Please Don’t Read this Blog

If you have ever been personally hurt by anything I’ve written here, I’m sorry, but please don’t read this blog.

Even if I’ve invited you or shared a post with you in the past, please don’t read this blog.

Unless you’re seeking information about the injustices of hunting or animal exploitation in general, please don’t read this blog.

If you’re so set in your ways that the things I write about animal rights seem like a personal attack on you, please don’t read this blog. It’ll just make you feel bad.

I have never set out to hurt or attack anyone personally (that’s why I don’t tend to name names). But like people who defend human rights, those who speak in defense of the rights of non-human animals and seek to expose the ongoing atrocities committed against them by human societies, I often have a hard time playing the diplomat.

It’s not that we’re un-American, but once you know what kind of animal suffering is behind the making of an all-meat hot dog, you can’t un-know it.

This blog is not for everyone. Those who are like-minded seem to enjoy it here; those who feel out of place might do better not reading it. (That’s why I don’t spend my time reading hunters’ or cattlemen’s blogs.) I’ve been accused of preaching to the choir. Fair enough, but even a choir of angels needs a pep talk once in a while to remind them that they’re not alone in what they’re going through.

A blog can be likened to a writer’s personal diary made public. Those close to the writer sometimes recognize themselves between the pages. My advice to folks who don’t like what they read here is, simply, stop reading. Speaking for myself, I never start off writing things with the intention of hurting anyone’s feelings. The only intention I ever have is adding my voice to the call to end animal suffering and abuse of the innocents.

Writing can be cathartic and when the words are flowing, I don’t have much control over their direction. They’re often a meditation on an issue that is really important to me. I find it works better than trying to debate with people over these emotional issues, because when things get heated, I tend to get overheated. My circuits fry, and my thoughts don’t flow; they go on overload. Afterward, I end up feeling like “I should have said this,” or “I should have answered to that. “

Unless you really care to know how I think or feel, please don’t read this blog.

598875_10151079569092823_924805190_n

No Hunting! Because Fuck You That’s Why!

nohuntsign

This blog site is a haven for wildlife and animal advocates, a wildlife refuge of sorts, that’s posted “No Hunting,” as any true sanctuary should be. Just as a refuge is patrolled to keep hunters and poachers from harassing the wildlife, this blog site is monitored to keep hunters from disturbing other people’s quiet enjoyment of the natural world.

It is not a message board or a chat room for those wanting to argue the supposed merits of animal exploitation or to defend the act of hunting or trapping in any way, shape or form. There are plenty of other sites available for that sort of thing.

Hunters and trappers: For your sake, I urge you not to bother wasting your time posting your opinions in the comments section. This blog is moderated, and pro-hunting statements will not be tolerated or approved. Consider this fair warning—if you’re a hunter, sorry but your comments are going straight to the trash can. This is not a public forum for animal exploiters to discuss the pros and cons of hunting.

We’ve heard all the rationalizations for killing wildlife so many times before; there’s no point in wasting everyone’s time with more of that old, tired hunter PR drivel. Any attempt to justify the murder of our fellow animals will hereby be jettisoned into cyberspace…

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson

 

That statement appears on the “About” page of this blog for all to see. Yet every so often I still get comments from hunters desperately wanting to rationalize their murderous deeds. I received two over the past two days, including one from a Danish hunter who stated, “I take pride in my education and my gear, in which I have invested a lot of money, and I enjoy the thrill of the hunt. But that does not make me a serial killer! I am a friendly young man, with so many other hobbies…”

Sorry to say, but a lot of serial killers would come across as “friendly young” men. Though he may not technically be a serial killer by standard definition, anyone who lumps the “thrill” of the hunt in with his other “hobbies” certainly shares some of the characteristics, like rationalization, justification, depersonalization, compartmentalization, as well as a sense of entitlement, lack of remorse, guilt or empathy, with the average serial killer.

