Mindless Slaughter 😿

Could somebody tell me, please, who put humans in charge of deciding which species belongs where, and how many should be allowed to live? Humans themselves have grossly overpopulated this planet to the point where in some areas, there are not sufficient resources such as water and food, to support the population.  But humans think it is their right to determine how many wolves or moose should be in a given area?  Why do humans always have to manipulate, to be in control?  Who the Sam Heck left humans in charge of this planet?  A planet, I might add, that they have done a lousy job of caring for.

Read the following sentence from an article in the Anchorage Daily News

“The ADF&G [Alaska Department of Fish and Game] is charged, by the Board of Game and the Alaska Legislature, to manage moose numbers in Unit 13 at the optimum harvest level for the hunting public.”

moose-hunterHumans believe it is their right to “manage” the number of moose to make certain there are plenty for those damned hunters to kill, come fall – or whenever hunting season is in Alaska!  But wait … it gets even better.

Somebody in Fish & Game, or in the legislature, thinks that when the moose population drops, it is a result of wolves and/or bears killing the moose.  They don’t know for sure, but they think so.  They have determined what is the ‘ideal’ number of wolves in one particular area of Alaska referred to as Unit 13, and that magic number is between 135 and 165.  This year, however, somebody determined that there are between 350 and 550 wolves in Unit 13, and they are concerned that the wolves will dine on the moose and … aw, golly gee, the hunters will be unable to kill moose!aerial-killing-wolvesSo … guess what they are doing to “manage” the number of wolves?  It’s called ‘aerial wolf hunting’, and it is exactly what it sounds like … killing wolves with high-powered rifles from airplanes.  For no reason other than that hunters want to be able to kill moose!  Back when Sarah Palin was Governor of Alaska, she encouraged aerial wolf hunting, and even offered cash incentives!

Congress passed the Federal Airborne Hunting Act of 1972, which made it illegal for hunters to shoot animals from a plane or helicopter.  However, once the Fish & Game guys determine there are “too many” wolves, then the government gives special permission for this mass slaughter. spirit wolfBut, here’s the catch … how do you know how many wolves there are?  Again, quoting from the article in the Anchorage Daily News

“In recent years, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has been able to do population surveys and provide estimates that are a bit more reliable than those of the past. However, one needs to remember that although Unit 13 has boundaries, the wolves do not. [Emphasis added] Obviously real populations are difficult to accurately pin down.”

I’ve got news for these bloomin’ eejits … the wolves and moose were there long before humans were, and hopefully will still be there long after!  They co-existed in nature without any manipulation by humans! People are the interlopers here, folks, not the wolves and not the bears … people.

Now, if we wish to take this a step further, to extrapolate some data here … as I mentioned in the beginning, humans have already overpopulated the earth.  There are currently 7,558,988,647 humans on this planet as of the moment I am writing this, approximately 1:00 a.m.  You can check for yourself.  Go ahead … see how much it has increased since this writing.  It is estimated that by the end of the century, at current growth rates, there will be more than 11 billion humans on earth.  Such population cannot be maintained given the rapid depletion of non-renewable resources or given the degradation of the capacity of the environment to give support to the population.  (Makes the anti-abortion crowd look rather silly, doesn’t it?)

So, what do you think?  Humans have already proven that when it comes to making babies, they think more is better, so they aren’t likely to police themselves.  Personally, I think China had the right idea with their ‘one child’ policy.  But, given humans’ disdain for the lives of wolves, deer, and a host of other beautiful animals, what would you say to instituting a ‘predator management program’ similar to that in Alaska in order to thin the human population?

Now, before any of you start beating the keyboard sending me comments asking me if I’ve lost my marbles, yes, I am being facetious and no, I would not condone the random killing of humans simply to thin the pack.  But there are two points I am trying to make here:

  1. Humans do not have some superiority that gives them the right to kill animals for sport. They damn sure don’t have the right to decide how many of a certain species should be allowed to live in a specific area.  The critters were here long before we were, they are far more beautiful, and far more self-sufficient than we are.  Leave them alone!!!
  2. You’ve heard the expression about making sure your own house is clean before you go about criticizing somebody else’s? Same applies here.  We are doing a crap job of taking care of this planet.  We spew toxins into the air, water and ground as if they would simply dissipate.  They don’t.  We spray chemicals on our food … chemicals that then contaminate our water sources.  We are, whether the climate deniers would agree or not, destroying the only home we will ever have.  No, folks, there is no home for us on Mars, or Saturn or the moon.  Earth is it … and we are killing it.

