# data[].attributes.body
Is one able to define what is savagery or inhumane when the exist of human life derived out of the unpractical.  for hunting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Three generations of a Wisconsin family with a nine-point buck. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources/Flickr, CC BY-ND

Every year as daylight dwindles and trees go bare, debates arise over the morality of hunting. Hunters see the act of stalking and killing deer, ducks, moose and other quarry as humane, necessary and natural, and thus as ethical. Critics respond that hunting is a cruel and useless act that one should be ashamed to carry out.

As a nonhunter, I cannot say anything about what it feels like to shoot or trap an animal. But as a student of philosophy and ethics, I think philosophy can help us clarify, systematize and evaluate the arguments on both sides. And a better sense of the arguments can help us talk to people with whom we disagree.

Three rationales for hunting

One central question is why people choose to hunt. Environmental philosopher Gary Varner identifies three types of hunting: therapeutic, subsistence and sport. Each type is distinguished by the purpose it is meant to serve.

Therapeutic hunting involves intentionally killing wild animals in order to conserve another species or an entire ecosystem. In one example, Project Isabella, conservation groups hired marksmen to eradicate thousands of feral goats from several Galapagos islands between 1997 and 2006. The goats were overgrazing the islands, threatening the survival of endangered Galapagos tortoises and other species.

Subsistence hunting is intentionally killing wild animals to supply nourishment and material resources for humans. Agreements that allow Native American tribes to hunt whales are justified, in part, by the subsistence value the animals have for the people who hunt them.

In contrast, sport hunting refers to intentionally killing wild animals for enjoyment or fulfillment. Hunters who go after deer because they find the experience exhilarating, or because they want antlers to mount on the wall, are sport hunters.

These categories are not mutually exclusive. A hunter who stalks deer because he or she enjoys the experience and wants decorative antlers may also intend to consume the meat, make pants from the hide and help control local deer populations. The distinctions matter because objections to hunting can change depending on the type of hunting.

What bothers people about hunting: Harm, necessity and character

Critics often argue that hunting is immoral because it requires intentionally inflicting harm on innocent creatures. Even people who are not comfortable extending legal rights to beasts should acknowledge that many animals are sentient - that is, they have the capacity to suffer. If it is wrong to inflict unwanted pain and death on a sentient being, then it is wrong to hunt. I call this position "the objection from harm."

If sound, the objection from harm would require advocates to oppose all three types of hunting, unless it can be shown that greater harm will befall the animal in question if it is not hunted - for example, if it will be doomed to slow winter starvation. Whether a hunter's goal is a healthy ecosystem, a nutritious dinner or a personally fulfilling experience, the hunted animal experiences the same harm.

But if inflicting unwanted harm is necessarily wrong, then the source of the harm is irrelevant. Logically, anyone who commits to this position should also oppose predation among animals. When a lion kills a gazelle, it causes as much unwanted harm to the gazelle as any hunter would - far more, in fact.

Few people are willing to go this far. Instead, many critics propose what I call the "objection from unnecessary harm": it is bad when a hunter shoots a lion, but not when a lion mauls a gazelle, because the lion needs to kill to survive.

Today it is hard to argue that human hunting is strictly necessary in the same way that hunting is necessary for animals. The objection from necessary harm holds that hunting is morally permissible only if it is necessary for the hunter's survival. "Necessary" could refer to nutritional or ecological need, which would provide moral cover for subsistence and therapeutic hunting. But sport hunting, almost by definition, cannot be defended this way.

Sport hunting also is vulnerable to another critique that I call "the objection from character." This argument holds that an act is contemptible not only because of the harm it produces, but because of what it reveals about the actor. Many observers find the derivation of pleasure from hunting to be morally repugnant.

In 2015, American dentist Walter Palmer found this out after his African trophy hunt resulted in the death of Cecil the lion. Killing Cecil did no significant ecological damage, and even without human intervention, only one in eight male lions survives to adulthood. It would seem that disgust with Palmer was at least as much a reaction to the person he was perceived to be - someone who pays money to kill majestic creatures - as to the harm he had done.

The hunters I know don't put much stock in "the objection from character." First, they point out that one can kill without having hunted and hunt without having killed. Indeed, some unlucky hunters go season after season without taking an animal. Second, they tell me that when a kill does occur, they feel a somber union with and respect for the natural world, not pleasure. Nonetheless, on some level the sport hunter enjoys the experience, and this is the heart of the objection.

