I just wrote a letter to the director & deputy director of the Nevada Department of Wildlife.

http://www.ndow.org/about/contacts/
(scroll to the bottom to see the actual contacts)

* * * * * * * * * * *

Dear Mr. Mayer & Mr. Haskins,

As a citizen of Nevada, it has recently been brought to my attention through an article in the Associated Press http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iALKEBBE4jTDbEY6Y3A5Q0RvFMhwD96CD0D80
that the Nevada Department of Wildlife plans to "manage" predators, especially mountain lions, in areas that are shared with human hunters.  This action disturbs me greatly - this idea that natural predators are being killed off to ensure that humans have more deer to shoot & kill.

I am not alone in feeling that this is a horrible waste of resources and a waste of animal life.  Mountain Lions are an important part of the life-systems in our beautiful state, naturally keeping deer populations within the range that they should be.  Natural predators cull the weak, sick & old from the herds, whereas human hunters seek to kill the biggest, healthiest, trophies they can find, upsetting that balance that was intended in the natural food chain of predator & prey.

Perhaps better education of the hunters is necessary - they should be taught to hunt like mountain lions, taking only those deer that are a hinderance to the herd, rather than those fine specimens needed to further the species. 

I am disgusted to know that the mountain lion extermination is taking place.  For once, I am not proud to be a resident of the State of Nevada.

Sincerely,
Lisa S Jenkins

Many people I know hunt deer for OH YA food.. and who is to say which deer are the hinderance?  You now leave open the question do we get rid of people who are old and not as fast?  Yes there are those that hunt deer and other wild life for sport however, we were taught never to point a gun unless you planned on shooting and never kill an anamial unless you planned on eating it.. What they should do with the deer they kill for sport is make the hunter if they are not going to use the kill for food to donate it, if you could find a company that would dress the anamial the meat could be used to make stew, hamburger meat etc for soup kitchens.. and the head (I think that's what the hunters want could be given to the hunters) I am not sure about the mountain lion meat that too may be able to be used.. Just a thought

I wasn't the one who taught the lions to hunt, that's their instinct.  I know you're just looking to lash out at me because I'm the one who wrote the note, but don't you think that it is completely unethical for anyone to even suggest that we "cull" humans?  I'm not sure where I ever compared humans to a wild deer herd hunted by mountain lions.

Just for the record, humans don't eat mountain lion meat from animals killed in this hunt.

Beautiful animals.

Wicked people committing wicked crimes. 

Thou shalt not kill......what about that?  Anyone who kills an animal is wicked.  Anyone who eats a murdered animal is a wicked demon. 

Beautiful animals.  Wicked people.

"Perhaps better education of the hunters is necessary - they should be taught to hunt like mountain lions, taking only those deer that are a hinderance to the herd, rather than those fine specimens needed to further the species."

I'm sorry but I don't have a sixth sense like a mountain lion has. They have the ablility so sense which one is sick and weakest. I don't have that sense. Besides some of the really sick ones can make me sick, I'd rather not.

Also they hunt the sickest deer because that's whats EASIEST for them to kill. So you applaud mountain lion to go for what's easy but as soon as you think hunters are doing that you shoot us down.
So do you want us to be like mountain lions or not?
Make things easy or no?

Actually, you were the one who confused what I said.  I believe what I wrote was "better education of the hunters is necessary" you quoted it yourself.  And I did not "shoot down" hunters for going for the easy kill - wasn't the implication that they *should* be hunting like lions?  I'm beginning to understand the problem here: communication breakdown.

I do see the need for humans to occassionally manage populations, but I believe in this case they wrong species is being culled the mountain lion is still in a state of recovery from near elimination. the deer are over populated in most areas. The opposite is true in Alaska. Wolves are threatening caribou populations. Wolf culling has been going on a lot longer that Sarah Palin has been around, and it necessary for the replenishment of the once threatened caribou. Of course the truth doesn't matter when You are trying to crush a persons' career.

I really need to take a minute and proof read. Sorry about the copious amounts of typos in the above comment.

Charlie,


Your use of the word "culled" is telling. It's one of those linguistic barriers we use to separate "us" from the moral implications of our actions. It's a euphemism.


Your attempt to defend this conclusion fall's into an either/or trap: assuming that either we "manage" populations as we currently do or some greater negative effect will come about. However, consider third alternatives. Human animals shouldn't eliminate natural predators, manage fauna or breed and release "sport" animals. We could better manage our destruction of natural habitats. 


You also beg a significant question Charlie: Why is it our duty to "replenish" populations of other animal species? And if it's because we caused the harm, how does causing harm to another animal correct the first wrong? Furthermore, simply assuming that hunting is morally defensible doesn't go anywhere as far as a response to someone's challenge that hunting is immoral.    


Connor,


Quote:


"I'm sorry but I don't have a sixth sense like a mountain lion has. They have the ability so sense which one is sick and weakest. I don't have that sense."


Are you honestly arguing that you are incapable of telling the weak from the strong? It's curious because hunting "trophy" animals is premised on the ability to distinguish the virile from the sickly.

Connor, the whole point of the anti-animal rights movement is that "we" are better than "them" (for various reasons). Not the least is our ability to reason, morally. Therefore, the AR movement doesn't want you to "be like a mountain lion", who exists in the food chain. We want you to be like a human animal, who most certainly exist beyond the food chain given our unique (I suppose?) capacity to think morally. We are either like all the other animals Connor, which, it follows, renders all moral discourse utterly moot; Ethics is a non-issues. Or we are not like them in this important respect, which proves your premises nothing more than partial and self-serving (i.e., not moral).  

This cannot be normal, the state wildlife agencies must be on some serious hard drugs. Backwards logic. Mountain lions are so few, it is tragic. And what is worse, they defend their decision. They uphold it. They aren't just dolts, they are dolts with
the ability to uphold this decision. Stupid people with even small amounts of power are the most scary.

Alex, the reason I believe people need to occassionally manage, cull or preserve certain species is because we have caused damage to the ecosystem by either meddling or pretending We are not part of it. A better example is the herring gull / puffin dynamic. Humans have protected the once almost extinct gull to the point that it is now threatening the puffin. Officials have started culling gull chicks and eggs in an effort to give the puffin a chance. If you can give Me an example of a species that is endangered, and homo sapiens is not involved, I might begrudgingly say We should stay out of it, but it is not in my nature to let a form of life die from this planet.

Charlie - I see what you're saying.  In other words, it's backwards that the state of Nevada wants to kill mountain lions to bulk up the deer numbers so hunters can hunt.  In reality, it should be that we limit the amount of hunting (or stop it altogether) so the mountain lion population, which is the threatened species in this scenario, can rebound.  
People are responsible for the low mountain lion numbers to begin with.  We're managing mountain lions the way we might manage high cholesterol by telling people to eat chicken instead of beef. 

Lisa, I am not anti-hunter, but I do believe natural hunters should be given first priority.

Connor:
You are ignorant and only trading places with a hunted and murdered animal would open your eyes.  Reading your replies, pontificating as though you actually understand the problem with murdering a living being, is very disturbing. 

Your opinion obviously supports violence and murder, while many people do not support violence and murder.  You treat the act of murder as though it is of no concern, but deep down inside, you absolutely know the truth about taking a life. 

Why would you want to come on this blog and defend your "right" to murder an animal?  Your way of thinking is violent, out-dated and people are not buying it anymore.  For just one moment out of your self-serving life, try to understand the serious problem with murder, it will change your life.

P.S. Do you have a dog or a cat?  And how do you treat those animals?  ..............I already know the answer.

Connor, I see that you've restarted here some tired conversations and arguments you've started in several other threads on hunting, and I'm going to ask, before it goes any further, that you let it go. As I recall, many of us have had the same arguments with you over and over again. You think hunting and otherwise killing animals for food is OK, and you enjoy hunting. And you're defensive of that position and not in any way open to reconsidering it. You also continue to refuse to see the moral difference between "murdering" a plant without a central nervous system and killing a sentient animal. We know. We get it. But this blog is an animal rights blog, and the position that those things you so enjoy and think are wrong isn't going to change.

I also get the feeling that you perhaps never read the food chain post that followed earlier conversations: http://animalrights.change.org/blog/view/so_you_want_to_be_a_part_of_the_food_chain. Please don't talk about being part of the food chain and about what mountain lions would or would not naturally do unless you're OK with really being a part of the food chain (e.g., when a mountain lion thinks you or one of your companions looks like a good dinner).

Also, for the record, no, you don't support animal rights. Your positions are decidedly anti-animal rights. You believe in animal welfare.

This post is not about arguing over whether it's morally acceptable to raise (or hunt) animals for food, and I'd like to avoid another endless conversation with you on that topic.

Charlie,

Quote:

"Lisa, I am not anti-hunter, but I do believe natural hunters should be given first priority."

Why "first priority" Charlie? And what is "natural"? Doesn't this imply that all the other hunters that don't fit into these categories are doing something wrong?

Connor,

"Human animal" is redundant for a purpose. It is meant to counter "animal" (without qualification) and "human" (without qualification), which implies an erroneous dichotomy. 

