Thanksgiving request: Thinking about somebody outside ourselves

Thanksgiving request: Thinking about somebody outside ourselves

from Susie Duncan Sexton

description Share, share, share and care, care, care, and stop eating animals? May your days be merry and bright IF you care about all species every second! Let’s get shelter animals homes and stop breeding farm animals and teaching children to kill – and terrorism can get nipped in the bud.

Dammit…it is the TRUTH! Thinking about somebody outside ourselves…and stopping the slaughter of animals? That is the perfect start to CALMING DOWN, folks! Lord have mercy on us all.


The secret of life? Embracing all who live WHILE we live. We are only here for a few seconds after all. Make some kind of fabulous difference? Thanks for reading! And vote for Hillary, too!


Vegans Should Care About Overpopulation


Yesterday a commenter here suggested that vegans (animal rightsists) don’t care about the problem of overpopulation. That may seem true for some, but it’s certainly not my experience. Those animal-rightsists that I know who are adamantly opposed to human overpopulation are so in part because they have seen animals suffering from their overpopulation.

A friend who is unwaveringly against human overpopulation remarked, “I don’t understand why people want to have babies in this day and age.” I’ve often pondered that. I went to bed last night ruminating on the question. I don’t know that I found the answer, but ironically I read about that same subject in a book about a woman (Diane Downs) who loved having babies, but then paradoxically shot her three kids.

The book goes on to depict her motive for having kids—as she put it, she was “lonely.” Normally, I would advise someone who is lonely to get a dog or cat, but I would hate to see the animal be shot or otherwise mistreated. Oh, sure, there was more to it than just being lonely. In this case, she wanted someone to have control (authority) over.  These reasons only scratch the surface and of course don’t apply to everyone.

Here’s a list a vegan friend put together of why she chose not to have kids…

For me it was:

  • No different than animal overpopulation. If I don’t feel that I can ethically breed my cat, why is it any better for ME to contribute to an overburdened planet? I mean, come on…are my genes really that special?
  • If I want a child that badly, why wouldn’t I adopt one of the countless hurting children looking for a home?
  • Choosing not to be consumed for two decades by parenting allows me instead to be a productive activist, fully, my entire life.
  • I’ve spared my never-to-be-born child the horrors of a world that is quickly becoming uninhabitable (because of human overpopulation, warfare, environmental degradation, etc.).
  • Cost effective! [If a person can barely afford to feed themselves, what business do they have bringing another human into this world?]
  • Finally, there’s no guarantee that a child I raised would embrace my vegan pacifist values. How would I feel if my child became a school bully or butcher or political warmonger or turkey sandwich eater? Devastating

So, why would a male want to procreate in such an overcrowded world? Maybe it’s the desire to have a “mini me” to do your bidding or to go on after you’re gone, thus creating a sense of immortality. But a person would have to really have a lot of faith in the future in order to buy into that.

Take the Pledge Against Extinction

Take Extinction Off Your Plate

Pledge to Take Extinction Off Your Plate


Meat production is one of the planet’s largest causes of environmental degradation and most significant threats to wildlife.

And the problem is rapidly getting worse: Production of beef, poultry, pork and other meat products tripled between 1980 and 2010 and will likely double again by 2050. This increasing meat consumption in a world of more than 7 billion people is taking a staggering toll on wildlife, habitat, water resources, air quality and the climate. Meanwhile, Americans eat more meat per capita than almost any other country in the world.

By signing the pledge below to reduce meat consumption by one-third or more, we can start to take extinction off our plates. Join the Center’s Earth-friendly Diet Campaign today.

Already a vegetarian? Then you’re a valuable wildlife advocate who can help others join the movement. Spread the word by taking the pledge and asking your friends to sign.

Protect wildlife — pledge today to eat an Earth-friendly diet.

We, the undersigned, pledge to take extinction off our plates by reducing the amount of meat we consume and/or telling our friends to join the Earth-friendly Diet campaign.

By cutting just one-third of the meat from our diets, we can each save as much as 340,667 gallons of water, more than 4,000 square feet of land, and the greenhouse gas equivalent of driving 2,700 fewer miles a year.

Many of our current environmental crises are either directly caused by or worsened by our culture’s dependence on meat. By meating less, we give the world and wildlife a break.

Watch “Mission Blue,” Before It’s Too Late!


I saw it the other night. Excellent, extremely important documentary–I highly recommend it!!

I wish you would use all means at your disposal—films, expeditions, the web, new submarines—to create a campaign to ignite public support for a global network of marine protected areas; Hope Spots large enough to save and restore the blue heart of the planet.

