PETA and HSUS

[Stirmi]

Hey guys i thought i would put this here for people to see that peta and the hsus are horrible hypocritical organizations and I urge you not to support them at all. Both of which want to shut down the pet trade completely. in 2011 peta euthanized 95% of there animals including ones that had a good chance at being adopted. The HSUS will only .5% of all donations to pet shelters. I urge all of you to let everyone know of these deceitful organizations no matter your view on keeping exotics as pets these are awful organizations who must be stopped. there are many more reasons as to why they are awful organizations but i do not have time to write all of them.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
http://www.humanewatch.org/

 

[lancej]

Both of these organizations make me sick. They want to ban all pet ownership, close down all zoos, and ban all hunting (and hunters have contributed more to environmental restoration and protection then any other group). The HSUS confuses a lot of people into thinking that they are donating to the American Humane Society - this happened to my parents until I educated them with the truth.

 

[pitbulllady]

Both of these organizations make me sick. They want to ban all pet ownership, close down all zoos, and ban all hunting (and hunters have contributed more to environmental restoration and protection then any other group). The HSUS confuses a lot of people into thinking that they are donating to the American Humane Society - this happened to my parents until I educated them with the truth.

In a poll conducted by Humanewatch.org, 85% of people polled believed that the Humane Society of the United States acts as an "umbrella" group for all local humane societies and animal shelters, and that donations to the HSUS goes mostly to care for animals in shelters, when in reality less than 1% of their in-take goes towards any hands-on animal care. They produce tv commercials that are intentionally misleading, featuring sad-eyed puppies and kitties in shelters, making gullible animal lovers think that their donations are going towards "saving" and caring for those unfortunate animals. HSUS lies and misleads people into believing that they are about caring for animals and preventing animal cruelty, when in fact they are an Animal Rights group committed to ending all animal ownership and use by humans. As whacko as PETA is, at least they are fairly up front in stating that their goals are to end all animal use and ownership, including pets. They don't talk out of both sides of their mouths about what they want to achieve, although they DO lie and mislead people into thinking that they want to save animals from being killed. PETA believes that the only way to really prevent animal abuse, short of our species' extinction, is to kill any animal that might come into contact with humans! They believe that killing animals is the greatest kindness that they can give to the animals, the only way to ensure that the animals will not suffer, and refer to death as a "gift"! PETA just does not believe that anyone ELSE should be allowed to kill animals, that only THEY have that right, because only THEY kill for the "right" reason, as if it matters to an animal whether its life is taken so something else can eat it, or to satisfy some human's twisted notion of "mercy" and "compassion", born of a dangerous mental illness reminiscent of the terrifying nurse in Steven King's "Misery".
What makes HSUS so dangerous, though, is that they have infiltrated the government in this country, right up to the Federal level. One of their chief attorneys is also an attorney for the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection, and the head of the USDA and his wife both are board members of HSUS, so HSUS is dictating the policies of the nation's top agricultural office.

pitbulllady

 

[The Snark]

I would point out that PETA, HSUS, the Humane Soc. and all their ilk are SYMPTOMS of a problem, not a problem in themselves. Sure there are scams and schemes galore anywhere the real problem is to be found. The real problem? Need I say it? A society of semi literate morons letting other people solve the mess they create, be it through apathy or stupidity. They need babysitters and the babysitters can be phenomenally corrupt or unscrupulous.

Are you thinking for yourselves or getting your information from the evening news alone? What is so complex about Socratic Methodology that people tend to avoid it like a plague?

PS, You want a real criteria for operating a charitable operation? Check out the Gates Foundation. If people did their homework like the criteria Bill Gates has laid down for his operation the HSUS and similar operations would wither and die in a few weeks.

Homo erectus is alive and well, clutching a beer and staring vapidly at Fox every evening.

 

[viper69]

....(and hunters have contributed more to environmental restoration and protection then any other group)

There's certainly some truth about hunters as you mentioned above, however, hunters are hardly the "golden child" of conservation. Nothing says "I'm a real p*ssy" more, than hunting an animal for sport, just because you can, particularly those that are threatened, endangered, and near extinction. Especially when I see "hunters" or should I say murderers using high powered rifles, dogs, helicopters etc etc to THEIR advantage. Those are hardly traits of environmental protection/restoration.