I am appalled by the story about killing hundreds of wolves from airplanes just so there will be enough moose for hunters to kill and mount the heads over their fireplaces, bragging to their amigos.  Want to impress your friends?  Do something good like join Jimmy Carter in Habitat for Humanity and build houses for poor people.  Volunteer at your local homeless shelter.  That impresses me much more than the head of a moose who gave his life so you could brag.howling wolf.jpg

49 thoughts on “Mindless Slaughter 😿

  1. My poor wolf brothers and sisters. RIP.

    I am incensed by all the mindless killing. It breaks my heart into a million pieces every time I read such things (and as a Twitter user, I see so many tragedies). Anger has given way to something much sadder as I watch our natural world killed off by humans with ill intent. 😔

    Liked by 3 people

    • I’m with you on that. I’ve always thought that either I was once a wolf, or would like to be a wolf in my next life. Not that I’m convinced reincarnation exists, but it’s rather fun to think about. At any rate, I’ve always felt a particular bond with wolves, and this just breaks my heart.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. You speak for me too. Killing for sport is anything but since the thing s heavily slanted in the hunters favour. Hunt to eat if you must though I doubt that too since your special copper jacketed ammo must cost more than the meat at the shops.But don’t kill for fun, at least be honest enough to admit there’s no sport there.
    Cwtch

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think there are few reading this who would disagree with me, for the hunters fit a profile that doesn’t read the sort of thing I write about. But you make an excellent point … that man who claims he needs the meat to feed his family likely spent enough on his rifle and other equipment that he could have put food on the table for at least a year! I would like to see hunters stripped of their weapons, tracking and spotting equipment, and left with only their wits to survive in the woods. Then we could see which is truly the superior species. Sigh. Mood of the moment.
      Cwtch

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Meanwhile, Jill, this is a great post, and I thank you very much for it. It is presumptuous and ridiculous for us humans to think nature needs our help to survive. We are late arrivals on the evolutionary scene, and those species that came before us managed quite well without us, esp dodo birds, passenger pigeons, buffalo, and whatever other species that have disappeared or nearly disappeared since our arrival. And if anyone cares to notice, most of those now-extinct species were wiped out by white people, and their industry, and their need to spread across the world–their god-given need to dominate the world. Pah! Bah Humbug!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thanks, my friend! It was from the heart … you know my feelings toward anything with fur. As I’ve said before, I think the human species is on a path toward self-extinction … I’m not so sure that’s a bad thing. Sigh.

      Like

  4. When the space travelers arrived thousands of years ago, they dropped pioneers in various parts of the earth. The indigenous inhabitants were awed by these gods from heaven. Then skills were taught, language and philosophy. One of the smarter natives said, “Let us honor and worship this space god. Let us interpret what God has relayed to us for we are undoubtedly the chosen dominant species.”
    Irreverent? Really? My unproven theory is just as valid as the Bible’s unproven theories. I choose to believe in non-violence and peaceful co-existence with all of Creation. (Just a few thoughts from an old man living in self-imposed exile from Christianity.)🙏😉

    Liked by 2 people

    • Your theory actually makes more sense than the nonsense I hear from those who claim every word in the bible is the absolute truth, and then they go out and cheat on their wives and denigrate others’ cultures, just to name a few of their more egregious behaviours. Bah HUMBUG! Like you, I opt for world peace, but sometimes I find even inner peace difficult to find when people believe that their own race is so superior that they can go shoot people in a mosque, just because they are Muslims. Sigh. Been a rather awful week, hasn’t it?

      Liked by 1 person

  5. It surprises me that no one yet has given the answer to your question, “Could someone please tell me, who put humans in charge of deciding which species belongs where, and how many should be allowed to live?” The answer came direct from god, by way of his bible. Look at Genesis 1:25-26. On the 5th day he created all the moving animals, then on the 6th day changed his mind and decided to create mankind, and give them “dominion” over all the animals and all of the earth. And thus did he give humans the (preposterous) right to hunt and kill animals for whatever purpose their petty little hearts desired. So, god created all the moving living beings before he created man, but then realized he had screwed up and forgotten to give them god-awareness, so he made an instant course-correction without considering the longterm consequences, and the moving animals have suffered ever since–but that didn’t matter since he forgot to make them able to worship and praise him, and so he gave people a soul. So much for a perfect god. And so much for a perfect world. He got it right on day 5, but blew it on day 6. The rest is… well, whatever the hell it is today, one big party for humans with guns, and millions of species of life that are unimportant in god’s plan for us. WHAT B.S.!!!!!

    Liked by 2 people

  6. My heart is breaking from all the injustices done to God’s creatures all over the world. We have done a horrible job managing this planet!
    Hence Agenda 21… research it. There is a covert government program to “thin the herd” so to speak. Why do you think the gov’t allows GMO foods, chemtrails, vaccines, electro-smog, smart meters, and soon 5G! Forget thriving, soon human will be struggling to stay alive in an ever toxic world. Balance will be achieved someway somehow, read the Georgia guidestones, it’s up to us to shape this world consciously or unconsciously. Either way it shall be done!

    Liked by 1 person

  7. If they want to hunt and get a kick out of it, why don’t they get their complacement backsides over to the Middle East and go hunting IS fighters? Uh? Are you flabby gun tooting creeps ready for that big a game……Of course not, the scales aren’t in your favour.
    A single Mom hunting deer because the state’s welfare system doesn’t give her enough support to put food on the table when bringing up two teenage kids is one thing; these smug jerks…Out of my way I’m not in the mood for you.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Y’know what I would love to see? Take away their rifles, their spotting and tracking equipment, and turn them loose in the woods to hunt with naught but their bare hands and their wits. We would then see who is actually the superior species.

      As for the mom hunting for food … well, she could have fed those kids a lot of meals for what she paid for that rifle and ammo. Nope, I see no reason at all to murder animals. I think for some men it is to make up for a lack of ‘manliness’ in some other areas.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. I agree with some of this post but disagree with some. I think wild nature should be left alone and things will average out as they always did in the past. When hunters increased the trouble began. However, these days humans don’t always think more people is better. China’s one-child policy didn’t turn out well as there were forced abortions. Now when the government is trying to increase the number of babies because people found out in many cases they can’t afford to have more, the population is decreasing. When the government decided to encourage people to have more than two children so there would be enough youngsters to take care of the oldsters the local bureaucracies decided they still needed the fines they had previously collected for over two children. They continued to collect without warning. One poor man is being persecuted because he trusted the government and now has three and can’t afford the fines the locals insisted on collecting. Also, the one-child policy has left many young men without wives because people decided that “one child” was preferably a boy rather than a girl. —- Suzanne

    Liked by 2 people

    • Eh, when I said that about the ‘one child’ policy, it was mostly tongue in cheek. I don’t think government has any right to dictate the number of children a couple has, BUT … I do think that people ought to use some common sense. The earth truly is over-populated in the sense that there are insufficient resources to provide for them all. It is poor stewardship, in my book, for a family to produce 5, 6, or 7 children. It is irresponsible, and most who have such large families cannot afford to even take care of them, let alone provide a college education for them all. I have three, but frankly if I were starting over, I don’t think I would have any. Especially now.

      Liked by 2 people

      • In some parts of the world there are large families but that can’t be said about everywhere. In the U.S. the population is shrinking. To maintain a steady population everyone has to replace themselves which means every family having two children or some families having more than two. In the U.S. this isn’t taking place. Once there are not enough people to support the Social Security programs they could collapse. I read that and it makes sense to me. The system depends on the number of people in the workforce. We know the government can’t always be depended on. Also, the population has maintained itself as well as it was due to the immigrants. The President is now trying to slow that to a trickle. It’s hard sledding for a couple, widowed person, single person who’s not rich and doesn’t still have some type of income who also doesn’t have children. Other relatives have their own parents and children to look after. The days of Auntie coming to stay and help out are gone. Nuclear families are on their own. Now nursing homes are clearing out anyone whose Social Security no longer pays the medical bills. I don’t even like to think about what will happen to those shoved out. Right now, many of the homeless living on the streets have been shoved out of mental institutions and possibly now nursing homes unless some institution for the poor takes them in. Those from nursing homes wouldn’t last long. I’m sure none want to talk about the number of bodies often found on the streets. Of course, we should each have the right to state our opinion. —- Suzanne

        Liked by 2 people

        • Agreed, SS was suppose to be a stop-gap measure to assist those during the great depression. It was suppose to be phased out, but the politicians made it an entitlement program to get votes. It continues ever since, but nowhere in the SS guidelines that say the gov’t is OBLIGATED to pay those who contributed to the system. It will collapse eventually b/v it’s really one big ponzi scheme. I also agree with Jill that there are too many humans in the world at this point. This all leads to diminishing resources and damage to the environment. In life there are no easy answers, or solutions.

