Hidden enemies posing as vegan names, wolves in sheep's clothing

There is a problem lately within our movement that most are unaware of...many problems, all from one source well-hidden among us...among them are the USDA, Dairy boards, and pro-hunting lobbies all disguised under well-intentioned names often associated with nature, wildlife, Veganism, and earth friendly gimmicks.

When I present these to folks online or offline in town, they question it in a certain manner as if to justify it. When I, for example, mention that we shouldn't buy Silk brand Soy Milk, as the name is owned by a dairy farm (Dean's, in fact), the response is that I buy from grocery stores which sell meat and dairy products, thus I'm doing essentially the same thing, thereby remarking my own hypocrisy in the matter. But there is a very distinct difference between buying dairy-owned names and simply purchasing from a grocery who also stocks meat and dairy products...

direct vs. indirect promotion

When one buys from a store which happens to sell meat and dairy products (currently no such store even exists which stocks vegan or vegetarian products only) one is not exactly promoting the industry. The grocery store is not tied to the meat and dairy industry in any way. They are a privately owned business catering to a specific demand to earn a product. If over 80% of their customer base buys meat and dairy, they are going to carry products involving both in order to earn a profit and continue to exist. A vegan buying vegetables from the same store therefore isn't going to profit the meat industry at all, but the store itself...the store gets the money and not the meat industry. So, in essence, no promotion of meat and dairy is done. They earn no profit, only the store does...

However, when a vegan, whether unaware of the issue or not, buys Silk, or say they buy Borden brand orange juice, while the product is vegan by ingredients, the names are owned by a dairy farm, so unlike with the store issue above, they are funding the dairy industry directly, ensuring that, as a business who exists by earning a profit, continues to exist whether the product is vegan or non-vegan. Buying Borden owned orange juice and therefore directly funding the dairy industry with your dollars is no different than had you bought the cows milk itself. They are going to use the money one way or another to promote their business whether the product sold is dairy related or not. Often this is how the industry survives as well, hoping to look good or just sneak in a profit from our side.

The organic label

Now don't get me wrong, I'm no supporter of genetically modified foods when I can avoid them, and certainly do everything in my power to ensure I don't purchase them or promote them. I such a view, I won't be speaking as being opposed to organic foods. However I will say right here, for the record, that I flat-out refuse to purchase any food carrying the USDA label organic or otherwise. Sadly, the USDA has hijacked the 'organic' label, and, being that they are essentially the meat and dairy as well as the leader and spokesperson for animal agriculture, not only would I be promoting the industry by the purchase of a USDA-certified Organic product, I would also be unable to trust that the product sold is even organic, given that the animal agriculture industry has a lot of lies and myths as well as overall tomfoolery involved in any of their campaigns...one such campaign is the certified humane label they also use. Most of those farms, with few exceptions, are factory farms hiding behind a friendly label in order to keep consumers of meat and dairy, but whom are concerned about the welfare of animals raised for them, and therefore not humane at all. Given that fact, I avoid organic foods from the USDA for the same reason, I cannot trust the authenticity of the name or label, a Di refuse to directly fund the enemy.

I do hope this clears things up from now on.

Hunting, Vegans, and Apologists

Throughout twenty years of fighting the one thing that seems ever-refusing to die, hunting animals as foor or trophy, as well as a more recent endeavor, ending the use of animals slaughtered for food, used for entertainment, or used for fur, milk, or any other reasons, i have arrived at an ever-increasing problem--apologists.

Any person fighting for animal rights has probably heard the terms 'ethical farming' or 'certified-humane, raised and handled' before, as they are futile (i hope, at least) attempts of the meat/dairy industry for legitimizing animal production and animal agriculture on the grounds of welfare or treatment alone. as many humans are pretty aware of animal slaughter via videos shared by activists and vegans all over the globe, many have started to question the use of animals for food or oppose it entirely (i.e., by going vegan) because they cannot stand the idea of eating someone who has been treated horribly due to industrialized agriculture. animals are often unable to ever see the light of day during their short lifespans, many cruelly beaten on their way to be slaughtered, transported long distances in sub-optimal conditions without even food or water, and some brutally done in in the final moments of death. beaten as they bleed out all over the floor. for this and many other reasons people choose to abstain from animal flesh or animal products (milk, leather, fur, etc) by going vegan.