The animal rights movement is concerned with "interests" Connor, which presupposes perceptual awareness or sentience. Therefore, plants, which are not sentient, do not have morally relevant interests (e.g. to avoid pain) that ought to be considered. Accordingly, then, while it isn't necessarily false to say I "murder plants" (or bugs), there isn't a substantive moral issue in question given that the lack of interests means the absence of direct obligations. 

I don't think a lion can infer the presence of cancer, at least to the extent that a specific animal would become the target. Your examples aside, although these animals clearly weren't sickly or by definition they wouldn't be "trophies" (perhaps they were on their way to being the weak, but they weren't there yet), it isn't until the problem manifests in some behavior that set's the animal apart from the group for example that the issue becomes apparent.

"Accordingly, then, while it isn't necessarily false to say I "murder plants" (or bugs), there isn't a substantive moral issue in question given that the lack of interests means the absence of direct obligations. "
What do you mean there is no morral issue? There are a lot of people out there that think eating vegitables IS murdering them. A lot of buddhists feel that way. So there is a moral issue there.

If you can say that as a valid argument then I can keep my argument that there is no moral issue with me eating meat because I don't think it's morally wrong.

Do you know that dogs can sense when people have cancer? And so can most other animals. So I believe that a lion could aswell.

Yeah but you pinned me in a corner earlier because I told you I couldn't always pick out a sick animal. But just then you agreed with me on how I couldn't always pick out a sick animal from the herd. So which one is it?

Also when an animal is that sick I probably wouldn't be able to eat it without me getting sick and it's against my morals to kill something for no reason. I have to kill it for the perpose of food.

Connor, Connor, Connor.

Are you for real?  You will beat anything into the ground until it is dead 10 times.  Over and over, we have to listen to your "protecting" your rights to murder an animal.  How very, very sad for you that you cannot just accept the fact, not opinion, that murder is wrong, no matter if it is an animal or a human whose life has been taken. 

Go ahead, hold on tight to your ridiculous ideas and continue to convince yourself that killing is the same thing as getting a sun tan, but the truth will never be avoided.  Killing is wrong and you know it.  Any other discussion coming out of your mouth is just nonsense, because you will never be able to justify murder, unless you are a pathological serial killer who cannot wait to get out there and kill something, anything to fulfill your need to inflict violence on non-violent creatures.

Think about it.  Think before you speak.  Murder is not debatable.  Right?  or do you have some more ridiculous thoughts on how to get around the crime of murder?

I was taught "thou shalt not kill"

I wasn't given any other specifics on the matter.

Quote:

"I have to kill it for the perpose of food."

No Connor, you do not "have" to kill an animal, you choose to. You argue that if you don't eat the animal then it "is against your morals," however, the real issue, our issue, is whether or not you should make the choice, given ample non-animal alternatives, to kill an animal to satisfy your palate. 

No Connor, given AR premises (this is an AR blog right?), the absence of interests implies the absence of a prima facie obligation to the thing in question. Therefore, there isn't a moral issue at stake. Perhaps indirect obligations, however this isn't the issue at hand.  

Quote:

"Yeah but you pinned me in a corner earlier because I told you I couldn't always pick out a sick animal. But just then you agreed with me on how I couldn't always pick out a sick animal from the herd. So which one is it?"

That doesn't even follow Connor. 

Quote:

"But if people are going to say what I'm doing is bad because I'm killing another animal without a need to and because I'm also an animal that I would respect their life as I should mine well I can make just as valid of an argument by saying that well if I'm living and a plant is living we are both therefore living beings and should respect eachothers life like we would out own. So it goes both ways."

Again, that doesn't even follow Connor. The argument that we are animals forces us to reconsider the false ontological duality between "us" and "them" generally assumed. The second level of the AR argument posits that human animals are unique in the ability to morally reason, therefore, substantively, we exist outside the "food chain" and the animal kingdom in its entirety - we believe Ethics are important. Connor, these are not contradictory premises; one follows from a biological fact, the second from how we think morality.
Connor, you must conclude that Ethics are not important to us.   

Alex, What meant is simply that if there are only enough deer for either felis concolor or homo sapiens, homo sapiens should be kept from hunting that area because He can go to the supermarket, and cougars aren't allowed in there.

I agree Charlie. Good point. I wish others would listen. 

"This isn't about "saving" any deer; it's about preserving the chance to kill them for a species that doesn't need to kill them by killing off another species that does need to hunt them for survival."

Some people do hunt them for survival.  An average size deer will feed your family for a couple weeks.  That's a lot of money saved, and when you don't have much money it makes a big difference.  As for those who say we don't need to kill animals at all, I disagree.  Personally, I have been vegetarian.  I'm not now, but I eat way less meat than the average person.  But, I'm lucky enough to be able to afford the rediculous price of non-meat foods.  Many are not so lucky.  Most people I know who hunt for food also have huge gardens, but they can not grow year round.  It's easy to not eat meat when you can get fresh fruits and vegetables, but it's much harder when you're stuck with 6 month old canned stuff because that's all you can afford.

I'm not saying that this is the proper way to manage wildlife, but they have managed to get themselves into a bad situation through mismanagement, and this seems like one of the better solutions.  Would you rather let the mountain lions overhunt the deer and then starve to death when the deer population gets too low?

Can't we all just eat a big box of animal crackers and call it a day?  That way, nobody gets hurt.

By the way, Lisa, this is brilliant:

"I was taught 'thou shalt not kill'

I wasn't given any other specifics on the matter."

:-)

I'd say hi to Connor but he asked me not to talk to him, so I won't tell him I think his new picture is kinda cool.

I've long been of the opinion that whenever man institutes some "management" program - wildlife, land, etc. - he's overstepping his proper role as a part OF nature and entering into the role of some overlord who's apart FROM nature.  When this happens, bad things follow: lives are lost, ecosystems suffer and the natural flow is - for a time - disrupted.

Nature is a self-regulating system.  The Earth knows what it's doing, as does the Universe that surrounds it.  Humans, however, on an individual as well as collective level, have proven time and again to be unable to manage their OWN lives, much less the ecosystems in which they live in disharmony.  I'm always stunned at the arrogance of members of my species (and yes, I'm guilty too from time to time) that results in them trying to wrestle nature into submission.

We've "managed" to drop a couple of atomic bombs on our own planet and people.  We've "managed" to pollute our air and our oceans.  We've "managed" to carry out wars costing the lives of millions (billions?) of humans.  We've "managed" to rip a gash in the ozone layer.  We've "managed" to create and institute systems that cause the ongoing, unimaginable suffering of both human and non-human animals.

I'm not sure who hired us on as "managers", but I think we've more than proven our incompetence in the position.  I'm thinking we need to resign before whomever it was decides to fire us. 

Yes!  To Keith we should listen!

"I'm not saying that this is the proper way to manage wildlife, but they have managed to get themselves into a bad situation through mismanagement, and this seems like one of the better solutions. "

The point of this discussion is not that the animals have gotten themselves into this pickle or even whether or not people should hunt deer, but that humans want to keep the mountain lion population low so that humans can hunt the deer.


Animal crackers - one of my favorite vegan foods!!

As a person who lives out where your beautiful animals live (not Nevada) I can tell you I'm all for culling back the big cats and the bears, whether it helps the deer or not. You just have to be out there once without a gun and feel what your hair and spine do, when you hear a big cat or bear growl close by, to understand why. This isn't a zoo out here, City folk don't get it.

There is NO SUCH THING as hunting any more - hunters don't HUNT animals - they slaughter them with their high powered rifles and bows, they bait them and trap them ( often getting and maiming that which they didn't even want in the first place - oh dear another life lost by accident ! ) What chance does an animal have against those instruments of destruction ?! Over kill for sport - overkill for food - whatever the reason man has totally upset the balance of nature and when they cause the problem - oh dear, we have to kill to balance it out again so there is more of the once victim, for them to kill and when they have done that, the natural preditor will be well populated again so guess what, that gives them another reason to take up arms against them again ! It is a vicious circle ! And when one takes to planes and helicopters ?! Well how sporting eh ? If the animals could only shoot back ! Well they can't so I guess that is why we are here - to be their voice and to fight the legal battle on their behalf.

Great poster btw !

How wonderful it would be if all these hunters would learn to go out with a camera - capture the image which will last forever and leave the animal to go in peace !


When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted, when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then will you discover you cannot eat money.  - Cree Prophecy -

It doesn't make any sense to kill off mountain lions in order to increase deer populations so we can kill the deer... Who in there right mind thought of this? Most people are complaining about the increase of deer populations, labeling deer as "pests" who destroy their crops and "cause car accidents". And guess what, the reason that there are so many deer in the United States is because humans have killed off their predators. This is the problem, humans interfere with the natural world, and think that they are more important than every other being. We share this world with other living things, it's not just us.

