Sunday, August 27, 2006


Remember long ago when politicians were considered to be fairly intelligent and reasonably sane individuals? Forget sanity! Forget intellect! That sexcist, racist blowhard Crazy Ted is considering running for governor of Michigan. According to Field & Stream magazine (Dec. 2005/ Jan. 2006), Ted Nugent is considering running for governor of Michigan in 2010.

Crazy Ted's imbecilic rantings resemble that of a street-ranting psycho, the type of person who yells at passerbys, and who gets enraged when they ignore him. But the self-styled "sportsmen" and "sportswomen" seem proud of their Crazy Ted because while he may not appear well balanced or intelligent, he at least speaks his animal-hating, sexist, racist drivel that propels his disturbed mind.

Ted tries to appear thoughtful and even articulate, but he always shoots himself in the foot because he is too mentally unstable to hide his contempt for anyone who disagrees with him. We expect rock stars - even aging ones - to be a bit eccentric, if not downright nuts. But we expect more from our elected officials because these people have real power to effect people's lives.

Ted Nugent has been called many things, but intellectual is not one of them. He is a proud erectile achiever, though, claiming to get a "full predator spiritual erection" from "pursing bears, lions, coons, housecats, escaped chimps, small children, scared women, and everything else that can be chased and /or hunted." Congratulations to Ted and his peers for making hunting a bizarre sexual experience. The reader may research Ted's infamous statement on the Web by searching "Ted Nugent full predator spiritual erection." Crazy Ted is so bewildered that he believes getting an erection is a spiritual experience.

For Nugent to say that antihunting and anti-gun lobbies have unlimited funding is a total fallacy and a sick one to promote at that. There is no lobby more wealthy and without bottom in their
pockets than Crazy Ted's NRA.

One of Ted's many problems is that he tries to be an everyman, an average joe, while he is actually quite isolated by his self-congratulatory wealth. He is able to stock his many private acres with "game animals" which he brags about killing and mutilating. He plants trees that won't be beneficial for a hundred years while ridiculing those who sacrifice their homes to
save old growth trees.

In the Field & Stream article (Dec. 2005/Jan.2006), Nugent states that he wants no minimum hunting age. That's right, little 4 - year - olds should run wild with their weaponry, blasting every creature in sight as Nugent does.


And here is Crazy Ted's basic message: "We need more racists in public office, and more animal - killing toddlers, because that is what our world wants and needs. Yes, folks, I've got the courage to stand up to women and antihunters because I'm too unstable to stay home and mind my own business. I am brave enough to insult the Hare Krishnas and Heidi Prescott of the Fund for Animals . . . and I have my guns and lawyers to protect me.

I want to preach my message of animal cruelty: 'Kill It & Grill It.' You see, I can't even relate to a common housecat without wanting to kill it, because when you're really into killing and maiming animals, almost any critter is fair game. I cannot tell you the fun I get, the 'high' I get from killing all sorts of wild and domestic animals, and I want to pass on this valuable belief system to the youngsters of America.

People such as myself are addicted to killing innocent animals to make up for a lack of personal power and control. But that's okay with us so-called 'sportsmen' because we pretend to be controlling deer herds, but in reality the herds spin out of control. We thoroughly enjoy killing and crippling animals. In fact, it is so much fun to crucify these poor critters that I want to spread my 'Crazy Ted's Gospel of Sadism' to every man, woman and child. You see, we live in a cruel world, and God knows that I have done my part to create needless and mindless suffering to God's creatures. That's why God created animals - for bloodthirsty bigots and animal haters to exterminate! Don't you people see that is what God wants? Wake up and smell the blood - it's delicious!"


Crazy Ted's enemies are those who want humane treatment of animals and who recoil from the sick-minded misery that Ted inflicts on defenseless animals. Crazy Old Ted's contempt for animals spills over into contempt for minorities, people of different cultures, women, and anyone else who disagrees with his pathological worldview. Crazy Ted does not realize that most people are not pathological animal killers, and most people in the United States are willing to tolerate other religions and cultures.

By making stupid, inflammatory, and racist /sexist remarks, Crazy Old Ted has become a nationally renowned eccentric redneck. He is not valued for his intellect but for his ability to make idiotic comments while he offends people - who number in the millions - who disagree with him. And being an offensive loudmouth is an easy way to get not only attention, but to enlist a small army of inarticulate follwers.

Crazy Old Ted stated: "George W's record is good. He did an amazing job in Texas with improving the air, soil and water quality." Crazy Ted may be sober but he's still high on something. In reality, Texas and California have the worst air quality in the nation while having among the highest per capita income. George W's election was funded by oil magnates and his state is driven by the oil business.

His condemnation of Ralph Nader is evidence of his ego. Nader was one of the few people who spoke out against the SUV phenomenon back when he worked for Carter, a hugely underestimated domestic leader. Nader and company substantiated their claims that SUV's were mechanically and physically prone to roll overs, were gas guzzlers, and were solely the conception of Detroit who tried to use the law that exempted pick-up trucks from emission standards. Can't build a station wagon without paying extra tariffs? Fine, we'll use the frame of a pick-up truck and build something far more wasteful than a station wagon, far more unsafe and ecologically unsound to avoid those taxes and emissions regulations.

Crzay Old Ted tries to sound intellectual but shoots himself in the foot: "We need to demand that industry lives up to the laws we've already got in place. It's not about being on the left or the right, but about confronting corruption in the industry and government." For one thing, the laws we have in place don't answer to the planet's or this nations real needs, so enforcing them is blind ignorance. Finally, Crazy Ted is as far right as they come so how can he talk about bipartisanship for the good of the truth? Crazy Old Ted talks a lot but what he actually does tells the true story.


Crazy Ted has apirations to become the future governor of Michigan. But, before you approve of this sexist, racist, animal-hating hothead, read the news items below.