The other pro-hunting comment came from none other than Laramie’s city councilman Erik Molvar, the Wild Earth Guardians’ new in-house hunter-on-staff, described on their website as “an avid fan of the outdoors, and enjoys hiking, flyfishing, skiing, antelope hunting, and renovating historic homes.” He doesn’t sound like someone who needs to feed his family on pronghorn flesh any more than any other suburban Wyomingite (who number in the 100s of thousands). Erik wrote at great length in defense of himself and about the relative morality of killing and eating a pronghorn vs. a loaf of bread. Yet he didn’t tell us anything we haven’t heard before time and again from other hunters. Once again, this is an anti-hunting blog site, with a longstanding policy of not approving comments from hunters and I see no reason to start now. We’ve heard them all before—ad nauseam.

Mr. Molvar, as your comment is directed to Marc, the author of the article “Sheep in Wolves’ Clothing,” please send it to him at his website: http://foranimals.org/ (If you no longer have the text, I can retrieve it for you from my trash can.)

I appreciate your concern for wolves and Wild Earth Guardian’s hard work to stop wolf hunting. I love wolves the same as any advocate. But I also care about pronghorn, elk and prairie dogs just as much. If we wait until wolf hunting is ended before acknowledging the rights of any other species, hunting will only become more embedded, like a festering thorn in need of surgical removal.

7 Reasons the Left Should NOT Be Pro-Hunting

Here’s a clever little article which appeared on a site called “Ammoland.com” over a year ago, on Monday, May 14, 2012. Entitled, “7 Reasons the Left Should Be Pro-Hunting,” it was meant to spur on the passage of a “Sportsmen’s” Heritage Act [the senate version of which must be stopped in its tracks this summer]. My comments are injected within [brackets]…

Columbus, OH –(Ammoland.com)- The last 30 days have been chock full of key events that have a tremendous impact on the future of hunting, fishing and recreational shooting in America – events that are leading many sportsmen and women to draw conclusions about (or further cement their conclusions about) Democratic decision makers.
•In the nation’s capitol, Congress debated sportsmen’s access to public land, whether EPA could regulate ammunition and fishing tackle, whether recreational shooting should be permissible on national monument land where compatible, and last whether the United States should allow the importation of legally hunted trophies.
•In California, the Senate debated whether to ban hunting black bears and bobcats using hounds.
•In Ohio, lawmakers protested colleagues holding clay bird shooting events as political fundraisers in the wake of a school shooting that occurred in February 250 miles away from the proposed event.

In each of these cases, it was Democrats who led the charge opposing hunting rights, restricting target shooting or decrying the use of firearms for recreational purposes.
•In Congress, HR, 4089, the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act passed by an overwhelming 274-146 vote. Of the no votes, 144 were Democrats. (79% of the Democrats in the U.S. House)
•In California, SB 1221 passed the Senate Natural Resources Committee 5-3; followed by a 5-2 vote before the Appropriations Committee. All yes votes were Democrats. Not a single democrat voted to protect hunting.
•And as one might expect, the howls of protest over the shooting event fundraiser in Ohio were by Democratic lawmakers; while the shoot was held by a Republican.

It’s not news that sportsmen have a much harder time gaining support from Democratic lawmakers. The question68439_10151399495155861_1116657731_n is why?

There are so many reasons why the left-wing should love American hunters.

[Puke.]

Here are seven:

[Why only 7—was that as high as they could count?]

•We’re a minority. There are roughly 20 million hunters in the United States, making us less than seven percent of the population. Democrats purport to be the champions of the under-represented. Here we are!

[Hunters are underrepresented? Whoa, hold on there a minute pardner—I gotta call bull on that one— if anything they’re overrepresented, I’d say. No other group that size enjoys near as much representation!]

•We eat free range / organic food. Democrats decry large livestock farms, and the use of hormones in meat. Whether deer or duck, game is the ultimate healthy choice. What’s the difference between free-range chicken and free-range pheasant?

[Far from health-food, wild ducks and geese are rife with lead-poisoning, fish with mercury, while deer and elk carry chronic wasting disease acquired by eating contaminated feed meant for livestock. You’d have to have a serious case of mad-cow disease to call that “organic.”]