Vegan differs from the popular term 'vegetarian' in that unlike vegetarianism, being vegan goes well beyond diet alone. while vegetarians may give up meat and possibly even dairy or fish and eggs, many have no quarrel with anyone drinking the milk of a cow, or don't care if they wore a leather jacket. vegans oppose any form of use of animals, right down to the clothes on their backs. veganism is a baseline goal behind animal rights, which differs from animal welfare by advocating the end of and abolition of all forms of animals being used by humans, with the ultimate goal of total liberation of all animals and the end of the use of animals as pets by ending breeding and spaying and neutering them until they cease to exist.

BUT, and this is a large but, animal rights is being co-opted by animal industry. the vegans who went vegan because they were made aware of their treatment but still maintained views of humans being a natural meat eater (which meant they probably take supplements assuming veganism is a choice against nature) and therefore are likely to be lulled into the promotion of 'happy' animal use. aka, utilitarianism. animal industry has lost enough customers due to animal rights advocates taking the risk just to upload images and videos of animals in slaughterhouses or industrialized 'factory' farms, and many have gone vegan as a result. unfortunately, the industry is also aware, and working together with bigger high-dollar animal  organizations such as PETA, HSUS, and FARM, have convinced those fully aware of the brutality behind animal agriculture (and these vegans who went vegan from seeing their horrid treatment) that they have changed, and that recreating old Macdonald's farm, the image of idyllic pastures of daisies and grass, the image often used in kids books regarding farming, and milking even, is the answer, and the best way to work towards the goal. unfortunately it's the biggest gimmick to get people to look at animals as things all over again. many see animals in factory farms and say 'no!' but when they see animals given names, lots of room, and lots of love from the farmer, they usually have nothing against consuming meat from such a place.  the vegan who went vegan due to shocking videos of animal slaughter sees these new models out there, and the quick, often painless death as a reason to get right back on meat again, and usually foregoes veganism entirely. then, as a result, these 'ethical omnivores' as they often seem fond of calling themselves promote the new 'humane certified' as a way to love animals, and have your steak, too. even some lingering vegans are falsely lulled into being proponents of such tripe, usually saying something along the lines of this:

"Animals are being treated horribly, and meat ain't going away overnight. it seems logical to at least reduce their harm in the here and now by promoting humane ways of slaughtering them and consider this as a baby step towards the goal of abolition"

this is known as being an 'apologist'. someone who speaks the same language as the industry they claim to fight, while ignoring the facts of how much meat consumption has skyrocketed since establishing these 'family' farms, and the focus on ending 'factory' farms seems to imply that the new 'family' farm is not committing any act of cruelty. many people out there hate any form of animal abuse, and fully support animal welfare. hardly anyone wants to support brutality as seen in videos such as Earthlings, which focuses on the factory farm model as evidence to go vegan. these people sadly will have very little to convince them that eating from a 'ethical' farm is wrong. after all, they still believe they need meat and milk, and if all they see is cows living peacefully on a large pasture, and even the occasional lick on the cheek if they pass such a farm by on a walk to their church for example, how are they going to see this and assume it's the same cruelty as seen in Earthlings?

even worse, there is the promotion of hunting animals for food as 'more ethical, fair, sustainable, and drug-free way to get meat'. many cite flawed data of humans being hunter gatherers and that hunting is 'our natural way to get meat for the table'. along with this, the 'animals are never caged or bred solely for human consumption and it's more fair to the animal because we are doing the same thing natural predators do, and a deer won't see a human hunter any differently than he already sees a cougar'

the problem is that again, some 'vegans' are lulled to promoting this as a 'baby step' towards abolition, and see it as the end of animal agriculture entirely, even going so far as to claim 'i'm not against people who hunt for the meat/for survival, only those who hunt exclusively for the trophy'

these are also apologists. and hardly the image of veganism which Donald Watson intended when creating the term. veganism was never meant to be used to promote any form of animal use over another. and treating animals better or hunting them 'like lions' isn't going to make their killing ok. here's an example of the flawed logic. take this sentence, one often used by those who claim deer hunting is fair and ethical and if done for food is justifiable, and fill the blanks with 'dog,' 'cat,' or even 'human' and recite it again:

