be collapsing in our lifetimes. And we’re taking just about everything else out the door with us! This Great Extinction Event we’re experiencing is begging human civilization to live differently—breed less, consume less, harm less. This should be the mantra guiding us all right now.

I’m one of many U.S. child-free women who opted out of child-bearing and -rearing intentionally—not only because I wanted to spend my professional years serving others not of my own making, but also because our world’s burgeoning and exponentially increasing human population is well past sustainability. I actually considered the personal act of bringing a child into the world immoral, given the state of affairs of our current world and the ecological crisis that is mounting. In short, I concur with one of the author’s theories: dropping fertility rates do in part reflect women like myself who are looking at climate doom & gloom and choosing not to procreate. For Earth’s sake, I’m just grateful I’m not alone.

 

What Parents Need to Know About Factory Animal Farms

https://www.ecowatch.com/factory-animal-farms-2637282001.html

What Parents Need to Know About Factory Animal Farms
By Ketura Persellin

You probably care a lot about how your fruits and vegetables are grown. You
may not think as much about where your family’s animal protein comes from,
but the conditions in which most meat, poultry and even dairy is produced
may give you and your kids pause — even those most likely to clamor for yet
another burger or hot dog.

Americans eat a lot of meat and poultry — 27 billion pounds of beef were
produced last year alone, most of it in “factory farms
<https://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/interactive-graphic/confined-feedlots/>.”
All those animals produce lots of manure — quite literally tons of it. The
775 animal operations in the Maumee Basin of Western Lake Erie alone
produce 5.5 million tons of manure each year. The coastal plain of North
Carolina has 1,500 factory farms that produce as much as 4 billion gallons
of wet swine waste and 400,000 tons of dry poultry waste.

The mountains of waste smell terrible, but the stench is far from the worst
problem it creates. Bacteria
<https://www.ewg.org/release/study-fecal-bacteria-nc-hog-farms-infects-nearby-homes>,
such as from hog feces
<https://www.ewg.org/release/study-fecal-bacteria-nc-hog-farms-infects-nearby-homes>,
can get into the homes and lawns of neighbors and endanger their physical
and mental health. And the problem is getting worse
<https://www.ewg.org/agmag/2019/03/manure-unregulated-factory-farms-fuels-lake-erie-s-toxic-algae-blooms>.
From 2005 to 2018, the amount of manure produced in the Maumee Basin rose
by more than 40 percent.

All that waste has to go somewhere. Manure from large-scale animal farms
runs off into groundwater, lakes, rivers and streams. It pollutes drinking
water, hurts air quality and triggers tremendous stress for local
residents. That may be one reason life expectancy
<https://corporate.dukehealth.org/news-listing/nc-residents-living-near-large-hog-farms-have-elevated-disease-death-risks>
in
North Carolina communities near hog farms is particularly low, even after
adjusting for other socioeconomic factors.

Kids may love poop jokes, but the production and consumption of animal
protein is no laughing matter. You and your children might find the
conditions the animals that you eat are raised in outrageous and disgusting
— perhaps enough to drive even the most enthusiastic carnivore into the
ranks of committed vegans. The animals live in crowded, dirty conditions
often infested with flies and rodents. The water they drink or that’s used
to wash down the facility can get contaminated with any number of these
pollutants.

Here are a few other things to consider – and point out to the kids when
they clamor for yet another burger, hot dog or order of chicken McNuggets:

– Not all meat is produced in a factory farm. By buying certain kinds of
meat, you can avoid supporting a great deal of the harm of factory farms.
Look <https://www.ewg.org/research/labeldecoder/> for grass-fed,
pasture-raised or “free range” meat in lean cuts that have no antibiotics
or hormones and are certified organic. Check out EWG’s label decoder
<https://www.ewg.org/research/labeldecoder/> for help.

– It’s not just livestock raised for meat that’s raised in
industrial-scale animal operations — dairy cows are too. So if you’re not a
fan of large-scale animal production, you’ll may want to change your dairy
consumption habits, too. Buying organic milk, cheese and other dairy
products will be better for your family’s health and for the environment.