Mission Blue is an initiative of the Sylvia Earle Alliance (S.E.A.) to ignite public support for the protection of Hope Spots—special places that are vital to the health of the ocean, the blue heart of our planet. We draw inspiration from the vision of our founder, Dr. Sylvia Earle, and are uniting a global coalition of partners to inspire an upwelling of public awareness, access and support for a worldwide network of marine protected areas. From the seamounts of the high seas to the shallow sunlit reefs, Mission Blue seeks to bring about a significant increase in ocean protection from less than four percent today to 20% by the year 2020.  Under Dr. Earle’s leadership, the Mission Blue team has embarked on a series of expeditions to further this vision and shed light on these ocean Hope Spots. We also bring the discoveries and stories of a network of ocean experts to the public through documentaries, social and traditional media, and innovative tools like Google’s “Explore the Ocean” layer. Additionally, we support the work of many conservation NGOs with whom we share the basic mission of ocean protection and public awareness. Currently, the Mission Blue coalition includes over 100 respected ocean conservation groups and like-minded organizations — from large multinational companies down to individual scientific teams doing important research. Decades of overfishing, pollution, climate change, acidification and other human pressures threaten the fundamental nature of the ocean—and therefore threaten the future of humankind. We encourage all global citizens who care about our ocean to reach out and support Mission Blue in any way they can. Presently, less than four percent of the ocean is fully protected; just years ago, that number was around 1 percent. With concerted effort and passionate people, we can continue this positive trend and help create a global network of Hope Spots, the seeds of tomorrow’s healthy ocean.

When Ryan supports hunting, he turns his back on American values

When Ryan supports hunting, he turns his back on American values

 by Ingrid Newkirk

Gun violence is a divisive issue in America, but one gun-related trend has become clear over the last 30 years: Fewer Americans hunt.

Corporations that make guns and hunting accessories are busy trying to fight this trend and get members of Congress to promote hunting by arming them with specious arguments about the right to bear arms. But Americans outside the Beltway get the absurdity—the 2nd Amendment was drafted to defend citizens against a government gone haywire, not against ducks and deer.

Consider what new Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) says of a pathetic little group in Congress called the “Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus”: “It’s about protecting our rights, our habitat, and our access.” For him to imply that hunters are victims is absurd, and he is far too clever to believe it himself.Perhaps we might learn something about members’ motivation from revelations like this: In April 2013, Ryan cosponsored HR 322, a pro-hunting bill that the Safari Club International (SCI) wanted passed. Just 5 legislative days after doing what SCI wanted, Ryan accepted a $1,000 check from SCI. The House Ethics Committee is being asked to investigate this seeming transaction and others like it in which gun and hunting industry corporations give cash to members’ re-election campaigns in order to get what they want.

SCI couldn’t be further from American public opinion. SCI promotes the killing of the “Big Five” species (elephants, rhinos, leopards, Cape buffalo, and lions), which requires no skill, just deep pockets and the ability to squeeze a trigger. Walter Palmer, the dentist who murdered the beloved lion Cecil, was a member, as was German entrepreneur Rainer Schorr, who shot the biggest elephant seen in Zimbabwe in decades. It’s less of a sport than a pathology: “Big Five” hunting, like sex tourism, enables men to fulfill dark empowerment fantasies that hurt victims on foreign soil.

But the above-mentioned “Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus” is not much better. Do most Americans even want this caucus to exist? Do we want our national leaders supporting a hobby that teaches children to kill others? It is this lack of empathy that PETA works to counter: Whenever hunters accidentally get shot, PETA contacts them and asks them to realize that the animals they hunt experience the same thing or worse and encourages them to rediscover the empathy that got buried within them when someone taught them to hunt.

The panicky last gasps of the hunting industry can also be seen in the “right to hunt” amendments that it has been sending to state legislatures in hopes of protecting hunting despite public opinion against it.

Does Ryan’s support for hunting represent his home state of Wisconsin? Not really, 2014 Wisconsin hunting license sales were the lowest since 1976. It’s not even accurate to say that he’s representing most members of Congress. Many members in both chambers and both parties work hard on behalf of their constituents to protect animals by getting the federal government to hold animal abusers accountable and ensure that the Animal Welfare Act is enforced.

A practicing Catholic, Ryan’s bloodlust is also contrary to many Americans’ religious beliefs, including his own. His church clearly dictates that we should respect creation, not destroy it, and Pope Francis has condemned violence on numerous occasions. Yet Ryan frequently cites his faith during political discourse.

Ryan’s zeal for hunting isn’t even representative of conservative values. Hunting celebrates death, exposes children to gun violence and wastes millions of taxpayer dollars every year through the bloated U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its state agencies. And the U.S. taxpayer foots the bill.

Americans hate oppressors, and hunting epitomizes oppression: the powerful ganging up on the weak. A wise elected official would recognize that it’s not just human beings who have a right to fair treatment and protection from cruelty.

Americans across the political spectrum have a right of their own: the right to be disappointed that Speaker Ryan would ignore public sentiment, take SCI’s money and do SCI’s bidding. I join the millions of Americans who hope he will stop doing the hunting industry’s bidding and shift his support away from the cruel blood sport.