Is hunting natural?

In discussions about the morality of hunting, someone inevitably asserts that hunting is a natural activity since all preindustrial human societies engage in it to some degree, and therefore hunting can't be immoral. But the concept of naturalness is unhelpful and ultimately irrelevant.

A very old moral idea, dating back to the Stoics of ancient Greece, urges us to strive to live in accordance with nature and do that which is natural. Belief in a connection between goodness and naturalness persists today in our use of the word "natural" to market products and lifestyles - often in highly misleading ways. Things that are natural are supposed to be good for us, but also morally good.

Setting aside the challenge of defining "nature" and "natural," it is dangerous to assume that a thing is virtuous or morally permissible just because it is natural. HIV, earthquakes, Alzheimer's disease and post-partum depression are all natural. And as The Onion has satirically noted, behaviors including rape, infanticide and the policy of might-makes-right are all present in the natural world.

Hard conversations

There are many other moral questions associated with hunting. Does it matter whether hunters use bullets, arrows or snares? Is preserving a cultural tradition enough to justify hunting? And is it possible to oppose hunting while still eating farm-raised meat?

As a starting point, though, if you find yourself having one of these debates, first identify what kind of hunting you're discussing. If your interlocutor objects to hunting, try to discover the basis for their objection. And I believe you should keep nature out of it.

Finally, try to argue with someone who takes a fundamentally different view. Confirmation bias - the unintentional act of confirming the beliefs we already have - is hard to overcome. The only antidote I know of is rational discourse with people whose confirmation bias runs contrary to my own.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is hunting moral? A philosopher unpacks the question

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every year as daylight dwindles and trees go bare, debates arise over the morality of hunting. Hunters see the act of stalking and killing deer, ducks, moose and other quarry as humane, necessary and natural, and thus as ethical. Critics respond that hunting is a cruel and useless act that one should be ashamed to carry out.

# data[].attributes.body
http://magazine.outdoornebraska.gov/2017/08/109097/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Although there are fewer hunters now than 15 years ago, we spend a lot more money on hunting –related goods, which means today’s hunters are even more dedicated and invested in conservation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) is a national nonprofit conservation and hunting organization that has worked for the conservation of the wild turkey and preservation of the hunting tradition since 1973.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Although it was a crucial part of humans' survival 100,000 years ago, hunting is now nothing more than a violent form of recreation that the vast majority of hunters do not need for subsistence. ¹ Hunting has contributed to the extinction of animal species all over the world, including the Tasmanian tiger and the great auk. 2,3

Less than 4 percent of the U.S. population (13.7 million people) hunts, yet hunting is permitted in many wildlife refuges, national forests, and state parks and on other public lands. ⁴ Almost 40 percent of hunters slaughter and maim millions of animals on public land every year, and by some estimates, poachers kill just as many animals illegally. 5,6

Pain and Suffering
Many animals endure prolonged, painful deaths when they are injured but not killed by hunters. A study of 80 radio-collared white-tailed deer found that of the 22 deer who had been shot with "traditional archery equipment," 11 were wounded but not recovered by hunters. ⁷ Twenty percent of foxes who have been wounded by hunters are shot again. Just 10 percent manage to escape, but "starvation is a likely fate" for them, according to one veterinarian. ⁸ A South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks biologist estimates that more than 3 million wounded ducks go "unretrieved" every year. ⁹ A British study of deer hunting found that 11 percent of deer who'd been killed by hunters died only after being shot two or more times and that some wounded deer suffered for more than 15 minutes before dying. ¹⁰

Hunting disrupts migration and hibernation patterns and destroys families. For animals such as wolves, who mate for life and live in close-knit family units, hunting can devastate entire communities. The stress that hunted animals suffer-caused by fear and the inescapable loud noises and other commotion that hunters create-also severely compromises their normal eating habits, making it hard for them to store the fat and energy that they need in order to survive the winter.