"My being there (South Africa) isn't going to affect any political structure. Besides, apartheid isn't that cut-and-dry. All men are not created equal." - Detroit Free Press Magazine , July 15, 1990

(About Haiti) "We should put razor wire around our borders and give the finger to any piece of shit who wants to come here." - Westword Newspaper, Denver, Colorado, July 27, 1994

"[Ted Nugent's] conversations are peppered with the word nigger. He refers to his upcoming tour of Japan the Jap Whack Tour." - Detroit Free Press Magazine, July 15, 1990

"...Yeah, we want to go to Saudi Arabia, man, and see if we can't get a four iron and knock people's laundry off the top of their heads. Wear laundry on your head and die, is the basic theme of the Damn Yankees ... (The Damn Yankees was Ted's band in the '90s)" - WRIF-FM, Detroit, Ted Nugent as guest D.J., September 25, 1990

"... And in my mind, I'm going why can't I just shoot this guy in the spine right now; shoot him in the spine, explain the facts of life to him... [Ted referring to an encounter with a Hare Krishna]" - WRIF-FM, Detroit, Ted Nugent as guest D.J., September 28, 1990

"... Yeah they love me (in Japan) - they're still assholes. These people they don't know what life is. I don't have a following, they need me; they don't like me, they need me ... Foreigners are assholes; foreigners are scum; I don't like 'em; I don't want 'em in this country; I don't want 'em selling me doughnuts; I don't want 'em pumping my gas; I don't want 'em downwind of my life- OK? So anyhow - and I'm dead serious ... " - WRIF-FM, Detroit, Ted Nugent as guest D.J.,
November 19, 1992


"Anybody that doesn't think it is better to blow someones brains out than to be raped, deserves to be raped! If you don't think your life is worth it then please go out there, don't wear any underpants and get RAPED!! Cuz you deserve it ..." - WRIF-FM, Detroit, Ted Nugent as guest D.J., September 23, 1991

"When other guys were getting high, I would grab a couple babes, go squirrel hunting and see just how mini mini-skirts could get." - Detroit Free Press Magazine , July 15, 1990

"... I met a couple of guys in line yesterday and they say write something to my girlfriend, she won't let me go hunting. I wrote her something, I wrote Drop dead bitch. What good is she, trade her in, get a Dalmatian, who needs her, the wench." - WRIF-FM, Detroit, Ted Nugent as guest D.J., September 25, 1991

About Hillary Clinton: "You probably can't use the term 'toxic cunt' in your magazine, but that's what she is. Her very existence insults the spirit of individualism in this country. This bitch is nothing but a two-bit whore for Fidel Castro." - Westword Newspaper , Denver, Colorado, July 27, 1994

And if you're a woman who feels that his lyrics to ditties such as the immortal "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang" are sexist, Nugent says, "Fuck you and go to a Garth Brooks show. Kiss my dog's dead, diseased, rotting ass. If you don't have a sense of humor, you're not allowed in Ted's world. I don't objectify women. I'd like to think that I'm optimizing their hardware." - Westword Newspaper, Denver, Colorado, July 27, 1994

Ted Nugent has forked over $75,000 - paying the price for shooting off his mouth. Interviewed in late '92 on WRIF-FM ... he referred to Heidi Prescott (of The Fund for Animals) as a 'worthless whore' and a 'shallow slut' and suggested 'Who needs to club a seal, when you could club Heidi" - Detroit Free Press , April 5, 1995

Wednesday, June 21, 2006


Below is a letter that I had published in the Boulder Daily Camera newspaper in response to a hunter who wants public elk hunting in Rocky Mountain National park.

I strongly disagree with Warren Zivi's letter (Why not let hunters do job? May 28, 2006) which promotes the idea of public elk hunting in Rocky Mountain National Park. National parks are among the few sanctuaries for wildlife in the United States. Hunters already have access to millions of acres of public lands, but they still want to invade national parks with their weaponry, thereby wounding and killing wildlife and scaring sightseers, campers, and hikers.

Also, allowing amateur sport hunting in national parks encourages the killing and wounding of bull elk which does little or nothing to control elk populations. Hobby hunters deliberately seek out the biggest male elk they can can find. Notice how massive Colorado's elk population is to appreciate how ineffective it is to kill a large percentage of male elk.

Our public lands are literally an open-air shooting gallery. They are littered with gun-toting target shooters and hobby hunters, who, along with dirt bikers and ATV riders, run around with impunity while desecrating our public lands. This massive abuse of public lands is disturbing for people who don't care to flee from or hear rifle shots, and for those of us who prefer not to hear ATVs and dirt bikes. Should someone shoot toward you with a rifle or gun in our national forests, you had better run and hide because that person has a legal right to fire his weapon. Most Americans don't want our national parks to become another outdoor shooting gallery for people who cannot and will not respect the land.


Here's an excerpt from the Boulder Daily Camera concerning dangerous public hunting near the city of Boulder, Colorado:

The singing coyotes are gone, and there are but a few black bears left around, along with the pumas. Looking out from my house at night, I see now about 30 lights and many cars driving up and down Sugarloaf Road till wee hours. The horseback riders, mountain bikers, joggers, birdwatchers and family pets very often populate the dirt roads of our neighborhood of most numerous private homes.

A recent Daily Camera story noting that "Resident says that hunting has become unsafe" (Dec. 4, 2005) hardly covered all the dangerous and deadly events in our Sugarloaf neighborhood or addressed in any way whatsoever, our concerns for our own and our children's safety.

The most recent dog killing: a local resident's pet was shot and killed recently weeks ago by a hunter very near his property who CLAIMED that the dog harassed a deer. With the new regulations allowing such "deer defense," this "sportsman" cannot be held legally liable for removing a bit of joy from the life of a neighborhood peacefully living in the mountains. Sadly enough, reports keep surfacing of hunters in this area who threaten both people and dogs with their guns.

My daughter's dog Nanook was killed on Oct. 11. The most extreme internal and external damage to his body testified to the bullet's caliber and energy. Such rounds can travel very far through this now-dense neighborhood of private homes. Nanook was loved by all, especially children playing in the roads and he was a trained "Therapy Dog" who visited the patients in Boulder's health care facilities.

The killing was investigated by Boulder County's Animal Control and Sheriff's Department. When I contacted the supervisor of our Fish and Game service about this, he refused even to loan a metal detector to Animal Control to find evidence. He seeemed much more concerned about protecting hunters' PR that to get the evidence of what could have been a felonious act.
- From "Gunfire surrounds our homes," Boulder Daily Camera, Jan. 1, 2006.

Wednesday, March 15, 2006


According to Time Magazine (March 20, 2006) Mathew Cloyd, 20, was charged with federal conspiracy to burn churches after he and two of his friends torched nine churches in Alabama. Mathew Cloyd was "an avid deer hunter" and according to documents, Cloyd and his two buddies "set five fires as a joke after a night of drinking and shooting deer, then torched four more churches 100 miles away." pg. 48 - Time Magazine (March 20, 2006)

In San Diego, a hunter was indicted on federal charges that he started a blaze that grew into the Cedar fire, the largest wildfire in California history, and later lied about it. Sergio Martinez, 34, is accused of sparking the Oct. 25, 2003 wildfire when he became lost on a hunting trip in the Cleveland National Forest and started a blaze to signal for help, according to the county Sheriff's Department. The fire eventually consumed 270,000 acres and killed 14 people.

You may read about hunters' carnival of carnage on my Antihunting Resource Site.

Friday, March 10, 2006


As we all know, pudgy Old Dick shot his hunting comrade during a fit of mindless recklessness. Cheney admits to having one beer before the so-called "hunt," but he could have been half drunk - all we have is his word (for what little it's worth) that he was not drunk. Hunters commonly drink beer during hunting trips, probably because it adds to the thrill - the fun - of killing innocent animals.

Secret Service agents guarding Vice President Dick Cheney when he shot Texas lawyer Harry Whittington on a hunting outing said Cheney was "clearly inebriated" at the time of the shooting. Agents observed several members of the hunting party, including the Vice President, consuming alcohol before and during the hunting expedition, the report notes, and Cheney exhibited "visible signs" of impairment, including slurred speech and erratic actions.

Hunters like to think of their sport as relatively safe and virtually all hunters imagine themselves to be expert marksmen. Even crazy Old Dick was considered - or at least he considered himself - to be an experienced marksman.

Despite what newspapers and hunters tell us, hunting is a potentially dangerous sport! Every year, about 100 people are killed by hunters in the U.S., and approximately 1,000 people are wounded. Hunters can and will shoot too close to houses, roads, hikers and campers. According to the International Hunter Education Association, in 1995, 1130 non-fatal hunting accidents occured, and 112 people were killed. In 1996, 957 humans were wounded and 91 humans were killed by hunters. Ted Nugent claims to kill every domestic cat that he sees, and you may read about his animal-killing insanity on my Antihunting Resource Site.

Pet owners who live near hunting areas may find their beloved pets dead or missing. Hunters typically hate predators - especially coyotes - but they also hate any number of animals based on arbitrary notions of what constitutes a "good" animal as opposed to a "bad" animal. This type of thinking opens up a whole can of worms. Stray cats and dogs - because they're feral - are perceived as fair game to some people. We'll never know how many domesticated animals have been shot by hunters; there is no record keeping on this matter.

Sport hunters want nonhunters to believe that hunting is a serious sport for dedicated conservationists. They would have us believe that hunters don't enjoy getting drunk and killing animals, that they don't trespass and harass people, that all of their depravity is part of a serious conservation effort. And wildlife agencies are more than happy to present "outdoorsmen" as dedicated souls who kill only out of sheer necessity. Now, I'm not stating that slaughtering BILLIONS of animals for cheap junk food is okay, or that rodoes, ranching, and vivisection is just fine, either. Sport hunting is just one aspect of institutionalized human-caused suffering on this planet of misery.

From an ethical standpoint, hunting is very unimpressive. The hunting community is mainly composed of grown men (and some women) with nothing more intelligent to do than kill little birds and animals because it provides fun and excitement for people who need to feel potent. No matter how abysmally cruel or wasteful hunting is, it will always be defended by the hunting community.

Hunters fancy themselves as part of a natural cycle. Of course they are part of the cycle that kills and destroys, not the part that gives life or protects. The hunter only wants to be the hunting part of the cycle; even when stalking those relatively few species of animal capable of utilizing a human as prey, the sportsman is careful to overwhelmingly stack the deck in his favor through access to various forms of trickery augmented by heavy firepower.

But no less important to the sportsman than his high-tech killing toys is his (or her, but more often it's men who are sport hunters) unquestioned faith in a complex, shimmering, and fragile fabrication of myth, half-truths, self-delusion, and denials. In these essays we'll explore a few (not all) of those myths. Much of the followng writings are derived from Barry MacKay's essays which are posted on my Antihunting Resource Site.


Most folks are not sport hunters, but do not particularly oppose the practice, although those who do seem to be a growing majority in the U.S. Within their ranks are those who actively oppose sport hunting, characterized by the hook-and-bullet fraternity as the dreaded "antis." They are called "antis" because they are "anti-hunting." The phrase is favored by sport hunters because it is negative. The ranks of sport hunters, themselves, are in

The majority of Americans are not sport hunters, and so have no personal experience with which to counter the myth. Among that not-so-small minority - the true "antis" who are actively opposed to sport hunting - few have much (or any) personal experience with hunting. However, in their desire to rescue animals from the suffering and death needlessly imposed by sport hunters, the antis have a powerful weapon: Fact.

The simple fact is that sport hunting is cruel- bloody cruel! It can't be otherwise. It is important to note that animal cruelty is a gigantic nonisssue within the hunting community, because animal cruelty is the very essense of hunting itself. There are absolutely no laws preventing people from committing horrible acts of cruelty against wild animals. Futhermore, these vicious acts are done away from public view, because while the public may tolerate killing wild animals, most people do not care to witness it.

Studies on wounding rates clearly show the suffering imposed by bow hunters; black-powder hunters; varmint hunters; waterfowl hunters; big game trophy hunters and so on. Virtually anyone who has had experience with hunters and hunting can refer to compelling personal anecdotes relating to the brutality of sport hunting. The cruelty of hunting is exposed in any wildlife rehabilitation center within reach of a hunting area.

The problem is this: Each hunter you meet will deny responsibility for being the source of such horrible suffering. I have, more than once, sat with hunters in a blind, heard them say things like "Got a piece of him ..." or "Stung that one …" or "Bet he felt that..." as ducks wavered, but did not fall, when struck by shotgun pellets. And I have had those same hunters, later in the day, claim with apparent sincerity that hunting was NOT cruel and that they, themselves, were "good" hunters who took care not to wound birds.