          Like

          • Thanks, Earth United. Social Security is actually money we’ve paid to the government so it isn’t a big Ponzi scheme. I had to work at least ten years and pay into it before I could qualify to get Social Security from the government system. It’s our money which I’d guess draws interest so we “are” entitled to it. We are not allowed to collect both a pension and Social Security. You can save money in an IRA, however. You have to work for what you get. No one is handing out free money. —- Suzanne

            Liked by 1 person

            • My father is retired and he collects both a pension and SS without penalty. You may have misunderstood what I meant by Ponzi scheme. I’m not implying that SS is a scam, but it’s structured as an “investment” where current participants work and contribute part of their salary toward paying benefits for retirees. Each new generation of workers support the previous generation.
              Outside of SS, ponzi schemes are illegal according to gov’ts. A Ponzi scheme is a form of fraud that lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors. The scheme leads victims to believe that profits are coming from product sales or other means, and they remain unaware that other investors are the source of funds.
              The difference is our gov’t controls this racket, and the source of money is sanctioned and known to all. However most young ppl are reluctant to contribute to this system b/c we are being told that SS will run out of money by 2036 and we’ll never see a dime. All the while part of our paycheck goes toward paying current retirees. If you read the SS bylaws… it say that the SS administration is not obligated to fulfill it’s promise of payout if the funds run out. Hence every ponzi scheme in history ultimately collapse, with a whole lot of angry ppl holding the bag at the end of the game.
              I don’t plan on ever seeing SS when I retire, but that’s OK b/c I put alot into my solo 401K.
              Social Security is a government benefit and an entitlement. But when it runs out of money… who pays? Seems like a forced racket to me b/c we are all forced to contribute whether we like it or not. 😉

              Liked by 1 person

              • Things may have changed as you used to not be able, in the U.S., to get both pension and Social Security. I don’t know what company and/or country your father’s pension was from. When I registered to start getting Social Security the government wanted to know if I was getting a pension from anywhere. I looked it up and the information said if you get a pension, your Social Security amount may be reduced. I’ve told my children to save up as much as they can in their IRA’s. This administration especially seems money hungry. —- Suzanne

                Liked by 1 person

                • Totally agree, Republican administrations in general are more money oriented. They tend to enrich themselves and their business cronies/ contributors by enacting huge corporate tax breaks (corp welfare) at the expense of the ppl. That’s why budget deficits are so outta control. Trump is trying to control the foreign deficit with the use of sanctions but it’s not working and he’s pissing off our largest trading partners and hurting our own growers/ exporters. Our foreign traded deficit is STILL GROWING, so much for his art of the deal!
                  For political gain, Republican party usually increase SS payout during the election cycle to “bribe” voters, further draining the SS fund. Truthfully I’m sick of political manipulations from all parties.

                  Like

        • Actually, the U.S. population is increasing steadily. In 2012, the population in the U.S. was 314 million, and in 2018 it was 327.2 million. But more importantly, the earth can only provide sufficient resources for a certain number of people and in parts of the world, that number has already been exceeded. Add to that, the disastrous effects of climate change that are shrinking water supplies and arable land, and the earth will be able to provide for fewer and fewer going forward, yet populations around the globe continue to rise. It is an untenable situatiion.

          The labour force has also risen every year since 1960, with the exception of 2009-2011 following the financial crisis of 2008. One of the problems with the current Social Security system is that with people living longer, the average person collects more from retirement to death than he paid in, thus generating a deficit. Another reason the system is in the red is that the federal government has ‘borrowed’ funds from it for other purposes, and not yet paid them back.

          I fully respect your opinion, Suzanne, but from my perspective, I just don’t see where increasing the population is a benefit. In some cases, as the saying goes, less is more.

          Like

  9. Strangely, over 10 years ago we were told that Earth’s human pop. had exceeded 8 billion? Guess that was false news? As a vegetarian I do not condone killing anything, like this. Eating habit aside. I suppose the rush of killing them; is all that is important to them? Who knows? I don’t try. While on the subject of population. While de-crying this some years ago. My friend, pointed out. That still everyone could live in Texas on 2 acres and still have room left over. Which tells me, we spread out. If anyone feels for the animals? Don’t eat them. You see the wolves? Do you suppose a dead cow, pig, sheep or chickens look any different when laid out? All of us are warm-blooded mammals. Except the chickens. Cheers Jamie.

    Liked by 4 people

    • On a positive note, future generations are more mindful about killing animals for food, hence the huge vegan movement and so many young animal rights activists opposing factory farming which is destroying our planet with unchecked pollution and lowering our collective consciousness (consuming the pain and suffering of animals does not bode well for humanity). I became vegan when I was 7, and learned that meat comes from animals that were murdered to satisfy humanity’s blood lust. Everyone I know is vegan, strong, healthy and mindful of the suffering of others. We are all social justice warriors to protect those who cannot defend themselves, esp animals whom we have a moral obligation to save. The extinction rate on this planet is off the charts, soon there will be only humans left? God forbid! I know it’s only a matter of time when the older destructive generations die off, leaving room for kinder, more compassionate liberally progressive young ppl to change the world. Like the rep from NYC, AOC with her Green New Deal is the future! She will be the first female progressive President in this country in 2024! But we all have to do our part to make that probable future happen, and the time is now.
      Make the right choices: change our eating habits, consciously spend our money that support green self sustaining industries/ causes, oppose tyranny in all it’s guises. Do the right thing ppl! ❤

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dear hirundine, and all the other vegetatarians and vegans of the world, you are killing plants every day of your lives, so how can you say you do not condone killing anything? Are plants not living beings. Are they not born of seeds, grow, and if allowed, die natural deaths? How is it that just because most of them do not move from their birthplace that they become “NOT ANYTHING?”
      I hate to burst your bubbles, but life lives on life. And on the remains of life. Except for a few things that some people eat while they are still alive, most everything most people eat are killed before we eat them. If we look at other species, many of them ingest living beings, but even those beings are killed inside the digestive system. Fruits and berries and grains and eggs are about the only things we might say are not living when they are consumed, but all such things contain the potentiality of life. So one way or another we are stopping life in order that we might survive.
      Meanwhile, if anything is not killing in order to survive, it is those very plants you are killing. They take carbon dioxide and combine it with sunlight to create their bodies, which we then kill to eat.
      Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against vegetarians or vegans, you survive how you choose. But I also have nothing against people who eat meat, mostly we do that because we were taught to. But one is in no way superior to the other, or inferior to the other, it is as nature is. Life lives on life, and no matter how you look at it, one life is being taken to allow another life to continue. And no one’s life is more valuable than any other life. It is how the universe works. For now…

      Liked by 3 people

      • Dear Rawgod, I see ur willing to flesh out the argument, pun intended. While I’m a passionate advocate for animal rights and adhere to strict veganism, I also hold no grudge against meat eaters, nor do I judge them. I agree that life begets life, and we all have a choice to choose between killing consciousness beings on this planet or not. One of my goals is to cause as little pain and suffering to others, and be mindful of my actions – cause and effect.
        However, I would argue that animal life should be more valued than plant life, purely from a consciousness level. On the physical plane, everything exists in harmony and balance in nature (ideally if not interfered by man). Animals rely on plants to survive, when animals die they go back into the earth. The cycle of life continues. Man is a “higher” being, has dominion over the animals, plants, minerals etc. With that comes responsibility and conservation. We could do so much better managing the planet, and we’re killing it! I believe eating meat creates a vicious cycle of harm b/c we become desensitized and less conscious of other living beings. Just like we don’t arbitrarily kill and eat cats and dogs b/c we love them and they are our friends, extending that logic why should we kill any other animal b/c of our mindless convention and conditioning dictates it so.
        You are right that we all have a choice, we can choose what we wish to eat, hence this leads to our personal experience of how we view life in this realm. From that standpoint, choosing not to eat meat saves the environment, prevents cruelty pain and suffering toward animals, and makes us more mindful of how we wish to create our reality.
        I think we’re all on the same page since we’re exchanging thoughts and ideas on Jill’s blog, awareness of personal, social, political issues are quite high… and we all try to do the right thing, contribute to make this a better world for all. Thanks for extending this discourse! ❤

        Like

      • Rawgod,Not sure why you are comparing apples to oranges? Killing is only part of the issue. You are equating carrots with warm-blooded mammals. Atheist are you? That explains a lot. Let us hope you keep, an enquiring mind? Then one day, you will get it?
        Yeah you were taught to eat meat…. Sure, we get that. You had to learn it? Equating rice, to a chunk of thigh? Good lessons! The Universe is living and dying all around. The Universe and our galaxy all the others. Are all connected with plasma energy.It is an Electric universe. I chose not to consume other sentient beings like that. A Deer or Wolf has both a mind and nervous system. They suckle, their young. A carrot? Not so ….Cheers Jamie

        Like

        • Hi Jamie, I stick by my previous statement. You’re right, for as far as you go, I’m equating apples to oranges. They are both fruits created by their mothers to hopefully spread their seeds onto fertile soil, where they can grow more trees to propagate the species, which is what all species try to do.
          The problem is not mine, but yours, for you do not see that all life is equal. You have never heard a plant begging for water when it is thirsty, or felt it cringinging in fear when something dangerpus and threatening comes close. Yours is the mind that is closed if you think plants are not sentient beings. All life is sentient. Every cell of every living being is sentient, and you are kidding yourself if you think different.
          How can life be supeior to life? You laugh at me for being an atheist, and think this explains everything. It just so happens that I am a spiritual atheist, and I believe, through experience, that if a being is alive it has spirit, and if it has spirit, which it surely does, it is worthy of not being killed. Unfortunately, as I said in my original comment, life lives on life, and you MUST KILL in order to survive.
          The reason I made my first comment was because you said you don’t kill anything, and I wanted you to think about that statement. Do you kill spiders, or mosquitoes, or other bugs. Then you kill things, and even worse, you kill them wantonly. They are doing their own thing, minding their own business. Plants are no different, just that they happened to need roots to survive, so they are mostly stuck in the places their seeds germinated. It took evolution to move life from the plant form to the animal form. But it is still life. And to feed yourself, life must die.You are no more superior to any form of life than I am, but it is you who will someday learn that. I already have. But I still consider myself equal to all living things. I am not so arrogant as to think I am somehow better than anything else, just more open-minded.

          Like

    • Mostly, they don’t kill them for food, but rather as a trophy. They think it makes them somehow more of a ‘man’, though in my book, it makes them an object of scorn. Your friend was quite wrong about that 2-acre concept. Two acres are two acres, whether in Texas or Rhode Island or Scotland, and the population of the world could not fit on two acres. Good to see you Jamie … Cheers.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. It just beggars belief. I get the concept of hunting for food. But how can you get off just hunting for fun. An attempt to make you look powerful and strong. Sorry it just makes you look like a small minded, cowardly moron. It’s like Fox Hunting. How big is it to send a pack of hungry dogs after one animal. I keep hearing the argument ‘it’s our right, we have been doing this for hundreds of years’. So has slavery, murder, hanging witches. I always think ok if you want to hunt. Go in then but go without your big gun and see if you like it so much then.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Hunting is the subconscious memory of survival from the ancient times. Breaking news: ppl we don’t need to hunt anymore, we became an agrarian civilization over 10,000 years ago! There’s plenty of plant food to feed the whole planet many times over. It’s humanity’s low consciousness that keeps us from evolving and realize our maximum potential. The goal is not only to survive, but thrive in a loving, more compassionate & meaningful environment.
      We should all ask ourselves, who are we and why are we really here for? On that note, I am really hopeful for the future, b/c I know we can all change it for the better.

      Liked by 2 people

    • There is no sport, no contest, when man is armed with a high-powered rifle, night-vision goggles, binoculars, and what have you, while the animal has to get near enough to use claws or teeth, and that is unlikely against the rifle. And they are not hunting out of the necessity for food, for they could feed their entire family for a year for what they paid for all their fancy equipment and guns. I’m with you on that last bit … let them go with nothing but their wits (most would be completely unarmed then). This just makes me so angry. Mankind is NOT superior … in any way!

      Liked by 1 person

I would like to hear your opinion, so please comment if you feel so inclined.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s