"I am not against hunting of [   ] for food, as it is more fair, ethical, and natural than factory farming. i'm only against it if done for the trophy"

"hunting [    ] prevents overpopulation of [     ] and their starving to death"

i suppose no one would use such logic to promote killing humans for meat, or killing humans for population control, would they? so why would any self-respecting vegan, who fights for an end to animal agriculture and use at all, defend any form of hunting 'for the meat' as if it were any different than for the trophy? is the murder of humans legitimized by using their flesh? if so i guess Jeffrey Dahlmer should have been released from prison as he 'only hunted his human victims for their meat' instead of 'for the hell of it' then? no....

hunting is responsible for mass extinction of the last living examples of natural life upon the Earth. it goes against survival of the fittest as many hunters cull the fit, vs the weak as a natural predator would. by no means can any vegan promote the killing of ANY animal as 'humane' or 'fair'. not without being able to include their own species or pets into the same equation. being perfectly ok with someone who hunts deer only for food or survival should have no problem with anyone doing the same when killing humans or pets. judging another being's life based on their species, or being ok with killing of certain species for food and not recreation, while being against such use of their own kind founders to speciesism, racism and discrimination based on another's species.

" In our travels, we've encountered many other creatures, perhaps even stranger looking than ourselves. "

---Star Trek: The Next Generation 'Evolution'

Hunting's real goal isn't what you think!

Time and time again i deal with public as well as animal rights advocates who fail to understand the true purpose behind hunting and as a result, it is often derided as a minority (using statistics coming straight from the propaganda machine itself,  the Fish and Wildlife Services, run by hunters for hunters) and even considered a back issue in the area of animal rights activism because it's not as threatening as the slaughter of animals on factory farms.

this is where i must correct many issues surrounding the current state of hunting in the United States as well as its true goal that i have found out over twenty years of being in the hunting culture of the South. here in Kentucky (and it's not that much different from states like Texas, Alabama, or Tennessee, with regards to participation and culture) hunting is a very popular belief, often times cited as part of the Christian faith itself, and yes, Christianity in the form of Conservative Baptist and Catholicism are predominantly heavy in this area. i cannot even travel in what is often called 'the middle of nowhere' without seeing at least a half dozen churches on my way. the two are often used together, as is the case with Christian Bowhunters, and even religion is used to promote or defend deer hunting against the new term used for animal rights advocates, the 'anti's'.

hunting is pretty much 90% of the culture in Owensboro, situated on the river in Daviess County, Kentucky, only a few miles away from Rockport, Indiana via the Ohio River bridge. twenty years ago, hunting was still a controversy among the population, and the number of active hunters was a mere 25%, of our 50,000 people, and not many were comfortable revealing themselves as hunters among the public, afraid of opposition or insults from animal lovers, who, while non-vegan themselves, saw hunting as unnecessarily cruel and obsolete practice in the 20th Century then (after all, there are plenty of animals already dying on farms for food, right?). today, however, hunting in Owensboro is as popular as video games were during the first time the Nintendo Entertainment Systed was released in 1985. kids even say it's better than playing video game shooters 'because it's real!'. while in 1998, the idea of giving a child a gun, especially given the Columbine Massacre, was taboo. today, however, it is standard practice to teach kids to handle guns, shoot benign herbivores, and then pose with their kill and the picture framed in a wooden picture frame saying on it, 'Baby's first deer!' or 'Grandpa's little deer slayer'

getting back to the issue regarding animal rights, because of figures like Ted Nugent, the recent onslaught of 'ethical' slaughter/farming, a new movement known as the 'Ethical hunters' are showing up. teaching kids, promoting hunting as sustainable, fair, more humane than factory farming, or even considered population control and therefore being responsible for the fact we even HAVE wildlife at all. hunting is oftentimes linked with environmentalism and conservation and even groups such as the World Wildlife Fund, Defenders of Wildlife support hunting, citing again, sources paid by hunting organizations, as proof that hunting 'works' and  keeps animals from starving to death. animal advocates even make claims, again, same sources, that hunting only makes up "5% of the population of the United States Population and is in sharp decline" (quote source: In Defense of Animals)