•We preserve green space. No single group of Americans puts more money into habitat acquisition and preservation than hunters…billions upon billions of our license dollars and taxes on firearms and ammunition for land that everyone else can use for free. I thought Democrats love free stuff!

[Billions? That’s a bit of an exaggeration, I’m sure—unless someone’s spending a shitload on ammo. And besides, the “green space” they speak of is a war zone for much of the year. Most people don’t want to have to watch out for land-mines in the form of traps and dodge stray bullets to recreate in their green spaces.]

•We feed the hungry. Each year, hunters donate thousands of pounds of venison to local food pantries. One would think the party of the Great Society would welcome our contribution to the safety net.

[Not if they love deer in addition to people. Giving the flesh of their victims away is just a feel-good excuse for their favorite sport—killing]

•We support women’s rights. There are few things that make a sportsman happier than successfully hooking a woman on hunting. We’re even okay that they outshoot us many times.

[Great, that’s all we need are more Sarah Palin-types getting hooked on hunting by someone who thinks women’s rights include the equal right to become a deadly and destructive “sportsman.”]

•We’re just regular folks. For every African big-game hunter, there are thousands of hunters making a blue-collar living, and driving our American made trucks.

[Gas-guzzling, carbon-spewing American made trucks with mondo brush-crushing tires, displaying bumper stickers like: “Fish Slayer” and “Ditch the Bitch, let’s go huntin’”]

•We’re animal lovers. Hunters are the ones who pay for endangered species rehabilitation, not Hollywood actors or fashion models. And don’t even get me started on our dogs. No one loves and is more obsessed with dogs than hunters. And we don’t keep our dogs caged in purses where they can’t even turn around or stretch their legs.

[Oh sure, I’ve seen how you treat your hounds and “bird-dogs.” The only time they get out of their crate or kennel is during hunting season.]

My hope is that our left-leaning law makers will read this article, and realize that we really do have so much in common. And that they will join the minority of Democratic legislators who do vote pro-hunting and put an end to the discrimination that we have endured over the last thirty plus years. I’m hoping their position on hunting is evolving.
[Good fuckin’ luck, buddy. Not unless they are all too preoccupied by news of which celebrity died that day or who is having a babies to notice that the last of our public lands are being opened up for hunting and that our roadless wilderness areas are about to be exploited by the Senate version of the “Sportsmens” Heritage Act coming up for a vote this summer.]

30973_4756818474045_484772904_n

 

The Top 3 Outrageous Lies Hunters Tell

After a barrage of comments from hunters (most of which went straight to the trash since this is an ANTI hunting blog, not a forum for hunters to re-hash the same feeble rationalizations we’ve all heard a thousand times before), I was considering answering to some of the more commonly spewed of them in today’s post.
I might have started out with something like:
People have been so successful at going forth and propogating that there are now over 7 billion humans to feed! There isn’t enough habitiat or “game” on god’s green earth to support an unlimited number of carnivorous primates *. If we all went back to hunting, the wild species would be wiped out in short order, as is happening in countries where “bush meat” killing is popular.

*Yes, humans are primates, relatives of gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans. Back in the “the beginning of time” our earliest ancestors ate primarily plant food, and both sexes probably worked side by side gathering it. But when our species made the fatal (for the planet) step of embracing flesh for food, hunting became the privileged task of the males, who would resent any competion from women for their fireside bragging rights…

… But since there’s never enough time to address everything, and their claims have already been answered to time and again, I’ll climb down off the soapbox (for now) and turn it over to the Brennan Browne, who wrote:

The Top 3 Outrageous Lies Hunters Tell
Guest blog, by Brennan Browne Friday Sep 23rd, 2011 12:09 AM

Hunters have long used blatant lies to pacify public anger and to manipulate people into believing that their serial killing is not only NOT immoral and unethical, but actually beneficial. Here’s the truth.

THE TOP 3 OUTRAGEOUS  LIES  HUNTERS  TELL

HUNTER LIE #1 We help animals by keeping their populations in check. If we didn’t kill them they would starve from overpopulation.