Sport hunters often become utterly absorbed by such details and will endlessly debate the merits of this or that combination of powder, shot size, barrel length, and choke. However, in the end the shotgun's nickname, "scattergun," holds true. A stream of pellets is blown out of a barrel at high speed, spreads and loses velocity (energy) as it travels down range, and hits the target. If there are large gaps in the pattern, there is an increased likelihood of wounding.

Shot sizes are numbered, with the smaller number designating the larger pellet. Number two shot might be used for geese or hares, number four or six for ducks, number seven and a half or nine for doves, snipe, cottontails, or quail.

The diameter of the barrel, called the gauge, dictates how much shot and powder can be used, as does chamber length. When a target is moving the spread of pellets should be wide enough to include the target (thus the aim need not be deadly accurate) but dense enough to produce a kill. Shotgun shell manufacturers recommend six pellets of sufficient size and velocity as the number that, upon hitting a moving duck, should bring it down. However, the amount of damage done obviously depends on where those pellets hit. A single pellet penetrating the brain may bring instant death.

I was once brought a merganser who had escaped hunters, and she eventually tired and came to earth with no more obvious an injury that a shattered leg (which prevented her from again becoming airborne - mergansers must run along the surface of the water to take flight.) However, when the duck was X-rayed she had, in fact, six pellets in her body. She was still alive, still suffering. Whoever shot her presumably did not know or care what happened to her, but presumably would vigorously defend the "sport" of waterfowl shooting. Incidentally, mergansers, are often not eaten. It may be illegal to waste game, but the law is unenforceable.

Waterfowl killers are notoriously wasteful. The October 2005 issue of Field & Stream highlighted the documented fact that ducks and geese are excessively wounded and crippled by waterfowl hunters. Even some hunters admit to the wastefulness of duck hunting, but their concern has little or no effect on waterfowl killers who are driven by their need to kill innocent birds.

Getting back to shotguns: It's important to realize the nature of shotguns to appreciate their inescapable cruelty. If the target is too close, the pattern has not spread out enough to make it easy to hit. If hit by most of the shot, a bird or other animal will die quickly, full of lead. A bird that is too close may be blown into pieces. If too far away from the gun the spread of the shot pattern may be wide enough to make hitting the bird an easy matter, but too few pellets may hit to bring the bird down, or with too little velocity to penetrate a vital organ. The bird is wounded, but may get away, to die or to recover. The angle at which pellets strike the bird will also be a factor in how deep they penetrate.

Shotguns are meant for moving targets. You don't "aim" a shotgun so much as point it. The fact that the "target" (waterfowl, upland game birds, hares, rabbits and God knows what else) is moving contributes to the "sport." The expression "a sitting duck," meaning a person who is extremely vulnerable, derives from the "unsporting" act of shooting a duck sitting on the water. No skill is required to hit a sitting duck. (No hunter would admit to shooting a sitting duck, of course, but you have to wonder why so many decoys have pellet holes in them.)

But precisely because the target is moving and because of the numerous variables contributing to the shot pattern, wounding is inevitable. Rates of wounding have been estimated in different ways. Spend any time watching waterfowl hunters at their sport and you will hear many shots for every duck or goose that is dropped to the water and retrieved.

The nature of shotgun patterns dictates that between a kill and a clean miss there are variants were a few pellets strike the target and wounding occurs. Some hunters are "sky busters" who fire at birds out of range, hoping that a stray pellet will do enough damage to drop a bird.

The proof of high wounding rates exists, in part, in the percentage of wild-caught waterfowl who, when X-rayed, are found to be carrying shotgun pellets in their bodies. These are the "lucky" ones who survived the wounding. Many have the pellets encapsulated just beneath the skin, where tissue has grown around them. We can hope that such birds suffered little. Those who were somewhat more severely wounded tend to die in the marsh or woods, unseen.

Years ago I used to search marshes and shorelines on Sundays, when hunting was suspended for a day, to pick up the dead and dying birds. I can't translate their numbers into an exact statistic, but I do know from such personal experience that many birds are wounded by the practice of waterfowl hunting. And I know from many conversations with hunters that each one generally prefers to think that he, at least, is not responsible for such suffering. (And although I emphasize suffering, it does not mean that I'm indifferent to the act of killing even when death is instantaneous.)

In the prairies one study determined a wounding rate of waterfowl of over 30%, but I defy you to find a single waterfowl hunter who will admit that three out of ten birds he shoots are wounded. Someone is responsible for all those wounded birds - millions each year - but it's a responsibility the myth-believing hunter will rarely acknowledge.


Wildlife commissions in Western states are controlled by ranching, hunting, trapping and outfitter representatives. Each state's governor appoints a disproportionate number of hunters and pro-hunting representatives and a much smaller percentage of pro-wildlife advocates to its dubious "wildlife commission."

In eleven Western states, mountain lion hunters use packs of trained hounds fitted with radio telemetry equipment. To track these cats, a trophy hunter releases a pack of dogs fitted with radio transmitters. The hunter monitors the chase on a handheld directional antenna. When the dogs eventually tree a lion, the hunter picks up a stationary signal on his or her antenna, walks to the site and shoots the harassed, treed animal. And they call this hunting!

Ah, but wait, it gets worse. For the "sportsman's" personal amusement - sanctioned by wildlife agencies - mountain lions sometimes fight the dogs, resulting in bloody battles. More commonly, the dogs may find and tear apart lion cubs and according to my research, hounds become lost or injured while fighting and tracking lions. This is blatant animal cruelty at its finest with no ecological or ethical justification.

Research at Utah State University indicates that in some areas, cub mortality from maulings and orphaning is as significant as adult harvest. Mountain lion hunting amounts to little more than depraved cruelty and crass, commercialized hunting.

In Alaska a judge halted the state's "wolf control program" on Jan 17, 2006. This program has been on - and - off again since the early 1990s. The idea of the hunt is to kill wolves who are preying on hunters' favorite big game species. In reality, the wolves pose no threat to Alaskan ungulate populations. "Wolf control" is about giving a few twisted macho men a chance to blow away a wolf ... from an airplane. How sporting!

Hunters and ranchers want a hunting season on grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area where the bears have barely rebounded to a paultry 600 in number - Yellowstone is not exactly teeming with grizzlies.

Deliberate mismanagement of big game species is commonplace in the United States. Consider that white-tailed deer are nearly ubiquitous in the Eastern states. However, the mere presence of deer in a suburban area, munching on flowers and sapplings does not justify calling SWAT teams of hunters or game wardens to "solve" the perceived problem, if a problem even exists. Remember that hunters and game wardens are responsible for massive mismanagement of deer from Michigan to Pennsylvania to Alabama.


Tuesday, October 11, 2005


The following essay is composed of excerpts from Joy William's book "Ill Nature." Instead of monitoring animals - many animals in managed areas are tattooed and wear radio transmitters - wildlife managers should start hanging telemetry gear around hunters' necks to study their attitudes and record their conversations. It would be grisly listening, but it would tune out for good the suffering as sacrament and spiritual experience nonsense that some hunting apologists employ.

For hunters, hunting is fun. Recreation is play. Hunting is recreation. Hunters kill for play, for entertainment. They kill for the the thrill of it, to make an animal theirs. The animal becomes the property of the hunter by its death. Alive, the beast belongs only to itself. Hunters like beautiful creatures. A "beautiful" deer, elk, bear, cougar, bighorn sheep. A "beautiful" goose or mallard. Of course, they don't stay beautiful for long, particularly the birds. Many birds become rags in the air, shredded, blown to bits. Hunters get a thrill out of seeing a plummeting bird, out of seeing it crumple and fall.

Hunters like categories they can tailor to their needs. There are the "good" animals - deer, elk, bear, moose - which are allowed to exist for the hunter's pleasure. Then there are the " bad " animals, the vermin, varmints, and "nuisance"animals, the rabbits and raccoons and coyotes and beavers and badgers, which are discouraged to exist. The hunter can have fun killing them, but the pleasure is diminished because the animals aren't "magnificent."

Many people in South Dakota want to exterminate the red fox because it preys upon some of the ducks and pheasant they want to kill each year. They found that after they killed the wolves and coyotes, they had more foxes than they wanted.The ring-necked pheasant is South Dakota's state bird and they're proud of it. A group called Pheasants Unlimited gave some tips on how to hunt foxes: Place a small amount of larvicide (a grain fumigant) on a rag and chuck it down the hole . . . The first pup generally comes out in fifteen minutes . . . Use a .22 to dispatch him . . . Remove each pup shot from the hole . . . Following gassing, set traps for the old fox who will return later in the evening . . . Poisoning, shooting, trapping - they make up a sort of sportsman's triathalon.

In hunting magazines, hunters freely admit the pleasure of killing to one another." Undeniable pleasure radiated from her smile. The excitement of shooting the bear had Barb talking a mile a minute." But in public, most hunters are becoming a little wary about raving on as to how much fun it is to kill things. Hunters have a tendency to call animals by cute names - "bruins" and "muleys," "berry-fed blackies" and "handsome cusses" and "big guys," thereby implying a balanced jolly game of mutual satisfaction between hunter and the hunted - Bam, bam, bam, I get to shoot you and you get to be dead. More often, though, when dealing with the nonhunting public, a drier, businessliketone is employed. Animals become a "resource" that must be "utilized." Hunting becomes a "legitimate use of that resource." Animals become a product like wool or lumber or a crop like fruit or corn that must be "collected" or"taken" or "harvested."

Hunters are increaslingly relying upon their spokesmen and supporters, state and federal game managers and wildlife officials, to employ solemn bureaucratic language and toss around a lot of questionable statistics to assure the nonhunting public that there's nothing to worry about. The program is under control. The mass murder and manipulation of wild animals is just another business.

Spectacular abuses occur wherever geese congregate, quietly notes Shooting Sportsman, something that the more cultivated Ducks Unlimited would hesitate to admit. Waterfowl populations are plummeting, and waterfowl hunters are out of control. A biologist with the Department of the Interior who observed a hunt at Sand Lake in South Dakota said, "Hunters repeatedly shot over the line at incoming flights where there was no possible chance of retreiving. Time and time again I was shocked at the behavior of hunters. I heard them laugh at the plight of dazed cripples that stumbled about. I saw them strike the heads of retreived cripples against fence posts."

Carnage and waste are the rules in bird hunting. Thousands of wounded ducks and geese are not retreived, left to rot in the marshes and fields. Cripples, and many cripples are made in this pastime, are still able to run and hide, eluding the hunter even if he's willing to spend time searching for them, which he usually isn't.

Hunters and their procurers - wildlife agencies - will never admit that hunting is responsible for the decimation of a species; instead they will deliver these familiar and litanic lines: Hunting is not the problem. Pollution is the problem. Pesticides, urbanization, deforestation, and wetlands destruction is the problem. And drought! There's been a big drought! While the Fish and Wildlife service is busy conducting experiments in cause and effect, like releasing mallard ducklings on a wetland sprayed with the insecticide ethyl parathion (they died - it was known they would, but you can never have enough studies that show guns aren't a duck's only problem), hunters are killing some 200 million animals and birds each year.

The black duck, a "popular" duck in the Northeast, so popular that game agencies felt that hunters couldn't be asked to refrain from shooting it, is scarce and getting scarcer. Nevertheless, it's still being hunted. A number of studies are currently under way in an attempt to discover why black ducks are disappearing, Sports Afield reports. Black ducks are disappearing because they've been shot out, their elimination being a dreadful example of game management and managers who are loathe to displease hunters.

Wildlife managers hate closing the season on anything. Closing the season on a species would indicate a certain amount of mismanagement and misjudgement at the very least - a certain reliance on overly optimistic winter counts, a certain overappeasement of hunters who would be upset if they couldn't kill their favorite thing. And worse, closing a season would be a victory for the antis.

Game "professionals," in thrall to hunters' "needs," will not stop managing bird populations until they've doled out the final duck. Illegal kill is a monumental problem in the not - so - wonderful world of waterfowl. Excesses have always pervaded the "sport," and bird shooters have historically been the slobs and profligates of hunting.

