That Dog Still Don’t Hunt

The other day I shared this recent photo of Honey and Caine with my sister and she asked, “What are they hunting?” I thought about answering “They’re just playing” (which is of course what humans do when they “hunt” nowadays). They aren’t doing it to survive. Both human hunters and pets can go back to their cozy homes or shacks and eat their fill, while natural predators have to hunt or starve.

People have corrupted the word “hunt” just like they perverted “stalk.” (Except Euell Gibbons, who used it jokingly in his book title, Stalking the Wild Asparagus. But then he used to think pine trees were edible.)

How anyone can still subscribe to the agenda-driven assertion that non-human animals don’t experience life every bit as—if not more—richly as our species, is beyond me. All of the other animals we share the world with—dogs, cats, pigs, cows, horses, rabbits, parrots, pigeons, turkeys, turtles, deer, elk, mink, salmon, or moose–have each evolved the wits and sensations needed to survive, or they surely wouldn’t be with us now.

Regardless of what you believe about whether animals should have rights, we humans don’t have the right to make them suffer. Any attentive dog owner knows that their best friend can go through a full spectrum of emotions, from fear and sorrow to love and joy—on any given day.

(And Caine says, “Yeah, and that goes for cats too.”)




Jack Castle refuses to pass on the tradition of killing animals to his three sons after realizing that all animals deserve to be treated equally.


Fourth-generation Texan Jack Castle was a hunter for decades, learning the tradition from his father, who owned a large cattle business in Texas and Montana. Together, they travelled the world hunting for birds and big game, and Castle went on to run his own 900-acre cattle ranch where he continued to slaughter cows for food. Today, he’s a vegan and a shining example that even the manliest of hunters and meat-eaters can make a lifestyle change for the better. Castle put his former cattle ranch property into conservation to benefit the surrounding wildlife, and he now challenges other hunters to go vegan by inviting them to his home for lavish, six-course “Hunters Dine Vegan” dinners. Because there’s nothing quite as powerful as the conversion of the most unlikely of the unlikely, here are seven reasons why Castle made the decision to let go of hunting and ranching and go vegan for the animals.

1. He didn’t want to support factory farms.
“I was startled to learn of animal factory farms,” Castle told VegNews. “That’s how I began to understand animals differently. Those animals live in a severe state of misery. There is nothing majestic about breeding animals in filth, steel, and cement and putting them in cages for their entire lives. Understanding this treatment of animals bridges the connection to what we put on our plates and then to their land, true nature, and hunting. That is what did it for me.”

2. He realized that killing animals for sport was irrational.
“When I hunted birds and big game it was for sport and I normalized it,” Castle said. “Now, the power not to kill is a greater power. The power to withdraw from hunting is power. I have a need to be a caretaker and to be a steward of the land. I have always loved animals, but I was a sport hunter and I was not emotional. I rationalized it as a challenge. But now I wish to awaken other hunters to feel what I will forever feel. It is very gratifying.”

3. He saw a greater appreciation for all life.
“I treat all animals equally now,” Castle said. “When I look an animal in the eyes, I see their soul; I am looking into their eyes and reconnecting with them very differently. I have always loved wildlife, but now I am more connected, more in love. Being vegan gives me a greater appreciation for life, really. I love the animals more. And it has made me realize that animals have the same emotions as me—the need to feel pleasure, to play, to care for family.”

4. He realized the animals on his plate were no different than his cats and dogs.
“I am already guilty of disturbing animals’ lives before, from eating them to hunting them,” Castle said. “Putting a steak on a plate is paying someone else to kill the animal and bring it to you wrapped in plastic. The tragedy of factory farms can be stopped with one choice and that is to eliminate meat, dairy, and eggs from your plate and go with—as my wife says—phytonutrient-dense foods packed with fiber. And those are not in animal tissue. These factory-farmed animals deserve equality and should be treated the same as our cats and dogs, at minimum. Love and respect has no boundaries.”

5. His wife, simply put.
“The passion and love my wife Shushana Castle [who is a vegan advocate and author] shows every day for the animals and for our earth inspires me,” Castle said. “She taught me to respect all life without judgment. She helped me accept that the pig, the cow, the chicken, all living beings deserve the same respect as our family dogs. That love has no boundaries and equality extends to the caged and wild animals, too.”