FACT If this were true, there would be piles of evidence [bones/bodies] all over the planet in places where hunters have historically found the habitats and animals too inaccessible to kill. The world would have heard these stories each time scientists discovered closed, ecological loops–islands–of which there are 10s of 1000s on Earth.
The biological reality is that if left alone, animal species regulate themselves. These ‘controlling’ elements are based primarily on food supplies and weather. Conditions which trigger hormonal responses in the females of non-human species. These responses determine whether the offspring will be male or female; how many babies a given animal will have; or if indeed they will have a successful pregnancy at all. Factor in disease and natural die-offs, and if hunting were never undertaken again, the environment would, for the first time in hundreds of years, function as the perfectly synchronized interdependent system Mother Nature intended.
“Dis”harmony–overpopulation–is CAUSED BY HUNTING. Species will adapt to FILL a void. These ‘voids’ are caused by Fish and Wildlife policies which encourage hunters to decimate natural predators, i.e., cougars, coyotes, wolves, etc.– a standard practice of wildlife “managers” throughout the world. Obviously once predators are removed, if food supplies are plentiful and weather conditions favorable, an overpopulation problem is created. However, if conditions are NOT favorable, a massive environmental disaster, resulting in the starvation of animals targeted by such “management” methods becomes the reality.
Wildlife officials KNOW FULL WELL they are manipulating  prey species to the point of overpopulation by killing off their natural predators. This is done out of A) GREED. Hunting licenses and other hunting-related revenues bring big bucks into local, state and federal coffers. B) Because state and federal wildlife “management” are completely CONTROLLED by hunters whose interests are 100% self-serving. The non-hunting public is totally disregarded, and their tax dollars hijacked for wildlife mass murder, with estimates as high as nearly 5 BILLION animals slaughtered annually by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services.
HUNTER LIE # 2 Without the money we contribute, many of the areas which exist for animal populations wouldn’t be there.
FACT Every single taxpaying citizen supports our National Parks system, and ALL OTHER PUBLIC LANDS. Hunters contribute with revenues generated by hunting licenses and other hunting related usage fees.
Whatever hunters provide in fees is minuscule in relation to what they COST the U.S. taxpayer. POACHING IS RAMPANT. Multiple billions are spent–annually–in manpower and on the increasing decimation of protected and endangered species from hunters’ criminal activities, which far outweigh the comparatively tiny contributions of hunting licensing/usage fees.
The taxpaying public and wildlife are continually egregiously abused for the sole benefit of hunters. 50% of federally funded wildlife “refuges” regularly allow trapping/hunting within them. This disenfranchises the non-hunting public from enjoying these lands and bastardizes the purpose of wildlife “refuges” which were created to PROTECT the inhabitants. The average taxpayer is forced to support these refuges, which in turn SUBSIDIZES hunters–not the other way around. If most hunters had to purchase this same acreage and maintain its wildlife, few would have the where-with-all to do so. Without taxpayer funding, these wildlife refuges would not exist, and neither would the land hunters exploit at the public’s expense. The war on our wildlife is an elitist’s game, fully SUBSIDIZED by the abuse of taxpayer money to the tune of BILLIONS  annually.
HUNTER LIE #3 We are avid environmentalists and conservationists.
FACT Hunters claiming to be “caring” environmentalists because they help support green spaces [so does every taxpayer] is like saying you’re pro-animal because you support slaughterhouses. Perpetuating the existence of animals for your own benefit [via artificial overpopulation] at the expense of their pain, suffering and death does not make you an environmentalist–only a malevolent opportunist. Hunting/poaching ranks second behind habitat destruction, as the leading cause of global, non-human species loss. Hunting is nothing short of ecological rape and the deluded and depraved partaking in such selfish acts of bloodlust can find no HONEST justification for their crimes.
###
Copyright © 2011 Brennan Browne. Permission is granted for reprint in email, blog, print and web media if this credit is attached and the title and content remain unchanged. Brennan is a freelance writer whose commentaries have appeared on web media and in numerous blogs.