Most wildlife "restoration" programs in the states are translated into clearcutting the land to increase deer habitats (so that too many deer will require hunting . . . you wouldn't want them to die of starvation would you?) and trapping animals for restocking and redistribution (so more more hunters can shoot closer to home). Fish and Game agencies hustle hunting. It's time for them to get into the business of protecting and preserving wildlife and creating balanced ecological systems instead of pimping for hunters who want their deer/ duck/ pheasant/ turkey - animals to be shot.

Sport hunting is immoral; it should be made illegal. Hunters are persecutors of nature that should be prosecuted. They weild a disruptive power out of all proportion to their numbers, and pandering to their interests - the special interests of a group that just wants to kill things - is mad. It's grotesque that every year less than 6 percent of the population turns the skies into shooting galleries and the woods and fields into abattoirs. It's time to stop actively supporting and passively allowing hunting, and time to stigmatize it. It's time to stop being conned and cowed by hunters, time to stop pampering and coddling them, time to get them off the government's duck - and - deer dole, time to stop allowing hunting to be credible by calling it "sport" and "recreation." - By Joy Williams

Thursday, September 29, 2005


Derived from the October 2005 issue of Field & Stream, the following article highlights the documented fact that ducks and geese are excessively wounded and crippled by waterfowl hunters. Even some hunters admit to the wastefulness of duck hunting, but their concern has little or no effect on waterfowl killers who are driven by their need to kill innocent animals.

The Humane Society of the United States fired the first shots in a new campaign against waterfowling. The HSUS report "The Ones That Almost Got Away" asserts that experienced hunters cripple and lose up to 45 percent of the ducks they shoot, while novices wound birds at an even higher rate. Any duck hunter can tell you those figures are inflated, but does that mean crippling is a nonissue? Just ask hunters in the Australian states of New South Wales and Western Australia, who lost their duck seasons after antihunters convinced voters of the excessive cruelty of high crippling losses.

"The HSUS is a group of slick professionals, and they know the cruelty message works with the general public," says Rob Olson, director of Delta Waterfowl's U.S. office.

It would be easy to dismiss the HSUS's exaggerated numbers if the real statistics on crippling weren't so troubling. Several studies conducted in the United States during the debate over nontoxic shot from the late 1960s to the early 1980s consistently showed crippling rates from 25 to 35 percent, regardless of whether hunters shot lead or steel. The crippling rates reported by the trained observers who sat with hunters in the blinds, incidentally, were about twice what hunters themselves reported. Surveys of the general public suggest nonhunters will accept rates of less than 10 percent.

"I've known for years that we were vulnerable on the crippling issue," says George Vandel of the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. "This HSUS report is a real wake-up call." Vandel serves as chairman of the Cooperative North American Shotgunning Education Program (CONSEP), a group formed during the switch to nontoxic shot and currently made up of representatives from 20 state and several foreign wildlife agencies, as well as Remington and Winchester. CONSEP puts the wounding rate at 25 percent and sponsors educational programs aimed at reducing crippling.

"This debate may get even bigger than the fight over lead shot," says Tom Roster, CONSEP's shotgunning consultant. "The anti-lead-ites claimed 2.5 million birds a year died from lead poisoning. If you crunch the numbers, we may be losing 4 million birds a year to crippling. The antihunters are no dummies. There are tons of facts and no way to sweep them under the rug." Not that Roster advocates denying the problem. On the contrary, he says, hunters need to take the initiative.

Roster has taught clinics to thousands of waterfowlers, and he's certain we can reduce crippling rates to below 10 percent. "Hunters must learn to estimate range better, improve their shooting, and choose chokes and loads properly," he says.

Olson agrees: "The public will tolerate hunting if they believe hunters are proficient at what they do. I believe Delta Waterfowl and other conservation groups have to play a role in training hunters." We waterfowlers have to realize what's at stake: Every time we lose a duck or goose we've not only left a bird to die, but we've shot ourselves in the foot.


If you enjoy bloodsports, and killing is your forte - then you'll like America's fall hunting season. Armed and ready, millions of predacious sportsmen are flocking to the great outdoors, waging their war on wildlife. In terms of ethics, shooting wild animals is no different than killing domestic dogs and cats for sport.

Hunting is a form of socially sanctioned recreational violence practiced by approximately six percent of the U.S. population. Collectively, hunters resemble an army of under-trained, unsupervised amateur killers roaming around destroying 200 million animals a year, making it unsafe for hikers, campers and wildlife. The wholesale slaughter includes millions of animals that are left wounded and mutilated with their faces or stomachs destroyed. Many will die a slow agonizing death. A hunter's lack of feelings - empathy and compassion - for animals and lack of respect for nature go hand in hand. As a result of hunting, millions of game animals are wounded, wasted and mutilated. Entire ecosystems are damaged by this grisly hobby. How can hunters kill, cripple, and harass millions of animals without damaging the ecology?

The recreational killing of wildlife reflects a very utilitarian, invasive attitude toward animals and nature. But hunters still fancy themselves conservationists - the wily outdoorsmen claim to be improving the ecology. Basically hunters are interested in preserving their game-shooting habit - not in protecting the environment. For hunters to say they're conservationists is akin to thrift stores claiming to be Neiman Marcus.

Every autumn, hidden throughout our public lands, you can find hunting camps with hunters better armed than amateur mercenaries. Many of the camps use salt licks and bait stations to lure elk, deer and moose. This is not conservation. This is a giant state-run hunting preserve.

And don't forget grisly canned hunts perpetuated by thousands of game ranches. Even Internet hunting exists where lazy indoorsmen can shoot animals by remote control, using the Internet. Given a chance, hunters would gladly vote in favor of opening national parks to hunting and trapping - just imagine the fun of dodging bullets or watching animals writhe in agony while caught in traps. "Sportsmen" in Wisconsin recently voted in favor of legalizing cat killing, but fortunately, their insanely audacious idea was shot down by Wisconsin's so-called "Conservation Congress." Hardly a single newspaper columnist had the courage and conscience to speak out against the stupid and barbaric idea of shooting domestic cats. This is because newspaper writers have been far too busy pursuing easier prey like PETA.