You weenies should apply this kind of logic to government taxation and welfare and see where you come out

Gosh, just tell all the hunters to come downunder to help us cull the damn roo population. They'll all end up dying anyway if they overpopulate, and not only that but the meat is better than steak IMHO.
Actually, no, forget that - we may have overpopulation with kangaroos, but I have a feeling that even then there wouldn't be enough roo for all the hunters, if they have this much influence in society (to be allowed to shoot the mountain lions to save the deer to etc etc).

Animal populations don't manage themselves, hunters are an
important part of the equation. Sorry, but killing & death IS
part of the natural cycle of things. A cow needs to be bred to
make milk, and chickens that quit laying eggs eventually end
up on the dinner table too. Life IS a meat-grinder. Please
justify as best you can, you would-be petty tyrants, your
prejudice against hunters.

WOW, what a crazy discussion. And so much misinformation, where to start? We are not just talking about deer and mountain lions here - we are talking about a whole ecosystem. If you change one thing, you change everything, and killing off the large predators always causes big changes. If the deer population has decreased that much, then the ecosystem is obviously out of balance, or just outright disappearing. There is no scientific evidence presented by anyone that killing the mountain lions will increase the deer population to any significant degree. One would have to take into account any recent destruction of deer habitat, and the diet of the mountain lions, among many other factors. You could end up like my home town of Austin, Texas, where we have killed ALL deer predators and deer are now a terrible nuisance. Buddhists don't believe that one has to "kill" a plant to eat some part of it - what do you think Buddhists eat, rocks? If you COOK your meat, you won't get sick eating it, even if the animal was sick, unless it had "mad cow" disease, which doesn't always have symptoms in deer, anyway. And if you kill all the big deer with big racks, then you will be encouraging the breeding of small deer with small racks - this has already happened in numerous places. John Muir hiked for years by himself in the almost pristine West without ever carrying a gun, and he was never attacked by a wild animal. Hair standing on end is another matter. Animal populations DO manage themselves quite well without any human help - what do you think happened on this continent for the many millions of years before man ever showed up? As a matter of fact, it is now generally believed that the coming of cro-magnon man to the Americas caused the mass extinction of of the late Pleistocene mammalian mega-fauna (read "Twilight of the Mammoths"). Hunting wild animals, with as many humans as we now have crowded onto this earth, is becoming a privilege, not a right. And you can be perfectly healthy (in many cases, more healthy) being a vegetarian than being an omnivore, and produce a LOT less global warming pollution in the process, but you have to care about all that "environmental stuff." Unless you always kill the deer instantly with the first shot, it will suffer. Now, maybe you don't care about that either, but that won't change reality. And yes, a deer might suffer more at the claws and fangs of a mountain lion, but the mountain lion has no choice, and you do. Besides, I don't go to the woods to see a bunch of grown men (or women) making loud noises shooting at frightened animals so they can feel good about themselves - that kind of spectacle, common as it is, just doesn't interest me. Catching sight of a wild mountain lion does interest me, however, because they have killed them all here in central Texas, over my objections. So go ahead and kill them all off too, and I will just SKIP Nevada the next time I'm out that way. Unless, of course, you have any sense left. A very sensible woman once said in an interesting song: "Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you got 'til it's gone?"  

James, you are right, city folk don't get it but coming from someone who has lived in the country back home in Canada I never feared walking alone in the woods - I learned to understand sounds and the body language of animals and from the age of 7 I was doing hands on work with my mother rescuing injured animals from traps, arrow wounds and gunshot wounds from small little raccoons/skunks up to as large as bears.  Remember one thing - you are wandering into an area that is theirs, not yours and if you took the time to know animals then you would understand that they fear you too and with reason ! As a photographer, I took pride knowing that I hunted well to get the photos I had hoped for and left leaving them as I found them and their home untouched !

Connor I am so sorry about your dog, it must have been a horrific experience but here in the UK we have endless stories coming out of how hunt hounds have ripped people's pets apart so it isn't just the 'wild' animal who is to blame for attacks. One thing people tend to forget when they defend their right to go out and kill or 'hunt' as they would call it, is that we humans need weapons - the animals have theirs naturally ! Sort of tells you something doesn't it ?! We humans kill numbers to the extreme - I heard that just in one state alone during the 'thanksgiving' weekend that 750,000 'hunters took up arms that weekend. Heck, it must have been like a war zone !? I don't think the animals in the forests had much to be thankful for ! -:(

Yes, here in WI, hunters along with state DNR, manage wildlife
resources quite nicely, thank you. We regard wildlife as 'public
stock' juat like private breeders manage their private stock.
Yes I choose to be a vegetarian, but not legislate what
others can do, eat, or how they choose to live. Next it will be
fishing with you people, who ignore the spectacle of life,
eating itself, occurring all around you. What of native rights,
and why only natives? Managing & harvesting animal
populations has been going on before the written word was
invented. You stumble upon the scene like Bambi and are
shocked. What a bunch of hypocrites you all are. If you have
a problem with what a cruel place this is, take it up with your
Maker, because even evolution supports the fact that life is
also lunch. In California, cougars eat pets and people, and
you will be food for worms someday. Complain that isn't fair,
you being part of the food chain, because no laws you try
and pass to limit the rest of us, will change the fact that
multifarious species would make you dinner, but for your
artificial, sheltered circumstances you enjoy, from cradle to
grave.

I think it is time to put hunters with these ethics, or lack of them, on a hunting preserve where they are the hunted. Some of the comments here contain such ignorance of respectful relationship between man and animals that I fear for our culture as a whole. Man is part of the food chain as well, so how about we hunt these hunters who think they are above the dynamics of nature? Perhaps then they will truly understand the madness of these practices.

Nevada's policy is disturbing on many levels.  Of all the reasons people kill animals, for "sport" is the absolute worst.  Even if one doesn't believe animals have any right to live their lives, how could anyone support the intentional manipulation of an area's ecosystem to encourage a "sport" which is irrefutably linked to death and homicidal tendencies within our our race?

First, I've noticed more people are responding to this than to the foreclosure mess. 
Deer, a modern day scourge.  The reason we have so many is because the natural predators were almost wiped out by humans.  Now that they are coming back, let them, they have a right to.  The sides of the roads are covered in deer carcasses, and I'm in Jersey. Never did see a dead mountain lion on the side of the road here.  Could you bring us some to control the deer here. Or we could sell Deer hotdogs ate Baseball stadiums.  "Deer Here" they would call out.

Thank you, Craig!  Well said!

By the way, kudos on the Joni Mitchell reference!!!

Why does everyone assume hunters hunt for sport?  Sure there are those that do, but the VAST majority hunt for food.  Here in West Virginia, 3/4 of the population hunts, and we are raised to not kill anything unless we are going to eat it.  If you hunt something and don't eat it, you are keeping someone else from eating.  It's not a sport, it's not a game, it's survival.

---Trying to immitate an animal that kills will never be in our true nature and it throws the balance off for everyone and everything on this planet. ---

Are you high? Homo Sapiens has been a predatory omnivore for approximately thirty five million years. I choose to hunt in the most natural manner possible, without weapons, in a working cooperative relationship with a wild predator... a practice unchanged for thousands upon thousands of years. I enjoy being a part of the wild natural world and, yes, I enjoy eating meat. So does my hawk, that is what NATURE created her to do. There are no ethical considerations in nature. Life consumes life in an amazing and endless cycle. To address the eye-rolling analogy: If a mountain lion or a bear were to take a shot at killing and eating me, that would be part of nature, too--bigger and better-armed predators doing what NATURE designed them to do. I am, of course, free to try and defend myself or escape using my wits and my natural tools, just like they do. NATURE has no ethics and is no respecter of morals. I am an animal, and so are you. Your collective choice to separate and distance yourself from the natural world only shows the astounding arrogance of our species.
I'd love to know how many species have been wiped out, how many individual animals, and how much of the wild world has been lost to crop production and the farming of plants for human consumption, both indirectly through loss of habitat and directly in defense of their crops. Your soyburger and corn on the cob cost a whole lot more animals their lives than my wild rabbit stew. I am willing to take responsibility for the lives that feed my own and THAT is an ethical choice.

I do agree that killing mountain lions so hunters can shoot more deer is asinine, stupid, and wasteful... just like most of the things our species does.

I did have a wry smile about the idea of a vegan "animal rights blogger" who keeps carnivorous pets. Unless you're feeding your animals a natural, prey-model diet of small, wild-harvested prey animals then you're doing more to support industrial meat production and the horiffic conditions in industrial slaughterhouses than I, hunter, omnivore, and supporter of slow-food production am.

