Thousands of Chickens Perished Instantly: One Poultry Farm’s Fight Against Scorching Heat

(image: Yonhap)

(image: Yonhap)

EUMSEONG, Jul. 19 (Korea Bizwire) — When a heat wave warning was issued for all of North Chungcheong Province on Tuesday afternoon, poultry farm owners in the region were naturally on high alert.

At one poultry farm measuring 800 square meters in size situated in Maengdong-myeon in the province’s Eunseong-gun, over 17,000 chickens were seen suffering as the mercury rose.

Many chickens had collapsed, having succumbed to the heat.

The temperature circa 1:35 p.m. on Tuesday was 31.7 degrees Celsius. Seven gigantic fans were in operation, but were not enough to help cool the chickens down.

By 2 p.m., the thermometer shot up to 35 degrees. Ban, the 43-year-old owner of the poultry farm, said that the summer heat was “just as dangerous as bird flu” for the chickens.

Not paying proper attention to the chickens, even for just a moment, could result in thousands of chickens perishing instantly in the heat, said Ban.

In fact, over 20,000 chickens died on Ban’s very farm in 2016 when temperatures shot up in July.

Following the deaths of the chickens, Ban installed thermal insulation materials in all of the barns, which now helps protect the chickens from the strong summer sun.

But other poultry farms that are not equipped with heat resistant insulation try to keep cool by continuously spraying cold water on rooftops via water hoses.

In addition, farm workers monitor the internal temperature by the hour before checking large ventilation fans installed at the poultry farms to see if they are working properly.

If temperatures within the pens surpass 36 degrees Celsius, moisture mist sprays must be turned on to ensure that the chickens do not dehydrate.

Ban’s farm consumes around 40,700 liters of water every day in the summer months.

According to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, 753,191 chickens had perished from the sweltering summer heat as of July 17.

Lina Jang (linajang@koreabizwire.com)

http://koreabizwire.com/thousands-of-chickens-perished-instantly-one-poultry-farms-fight-against-scorching-heat/121641

Advertisements

Cambridge removes coyote traps after photos spark outcry

NEWS 11:52 AM by Jeff Outhit Waterloo Region Record

<https://dynamicmedia.zuza.com/zz/m/original_/0/4/04632a97-8dfb-479c-98dd-6ad894f03dd1/B88277790Z.1_20180713114959_000_G1O8JOFT.6-0_Super_Portrait.jpg>

George Aitken of Cambridge took this photo of a coyote that was caught in trap at Churchill Park in Cambridge on Wednesday. – George Aitken via Coyote Watch Canada

CAMBRIDGE — Cambridge has abandoned its plan to trap a family of coyotes in Churchill Park, ordering all three leg traps removed after photos of a trapped coyote sparked public outcry.

“I feel very relieved,” said George Aitkin, 68, who took the photographs Wednesday and posted them online.

Friday morning, the city ordered all three coyote traps removed. For now it plans to leave the coyotes and add more warning signs. It will urge people to be cautious, to not leave food for the wildlife, and to leash their dogs as required by law.

“Having the concerns of the residents and some of the animal advocacy groups, council has directed staff to simply take a step back and reassess,” said Hardy Bromberg, a deputy city manager.

RELATED CONTENT

* <https://www.therecord.com/news-story/8739119-adult-male-coyote-caught-in-churchill-park/>

<https://www.therecord.com/news-story/8739119-adult-male-coyote-caught-in-churchill-park/>

Adult male coyote caught in Churchill Park <https://www.therecord.com/news-story/8739119-adult-male-coyote-caught-in-churchill-park/>

Aitkin was walking in the park Wednesday when he was horrified to discover a coyote in distress, caught in a leg trap, hurling itself around, panting and chewing at its paw to free itself.

He said he was so distressed by the sight that he would have freed it himself if he thought he could do it safely.

The only coyote the city trapped, a male, was relocated within a kilometre on Wednesday, the city said. It may now make its way back to where it was caught, Bromberg said.

Licence to kill: Animal lovers fuming over hunting permits for Cape baboons

09 July 2018 – 15:39BY CLAIRE KEETON
The killing of baboons has sparked growing outrage among residents in Cape Town.

The killing of baboons has sparked growing outrage among residents in Cape Town. 
Image: Gallo Images/Foto24/Taryn Carr

Animal lovers and rights activists are up in arms over hunting permits granting permission to shoot two baboons a day.