Hundreds of people are killed and wounded each year by hunters in the United States. This happens because hunters get excited and shoot too close to houses and roads, and they can and will shoot stray cats or stray dogs. Some hunters will gladly intimidate landowners who post no hunting signs; this deliberate menacing is a common occurrence. Yet, newspapers would have us believe that hunters are conscientious conservationists who reluctantly slaughter animals to benefit the ecology, as if all this butchery benefits plummeting duck populations and controls white-tailed deer populations.

Indeed, it is rare to read in newspapers about landowners who have been injured, killed and/or intimidated by hunters. You will never read a newspaper editorial about how people are being harassed, intimidated, killed and/or injured by hunters. Newspaper editors continually coddle hunters probably because they fear losing readership among "sportsmen," and because hunters are an extremely vocal minority, vehemently opposed to antihunters.

Hunters believe that wild animals are merely moving objects waiting to die anyway. So why not just shoot them? They also claim to be providing a valuable ecological service by controlling wildlife populations. But many studies indicate that animals such as deer actually increase their reproductive rates in response to hunting. Of course, hunters encourage an overpopulation of deer. They want plenty of big game trophies and an overabundance of big game animals. Thanks to state wildlife agencies, this country's ecosystems are manipulated to provide a surplus of deer and elk.

Adding insult to injury, hunters have no consideration for nongame animals - including endangered species. Over half of this country's National Wildlife Refuges allow hunting. And they're called refuges! So-called "wilderness areas" which are managed with taxpayer money, permit recreational wildlife killing. Typically, 71 per cent of hunting license money goes toward enforcing hunting regulations. The remainder is used to improve and maintain state lands for hunting use. Lottery and income tax monies are used to supplement nongame programs because hunters don't want their license money spent on these projects. Hunters are not concerned about a balanced ecology or biodiversity and they'd love to see our national parks turned into hunting preserves.

State wildlife agencies are very clever at increasing game animal populations. They spend millions of dollars manipulating habitat by burning vegetation and planting shrubs to increase the food supply for deer and elk. Some wildlife managers favor clear-cutting forests and/or timber cutting to create browsing areas for deer. They also kill predators - or allow hunters to do it. Toxic herbicides are sprayed to destroy unwanted vegetation and promote the growth of low-level browse to encourage large numbers of deer for hunters'guns. Killing a large percentage of bucks also increases deer populations. These are all standard "deer management" techniques - methods used to produce an annual surplus of deer to satisfy hunters.

Consider too, that loud noises created by rifle and shotgun blasts are a major cause of unnecessary stress to wildlife. Wildlands are fragmented and exhausted from the battalions of wildlife killers who invade public lands. Yet, hunters claim that shooting and massacring millions of animals somehow improves the ecology! What's next, land mines?

Hunting is a real money-maker. In the United States, hunters spend $21 billion dollars a year on licenses, equipment, and lodging. Recreational killing is an industry, not a necessity and commercial wildlife exploitation exists mainly because of avarice. Wild animals living apart from human interference are commercially non-productive. Therefore, the present system of "management" creates a lucrative resource by artificially manipulating a naturally balanced ecosystem.

The hunter, on one hand speaks of his spiritual experience, of the sense of communion and elevation that accompanies his sport, and on the other, he identifies himself as just another predator fitting in where he belongs, culling away as the wolf and the lion cull. Man, however, is not a predator in an ecological sense, he's a despoiler. Thundering into wild areas with ATVs, spewing exhaust fumes, while carrying high-powered rifles, and scaring every living creature into headlong panic is not communion - it is ecological harassment. Hunters are ecological opportunists who gladly take from the land and give nothing in return. Unless, of course, you consider killing and crippling millions of animals a form of repayment.

Hunting is a morally bankrupt activity with no biological or ethical justification. Every day, suburban sprawl destroys thousands of acres of wildlife habitat. Hunters, while declining in numbers, are still a threat to wildlife populations and ecology. Certainly, this country doesn't need more hunters - it needs fewer hunters and more wildlife sanctuaries.

Its been said that kindness to animals is the hallmark of human advancement. A truly progressive society has no need to persecute the helpless or show contempt for the lives of sentient beings. Eventually, recreational killing may die a natural death, slowly fading from sight as more humane public attitudes develop. There's no such thing as a kinder, gentler hunter. The very essence of the sport demands violence and violence is devoid of compassion.


The famous "conservationist" Aldo Leopold described game managementas the art of making land produce annual crops of wild game for "recreational" (hunting) use.

Wildlife managers (game wardens, wildlife biologists) manipulate deer and other "game" animals as follows:

* Restriction of hunting
* Predator control
* Setting aside land for hunting
* Environmental controls (providing food, cover, and water)

Unfortunately, as long as public hunting, trapping, and fishing exist and as long as hunters, trappers, and fishermen are paying most of the operating expenses of state fish and game agencies, wildlife agencies will continue to maintain maximum populations of game animals and "sport" fish.

Colorado is a case in point. Colorado has one of the largest - if not the largest - concentrations of elk in North America. According to the book "The Elk of North America," Colorado had 24,000 elk in 1943. In the year 2004, Colorado had 280,000 of these animals. How did Colorado increase its elk herd by 250,000? Answer: "elk management." Over a quarter million elk congested in Colorado seems excessive - but it's not enough to satisfy the 300,000 hunters who assault Colorado's big game every year.


Many species of mammals - such as deer - react to hunting "harvests" with an increase in reproductive rates. Also, killing more bucks than does will increase deer populations. When a high percentage of bucks are killed, more nutritious forage is available for the remaining bucks, does, and fawns. This improved nutrition results in higher ovulation, birthrates, and healthier fawns. In many states, hunting results in the death of at least twice as many bucks and male fawns as does. The main purpose of "deer management" is to maximize fawn production.