Newkirk is the president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), 501 Front St., Norfolk, VA 23510;

Environmental and Animal Groups: Views on Hunting


There are a number of local, state, national and international organizations that publicly concern themselves with caring for animals and protecting the environment. Some have their foundations a century ago or longer (such as Audubon Society in the late 1800s), while others are relatively new to the scene (such as Love Canada Geese in 2005). Among these groups are several that clearly state their opposition to any form of hunting (particularly the Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting), while others publicly align themselves with hunters (including The Wilderness Society ). Some organizations have chosen to maintain a neutral or “apolitical” stance with regard to hunting, or take exception to particular types of hunting or targets of hunting (such as Defenders of Wildlife, which focuses much of its effort on ending aerial hunting of wolves) but typically do not address the broader ecological impact of hunting.


This wiki is designed primarily with the objective of providing information for anyone interested in learning more about the specific views on hunting held by numerous purportedly pro-animal and pro-environment organizations. As with any wiki, it is intended as a work in progress, with the goal of encouraging collaborative efforts to add more information and more groups as new knowledge is found or developed. The initial outline is focused on identifying organizations that belong to three main groups as described above:

  • Organizations that publicly oppose hunting
  • Organizations that ally themselves with hunters
  • Organizations that are self-described as neutral, or oppose only limited types or targets of hunting

Within each group, organizations will be added as support for their group membership becomes available (whether as quoted on their websites, or confirmed by an official representative via documented communication), and anecdotes, examples, and other information related to each organization’s views on hunting will be used to develop a clearer view of where these environmental and animal organizations stand on hunting.

The Animals Voice[edit]

The Animals Voice is primarily a website and magazine-based publication launched in 1987, but its use as a tool by activists for networking and dissemination of information has given it a fair amount of heft in pro-animal communities. They support animal liberation, and are against recreational hunting, typically advocating a vegetarian lifestyle.

“The Animals Voice Statement of Purpose:

The purpose of The Animals Voice is to effect the liberation of animals. Through our online database of hard-hitting editorial and photography, resources and networking, as well as through our award-winning, international animal rights magazine, we have already proven our potential among activists and adversaries as being a powerful force in the changes necessary for the betterment in the living and dying conditions for animals around the planet. We promise to continue our work in globally networking activists and organizations, and in educating and enlightening everyone who visits or reads our material about the desperate plight of animals and what part they can do to cause animal liberation.”[1]

ASPCA: The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals[edit]

The ASPCA was founded by Henry Bergh in 1866 and works to rescue abused animals and to support animal shelters nationwide. It was the first humane society to be established in North America, and is one of the largest in the world today. Henry Bergh believed that animals should be protected by the law, and the ASPCA has the legal authority to investigate and make arrests for crimes against animals. While its primary focus has been on maintaining shelters and preventing the abuse of domestic pets, the ASPCA also has a strong policy against sport hunting.

From their website: “Because there is no guarantee that wildlife taken in sport hunting will be killed outright or spared the distress of pursuit and possible wounding and escape, the ASPCA is opposed to hunting animals for sport, even if the animals killed in this way are subsequently consumed. The ASPCA does recognize that wildlife management may be necessary in situations where animal and human interests collide, but urges that management strategies be nonlethal wherever possible and never include avoidable suffering or distress.”

Animal Aid[edit]

Founded in 1977, Animal Aid is a British organization that is against animal abuse and promotes a “cruelty-free lifestyle.” Their campaigns range from promoting vegetarianism and veganism to ending activities such as the “game” bird industry, fox hunting, factory farming, and animal experimentation.

From their website: “Animal Aid are opposed to all forms of animal cruelty – and we therefore strongly oppose hunting. Hunting with hounds has no place in modern Britain. It should have ended years ago along with cock-fighting, bear-baiting and dog-fighting. When animal cruelty is portrayed by some as a ‘sport’ to get pleasure from it debases society and promotes even more animal cruelty. It is not just foxes and other wildlife who suffer. Horses and dogs are also victims of hunting – viewed simply as ‘sporting accessories’ many sustain fatal injuries during the gruelling chase.”

Best Friends Animal Society[edit]

Best Friends was started in Arizona in the 1970s as a no-kill shelter that eventually grew into a large animal sanctuary, currently situated in Angel Canyon, Utah. They gained non-profit charity status in 1991 and provide a home to over 1,500 animals, and their primary goal is No More Homeless Pets, a community that is part of the larger Best Friends Network. They have a significant internet presence through this network, which provides news and information as well as a way for animal activists to connect both online and off. Their Animal Help staff responds to over 20,000 requests for assistance each year, and while their focus is on domestic/companion animals, they also have a strong anti-hunting stance, which was shared by Member Liaison Dori Jeurink:

“Best Friends is a no-kill organization, and we are dedicated to kindness towards all creatures. Therefore, we do not support activities that objectify animals, reduce their quality of life, or harm them in any way.” [2]

Born Free Foundation[edit]

Started in England in 1984 by the stars of the film Born Free, Virginia McKenna and Bill Travers, Born Free is “devoted to compassionate conservation and animal welfare.” Their goals include protecting endangered species, preventing animal suffering, establishing wildlife sanctuaries, and enabling people to live side by side with wildlife in their local communities without conflict. They are opposed to captive breeding, canned hunting, and trophy hunting.