I know all you youngsters, euphemistically born yesterday,
who just stumbled on the scene, feel the lights are too bright
for the garish spectacle you must witness, and yet it's true.
This dimension IS a brutal place. God kicked you out of
heaven, now you have to find your way over the boulders,
back home. And hypocrites is the right word. Never mind that
you feed your precious pets with more ground up, dead
animals. Just admit you think you're better, holier-than-thou
and super-virtuous, and that the planet should follow you
...where?  My needle-doctor told me I need more yang foods
(dead animal soups) to be healthy, this after a 14 year vegan
experiment that ruined my health (true story.) Too bad reality
doesn't comport with your philosophy. Vegetables and seeds
don't hold a candle in certain nutrients compared to animal
foods (B-bitamins, zinc, amino-acids.) The animals will
continue to eat each other even after your "food police" make
chicken sandwiches a felony. You all should kill and eat an
animal with your own hands, the natives were very sensitive
and thanked the animals who gave up their lives. There is
nothing  compassionate about factory farming. Also I notice
you spin off into totally irrelevant discussions about culling
the weaker or stronger. How do you know predators have a
"sixth sense?" They just catch the animal that's easiest to
catch, often the young ( learned that from National
Geographics specials.) No, the world is NOT safe for Bambi's
& bunny rabbits. Wrap your head in a guaze cocoon to
protect you from reality, you presume to tell the rest of us
how we should live and eat. Have your endless philosophical
discussions, compartmerntalize the issues into nice, neat,
artificial pigeon holes to avoid the full stupidity and
implications of what you're asserting, me I'm hungry and goin'
huntin.' Who knows what I'll find...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/13/medicineandhealth.china

To all:

I do not hunt, and I have never fired a pistol or rifle, and I even drive a Volvo...so you would perhaps expect me to share others outrage about what is going in in Nevada.  WRONG!! 

It is apparent that most of you people seem to be unaware that hunters and fishermen are the best friends of conservation that we ALL have.  No matter whether you hunt, support hunters, or hate hunters, it is undeniable that a huge portion of the funds that help provide wildlife habitat comes from hunters' and fishermen/women's licensure fees.  I think this alarmist and misleading story must have been written by someone who has never lived outside a city, because as several of the subsequent posts correctly note, nature is not kind, soft, and fuzzy. 

If those of you who think you are so pro-nature want to do something useful for the environment, I have an idea.....go join Ducks Unlimited, which has preserved thousands of acres of wetlands, to the benefit of many, many species!  Yes, most who support Ducks Unlimited hunt ducks.   They also benefit nature!  Or, join the Izaac Walton League.  Or buy a fishing license, even if you never plan to use it.

Of course, nature would exist in its most unperturbed state if enough mountain lions existed to keep deer populations in a natural balance, but we don't choose, as a society, to live this way.   So, in order to keep the licensure fees coming in, so that lands can be managed to preserve as many species as possible, it is probably necessary to sacrifice a number of cougars. 

This is a great article!
Alot of states don't know what to do w/wildlife except kill them. Take Yellowstone's buffalo herd for example. They aren't designated as wildlife. They are under the mismanagement of the Montana Dept. of Livestock, who slaughters hundreds and hundreds each year. For more info. check out: http://buffalofieldcampaign.org/

Okay, ENOUGH. Some of these comments are BRUTAL and uncalled-for. Seriously. The guy who brought up abortion? He just saw that on The View. He won't admit it, but, when he's not busy bashing other people, he's sitting watching trash TV -- which, by the way, I fully support (except for The View). Anyway, Elizabeth Hasselbeck thought we should all shut up about Palin and the aerial wolf hunt because BABIES ARE DYING IN THE WOMBS. Please. They're TWO ISSUES. One has nothing to do with the other. You pick your cause. I have other causes, too. And this is no place for me to start ranting on about them.

And then there's the guy(s) ranting and raving about the food chain and how we should all get with the program and eat a steak. Dude(s), it's beyond the food chain when you're talking about PLEASURE HUNTING that's f*ing with the area's ecology, and when you're talking about PLEASURE EATING -- so nice that you "love your steak" --  (food chain is not about pleasure, but NECESSITY), and don't get me started on fur (have you ever seen an animal post skinning? alive and alone -- it's skin ripped away?). We're not deluded. If you want to get into it -- YOU ARE! And, don't be too offended by that -- most people are happy being deluded. They just don't want to know.

Dude who was a vegan for 14 years? There are perfectly healthy ways of doing it. This isn't all about veganism anyway. We're not expecting (in our holier-than-thou way) everyone to stop eating meat. We're asking people to look at where it's coming from. the 50 BILLION+ farm animals a year being raised in horrific conditions and often tortured to death in slaughter. We're asking people to care about the earth and respect nature, yes, AS the natives do. We are HUMANS, after all -- and we're treating our animals, and often the people who slaughter our animals, in beyond appalling ways.
And don't go picking this comment apart -- as you seem to enjoy doing around here. Let us have our rant. And if you have something to argue, please be respectful. You ARE at an animal-rights blog.

I feel well not at all surprised but sad at the way this blog is going - one doesn't have to agree with everyone here, one doesn't even have to like another but one should try at the very least to be polite !

This is change.org however sadly too many seem lack in debating skills. How about some of you trying to change that side of things !  Sometimes it is a good thing to just agree, to disagree.

But that's my point, animals DON'T HAVE ANY rights beyond
what we humans give them. Admit you feed your pets other
dead animals, that you're simply expressing sentimental
prejudices, and I'll let bygones be bygones. And also what you
argue for just might preclude hunting, as far as some of your
other supporters are concerned. Maybe it's more about
mercantilism and resenting those who still find the "free"
lunch, when in fact the point was made that hunters do pay their fair share.

Veganism doesn't work for everyone, all the time, and that's
just another point. I had a vegetarian girlfriend who told me
she "...would rather DIE than eat an animal." Well that's
where we parted company.

Of course we feed our pets the processed carcasses of other dead animals...two words: food chain.  How have we all managed to forget that our beloved doggies and kitties are, in fact, carnivores?  That's their NATURAL diet, along with ours.  I agree with you, Steph, that it makes no sense at all to kill mountain lions to save deer for hunters to then kill them; what it amounts to is that certain hunters don't want any competition.  Let them all go on canned hunts with Dick Cheney and get shot in the face, say I.

That said, however, my problem with the vegan diet/lifestyle is that not only do you proselytise like Christians (I am Pagan, and not afraid to say so), you strenuously ignore the fact that plants are living creatures, too.  Who's to say they aren't sentient (self-aware) or even sapient (intelligent)?  Yes--when you rip a tomato off its vine, it screams; just because you can't hear it with your animal ears doesn't mean it isn't voicing its pain.  Let's face it, folks, the food chain is the clearest mirror of Thomas Hobbes' vision of life--nasty, brutish, and often short.  I'm sure the vegan diet can be done in healthy ways, but it's really not for everyone, just as Christianity (or any other religious faith) is not for everyone; the concept of "one size fits all" is pure fallacy.

Humans like venison; it so happens that so do mountain lions.  I, for one, want them protected as much as I want wolves protected.  We all need to remember the immortal words of Chief Seattle:  "The Earth does not belong to us; we belong to the Earth."  That means showing proper respect for all of its life forms, be they animal, vegetable or mineral.  But there must be balance on all sides.

I won't respond to all the comments here--not because I don't have a response but because I don't have the time. But I will say a few things:

First, the "plants are living beings; they scream when you kill them" remarks. Don't people ever get tired of making this weak argument? Plants do not have central nervous systems. We do not know that plants can experience pain. But if they can, it's not anywhere near the capacity to feel and suffer that an animal has.

Furthermore, it's incredibly absurd to put plants & nonhuman animals in the same category rather than put humans and animals in the same category--to imply that animals have more in common in plants than they have in common with us. Humans are animals too. We're in the same category as nonhuman animals for a reason.

Second, to those of you who are so amused by the fact that I am an animal rights blogger, and I care for dogs and cats:

(a) Dogs and cats are not both carnivores, as multiple commenters have suggested. Cats are carnivores. Dogs are omnivores.

(b) The feeding of meat to their cats is something that many vegans struggle with. Some cats do well on specially made vegan diets. Others do not. The cats for whom I care do not. Whether it's right to impose a vegan diet on cats is something vegan animal rights activists who wish to rescue cats from shelters struggle with.

(c) My dogs are vegetarians--happy, healthy vegetarians. I currently live with two of the dogs mentioned in my bio and provide babysitter-like care to the other two dogs and two cats. My home is a vegan home.

(d) To the commenter who suggested that if my companion animals eat meat, I contribute more to slaughterhouse suffering than she does as a "hunter, omnivore, and supporter of slow-food production": You are delusional. Even if my dogs did eat meat, they wouldn't eat nearly as much (or eat it for as long, given their life spans) as you do. And if you think that the animals whom you kill yourself or who die in slaughterhouses so that you can eat them don't suffer, again--delusional.

(e) Finally, dogs and cats are animals too, as perhaps you've heard. So yes, I rescue, care for, and advocate for them the best I can too. There's nothing hypocritical about that. It's perfectly consistent.

(Other)Animals have rights in the natural world. We just don't acknowledge them because we have guns.