 

[The Snark]

There's certainly some truth about hunters as you mentioned above, however, hunters are hardly the "golden child" of conservation. Nothing says "I'm a real p*ssy" more, than hunting an animal for sport, just because you can, particularly those that are threatened, endangered, and near extinction. Especially when I see "hunters" or should I say murderers using high powered rifles, dogs, helicopters etc etc to THEIR advantage. Those are hardly traits of environmental protection/restoration.

Hunters: phallic fetishists.

 

[Decaryi]

I think a distinction should be made between hunting for food and trophy hunting. I love me a good phallis but fetishist I think not. and hunting for anything other then sustenance is wrong.

 

[pitbulllady]

There's certainly some truth about hunters as you mentioned above, however, hunters are hardly the "golden child" of conservation. Nothing says "I'm a real p*ssy" more, than hunting an animal for sport, just because you can, particularly those that are threatened, endangered, and near extinction. Especially when I see "hunters" or should I say murderers using high powered rifles, dogs, helicopters etc etc to THEIR advantage. Those are hardly traits of environmental protection/restoration.

Do you work for HSUS? This is exactly the sort of thing that they say: "hunting is murder", etc. NO legit HUNTER goes after any animal that is "threatened, endangered or near extinction". That's not hunting; that's called POACHING, and it's ILLEGAL! Comparing hunters, who pay have to pay a license fee to hunt, often have to pay landowners for use of their property, and obey strict laws on game limits, etc. Comparing them to people who do take illegal animals, often to traffic in their body parts, is like comparing your pharmacist with the drug gangs who sell crack on the street corner. How a given species can or cannot be hunted, IF it can be hunted, period, is determined by studies undertaken by both state FWL agencies and private agencies, to ensure that populations can sustain hunting, what kind of hunting, how much, and by what means. If a species is determined to have low population or be facing other threats that might negatively influence its population in the near future, hunting of that species is stopped until populations can reach a safe and sustainable level. You cannot give me any example of a species that is still classified as either threatened, endangered or near extinction which is allowed to be hunted other than in rare instances where an individual animal has become a threat to humans in the US, not one. Gray wolves, the poster child of the anti-hunting movement, have rebounded tremendously in many parts of their former range, which is a good thing, BUT it also is leading to some serious issues with agricultural interests, pet owners and others. Their population is able to sustain hunting; it's either that or allow farmers and ranchers to go back to trapping, poisoning and shooting them at will. People have to make a living, and people have to be fed.
Now, the whole thing with high-powered rifles, dogs, yada yada, is another tactic of the AR's. A high-powered rifle is useless if you cannot find the animal, and no amount of human technology is going to compensate for millions of years of evolution to produce senses that outdo ours on every level. It is not uncommon for deer hunters where I live, in SC, to go through an entire season without getting a single deer, yet there are plenty of deer-just drive anywhere during the dusk or dawn hours and you'll see exactly what I mean! A rifle cannot find deer or guarantee a shot anymore than a handgun will go out looking for a human victim and kill him on its own. What a high-powered rifle DOES do, though, is to increase the odds of a quick kill, reducing the chances of an animal simply being injured, running off and dying a slow, painful death. As for dog hunting, most game species in many states cannot be legally hunted with dogs, and those which can, like deer and black bear here in my state, can only be hunted during certain days of the legal season. Dog hunting is no guarantee of a kill, either. Many hunts end in the prey species giving its pursuers the slip and getting away, and many houndsmen do not even pursue animals with the intent of killing it, but just love to get out and hear the dogs. I know many coon and fox hunters here who do that. Being pursued by dogs, the descendents of the wolf, which USED to be the major predator of many animals here, serves the same purpose: to keep the species healthy by leaving the most intelligent and most fit to reproduce. I used to be an avid hunter of wild/feral hogs, using dogs, because that is still the most effective method of controlling that invasive and extremely destructive, dangerous species, and only stopped because of my own health and physical issues.
Now, the "murder" issue. That is one of the main mantras of the AR movement: "hunting is murder", "meat is murder", etc. You CANNOT murder an animal! "Murder", by definition, is the deliberate killing of another HUMAN. Do you agree with PETA that it's murder to kill a cow for human consumption? A chicken? A lobster? IF so, why is it NOT murder for groups like that to kill healthy, friendly puppies and kittens that fall into their "care"? Was it "murder" when HSUS came in and took all of Wildside Kennels American Pit Bull Terriers and killed them all, including nursing puppies, just because of their breed? You do not have to support groups like PETA and HSUS financially to still support and empower them; you just have to agree with them in principal, and if you agree with them on some issues, you empower them to enact their entire agendas, which include laws to prevent all of us from being able to own animals of any kind, period.