Nature Takes Care of Its Own
The delicate balance of ecosystems ensures their survival-if they are left unaltered. Natural predators help maintain this balance by killing only the sickest and weakest individuals. Hunters, however, kill any animal whose head they would like to hang over the fireplace-including large, healthy animals who are needed to keep the population strong. Elephant poaching is believed to have increased the number of tuskless animals in Africa, and in Canada, hunting has caused bighorn sheep's horn size to fall by 25 percent in the last 40 years. Nature magazine reports that "the effect on the populations' genetics is probably deeper." ¹¹

Even when unusual natural occurrences cause overpopulation, natural processes work to stabilize the group. Starvation and disease can be tragic, but they are nature's ways of ensuring that healthy, strong animals survive and maintain the strength of the rest of their herd or group. Shooting an animal because he or she might starve or get sick is arbitrary and destructive.

Another problem with hunting involves the introduction of exotic "game" animals who, if they're able to escape and thrive, pose a threat to native wildlife and established ecosystems.

Canned Cruelty
Most hunting occurs on private land, where laws that protect wildlife are often inapplicable or difficult to enforce. On private lands that are set up as for-profit hunting reserves or game ranches, hunters can pay to kill native and exotic species in "canned hunts." These animals may be native to the area, raised elsewhere and brought in, or purchased from individuals who are trafficking in unwanted or surplus animals from zoos and circuses. The animals are hunted and killed for the sole purpose of providing hunters with a "trophy."

Canned hunts are big business-there are an estimated 1,000 game preserves in the U.S., with some 5,000 so-called "exotic ranchers" in North America. 12,13 Ted Turner, the country's largest private landowner, allows hunters to pay thousands of dollars to kill bison, deer, African antelopes, and turkeys on his 2 million acres. ¹⁴

Animals on canned-hunting ranches are often accustomed to humans and are usually unable to escape from the enclosures that they are confined to, which range in size from just a few yards to thousands of acres. Most of these ranches operate on a "no-kill, no-pay" policy, so it is in owners' best interests to ensure that clients get what they came for. Owners do this by offering guides who are familiar with animals' locations and habits, permitting the use of dogs, and supplying "feeding stations" that lure unsuspecting animals to food while hunters lie in wait.

While many states have limited or banned canned hunts, there are no federal laws regulating the practice at this time. ¹⁵

Other Victims
Hunting accidents destroy property and injure or kill horses, cows, dogs, cats, hikers, and other hunters. In 2006, then-Vice President Dick Cheney famously shot a friend while hunting quail on a canned hunting preserve. ¹⁶ According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, thousands of injuries are attributed to hunting in the U.S. every year-and that number only includes incidents involving humans. ¹⁷

The bears, cougars, deer, foxes, and other animals who are chased, trapped, and even killed by dogs during (sometimes illegal) hunts aren't the only ones to suffer from this variant of the "sport." Dogs used for hunting are often kept chained or penned and are denied routine veterinary care such as vaccines and heartworm medication. Some are lost during hunts and never found, whereas others are turned loose at the end of hunting season to fend for themselves and die of starvation or get struck by vehicles.

What You Can Do
Before you support a "wildlife" or "conservation" group, ask about its position on hunting. Groups such as the National Wildlife Federation, the National Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, the Izaak Walton League, the Wilderness Society, and the World Wildlife Fund are pro-sport-hunting, or at the very least, they do not oppose it.

To combat hunting in your area, post "no hunting" signs on your land, join or form an anti-hunting organization, protest organized hunts, and spread deer repellent or human hair (from barber shops) near hunting areas. Call 1-800-628-7275 to report poachers in national parks to the National Parks and Conservation Association. Educate others about hunting. Encourage your legislators to enact or enforce wildlife-protection laws, and insist that nonhunters be equally represented on the staffs of wildlife agencies.

References
¹National Research Council, "Science and the Endangered Species Act" (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995) 21.
²Grant Holloway, "Cloning to Revive Extinct Species," CNN.com, 28 May 2002.
³Canadian Museum of Nature, "Great Auk," 2008.
⁴Outdoor Life, "Why We Suck at Recruiting New Hunters, Why It Matters, and How You Can Fix It," 15 Oct 2019.
⁵U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation" (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 2012) 28.
⁶Illinois Department of Natural Resources, "How the Program Works," accessed 25 July 2013.
⁷Stephen S. Ditchkoff et al., "Wounding Rates of White-Tailed Deer With Traditional Archery Equipment," Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (1998).
⁸D.J. Renny, "Merits and Demerits of Different Methods of Culling British Wild Mammals: A Veterinary Surgeon's Perspective," Proceedings of a Symposium on the Welfare of British Wild Mammals (London: 2002).
⁹Spencer Vaa, "Reducing Wounding Losses," South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, accessed 25 July 2013.
¹⁰E.L. Bradshaw and P. Bateson, "Welfare Implications of Culling Red Deer ( Cervus Elaphus)," Animal Welfare 9 (2000): 3-24.
¹¹John Whitfield, "Sheep Horns Downsized by Hunters' Taste for Trophies," Nature 426 (2003): 595.
¹²Morgan Loew, "Arizona Organization Protects 'Canned' Hunting," CBS5 9 Nov. 2012.
¹³CBS News, "Can Hunting Endangered Animals Save the Species?" 60 Minutes 29 Jan. 2012.
¹⁴Robert M. Poole, "Hunters: For Love of the Land," National Geographic Magazine Nov. 2007.
¹⁵Morgan Loew, "Arizona Organization Protects 'Canned' Hunting," CBS5 9 Nov. 2012.
¹⁶Dana Bash, "Cheney Accidentally Shoots Fellow Hunter," CNN.com, 12 Feb. 2006.
¹⁷National Shooting Sports Foundation, "Firearms-Related Injury Statistics," Industry Intelligence Reports 2012.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Sport Hunting Is Cruel and Unnecessary | PETA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Although it was a crucial part of humans' survival 100,000 years ago, hunting is now nothing more than a violent form of recreation that the vast majority of hunters do not need for subsistence. 1 Hunting has contributed to the extinction of animal species all over the world, including the Tasmanian tiger and the great auk.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Woe to the crafty who hurt or abuse the creatures of the earth. Woe to the hunters for they shall be hunted." * Jesus, Gospel of the Nazirenes 14:6-9

NOTE FROM ME: Before you read the essay, I want to expound on a few points.

1) The Deer Range Improvement Program (DRIP) is still in existence. And every state has a program like DRIP. It might not be called DRIP but there are DRIP-like programs all over the U.S.

2) Here is a detailed explanation of sex-biased hunting. If we didn't have sex-biased hunting, there would be an even ratio of male deer to female deer. So, if someone took a sample group of 10 deer-anywhere-there would be five males and five females. The five males would impregnate the five females who would then give birth to five offspring. However, after decades of killing big bucks for their large racks, we now have ratios of 7-to-3, 8-to-2, or 9-to-1 FEMALE to male. Let's take the 7-to-3 ratio. We now have three males impregnating seven females (we know males can impregnate as many females as they come in contact with). Then seven females give birth to seven offspring which means there are a minimum of two EXTRA babies per sample group of 10 deer due to sex-biased hunting. But, let's go further. Wildlife biologists have confirmed that when deer and other animals (including humans during war times) feel their population is being decimated, as is the case after hunting season ends, the majority of all the females give birth to twins or triplets. So, let's take the twin scenario. Seven females are now giving birth to 14 babies instead of the original five (if our society didn't hunt), thereby having 9 EXTRA babies per sample group of 10 deer. When you multiply the extra babies over the entire Michigan herd, you have an "extra" 500,000 to 700,000 deer every year. And guess how many hunting licenses they issue every year? You guessed it, between 500,000 and 700,000. Plus, that's how the Michigan herd grew from 500,000 in the 1970s to nearly two million today. This scenario obtains in every state, with the numbers varying only slightly from state to state.

3) The only excuse to kill and eat animals would be purely for survival. But this scenario is rare. The Inuit, who live in an icy environment, come to mind (which is why I've never traveled to Alaska to lecture). I'll never understand why people who reside in NON-ICY or NON-DESERT settings hunt, kill and eat the flesh of animals. Habit, tradition, convenience or taste are invalid, barbaric reasons to harm animals. MURDERING and COMMODIFYING animals are crimes. Murder is murder whether victims stand upright, walk on all fours, have fur, feathers, horns, beaks or gills. Self-defense, and vicarious self-defense (defending others who cannot defend themselves), are the only justifications for murder. Commodification is when humans turn animals into inanimate objects and can't see them for anything else. Cows have been turned into shoes, briefcases and hamburgers. Chickens have been turned into buckets of wings. Deer have been transformed into unwilling participants of a bloodthirsty sport, then into severed-head wall-trophies and venison burgers.

4) When humans are treated the way hunters treat animals, people scream "holocaust!", "genocide!", "massacre!", and "bloody murder!" Yet, according to the hunters' mind-set, animals are "game" who deserve to be killed. This "game" is devoid of rational thought, decency and kindness. It is, quite frankly, sociopathic behavior [just watch the two videos on this page, especially the one at the top]. I've watched hunting and fishing shows on ESPN for more than 25 years. As a sports junkie, I have to wait for the blood-shows to end weekend mornings before GENUINE sports shows air. I hear excitement in the hunters' voices before they pull the trigger or shoot the arrow. No need to fabricate the true reasons for deer-hunting, or any other animal-killing moment. Hunting and fishing are bloodsports, plain and simple. Additionally, hunters aren't exonerated from their killing just because they do it themselves. In fact, their killing makes the hunters directly responsible, as opposed to people who buy their meat at a supermarket. The latter are just accomplices who pay someone else to commit the crimes. Purchasing someone else's kill is still unequivocally wrong and evil, but killing and harming directly shows more psychotic behavior than could someone who cannot, or would not, harm and kill directly.

Hunters are Terrorists of the Animal World

By Gary Yourofsky

The following essay was published as an editorial in The Detroit News on April 20, 2001. It subsequently appeared in the book Hunting: Opposing Viewpoints, published in 2008 by the Gale Group/Greenhaven Press.

I am the founder and president of Michigan's most outspoken and uncompromising humanitarian organization, ADAPTT. Nearly 80 high schools and universities have invited me to educate and enlighten students about animal liberation, ethics, justice and kindness.

Before I refute every hunting lie, let me begin with two quotes from some well-known animal rights activists.

The first one is from Mohandas Gandhi. "The life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. The more helpless the creature is, the more it is entitled to protection from humans from the cruelty of humans."

The second quote from the great philosopher Pythagoras. "As long as humanity continues to be the ruthless destroyer of other beings, we will never know health or peace. For as long as people massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed those who sow the seed of murder and pain will never reap joy and love."

Now, contrary to the rosy picture hunters always paint about themselves-the noble hunter, the honest hunter, the caring hunter, the concerned hunter-let's run down a quick list of noble hunting adages:

Shoot more and shoot more often, I'm a gut-pile addict, whack 'em and stack 'em, live to hunt/hunt to live and kill on.

And how about this comment from Ted Nugent, the world's most outspoken animal-killer and just about every hunter's hero: "I contribute to the dead of winter and the moans of silence, blood trails are music to my ears. I'm a gut-pile addict. The pig didn't know I was there. It's my kick. I love shafting animals. It's rock 'n' roll power." (World Bowhunter's Magazine, Volume 1, Number 4, May 1990, page 12)

It's hard for animal rights humanitarians to discuss the truth about hunting when we're constantly dealing with lies about overpopulation, lies about kindness and lies about science.

ADAPTT is fed up with hunters, their government cronies and all of their sick mentalities. The so-called "experts" who work for the DNR and the NRC are not "experts." They're hunters and hunt supporters.

And hunting is not sound science. It is only sound fun for unsound individuals who commit cowardly acts. And it sounds to me that any sound person who possesses a scintilla of sound sense would understand that soundly truth.

To appease hunters in 1971, the DNR began serious efforts to change the "old forest" situation in Michigan. There were around 500,000 deer at that time which wasn't enough to please the hunters. Therefore, the DNR instituted the Deer Range Improvement Program known as DRIP which called for the clear-cutting of 1.2 million acres of forest creating a more accessible food supply for deer and further stimulate reproduction. The DNR also has always issued a disproportionate number of licenses to kill male deer, because killing males instead of females causes the females' internal reproductive mechanism to go haywire. Then, she ends up giving birth to twins and even triplets to keep the species going.

The DRIP program and sex-biased hunting has caused the deer herd to level out at around 2 million animals last year.

For the record, hunters cause an increase in deer-car accidents and contribute to crop damage.

In 1972, there were 10,742 deer-car collisions. Last year there were about 70,000. Gee, I thought hunters were hunting to reduce deer-car collisions? In 1996, The Michigan Farm Bureau even threatened to file a class-action lawsuit against the DNR for solely catering to the needs of hunters.