1.) Bucks are killed by hunters
2.) Does produce extra offspring (fawns)
3.) Fewer bucks means more nutritious forage for fawns and adult does
4.) Habitat is manipulated (burning vegetation, timber-cutting, etc.) to provide more food.
5.) Predators are killed
6.) Abnormally high populations of deer result year after year

State and federal wildlife agencies spend millions of dollars every year manipulating deer habitat. Deer will thrive wherever they find sufficient food, water, and cover; therefore game managers routinely burn vegetation and plant shrubs to attract deer. Logging and clear-cutting forests also provide browsing(forage) areas. Game wardens and hunters kill predators in a misguided attempt to increase big game populations. All of these practices are ecologically destructive. They result in a "top-heavy" ecosystem containing too many deer, while other animals - such as predators - are reduced in numbers.

Nearly every state has a deer "management" program designed to keep deer populations abnormally high. Entire ecosystems are unbalanced - and damaged - by hunting and so-called "wildlife management."

Private landowners along with state and federal agencies are working in cooperation with state wildlife departments.For instance, the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department are launching an ambitious 25-year "deer management program" designed to increase herd sizes. Basic strategies involve burning vegetation, spraying herbicides, timber cutting, mowing and grazing management. While these practices may increase the food supply for mule deer, the overall quality of the ecosystem is altered - and damaged.

In a misguided attempt to further increase deer populations, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (1999) considered shooting coyotes - which prey on fawns - from low-flying airplanes. Representatives of the Colorado Division of Wildlife give lectures at hunters' meetings encouraging them to "do their part" by killing coyotes. But the real problem is not predation from coyotes, but ecological destruction caused by too many hunters, loss of habitat, etc. Shooting coyotes, manipulating habitat, and deliberately increasing deer and elk herds hardly qualifies as conservation.


Basically, no. A deer herd - or any animal population - cannot increase indefinitely. Lack of food, bad weather, disease and predators are nature's way of regulating animal populations. Also, as outlined above, heavily hunted (and managed) areas actually produce an excess of deer - therefore hunting is not necessary.

The most visible weakness in the assertion that hunting is necessary to control deer populations is that it has largely failed to do so in the last two decades. If there's enough hunters prowling around the woods, and they are shooting a high proportion of does, deer populations will be significantly reduced. Am I advocating shooting female deer? NO! But shooting a large percentage of bucks - instead of does - is one of the main reasons some areas have too many deer.


Various bloodsport magazines allow us insights into the hows and whys of hunting. Outdoor Life (Dec./Jan.2002) featured an article titled "Coyote Men of the Hinterland," about three grown men with nothing more intelligent or productive to do than shoot coyotes. A similar spread appeared in Petersen's Hunting Magazine (Dec. 2002/Jan. 2003) about an avid coyote killer who's been killing coyotes for over 40 YEARS and claims to have killed six coyotes in one day! Apparently, for some people who lack self control, killing animals is habit forming and addictive.

Another popular how-to-kill magazine, American Hunter, ran an article about three grown men (physically, not mentally) who have a nasty habit of shooting crows. The author advises readers to visit and he claims the website is "great fun." offers a ridiculous rationale for slaughtering crows: "the crow has and continues to exhibit behavior that ranges from simply annoying to highly destructive." And hunters wonder why their grisly hobby is under attack.

Karl Menninger, the famous psychiatrist, wrote: "Sadism may take a socially acceptable form . . . I have in mind, for example, grouse shooting, fox hunting, duck hunting, deer stalking . . . and other varieties of so-called 'sport' while not identical to the horse - whipping pattern . . . these all represent the destructive and cruel energies of man directed toward more helpless creatures."

PETA's book "You Can Save the Animals" says that Dr. Karl Menninger described hunting as the product of "erotic sadistic motivation." Dr. Joel R. Saper, a University of Michigan professor believes hunting "may reflect a profound yet subtle psychosexual inadequacy." Clinical psychologist Margaret Brooke-Williams theorizes: "Hunters are seeking reassurance of their sexuality. The feeling of power that hunting brings temporarily relieves this sexual uneasiness."

The book "Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life" (pg. 562) states, "Perhaps more directly relevant are experiences in which individual infliction of pain on an animal or another person has given rise to sexual excitement. We have noted elsewhere the connection between strong emotional and sexual stimulation . . ."

According to Ron Baker's book "The American Hunting Myth" Dr. John D. Copp, a California psychologist says: "Hunters reported feelings of great elation after shooting a duck." According to Copp, "They described the state immediately following a kill as . . . a kind of high. This heightened sense of arousal seemed to have a particularly profound effect among the younger hunters."

Some people may hunt partly becuse of a suppressed desire to punish animals for what the hunters imagine them to be. The proverbial animal hater falls into this category. To her a big buck is a "wary critter," a bear, a "monster," a wolf "wicked," a raccoon a sort of masked bandit that cannot be trusted, etc. Other people, such as ranchers, perceive nature as a hostile threat to their physical well being. Therefore, nature must be fought and conquered.

It is obvious to everyone but hunters that the hunting community enjoys traumatizing animals. A revealing letter in North American Hunter (Oct. 1997) stated that once trapping is in your blood " it becomes an addiction." The author noted that each year hunters travel thousands of miles just to hunt and trapping is even more important to those so addicted.

Tuesday, April 19, 2005


The world's largest commercial slaughter of marine mammals has begun. Canada's government is allowing fisherman to kill 975,000 harp seals - mostly pups - off Canada's East Coast.

I will spare readers most of the ghastly details of the hunt, but some details are necessary. Seal killers typically club, shoot or hack baby seals that are between the ages of 12 days to 12 weeks old. According to the Humane Society of the United States, an alarming number of seals are skinned while alive. Yet, none of this obscene animal cruelty is necessary, and the pelts provide minimal income.

Only about 4,000 people participate in this sickening carnival of carnage, and it has been determined that killing seals generates very little revenue for those who partake in this butchery. There is also no evidence that seals are jeopardizing the Canadian fishing industry: It appears that humans are the culprits, causing fish populations to decline because of over-fishing. The notion of "exploding" seal populations is another bogus rationale used by some people, but here again, there is no evidence of enormous seal herds rampaging out of control.

It is truly amazing how remorseless and vicious some people can be in their maltreatment of animals, and in some cases, other humans. Is it asking too much that seal killers control themselves enough to spare the lives of innocent seal pups? The Canadian government could - and should - outlaw this appalling event. Dozens of animal rights and environmental protection groups are opposing the seal hunt. For more information about the Canadian seal hunt, visit