5 percent? that's a bit low if you ask me, given how that would hardly cover the state of Kentucky, much less the rest of the Southern United States, where hunting is pretty rampant lately. that figure may have made since in the 1970s when people seemed active against hunting in animal rights groups, and when hunting was still overall,  taboo in many areas, derided as animal cruelty and unnecessary due to 'modern' farming in the here and now. however, twenty years have passed since i started fighting hunting (and getting beaten occasionally, and even being jailed once for a day when i wouldn't shut my mouth near a hunter who walked into a store chiming in how he bagged his prize buck) and i have seen hunting getting more and more popular, and  the number of active hunters is rising dramatically. that 5% figure is no longer valid, and is taken from the fish and game services themselves, who want the average public concerned at least for animal welfare, to believe hunting isn't worth worrying about. in fact, i have also witnessed first-hand, even moving many times living in a travel trailer, to many woods, and seeing the deer population also in sharp decline, not hunters, as is popularly stated on animal groups and even stated by activists themselves.

A recent event was the culling of deer in Shawnee Park,  back when i first joined Facebook in late 2008. the park's goal was eliminating the entire herd, and amidst opposition from animal groups, it was still done, and the entire park lost the entire deer population, with only pictures of the aftermath being lines of bodies stacked side by side. if hunting was about management and keeping wildlife around, why eliminate an entire herd in a park?

another recent event, this one only a day old or so, was the elimination by helicopter of the Wedge Wolf pack, again, the entire pack was killed. not managed, or as is the popular repeated quote by those buying the hunting propaganda, force-bred to satisfy hunting blood  lust. the fact is, that hunting has but one goal, one i have learned by being in the culture, having a blue-collar lifestyle myself, to where i blend in with the people that i have learned a few of their dark secrets undercover. that goal is the total extinction of large or invasive to 'human progress' wild animals, namely animals like deer, wolves, bears, cougars, and many other species, for hopes of using the land for free-range cattle farms, subdivisions, human school and shopping districts, and so on. hunting has no plans to save wildlife, they want you and every other citizen concerned with the cruelty to believe they are the reason wildlife still exist. the fact is, the Wedge pack was extincted in their local area due to complaints from, yes, surprise, cattle farmers. the BLM is doing similar with horses, with cruel roundups and killings and using cattle land need as the reason. hunting is more a threat in my opinion than any factory farm for this one reason alone--one can always breed more cattle, pigs, sheep, horses, and the like. but when rhinos, deer, bears, and many other wonderful, innocent species are eliminated by hunters, you cannot breed more. when they're gone, they're gone. right here i witness the ever-increasing destruction of our entire whitetail deer herd,  and the ironic surprise of three more free-range cattle farms being built right where the deer once stood, and were recently hauled away by private game wardens via convoys of ATVs, golf carts, and pickup trucks. anyone who thinks hunting isn't trying to remove wildlife and make them extinct hasn't been following the trail of extinct animals due to hunters. such as the passenger pigeon and American Bison in the state of Kentucky (and they're rare anywhere else). anyone who thinks hunting isn't trying to eradicate wildlife has never had the hot breath of hunters drilling into you their hatred of 'the rats with horns' or 'overgrown goats' they call deer. anyone who thinks hunting has no plans to extinct the wildlife has never seen how the DNR and Defenders of Wildlife, even Obama himself, supported the delisting of wolves from the only protection they had, being on the Endangered Species list. and if not to plan their extinction, what else explains removing a threatened species from that list? i urge everyone to make a stand, to put hunting in more focus in attempt to ban it. and be consistant, head-strong, and continue to make your state representatives aware that hunting is not something we want in our world.

Are Meat Eaters Hateful to Plant Eaters??

