Intolerance is Sometimes the Only Humane Stance

There’s been a lot of talk about tolerance these days, but sometimes it seems only the Left side really takes the concept of peaceful acceptance to heart. Fair-minded folk are encouraged to politely tolerate each other’s differences in order to get along. But lately the anti-wolf faction has hijacked the word to justify the killing of wolves.

For example, ten Washington state legislators recently urged their Fish and Wildlife Commission to enact a policy of allowing the unpermitted killing of wolves, “to maintain social tolerance for gray wolves in northeast Washington.” And a wolf-hunter/wildlife snuff film producer told NPR News, “Having these [wolf] hunting seasons has provided a level of tolerance again.” Sorry, but I just don’t see how killing wolves promotes tolerance for them; sounds more like enmity than tolerance.

The only way I can relate is from a converse perspective: doing away with a few wolf hunters might provide some level of tolerance for them.

Still, tolerance should not be just a catchall catchword to be bandied about whenever the mood strikes—some things don’t deserve to be tolerated. No caring person should be expected to tolerate the mistreatment of others. Anyone with a sense of right and wrong should eventually come to the conclusion that intolerance is sometimes the only humane stance to take.

Intolerant is what Japanese whalers label anti-whaling groups or non-whaling nations when they question the “right” to harpoon and butcher whales or trap and slaughter dolphins. South Koreans, who literally torture dogs to death and boil cats alive in the belief that doing so makes them taste better or improves their medicinal value, call humane activists intolerant when they oppose those barbarous customs. And European and American producers of foie gras scream cultural intolerance when animal advocates work to end the bizarre practice of shoving a pipe down the throats of geese and force feeding them until their livers swell or their stomachs burst, whichever comes first.

Meanwhile hunters and trappers expect us to tolerate the torment they unleash on wolves and other wildlife. Members of a civilized society should not hesitate to take a stand against cruelty to other sentient beings—who are fully capable of suffering—in the same way they oppose cruelty to human victims.

This post includes an excerpt for the book, Exposing the Big Game; Living Targets of a Dying Sport.

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2013. All Rights Reserved

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2013. All Rights Reserved

30 thoughts on “Intolerance is Sometimes the Only Humane Stance

    • Who ever said that “Tolerance is a virtue” obviously never was hurt or abused at the hand of another. Like many of my fellow Native Americans singing the war cry “Idle No More”, I pledged to myself that I would not sit by and do nothing but reading all the bad news posted about hunting, trapping and bad laws and worse bad management agencies managing our wildlife. It has to stop soon or we will lose all our wildlife. I still read all the bad news. But I also get out and do something to change it too. I will not sit by and watch it happen quietly. Screw tolerance! I’ve seen enough.

  1. Pingback: Intolerance is Sometimes the Only Humane Stance | Forty Two Teeth

  2. This president is a total disaster and after waiting 8 long years to get rid of fat, white republicans and their anti-environment agenda what do we get ? they are killing everything and the democrats are no where in sight between depts. of interior and agric. animals do not stand a chance – just the livestock industry – which ironically is killing people w/ their “product” – have you taken a look @that mess of humanity that live between the east coast and west coast – fat, medical disaster mess, missing their teeth, without education and totally unaware of the land – disgusting!

  3. Pingback: Intolerance is Sometimes the Only Humane Stance | Oltre l'Ostacolo

  4. Mainstream environmentalists and the culture at large have been way too kind to those who are destroying life on this planet, and it’s gone on long enough. The time has come for us to make a stand, to draw our line in the sand and say “No more.” Delierately inflicting pain and suffering on any living being is morally and ethically wrong, and should never under any circumstances be tolerated in a so-called “civilized” society.

  5. “tolerance” goes into a deeper level in this madness, is this is at least able to be tolerated? I do not even tolerate the existence of hunters…I mean there must be a more profound reason or explanation to this that everywhere I look I can never find, I want to believe that only being a greedy neanderthal jerkbag is not the full reason of this… I sit here with my high school work always thinking on exactly when will another innocent wolf will fall victim of this travesty…I deeply wonder what drives this people, it’s not only greed or ego issues, I can observe the pureness of their joy, I can see the legit smile on their faces when they have succeeded in having an innocent creature struggling for its life, and then giving them the most horrid ending they could possible come up with.. What makes us so different? how can I be devastated by witnessing this and how come they blatantly do this without remorse? aren’t we the same species? how is it that they can take it? like I said before, I want to believe there is something else to it.. Gotta leave for school, thanks for this eloquent post..

      • Exactly–they are sociopaths, and the federal govt. is enabling and supporting their twisted sickness. Just cannot understand how the Obama administration and the Dems have allowed this to happen. Money, power, and politics are more important than life itself. Time for a revolution.

  6. “Members of a civilized society should not hesitate to take a stand against cruelty to other sentient beings—who are fully capable of suffering—in the same way they oppose cruelty to human victims.”

    Totally agree, Jim. I get tired of all the mainstream environmental groups who keep compromising wildlife and wild habitat away. They’re afraid to make waves, afraid to lose money, afraid of being seen as too “radical,” afraid that if they don’t “work” with those who are doing the killing, they will lose their credibility. What they fail to see is that by compromising with the killers and tolerating this needless barbarism, they are perpetuating the very destruction they claim to oppose.

    Killing wolves to increase tolerance of them? Reminds me of the officer in Vietnam who defended the destruction of a village occupied by Vietnamese civilians by saying, “We had to destroy it to save it.” Complete and utter madness.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s