Sadistic hunters vie to be Extreme Huntress champ

EXCLUSIVE: The next Rebecca Francis? ‘Sadistic’ hunters vie to be Extreme Huntress champ

THESE are the women animal rights campaigners have branded “sadistic” and “unhinged”.

PUBLISHED: 19:30, Mon, May 18, 2015 | UPDATED: 08:14, Tue, May 19, 2015


Jodi Schmideder, Rebecca Francis and Jen The Archer CordaroIG

Rebecca Francis, centre, has received death threats since the show


They are in the running to be finalists in the American television female hunting competition Extreme Huntress, which has seen previous winners receive death threats and worldwide hate.

This year’s fearless competitors have admitted they are anxious about public perception, but remain defiant in their “right” to kill animals which includes zebras, lionesses, antelopes and bears.

**WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT PICTURES TO FOLLOW**

Rebecca Francis, the competition winner in 2010, has been repeatedly slammed by comedian and animal lover Ricky Gervais in recent months after a photograph emerged of her lying with a giraffe she had killed, beaming with happiness.

After angry animal rights activists called for her head, she refused to accept she had done anything wrong.

This year’s competitors are equally as unabashed as they fight for votes to be selected into the finals of what is regarded one of the most prestigious titles a huntress can achieve.

Jen “The Archer” Cordaro is no stranger to hate after receiving death threats for teaching children to hunt with the campaign #Bringakidhunting.

Activists even turned up at her house and threatened to murder her first born when she starts a family.

Lorraine LawrenceIG

One of the finalists Lorraine Lawrence with a lioness

Charisa ArgysIG

Contestant Charisa Argys says she believes in living with integrity and morals

I know putting myself out there could potentially attract abuse yes, but that’s the risk I am willing to take

Jodi Schmideder

Thousands of people have signed a petition to “stop” the PhD student, following graphic images of her slicing sows and posing with dead boars.

She told Express.co.uk: “Threats on someone’s life is never acceptable.”

But nothing will stop the city-born bow hunter who started shooting 18 months ago with an aim to be self-sufficient and live “off-grid” within ten years.

She added: “If anything, it makes me want to keep fighting the good fight.”

She sympathised with the abuse Ms Francis is attracting, adding she too would kill endangered and wild animals including zebras, lions or giraffes.

She said: “If the need was there for culling or management, absolutely.

Tanya Chegwidden with a zebraIG

South African contestant Tanya Chegwidden has killed game from zebra, impala, and waterbuck

Jodi SchmidederIG

Jodi Schmideder said some contestants were trophy hunters

“There are management reasons to hunt all types of animals, including endangered animals or animals that humans put at the top of their cute and fuzzy hierarchy.”

But charity People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) accused the Extreme Huntress semi-finalists of “perpetuating violence”.

Associate director Elisa Allen said: “It has been a long time since humans truly needed to hunt in order to survive – today, people who get their kicks from hunting and killing defenceless animals are either sadists or suffering from a psychological break.

“Common decency says that we should protect the most vulnerable and helpless in society, not destroy them – much less derive “pleasure” from doing so.

“When cruelty is glorified and portrayed as a ‘hobby’, it debases society and perpetuates violence.

“Hunting of any kind has no place in modern society, and it should have ended years ago, along with cockfighting, bear-baiting and dogfighting.”

Tanya Chegwidden, top left, Jessica Amoss, right, and Taylor ReisbeckIG

Tanya Chegwidden, top left, Jessica Amoss, right, and Taylor Reisbeck

Miss Cordaro is joined by 19 other female hunters in the competition, including mother-of-one Michelle Slyder, 41, from Montana in America.

The engineer told Express.co.uk: “Nothing that happens to me personally could make me waiver in my passion for hunting. It’s not about what others think, it’s just who I am, how I was raised, and a part of me.

“I can’t and won’t ever change that. Every person has a right to their opinion and I can handle what comes my way. I also will protect my right, which is why I would never back down from someone engaging in that manner.”

Meanwhile Jodi Schmideder, 24, who started hunting before she could walk, aged two, admitted some contestants are trophy hunters.

“For some, that is what hunting is to them. I on the other hand, would love to luck out sometimes and bag a big game animal, however, it is not what hunting is to me.

Jen The Archer CordaroIG

Hunter Jen The Archer Cordaro said no one deserves death threats

Michelle Slyder with a dead wild goatIG

Michelle Slyder hunts for meat and wouldn’t kill endangered animals

“When you do shoot an animal, and you decide to post pictures for the general public to view, you should know not everyone will be ok with it. I don’t wish upon anyone to receive death threats towards them, it is extreme and yes, scary. However, every picture or post you are debating to show could potentially put you in a bad position, and precaution should be taken.

“I know putting myself out there could potentially attract abuse yes, but that’s the risk I am willing to take.”

Votes are being cast across the world to decide who is the Extreme Huntress of 2016.

The 20 semi-finalists will be reduced to six for the television finals. There they will go to a Texan ranch to compete head-to-head in outdoor skills and fitness challenges to decide who is the Extreme Huntress 2016.

Angry animal lovers claim Extreme Huntress has “nothing to do with conservation”, with one calling the television programme “a stain on the world”.

But producers are brazen in their fight back, claiming on social media “ignorance is bliss”.

Why SC’s Animal Cruelty Laws Rank 45th

http://www.wltx.com/story/news/2015/05/18/why-scs-animal-cruelty-laws-rank-45th/27550493/

Columbia, SC (WLTX) South Carolina’s laws against animal cruelty rank 45th in the nation, according to the Humane Society of the United States, and state lawmakers who’ve tried to toughen those laws say there’s one main reason for that.

“We have people that are avid hunters and fishermen and they believe that anything to do with animal concerns, animal abuse, is going to take away, infringe on their rights, take away their guns, not let them hunt and that kind of thing. So anytime you bring something up about animals you’re hitting a brick wall,” says Rep. Deborah Long, R-Indian Land, who sponsored a bill two years ago to create an animal abuse registry, similar to the sex offender registry. Now, someone can be convicted of animal abuse in one county and, even if a judge prohibits them from having any more animals, if they move to another county enforcement of that ban is difficult. The bill never made it out of committee.

One of the main opponents of tougher animal cruelty laws has been Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, who is an avid hunter and fisherman. “I am not against toughening animal cruelty laws,” he says. “What I am against is an intrusion that most people don’t see, don’t understand, that uses animal cruelty laws as a façade for a much bigger agenda.”

He says local Humane Societies are fine and do good work. His concern is with the Humane Society of the United States, or HSUS, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PETA. “My absolute opposition to animal rights bills is not based on trying to stop something in good direction to protect pets and service animals. It is to keep HSUS and PETA at bay in my state,” he says.

He says HSUS president and CEO Wayne Pacelle wants to ban all sport hunting, so Pitts is worried that any bill that HSUS supports is a foot in the door to move in that direction. Officially, HSUS is working to ban some forms of hunting, like hunting animals that are kept in enclosed areas.

One example he says of a bill that seems good but can go too far is a tethering law. The state has no law against keeping a dog chained to a tree, post, or stake in the ground, but Pitts and others fought against a tethering bill. “In that tethering bill, it also included that I couldn’t put my bird dog or rabbit dog in a box in the back of my truck, a box that’s made for them. I couldn’t put, tie my horse while I was saddling my horse. That would be illegal tethering, because a rope’s not over six foot. So the devil is in the details of what they’re trying to do,” he says.

Wayne Brennessel, executive director of the Humane Society of South Carolina, says there are a couple of laws the state needs, one of them being a tethering law. “We need some laws about puppy mills, about these people who breed and breed and breed animals until, basically, the female animal is just falling apart because she’s been so overbred,” he says.

But Pitts counters with a question. How do you prevent puppy mills without unfairly restricting legitimate dog breeders? A bill just introduced on May 5th tries to answer that. It would put standards in place that would allow commercial dog breeders to operate without overbreeding their dogs.

Lawmakers did pass a tougher law last year that increases penalties for repeat offenders. Sen. Paul Campbell, R-Goose Creek, chaired a subcommittee that traveled around the state and listened to residents’ concerns about animal cruelty and laws to prevent it.

“It’ll be interesting to see how they rate South Carolina after we tightened those, the law up last year on the penalty and made it much more severe on a repeat offense,” he says.

Bill Maher: If you’re on a safari to kill elephants and the elephant kills you instead… ‘good’

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/04/bill-maher-if-youre-on-a-safari-to-kill-elephants-and-the-elephant-kills-you-instead-good/

Bill Maher - (HBO's Real Time screenshot)

On this week’s edition of HBO’s Real Time, host Bill Maher was all about death during his New Rules segment, expressing happiness that a big game hunter was killed by the very elephant he was stalking, to a Republican named Upright who is still campaigning against Hillary Clinton from beyond the grave.

Maher began by mocking constant target Sarah Palin for her new PAC logo — featuring the Big Dipper over her head — saying stars circling over your head isn’t a sign that you’re looking to the future, “it just means you’ve walked into a stop sign.”

Also see   Laughing at religion is exactly what the world needs: http://www.salon.com/2015/04/26/bill_maher_american_hero_laughing_at_religion_is_exactly_what_the_world_needs/

Footage of Rebecca Francis killing a giraffe in Africa

From Change.org

Apr 20, 2015 — This video shows Rebecca Francis hunting the giraffe from the picture. Although she made a rebuttal to Ricky Gervais last week, the video shows just had deceptive she was being.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmkslPmo1vU&feature=youtu.be

Footage of Rebecca Francis killing a giraffe in Africa
Here is footage of the hunt in which Rebecca Francis kills a giraffe with a bow and arrow in Africa which has caused outrage. Francis like all trophy hunters has claimed she killed the animal to feed local…

Men and Women Who Hunt Animals Are “Equally Vile”

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/ricky-gervais-men-and-women-who-hunt-animals-are-equally-vile-2015184#ixzz3XmWp7ZFo

Ricky Gervais Says Men and Women Who Hunt Animals Are “Equally Vile” AfterPoacher-Hunters-6 Rebecca Francis Claims He’s Targeting Women

Celebrity News Apr. 18, 2015 AT 1:20PM

He’s just getting started. Ricky Gervais continued to slam hunters following his buzzed-about spat with Eye of the Hunter co-host Rebecca Francis. His new comments are in

“We need to stamp out this terrible sexism in the noble sport of trophy hunting,” he tweeted on Friday, April 17. “The men & women that do it are EQUALLY vile &  worthless.”                                  [except for the woman in the photo above–she hunts poachers.]

The British comedian-actor, 53, was appalled earlier this week when he saw a photo of Francis lying down – and smiling – next to a dead giraffe she just killed. “What must’ve happened to you in your life to make you want to kill a beautiful animal & then lie next to it smiling?” he wrote via Twitter on April 13.

PHOTOS: Celebs and their pets

Francis began to receive death threats following Gervais’ post, which has garnered over 30,000 retweets. On April 14, Francis released a statement saying she preserved the animal by providing locals with its meat. On Friday, she gave a second statement to Hunting Life.

“Ricky Gervais has used his power and influence to specifically target women in the hunting industry and has sparked thousands of people to call for my death, the death of my family and many other women who hunt,” she said, via The Telegraph. “This has evolved into an issue about the morality of threatening human lives over disagreeing with someone else’s beliefs. It shocks me that people who claim to be so loving and caring for animals can turn around and threaten to murder and rape my children.”

PHOTOS: Celebs fight back on Twitter

Gervais, however, doesn’t seem to be backing down. He’s continued to show his love for animals all week. “Enjoy the lovely weather and don’t leave your dog in the car. Have a great day,” he tweeted on April 17. On Friday, he gushed about his adorable “furry bagpipe” cats and snapped a selfie with his “new duck friends” near a lake.

Read more: http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/ricky-gervais-men-and-women-who-hunt-animals-are-equally-vile-2015184#ixzz3XmRYOAMn
Follow us: @usweekly on Twitter | usweekly on Facebook

Also See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/17/vet-kristen-lindsey-kills-cat-with-arrow_n_7090630.html

The Gravest Problem Animals Face: Man’s Self-Appointed Supremacy Over Them

1451324_650954518277931_1616731734_n

“Time is running out” (A final message from John A. Livingston)

The following thoughts appear in the last chapter of the late John A. Livingston’s 1973 book, One Cosmic Instant; Man’s Fleeting Supremacy (a book I can especially relate to in that it dissects and begins to dismantle the entrenched, arrogant attitude that humans are apart from, and even superior to, the rest of life here on Earth). Livingston begins by comparing this complex, arrogant, human attitude to an ecosystem:

“In their natural environment, living beings face an infinity of survival problems—food shortages, predators, diseases, competitors, population stresses, and so on. The gravest problem they now face, however—man’s self-appointed supremacy over them—is strangely like an ecosystem. It has a vast and complicated array of interlocking components…

“As any naturalist knows, the quickest and neatest way to destroy an eco-system is to simplify it, to reduce its complexity and thus short-circuit the equilibrium maintained by the mutual interdependence of its component parts. Perhaps the traditional, cultural, institutional, conceptual eco-construct can be decomplexified by our deliberate manipulation—by the exercise of our conscious choice. Intervention in its workings will require degrees of courage, sacrifice, imagination and generosity which have not frequently been displayed in the course of man’s relationship with his environment. One hesitates to predict whether we will be willing to undertake it. The destruction of the power hierarchy over nature will require a shift in attitudes more profound than we can presently imagine.

“The process of simplification or decomplexification will be drastic. Suppose one were to elect to have an initial go at the “rights of man”—the God-given rights of man the individual and man the species. Suppose it were feasible to actually remove some of those rights, one after the other. The consequences might be astonishing… Environmental forces are already ‘eroding’ traditional rights.

“Then there is the right to have children. Suppose people were no longer permitted to reproduce beyond the replacement level. Replacement level means one adult, one child—zero population growth…The environmentalist must look hard at traditional human freedoms.

“There are other ‘rights’ such as the imagined right of man to kill non-human animals for amusement. Clearly the environment itself will deal with this tradition, simply as the effect of men having joyfully massacred so many ducks, geese, rhinos, elephants and Cape buffaloes that there will not be enough of them to go round. A similar end will come to the fashion industry’s apparent determination to exploit to the bitter end the final stocks of leopard, tiger, jaguar, and the rest.

“What of the more fundamental, unquestioned rights of man the species? The right to populate at will must certainly be removed, either by our own conscious choice or by a natural backlash on the part of the biosphere itself. The right to dominate animals of other species, and to dominate landscapes, will not be subverted as readily. Other beings, as species and as landscapes, do not have the ‘clout’ of the combined forces of the biosphere. But that right, too, will disappear. It will be a sad process, for we will not give up the right to dominate without a struggle—a struggle which will cost both human and non-human nature exorbitantly.

“It will not be in our best interests to allow the environment to dismantle our conceptual power structure for us. In such an eventuality, cosmic forces would make life devastating. We should not expect the environmental counter attack to be nearly so dramatic or spectacular as the ancient vision of the Apocalypse, but it would be equally disastrous. Because it would not be sudden, it would be even more agonizing…

“Time is running out for the dismantling of the institutions which have kept us so grimly locked in step with ‘progress.’ There is even less time for reflection on the merits of the traditional components of our culture which have brought us—and all of nature—to the present point of departure. A point of departure it is, either from the narrow and egocentric culture course we have adopted, or premature departure from the blue planet itself. If we are not capable of identifying the specific threads in the fabric of our beliefs which have sustained the entire tapestry upon which the myth of human dominance is emblazoned, then it may be too late already.

“The hope for survival of non-human nature is dim. There is a familiar scenario. As conditions worsen for human populations—as they will, initially, in underprivileged parts of the world—every ounce and erg of our most refined technological skills and energies will be brought into play to extract from Earth and its non-human inhabitants the basic ingredients for human survival. We will first destroy all of the larger animals, either for meat or because they compete with us for space, together with those which may be intolerant of our activities because of their specific natural specializations. Extinctions of non-human species, without replacement, will continue at an accelerating rate, until the only non-human beings remaining will be those who are willing to share their squalor with us—rats, gutter curs, and parasites and micro-organisms which thrive in time environmental dislocation.

“Our capacity for seeing into the future—and we do not want to know about futures of that kind. We withdraw behind the opaqueness of closed imaginations and familiar fancies. We acknowledge that, yes, the situation is bad, but human ingenuity, creativity, enterprise and good will overcome all difficulties.

“While we should be unravelling the threads of tradition, we are weaving ever more elaborate curtains of rationalization. Every avenue of questioning closed off is another route to intellectual and spiritual freedom barricaded forever.

“There is no engineering answer to a problem created by culture. The worst in humanistic ways of thinking opened and kept open the conceptual man/nature dichotomy, and only mature wisdom and insight that categorize the best in natural philosophic tradition can mend it.”