6. He wanted to nurture animals’ natural habitat and transform his ranch into a wildlife sanctuary.
“From this newfound awareness, I extended my love for nature and wildlife to the ranches, so I created a sanctuary for wildlife,” Castle said. “The lands are vastly enhanced with enlarged lakes, streams, and ponds from underground water and the animals feel safe and protected. My lands are now a safe haven for the animals. They intuitively know when it’s hunting season and now they flock to the land for safety. This new relationship with all the big game and birds has intensely given me so much fulfillment. Sometimes big game stares at me. It’s the other way around now. We look into each other’s eyes and I feel like I can see their soul.”

7. A vegan diet gave him endless energy.
“It’s total fulfillment not participating in the suffering of animals, not taking away life,” Castle said. “We live in nature, so it’s my duty to renew the earth the best I am able. I have a lot of energy from dropping all the meat and dairy from my meals. Making a contribution of peace in a caring manner, to not kill for a sport, just feels right.”

Chavit Singson kills lion on birthday


Posted at Nov 21 2013 11:27 PM | Updated as of Nov 23 2013 01:35 AM

MANILA (UPDATED) — Photos of former Ilocos Sur Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson with a lion he shot dead during a hunting expedition in South Africa are drawing flak online.

The photos, which were initially published in June on the website of the Philippine Times of Southern Nevada, show Singson posing beside a male lion and an antelope that he shot at the Kalahari Desert as he celebrated his birthday.

A screenshot of the Philippine Times of Southern Nevada online newspaper featuring Ilocos Sur Gov. Chavit Singson’s safari tour.

According to the report, Singson went to the Kalahari Desert, which extends 900,000 square kilometers and covers much of Botswana and parts of Namibia and South Africa, to hunt wild animals.

Singson, like all other hunters, waited for about a year to get his shooting license, it said.

“His hunting rifle took down a male lion and an antelope, highly valued targets. Needless to say, he couldn’t be happier. His feats were celebrated in his birthday bash in Spear Safari, also in the savannah. An image of his prized catch is printed onto his cake, making the celebration go down in history as one of the most memorable,” the report said.

On micro-blogging site Twitter, some netizens reacted negatively to the photos.

Meanwhile, an online petition at is asking Singson and his family to stop hunting wild ducks.

The petition, which has so far garnered over 600 signatures, started after photos of Singson and his daughter, Richelle, hunting wild ducks in Ilocos Sur went viral online early this month.

The Wild Bird Club of the Philippines said the Singsons have “shown a blatant disregard for our country’s wildlife laws and the welfare of our wildlife by advocating the hunting of protected species and posting photos of their father-daughter hunting spree on Facebook and Instagram.”

“We ask former Gov. Chavit Singson and his daughter Richelle Singson to stop promoting, advocating, and practicing hunting of Philippine wildlife. We hope they will instead promote the protection and conservation of wildlife and their habitat,” the group said.

ABS-CBN News Channel tried to contact the former governor to get his reaction but he has not been answering the calls.

More Maine women likely to take up moose hunting

More Maine women likely to take up moose hunting

While the ranks of male hunters at Saturday’s lottery far outnumbered those of women, observers say with the continued growth in the number of female hunters in Maine, many are sure to migrate toward the fall hunt of the state’s largest big-game animal.

SCARBOROUGH — Kelly Lamoreau cheered and reached for the sky when she heard her name drawn at the Maine moose lottery Saturday at Cabela’s. In many ways, she was celebrating more than her third moose permit in 15 years.

A hunter of 21 years, Lamoreau was not only one of the 2,770 permit winners announced at this year’s lottery (some of the 2,820 who will receive permits), she is part of what may be a growing number of big-game female hunters stalking moose. While the ranks of male hunters at the lottery far outnumbered those of women, observers said with the continued growth in the number of female hunters in Maine, many are sure to migrate toward the fall moose hunt.

Christi Holmes and her 5 year-old Brittany, Argos, in February. Holmes started Maine Women Hunters on Facebook. Jill Brady/Staff Photographer

“I think so. I know a lot of women who want to hunt. I think more will start to hunt moose,” said Lamoreau, 45, of Windsor. “It gives you confidence. I have confidence in myself. I don’t think it’s just a man’s sport anymore. I hope more women try moose hunting.”