By the way, as deer-car accidents and crop-damage steadily increased over the years, here's what Dave Arnold, a DNR executive, had to say to The Detroit Free Press on January 1, 1980: "Don't lose sight of the purpose of the program. When the DNR decided several years ago to try and increase the herd to about one million animals, we knew the auto collision rate and crop damage would rise."

Here's what Ned Caveney, a DNR state forester, had to say to the Northwoods Call a Charlevoix paper on May 26, 1991: "In Michigan, we manipulate forest habitat to produce amazingly unnatural deer numbers --- up to two million of the critters some years. That probably approaches two million more that existed before man got into the act."

In the '90s, pro-hunting governor John Engler created The Hunting and Heritage Task Force in order to expand hunting and fishing opportunities to the public which is the same reason why the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service exists. By the way, the USFWS offers 290 hunting programs and 307 fishing programs on the 514 national wildlife refuges throughout the U.S. Paragraph six of Engler's Hunting and Heritage Task Force edict states the following: "While Michigan offers widespread opportunities to hunt and fish, more could be done to encourage participation, especially in high population centers. All divisions within the DNR should work together, making hunting and fishing more accessible on both public and private lands. Where possible, expand opportunities to hunt and fish within urban parks and recreation areas."

This was the sole purpose behind the recent deer killings at our metro-parks. Not because the deer were eating up all the trillium plants. The HCMA board of commissioners wouldn't know the difference between trillium and helium. Moreover, humans are the only animals who destroy land and take more than they need.

The metro-park killings didn't take place because the hunters wanted to donate food to the hungry. That's just a clever public relations gimmick to try and place a halo around those who murder animals for fun. It is far more cost efficient to feed hungry people spaghetti and stir-fried tofu, and you can feed more people that way too.

Everyone must understand that wildlife management is an illusory concept created around 100 years ago. There is no such thing as wildlife management. Humans cannot manage nature. The only managing humans should be doing is managing to stay out of the animals' space.

And, once again, it is unjust, stupid and contemptible that the DNR and NRC-made up entirely of hunters and hunt supporters-make decisions about the fate of wild animals. That would be akin to allowing pedophiles to write child protection laws and misogynists pen domestic abuse laws?

Do hunters eat their kills? Yes. But do hunters hunt for food? No! They hunt for the thrill of the kill. They receive a rush. A super-shot of adrenaline. It's bloodlust and dominance. It's arrogance and selfishness. It's hatred and brutality. It's dishonor and viciousness. It's murder and it's obscene.

Hunters always use the excuse that deer are going to starve to death during the winter as if starvation wasn't a natural process and nature's way of controlling populations and the ecosystem's way of working.

Starving deer provides food for scavenger animals and is nature's way of weeding out sickly animals and allowing the strongest ones to reproduce.

A bullet to the head or an arrow through the chest is not a solution to starvation. But, furthermore, hunters don't even shoot starving deer. They don't make good trophies and don't have lots of meat.

I dare anyone to show me a photograph of one hunter last year who shot one emaciated deer. Just one. Hunters shoot big bucks with big racks for big trophies. Watch their TV shows on PBS and ESPN and TNN. That's all they talk about-big racks and big trophies.

On April 17, 1989, in The Free Press, Nugent said this about hunting: "I don't hunt for meat. I hunt to hunt."

In 1990, Nugent said the following in his World Bowhunters Magazine: "Nobody hunts just to put meat on the table because it's too expensive, time-consuming and extremely inconsistent."

For the record, I never threatened to harm someone's child over the recent deer-killings in our metro-parks. I threatened to take a bullet for the deer and form my own deer-police unit to protect deer from hunters. But I did challenge about six sissified animal-killing hunters to show me how tough "tough guys" really are. I wanted to fight these bullies and put them in their place. Unfortunately, as usual, they refused to take me up on my challenge. If there's one thing that I've learned in six years of intense activism, animal-abusers are cowards who would never fight someone who would fight back.

To obtain more information about the industry of hunting, read How are Deer Managed by State Wildlife Agencies?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Woe to the crafty who hurt or abuse the creatures of the earth. Woe to the hunters for they shall be hunted." * Jesus, Gospel of the Nazirenes 14:6-9 NOTE FROM ME: Before you read the essay, I want to expound on a few points.

# data[].attributes.headline
Reastablishing what I have  made the argument   for 

# data[].attributes.subject
Reastablishing what I have  made the argument   for 