Once again, reality check. If hunters are doing such a good job protecting the hunted, then why are the hunted, almost without exception, dwindling in numbers? In the end, because human populations are increasing. Who's responsible for that? In nature, when an animal populates beyond the carrying capacity of the environment, either mass starvation or some nasty plague or some combination of both end the problem. Is that really what you want, the ultimate end of the "food chain?" In an undercover study of duck hunting on the many private "duck sanctuaries" on the coast of Texas, massive violations of bag limits were found on EVERY ONE. Why? Because hunting is BIG BUSINESS. Duck hunters almost unanimously oppose banning lead shot, so our ducks are so toxic you can't SAFELY EAT more than one or two a month. So much for unlimited ducks - the populations are way down. In modern America in the vast majority of cases, hunting is a choice. Plants don't have nervous systems, so trying to say that they "feel pain" or "scream" is pure speculation, and that's being charitable. Veganism is not the "natural" (whatever that is) diet of humans. It can be done healthfully, but one has to be careful to get the proper balance of amino acids. I personally believe one can be vegetarian (as opposed to vegan) ethically - just raise your own chickens for eggs (it's quite easy, and I find chickens to be rather personable and interesting creatures) and carefully shop for ethically produced milk products. 40% of the protein in the diet of most pre-Colombian Native Americans has been estimated to have been insects anyway - how about that for all you brave woodsmen - have you hunted any bugs recently? That's the "natural way." If we are going to kill animals, it should at least be done ethically, and in the vast majority of cases, it is not. It is simply BIG BUSINESS. When big money meets ethics, ethics almost always loses. Why drag a bunch of mountains lions into all of this? Just let them be! 

My point is that what you call vegetarian (or vegetable)
"ethics" are specious and arbitrary, based on nothing but
prejudicial sentimentalism.

The only "rights" an animal has in nature is the option to find
food or starve, to catch a meal, to be eaten, or to evade
capture. It truly is as simple as that. Animals are eating one
another, guilt-free and with relish. Maybe you'll let me eat an
animal, but you won't let me enjoy it.

Both Dogs & cats eat meat, did you forget where dogs come
from? They're wolves from way back. And they're only nice
and loving so long as you keep feeding them, otherwise they
leave homes at night to form packs, exhibiting their ancestral
programming, to kill animals (and sometimes people), returning
in the morning, their owners none the wiser. (Read the books
by Tom Brown Jr. "The Tracker" et al.

Think of all the carnage occurring beneath the oceans &
rivers, a seagull just swooped down and caught a fish to feed
its young; so humans are more sophisticated, we use guns &
what-not, big deal. That's our advantage (brains), and ability
to fashion weapons & traps, just as all animals have theirs
(claws, fangs, wings, venom, stealth, etc.)

It's the food chain, you didn't invent it, it's not a crime to be
here or a part of it, to want to escape it is also perfectly
normal, but your unreasonable desire to restrict what goes
down someone else's gullet, isn't. Bunch of whiners, and not
very deep thinkers, or even very good nature observers.

Sure, let's manage wildlife so it exists for future generations,
but let's not forget nature for what it is-- wild, untamed,
sometimes dangerous, always hungry, and opportunistic.

Why don't some of you invent bacteria-burgers with all the
nutritional content of steak & chops, or the zinc content of
fish? Or genetically modify some existing crop to make lots
of B-12 so I don't pay a fortune for supplements or vegetarian
sources, whose purveyors are "making a killing" in their own
way. Seriously, make vegetarianism healthier and easier so
folks gravitate toward it by choice, is a better way to achieve
your goals. Your cruelty arguements alone just don't stand
up, it's a cruel world anyway, God (or evolution, whichever you care to acknowledge), MADE IT THAT WAY.

Oh, and subsistance hunters understand very well the terms
of nature, and their risks. What the hell does that have to do
with some arm-chair vegetable philosophers? Not much.

To the last poster--I agree with more or less everything you said, with the sole exception of the first statement. The hunters are far fewer than the mindless masses. We do our best, but as my favorite philosopher once said "you can't fix stupid". I won't try to argue this point because the way I hunt is far different than the way most people hunt, and I agree that many are stupid, thoughtless, and wasteful. I don't think banning hunting is the solution to this, just as I don't think banning abortion is the solution to ending abortions. In both cases, education and raising thoughtful, ethically-minded young people is.
____
 (d) To the commenter who suggested that if my companion animals eat meat, I contribute more to slaughterhouse suffering than she does as a "hunter, omnivore, and supporter of slow-food production": You are delusional. Even if my dogs did eat meat, they wouldn't eat nearly as much (or eat it for as long, given their life spans) as you do. And if you think that the animals whom you kill yourself or who die in slaughterhouses so that you can eat them don't suffer, again--delusional.
____
Once again, I ask... are you high? You think feeding an entire pack of dogs (opportunistic carnivores forced by humans or reduced circumstance to eat heavily artificial and mostly biologically inappropriate diets) factory farmed meat on a daily basis doesn't outweigh the couple of rabbits a week that keep me and my family fed? How much impact on the planet does a factory-farmed feedlot cow have? I'll bet you have a good answer for that question. Meat meals that go into dog foods, as regulated by the AAFCO are approximately 1/5 the weight of wet-weight meats... therefore, for every one pound of dog food meat your dog eats, five pounds of tortured feedlot cow goes into your dog's belly. You are feeding a whole pack of them, and I'd be willing to bet that in your lifetime which might be roughly analagous to my own, you'll own a few more dogs. I'll trust you to do the math. 
That your dogs are able to survive comfortably on a vegetarian diet doesn't surprise me. Lots of people survive comfortably on inappropriate diets, too, as again I'm sure you're well aware. For me it's not an ethical choice; I am willing and capable of providing a biologically appropriate diet, so I do. In your defense, it's far better for those dogs to be eating a vegetarian diet and living with someone who cares for them then any one of a myriad other possible endings, so on that note I commend you for giving a home to those animals and caring about them, no matter what you feed them.

As for your last comment: "And if you think that the animals whom you kill yourself or who die in slaughterhouses so that you can eat them don't suffer, again--delusional."

I never once said that. As a matter of fact animals who live their lives in the hell of industrial agriculture do suffer greatly, a concept with which you'll surely agree. Their lives are short and horrific and filled with misery right up until the last second where they're often killed in godawful ways. I do every single thing I can every day of my life to avoid supporting the existence of the industry in any way and I and my family are working hard to eventually not have any reliance on the industrial food industry at all.
But you know, nature is not kind, has no concept of morals and ethics. My hawk is brutal. If I don't get to her fast enough during the hunt, she'll just rip the rabbit right open and start eating it alive. Every second I delay in getting to her means a second of agony and terror for that rabbit. I work excruciatingly hard to minimize that agony, get to and kill the rabbit myself as quickly and humanely as possible. In other words, I use my human ethics to make that animal's death as easy as I can, despite my hawk's lack of interest in the rabbit's welfare. I know that for you the idea of any direct participation in death is a terrible one. It is never easy or fun to kill an animal or see it wounded and in pain, but for me knowing that rabbit lived a wild and natural life and died quickly and humanely is far more ethical, does less harm to wildlife than industrial farming of any kind.

To the guy that made the spurious rape allusions and suggested that if man is animal than all ethics are out the window I'll suggest that moderation is the key. I believe it's extremely important to tread lightly upon the earth; that we can and do choose the behaviors that do the least harm to the world and life around us I think is the best we can do as a species in this world. The fact is, the best predators win. We're too smart for our own good, and people have done terrible things to this earth in a very short period of time. We are greedy, wasteful animals. Using sythetic materials, eating industrially produced foods, driving cars, these things all do far more harm to the earth than hunting. To follow your moral code, you could ethics yourself right out of existence--more or less anything you do impacts the natural world negatively. The only people who can be said to be blameless are those buddhist monks that rituallistically starve themselves and then seal themselves in their own coffins to die, right? 

Some hunters act unethically, I agree. Some vegans are thoughtful, I'll also agree. I walked around a major city today with my bull-breed boar hunting dog for the first time in his life... he's five and this is the first time he's ever seen skyscrapers, city traffic, floods of people crowding on all sides. We were attacked on two separate occasions, once by a terrier mix out a car window and once by a weimaraner on the sidewalk. I would, of course, prevented any altercations from happening if he should have reacted (in canine "moral code" he'd have been well within his rights to defend himself) but there was no need. Both times my dog took a passive stance. He could have easily and casually killed both of those dogs, but he chose not to. In fact, he didn't respond to either snarling, lunging dog and calmly heeled right on by.
Both times WE got nasty looks from people standing around.

I wonder if you can understand that hunters are often thoughtful, ethical people who make choices about their impact on the planet. My dog is a hunter. I'm glad he thinks carefully about what lives he takes and sees no need for unnecessary harm. I feel the same way.

Sorry--late post. That first bit was aimed at Craig.

Aimed at me, Katherine? Well, bang, bang! By the way, I am NOT for banning all hunting. But in many areas of the country, hunting is improperly controlled and is damaging the environment. There is also the moral dilemma that hunting presents that seems to have everyone excited. 

There are some people posting here who seem to imply that, because nature is sometimes brutal, then that allows humans to be brutal to living things in the natural world, since we are all a part of nature. They argue that since brutal is part of nature, brutal is acceptable, unless the violence is against other humans, in which case a whole different set of moral standards apply. Suddenly, humans are NOT a part of nature! We get different rules! Sometimes people extend this "human moral sphere" to animals they like, so in that case dogfighting is out. But how about cockfighting? How about fighting Siamese fighting fish? 
I have been climbing, backpacking, camping, canoeing, snorkeling, and scuba diving through many, many different ecosystems. I have been president of a chapter of the National Audubon Society, I have banded birds, and I have been on the board of a Zoo. Many years ago I hunted, fished, and killed and butchered farm animals to eat, all in as humane a way as I could. But much more often I have rescued injured animals (wild and domestic) and nursed them back to health. I have kept many different kinds of animals as "pets" and I would have to consider most of them, on some level, good friends.  
After many years of examination, my observations lead me to believe that humans are a part of a seamless continuum of life. We are not separate. We ALL have consciousness. If humans have souls, then all animals have souls. We all feel pain, and sooner or later, we all fear death. But humans are very, very powerful and intelligent creatures, and we are able to contemplate morality. I believe this obligates us to behave in a moral way. This is the knowledge that flew out of Pandora's box, and it is the knowledge of the apple that cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden. There is obviously a deep line of human thought about this that goes back to the beginning of human history.   
Personally, would I (or anyone on this blog) shoot another human to eat him/her? Of course not. Would I shoot a dog to eat it (notice how the pronoun changed - our anthropomorphic double standard is in our very language!)? No, but some Koreans would. Well, where do I draw the line? Cows are OK and cats are not? Rabbits are OK but owls are not? Fish are OK, but monkeys are not? What about whales, creatures with brains larger than a small car that can live over 140 years? Is it OK to kill and eat them? 
I am CONSERVATIVE in the true sense of the word, not the upside down way it is now used in our society. I do not eat meat, because these moral questions trouble me. I try very hard not to kill ANY creature unnecessarily.  There is another and even bigger consideration in this moral dilemma: our world's ecosystems are beginning to unravel and fall apart because of human activity, and we are all responsible for this. Eating less meat produces less pollution of all kinds, including global warming pollution. In most cases, it is healthier than the current diet of the average American. These are all pluses for a vegetarian diet. Do I think everybody would be satisfied being a vegetarian? No. It would be a better, healthier world if we all were, though. But back to the point. 
Mountain lions are spectacular creatures. They used to be the most widespread of all the large cats in the world, found from the tip of Tierra del Fuego to the edge of the arctic tundra. They have been totally eradicated from the vast majority of their former range. So where do we stop? How much land, in the end, will we leave for the mountain lion? What human whim (desire to hunt more dear, fear of being outside, rabies control, protecting livestock, sport, etc.) will be the one that finally pushes them over the edge to extinction? 
I say enough. Stop now. Be conservative. Humans have taken so much already. Surely the mountain lion deserves some deer, also. After all, they were here first. 

I absolutely favor my species, and from what I observe, so do
other species. They tend to breed, eat and cavort all within
their clan, and everything else is fair game.

"Mountain lions are spectacular creatures." I guess the active
word is the adjective, full of sentiment. Probably half the
species of planet earth have been wiped out in my lifetime.
It's not just the food chain, but human encroachment. Live in
a house or apartment? You are guilty of stealing animal
habitat, all human buildings "should" be torn down so animals
can roam free (sic). By all rights YOU shouldn't even be here,
so off yourselves, for the animals' benefit.

Really the best we can do is create zones of wilderness
sanctuary, and a lot of you ladies need to stop exercising
your right to have babies, because it's not fair that my taxes
pay for (not) educating them.

Glad veganism works for a few of you, really! But I guess you
won't be dictating how physiology works, or monitoring the
experience of or transition in others, eh?

Cruelty is built in to the system of things, it's horrific, no one
enjoys that aspect. Sure let's minimize our footprint so to
speak. A bright one of you could inject himself with a
chlorphyl gene and live on solar radiation after your skin turns
green. History of mankind reports a few breatharians.
Viktoras, Wigmore, Gregory never reached that state. I'll
leave it to you to show us the way

Bunch a wannabe bureaucrats from what I can see, after all
that's why you're on change.org.

>> and a lot of you ladies need to stop exercising
your right to have babies, because it's not fair that my taxes
pay for (not) educating them.<<

Be careful... it takes a man & a woman to make a baby.

Yeah, but generally the guys can do without the offspring, no
biological clock ticking, and of course we can't get pregnant,
while you ladies can buy some frozen sperm. I was very careful.

Possible item of interest: there's a group of wealthy
individuals who would like to kill off over 90% of the human
race in order to "leave room for nature." They put up a
monument in Elberton, GA stating those wishes. Turns out the
stones were funded by the Lucis (Lucifer) Trust. They
consider poor people to be "useless eaters" and would like
nothing more than to bring back the cougar, the grizzly bear
and other super-predators to make USA their hunting resort.
Not everyone uses language honestly.

http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm

Someone challenged me with the "plants have feelings too, so you're a hypocrite" argument no so long ago.

After realizing that they weren't kidding and they actually thought this argument was valid, the following exchange occurred:

Me: Would you willingly step on a kitten?
Her: No.
Me: But you'll walk on your lawn?
Her: Yes.
Me: So, clearly, there's a difference.
Her: Um.....
Me: If you cut down an ear of corn, what will be there a year later?
Her: More corn?
Me: Yes, because plants regenerate.  Now, if you cut the head off a cow... no more cow.  Do you see a difference?
Her: Oh...

I wonder if I'll ever cease to be stunned that so many people choose to bash those amongst us who do our best to live our lives based on compassion, as if this somehow affects them in a negative way.  Really, for a carnivore, my choice to be vegan just means more meat for you.  In a sense, it's a win-win.  So, why all the vociferous complaining and strident efforts to tell me I'm wrong?

Oh, right.  My choice affects your conscience.  I must've forgotten.  

Dean,
I'm on Change.org because I think we can (actually, have a moral obligation to) change the world for the better. That means less suffering, less environmental destruction, more justice, maybe even less misplaced anger. Why are you on here?
Craig

Katherine,
Humans have, for millennia, selectively bred plants and animals for various purposes. Anyone who has lived with a well-bred Shih-Tzu will tell you that a sweeter creature has never existed on the face of the earth, and they are highly selectively bred. Then there is the very, very ugly side of selective breeding. Morals should apply, but the big bucks, as always, get in the way. That is another discussion.
Interesting - I was just comparing animals we usually eat with animals we don't usually eat. Carnivores are no more dangerous to eat than non-carnivores (I have seen recipes for owl gumbo in Louisiana). I think the real reasons we eat fewer carnivores is that there are fewer of them (being first order consumers or even higher up the food chain), they are smarter in general and are harder to catch (you would know that, being a falconer), and we tend to identify with them since humans also tend to be, in part, intelligent hunters. I am not a vegetarian because I think it is immoral to eat meat. I am a vegetarian because I find it very difficult in our current society to obtain meat in what I consider an ethical way. I simply do not want to financially support the systematic and intentional unethical treatment of animals for profit.
As for DDT, I read Silent Spring long before you were a twinkle in your father's eye, and I supported organizations that did something about it. I personally knew some of the people who were involved with the first captive breeding of Peregrine Falcons at Cornell University. I financially supported and watched some of the first released Peregrin Falcons stoop on flocks of wild pigeons in downtown Manhattan, and nest on the Palisades in New Jersey. I will never forget the sight. I buy organic food whenever possible, and I lobby for better food labeling and better testing of agricultural chemicals so others can tell more easily what they are buying. 
As far as global warming and meat production go, the science is against your statement. Now, I understand that most people believe what they want to believe, but facts are facts. It takes FAR MORE energy (and space, and resources like water) to produce animal protein than plant protein. Why do you think there are so many more herbivores than predators in the natural world? So my statement that if everyone on the earth were vegetarian would greatly reduce ALL KINDS of pollution, is a fact, according to the best science. Not eliminate it, reduce it. There would still be lots of problems (agricultural chemicals, etc.), but food production would take a LOT LESS energy. I would also point out that "Vegan" and "Vegetarian" are two different things, and the definitions of each are sometimes personally interpreted.
I say this in the interest of honest and informed discussion - I realize that you and I agree on some of the more important issues. I love to debate - I was raised in a family of lawyers - and it is an interesting discussion! 

Vegan doesn't work for everyone, not even vegetarian. You want to turn reality and millions of years of evolution (or creationism, makes no difference) on its head. You are in full denial of the very broad fact that life is also lunch. You want to inject a specious and subjective morality while  hypocritically feeding your favored animals (pets) more dead animals, from the very factory farms you rail against, or God-forbid some "murderous" hunter killed.

Who cares where you've been, what you've seen or done personally, Craig? (I really despise charismatics and look-at- me types.) How many experts are also idiots, Craig? Your presence on this earth proves you're spiritually no better. It's about principles, not personalities. More laws lobbied for by mental pygmies, telling the rest of us what we can & can't do, and in this case, eat. Take responsibility for your own "morality" by making it personal and not trying to export it like some virus. Start a cougar preserve if that meets your fancy, and feed them all the road-kill the state DNR will give you, see how the carbon & nitrogen cycles of life works and how the 'morality' you claim to practice is nothing but an aesthetic favoritism, a sentimental prejudice. You simply trade one species' suffering for another and call yourself compassionate; it's a form of self-justification based upon limited awareness. Life eats itself, right down to the level of bacteria, deal with it. Your own gut wages war, one strain against another. Buddhism says all life is suffering. That's true across the 3 dimensional realm.