pitbulllady

 

[Thistles]

Now, the "murder" issue. That is one of the main mantras of the AR movement: "hunting is murder", "meat is murder", etc. You CANNOT murder an animal! "Murder", by definition, is the deliberate killing of another HUMAN. Do you agree with PETA that it's murder to kill a cow for human consumption? A chicken? A lobster? IF so, why is it NOT murder for groups like that to kill healthy, friendly puppies and kittens that fall into their "care"? Was it "murder" when HSUS came in and took all of Wildside Kennels American Pit Bull Terriers and killed them all, including nursing puppies, just because of their breed? You do not have to support groups like PETA and HSUS financially to still support and empower them; you just have to agree with them in principal, and if you agree with them on some issues, you empower them to enact their entire agendas, which include laws to prevent all of us from being able to own animals of any kind, period.

Yes, I agree with Hitler that onions are nasty. I thereby empower everything he does. Get real. What empowers idiots is other idiots who are unable to distinguish between completely separate issues. Am I able to believe that circuses shouldn't be allowed to have animal performers without thinking that all pet ownership should be banned? The two are distinct issues and shouldn't be conflated, just like eating meat and breeding dogs are separate issues. You're perpetuating exactly what The Snark describes, but from the opposite extreme. Don't paint things with a broad brush when there are many shades of grey.

Regarding hunters vs poachers, there are plenty of examples of legal hunts that are ecologically irresponsible. Take off your rose-colored, pro-hunter-regardless glasses and look at what's actually happening. Wolf population numbers have indeed increased from the brink of extinction but they are still gone throughout the majority of their historic range and nowhere near either their historic numbers or a sustainable population. They have been completely extirpated throughout the US except for a very small population in the Northwest. Already protection has been removed and the population is still extremely small and vulnerable. There are fewer than 10,000 wolves in the lower 48. That isn't the sort of animal we should be hunting. Here's an article for you: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/opinion/dont-forsake-the-gray-wolf.html?_r=0 It's written by the Dutchers, who have dedicated their lives to wolf study and conservation. Stripping them of their endangered species classification was a stupid move, and more political than responsible. Sorry, I don't take Fish and Wildlife's word as gospel. Ranchers are compensated for their losses to predators, which are extremely minimal. Don't cry me any tears for them making their living and the big bad wolf hurting their business.

What about cougars? There's another great North American predator with small numbers that's been killed off in most of its natural range. People hunt them with dogs. How's that sporting? How does that population need management? If we had healthy levels of cougars and wolves we might not even need to control the deer population through hunting. You're proposing an artificial solution to a man-made problem when all we need to do is let the predators rebound. This is another example of you conflating two different issues: the current benefit to hunting deer and the clear detriment of hunting their predators. Hunting invasive species like boar is on another level entirely and is actually more comparable to the euthanasia of domestic dogs and cats (which are extremely harmful, overpopulated and unnatural) than to the killing of native predators.

What about legal big game hunts in Africa? There was a show just recently cancelled before airing following some ass killing big game including African elephants. It was perfectly legal. It's also completely irresponsible. Unfortunately laws are rarely made with the best interest of the animals at heart, so it's absurd to cry that poaching and hunting are different and then claim that because a hunt is legal it's also good.

So what I gather is you are pro-hunter, pro-meat, and pro-breeder. At least you're consistent in supporting the abuse and exploitation of animals. Can't accuse you of hypocrisy there. I will implore you to be more honest and be rigorous in your thought and make clear distinctions. You might be right about agreement with one issue enabling an organization to act on its entire agenda, but only if everyone swallows things as easily as you appear to.