Since 2010 the number of licensed female hunters in Maine has increased every year – from 17,078, or 9.6 percent of all hunters, to 21,178 women, or 13.3 percent of all hunters in 2017 – the last year for which the state has data, according to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

The state applications for moose permits only require a hunter’s hometown, and not the person’s gender, so there is no way to know how many of the nearly 52,000 moose permit applicants this year were woman. But when Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Commissioner Judy Camuso read the first 100 names of the lottery winners Saturday afternoon – dozens were women’s names, such as Barbara, Ashley, Susan, Sandra, Theresa, Bernadette, Michelle and Rachael.

There will be 2,820 moose hunting permits given out this year. Of those, 50 went into a separate lottery for Maine Registered Guides, and 2,770 were announced Saturday. Of those, 2,546 went to residents, and 224 went to nonresident hunters.The moose lottery costs $15 to enter. Once drawn, a resident moose permit costs $52, while a nonresident permit is $585.

This year’s 2,820 permits were an 11 percent increase from 2018, when 2,523 permits were allocated. That followed a four-year stretch when permits were cut by 49 percent because of the winter tick parasites that have hurt the statewide moose population, which is estimated between 50,000 and 70,000 by state biologists.

The fall moose hunts spans from September through November in different parts of the state. It is held in the northern tip of Maine, eastern and Down East Maine the third week of September; virtually everywhere in Maine the third week of October; in northern Maine again the last week of October; and in just two hunting districts in central and western Maine throughout November.

This year’s lottery drew a crowd of around 1,000 that spilled out of a large tent.

Registered Maine Guide Ron Fournier, who is also director of the state’s 4-H camp at Bryant Pond, said as he looked around that the crowd was clearly mostly men. But Fournier has guided more women hunters in the past several years and believes it is only a matter of time before more turn to moose hunting.

“I’d say among the women hunters, about 40 percent want to hunt moose. It’s a minority,” Fournier said. “Moose hunting is a huge time commitment, and there are a lot of barriers. You need a week off. You have to haul it out of the woods. With turkey hunting, you can go near where you live before work.”

Master Maine Guide Bill Finney, owner of the Patten Hunting Lodge,  has guided moose hunts north of Baxter State Park since the modern-day hunt first began in 1980. He also sees more women drawn to moose hunting, albeit slowly. In the past eight years, Finney had two female hunters who won moose permits stay at his camps. They were there on their own. One was a single mother from Maine and another was a woman from Michigan who came from a hunting family.

“There are more introductory programs for new hunters at places like L.L. Bean and Bass Pro Shop (which also sells hunting gear) and in wilderness areas,” Finney said.

And many Maine women at the lottery Saturday believe the ranks of female hunters here will continue to grow without a doubt, and one day that will be reflected at the moose lottery.

Jess DeWitt of Ellsworth, a hunter of 23 years, already was drawn in 2011, and many members of her family win permits. But she was hoping to hear her name announced again so she could do that “happy dance.” It was.

DeWitt, 38, said she’s seen more female hunters in the past eight years and thinks more will start moose hunting. She also believes more will pick up the outdoor activity – and her fiance agreed.

“A lot of her friends are curious about it. We’ve taken a half dozen to look for moose on the Stud Mill Road,” said Jason Crossman, also of Ellsworth.

Paula Billings of Wiscasset, who started hunting three years ago and got her first deer last fall, took it up after years of being a “hunter’s widow” because she enjoys being outdoors with her husband, Chuck. Saturday she was hoping to win her first moose permit

Paula Billings was one of two women in a hunting group of 11 who were after a moose permit.

“I really like being in the outdoors with him, and I really like being outdoors – period,” Billings said.

Female hunter says she turned rare black giraffe into ‘decorative pillows’ [How Serial Killer-ish]

[How Serial Killer-ish.]…
Female big game hunter Tess Talley broke her silence Friday, telling CBS News that she turned a rare black giraffe she bagged in 2018 into decorative pillows and a gun case. She added the 2,000 pounds of giraffe meat was "delicious."