– Crowded living conditions in factory farms make animals sick, which
has driven the overuse of antibiotics for livestock. This has led to the
development of strains of bacteria in animals and humans that are
resistant <https://www.ewg.org/research/superbugs/> to life-saving
medicine — the last thing most parents want.

– Manure runoff contains chemicals that algae feed on, such as nitrates
and phosphorus. They’re responsible for the toxic algae blooms that
pollute <https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/toxicalgalblooms/> many
lakes and rivers (and sometimes make them off limits for swimming and
fishing). If you’ve seen “Do Not Swim” signs recently at the beach or your
area lake, or greenish scum floating on the water’s surface, you’re often
looking at the direct consequence of industrial-scale animal production.

– Factory farms aren’t going away any time soon. The amount of red meat
and poultry consumed in the U.S. fell after the Great Recession of 2008 but
rebounded and was projected to reach 222.2 pounds
<https://www.globalagriculture.org/whats-new/news/en/32921.html> per
person per year in 2018. It’s expected to go up in the rest of the world,
too. Dairy consumption in this country is also on the rise. Your family can
do its part to avoid adding to the problem. For starters, consider going
meatless <https://www.meatlessmonday.com/> (and without dairy) once a
week.

*If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they
went. (Will Rogers)*

*the wild, cruel beast is not behind the bars of the cage. he is in front
of it – axel munthe*

*”Never doubt that a small group of dedicated citizens can change the
world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” Margaret Mead*

*Until every cage is empty. Until every animal is free*

Coyote-killing contests face growing outrage, state bans

Exposing the Big Game's avatarCommittee to Abolish Sport Hunting Blog

A coyote in a field. (Karen Nichols/AP)

In mid-December, a hunting contest was held in central Arizona for the 11th year in a row. The team that killed the most coyotes won. The event’s name emphasized the goal: It was called the “Santa Slay Coyote Tournament.”

It might have been the contest’s final year. The Arizona Game and Fish Commission is now considering banning Santa Slay and other privately run derbies that target predators and animals typically hunted for their fur. While coyote hunting would remain legal year-round and with no bag limits, a proposed rule would draw the line at doing it for competition.

“We’re not looking for controversial things to get into,” Jim Zieler, the commission’s chairman, said in an interview. “But this is something that we needed to evaluate a little bit closer and make sure we’re…

View original post 990 more words

Plants help absorb our carbon, but for how much longer?

Exposing the Big Game's avatarThe Extinction Chronicles

ALL THE SHRUBS, vines, and trees that surround you play a critical part in pulling excess carbon out of the atmosphere, and a new study argues that plants are, to date, helping absorb excess carbon emissions.

But at some point plants will get their fill of carbon, and the climate changehelping hand they’ve extended will begin to recede. Exactly when that will happen is a question that scientists are racing to answer.

Since the Industrial Revolution began in the early 20th century, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere caused by human activity has rapidly increased. Using computer models, the study’s authors concluded that photosynthesis has increased by 30 percent.

“It’s kind of a silver lining in an otherwise stormy sky,” says Lucas Cernusak, a study author and ecoyphysiologist from James Cook University in Australia.

The study was published in the journal Trends in…

View original post 743 more words

No charges issued in death of Howell man shot and killed while hunting

Exposing the Big Game's avatarCommittee to Abolish Sport Hunting Blog

LINKEDINCOMMENTMORE

No charges will be issued after an investigation into the death of a Howell man killed while hunting in northern Michigan in November.

Matthew Boeck, 29, who lived in Howell but was originally from Westland, was found dead on Nov. 16 in a wooded area in Oscoda County from a gunshot wound. It was the second day of the firearm deer season.

“The victim and person who shot him didn’t know each other but they were hunting near one another,” said Lt. Travis House, public information officer for the Michigan State Police’s 7thDistrict. “The investigation at the scene found evidence that the person who pulled the trigger didn’t know the other person was there.”

View original post 71 more words

Lucky the lynx killed in car accident

The male lynx was killed on a state road along with the deer he was hunting. Lucky was one of the first lynx to be resettled in the wilderness of the western German state of Rhineland-Palatinate.

A Eurasian Luchs lynx licking its paw (picture-alliance/blickwinkel/R. Sturm)

Lucky, a 4-year-old male lynx, was killed on Monday, May 13, when he and the deer he was chasing jumped out onto a state road and were hit by a car. Both animals were killed in the accident. The driver of the car was uninjured.

Lucky, who was orphaned as a pup, was one of the first lynx to be resettled in the wilderness of Rhineland-Palatinate in western Germany. He was a year old when he was released into the Palatinate Forest in the summer of 2016.

Release was part of an EU environmental project

To date, some 16 lynx have been released in the area, with four more to come. The release was sponsored by the EU Life project, which funds environmental and climate change activities.

Watch video05:36

Palatinate Forest – Nature without borders

Not all of the animals released in the Palatinate Forest have survived. Two female pups died shortly after their release and another male left the area for the neighboring Vosges region in France.

Authorities say that at least seven pups have been born since the animals were originally released. The surviving animals have spread across large areas of the forest.

A lover and a hunter

Lucky was the first of the animals to make headlines, however. Though his first appearance in the papers was negative — he attacked a herd of sheep — he was also the first lynx in the area to become a father.

More recently he made news again by visiting the female Kiara at the Palatinate Forest Nature Park in Kaiserslautern, even disappearing into her pen.

Ultimately, it was Lucky’s penchant for hunting that led to his demise, yet his case is not unique. According to the Rhineland-Palatinate State Hunting Association, some 23,400 animals were involved in automobile accidents across the state in 2018.

Ebola is back, more than 1000 Dead – view

Exposing the Big Game's avatarThe Extinction Chronicles

In the West, virtually unnoticed, spreading in Africa, one of the most insidious diseases in the world: Ebola. Anyone who is infected with the Virus suffers from high fever, pain and internal or external bleeding. According to statistics, two-thirds of the sick die.

Seriously, the extent in the Democratic Republic of the Congo currently In the Region of Nord-Kivu, most recently, 1600 people have been infected and already over 1000 have died – mostly women and children.

the disease is Transmitted through contact with body fluids of infected people or animals. Family members and nursing staff are exposed to a great risk of infection, even at funerals, where the dead are washed, spreading the disease.

propagation due to rebels

experts say: The Situation in the Congo gets out of control and could take on similar dimensions as the Ebola epidemic of 2014, as in…

View original post 516 more words

With Climate Change, Animal-to-Human Disease Transfer May Worsen

Exposing the Big Game's avatarThe Extinction Chronicles

Certain environments may make it easier for animals to infect humans with diseases like bird flu and Ebola, according to a recent study from The University of Queensland and Swansea University.

In past studies, researchers have identified the spread of diseases by analyzing species impacted by animal-produced pathogens and their patterns of movement, a press release from the University of Queensland explains. This more recent study builds on that research, confirming that environmental conditions have an impact on whether or not pathogens are given the opportunity to interact with and infect humans.

While the Queensland/Swansea study has not provided concrete data on how specific environments affect diseases, scientists confirmed that environmental factors are among the most important in mapping and modeling the spread of zoonotic, or animal-to-human, illness.

Previous studies have given scientists an idea of the factors that contribute to animal-to-human…

View original post 211 more words

South Dakota’s grisly predator bounty program has already claimed 15,000 animal lives this spring, and counting

Exposing the Big Game's avatarCommittee to Abolish Sport Hunting Blog

May 16, 2019 0 Comments

In the last month, South Dakota residents have trapped and killed more than 15,000 raccoons, skunks, opossums, foxes and badgers, cut off their tails, and submitted them to the state’s wildlife management agency for a $10-per-tail reward, all as part of South Dakota’s new Nest Predator Bounty Program.

The intended goal of this grisly exercise, introduced by Gov. Kristi Noem, is to increase the state’s pheasant population for hunters. To incentivize the killing, the taxpayer-funded agency has already given away more than 16,000 traps to residents and paid out $150,000 in bounties.

The program claims to promote awareness and education while training a new generation in conservation and wildlife management. But instead it is training residents, especially children, to kill needlessly. The state has issued traps to children as young as three years old, and the agency’s social media page features photos of grinning kids…

View original post 326 more words

Trophy hunting is not the solution to Africa’s wildlife conservation challenges

For decades, the public has been fed the myth that trophy hunting is absolutely necessary for sustainable conservation in Africa. Some sections of the academy, as well as the hunting lobby, continue to argue that banning trophy hunting will have a negative effect on wildlife biodiversity.

Their rationale is that trophy hunting contributes a significant amount of revenue, which African countries rely on for funding wildlife conservation. In essence the argument is: a few animals are sacrificed through regulated quotas for the greater good of the species. This opens the door for Western tourists to shoot charismatic mega-fauna and make a virtue of it.

In reality, trophy hunting revenues make up a very small percentage of total tourism revenues in Africa. For most African countries with an active trophy hunting industry, among them South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Namibia, the industry generates only between 0.3% and 5% of total tourism revenues. Clearly, trophy hunting’s economic importance is often overstated.

It’s also claimed by proponents that local communities benefit significantly from trophy hunting. The evidence suggests otherwise. A 2013 analysis of literature on the economics of trophy hunting done by Economists at Large, a network of economists who contribute their expertise to economic questions that are of public interest, showed that communities in the areas where hunting occurs derive little benefit from this revenue. On average communities receive only about 3% of the gross revenue from trophy hunting.

Another line of argument is that non-consumptive forms of wildlife tourism are not lucrative enough to sustain conservation efforts. The hunting lobby has therefore built a narrative where hunting is the only viable means of financing sustainable conservation in Africa.

I recently completed a book chapter in which I explore these and other claims made by the hunters, focusing in particular on how they choose their words to rationalize and sanitize their pastime.

Trophy hunting’s paradoxes

Trophy hunters often claim that they kill animals because they love animals. They rationalize their choice, for instance, by arguing that trophy hunting allows broader animal populations to be conserved.

As I argued in my chapter, the paradox of killing an animal you allegedly “love” cannot be resolved in the sphere of ethics.

In the chapter I explore the words that are used by hunters as euphemisms to describe trophy hunting, while avoiding the word “killing”. Examples include words like “harvesting” and “taking” that serve to sanitize killing. This “euphemization” is exemplified by Walter Palmer, who shot the beloved Zimbabwean lion, Cecil, in the infamous “Cecilgate” incident. Palmer issued a statement in response to the outcry, stating:

To my knowledge, everything about this trip was legal and properly handled and conducted. I had no idea that the lion I took was a known, local favorite…

This choice of words isn’t accidental. The effect is that we lose sight of what’s actually being done to lions, rhinos, elephants, and other precious species.

Alternatives and the way forward

The proponents of trophy hunting claim that there are no viable alternatives for Africa. They suggest that non-consumptive forms of wildlife tourism such as photo-safaris, where tourists view and photograph animals, do not generate sufficient benefits to justify keeping the wildlife habitat. If we stop trophy hunting, they say, wildlife will lose its economic value for local communities. Wildlife habitat will be lost to other land uses.

The truth is that well managed, non-consumptive wildlife tourism is sufficient for funding and managing conservation. Botswana, for example, which in 2014 banned all commercial hunting in favor of photo-tourism, continues to thrive. In a 2017 study, residents of Mababe village in Botswana noted that, compared to hunting, which is seasonal, photographic camps were more beneficial to the community because people are employed all year round.

Trophy hunting is not the solution to Africa’s wildlife conservation challenges. Proper governance, characterized by accountability, rigorous, evidence-based policies and actions, and driven by a genuine appreciation of the intrinsic – not just economic – value of Africa’s majestic fauna, is.

Muchazondida Mkono, Research Fellow (Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow), Business School, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.