Have you noticed that meat lovers seem pretty touchy about even being in the presence of a vegan? have you been told how 'cruel' you are to the 'poor plants?' Has anyone told you how apparently 'disgusting' it is the way cows use their tongues to eat plants? do you often wonder why they even say that? it may be simpler than you realize.

Many animals we eat are plant-eaters

Have you ever did a run-down of statistics on how many animals or more specifically what kind of animals are slaughtered, hunted, or raised for food? statistically we eat more plant-eaters, or vegans than any other. while there are few exceptions to the rule, namely Asia and a few other places, statistically we only eat animals who live by the same rule as vegans do. kinda puts the hate into perspective doesn't it?

Most pets are carnivores

Then you look at their pets, how many are herbivores? how many are carnivores? statistically society's two most favorite, and often adopted pets, happen to be carnivores. dogs and cats. oh sure the odd rabbit ends up 'adopted' but i have seen more bunnies fed to snakes afterwards than treated as members of the family like the dog or cat. if you go to most any shelter around the globe, you often find dogs and cats shown. even if there are herbivores available, and lord knows they need all the help they can get as well, the shelter workers try to convince you that a dog is more proper for you, even if say, a pygmy goat, is just like a dog and no larger than a small toy breed at that. it seems the shelter workers don't want you to adopt an herbivore. wonder why that is?

If you look at it this way, it makes one wonder if it is a hangup we have against those who eat plants. do meat eaters truly believe in the plant suffering argument? if they are trying to debate us, i am sure they must, or they would seem to intentionally look stupid by the mention of that line, which obviously is not what they want on their side in a debate! so it does make one wonder, do they love plants more than plant-eaters? do we get insulted because we are 'murdering' more plants? their pets are meat eaters, they eat plant-eaters, even if humans are truly herbivores, which i believe they are, they certainly show great insult at that mention as well.

it is funny, how incorrect it is to see humans biting into flesh with flat teeth, claiming we are evolved carnivores or omnivores, that tools are evolutionary features. but then our bodies remain 100% herbivorous, our ability to live healthy on fats and cholesterol are certainly not in our favor, our teeth are flat, yet we cling to the omnivore myth. we seem to ignore the obvious. meat is uncomfortable for us to chew, we don't like the taste of blood, (an herbivore trait) yet instead of accepting that, we just cook instead, flavor it with plant-ingredients, and even go to the dentist to treat the symptom of the problem our teeth deal with eating meat--tooth decay, who's primary cause is meat stuck in between and finding its way into the gumline.

if you look at the teeth of any carnivore or true omnivore, their teeth are well spaced apart and it is nearly impossible for meat to get caught in between, and they seem to have healthy teeth even if they gorge on flesh and blood. herbivores, like deer, have perfectly white teeth well into old-age, and eat only plants.

Pigs, a true omnivore, don't need grills to eat meat!

Deer, true plant-eaters, need no dentists to keep their teeth white

It always makes me giggle to see humans treating the symptom instead of the actual problem, since the solution is right directly in front of them in the mirror. we take the easy way out often, but as for the original topic, the hate of plant eaters, it stems from religious, historical, and possibly ancient savagry. many herbivores today were once carnivores in ancient times, the horse for example used to prey on humans back in our ancient history, when we were no more than 3 ft tall. the horse has since become evolved to be 100% herbivorous but that does not stop humans from racing them to death, using them to carry their tools, or even eating them.

Have you ever wondered why horses, an herbivore, have such a large mouth gape?

I may never find out why we truly have it out for plant eaters, but i am going to solve it one day, and until then, i will remain ever vigilant to the plight they face. keep in mind this is nothing against carnivores, and vegans don't hate carnivores the way meat lovers hate herbivores. in fact, i greatly admire nature, and predation, when it is natural. it's those of us who are un-natural that bother me!

"You cannot wantonly justify an immoral act, just because you believe it may be connected to some higher purpose!"

--Star Trek: The Next Generation "Man of the People"

Human beings the most Intelligent?