From their website: “Whether its fighting the ivory trade and ‘sport’ hunting, opposing killing wild animals for ‘bushmeat’, or challenging the exploitation of wild animals in zoos and circuses, Born Free takes action on the front line for animals.”

Born Free USA (previously Animal Protection Institute)[edit]

API was co-founded in 1968 by Belton Mouras and Ken Guerrero, and Born Free USA was established in the United States in 2002 as a companion organization to the Born Free Foundation. Their mission statement is “to alleviate animal suffering, protect threatened and endangered species in the wild, and encourage everyone to treat wildlife everywhere with respect and compassion.”

Born Free USA has been involved in causes aimed to prevent funds earmarked for conservation from supporting hunting, opposing a Senate bill aimed at hunting conservation. Born Free USA “objects to this bill because it would fund projects related to hunting and habitat improvements for that purpose.”

Coalition to Prevent the Destruction of Canada Geese[edit]

Founded in 1993 to put a halt to the needless killing of Canada geese in Rockland County, New York, the Coalition is focused on nonlethal conflict resolution between humans and Canada geese, but publicly condemns hunting of other animals for sport as well. They also list other anti-hunting sites on their website.

The Coalition to Prevent the Destruction of Canada Geese is also actively involved in exposing the role wildlife agencies play in promoting hunting. Since wildlife agencies often rely on hunting license fees to pay managers’ salaries, and most agency managers are (or were) hunters, the primary motivation behind wildlife agencies’ supporting hunting is based on obtaining more resources, not “managing” wildlife.

From their mission statement: “We also work to expose how the economic infrastructure of government wildlife management actually perpetuates human-wildlife conflicts while simultaneously encouraging a bias that favors killing as a form of problem solving. We seek a complete renovation of this operating philosophy. Until such time, we advocate the use of humane, non-lethal methods to resolve or minimize the conflicts between Canada geese and humans.”

Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT)[edit]

Formed in 1997, CAFT is a grass-roots campaign against the fur trade in Great Britain.

“Although we only focus on anti-fur campaigns we are opposed to all animal cruelty / animal use, including all forms of hunting”[5]

Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting (CASH)[edit]

CASH is a committee of Wildlife Watch, Inc. and its mission is “to accomplish what its name says in the shortest possible time.” CASH provides materials to effectively argue against different methods of hunting as well as other lethal methods of resolving human-wildlife conflicts (baiting, trapping, etc.). Member Peter Muller’s No-Cull website provides responses to common rationales used by hunters to “justify” deer hunting, including basic points to make as well as documents supporting anti-hunting perspectives:

Argument from Overpopulation[edit]

Some hunters argue that without hunting, wildlife populations will exceed “social carrying capacity.” In fact, hunted herds have been shown to demonstrate a greater percentage increase in population one year after a hunt than unhunted herds[6].

Argument from Ecological Destruction[edit]

Some hunters argue that “culling” deer populations is necessary to preserve plant life, or that “culling” predators is necessary to preserve prey species. However, many more factors are involved in environmental changes such as decreases in a particular plant species[7], from climate change to soil erosion, and hunting is more likely to contribute to imbalances in the ecosystem than to serve as a “corrective” for ecological change.

Argument that Overpopulation contributes to Car Collisions[edit]

Some hunters argue that if it weren’t for hunting, there would be even more wildlife-car collisions. In fact, more animals are on the move during hunting seasons, resulting in a consistent increase in collisions between wildlife and automobiles[8].

Argument that Overpopulation contributes to Lyme Disease[edit]

Some hunters argue that the more dense the deer population, the more rampant Lyme Disease will be. In fact, the population of ticks carrying Lyme disease is related to the population density of rodents rather than deer[9][10].

Argument that Non-Lethal Methods of Population Control are Impractical/Expensive[edit]

According to CASH, “Immunocontraception is relatively inexpensive and has worked successfully in parks and urban/suburban settings”No-Cull.

Compassion Over Killing (COK)[edit]

Paul Shapiro was a high school sophomore in Washington when he started Compassion Over Killing in 1995. While the primary goal of COK’s campaigns is the promotion of a vegetarian lifestyle and an end to animal abuse, focusing on an end to animal cruelty in agriculture, it does support an anti-hunting stance. Literature on the website describes hunting as a form of animal abuse and cruelty[11][12].

Friends of Animals[edit]

Founded in 1957, Friends of Animals “advocates for the right of animals to live free according to their own terms.” They are a strongly anti-hunting organization that also supports a vegetarian lifestyle. One of their main goals is to abolish hunting altogether, and they are “unequivocally against hunting and the destructive methods of ‘wildlife management’ that caters to, and fosters hunting. Hunting is an act against Nature on both moral and biological grounds.”[13]

According to Friends of Animals, hunting is cruel, deceitful, socially unjustifiable, and ecologically disruptive:

Hunting is Cruel[edit]

Hunting causes gratuitous pain to wild animals.