Female big game hunter Tess Talley broke her silence Friday, telling CBS News that she turned a rare black giraffe she bagged in 2018 into decorative pillows and a gun case. She added the 2,000 pounds of giraffe meat was “delicious.”


An American hunter who was savaged on social media for her 2018 photo showing her and her prized kill – a rare black giraffe – is breaking her silence.

As reports, the female hunter, Tess Talley, told CBS in an exclusive interview that her African big game hunting is her beloved hobby that actually helps with conservation efforts.

“It’s a hobby, it’s something that I love to do,” Talley said in the CBS interview Friday. “I am proud to hunt, and I am proud of that giraffe.”

As for the black giraffe in the now infamous photo, Talley said she bagged the long-necked beast on a “conservation hunt” designed to manage area wildlife in South Africa.

She has since turned the pelts of the giraffe into decorative pillows and a gun case. She also described the giraffe meat as “delicious.”

Still, she shouldn’t look for much understanding, especially on social media.

Talley told CBS her since-deleted Facebook post last year when she bagged he giraffe generated a global backlash.

In the post, Talley told the particulars of her kill: The rare black giraffe was more than 18 years old and weighed over 4,000 pounds. She added that she “was blessed to be able to get 2,000 lbs of meat from him.”

Re-emerging in the CBS interview brought a new rebuke for Talley, as the network reached out to the humane society.

Kitty Block, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society International, responded to CBS with a statement that said trophy-hunting of giraffes showed “sheer and arrogant disregard for the imperiled status of an iconic species.”

Should polar bear hunting be legal?

As hunters target bigger polar bears for their luxurious pelts, one researcher fears we are reversing natural selection.

Countries around the world agree that polar bears are in trouble: They’re considered threatened in the United States, of special concern in Canada, and vulnerable internationally. Yet in much of their icy habitat, it’s perfectly legal to pick up a gun and shoot one.

In Canada, home to nearly two-thirds of the world’s estimated 25,000 remaining polar bears, the animals are hunted both for their meat and for their thick, furry white pelts. The Canadian government and conservation groups alike have long held that polar bear hunting in Canada is sustainable. But in his new book, Polar Bears and Humans, Ole Liodden, a Norwegian polar bear researcher, argues that it’s not.

For decades, Canada has been the main hunting ground for polar bears. The Canadian government sometimes makes recommendations on how to hunt sustainably—for example, harvesting two males for every female—but Canada’s provincial and territorial governments establish their own annual hunting quotas.

Canada, home to nearly two-thirds of the world’s polar bears, is where most hunting occurs.


Liodden believes that rationale is flawed because the polar bears in highest demand for the commercial pelt trade are the largest males—the strongest and healthiest animals. By removing those bears from the population, he says, hunters perpetuate what he calls “reverse selection”—the idea that instead of survival of the fittest, it’s survival of the weakest.

Polar bears use sea ice platforms to hunt for seals when they surface for air. But, Liodden says, as our warming planet melts more sea ice, perpetuation of the species may rest with the strongest bears—those that can swim farther, hunt better, or go longer without food.

By removing the biggest, healthiest bears from the population, researcher Ole Liodden worries that hunters perpetuate what he calls “reverse selection”—the idea that instead of survival of the fittest, it’s survival of the weakest.

Counting polar bears and assessing how well they’re doing is expensive and difficult. Of the 19 subpopulations that make up the worldwide estimate of 25,000 by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the global authority on the conservation status of wild animals and plants, data on the number of bears, their health, or both are lacking for at least 10 of those populations. So it’s not surprising that experts disagree on the greatest threats facing polar bears.

Eric Regehr, a member of the IUCN’s polar bear specialist group, says “unequivocally” that climate change is their greatest threat. Iverson is more measured, saying that climate change could become a problem for polar bears in the future but that at present “the overall polar bear population in Canada is healthy.”

According to Iverson, evidence amassed over three decades shows that Canada’s hunting quota “is not endangering polar bears.” And because populations are assessed and quotas are adjusted every few years, future quotas will account for the effects of climate change. “It’s something that we have mechanisms in place to course correct, if in a given subpopulation there’s a concern.”