I really don't care what studies you want to quote about soycrops vs. cattle pasture (which is by no means the only option for land management), for which you hope to create new law and tell food providors what they can grow. Nature seems to make meaty products for free using nothing but water, dirt and sunlight, and I've no prejudice against God's
(or evolution's) free lunch. I've chosen not to reproduce, which makes me more ecologically responsible than many vegetarians.

Incidentally, how many of you are actual state residents of Nevada? State Constitutions give their residents rights to vote upon what happens in their state. How many of you are tampering in jurisdiction you have no business, just because you think you're morally superior, and would violate other peoples' state rights to do it?

Now I realize that you didn't assert or say all those things personally, but others on this board have, and are implied in words like "Animal Rights." I will say it again animals HAVE NO RIGHTS beyond what the dominant predator gives them.

My purpose here is to show how even the very well-meaning can practice a very subjective and selective morality based upon personal opinions, 'feelins' and the words of  self- proclaimed experts, employ selective, half-baked or at least skewed facts, while ignoring the rest, and force the rest of us to suffer their learning curve, if we let them. Intelligence isn't everyone's birthright; you have to claim it.

OMG, I was so done with this comment thread already because THEY JUST WON'T STOP and it's getting on my nerves already. But, enough with the pet food argument! It's totally unfair.

What we're feeding our pets has nothing to do with our integrity. We can still be vegans, feed our cats meat, and not be hypocrites. You see, most of us (I can't speak for everyone) are doing WHAT WE CAN as "vegans." That's the idea. And, every LITTLE TINY bit counts. I'm not going to eat meat just so that YOU won't call me a hypocrite -- since I happen to feed my cat meat (from the best source I know, by the way). I do what I can. I buy as ethically as I can because I consider, to paraphrase Jane Goodall, everything I buy a vote -- whether it's chicken from the "Organic Butcher" for my husband and kids, or soy and lentils for me. We can still FIGHT (respectfully!) the fight, even if we have to make compromises in our lives. We do what we can with what there is, and we try to make what there is better, more humane, more environmentally friendly.
I applaud my friends for eating LESS meat. It's better than nothing. We all do the best we can. That's all most of us are asking, in terms of the veganism.

Dean, you appear to have ignored what I have said. I personally think that everyone should eat what they want to eat. At the same time, I think that you would agree that we need at least some laws that will protect our society and the environment for the greater good. We are just discussing what those laws should be. If you don't like the laws, you can work to change them, like we are doing here (good thing we have a democracy, with freedom of speech, etc.).I believe that we should have room for deer, mountain lions, and people. Since deer populations are down, and mountain lion populations are way down, and people population is way up, it stands to reason that something is out of balance. It doesn't seem to me that reducing the population of the rarist of the three so that we can kill more of the second rarist of the three while human numbers continue to grow is the best choice. That's just not going to work. I do not agree that nature supplies everything here for free - we just don't have to pay money for it, but it is not free. The "fee" for humans (or any animal) is that we have to follow certain environmental laws (scientific laws, really), or "nature" will get rid of us real quick. She's done it millions of times before over the eons. Native Americans knew this very well. Call them nature's "rights" or whatever you want - I believe we ignore them at our peril. Are you saying that you believe "might is right," and that the strongest get to set the rules? That is not nature's law - that is a human law. It seems to me that the key to survival is adaptability. In the end, how adaptable will humans be?  If your entire take on Buddhism is that "life is suffering," then you have missed a bit. Some of the most extreme vegans with the greatest respect for even tiniest gnats and ants are Buddhists - now why is that? If life is only about suffering, then why care? I hope you achieve your goal for being here. Moral viewpoints, as you point out, are very difficult to evaluate objectively, which is why they engender such passionate discussion. My father always told me that a teaspoon of honey attracted more flies than a gallon of vinegar, which I have found to be good advice. I hope that you are not mistaking that for "charisma." I can get as angry as the best of them, if I allow myself that indulgence. How are you measuring your success at changing people's minds?

I can choose to eat less meat for personal reasons, but I'm not trying to regulate what goes down someone else's gullet. I think a person has at least as much right to eat an animal as any other ...animal.

And as far as pets you favor, I maintain you're just trading one animal's suffering (ground up chicken, tuna, pork or beef parts) to feed your favored species (dog or cat.)

The Chinese have found that managed food farming is the way to go.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the way things are done now, other than the fact that some of you just don't like it.

Some people here talk about "pushing human evolution." Please, show me how that works, like grow wings, gills, or live on solar radiation. Please stop using the plural, way "we" do things. I haven't chopped down any rain forest lately, or even eaten at McDonalds. You seem to think other people's physiology should follow yours in lock-step, when you don't even know how adjustment happens, or why it doesn't.

You should get more scientific. I would eat a bacteria-burger if it tasted good and had the nutrient density and/or variety of animal foods. Just because veganism or vegetarianism works for you today doesn't mean it will 20 or 30 years from now. Then again it might, your results may vary. That's why chinese medicine includes animals parts as well as vegetables in its dispensary.

Jesus was less of a food bigot; he multiplied the loaves AND fishes.

Killing the Lions to Save the Deer--To Kill the Deer ?

First I belive this statment is way off base, I cant speak for anyone but myself and those around me. I grew up in Tx with 2 brothers by a single mother. Any food on the table was good food, and prety much lived my life on venison either chicken fried or added with pork in sausage. very good and WAY better for you then meat you actually buy in the store.

The hunt is fun, landing the big buck is a plus to the hunt as well, but main reason for the hunt was the meat.

  lets finish the saying

Killing the Lions to Save the Deer--To Kill the Deer for more meat on the table.

are the lions becomming extinct? if not, then so what, id reather see more deer anyway, I dont eat cats.

Alex:

The difference between you and me is, I don't think eating animals is a sin. Our ancestors did it, right up to the present day. My ethics, subjective by your definition or not, are personal. I'm not trying to make chicken sandwiches a felony.
I'm not claiming to be morally superior, so the ethical issue
you're trying to create, doesn't exist for me. I'm very consistent about defending other people's right to eat what they please. I just don't need as much meat as I did when I was younger.

Sometimes a species becomes endangered and caring people put resources together to save them. That's great.

In Europe they've brought back the wolf and guess what, they're killing flocks again. So the herders keep bull mastiffs to ward off the wolves. Those mastiffs need to be fed ...meat.
The sheep are sheered, and ultimately eaten. The predator- prey relationship is as old as life itself. It's grim and terrible, I'll admit, but I didn't make it that way. As a meat-puppet sharing tera-firma, you're part of it. You don't have to eat meat, no one is holding a gun to your head, but neither do I
feel guilty over yours or other people's hisses and accusations
on this or other blogs.

"And as far as pets you favor, I maintain you're just trading one animal's suffering (ground up chicken, tuna, pork or beef parts) to feed your favored species (dog or cat.)"

Actually, cats are carnivores.  I don't feel that feeding my pet an appropriate diet is at odds with my veganism.  I don't preach to him about what he's eating, either. 

He's not out killing birds or maiming other people's cats.  My "favored" species was someone who was abandoned by his previous owners.  My moral obligation to provide him home & health outweighs your need to see me attempt to convert a carnivore to veganism.

If people threw up their arms & decided not to care for  ANIMALS who didn't willingly convert to veganism first, there would be no animal sanctuaries for big cats & wolves, or rehabilitation programs for pit bulls, animal shelters.... you get the idea.

Alex: 

You assert you're moral because you exercise the choice to do something that isn't wrong to begin with. You are part of the meat-grinder, your existence is costing some other animal the habitat it might otherwise claim if you weren't here. I know you probably didn't ask to be born, but your being here is still a negative as far as other life forms are concerned. You use and consume and create mountains of waste your entire life and even the worms don't benefit because they lace you with formeldahyde before slipping you into an impervious metal box. (Well, there's always cremation, but that requires loads of burning carbon.) I know you're just trying to guilt me as practice for humanity at large. I don't take it personally. Why you choose not to eat meat is really your business, I just don't make the mistake of thinking you're more moral, even if you do. (Been there, done that.)

Also, you can cite all the studies you like, but the fact is that scientific papers don't dictate individual physiology. You just can't force veganism on everyone, and why would you want to? Oh, because you're morally superior (I forgot.) Anyway, If you really want to do the animal world a favor, just off yourself.

I'll tell you what would be a great human adaptation-- ruminant stomachs. But unfortunately 'we' don't have them, hence we can't draw the full benefit of protein from cellulose- fiber, and bacterial vitamin production that most vegetarian animals enjoy. Humans are actually omnivores, physiologically speaking. It's no sin to eat according to one's biology. Truth be told, I think the world's breatharians actually agonized over this very fact, and were rewarded with their adaptation by Spirit Beings. There really is no other natural explanation.