Hunting is Deceitful[edit]

Hunters try to disguise the reality of hunting with euphemisms such as “harvests,” “culls,” “wildlife management,” “bag limits,” “sport,” “game,” and many others.

Hunting is Socially Unjustifiable[edit]

It is an unnecessary waste of life and resources.

Hunting is Ecologically Disruptive[edit]

Hunting disrupts natural ecological dynamics. “Wildlife management” of deer in particular actually increases the number of deer, but alters the proportion of males to females since hunting almost solely targets male deer, and since hunters seek out “trophy” deer it is typically the strongest of the species that are killed.

The Fund for Animals[edit]

Cleveland Amory, an author and animal advocate, founded The Fund for Animals in 1967. In 2005, the Fund became part of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). “The Fund has won landmark lawsuits to protect animals from hunting and trapping, and the organization is currently fighting for animals with the help of the Animal Protection Litigation section. This group of full-time attorneys, law clerks, and pro bono law firms are defending animals in federal and state courts from cruelty and abuse. The Fund’s current cases seek to protect endangered species, stop the abuse of circus elephants, keep national wildlife refuges safe for animals, and much more.”[14]

As an HSUS subsidiary, the Fund no longer has separate public positions. Fact sheets issued by the Fund for Animals before the merger are available on the Internet Archive.[15]

Sport Hunting is Ecologically Destructive[edit]

Hunters kill many endangered and threatened animals, including bald eagles, golden eagles, grizzly bears, Florida panthers, and whooping cranes. In addition, hunters annually position themselves along the migratory flyways and massacre, often indiscriminately, millions of ducks. Though some states are outlawing lead in bullets, many hunters still use toxic lead shot.

Hunting Disrupts Natural Selection[edit]

Individuals who would not normally have reproductive success will have it because hunters do not select the weakest animals as nature does. By often killing the ablest, hunters downgrade the quality of the gene pool.

State Wildlife Agencies Propagate ‘Game’ Species[edit]

On average, over 90 percent of funds go to “game” species projects, when non-game animals make up a majority of the ecosystem. State agencies also spend millions of dollars burning and clearcutting forests and stocking “game” animals. Finally, further funds are directed towards enforcing hunting regulations, providing hunter education courses, and building target shooting ranges.

Hunters Endanger Non-Hunters[edit]

Non-hunters are not safe walking in the woods during hunting season, have fewer chances to view wild animals, and are not given the same voice in determining how wildlife is treated. Although hunters make up less than 10% of the public, they are given an undue influence in determining wildlife and land “management” policies.

“For these reasons and others, The Fund for Animals opposes sport hunting and seeks a restructuring of state wildlife boards and commissions to ensure that all parties legitimately concerned about wildlife are proportionately represented.”

Global Anti Hunting Coalition[edit]

Founded by Anthony Marr in 2009, this brand-new organization currently has a myspace page and a blog, but is already being promoted by other organizations that oppose hunting, who are posting Mr. Marr’s 36-states-in-6-months Compassion for Animals Road Expedition #7 (CARE-7). “All groups and individuals opposed to hunting, trapping, and culling (including recreational hunting, trophy hunting, whaling, dolphin slaughter, seal massacre, wildlife population reductions, the illegal wildlife trade, the fur industry, etc.) can become part of this newly formed coalition, which has the capacity to significantly strengthen any local campaign by bringing the attention, people, resources, and pressure of our growing network of allies to bear on animal exploiters, torturers, and murderers. On December 9, 2009, with barely a week’s notice and with little backing behind us, we made a sizeable impact at Shawnee Mission Park in Kansas City by means of the Funeral Motorcade for the Deer, which garnered coverage by at least 2 TV channels, 2 newspapers and 2 radio stations.”[16]

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)[edit]

Founded in 1954, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) “seeks a humane and sustainable world for all animals—a world that will also benefit people. We are America’s mainstream force against cruelty, exploitation and neglect, as well as the most trusted voice extolling the human-animal bond.”[17] The HSUS supports both local humane societies and a Human Wildlife Services program. Their campaigns target such activities as dogfighting and cockfighting, abusive puppy mills, factory farming, canned hunting, internet hunting, horse slaughter, dove shooting, pheasant stocking, bear trophy hunting, contest kills, poaching, fox pens, and the fur trade[18].

The Human Society’s policy statement on wildlife and hunting makes it clear that “The HSUS actively seeks to eliminate the most inhumane and unfair sporthunting practices, such as the use of body-gripping traps, baiting, use of dogs, pigeon shoots, stocking of animals for shooting, and fee-hunting on enclosed properties. Unfortunately, the welfare of animals may, on occasion, necessitate the killing of wildlife. When such killing is permitted, it must be used as a last resort, be demonstrably necessary, and be conducted by responsible officials, and the methods utilized must result in an instantaneous and humane death. The legitimate needs of human subsistence may also sometimes necessitate the killing of wildlife. In such cases, killing should be accomplished in a humane and non-wasteful manner. Individuals of endangered or threatened species must be protected from subsistence hunting.”