 

[lancej]

There's certainly some truth about hunters as you mentioned above, however, hunters are hardly the "golden child" of conservation. Nothing says "I'm a real p*ssy" more, than hunting an animal for sport, just because you can, particularly those that are threatened, endangered, and near extinction. Especially when I see "hunters" or should I say murderers using high powered rifles, dogs, helicopters etc etc to THEIR advantage. Those are hardly traits of environmental protection/restoration.

I am not even going to respond to such ignorant, idiotic, inflammatory statements such as this. I feel sorry for people who are so uneducated as to make statements like this.

 

[The Snark]

PBL, I realize your passion about this topic, and I fully recognize and understand where you are coming from. The flaw in your arguments, and bnot just yours but many people who have the best of intentions is the reliance on the babysitters. The government burrocracies that tell the morons it is now okay to kill this and hang that animal body part on your wall. Personal responsibility, and doing your own research, is critical. Not trusting government surveys. Surveys motivated in part by pandering to an electorate.

In 1970 I sat on old woman rock and watched the Haiwee deer herd come down the ridges and canyon. At a guess, they were about 200. Their numbers dwindled until my last check in 1997 when I counted 17. 200 miles north of Los Angeles. The city of Los Angeles funded several studies and found no significant reduction in the number of wild animals during the past 50 years. They also put out a bounty on beavers in that area of which I've seen 1 the entire time I've been going up there.
Their studies are of course badly flawed. Los Angeles has a vested interest in the Owen's Valley. It is one of their water supplies as they slowly devastate the area, from destroying Mono Lake on south. A native camp site was recently bulldozed for 15 miles to facilitate water run off into the Haiwee reservoir. No Indians complained because the Monache tribe was wiped out out of hand by the U.S. Army in the late 1800's. No politician is going to dare to oppose the potential voting opposition the greater Los Angeles area can muster so the wonderful LA population can grow their green lawns on that stretch of desert.

I'm certain we can find hundreds, more likely tens of thousands of similar situations where the BS rules and the natural environment takes it in the arse. Personal responsibility. Stop believing the lie and deny artists looking for re-elections. Appreciate nature without looking at it through the sights of a gun barrel. Realize that just because a Sarah Palin has said it is okay to butcher animals from helicopters doesn't necessarily mean that is true.

 

[pitbulllady]

I am not even going to respond to such ignorant, idiotic, inflammatory statements such as this. I feel sorry for people who are so uneducated as to make statements like this.

Thank you lancej. To say it's wrong to kill a wild animal, but OK to slaughter a cow in a pen with nowhere to run-there's something wrong there. Killing is killing. Yes, there are always going to be "bad apples" in any segment of the populace, including hunters and fishermen, but to equate shooting a deer, having the head mounted, and eating the meat with murdering a human?

The thing is, that many here do not realize, is that the AR movement does NOT make any distinction between raising cattle or pigs for slaughter, or chickens for eggs, and hunting wild game. They make no distinction between breeding purebred dogs as pets or training dogs to fight to the death. They make no distinction between between any of you keeping a tarantula or a corn snake and someone having a Bengal tiger. ANY use of animals by humans is reprehensible to them and they seek to end it, and one of their most effective tools is getting people to think of animals as PEOPLE, to equate animals with humans, in every respect. That's the whole gist behind the notion of animals having "right"! Owning a pet is "slavery", because you wouldn't own another person, right? Eating an animal is "cannibalism". Killing an animal is "murder". When I see how many people actually DO buy into those concepts, yet who claim that they do not support groups like PETA, HSUS or ALF, it's disturbing, because those groups have already gotten into so many peoples' heads, won them over to their way of thinking. Most of these people have no clue what is even involved in hunting; they just think that people go out and blast away at helpless animals that are just standing there, nowhere to run, no way to escape, that having a "high-powered rifle" is something that allows you to just walk up to an animal and kill it, that it magically charms an animal into being unable to move or seek cover. And I bet not one of the anti's can give me ONE example of hunters legally being able to kill any species that is classified as "threatened, endangered or nearly extinct". THAT is something they've been told by the AR's, so they have come to believe it as truth. Many don't even realize how much their way of thinking has been affected by the AR movement, in matters such as hunting, fishing, breeding dogs or other animals, keeping pets, etc.

pitbulllady

 

[Thistles]

Thank you lancej. To say it's wrong to kill a wild animal, but OK to slaughter a cow in a pen with nowhere to run-there's something wrong there. Killing is killing. Yes, there are always going to be "bad apples" in any segment of the populace, including hunters and fishermen, but to equate shooting a deer, having the head mounted, and eating the meat with murdering a human?