Lisa:

My point is simply that your managing one animal's "resources"
for another. Sure cats are carnivores, but they're pretty much bred by humans as pets because their 'cute,' fuzzy (add your
own adjectives.) That creates an industry that requires their feeding, i.e. humans managing the lives and deaths of other animals, so you can keep a pet. True your cat might not be killing birds, but what you consider morally reprehensible or
just 'uncool' is perfectly normal and natural for the cat. So
instead of the cat taking it's own dinner, it comes through human 'killer' agencies ("bad" people.) In india they were called untouchables.

Now granted, domesticated cats wouldn't fare very well outdoors in our winters, the native bobcats have adapted nicely. So maybe your keeping cats that couldn't otherwise survive is just your way of feeling compasssionate. We do the same thing in the human realm, it's called charity, and charity is a virtue (divine quality.)

Anyway, what you consider "caring" for animals requires the killing of other animals. In fact one might say that pets are a luxury, in that more killing might be required to feed pets AND
owners than just owners. (Some owners also eat meat.)
Just wanted to make that point clear to you.

I'm still not understanding why as a vegan it is a point of contention that I have a pet?  There are people who eat meat & abandon or abuse their pets.   So what's the point here?  Why can't I have a pet?  And how is what *I* "consider 'caring' for animals" different from what meat-eaters "consider' caring for animals?  I'm just completely lost in this conversation.  It makes no sense. 

And i don't see my cat as a luxury, I see my house as his luxury - his sanctuary, because without it, he would have been dead long ago.  If I ate meat, would that be ok then?

Dean, do you eat human flesh? It's meat - why not? Only because it's illegal? How about a monkey? Do you eat insects? Ever eat a dog or a cat? If not, why not? Do you eat endangered species? How do you decide what to eat and what not to eat? That's the "diet" issue, it seems to me. All humans make choices about what they eat. What are yours, care to "share?"But the original topic was killing mountain lions so there would be more deer to hunt. Humans, from the dawn of time, have made rules about what can be hunted and what can't be hunted, that's not exactly new. I still say it makes no scientific sense to kill off the top predator, unless we want the added responsibility and expense of an unbalanced ecosystem. Is that important?
You still did not answer my other question - how do you think you are doing at changing people's minds?

Lisa:

I don't philosophically object to your having a pet, I only point out that people who practice veganism have a particular ethical dilemma to face if they keep pets because the feeding of same requires killing on some level, whether you do it yourself, or someone does it for you and then you label them "bad" people. It's really the same issue on a personal level, that you rail against on the macro-scale, i.e. subject of this blog.

Craig--

As for big cats you favor, do start a preserve and feed them state road-kill. At least that way you don't have to take responsibility for whether the meat was cruelly obtained.

Well I never ate human flesh, culturally it was never offered so I never acquired a taste for it, and there are certain diseases associated with, as with pork and insects. So I try
to minimize my risks that way. I've had certain spiritual experiences that guide my choices but don't force those on
others because not everyone is in the same place that way.
Convincing or changing others really isn't my agenda, so the measuring of results, with respect to who I've influenced, affected or tried to change is a non-issue. I'm not certain
that my way is right for everyone, unlike some people on this blog.

"I only point out that people who practice veganism have a particular ethical dilemma to face if they keep pets because the feeding of same requires killing on some leve"

Yes, and by that same argument I have an ethical dilemma in chosing the human company I keep - not everyone I know is a vegan.  Do I continue to maintain relationships with my parents, my husband, my brother, my friends because they are not vegan?  Associating with them is also condoning their choices...  So where do you propose I stop my "personal" choices from spilling over into others' lives? 

"I'm not certain that my way is right for everyone, unlike some people on this blog."

I personally have spent more time in the comments here defending the mountain lions' right to live, people's rights to make personal choices, and my own choice to have a pet. 

Lisa:

As I said, I was a vegan for 14 years, and really gave it my best shot. I did fasting, grass juice, you name it. I'm "mostly" vegan now, but no longer share the stridency and judgementalism of others who've contributed to this blog.

I recall a journey to a vegan health institute years back, and having a short conversation with its founder. I expressed my loneliness and isolation in being a vegan. His response was bracing: "The world is full of people!" In other words, get over yourself, and your self-imposed isolation, based upon a creeping sense of moral superiority, all for what a person puts into their stomach, ultimately dominating all other issues in their lives.

My falling off the vegan wagon was for sheer pragmatism; I just couldn't function on that diet any longer, it wasn't working. Granted if a person had unlimited finances they could experiment with a wider range of vegetarian foods to find what they're missing, but income is a factor for many people.
In this culture, beef is a lot cheaper than cashews or macademia nuts. Heck, I can't even find affordable figs
anymore, what with the "war on terror."

I eat native plants and am otherwise a big scavenger on what's perfectly edible but other people throw away. So
at least I'm not paying to have animals killed. And I WOULD
kill an animal in a survival situation, but haven't hunted in
decades.

If you become too nice, the forces of this world WILL eat
you alive. The animals will accept as much kindness, free food and lodging and you care to give them, but ultimately you'll have to move on, because this earth is NOT your final home.

My advice is to not make a big deal public display of your dietary choices. If it opens spiritual doors for you and helps YOU get off the wheel of rebirth and suffering, then you've received your rewards. No one gets to heaven on another person's coat-tails, and you can't legislate people into
being "good" by anyone's definition. It's all about controlling the animal in ourselves, where one wins the victory.

"My advice is to not make a big deal public display of your dietary choices."

I don't think I made a big public display of my choices other than to defend my choices to those who would publicly criticize me.  Isn't that what I've done?  You're making many assumptions about my personal life - a life that you've never witnessed other than in the comments on this thread. 

My reasons for becoming vegetarian and finally vegan are very personal - I haven't even listed a single reason that I "am" vegan here.  I do relish in your statement of becoming "too nice" because I don't know that there's a real way of measuring being "too nice".  Is that when I get eaten by a mountain lion?  Is that the karma for being nice? 

I don't live in self-imposed isolation.  In fact, I'm a happy functioning member of society - as i think most other vegans are.  What's different?  What's on my plate when we take meals together.  And contrary to the popular stereotype, i don't preach across the table while we eat.

Well some things you don't have to say because their implied and inferred, i.e a blog for "Animal Rights." The presumption is that animals even HAVE rights when in fact, nature is eating itself, guilt-free and with relish. Obviously a person who thinks animals have rights, would probably eschew meat. It's not rocket-science.

Humans are incapable of creating a single piece of DNA from scratch, all we can do is manipulate what's here. We are the arbiters of death, like it or not, yes even you.

Fine, Dean. Then humans don't have any rights either. We're animals and a part of nature too.

The big difference between me and you, Dean, is that even though deaths may occur accidentally as a result of my existence, I don't intend, insist on, or intentionally cause deaths. I believe in and work toward nonviolence as best I can. Embracing violence just because some deaths are unavoidable? That's not required.

Before I close the comments, I'll repeat here what I said above in a specific thread:

Simply because of lack of time, I didn't do a very good job of managing these comments from the start. But if future hunting posts continue going in this direction every time--with hunters using the thread to create a long argument and defensive support of meat-eating and animal-slaughtering in general and deriding animal advocates--I'll start closing comments much earlier or from the start.

Hi Haley O,

Just remember you are the everlasting last frontier in argumenting on compassion. You touched the Alpha and the Omega in explaining why you are right and your opponents in are wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W61Q-EZ8R7M&hl=nl

You explained you are doing what you can with all the tools and possibility's you have at your disposition to heal the world, heal nature and all of the creatures upon and in it.

That is the plan, to start with yourself and your immediate surroundings and be the right example to your family, friends and even the right example to your foes and they can be the ones that are not thankfull for that, but one day they shall.

We as a kind reached the position that we can protect all that is out there. We do not need to be opportunistic anymore, we are on a platform where we are almost untouchable as a kind.

We must take care of that position and build further upon it to create a new breed of people.

A real intelligent breed of people, who know what is good for the world with people like you as their guide.

Our appetite serves the lowest emotion: self indulgence. Compassion to all that lives serves the highest.

We as a humankind must take that step onward to that higher level of consciousness. How intelligent your opponents may be or think they are with their misguiding demagogue rhetoric's, they lack emotional quotient.

Your opponents sound intelligent in why they should destroy life, they are defending what was  once but is not anymore.

The antagoists of life are defending the laws of the caveman and argue from out of their reptilian-brains. We are here to show the willing the way to the path of enlightenment,the path to the higher self of our species.

If we as a kind want it, we are beyond the normal foodchain right away. Without the production and consumption of flesh, we shall save the environment and give back the biggest part of the land we stole from the righteous owners, the ones that were here before us, nature it's very self.

Put your precious time in people who do want to listen, leave the antagonists behind, they know no better. The more time you give to who wants to listen to the "pro life" message, the more as a species we move forward to what we must become, a better kind.

Hail to you Haley O.

"A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite."

Leo Tolstoy

http://www.eatveg.com/tolstoy.htm

Kind regards,

Dan Bekkering