I hear this far too often. "Humans are the most intelligent species" or "Animals are inferior and humans are superior we use tools" all the time to justify our use and abuse of animals, it is the most often used superiority complex in history, longer than the Crusades, longer than the Nazi regime. but no different in its violence towards another being. i never could understand it because, frankly, i do not see our species as intelligent. violent, destructive in ways that animals could never be? sure. but intelligent? no. let's do a run down shall we?

1. What truly rates intelligence? an IQ test designed by and for humans?
Many try and use the long-used Intelligence Quotient test, designed by and for humans, to rate how 'dumb' animals are. when the cow, for example cannot figure out how many 'people' are in the puzzle, the animal fails. of course, i failed this test too, as i am not good at patterns, puzzles, and math, which  the IQ test favors. i favor real knowledge that obviously is beyond the scope of the IQ test's favoritism of memory spans, and pattern recognition. if the IQ test could rate real knowledge of real life events, history, biology, psychology as is used in the true reality of things, many humans who pass as a 'genius' would fail miserably.

                                          "our shields are down! we are defenseless!"

2. But humans have 'evolved' to use tools, animals have not! that makes us the superior being!
Incorrect. true, we, after learning how animals do it, have in fact replicated tools that help us do what they do, such as fly using aircraft, or dive using submarines, or to simply survive (Air conditioning? stoves? homes?) but is that truly superiority, or living inside a bubble to keep our species alive. i am  not kidding when i say we are on technological life support. animals can survive without tools, their anatomy geared for even the harshest of conditions, but humans? we are only as superior as our infrastructure permits. if, by some miraculous event, the infrastructure collapses for long enough, as evidenced by any major disaster (Hurricane Katrina, Japan's Tsunami, etc) we are defenseless. our deflector shields have failed. our weapons, offline. we are now exposed to the very world we seek so hard to stay away from. we are now on the 'other side' of the food chain, prey, weak, dead! many do die in such events proving nature's true superiority over us. not ours to it.

3. But does not religion give superiority to humans?
this argument by far is the hardest to argue for it is based entirely against logic. i do not myself believe in God anymore, for i have seen no proof we can use to support any existance of a higher power. as far as i am concerned God is just a fairy tale made up by people over centuries who are trying to explain the unexplained, to find some justification for death, to explain it, or to ease grief-stricken folks who have lost someone they care about and refuse to accept it. But other than that, i lose it. God may be nice if used to do the latter, to find meaning in something as awful as death, but when it goes so far to infiltrate our justice system, to promote mass death to animals or mislabel our species as 'superior' or the 'master of all creation' i am lost. i have seen nothing of our species that resembles even remotely superiority in the most true form. we commit acts of barbarism that even the most vicious carnivore would never do to their prey. we commit this for no logical reason--we do NOT need meat. pure and simple. it is completely un-natural to drink milk after infancy or from another species. for a species which loves to say how high and mighty they are, i can only agree if they are discussing how destructive our species has become. the meat and dairy industries are the #2 contributor to Global Havoc, which i use as a more accurate term than the largely misleading 'Global Warming' (because many who are now freezing where it was once warm are the ones who are largely in denial over the whole thing, i do not agree with using the latter term). so long as we continue to live life as we are now, we will never see an end to the destruction, or war, or hate. humans love to brag how 'evolved' we are, despite how they never know the meaning of the word, but refuse to go any farther. they want to stick in this rut they created for themselves, never caring at all about the world around them that is collapsing as we speak. one day, we may see our infrastructure fail, and then survival of the fittest will once again re-establish itself, and we will finally see who is truly, the superior species...

"Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives, i rather believe time is a companion, who goes along with us on the journey. teaching us to cherish every moment, for it will never come again. after all, Number One, we are only mortal!"

--Captain Picard, Star Trek: Generations

Animal Rights: The Final Frontier

The fight for animal rights is a voyage in and of itself. as one of many captains in the fleet, i have found it is not an easy task. especially when your ship is alone in a very harsh territory. taking inspiration from Star Trek: Voyager, a show about a ship alone in a far away quadrant full of a multitude of unknown dangers and struggling to survive, i can relate well. as a lone activist in Owensboro, KY, i have found that activism is seriously lacking. i am the proverbial Captain Janeway. Owensboro the Delta Quadrant. struggling not to just get home, but survive and help the animals to as well. unfortunately, i am up against enemies of my own. hunters, meat lover alike share many common grounds. the least of which is religion, feelings of superiority over non-humanoid life, and a desire to fear and destroy that which they fail to understand...