The permits were issued to two wine farms in Constantia in Cape Town in October 2017.

The killing of baboons – seven of them to date – has sparked growing outrage among residents in Cape Town after it was revealed by the local Constantiaberg Bulletin newspaper.

The Bulletin reported that baboons were being shot at their sleeping sites and that some had been forced to flee into residential areas‚ where they were injured‚ shot or attacked by dogs.

Distressed Capetonians have started an online petition‚ circulated on Facebook‚ to “demand the end of the horrific baboon cull in Cape Town”.

Asked about the licences to kill baboons‚ which are valid until October‚ Cape Nature Conservation communications manager Marietjie Engelbrecht said on Monday: “A condition of the permit is that each hunt is reported and registered within 24 hours in order to monitor numbers. Daily hunts are not a practical occurrence.”

Engelbrecht said they approved the hunting permits “as a last resort to mitigate human-wildlife conflict”.

“The applicants were able to prove that they have implemented multiple non-lethal mitigation measures over a number of years to try to prevent the continued damage to vineyards and infrastructure without success‚ and have experienced extensive losses‚” she said.

However‚ the secrecy around the permits was on Monday called into question by Jenni Trethowan‚ founder of the Baboon Matters Trust.

Trethowan said the Baboon Technical Team‚ which oversees baboon management on the Cape Peninsula‚ should have gone public about the shooting of baboons if all the justifications were there.

“I’m appalled at the lack of transparency‚” she said. “We heard a lot of chatter on social groups about baboons being killed but this was the first time it has been confirmed.

“Cape Nature Conservation‚ which issued the permits‚ is on the team – as well as the city of Cape Town‚ conservation authorities and researchers. They must have known about it‚” said Trethowan.

According to Engelbrecht‚ “All members of the team were present [when they discussed permits]. I can’t tell you why the information didn’t filter down.”

Buitenverwachting owner Lars Maack told the Bulletin he had applied for a hunting licence as a last resort when electric fences and paintball guns failed to keep the baboons away from their crops and dogs‚ and staff felt threatened.

Klein Constantia vineyard manager Craig Harris told the paper that they had tried monitors with paintball guns and a “virtual fence” experiment‚ which had failed to keep the baboons away.

Hout Bay resident Patrick Semple said: “I don’t understand how wealthy farmers next to a national park can justify killing animals from the national park because they are coming over to eat grapes. Surely they can make another plan?”

Birth control for Tokai baboons could be a non-lethal way to manage the growing numbers in Tokai troops‚ suggested scientist Esme Beamish from UCT’s Institute for Communities and Wildlife in Africa.

Beamish‚ who studies population dynamics on the peninsula‚ said the Tokai troops had shown the strongest growth of all managed troops‚ with their numbers increasing from 115 in one troop in 2006 to over 250 in four troops in 2017.

“The growth in the Tokai troops is a concern to baboon management. For this reason they would be the first candidates for a reproductive control programme‚” said Beamish.

“The fire and removal of pines from the area was good for baboon welfare and conservation in that it reduced some of the artificial sleeping sites and human-derived food resources [pine nuts].”

Beamish said removing specific raiding baboons‚ as practised by the City of Cape Town‚ could be more beneficial than culling baboons in general.

The broader issue of human-wildlife conflict had been triggered by baboons being “isolated to diminishing areas of natural vegetation as a result of urban-agricultural development‚” she said.

“The City of Cape Town’s baboon management programme has successfully reduced baboon-human conflict in residential areas by keeping baboons out of ‘town’ and in the natural vegetation 98% of the time.

“This is measured by reduced injury or death to baboons as a result of attacks by humans‚” said Beamish‚ adding that the programme did not extend to agricultural land‚ which fell under Cape Nature.

American hunter rips critics who bashed her for shooting giraffe and taking photos celebrating kill

American hunter rips critics who bashed her for shooting giraffe and taking photos celebrating kill
Tess Thompson Talley posted photos of herself with the giraffe she killed in 2017, but began making the rounds on social media in June. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

 

An American hunter who sparked outrage with photos that show her striking a victorious pose in front of a giraffe she killed in South Africa is hitting back at her critics.

The controversial images, initially shared by Kentucky native Tess Thompson Talley in 2017, began making the rounds on social media after the Twitter account for Africa Digest posted them online toward the end of June. The obscure news website described her as a “white American Savage who is partly neanderthal.”

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

AfricaDigest@africlandpost

White american savage who is partly a neanderthal comes to Africa and shoot down a very rare black giraffe coutrsey of South Africa stupidity. Her name is Tess Thompson Talley. Please share

Celebrities including actress Debra Messing and comedian Ricky Gervais were quick to join conservationists slamming the Kentucky hunter, but Talley has since rejected their fiery animal rights advocacy. In a statement to Fox News, she explained that she killed the old giraffe to prevent it from killing younger calves — a practice called “conservation through game management.”

“The giraffe I hunted was the South African sub-species of giraffe. The numbers of these sub-species is actually increasing due, in part, to hunters and conservation efforts paid for in large party by big game hunting,” she said. “The breed is not rare in any way other than it was very old. Giraffes get darker with age.”

While fewer than 100,000 giraffes remain on the continent, the sub-species Talley hunted has seen a 167% increase in population — up about 21,000 — since 1979. Meanwhile, the overall giraffe population has decreased by as much as 40%.

Talley also noted the giraffe, about 18 years old and unable to breed, has so far killed three younger bulls able to breed, ultimately curbing the growth of its herd.

When she first posted the photos more than a year ago, she described her South Africa trip as a “dream hunt.”

“Spotted this rare black giraffe bull and stalked him for quite a while,” she wrote. “I knew it was the one. He was over 18 years old, 4,000 lbs. and was blessed to be able to get more than 2,000 lbs. of meat from him.”

Trophy hunting is legal in several African countries, including South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe.

“People will say stuff behind a computer screen they’d never say to your face. She was hunting in South Africa and giraffes are legal to hunt in South Africa,” Paul Babaz, the president of hunting advocacy group Safari Club International, told CBS.

The trophy fee for a giraffe is about $2,000 to $3,000 per animal, with the funds going toward the nearby community. It helps prevent poaching and provides incentive to make sure big game animals don’t become instinct, according to Babaz.

“Without that… the poachers will come in and kill the animals indiscriminately, which is very unfortunate,” he said.

Alaskans say ‘no’ to cruel hunting methods for killing hibernating bears, wolf pups in dens

June 29, 2018

A rule recently proposed by the Trump administration would roll back an Obama-era regulation that prohibits controversial and scientifically unjustified methods of hunting on Alaska’s national preserves, which are federal public lands. These egregious hunting methods include the use of artificial light to attract hibernating bears and their cubs out of their dens to kill them, shooting wolf and coyote pups and mothers at their dens, using bait to attract brown and black bears, shooting vulnerable swimming caribou, including with the aid of motorboats, and using dogs to hunt black bears. Biologists have already condemned these methods, and now a supermajority of Alaska’s residents have spoken out resoundingly against allowing them in their state.

The telephone poll, conducted by Remington Research Group and released by the Humane Society of the United States, found a whopping 71 percent of Alaskan voters oppose allowing hunters to use artificial light to attract hibernating bears and their cubs out of their dens to kill them. Sixty-nine percent oppose hunting black bears with packs of hounds, and 75 percent oppose hunting swimming caribou with the aid of motorboats. Sixty percent of Alaskan voters oppose the baiting of bears with pet food, grease, rotting game or fish or other high-calorie foods, and 57 percent oppose killing whole packs of wolves and coyotes when they are raising their pups in their dens.

The poll also found that a majority of voters disfavor allowing trophy hunters and trappers killing wolves, brown bears, black bears, wolverines, lynx and other wildlife on state lands along the northeast boundary of Denali National Park and Preserve.

In complete disregard for the wishes of the state’s residents, however, the Department of the Interior’s National Park Service is now accepting public comments on the controversial rule that’s designed to benefit a handful of trophy hunters looking for their next big kill.

This indiscriminate killing of native carnivores such as grizzly bears and wolves is often justified as “protecting” ungulates, animals like caribou and moose. But in Alaska and elsewhere, studies show, such predator control, including trophy hunting or culling of wild native carnivores in order to grow game herds, just doesn’t work. In fact, that is precisely the finding of a comprehensive new study that was reported in Scientific American.

On the other hand, live native carnivores like grizzly bears and wolves contribute immensely to the state’s economy. In Alaska, wildlife-watching tourism brings $2 billion every year to local, rural economies.

Several studies in Alaska show that predator control is doomed to fail, because the unforgiving Arctic lands cannot sustain large numbers of prey herds in the short growing seasons followed by extreme winters. Alaska officials have also failed to acknowledge that with the massive killing of wolves or bears, other smaller predators rise up to compete for those same prey, rendering these cruel and harmful predator control practices utterly futile.

Most Alaskans do not want hunters, backed by the deep pockets of trophy-hunting groups like Safari Club International and Alaska Outdoor Council, treating their state as a shopping mall for bearskin rugs and wolf heads to adorn their walls. American wildlife is for all of us to enjoy, and you can do your part to help save it by submitting a commentopposing this new proposed rule by July 23.

Regarding Anthony Bourdain: Thank You for Reading and Writing

*By Karen Davis, PhD, President of United Poultry Concerns*

I want to thank everyone very much who took the time to read my June 17
Honoring
<http://www.upc-online.org/alerts/180617_honoring_anthony_bourdain.html>
Anthony Bourdain
<http://www.upc-online.org/alerts/180617_honoring_anthony_bourdain.html>
and to email me personally and post their reactions on UPC’s
<https://www.facebook.com/UnitedPoultryConcerns>
Facebook page <https://www.facebook.com/UnitedPoultryConcerns>.

I’ve received an outpouring of emails from animal advocates expressing
gratitude
for my post. A recurrent theme is: “Thank you for letting me know it’s not
just
me who finds fawning over this man and eulogizing him baffling, weird,
unfortunate, and depressing. I thought I was living in a parallel universe.”

A few complained that by criticizing Anthony Bourdain and his vegan
defenders, I
dishonored a “depressed” fellow human and his family. I suppose probably
everyone who systematically, consciously and deliberately inflicts pain,
suffering and death on others could be diagnosed with clinical depression or
some other mental problem. Should mass murderers and serial abusers (of
human
beings), instead of being “judged” (heaven forbid we be “judgmental”!), be
lavished with praise and larded with “tolerance”?

(Some vegans are judging me for being “judgmental.”)

Some Bourdain sympathizers have said such things as: since virtually
everyone
“eats meat,” they are just as guilty as, or even more guilty than, Anthony
Bourdain; he at least “looked his victims in the eye.”

I have never believed that people who “kill their own meat” are on a higher
plane of morality than those who thoughtlessly buy meat in a supermarket or
a
restaurant. I distinguish between people who’ve grown up on farms, where
killing
animals up close and personal is so routine that they don’t question or
feel it
anymore, and those who, not having grown up that way, suddenly decide that,
instead of just buying meat at the store, they’re going to kill the animals
themselves. (Typically, such people, including the Anthony Bourdains, Mark
Zuckerbergs and Michael Pollens, do both, and encourage their groupies to
copy
them, it’s so cool!)

The defense for killing your own animals is: you’re acting more “honorably”
and
“authentically” and “un-hypocritically” when you experience your victim’s
living
body, which you are personally going to destroy, than when your victim has
already been conveniently “disappeared” into a food product by others
somewhere
in a “packing plant.”

One more point – which I’ve been making for decades* – is why, in the words
of a
person who wrote to me earlier this week, do some vegans “take the
viewpoint of
someone who vocalized complete hatred of ethical vegans?” What underlies the
self-deprecation, the judging of oneself from the point of view of The
Destroyer? Of course, animal people who share the same goals for animals
have
different temperaments that shape their style of advocacy. I would never
argue
that every advocate who chooses a “softer” approach to advocacy is a
sellout or
a betrayer of animals. But there’s a difference between softness as a
thought-through strategy, and softness as a cover for lack of confidence in
one’s cause and one’s skills, compounded by a penchant for passivity and a
fear
of confrontation, however mild, with mainstream opinion.

Once in the 1990s, I was sitting around with a group of activists including
one
who was prominent in our movement at the time. He complained about how hard
it
was for him to be an animal rights activist. He did not like being or
feeling
like an “outsider.” He resented being associated with people the mainstream
considered “wacko.” He almost went so far as to resent the animals
themselves
for putting him in this predicament. He eventually left the movement. Just
as
well. With friends like that, animals don’t need enemies.

As for calling Anthony Bourdain a monster, I stand by my closing statement
in
“Honoring Anthony Bourdain”: “From the point of view of his victims – and
from
my point of view as an animal rights activist – he was a monster who could
never
be missed.”

If you think he was *not* a monster from the point of view of his victims,
what do
you think he was – *from their point of view*? Which, without sounding
presumptuous, I share. By the way, Adolf Hitler committed suicide. Should
he get
a break and even be honored because he was, as well as a mass murderer, a
pathologically “flawed” human being who needed help? Was he evolving? Could
he
have been saved?

* The Rhetoric of Apology in Animal Rights
<http://www.upc-online.org/thinking/rhetoric_of_apology.html>


United Poultry Concerns is a nonprofit organization that promotes
the compassionate and respectful treatment of domestic fowl.
Don’t just switch from beef to chicken. Go Vegan.
http://www.UPC-online.org/ http://www.twitter.com/upcnews
http://www.facebook.com/UnitedPoultryConcerns

View this article online
<http://upc-online.org/thinking/180621_regarding_anthony_bourdain.html

Trump administration moves to lift restrictions on hunting, trapping in national preserves in Alaska

Under proposed changes hunters could bait brown bears, hunt black bears with dogs and kill wolves

The Associated Press · Posted: May 22, 2018 3:33 PM CT | Last Updated: May 22

<https://i.cbc.ca/1.2735917.1407976946!/cpImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_780/travel-trip-alaska-katmai-bears.jpg&gt;

A brown bear catches a salmon in Katmai National Park and Preserve, Alaska in July 2013. Under proposed changes to sport hunting and trapping regulations for national preserves, hunters could bait brown bears with bacon and doughtnuts. (The Associated Press)

The Trump administration is moving to reverse Obama-era rules barring hunters on some public lands in Alaska from baiting brown bears with bacon and doughnuts and using spotlights to shoot mother black bears and cubs hibernating in their dens.

The National Park Service issued a notice Monday of its intent to amend regulations for sport hunting and trapping in national preserves to bring the federal rules in line with Alaska state law.

Under the proposed changes, hunters would also be allowed to hunt black bears with dogs, kill wolves and pups in their dens, and use motor boats to shoot swimming caribou.

Cruel and harmful hunting methods like killing bear cubs and their mothers near dens have no place on our national preserves.- Collette Adkins, lawyer and biologist

These and other hunting methods — condemned as cruel by wildlife protection advocates — were outlawed on federal lands in 2015. Members of the public have 60 days to provide comment on the proposed new rules.

“The conservation of wildlife and habitat for future generations is a goal we share with Alaska,” said Bert Frost, the park service’s regional director. “This proposed rule will reconsider NPS efforts in Alaska for improved alignment of hunting regulations on national preserves with State of Alaska regulations, and to enhance consistency with harvest regulations on surrounding non-federal lands and waters.”

Alaska has 10 national preserves covering nearly 95,830 square kilometers.

<https://i.cbc.ca/1.4673578.1527022003!/cpImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/alaska-black-bears.jpg&gt;

A black bear and cub seen in Anchorage, Alaska. The Trump administration plans to reverse a ban on using spotlights to shoot mother black bears and cubs hibernating in their dens on some public lands in the state. (The Associated Press)

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game was “pleased to see the National Park Service working to better align federal regulations with State of Alaska hunting and trapping regulations,” Maria Gladziszewski, the state agency’s deputy director of the Division of Wildlife Conservation, said in an email to the Associated Press.

She said the proposal is “progress in that direction, and we appreciate those efforts. Alaskans benefit when state and federal regulations are consistent.”

Gladziszewski said the state doesn’t conduct predator control in national preserves.

“Predator control could be allowed in preserves only with federal authorization because such actions are subject to NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) review,” she said.

Expanding hunting rights on federal lands has been a priority for Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, a former Montana congressman who displays a taxidermied bear in his Washington office along with mounted heads from a bison and an elk.

<https://i.cbc.ca/1.4673491.1527019877!/cpImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/u-s-senate-ryan-zinke.jpg&gt;

Expanding hunting rights on federal lands has been a priority for Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. (Jacquelyn Martin/The Associated Press)

The Obama-era restrictions on hunting on federal lands in Alaska were challenged by Safari Club International, a group that promotes big-game hunting. The Associated Press reported in March that Zinke had appointed a board loaded with trophy hunters to advise him on conserving threatened and endangered wildlife, including members of the Safari Club.

President Donald Trump’s sons are also avid trophy hunters who have made past excursions to Africa and Alaska.

Collette Adkins, a lawyer and biologist with the advocacy group Center for Biological Diversity, expressed outrage at the rollback.

“Cruel and harmful hunting methods like killing bear cubs and their mothers near dens have no place on our national preserves,” she said.

The Humane Society of the United States said it would oppose the new rules.

“These federal lands are havens for wildlife and the National Park Service is mandated to manage these ecosystems in a manner that promotes conservation,” said Anna Frostic, a lawyer for the animal rights group. “This proposed rule, which would allow inhumane killing of our native carnivores in a misguided attempt to increase trophy hunting opportunities, is unlawful and must not be finalized.”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/trump-restrictions-hunting-trapping-alaska-preserves-1.4673467

Jimmy Kimmel scoop: Donald Trump “hates baby bears”

Jimmy Kimmel scoop: Donald Trump “hates baby bears”

https://www.fastcompany.com/40577274/jimmy-kimmel-scoop-donald-trump-hates-baby-bears

While we know that Donald Trump hates sharks, at least according to Stormy Daniels. Turns out the president also hates baby bears, at least according to Jimmy Kimmel.

Kimmel’s realization came in the wake of news that the Interior Department is ending a ban on hunting hibernating bears and their cubs in their dens. The National Park Service, under Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, apparently has a problem with some of the current protections for black bears, “including cubs and sows with cubs,” that prevent hunters from “harvest practices” that include using bait to lure bears out, using lights to find hibernating animals, and using dogs to kill bear cubs.

The National Park Service now wants to roll back those pesky rules that stop people from killing baby bears for fun, according to a proposal, which was published in the Federal Register on Tuesday. Under the proposed changes, hunters will now be able to hunt black bears with dogs, use motorboats to shoot swimming caribou, and kill wolves and pups in their dens. According to Kimmel, it’s all part of Trump’s plan to make America great again—and get rid of those evil baby bears.

Poaching ring suspects killed hundreds of animals for ‘thrill of the kill,’

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/18/us/poaching-ring-charges-trnd/index.html

Poaching photos had been posted on text messages and social media.

(CNN)The suspects documented their kill in graphic photos — grinning near slumped over carcasses, posing with a decapitated elk head and taking a selfie with animal blood splattered over one of the alleged poacher’s face.

Over text messages and social media, the poaching suspects boasted about the animals they illegally slaughtered, authorities say. Some of them even called themselves the “kill ’em all boys,” said Captain Jeff Wickersham from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The suspects were part of a massive poaching ring in Oregon and Washington, who were altogether charged with more than 200 misdemeanors and felonies, authorities say. They are accused of killing more than 200 animals including deer, bears, cougars, bobcats and a squirrel.
Twelve people were charged in Oregon this week. In 2017 and earlier this year, 13 people were charged with misdemeanors and felonies in the state of Washington. Some of the suspects face charges in both states.
Dogs surround a bloody bear.

“A part of it was the thrill of the kill,” said Lt. Tim Schwartz from the Oregon State Police Fish and Wildlife Division. “For some of them, it was a competition to see who could kill the most. I think the social media aspect — they were posting this [their kills], getting the attention.”
The suspects bragged about it on Facebook and Snapchat, authorities said.
They “made de facto trophies out of these events” on social media and text messages, said Wickersham. But that ultimately became used as evidence against them, authorities say.
Investigators used the geo-tagged photos to track down the kill sites and find skeletal remains of the animals.
03 thrill for kill poachers

“There is nothing legitimate about the activities these individuals were conducting,” Wickersham said. “They are simply killers. They knew what they were doing. They were not out there for recreation, but to kill things, and that’s what they wanted to do.”
Oregon State Police began its investigation in November 2016 after finding two decapitated deer carcasses. Officers began putting up surveillance cameras to track the suspects.
“This was one of the biggest cases in the state ever, as far as the amount of people involved, amount of violations and number of wildlife taken, “Schwartz said.
He described the case as sickening.
“One of the hardest things for me, as a hunter myself, it was the waste. They (suspects) weren’t making any attempt to remove meat. These guys — it was all about the killing. That’s what was probably most disturbing to us.”
At least five of the suspects appeared in court Thursday, reported CNN affiliate KOIN. They face penalties ranging from fines to jail time depending on their individual charges.

Why would anyone want the “real” thing?

Image may contain: text

Clearly, vegan sausage–just like any other type of meat (animal-death) replacement or “substitute”–is far healthier than the rotting flesh it replaces. So why do so many people still choose the “real” thing?

Perhaps there’s something else wrong with the majority of people, besides their outward appearance or cholesterol level. There’s certainly something wrong with the way they think if they would willingly ask that animals be caged and trucked to slaughterhouses because they imagine they taste better than some plant-based “imitation”.

Worse yet, they think it’s wierd that we care that:

Image may contain: text