Drikus Gissing, director of wildlife management for Nunavut, Canada’s northernmost territory, agrees. He says that each subpopulation is evaluated by the relevant provincial or territorial government every five to 15 years and that hunt quotas are adjusted accordingly based on the best, most current research. “We can’t manage based on what might happen 50 years from now … If sea ice completely disappears in certain areas, the bears will disappear with it … We can’t change the ecosystem to accommodate those animals.”

“Like a Ferrari in your garage”

According to Liodden, between 1963 and 2016, an average of 991 bears were hunted worldwide every year, totaling about 53,500 bears. He calls that number “crazy high,” given how many polar bears are believed to be left and how slow they are to reproduce.

As the largest supplier of polar bear skins, Canada exports hundreds each year, which Liodden says often carpet customers’ floors or are mounted on the wall as the “ultimate status symbol … It’s like to have a Ferrari car in your garage … It’s an item you can have that not many other people have.”

Customers pay thousands of dollars for polar bear wall mounts or rugs as “the ultimate status symbol,” says researcher Ole Liodden.


“It’s a status symbol, there’s no doubt about it,” says Calvin Kania, owner of FurCanada, a Canada-based company that sells polar bear rugs and taxidermied bears. “It’s no different than wearing a diamond or wearing a sable fur coat.” Customers pay thousands of dollars for a single pelt. Kania says his prices for a polar bear rug peaked between 2013 and 2015 at about $20,000 but that prices have since dropped to between $12,000 and $15,000 as demand has declined.

For decades, Japan had a big appetite for polar bear skins, but demand there fell during the mid-2000s after the Japanese economy crashed. In 2008, imports into the United States—formerly another major market for skins—became illegal after polar bears were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

Now it’s China: Between 2006 and 2010, the country imported 467 polar bear skins, but between 2011 and 2015, the number more than doubled, to 1,175, accounting for about 70 percent of Canada’s exports, according to Liodden.

In Liodden’s view, subsistence hunting—for meat and clothing—can be managed sustainably, but commercial trade is too risky and should be banned. “The market will always push for highest price and more killing,” he says.

“Endangered species should not be the subject of profit-driven commercial trade.”


Allowing commercial trade creates a system “inherently susceptible to corruption,” says Zak Smith, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an international environmental advocacy group. Trading polar bear parts could influence the quota-setting process, he says, allowing the potential for profit to affect how many animals can be hunted in a given year. “This is a species that is threatened with extinction,” he adds. “Endangered species should not be the subject of profit-driven commercial trade.”

Lily Peacock, a former polar bear research and management biologist for Nunavut, says the indigenous Inuit in the upper reaches of Canada have hunted and eaten polar bears for thousands of years. Hunting should be regulated and studied, she says, but focusing on hunting—or even overhunting—ignores “the huge elephant in the room … In general, climate change is such a bigger issue than harvest, that it’s like, why take away part of someone’s culture?”

Jim Goudie is an Inuit. He’s also the deputy minister of land and natural resources for Nunatsiavut, a self-governing Inuit region. He says that when polar bears are in trouble, his people will be the first to sound the alarm—not researchers from far-off universities. “For me, if there’s no polar bears tomorrow, it’s part of my culture that just disappeared … We will be the ones to tell the world if we think there’s an issue with polar bear. We have the most to lose.”

“Just too many bears”

Nunavut’s Drikus Gissing says the situation for polar bears isn’t as dire as some make it out to be. With about 13,000 bears, he says, Nunavut, where more than 80 percent of Canada’s polar bear hunting takes place, now has more bears than ever before.

Bears and people sometimes cross paths disastrously: Last year two Nunavut men were mauled to death. One was unarmed. “We’re at a stage now where polar bears are basically overabundant,” Gissing says. “There are just too many bears.”

Indeed, shootings of so-called “problem bears” (animals killed in defense of life and property) have spiked during the past two decades, Liodden notes, up from 13 killings in 1999 to 91 in 2012—a 600 percent increase.

Nikita Ovsyanikov, a Russian behavioral ecologist and member of the IUCN’s polar bear specialist group, says that more sightings of bears doesn’t necessarily mean there are more bears but that the animals are losing sea ice and spending more time on land. “When we see many polar bears around us or close to us, close to our settlements and infrastructures in the Arctic, it is not an indication that polar bear numbers are increasing,” he says. “It is an indication that they’re in trouble.”

The IUCN’s Regehr says the claim that bears are encroaching more on humans because of sea ice losses may have validity, but it’s also a convenient explanation in the absence of precise numbers for the various bear populations. “It’s hard to know how many gophers are in your backyard,” he says. Similarly, “to count polar bears in an area of sea ice the size of Texas, I mean, that’s incredibly difficult and expensive.”

Looking to Svalbard

Liodden considers Svalbard, an archipelago between Norway and the North Pole, to be a model for the future. That’s because, despite its location on the Barents Sea, which has lost more than 50 percent of its ice since the 1980s, Svalbard’s polar bears are stable. Their numbers were estimated at 241 in 2004 and at 264 in 2015. The difference between Svalbard and other polar bear habitats, he says, is that hunting has been banned there since 1973.

Because polar bears depend on sea ice for hunting, some scientists say global warming is their greatest threat.


Péter Molnár, a University of Toronto Scarborough researcher who forecasts the effects of climate change on polar bears, agrees that Liodden’s reverse selection theory is plausible. In western Hudson Bay, he says, there’s “clear evidence” that the bears are getting thinner as sea ice disappears. Polar bears rely on fat and protein reserves because they fast for months at a time, so when it comes to size, “the fatter your bear is, the better.” And, Liodden says, fatter, bigger bears are the ones hunters seek.

But according to Regehr, just because a polar bear is bigger or younger, it doesn’t mean it’s more fit. Studies have indeed shown that polar bears are getting smaller because of sea ice loss, but, he posits, it’s possible that smaller bears that don’t need to eat as much to survive may actually be better off.

For Molnár, though, the question is: “Can polar bears adapt to any of this?”

Recent estimates by U.S. Geological Survey scientists predict that because of melting sea ice, up to two-thirds of all polar bears will be lost by 2050. Even if polar bears are still around at the end of the century, Molnár says, that’s four or five generations at most, which is not enough time to evolve, whether it’s in response to climate change, hunting, or other threats.

“It doesn’t look like they’re going to be around for very much longer in most populations,” he says. “We have very strong evidence that these declines will just get worse as the climate changes. Unless we’re turning things around on that front, it’s a pretty grim and predetermined outcome.”

Trophy hunting is not the solution to Africa’s wildlife conservation challenges

For decades, the public has been fed the myth that trophy hunting is absolutely necessary for sustainable conservation in Africa. Some sections of the academy, as well as the hunting lobby, continue to argue that banning trophy hunting will have a negative effect on wildlife biodiversity.

Their rationale is that trophy hunting contributes a significant amount of revenue, which African countries rely on for funding wildlife conservation. In essence the argument is: a few animals are sacrificed through regulated quotas for the greater good of the species. This opens the door for Western tourists to shoot charismatic mega-fauna and make a virtue of it.

In reality, trophy hunting revenues make up a very small percentage of total tourism revenues in Africa. For most African countries with an active trophy hunting industry, among them South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Namibia, the industry generates only between 0.3% and 5% of total tourism revenues. Clearly, trophy hunting’s economic importance is often overstated.

It’s also claimed by proponents that local communities benefit significantly from trophy hunting. The evidence suggests otherwise. A 2013 analysis of literature on the economics of trophy hunting done by Economists at Large, a network of economists who contribute their expertise to economic questions that are of public interest, showed that communities in the areas where hunting occurs derive little benefit from this revenue. On average communities receive only about 3% of the gross revenue from trophy hunting.

Another line of argument is that non-consumptive forms of wildlife tourism are not lucrative enough to sustain conservation efforts. The hunting lobby has therefore built a narrative where hunting is the only viable means of financing sustainable conservation in Africa.

I recently completed a book chapter in which I explore these and other claims made by the hunters, focusing in particular on how they choose their words to rationalize and sanitize their pastime.

Trophy hunting’s paradoxes

Trophy hunters often claim that they kill animals because they love animals. They rationalize their choice, for instance, by arguing that trophy hunting allows broader animal populations to be conserved.

As I argued in my chapter, the paradox of killing an animal you allegedly “love” cannot be resolved in the sphere of ethics.

In the chapter I explore the words that are used by hunters as euphemisms to describe trophy hunting, while avoiding the word “killing”. Examples include words like “harvesting” and “taking” that serve to sanitize killing. This “euphemization” is exemplified by Walter Palmer, who shot the beloved Zimbabwean lion, Cecil, in the infamous “Cecilgate” incident. Palmer issued a statement in response to the outcry, stating:

To my knowledge, everything about this trip was legal and properly handled and conducted. I had no idea that the lion I took was a known, local favorite…

This choice of words isn’t accidental. The effect is that we lose sight of what’s actually being done to lions, rhinos, elephants, and other precious species.

Alternatives and the way forward

The proponents of trophy hunting claim that there are no viable alternatives for Africa. They suggest that non-consumptive forms of wildlife tourism such as photo-safaris, where tourists view and photograph animals, do not generate sufficient benefits to justify keeping the wildlife habitat. If we stop trophy hunting, they say, wildlife will lose its economic value for local communities. Wildlife habitat will be lost to other land uses.

The truth is that well managed, non-consumptive wildlife tourism is sufficient for funding and managing conservation. Botswana, for example, which in 2014 banned all commercial hunting in favor of photo-tourism, continues to thrive. In a 2017 study, residents of Mababe village in Botswana noted that, compared to hunting, which is seasonal, photographic camps were more beneficial to the community because people are employed all year round.

Trophy hunting is not the solution to Africa’s wildlife conservation challenges. Proper governance, characterized by accountability, rigorous, evidence-based policies and actions, and driven by a genuine appreciation of the intrinsic – not just economic – value of Africa’s majestic fauna, is.

Muchazondida Mkono, Research Fellow (Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow), Business School, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Cheetahs and rhinos are not trophies

Cheetahs and black rhinos are among the most iconic of wild animals. Unfortunately, their rarity makes them an attractive target for trophy hunters.

Two American trophy hunters traveled to Namibia just to kill a cheetah and a black rhino. They have applied for permits with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to import these gruesome trophies back to the United States where they can show them off.

The killing of these rare and majestic animals for fun and bragging rights is appalling and harms the survival of the species.

The USFWS has a public comment period open until May 28. Let your voice be heard.Urge the agency to protect these endangered animals by rejecting the import applications.  

The Namibian government has failed to effectively clamp down on poaching.

Since both cheetahs and the black rhinos are listed as Endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the law mandates that the USFWS cannot approve the import of hunting trophies unless such actions enhance the survival of the species. This gives us time to tell the agency that trophy hunting harms species’ survival and that wildlife trophies have no place in the U.S. or anywhere in the world.

We only have a limited time to speak out for these magnificent animals.Please tell the USFWS to reject these trophy import applications today.

Thank you for caring about animals.


Kitty Block
Humane Society International


‘Boycott Jimmy Johns’ Trends After CEO’s Hunting Obsession Exposed

by  | April 27, 2019

There should be no doubt in how fiendish an act hunting can be. Nonetheless, many people find their cup of tea in the ruthless “sport.” Just recently, CEO of Jimmy John’s, Jimmy John Liautaud’s hunting obsession was exposed on Twitter, and a new hashtag has been making its rounds on the internet reading, #BoycottJimmyJohns. Read on to know more about ‘Boycott Jimmy Johns’ hashtag that went viral on Twitter.

Boycott Jimmy Johns
Photo by Loïc Fürhoff on Unsplash

You might also like:

‘Boycott Jimmy Johns’ Trends After CEO’s Hunting Obsession Exposed

The CEO of the gourmet sandwich chain, Jimmy John Liautaud, has a hunting obsession and the fact is quite well documented. Years back, a website allegedly revealed the CEO’s images with him posing with killed “trophy” animals like a leopard and an elephant.

More recently, Twitter user Yossarian317 posted a macabre image which features the sandwich chain’s CEO posing with two thumbs up, sitting on the corpse of a huge elephant he allegedly hunted and killed. The tweet garnered some 28k re-tweets and 22k likes.

Twitter user Yossarian317 tweeted the post with the caption:

“Owner of Jimmy Johns celebrating the killing of a beautiful animal. Remember next time you want a sub. Please retweet!”

Credit: @yossarian317/ Twitter
‘Boycott Jimmy Johns’ Trends After CEO’s Hunting Obsession Exposed

And within a blink of an eye, twitter outpoured their aghast and anger on the image with comments flooding in. A user wrote:

Credit: @tarastrong/ Twitter

“Despicable, unfathomable, disgusting. The owner of @jimmyjohns. Sorry about your tiny penis, Jim. I’m sure glad there’s lots and lots of other sandwich places.”

Credit: @RobWoodson26/ Twitter

Another user said: “Will never go to Jimmy Johns again!”

Credit: @LeilaniMunter/ Twitter
‘Boycott Jimmy Johns’ Trends After CEO’s Hunting Obsession Exposed

“Do we start a #BoycottJimmyJohns trend??,” added another user.

How Can Killing be Fun?

Hunting as a sport is unfortunately still enjoyed by many. Some hunting instances take place on private enclosed lands where enforcing the law can be difficult. Hunters reportedly pay to kill native and exotic species in what it is called a “canned hunt.” Do you find anything exciting or sporty in succumbing animals to death in enclosed lands where they can’t escape? I don’t.

Animal rights activist groups like PETA are encouraging people to boycott Jimmy Johns, like the trending hashtag, and are referring to sandwich shops like Subway, which does not support trophy hunting. What do you think? Going vegan is surely an all-in-one boycott to every single animal abuse happening on earth. Let me know your views in the comments.

Animal Book Author Flayed By Hunter

A Mike Naye contacted me criticizing my book, God and Animals, after only looking at a couple of free paragraphs shown by Amazon, stating that my misguided ramblings about animals come from emotion. Well yeah! Only human beings have emotions. Savages do not.

He criticized me for having compassion for animals…then, he was reminded that, God created the animals FIRST, then humans as an afterthought. That Scripture verse can be found in my book, God and Animals (AMAZON).

Mr. Naye  slammed me for being a vegetarian even though he challenged me with a question after my defense of animals asking if I ate meat and telling me that he did and wore leather shoes.  He also took great offense at my defense of wolves, now in danger by the lifting of the  wolf protection bill by Congress.

Then he aimed a sucker-punch with this statement: “You may be fighting against what God designed us to be, omnivores, but a lot of us God-fearing people do not.  In addition to eating game animals, I also wear leather shoes.  How about you?” He is a superior “God Fearing” man, by golly.

In my book that Mr. Naye criticizes,  God and Animals-What The Bible says About Heaven and Animals- (AMAZON), he will find that, ‘in the beginning’ both humans and animals were vegetarians.  All relevant Scriptures are in my book to verify what I’ve stated to make solid points and hopefully impressions. Everything I’ve said in my book is backed with Scripture Verses.

The critic was angered at my defense of animals, especially as I noted that Trophy Hunting was “sport killing”, in which those particular hunters gain perverted pleasure in doing. How can anyone take pleasure in causing a living creature to suffer?   He then made a point of telling me that, “wolves, by the way, do not just kill to eat but frequently participate in “sport killing”, i.e., just killing for the fun of it.”  This man was not trying to establish dialogue with me, he just wanted to fight.

First of all, animals have the same nervous system as humans. They experience love, fear, anxiety, pain and mental suffering, just as we do. Take your dog or cat to the vet and watch the anxieties appear. When you hit your thumb with a hammer and jump around yelling, just remember that your animal would feel the exact severe pain if it happened to them.

Another reason for my staunch defense of wildlife, including wolves, is because each animal assists in protecting our ecosystem. God put everything together on purpose for a purpose. And God told us through Adam and Eve that we must tend the garden. That would mean also taking care of the animals sharing that garden.

Furthermore, we are to treat all living creatures with respect. I pity the person who has never had a pet. One has never been loved until they have been loved by a dog who gives unconditional love that too many people have never experienced.

We are supposed to care for God’s creation but we do not. We have a way of ignoring too many things and are letting everything, including environment, and even our families, take care of themselves.  As inventor Liza Marie Hart, known as the “female Einstein observed: “When man messes with God’s Ecosystem, we always have a catastrophe.

For information of the book, God and Animals, click this link or the picture.

© 2019 Austin Miles – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Austin Miles: