Melissa Bachman just got a TV show on National Geographic. The show will be about hunting. The animal rights elitists have, of course, lost their collective minds over this development.
In the US, we have plenty of hunting and fishing channels on TV.
They are usually located deep within the recesses of the sporting channels that I normally don’t watch.
However, there are fishing shows on major networks.
Animal Planet has two fishing shows: River Monsters (one of my faves), Hillbilly Handfishin’, and the upcoming Top Hooker.
Now fishing is one thing.
Most people don’t care about how fish feel.
I really don’t. There is some debate about whether fish can feel pain from the hooks.
I’m quite skeptical, because it’s so common for people to catch the same fish multiple times. You’d think they’d learn if they actually consciously felt pain.
But I digress.
There is a big ideological difference between fishing and hunting.
And that’s when you start shooting animals that are cute or are closely related to dogs and cats.
And that’s when otherwise rational people lose their minds.
Now, Nation Geographic Channel, wanting to cash in on the outdoor sports TV genre that Animal Planet has been so successful with, has decided to sign Melissa Bachman for a TV series.
Melissa Bachman is a young female hunter.
You know, a strong woman.
The type feminists are supposed to admire.
But not in this case, because she kills bears and alligators and deer.
And that’s so evil and wrong to have on TV.
Because we said so.
Since it was announced that Nat Geo was doing the show, Facebook, the place where all sorts of hysterical, pseudo-activists like to hang out, now has an anti-Melissa Bachman page, and there are at least three online petitions going around.
If I ever lose subscribers, I am glad to lose them because of animal rights issues.
I don’t believe in animal rights.
At all.
And I think hunting shows should be on television more often.
If you look at Animal Planet’s line-up, there are good programs about conservation.
And then they have those shows who are for the hysterical loons.
Like Whale Wars.
A show that has nothing to do with conservation.
It’s really just an animal rights-centered propaganda show.
It teaches you nothing, other than there are people who actually believe all this animal rights garbage and are trying to use industrial sabotage to get their way. (Which is quite scary!)
But most of the nature programming leaves out a really important part of the conservation story.
The truth is that most of the big game species we have in North America actually wouldn’t be here but for the efforts of hunters.
Hunters contribute lots of money to conservation– and lots of labor and political campaigning. I don’t think people realize how much duck hunters actually have contributed to ensuring the wetlands have been preserved.
Wetlands aren’t just good for ducks. They are good for all sorts of wildlife.
And they do it for selfish reasons.
They want ducks to shoot.
But in order to have ducks to shoot, they have to preserve duck habitat.
And duck habitat is good for lots of different species, including songbirds, beavers, otters, mink, and muskrats.
A well-produced show about hunting with a charismatic and well-informed presenter could do a lot of good in changing the way many people feel about hunting.
That’s what I hope Melissa Bachman’s show will offer.
I find the reaction from some quarters rather disgusting– and a little bit disturbing.
So much do these people hate what others do that they demand that it be taken off television.
There are a lot of shows I don’t like.
I have a little secret way of dealing with them:
It’s really tricky.
I don’t watch these shows.
That’s all there is to it.
But what I also find disturbing is the cultural elitism that comes across from the anti-hunter crowd.
They look down their noses at rural people and what they do for fun.
I can’t tell you how old I was when I was first taken hunting.
I couldn’t have been very old, but I do know that my grandpa took me.
My grandpa knew all about the wild animals in our area. He was very concerned about them.
He enjoyed hunting them, but he also knew that hunting was under attack.
When I was about 7 or 8 years old, we were out squirrel hunting, and I remember he told me that there were people out there who wanted to ban all hunting.
I thought he was crazy.
But then, I had only known West Virginia. In West Virginia, hunting and fishing are truly ways of life.
I had no idea exactly how alienated from the natural world most of America actually is.
And it’s because of that alienation that people have no clue what sound conservation practices actually are.
Hunting and fishing are major parts of a sound wildlife management scheme.
If people don’t want to learn this simple fact, then there really isn’t much hope for wildlife in this country.
It is this same mentality that argues we shouldn’t control feral goats or pigs or cats– they have individual rights, don’t you know?
If we allow the animal rights community to set the entire debate about how animals are treated in this country, wildlife will lose.
There is no discussion about it.
I hope Melissa Bachman’s show helps change how we discuss hunting and wildlife issues in this country.
We really need to educate people.
If we don’t, wildlife and our free society will lose.
***
Update: No more comments from intolerant animal rights cultists will be tolerated on this post. Post them. I’ll remove them, and I’ll ban you. This is not a public forum. This is my blog.
Natural History 
Hope we get that show over here, sounds like it could be interesting.
Came across a deer stalker whose just got a border terrier x poodle pup. He’s hoping to train it to track wounded animals, for the times the kill isn’t clean and he loses sight of them.
I’ve found myself reminding people we’re animals to, we have instincts like all others.
I’m quite certain I’d enjoy the hunting game, if I ever tried to play it.
Apparently that makes me a blood thirsty, evil sociopath n the eyes of some, they can go fuck themselves for all I care.
Of course, it’s a completely different kettle of fish here to where you are. We’ve no large, apex predators left, save ourselves, so we have to take the responsibility for the mess we’ve made jmo.
Of course you don’t care what other people think. That’s because you’re a sociopath. It’s normal.
Yeah, and so many deer hunters in the US turn into serial killers! All those mass shootings we’ve had recently. Those were all deer hunters!
Thank you for that dime store psychology.
Oh was he being serious, i took it as humour.
I’m going to take this oppertunity to remind people that we are animals, not Devine beings.
We’ve been hunting and killing longer than we’ve been ‘playing’ civilised.
You may not like it, but it’s the truth. It’s part of our nature, you can’t chant a magic incantation, snap your fingers and poof, its gone, just like that.
It’s amazing, isn’t it?
We’re so removed from nature that we’ve decided that we can stop all cruelty in the world.
But only if we stop shooting cute animals.
LOL.
It is too bad that only the cute ones get attention; something about our biological limits on relating to creatures unlike ourselves. I wouldn’t be much happier if she were holding an Orinoco croc. The alligator didn’t thrill me either but it wasn’t even the alligator so much as the stupid pink arrowheads. Come ON! What kind of dingbats are they trying to bait?
You should see what I didn’t approve.
Ooo, now I’m curious as to what they came up with.
*think I’ll go track down one of those non native cute, fluffy squirrels, dispatch it, divide up what little meat there is between the dogs, use the pelt for glove lining and clean up then mount the skeleton*
Sorry, couldn’t resist it.
We have a few fishing shows here, but not much in the way of hunting.
I go along with our Home Office, who state that anything with a backbone should be presumed to feel pain. I know there is a lot of argument about fish feeling pain, and how they would respond to it.
http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/fishing/fish-conservation/responsible-fishing/fish-pain.htm
However, I think the reason that fish are caught multiple times has nothing to do with not feeling pain, and a lot more to do with fish being none too bright. It takes a little intelligence to avoid a carefully disguised hook.
Elizabeth
I watch Field Sports Britain on youtube.
I love it.
Lots of politically incorrect things going on, like shooting (gasp) foxes!
Nah, it’s only politically incorrect if you’re using dogs, guns are all good.
That`s true. Take out the dogs, and the rest of hunting is fine. Remember, the banning of hunting with dogs was entirely a political issue….nothing to do with AR, or dogs or foxes or any other game.
Elizabeth
What DID stop the hunting with dogs…on deer? Dogs are still used on feral hogs, for duck retrieval, etc. If there is one thing that DOES encourage hunting for me, apart from eating wild meat, it’s the joy of watching a dog use it’s instincts.
In most of the states of the former Confederacy, deer hunting with dogs is still a tradition.
What stopped it?
There are several factors:
One is that white-tailed deer almost became extinct in most of the US, and if you hunt them with hounds, you can really kill a bunch of them. All you really have to do is to shine a light in one’s eyes at night and turn the dogs loose on it. That’s one reason why most states have banned night hunting for deer.
There is also a genuine belief in northern states that it’s much more sportsmanlike to stalk deer than to drive them with dogs.
And this varies quite a bit. In Virginia only certain counties allow dog hunting, but in West Virginia (which seceded from the Confederacy and joined the Union), deer hunting with dogs is entirely banned.
However, there was an old farmer that owned the land that my grandparents purchased who wouldn’t own a mongrel dog if he wouldn’t run deer (even though it was illegal!).
Lots of deer hunters in West Virginia will shoot any dog they catch running deer.
So it’s definitely not for animal rights reasons.