I actually think it's worse to raise animals for slaughter. The ill-effects on the environment are much worse.

The thing is, that many here do not realize, is that the AR movement does NOT make any distinction between raising cattle or pigs for slaughter, or chickens for eggs, and hunting wild game. They make no distinction between breeding purebred dogs as pets or training dogs to fight to the death. They make no distinction between between any of you keeping a tarantula or a corn snake and someone having a Bengal tiger. ANY use of animals by humans is reprehensible to them and they seek to end it, and one of their most effective tools is getting people to think of animals as PEOPLE, to equate animals with humans, in every respect.

I'm a vegan and I'm capable of making these distinctions. I think you're the one who needs to differentiate between separate issues. You're so opposed to any limitation of your exploitation of animals that you conflate all these issues and oppose them equally.

That's the whole gist behind the notion of animals having "right"! Owning a pet is "slavery", because you wouldn't own another person, right? Eating an animal is "cannibalism". Killing an animal is "murder". When I see how many people actually DO buy into those concepts, yet who claim that they do not support groups like PETA, HSUS or ALF, it's disturbing, because those groups have already gotten into so many peoples' heads, won them over to their way of thinking.

Why wouldn't we afford rights to another living being? They deserve equal consideration. That is not the same as equal treatment, but they are capable of suffering and we should take extreme care not to inflict such pain unnecessarily.

Most of these people have no clue what is even involved in hunting; they just think that people go out and blast away at helpless animals that are just standing there, nowhere to run, no way to escape, that having a "high-powered rifle" is something that allows you to just walk up to an animal and kill it, that it magically charms an animal into being unable to move or seek cover. And I bet not one of the anti's can give me ONE example of hunters legally being able to kill any species that is classified as "threatened, endangered or nearly extinct". THAT is something they've been told by the AR's, so they have come to believe it as truth. Many don't even realize how much their way of thinking has been affected by the AR movement, in matters such as hunting, fishing, breeding dogs or other animals, keeping pets, etc.

I know what's involved in hunting. I'm from rural Virginia and recently lived in rural Oregon. People (including some friends and family of mine) take time off work for hunting season there. I also hunted and fished myself when I was younger, which I now find shameful and regrettable.

Here's the thing about your challenge: many of these classifications of animals are limited and influenced by politics and our own ignorance. Since this is an arachnid forum I'll use spiders as an example. The only spiders protected by CITES are Brachypelma spp. and 2 Aphonopelma. This is in spite of knowledge that Poecilotheria are in lots of trouble and total lack of data regarding most other tarantulas. How is that a good way to judge? In spite of the flaws of the system, lions and elephants which are both listed as vulnerable may be legally killed in Africa. Leopards, which are near threatened, are also fair game. We know these species are in decline but we continue to kill them for sport. It's sick. But way to ignore my entire previous post.

 

[lancej]

Here's the thing about your challenge: many of these classifications of animals are limited and influenced by politics and our own ignorance. Since this is an arachnid forum I'll use spiders as an example. The only spiders protected by CITES are Brachypelma spp. and 2 Aphonopelma. This is in spite of knowledge that Poecilotheria are in lots of trouble and total lack of data regarding most other tarantulas. How is that a good way to judge? In spite of the flaws of the system, lions and elephants which are both listed as vulnerable may be legally killed in Africa. Leopards, which are near threatened, are also fair game. We know these species are in decline but we continue to kill them for sport. It's sick. But way to ignore my entire previous post.

In order to hunt lions, elephants, and leopards, you have to buy a very expensive license and go through a lot of red tape. The areas that allow these species to be hunted have determined that there is an issue with having these animals in the areas that the license is for, such as destruction of property, killing of livestock, or killing of villagers. These nuisance animals will be killed regardless of whether it is a government official or a paying hunter. The money from the sale of these licenses goes to pay for land to set aside for preserves and to pay for wardens to protect the wildlife from poachers. Also, these hunters spend money while they are there giving much needed income to very poor villages. Do you think that the native people give a crap about whether or not an animal is threatened or endangered if it is affecting their means of feeding themselves and families? I think you need to get off your high horse and realize that the world is not all rainbows and puppies.

 

[The Snark]

The thing is, that many here do not realize, is that the AR movement does NOT make any distinction between raising cattle or pigs for slaughter, or chickens for eggs, and hunting wild game. They make no distinction between breeding purebred dogs as pets or training dogs to fight to the death. They make no distinction between between any of you keeping a tarantula or a corn snake and someone having a Bengal tiger.

pitbulllady

PBL, that is untrue and beneath you. SOME AR groups are that way. Not all. Some supposed AR groups even promote the killing of endangered species. Let's put away the gross blanket statements.

 

[Najakeeper]

I am sorry but I have to be quite blunt about this. Killing animals for "the thrill of it" is just a sick human behavior and most of the hunting that is going on in the developed world falls under this category.

I am glad that it is being done somewhat sustainable in these modern times, but this doesn't change what I think about the concept of hunting.

 

[catfishrod69]

Now thats funny. Im a avid hunter. Mainly deer, rabbit, squirrel, coyote. I eat everything i kill, or someone else does. Well except the coyote. And its not ever gonna change.

There's certainly some truth about hunters as you mentioned above, however, hunters are hardly the "golden child" of conservation. Nothing says "I'm a real p*ssy" more, than hunting an animal for sport, just because you can, particularly those that are threatened, endangered, and near extinction. Especially when I see "hunters" or should I say murderers using high powered rifles, dogs, helicopters etc etc to THEIR advantage. Those are hardly traits of environmental protection/restoration.

 

[The Snark]

How to hunt bear, my opinion of how to hunt.

An excerpt from a friends book. It's a little off color so just grin and bear it.

About twenty more paces and we topped the rise. Far down the south side the lights of the resort intruded on our lonely desert, obscenely, disgustingly. Ryan stopped and sat on the ground. Jen squatted beside him. I parked my ass next to her and panted. Neither of them were the least bit winded though they both smoked and I didn’t.
Jen murmured, finally giving me some explanation of things.
“We put up with that damned bear for two summers. Forest service wouldn’t let us take it unless a person was actually getting eaten. Screw our horses. Then these fat asses go put that fart farm in and oh lord there’s a bear. Go ahead and shoot it, please! We’ll give you a medal!”
Ryan commented dryly, “You’re getting cynical in your old age.”
He looked over past her to speak to us both, his grin showing in the bright moon light. “Let’s get organized. Jen, that’s a bear, that’s a tourist. Bear’s on four legs and furry. Don’t mix them up.”
Jen turned her head to give me an identical grin. “Are you horny?”
Before I could formulate and process Jen’s from nowhere questions Ryan started a low voiced monologue.
“Bear’s an omnivore. Eats anything but people trash is a gourmet dinner when you spend most of your time eating manzanita berries. Picnic tables down there are spreading the bear word far and wide. They can’t see that good but can get a scent of a ripe tuna sandwich two, three miles off.”
I asked, “So we are going to shoot it?”
Jen murmured, “They put out a bear trap. A couple of barrels welded end to end and laid on it’s side. Big fuzzy is supposed to prefer crawling into the thing instead of licking picnic tables.”
“Let me guess. Doesn’t work too well?”
He hit Jen’s leg and they both went silent, staring down the hill off to the right. She pointed her arm for me and I stared and stared. It took me over a minute before I saw something moving in the shadows at the far corner of the picnic area.
They both got to their feet and Jen whispered to me, “Time to show us your Indian stuff. Quiet as a mouse. If you fall off a cliff I only want to hear the splat.”
The way they walked clued me and it became one of the conscious self aware moments of my life. They walked like they knew their footsteps were going to shift the sandy soil and it had to shift so slowly it wouldn’t be noticed. They made up for the agonizing slowness of their pace by taking extra long strides but we were still moving in extreme slow motion. I had time to analyze and examine every footstep I took. When we pushed through the brush we moved even slower. It took me several minutes of this before I realized we were stalking the bear as it stalked its dinner.
I whispered to Jen, “How close do we have to get.”
Jen whispered. “Six inches is nice. Eight is safer.”
That confused me and forced me to ask, “What the heck are we doing?”
“Go up and kick it. Now shut up.”
I really needed to scream ‘WHAT??’
One slow step at a time we eased our way down into the valley. A low ridge rose between us and the bear and we were taking a course which seemed to intersect the bear if it kept moseying in the same general direction. We took one switch back, very slowly slid down a sandy little draw, then even slower topped the ridge, coming out only about 50 feet above the parking lot next to the picnic area. They both froze, peering part over, part through a huge sage bush.
Even more slowly we started moving off to our left, trying to negotiate a pretty steep slope directly above the parking lot. I managed to get down with reasonable grace and squatted next to them. Jen stuck her arm almost across my face to point. Only about 50 feet away I could see the outline of the bear nosing like a dog among the picnic tables.
Suddenly I heard a metallic sound. The bear was working on tipping over a trash can and once that didn’t work it got up on its hind legs and started digging out the trash.
Jen rose, took a couple of steps forward to put a tree between herself and the bear and pulled her t-shirt off over her head. This was looking all the more bizarre. While I appreciated that she wasn’t wearing a bra and at almost any other time the view of those hefty boobs would have been quite enjoyable, how exactly being topless fitted into what ever the heck it was they were planning went right past me. Ryan stepped up to her side and she turned her head to look at him, grinning.
I heard him whisper, “Go for it.”
Cautiously but quickly Jen stepped around the tree and walked straight at the bear, rifle in one hand, her t-shirt in the other. Ryan went around the other side of the tree and was walking pretty quickly at a bit of an angle from the way Jen was going. He was making sure Jen wouldn’t get in his line of sight but from my point of view I didn’t have the slightest idea what they were planning, except maybe to join the bear at his dinner.
Jen stopped about 20 feet from the bear. It hadn’t noticed anything, its head deep in the trash can. She glanced, checking on where Ryan was. He put his rifle to his shoulder, aiming. She then carefully but quickly stepped forward and less than five feet from the bear let out a piercing yell.
The bear literally leaped right off the ground. It almost fell over as it got its head out of the trash can and spun around to see what the heck. Jen swung her shirt and started wapping at its head while yelling “YEEHAW!”
The bear was as surprised as I was. It tried to jump backwards and ended up flopping onto its butt. It then tried to back up while sitting down while Jen pursued, flailing away with her shirt. It spun around then faced her off defiantly. She raised both her arms over her head and went RAWWWR!
Then there was a flash and the startling horrible bang of Ryan’s cannon. He had moved up to only about 15 feet away. At first I thought he had shot the bear as it spun about again, went on its ass and almost over on its back. It scrambled to its feet and cast about, trying to get its bearings. Meanwhile Jen started firing round after round into the dirt at its feet while Ryan fired a series of shots apparently right over it’s head.
I felt a little sorry for the bear as in its panic it plowed straight into a picnic table and they both went over in a jumble tumble. It then righted itself and began the ultimate bear boogie out the north side of the picnic area and straight up the mountain.
Ryan simply stood there until it had vanished then sat heavily on the ground. “Whoa!”
Jen gave him a push, tipping him over on his back. He just lay there, staring up through the pine branches. After a few moments he remarked to the sky, “I think I’m going to blame you for making me want to do screwy stuff …to impress you.”
She thumped the side of her head and held her nose, trying to get her ears to pop. “Didn’t think about being downrange of that pea shooter of yours.”
“Oop. Sorry. We should have swapped guns.”
They got to their feet, dusted off and came strolling back to where I was, both grinning like Cheshire cats.
Jen slipped her shirt back on while remarking to me, “Shitso. I guess we missed.”
I asked, “Can I scream now?”
Jen said, “Oh yeah!”
I did, and she joined me. Meanwhile Ryan reloaded his rifle then fired another series of shots right over the main lodge of the resort.
We strolled down the parking lot and on down the road. A few frightened looking people came out of the lodge to see what the shooting and yelling was all about but they were ignored.
Along the way Ryan mentioned, “You didn’t kick it.”
“I got to thinking that might have been a bad idea. Maybe next time. That was a lot classier than the first time!”
I asked, “First time?”
She cocks her head at him. “Comes up and grabs me saying we got a bear. We were armed with a chain saw that wouldn’t start and a frying pan.”
I thought that over, did some reasoning then asked, “So you never intended to shoot the bear.”
Jen murmured, “Bear’s belong here. People don’t. We’ve ran the pack train four years and never had to shoot one. These idiots come in and lay out feasts for them then freak when something natural happens.”
Ryan spoke softly and a bit dour, “We’re going to end up shooting it. Or someone else will. Too much easy pickings. He’ll be back.”
She asked me, “So how you like your first bear hunt?”