I know it is not just a coincidence in Star Trek: Voyager that they decided to show hunters in the episodes known as 'The Killing Game' 'Flesh and Blood parts 1-2' and 'Prey'. they really made them look true-to-life despite efforts here in the 21st Century to whitewash the majority to believe hunters are doing some public service. in Voyager, however, they showed the true mentality. that of killing purely for sport. you see, hunting has not been a survival method for centuries. today, it is as obsolete as, shall we say, a Class 1 Shuttle. or a rotary telephone. no one uses those, so why hold to hunting? how many times have we been told 'hunting has been around since the dawn of time?' 'humans would not have survived without it!' well i cannot change history. it would also be a violation of the Temporal Prime Directive to attempt it. however, i can change the future. hunting is obsolete. archaic. if we love to hold to one form of obsolescence, why not go all the way? why not use horses and buggies? oil lamps? why not use telegraphs instead of Facebook? certainly hunters are not too stubborn to upgrade to the newest version of Microsoft Windows when they inevitably issue a new version, so why is it so hard for them to even consider 'upgrading' to vegan?

The Borg. another inspiration and relation to reality courtesy of Gene Roddenberry. the reason we hold to such archaic past acts is due to the very nature of assimilation--otherwise known as indoctrinization. brainwashing. fearing being an individual, we are driven to assimilate into a collective mentality. that of one mind, one force, no independent thought. our government is akin to the Borg. where the only law is 'resistance is futile' and i am not kidding. if anyone does try to break the iron grip of our Borg Queen, we are put away. the AETA, Hunter Harrassment Law, and many other limits to our freedom to speak for the rights to life of animals is not uncommon. and we have not begun to see the last of it. the battle is going on as we speak. and we shall never give in to the whims of the Borg. we must never allow them to assimilate us into their culture. for if we do, we will be destroyed

But it is not as fun and easy to watch as Star Trek. in real life, we have real criminals. and this is no show. this is life. hunting is no fantasy on some holodeck we can simply say 'Computer! End Program!' and have it whisk away. this is a real war. fought by real people. and sadly, if it is anything akin to the Battle of Wolf 359, it is us who are outnumbered. we must never give into the whims of welfare, 'humane hunting' or 'humane slaughter' the problem is this thing called religion, indoctrinization, and lies. we do not need to kill. and there is simply no LOGIC in being threatened by a life that does not bring death to others. i am surprised no one is jealous of us, as there is nothing to be shameful of in a lifestyle that does not kill others to live. one day i will find the reason people feel threatened. one day i will find the real reason humans hate deer and feel superior to animals. as they say, find the cause, cure the disease. we must stop chasing symptoms of a much larger problem. we have to find the cause if we are to cure it. and pardon my cliche'd exit, but Helmsman, Set a course......for home!

"What you are doing is not in self-defense! it is the exploitation of another species for your  own benefit. my people decided long ago that was unacceptable, even in the name of scientific progress!"

--Captain Katryn Janeway. Star Trek: Voyager 'Scientific Method'

Common excuses for hunters and meat lovers supporting their acts

Many excuses exist for those defending a lifestyle both archaic and obsolete, whether it is generally meat eating or otherwise. hunters, i claim are more dangerous than a general blind meat eater in that they can harm animals and witness what would make many go vegan at the sight of it. but regardless, i find many who, even on our side, support their arguments. some claim again that humans who are 'wild' have a right to kill animals for food, completely ignoring that we are not omnivores and share much of our anatomy with herbivores.