YOu have to understand UK politics and class structure. Hunting foxes on horseback with hounds was a symbol of the wealthy upper classes Labour detests these people, so when it came to power, it wanted to see the end of foxhunting. (Well, that sort of foxhunting). But to be legal the ban would have to cover all hunting with dogs. So that`s what they did.
Your dog can still find game. It can still retrieve what you shoot. And you can shoot foxes all day if you like. My dogs can still escape and catch rabbits for themselves – as long as I am not there directing the hunt, and the whole thing is accidental.
It`s a funny old world.
Elizabeth
Isn’t it though? Regarding the foxhunting I think what did that in was the imagery behind what appeared to be a zillion hunters, hounds and horses all after one lil’ fox. Seemed like insurmountable odds and harassment in the name of tradition. Imagery means a lot!
Nothing against hunting per se . . . but not all hunters are responsible, and some controls are needed, especially when it comes to top predators. The guys on the next ridge over have taken down a couple cougars (illegal, but no chance of getting caught). It’s unfortunate to see condors die of lead poisoning. Not to mention the history of hunting wolves . . . or the Tasmanian tiger. . . . or the great sea turtles . . . or various sharks . . . or if Martin had it right, most of the North American megafauna. Ok, the paleolithic hunters did a different sort of hunting. Bottom line, thoughl, H sapiens, as top-top predator doesn’t have a great history.
That’s true until you realize that since about the time of Teddy Roosevelt, hunting has been one of the major forces behind wildlife conservation in the United States.
We actually have a better conservation record than many other countries. White-tailed deer almost went extinct 100 years ago.
Now we almost wish they were!
Europe has destroyed its larger wildlife, but we still have a lot of it.
And one of the main reasons is that our hunting and fishing culture demanded scientific management early on.
Well, if one is not aware California is working on a new law to stop Bear Hunting with dogs. Now does that make sense to you. Bear hunting seems is alot like Deer Hunting in the East in California. Likewise, why would any hunter with the common sense to come in from a blizzard …go bear hunting without a dog?
Likewise, would like to mention there have been game fishing humane hooks for several decades. Deer hunters in large numbers I know would never bring down but a yearling for their table. I personally have never hunted but respect the need of those that fill their tables and bellies of thier families.
Have you ever experienced a over deer population?
Well, drought conditions this year has cut corn down probably about 20 percent. This means lots of cattle will likely get slaughter due to lack of feed. Meat prices are predicted to skyrocket. Chicken as well..they eat corn too. So just maybe many will tell those jerks to go fly a kite.
Grew up as a hunter, but stopped at age 21. Will never hunt again. As Jen said, humans have worst record of hunting. We tend to take the fittest and healthiest of animals down. Many of us are irresponsible hunters. I am not opposed to others hunting responsibly though, but will not hunt myself or allow any near and dear one to go that route. There is too much guilt associated with hunting animals who do not stand any chance against our most developed technology.
Letter to Newsweek on an article on trophy hunting.
Here is another viewpoint:
Why Hunting Is Bad For the Environment –
http://kerryg.hubpages.com/hub/Why-Hunting-Is-Bad-For-the-Environment
Well, there are issues with elk and deer overpopulation as a result of some of our management practices. That post is not actually opposed to hunting, and I agree with much of it.
The solution is to have more liberal hunting limits, as they are doing in my state right now.
As for the demand for wolf controls to keep elk numbers very high, well, that’s something I do have issues with.
But to categorically say hunting is bad for the environment requires ignoring lots of science that show how important it actually is.
To argue otherwise is simply to deny reality.
While it’s irritating to see the idiotic backlash for the show, I’m actually encouraged by the overall trend in the last couple years when it comes to popular acceptance of hunting. Think of the popularity of “Omnivore’s Dilemma”, and the books “Hunting Deer for Food” and “Girl Hunter”. And I’ve lost count of the number of hunting-friendly cooking blogs out there.
Ironically, it will be the crunchy suburbanites who revive hunting’s popularity.
Retrieverman: “I don’t believe in animal rights. At all.”
Animal rights activist: “Damn you, you hate-filled speciesist! Damn you for your speciesism–your bigotry against animals of a different species! We are all animals, you know, and we all share a common prehistoric ancestor!”
Can’t argue with that logic. Seriously.
The logic is fine. It’s when you try to apply it that the principle crumples. Suppose that you and that tapeworm in your gut are morally equal. How about your son and the ticks that are stuck to him or the bear that’s carrying him off?
ARFs don’t get into these kinds of issues. As a matter of politics, now, not morality, they criticize only man, which gives the lie to their argument: if all animals are morally equal, then why is only 1 species held morally accountable? It is obvious from their politics that they do believe that man is different even if they say he is not. In medieval times animals could be brought to trial. I’m not suggesting that we go back to that, but let’s look at the AR track record and evaluate it against what we know to be the truth about wild life. For example, populations of all herbivores must be culled to save ourselves and our food supply, even if we are vegans. (Vegans hardly ever visualize veganism in a world where there are herds of millions of 2-ton bullfaloes competing for the veggies.) To that end we can permit hunting, in which case the hunters pay taxes and extra taxes to pay for maintenance of habitat and protection of animals from poachers. (The animals would be extinct if we permitted uncontrolled hunting.) Without hunting, we would have to pay professional hunters (probably the same people) to go out and kill animals. So, in the first case we have a politically popular program that’s cheap for the taxpayers and that preserves healthy animal populations and the necessary habitats which we also use for parks and recreation. Such professionals as are needed are paid for by the hunters themselves as they buy hunting licenses. The alternative way is expensive and would have few advocates. There would be no hunters to defend it. Taxcutters and animal rights advocates would join together to end the program. Unrestricted hunting, trapping, poisoning, would ensue as people acted on their own to protect themselves, their kids, their crops. Animal species would go extinct, leaving us in the same shape as Europe, where extinctions occurred before they invented modern scientific wildlife management. So the question is not ,”Should we kill animals?”. We are going to be forced to kill animals. The question is “How should we kill animals?” AR logic gives us no way to decide among the alternatives.
I don’t think the common ancestor observation supports the AR argument, either. All life forms share DNA/RNA, which attests to our common ancestry. But that just leaves us making moral arguments involving bacteria, and I don’t think even the ARFs want to go there.
Our amazing cognitive ability to reflect on our actions and to paint pictures in our heads, so to speak, of what is and was and what MIGHT be, is a simplistic description for what uniquely holds us to morality, as opposed to a tapeworm or a tick. All we have to really do is make sure we don’t all get “carried away” and kill into extinction, and I personally do find killing for pleasure to be a slippery slope.
I don’t doubt even the nicest conservation hunters take some pleasure in hunting. Given all the work ranches do to put meat in supermarkets, one would not put in the extra work to hunt if it were viewed as nothing but another burdern.
If hunting was our only option for meat, I wonder how much of the task would be joy vs burden then? Wild carnivores generally conserve energy between hunts because it is a task, but on the other hand, how much of their hunt is influenced by hunger pain alleviation and how much is genetic enthusiasm? Dogs and cats that are well fed still seem to enjoy predation. I just don’t see them arranging bets around it or selling stadium tickets, or raising animals for canned hunts. These are all due to the limits of their grey matter.
I simply look for respect and self control. Perhaps AR nuts are part of an evolved system of checks and balances? Okay that’s a stretch but I just could not help thinking out loud.
Last but not least, if we are also animals and need to be reminded of such, one could hardly blame us for defending our young against tapes and ticks with their shitty diseases. Defending onesself is one heck of a baser animal instinct.
Now that I’m retired I love to walk through the woods, climb the hills or canoe along the Thames while I still have the energy left in me. I stalk and shoot all sorts of creatures with my latest trusty weapon, the Lumix 24x. Nothing dies and we all move on.
That’s my way, too, but it’s just a personal inclination. I can’t turn it into a moral argument.
*smile* And National Geographic has decided not to have her on the show. Thank God. Love the power of the people, on Facebook or not !!!! >:)~~~
Wow.
Why am I not surprised!
Looks like the people have spoken :) We are the voice for the voiceless and will NEVER be silent….Did you know slavery was once common too? So does that mean it’s ok to do it now? That’s how ridiculous the statements are about our ancestor’s hunting….Put down the weapon cowards! I MIGHT be impressed if you won the battle unarmed :) But until then your just another serial killer…
Wrong. Authoritarian people have spoken.
People who are no better than Klansmen or anti-abortion extremists.
I really don’t get it. Where does your food come from that you feel superior to hunters? Do you materialize it directly from the air? Even growing veggies takes a toll on the envirnment, and harvesting soy or wheat kills thousands of birds rodents and insects. Even vegans have blood on their hands, how is that morally superior to hunting?
I think that these people are looking for a cause to believe in, but because so many of the causes are actually lost and are so lost they can’t be found again, people latch onto bogus things like this.
That’s my only explanation.
I am a huge believer in Animal Rights – less so in Human Rights. But I do believe in the need for culling and ‘legal’ hunting, even if it is only to make room for our species. I know that we have also introduced lots of species into habitat we shouldn’t and they need to be killed off/culled. We need to manage & control due to the damage. But if you look a little more closely at the particular issue about Melissa Bachman you will see her methods, which are torturous and abusive. Not a clean shot with a gun, but using bows & arrows, and watching them suffer – stalking them as they die slowly. She does not follow the hunting rules, or the laws for hunting species (such as alligators).
Had you read a little bit closer you might have seen that. I don’t like that dogs are euthanised in shelters simply because they can’t be found a home, but I would rather that, than they spend their life in a cage in the same shelter. I feel the same about cats too. We made the world the way it is, by our wanton destruction and unfortunately species are going to suffer as we try and clean it up and return some order, but we don’t have to do it in a sick, heartless and inhumane way, simply ‘for fun’ as she puts it. Melissa Bachman is a trophy hunter, not a hunter for any other reason, that is what the petitions were about. And a show like National Geographic shouldn’t be promoting people like her. A good genuine hunter who cares about wildlife and habitat is one thing, one that just kills for the glory and the desire to see another animal suffer is another.
I hope that even you might recognise that.
Here’s the problem.
Trophy hunters are the ones with the money.
I do support trophy hunting, because they are the ones who can make a difference in providing more funds for conservation, especially in developing countries.
The problem is that we in the West like to rock back on our heels and lecture those in developing countries that they should save all their wildlife.
Unfortunately, human needs in those countries certainly do take precedent.
What trophy hunters do is they create economic value for certain species, and thus, there is an incentive to preserve and manage them as game animals.
You also are fundamentally ignorant of the history of game management in the United States. If it weren’t for trophy hunters like Teddy Roosevelt, we would have no real conservation movement. We would not have the vast herds of elk/wapiti, for example, and we would have already lost the Eastern subspecies of the wild turkey.
Hunters are much more concerned with preserving habitat than so-called animal rights activists. Animal rights activists throw fits if the government culls feral animals, like donkeys, goats, and especially feral cats.
If you actually researched trophy hunting, the meat almost always goes to poor people in an area. The animal does not go to waste.
Trophy hunting is actually a very useful conservation tool.
It is a way to get wealthy people to drop a bit more money into conservation.
Please peruse this website before making claims: http://www.conservationforce.org/role2.html
“I am a huge believer in Animal Rights – less so in Human Rights.”
I really hope you typed that not realizing that saying that you’re ‘not for human rights’ makes you sound like a sociopath.
Just remember that the issue of animal rights is, deep down, a fundamentally anti-human philosophy.
It is really based upon patent absurdities that can only make sense in light of a deep contempt for one’s own humanity.
Also keep in mind that these people aren’t getting enough brain building fats…
Definition of Sociopath: a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social.
I am none of those things. I am also not slinging mud at you or anyone on this blog. I was grateful for retrieverman’s response. He chose not to comment on the animal suffering the person in question puts the animals through, but he showed me he knows what he is talking about (and informed me and I particularly agree with how the West dictates to developing countries), although unfortunately he then took your lead and chose to just get personal and insulting too.
I am not a vegetarian, I am not an ‘Animal Activisit’ – in that I don’t go around screaming, shouting, or burning people’s homes down. But I do care about animals – as I believe that retrieverman does. I just wanted to point out what it was that I was opposing in regards to the petition in question as I felt that hadn’t been made clear.
But yes I do have a contempt for the human species, and I don’t believe in screaming ‘Human Rights’ when things don’t go my way, which many humans do. That is what I meant by that comment. Maybe you need to understand the meaning of ‘Less so in Human Rights’ – it does not mean ‘I am not for human rights’ – totally different sentences and meanings. But your intention was only to belittle and insult, which my initial post was not all about.
Animal’s should have a right not to suffer and be abused for a human’s pleasure, that is what I oppose. Human’s shouldn’t have the right to do that – not legally at least.
Hunting is not a bloodsport.
If you’ve ever talked to a hunter, the most important thing is making a swift, clean kill.
No one wants to gut shoot a deer and have it die an agonizing death in the woods. I actually do have some issues with bow hunting for that very reason.
I care very much about animals and the environment.
I care about endangered species and our biodiversity loss.
We are living in a very complex world now. Many people are suffering as the result of the economic crisis, and the environment is taking backseat to human needs.
What I’m suggesting is that trophy hunting creates an economic value for the animals that live in these countries, and because there is some economic value for them, there will be a desire to conserve them.
One of the reasons why we have so many wonderful species left in the United States is because we have incorporated hunting into the conservation ethic. People hunt game animals, and the licensing fees go to preserving habitat and studying the animals.
In nature, virtually no animal dies of old age. Many die from predators that tear them apart. Others die of horrible diseases.
In the grand scheme of suffering, dying from a single shot from a human hunter is very far behind the agony experienced through predation and disease.
Thank you for your response. I appreciate your informed responses, and helping me understand the other side.
Sorry, but words actually -mean something- specific. When you speak disparagingly about ‘human rights’, you sound like a sociopath, period. If you don’t mean the globally accepted definition of the term ‘human rights’ when you use it, then you’re seriously miscommunicating. That’s just a fact, no ‘belittling’ about it. In text, your words are the only things people have to go by to judge where you stand, so you should take more care in what you say.
Yes words do means something – you used sociopath – and now for a second time – incorrectly. Nothing in my post reflected that behaviour. I did NOT says as you quoted me to say; you quoted that I said ‘not for human rights’, but in fact I said – ‘less so human rights’ – check out those specific words, and be a little more careful yourself when you are trying to belittle and undermine another – especially for a second time.
I’m not so sure “no one” wants to shoot a deer and have it die an agonziing death; or at most, maybe not actively so but I don’t necessarily think every hunter or hunter wannabe cares that much.
If you oppose bow and arrow hunting for those very reasons, and yet it is legal, doesn’t that say something about how much folks care about this? Is it necessary to preserve this “art form?” If one is concerned about lead in meat, there are movements to make lead shot illegal ( it already is in many places) and also arrowheads left in by mistake are not much better, though I think it’s a much tougher mistake for a butcher/processor to make on average.
I do agree creating an economic value is a part of reality. I think that’s one of the things that disturbs AR folks; they push for recognizing value of creatures in and of themselves, simply as being living beings that are amazing in their own right, and that monetary value we place on them is an arbitrary value. Heck, since the takeover of derivatives in our economy, arbitrary value could be more of a reality than ever before.
What IS reality is that people will deal with the economy in front of them, as is, derivatives or no. It’s certainly not going anywhere.
retrieverman, you’re a flat-out idiot! may you be reincarnated as a defenseless animal! as long as intelligent people have a louder voice,
you will be defeated time and time again. inbreeding eventually dulls the brain.
I’m actually not inbred.
Unfortunately, you are showing to the world that you’re quite ignorant, and in your little fit, you’re also not refuting a single fact I’ve presented.
Whatever man. I would need to write an article to refute all of your ill-thought out and offensive comments but I just don’t have time to educate your ignorant butt.
This is called an ad hominem fallacy.
Instead of providing facts, you decided to make me the issue.
I think you people are in a cult.
See? I can play that game, too.
OMG…Another hunter who believes that the trophy hunters “help” :) The only people it “helps” are the fat, rich white man who owns the place…..You need to really educate yourself before you make such lame statements…
I don’t believe that.
I know that.
You know why I know that.
We have LOTS of science that shows that trophy hunting is very important for conserving wildlife.
Yes, keep insulting people.
You’re showing who you are.
You’re showing that you don’t care about facts.
You just want to shove your twisted morality down the throats of others.
And I’m calling your ass out on it.
This is how I deal with trolls.
Please read the comment guidelines: https://retrieverman.wordpress.com/comment-guidelines/
Whatever little group of AR cultists is trying to spam this blog, you probably should stop.
You’ve said your peace. I approved your comments, even though they are obviously in violation of the guidelines.
Now, please find something else to do.
I don’t deal with fanatics very well.
The best way I’ve found is simply not to give people who do what you do an audience.
Any further comments will be removed.
You’re not here for a discussion.
You’re here to show your ass.
Sorry.
Not playing the game.
Hey! I finally read the list. All fair enough but I especially love the one where creationists will not be tolerated. :)
You don’t believe in animal rights at all?! So is what you are essentially saying is that the suffering of animals of any kind at the hands humans is okay with you. If I chose to take in a dog, you would have no problem with me torturing it slowly until its horrific death with absolutely no legal consequences? That is just one aspect of what “animal rights” communities fight against. I guess we are the crazy ones for not wanting animals to suffer and / or die for no reason. Lock us up and throw away the key.
I agree that if I don’t like something, I don’t have to watch it. I don’t watch any hunting shows that I accidentally come across on tv. But I have a huge problem with National Geographic supporting a show about thrill killing. That is what the uproar is about. The page you are referring to is “National Geographic: NO to Melissa Bachman Series”. Get educated yourself.
I have heard the defense all my life from hunters that it is for management of wildlife. All I can do is roll my eyes at that because the hunting you do (and Melissa Bachman) isn’t for management, it is for fun. And, it is troubling for me to know that I walk this planet with people who get enjoyment from killing…. anything. I know in my gut that if someone could kill a beautiful animal and disrespectfully post their dead body on Facebook while smiling from ear to ear, that somewhere inside of them, they are capable of just about anything.
I leave you with one final thought. Animals are the true hunters and they do not kill for fun. They kill when needed for survival. Same with humans back long ago when we were the closest to wild animals. What you claim as natural and needed, isn’t. It is just an excuse for your own brand of crazy.
There is a difference between animal welfare and animal rights.
I don’t think you’ve actually thought about “rights” at all.
Rights are things that are series of privileges won from the state. They generally are not taken away by state action in countries with strong institutions.
All the rights that exist in countries with these institutions got them through struggle, and they are maintained via struggle.
I recognize the rights of gay people and African Americans, though I am neither gay nor African American.
A dog will not recognize the rights of a squirrel.
Rights are also based upon an implied responsibility. Animals cannot be responsible in this way. No animal can be. Humans barely grasp the implications of rights.
Now, that said, I do believe in animal welfare, which means you don’t torture animals unnecessarily, especially by breeding them in distorted body types that make them suffer their entire lives.
But I eat meat. I do wear fur. I hunt. I fish.
And of all the things people should be worrying about, we’re wasting time on silliness.
To me, as a progressive and a liberal and yes, an Obama supporter (surprise?), I find this a total waste of time.
And it’s an unfair demonization of other Americans.
It’s cultural elitism at its worst.
Actually you are the first person I’ve encountered since George Carlin who mentions that “rights” are really fought-for “priveliges”.
And George states that these priveliges are getting smaller. No one is fighting for them like they used to. They are too caught up in small, mindless drivel.
If you hunt for pleasure then you are a sick bastard not respecting life and if there is a God he will jude you for killing his creation for fun!
I don’t believe in God.
So you’re in cult, eh?
hope you’ll get back all the sufference that you caused
“Sufference” isn’t a word.
Please write in intelligible English.
There are lots of people on here whose native language isn’t English, and they do a far better job than you.
Oh. I forgot. The Animal Rights Taliban doesn’t care about logic or being reasonable.
So why should they care about proper English?
You mentioned program ‘River Monsters’ of Animal Planet. I think this program is one of the best ever and most informative I have ever watched.
I’ll use plain, simple English!!! You are an asshole!! Is that plain enough??
LOL.
Derka Derka Mohammed Jihad!
I bet you spent all night thinking up that fine retort.
[…] Apparently, the Animal Rights Taliban has decided to campaign against me– because of this post. […]
I haven’t watched the show but I did get mad at her on FB because of the stupid pink arrowheads and so on and the idiot smile. I imagined her thinking “OMG I just killed this gnarly bear and now I have a nail appt.”
That image does not leave me thinking of a strong female that I can admire. It leaves me of an image of Nat Geo image consultants looking for something that attracts mindless mainstreamers who really don;t think too hard.
And that’s not to say I am entirely against hunting, but TROPHY hunting is not a good bottom-line mindset to start with no matter what the logistics or finance behind it. Killing should be highly respectul and provide a necessity, like food. Encouraging killing ’cause it’s fun has it’s issues,and not all big money folks really give a damn about conservation.
The problem is that trophy hunting may be the only hope we have for conserving megafauna.
To me there is no difference with the intention of the hunt.
Just so long as we can have this stream of revenue that can be used for actual conservation, I don’t care if they come to shoot animals because they enjoy watching the blood gush out of them.
And all the science clearly shows that sport hunting in developing countries has been a major boon to conserving ecosystems.
Whether this fits with the mores of the animal rights movement or not.
You are speaking of conserving elephants for legal hunts, so that it’s not just the black market folks who get at them? Is that an example of what you mean by conserving megafauna?
I’m trying to think of how this would gel with the conservation of tigers in India, China, etc. They are being persecuted for paws, and for penis soup, and that seems to have been pushed by a culture that believes you need wild caught tigers to satisfy this need, because they have the vitality that enhances libido.
How do you hold these folks off long enough to say “When there are more tigers you will always have something to hunt for soup,” when the demand is there NOW, has never been higher, and people who risk arrest to hunt them have starving kids at home TODAY?
Some have suggested tiger farming for those parts might be a solution.
But I’m skeptical: https://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/can-we-save-the-tiger-the-way-we-saved-the-aurochs/
In the end, I don’t think we can save wild tigers.
I think it’s almost a lost cause.
Sure, some trophy hunters are true conservationists. True, some of the money from the trophy hunting stream goes to preserve wilderness. There are also trophy hunters who would value a trophy more because it comes from an endangered species, and, no doubt, some who take their trophy and pay for their adventure by selling the penis or gall bladder to the Asian market. I’d have to see evidence before I’d grant that the NRA crowd have done more to conserve megafauna or any fauna than, say, the WWF and Sierra Club. And I’d be hard put to say whether Teddy Rooselvelt was more important to conservation than John Muir [yes, Muir hunted . . . but he saw no glory in it].
I think there’s too much categorical thinking on both sides.
In answer the original question . . . I see nothing wrong with putting hunting on the sports channels, and if there’s a conservation message, so much the better. I don’t watch TV . . . but hunting could hardly be worse than football ;-)
http://blog.gaiam.com/blog/as-hunter-numbers-decline-how-will-we-fund-wildlife-conservation/
It’s not insignificant.
The Sierra Club is mostly a lobbying organization, so I really wouldn’t count them too much.
I don’t think any of these organizations have billions of dollars:
http://www.georgiawildlife.org/node/2771
Trophy hunting is detrimental in one narrow capacity, mostly in deer: it selects against the healthiest, most symmetrical males.
However, intelligently designed bag limits solve that problem immediately.
If any of these people have ever picked up a single archery magazine, they would be amazed with the amount of carefully explained conservation, genetics, nutritional, and ecological research that is presented in a popular press rag. (I can’t speak to gun hunting magazines but I suspect that it is the same). Ducks Unlimited is responsible for the continual upkeep of thousands of acres of native species and their wetland habitats.
Most of these people are speaking from an insulated urban bubble that entirely isolates them from reality. Their arguments seem to be generated by their limbic system and come out without having ever passed their cortical regions.
As a side-note: anti-hunting folks (and even hunters who are anti-trophy-hunting) evoke evolution/natural selection all the time, and yet mis-use it in face-palming ways.
A) Non-biologists always seem to think “fittest” = “strongest” or “biggest”. Just being large and old doesn’t mean it’s “the fittest” for that particular population in that specific environment. There are a lot of selection pressures on deer populations, there’s no reason to assume that trophy hunters trump everything else.
B) Predators eat healthy adult animals all the time. And healthy babies that WOULD have turned into healthy, fit adults, for that matter. It’s a myth that predators only take down the “sick and weak”.
C) Trophy animals in many cases are nearing the end of their best reproductive years, anyway. That buck pictured above has already passed on his genes multiple times.
Here’s a really good critique of the supposed science they use to attack “trophy hunting” :
http://www.wildsheepfoundation.org/Page.php/News/62/1235887200-1238472000
Gah. “Evolution in reverse”.
Ya know, even if we returned to the bad old days of over hunting in N. America, or if you use the example of currently over-hunted species like elephants, there’s still no such thing as “reverse” evolution. It’s just populations responding to a pressure. There isn’t anything intrinsically special about large antlers or large tusks. If it benefits a population to have smaller males with smaller secondary sexual charactoristics, than that’s what will happen. Big deal. Nature loves tape worms as much as “magnificent” elk.