 

[Thistles]

In order to hunt lions, elephants, and leopards, you have to buy a very expensive license and go through a lot of red tape. The areas that allow these species to be hunted have determined that there is an issue with having these animals in the areas that the license is for, such as destruction of property, killing of livestock, or killing of villagers. These nuisance animals will be killed regardless of whether it is a government official or a paying hunter. The money from the sale of these licenses goes to pay for land to set aside for preserves and to pay for wardens to protect the wildlife from poachers. Also, these hunters spend money while they are there giving much needed income to very poor villages. Do you think that the native people give a crap about whether or not an animal is threatened or endangered if it is affecting their means of feeding themselves and families? I think you need to get off your high horse and realize that the world is not all rainbows and puppies.

Yeah, ok, that's why canned hunts are so popular and South Africa breeds lions specifically for them. You know the country has more lions in captivity than in the wild, right? Yes, it is expensive to go shoot a wild lion. It's cheaper and therefore more attractive to go shoot a captive bred one in a pen. How sporting! Think that's helping the wild population any? Hm, it's decreased by 80% in the last 20 years. Did you know leopards are most often hunted with bait? What skill that takes! How dangerous these animals are!

Of course native people don't care if an animal is endangered if they think it's a threat. I've seen an endangered animal killed because it ventured into the home of a native when I was visiting a friend in Sri Lanka. That doesn't make it ok. "It'll happen anyway, so we should just let it happen/participate." Great.

 

[lancej]

Yeah, ok, that's why canned hunts are so popular and South Africa breeds lions specifically for them. You know the country has more lions in captivity than in the wild, right? Yes, it is expensive to go shoot a wild lion. It's cheaper and therefore more attractive to go shoot a captive bred one in a pen. How sporting! Think that's helping the wild population any? Hm, it's decreased by 80% in the last 20 years. Did you know leopards are most often hunted with bait? What skill that takes! How dangerous these animals are!

Of course native people don't care if an animal is endangered if they think it's a threat. I've seen an endangered animal killed because it ventured into the home of a native when I was visiting a friend in Sri Lanka. That doesn't make it ok. "It'll happen anyway, so we should just let it happen/participate." Great.

I just love it when the uneducated insist on grouping hunters with trophy collectors. There is nothing wrong with trophy HUNTING, but I do have issues with trophy COLLECTORS. Hunting requires skills such as patience, extreme knowledge and respect for the game you are hunting, and good marksmanship with the weapon of choice. Shooting an animal in a cage just because you want a trophy is NOT hunting. I have issues with that. I do not have issues with, and completely support legitimate hunting. If AR groups were truly concerned about protecting endangered/threatened species in their native countries, then they would understand that the biggest key in succeeding is through education. Education takes money. So many countries are so destitute that education is just not feasible without some sort of economic boost. They are more concerned with feeding and protecting themselves. If an animal has no economic value, then it will not be protected no matter what international law says. Conservation through commercialization (including responsible hunting, responsible collecting for the pet trade, and ecotourism) is a feasible solution that will benefit both the people and the environment in the long run by providing a boost in local economy. PETA, HSUS, and many other AR groups spend their donations on lobbyists, advertisements, and celebrity spokespersons in developed countries to promote their messages. If they were truly concerned about endangered and threatened species, they would be spending their money on education and economically boosting third world countries. International hunting organizations are doing just that - promoting education and providing economic boosts to countries all over the world, while promoting responsible hunting.