1. Hunting is more ethical/sustainable/healthy than beef/factory farms/slaughter
This argument is used mainly by both Animal Activists (mainly welfare who pose as 'rights') and hunters alike. they usually seem to agree that hunting is not full of the hormones, the level of industrialization that is factory farming. and in that essence, they are correct. however, what they are incorrect in is that hunting involves far more suffering (bowhunting has a wounding rate of over 65%, while animals on factory farms are lucky to live for 15 minutes after being slit in the throat; a deer embedded with arrrows can suffer for weeks and starve) and hunting requires a mentality of the consumer that is relative to a serial killer. one who buys meat from the store (and of course from factory farms mainly) would not be shown the amount of harsh cruelty done to the animals. hunters, in contrast, can kill animals directly and see everything. hunting then, is like a wall-less slaughterhouse. what would make any average meat eater consider going vegan over would not likely phase a hunter, who can see all the gore and still eat his/her kill.

2. Hunting helps control populations where predators are no longer in sufficient numbers or are extinct.
I know the argument of who killed all the predators off seems to mean nothing to those on both sides now the fact is that it is exactly why there are 'too many deer' as hunters claim. and no, hunting does not help control populations at all. in fact it does more harm, in that humans lack the instincts of a true predator who only hunts animals by hand and is only able to 'cull' the weak and sick animals (healthy ones are too fast/experienced), thus ensuring a naturally strong gene pool. since humans need weapons and other tools to even remotely hunt animals. their being sick or strong has no merit, and the most favored animals are the strong ones. hunters claim that sick animals can make humans sick or cause food poisoning. this is true. however, NO true predator gets sick even if consuming a deer with CWD. like Bovine BSE, CWD IS possible in humans, but it takes a decade to show symptoms. and sadly, by then, it is too late. no cure exists for either disease once symptoms show up.

3. Humans hunting deer is more 'humane' than a wolf doing the same
Leaving the lack of logic in this argument aside, i will argue it. what IS 'humane' to anyone? is it naturally eating meat due to a physiological need and having an anatomy that ensures a quick kill and fast consumption or is it the feelings of which is savage and which is civil? do we claim that wolves, animals with a need for meat, who are able to rip animals to shreds is more cruel than a human who claims to end lives with one shot more humane? or is the definition of humane to mean that those who do not need to kill should not? humans, do not need meat. there is plenty of evidence and many who live as vegetarian or vegan who can prove that point, so is the killing of meat really about how it is killed or that it has to be killed at all? if we do not need meat, then the  deaths for it is certainly unnecessary, wasteful, and in that respect, cruel and inhumane.

4. Humans have the right to choose/it is my choice of a diet/don't force your opinion on me
One of two last resort tactics used by humans who hunt and eat meat both. that we have the right to choose and that meat is legal and available makes it wrong to 'force a change on them'. but do murderers have a right to choose? are we forcing our opinions on those who buy guns legally and then shoot humans? pets? no! do we have a right to choose to rape a woman or child even if sexual enhancement drugs are legal to buy? no! are we forcing our opinion on those who destroy buildings and human lives in terrorism by imprisonment? NO! there is no 'right to choose' if it involves a wasteful destruction of an innocent life for something one does not need. while i will not argue against lethal force used in self-defense, the point is hunting is NOT legally self defense nor necessary. it is simply wasteful.

5. God gave us animals to eat/use/for us to benefit from
I really despise arguing religion as it is so illogical. the Bible of many religions contradicts one another. the Koran says it is ok to kill 'infidels'. our Bible claims that homosexuals should be 'put to death' (read the Leviticus chapters). but it also makes many errors. for a supposedly superior being who 'knows all' would it seem rather dumb of Him to claim that Earth itself is a 'disk' or that rabbits 'chew the cud' or that bats 'are birds?' i find that a bit funny really...

...but getting to the argument itself. it always cites 'animals' are here for us to [yada yada yada]. if so, then why are dogs, cats, pets, exempt and even protected by law? aren't they animals too? i do not recall the phrase which is cited (which does not exist in any Bible of any kind from any religion by the way) being in favor of 'wild' animals or 'farm' animals. so in essense, since humans, pets and  wildlife are ALL ANIMALS by that standard they use they should not have any compunctions against killing anyone for food or trophy, including us.

                                          "Hunting a species to extinction, is not logical"

                                         --Spock, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home