In Defense of Animals (IDA)[edit]

In 1983, veterinarian Elliot Katz began IDA — initially called Californians for Responsible Research — when he joined with others to take legal action against UC Berkeley for violations of the Animal Welfare Act. Today, IDA campaigns against animal abuse in Korea, animals in entertainment, dissection, foie gras, fur, puppy mills, and vivisection, among other atrocities.

The IDA Wildlife Campaign includes literally dozens of anti-hunting campaigns, and IDA is a proponent of banning sport hunting, blood sports, trophy hunting, and aerial hunting. Their website includes non-lethal alternatives for coexisting with wildlife without conflict.

International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)[edit]

The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) was started in 1969 in New Brunswick, Canada by a small group of people who wanted to stop the the commercial hunt for seal pups in Canada. IFAW now has offices worldwide dedicated to several animal protection campaigns: providing emergency relief during disasters, ending commercial whaling, stopping ivory poaching, fighting the illegal wildlife trade, ending the seal hunt, helping dogs and cats, supporting humane education, and banning hunting with hounds.

While IFAW’s anti-hunting activities tend to be directed towards specific campaigns, such as ending trophy hunting of bears and banning canned hunting and captive breeding, they are generally against sport hunting, though there may be minor variations between international offices. The Animal Welfare Manifesto makes it clear that IFAW favors strong restrictions on trophy hunting and wildlife hunting as well as the banning of commercial whaling, elephant hunting, fox hunting with dogs, and seal hunting. In addition, James Isiche, the regional director of IFAW in East Africa, takes an anti-sport hunting stance[19]. IFAW does, however, work with more “apolitical” groups as well as state and federal wildlife agencies from time to time, so IFAW may be a borderline case for inclusion in the anti-hunting category.

Last Chance for Animals (LCA)[edit]

Founded in 1984 by Hollywood actor Chris DeRose, LCA began as an anti-vivisection organization using nonviolent strategies and “direct action.” LCA has expanded its campaigns to include protests against factory farming, the fur trade, animal experimentation, and animals in entertainment. They also campaign against pet theft, puppy mills, and animal fighting and promote animal sanctuaries, humane education, and vegan activism. Along with Compassion Over Killing and several other organizations, they are a member of the Coalition to Abolish the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

LCA’s statement of philosophy: “Last Chance for Animals (LCA) recognizes that animals have the ability to experience pain, and as such they deserve certain basic rights protecting them from pain caused by humans. LCA believes that non-human animals should not be subjected to suffering and exploitation by humans because alternatives exist for nearly every traditional ‘usage’ of animals. LCA opposes the use of animals for scientific curiosity, entertainment, clothing, and food. LCA recognizes the use of non-human animals in medical experimentation as both immoral and of questionable scientific validity due to the tremendous biological difference between species. LCA’s work advocates conscious and informed lifestyle decisions, and the organization is committed to disseminating truthful information about societal animal abuse to improve the treatment of animals.”

Although hunting is not one of LCA’s campaign areas, “Yes LCA is against hunting . . . If you go to youtube our founder Chris DeRose recently did a video asking President Obama to demand an end to all Whaling”[20]

Love Canada Geese[edit]

Love Canada Geese is primarily a website by Choo and Earl Rosenbloom, but is included here as it is also a source of information on Canada geese and humane (cruelty-free and non-lethal) methods of geese population control. In addition, many articles on the site address problems with hunting and non-lethal alternatives to wildlife “management.” According to Choo, “Love Canada Geese is definitely opposed to hunting of all animals” and “We need to get the message out there that hunting should be banned.”[21] The website also includes an article by Barry Kent MacCay that debunks several common Hunting Myths.

Northwest Animal Rights Network (NARN)[edit]

Northwest Animal Rights Network was founded in 1986 as a Seattle-based animal rights organization concerned with ending animal exploitation in the food, entertainment, experimentation, and fashion industries. NARN’s campaigns include anti-cruelty litigation in Washington State, banning foie gras in Seattle, demonstrating against vivisection and animal experimentation, supporting activists in prison, and vegan outreach. NARN is also against factory farming, the fur trade, and the use of animals in entertainment such as circuses, rodeos, dog and horse racing.

While hunting is not one of NARN’s main campaign issues, according to Peter Keller (a member of the Board of Directors), “we are indeed against hunting. We recently partnered with the Global Anti-Hunting Coalition in the stance against hunting, and co-ordinated an action with them in their tour across the US and had a successful protest action with them to start off this years’ tour for them. In short, we oppose any violence taken against any animals, and hunting is an egregious form of it. We also work for the animals that are confined and tortured for the food, fashion, research, and entertainment industries, because we feel animals shouldn’t be used for those purposes”[22].

Helping people & wildlife coexist since 1990

Progressive Animal Welfare Society (PAWS)[edit]

Founded in 1967, PAWS operates both an animal shelter and a wildlife rehabilitation center. Also known as People Helping Animals, PAWS devotes time to both companion animals and wildlife in its campaigns, and takes a very explicit anti-hunting stance. Their work is focused in Washington State, where they made a point of encouraging non-hunting citizens to participate in the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2008 wildlife management survey, since “92% of those surveyed held hunting licenses!”[23]

PAWS operates a no-kill shelter, promotes spaying and neutering clinics, and led a campaign to ban the use of cruel traps on wildlife in 2000[24]. PAWS began wildlife rehabilitation in 1981. “Our goal is to return the animals to the wild with the best possible chance of survival. We do not keep any wild animals permanently in captivity, for display or for educational purposes.”[25]

PAWS also educates adults and children on how to peacefully co-exist with wild animals, works to pass legislation to protect wild animals in Washington State, and provides practical humane solutions for solving conflicts with wildlife. Their vision is for “this world to be a place where all people recognize the intrinsic value of animal life, are mindful of the impact of their daily behaviors and choices on animals, and consistently demonstrate compassion and respect” and their core beliefs include “the recognition and respect of the intrinsic value of animal life,” “the right of animals to be free from cruelty, neglect and abuse,” and “the preservation of wild species and their habitats.”

“Wild animals are best served by being allowed to live undisturbed in their natural environment. Wild animals should not be owned as household pets or property. Wild animals of any kind should not be used for commercial exploitation.”[26]

Royal Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) — Australia[edit]

The first Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Australia was founded in Victoria in 1871. It joined with subsequently founded societies to become the Royal Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in 1923.[27] Its mission is to prevent cruelty to animals, and its campaigns include promoting cage-free farming, improving the treatment of dairy cows, promoting spaying and neutering of companion animals, banning duck hunting, opposing the live export trade of animals, and encouraging humane methods of animal control, among many others.

RSPCA Australia has clearly worded policies against hunting animals for sport as well as specifically against hunting wild animals for sport.

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) — United Kingdom


Animal rights activists put a bounty on the head of a man who shot a bull elephant.

Trophy hunter

By Jaymi McCann

The hunter and a guide with the lifeless body of the huge bull elephant he paid £39,000 to kill

The man, said to be a German who paid £39,000 to go on the hunt in a national park in Zimbabwe, was pictured with the corpse of the elephant, thought to be the largest killed in 30 years with 120lb tusks.

Animal rights group Peta Germany has offered a 1,000 euro (£735) reward for the man’s identity.


Walter Palmer caused outrage when he took a picture with the lifeless body of Cecil the lion

ime’s about up for trophy hunters and the world wants to know exactly who this cowardly man is who’s in hiding after gunning down a magnificent elephant, who, like Cecil the lion, wanted only to be left in peace

Ingrid Newkirk, Peta president

Peta president Ingrid Newkirk said: “Time’s about up for trophy hunters and the world wants to know exactly who this cowardly man is who’s in hiding after gunning down a magnificent elephant, who, like Cecil the lion, wanted only to be left in peace.”

Peta wants the man to face the consequences of “killing and hacking apart an animal to feed his psychotic need to take a life”.


Poacher being apprehended in Kruger National Park

The elephant may have been Nkombo, a massive bull from the Kruger National Park in South Africa, just over the border. The row follows global outrage sparked by US dentist Walter Palmer, who shot Cecil with a high-powered crossbow.

Zimbabwe conservationist Johnny Rodrigues said: “We need international laws and the UN to make the killing and import of these animals illegal.”

 Dominic Dyre, of the Born Free Foundation, said: “Elephants are being lost at a massive rate. Allowing trophy hunting gives the green light to poaching.

“The money goes back to President Robert Mugabe’s corrupt regime.”

Humans: Uniquely Unique or Chronic Rationalizers?


As far as the rights and welfare of all other species of animals are concerned, human arrogance—narcissistic notions of human supremacy over nonhumans—is the root of all evil.

Ever since my youngest days, I’ve always instinctively known that the “us and them” cultural given was wrong-headed, and that having two sets of laws, one for our species and one for all others, is absurd at best.

This has been backed up by much that I have read over the years. In an effort to counter centuries of long-accepted dogma intended to instill anthropocentric attitudes, philosophers like Peter Singer, with his Animal Liberation, and scientists like Jared Diamond and Richard Leaky, in The Third Chimpanzee and The Sixth Extinction respectively, have devoted sections of their books to debunk outdated beliefs of human preeminence and superiority.

To further put humans in their rightful place, the following is something I happened on last night in the late John A. Livingston’s 1994 book, Rogue Primate:

“Few exercises in rationalization have involved quite so much intellectual pretzel-bending as the task of demonstrating absolute human uniqueness. Our obsession with this is revealing. It’s not enough that every individual, and every species, is a unique, one-time-only, event. Fanatical humanism demands more. All species are unique, we may acknowledge, but one species is uniquely unique. Which reveals a good deal more than bizarre English usage.

“Thanks to studies in ethology and behavioral ecology, the religion of human uniqueness has sustained a series of notable setbacks in our lifetime. We have had to abandon a substantial list of ‘unique attributes’: tool using, tool making, language, tradition and culture, abstraction, teaching and learning, cooperating and strategizing, and others, less inflammatory, such as caring and compassion. There’s not a lot left. But the ultimate fallback position, the central jewel in the human imperial crown, hadWashoe_chimpanzee always been self-awareness. Then along came little Washoe.

“Washoe, a chimpanzee, was raised by humans, Allen and Beatrice Gardner. She became famous as the first non-human being to learn the hand-sign language of the deaf and mute, a mode of communication seen by the Gardners as more useful to a chimpanzee (because of its anatomy) than human sounds. While still very young she became extraordinarily adept at signing, which of itself generated concern in some quarters. An ape was not only ‘speaking,’ but also, apparently carrying on conversations with her human mentors. But Washoe’s historic bombshell was kept in abeyance for a time. She had been supplied with various toys and other miscellaneous items, and had also become used to all manner of human household hardware, such as mirrors. One day, while she was looking into a mirror, she was asked ‘Who is that?’ ‘Me, Washoe,’ she signed back.

“Washoe was ‘self-aware.’ This was flabbergasting. And for many people it was deeply unsettling. We seem to be witnessing the collapse of the last bastion of human uniqueness. Something had to done about Washoe. Human brows furrowed in thought. Then came the answer. Of course! How blindingly obvious! Washoe was not aware that she was self-aware. One can almost feel the collective sigh of relief. We could not know this, of course, but it was fundamental to the shoring-up of the collective self-esteem that we asserted. Now if it were somehow demonstrated that a non-human animal was, in fact, aware of its self-awareness, then no doubt, the claim would be made that it was not, like us, aware of its awareness of its self-awareness. This could go on forever, and probably will.

“The problem of self-awareness (or rather, the problem of our unrepentant claim, in spite of Washoe and others, that beings who are not human do not have it) confuses a number of issues pertaining to the human treatment of other animals. It appears consistently in defense of vivisection, for example. ‘Sentience’ is much used as a synonym for self-awareness, or, sometimes, consciousness. Non-human animals are not sentient (consciously self-aware); therefore, it is ethically permissible to do as we please with them. Such reasoning is mystifying. Even if the living, captive individual beings (both wild and domesticated) upon whom the vivisectors visit their incomprehensible acts were not self-aware, how would that justify cruelty? No one denies that they have central nervous systems (that is one of the important reasons they are used) that they feel pain (another reason), that they entertain fear (still another). Fear without self-awareness is gibberish.

“Vivisection has its own strange ethical code, but it is not the only such structure to depend ultimately on the concept of self. Ethics rests on moral philosophy. Moral philosophy rests primarily on the individual. Presumably the concept of the individual rests ultimately on the concept of self. It used to be generally assumed that non-human beings were incapable of thinking or behaving ethically because, among other limitations, they lack the concept of self. That was pre-Washoe.

Many humanists attempt to handle the problem of self-identity in a chimpanzee by asserting that the animal lacks the capacity for reason, and therefore could never conceive of moral or ethical rights and obligations. That the animal lacks reason could be debated (there is ample evidence in many species of problem solving, which could only be conceptual). What animals very probably do lack is the power of rationalization, which would appear to be a uniquely human attribute.”


It seems, while our technological advancements and mechanical understandings may be growing rapidly, if not hastily, our acceptance of non-human awareness, and in fact, our own moral evolution, is still crawling at a snail’s pace. As it is for global warming, denialism about animal awareness is an agenda-driven form of rationalization.

KOKO-C-02AUG00-MN-HO--Koko the gorilla and her kitten. PHOTO CREDIT: RON COHN/GORILLA FOUNDATION Ran on: 02-18-2005 Koko the Gorilla seems to smile as she looks at a kitten. Koko has had many pets during her years at the Gorilla Foundation. Ran on: 02-18-2005 Koko and friend Ran on: 02-26-2005 Koko is shown in 2000 holding a kitten, one of many pets the gorilla has had in her years at the Gorilla Foundation. Ran on: 12-02-2005 Koko the gorilla is claimed to have a nipple fetish.


Bear-hunting foes take case to appeals court


After a circuit judge last week refused to block Florida’s upcoming bear-hunting season, a Seminole County group has taken the case to a state appeals court, according to online dockets.

The group Speak Up Wekiva filed a notice of appeal Thursday at the 1st District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee.

The move came a week after Leon County Circuit Judge George Reynolds denied a request for a temporary injunction to block the bear hunt, which is scheduled to start Oct. 24.

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission this summer approved the state’s first bear-hunting season in more than two decades, angering animal-rights groups.

With a goal of reducing the bear population by 320, the hunt will last two to seven days in four regions of the state.

Speak Up Wekiva has argued, at least in part, that the bear hunt is not based on sound science and that the approval goes against the constitutional duties of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson

Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson