SCOTT'S ANIMAL RIGHTS BLOG

PSYCHO MOM CAT KILLER GOES TO JAIL

2006-09-07T06:29:00.000-07:00

Now, there are many meat eaters, animal haters, cat haters, and so on who believe that killing cats is acceptable behavior. Apparently, though, a judge in Colorado does not believe that drowning felines is okay. According to the Boulder Daliy Camera (Sept. 8, 2006), Delene Madison Hart was sentenced to 45 days in jail, three years of probation, mental-health counseling, animal-
cruelty education and 120 hours of community service, preferably at an animal shelter. Hart was shocked by the sentence, which she will begin serving Monday, the Denver Post reported.

Hart, a 39-year-old mother, instructed 19-year old Kyle Bundy and her minor chuildren to drown their two cats in the family bathtub last year. The young children witnessed the killings. In June, she was convicted of aggravated animal cruelty, a felony.

Bear in mind that police stations across the country are filled with cases of animal cruelty, and thousands more of these incidents are not reported every year. Animal cruelty is a hidden epidemic. But it is NOT animal rights people who are drowning cats or shooting stray dogs or abusing dogs and cats. Nor are animal rights people torturing pets while children are forced to watch as their animals are killed, maimed or mutilated. Animal rights people would not create or tolerate such a sick and hostile environment.

So, don't let these psycho animal haters and animal killers get their perverted thrills. Prevent these atrocities if you can and have the courage and decency to report these incidents when they occur. Animal cruelty and child abuse is a hidden epidemic. Do your part to stop this pathological behavior.

Our jails, prisons, mental hospitals and entire penal system are not filled with vegetarians or animal rights activists. I'd like to see a single legitimate study showing that vegetarians have a higher percentage of wife-beating alcoholics than the general meat-eating public. Am I to believe that most pimps, drug users, drug dealers, prostitutes, killer cops and cop killers are vegetarians? Where are the studies proving that people eating a high animal-protein diet are living longer, healthier lives than strict vegetarians?

LOONY MAN GOVERNOR: TED NUGENT WANTS TO BE GOVERNOR !

2006-08-27T10:08:00.000-07:00

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.

CRAZY TED'S GOSPEL OF SADISM

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 PATHOLOGICAL WORLDVIEW

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 IS A SEXIST & RACIST CARICATURE OF HIMSELF

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

CRAZY TED ON WOMEN

"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

MEAT EATERS HAVE RUINED THIS PLANET

2006-07-21T17:01:00.000-07:00

Meat eaters, animal killers and animal haters have much to smile about because they have - knowingly or unknowingly - ruined this planet. Look at the entire Middle East Holocaust and notice that none of this warfare was instigated or perpetuated by vegetarians or animal rights people.

Notice the high rates of heart disease, cancer and other serious degenerative diseases that are at epidemic proportions. And then notice how the meat eaters and animal haters laugh at the vegans and vegetarians who are intent on saving animal lives and who promote a sane and nutritious way to live. Notice how the meat eaters cannot seem to get enough of the junk food that causes so much misery in our society, and how these same people trivialize a sane vegan or vegetarian lifestyle - a lifestyle bent on minimizing animal suffering.

Where is it written that meat eaters are more ethical than vegetarians, vegans or animal rights activists? Look around and you'll see that our wars were not started by vegetarians. Was the Vietnam War - which killed, wounded and crippled hundreds of thousands of people - started and perpetuated by vegans? George Bush and Dick Cheney tossed this country into the Iraqi furnace; they definitely are not vegetarians. In fact, Old Dick is an avid duck hunter.

Our jails, prisons, mental hospitals and entire penal system are not filled with vegetarians or animal rights activists. I'd like to see a single legitimate study showing that vegetarians have a higher percentage of wife-beating alcoholics than the general meat-eating public. Am I to believe that most pimps, drug users, drug dealers, prostitutes, killer cops and cop killers are vegetarians? Where are the studies proving that people eating a high animal-protein diet are living longer, healthier lives than strict vegetarians? I'll ask the more thoughtful reader this question: Of all the alcoholics, wife beaters, child abusers and drug addicts you may have known, how many of these people - and there are millions of them - were vegetarians or animal rights people? Probably none.

Osama Bin Laden and his merry band of head hunters are not vegans or vegetarians, and neither is George Bush or Dick Cheney. Perhaps if Old Dick had spent less time duck hunting and more time studying Middle Eastern policies, the U.S. wouldn't be embroiled in that vile Iraqi mess. The list of atrocities committed by meat eaters and people who are not animal rights activists is endless.

What I perceive is this: flesh-eaters exploiting other flesh eaters out of good-old-fashioned American greed. Look at the edipemics of heart disease, cancer and strokes, and you'll link them to double-bacon cheeseburgers, double - layer pizzas with extra toppings, fried chicken, etc. Vegans are NOT promoting this madness. Nor do vegetarians or animal rights people sell cigaretttes to lung cancer patients or whiskey to alcoholics. There is no evidence that animal rights people or vegetarians are heavily into drugs, alcohol, gambling, prostitution, wife beating, child abuse, street gangs, or police brutality.

Furthermore, numerous studies have determined that animal abusers can and will abuse children. Why aren't newspaper writers harping against people who abuse animals and children? Could it be that PETA - which is probably 70 percent female - is an easy target for newspaper writers who lack the courage and convictions to tackle bigger game.

People are foolish enough - or deluded enough - to put their faith in that crazy Atkins diet. They actually believe that eating liberally of meat, dairy, cheese, eggs and butter has no health consequences! What a convenient fantasy. Robert Atkins himself had suffered a heart attack while eating one of his artery-clogging, fat-laden breakfasts on April 25, 2002. But he and his cardiologist said it was not diet related! He was also clinically obese at the time of death. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that massive quantities of satured fat and cholesterol will eventually wreak revenge on the human body.

Read my essay on this blog titled "Vegetarians Have Less Disease," and you'll learn about the health benefits of eating a strict vegetarian and/or vegan diet. You'll learn that the vast majority of diseases can be reversed (cured) with a strict low-fat vegan diet. You will not aquire this knowledge from watching McDonald's or KFC commercials.

According to Kevin Trudeau's book "Natural Cures They Don't Want You to Know About," the so-called "war on cancer" is a fraud. The book states: "Consider that modern Western medicine has "searched" for the "cause" and "cure" for cancer and other degenerative diseases for well over 100 years and has failed miserably even though:

1.) The mission was entrusted to the "best" researchers in the medical, academic and industrial sectors.

2.) They have private and government contracts with huge amounts of money.

3.) They falsify reasearch procedures, lie about results and cover for each other.

Dr. Linus Pauling, PhD., twice Nobel laureate, called the war on cancer largely a failure.

The natural purpose and driving force of the pharmaceutical industry is to increase their sales of pharmaceutical drugs that treat ongoing diseases, and to find new diseases or rename old diseases to market their existing drugs.

The eradication of any disease inevitably destroys a multi-billion dollar market for prescription drugs as a source of revenue. Therefore, deadly toxic chemical drugs are developed to treat symptoms but not cure anything."

It's been known for at least a hundred years that a natural raw foods diet, colonics, fasting, vitamins and minerals can be used to cure the vast majority of diseases. Pharmaceutical companies and the food industry control the media, and they absolutely do not want natural cures for any disease made known to the public.

Each year, on the average, two to three people are killed in every state by hunters and approximatey 1,000 people are wounded. In 1988, 177 people were killed and 1,719 were injured by hunters. And don't forget the 150 MILLION animals (or more) that are shot at, killed and wounded annually in the United States.

A solitary hunter was indicted for starting California's largest wildlfire - called the Cedar Fire - which killed 15 people, destroyed 2,200 homes and charred 273,000 acres! And the hunting industry tells us how safe and careful hunters are! We are told by newspapers and our state wildlife agencies how wonderful hunting is, and that we must recruit children as young as eight years old to keep up this stupid tradition.

It's interesting that butchering animals and eating them is considered more rational than protecting them. It seems the masses are more driven by money and the pleasure principle than concern for their fellow creatures. It may be more "normal" to die from heart disease than it is to be a vegan, but I'll choose the latter.

As a society we do not need a single slaughterhouse. Not a single one! Nor do we need fur coats or rodeos or even one lonely rancher. All this unnecessary oppression of animals is optional. It exists for two main reasons: animals are killed for profit and they're killed for pleasure.

Animal abuse is a paradox because it is both ubiquitous and hidden at the same time. We all live within miles of a windowless, depressing slaughterhouse. People fish near our homes, animals are hunted within miles of our residence. But all this is hidden from public view, except for fishing. Domestic dogs are chained in junkyards and low-rent neighborhoods. Yet, all of this mass abuse is totally uneccessary! Society appears sane and humane. Ah, but look closer, behind closed doors, in houses or apartments, in parks at night, and you'll find children and animals being abused. And this abuse is a hidden epidemic.

That insolent icon of American success - or should I say decadence - the hamburger, is fast becoming a symbol of global destruction and environmental degradation. Ancient, noble and majestic rainforests are being plundered, gutted and charred to create yet more grazing land. Vast areas of the Amazon rain forest resemble Iraqi towns after a U.S. invasion. About FIFTY PERCENT of the earth's land surface is being used to graze livestock. Millions of bovines are causing world-wide deforestation and desertification merely to satisfy overfed Americans and Europeans with cheeseburgers and steaks.

In the United states alone, ranchers can legally access 260 million acres of public lands, most of which have been ruined by over 120 years of grazing. Ranching has the distasteful distinction of ruining more wildlife habitat and native vegetation than any other land use. It seems that wherever animals are abused - whether it be for sport or profit - nature is abused.

Here's a quote from the book "Waste of the West," written by Lynn Jacobs: "The ranching establishment's assault on the environment, therefore, includes campaigns against a huge number and variety of animals. Most of the score or so native large mammal species in the West have been decimated by ranching, both intentionally through slaughtering efforts and indirectly through the harmful effects of livestock grazing and ranching developments. Indeed, most larger and a great many smaller animal species are in some way assailed as enemies. The mass carnage carried outfor the sake of privately owned livestock continues today throughout the grazed 70% of the West, including public lands . . ."

Ranchers live in a world of self-imposed violence against animals. American ranchers continually shoot, trap, poison or persecute the following wild animals: coyotes, prairie dogs, mountain lions, bobcats, golden eagles, bighorn sheep, bison, wild horses, burros, jackrabbits and even ravens. Most are killed simply for sport. And don't forget roping, dragging, branding and castrating helpless calves. It appears that animal cruelty is a preferred lifestyle for some people.

It is neccessary for society to trivialize animal suffering for it to continue its oppression of animals. And where is it mandated that society be driven by conscience? More precisely, it is driven by the pleasure principle, sex, greed and aggression which explains the untold crimes committed against humans and animals. The driving force in society is greed and satisfaction of the senses; the slightest dietary self-sacrifice is considered too radical for most people.

HUMANS BENEFIT FROM ANIMAL RIGHTS

2006-06-30T14:48:00.000-07:00

Forget what your meat-eating friends and relatives tell you about diseases! Read about how to cure, reverse or alleviate most major diseases using a low-fat vegan diet: visit a fascinating website titled "VEGAN HEALTH" at http://all-creatures.org/health.html

Here's an excerpt from that website: Frank and I speak from years of experience enjoying excellent health as a direct result from “going vegan.” Before learning and changing our eating habits, we suffered for years from health problems that we had no idea stemmed from the animal products we were eating. And our doctors never asked us about our diets! They and we never made the connection that our health problems were the direct result of the animal products we were consuming!

For example, for years I not only suffered with Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), but also with the urinary bladder condition known as Interstitial Cystitis (IC). If any of my readers have had these conditions, you know the misery they cause. You read and hear about “searching for cures” and they hint about “autoimmune disease” as a cause. Why is it so difficult to admit that taking into our bodies foreign proteins from animal products may cause this “autoimmune disease,” and that an easy way to find out is to try going vegan for a period of time?

Frank went vegan (no animal products) in 1987. A year later, after a stubborn sore throat would not respond to my doctor’s prescribed medications, Frank convinced me to drop dairy products (I had stopped eating all other animal products). As I’ve mentioned before in a Blog, if we had it to do over again, all dairy products would be the first to go!

The stubbornness of people clinging to harmful notions and avoiding the obvious is unbelievable! It seems as though many people would rather spend lots of money unnecessarily and keep suffering so that they can feel accepted by their peers, rather than to think and act in their own best interest, which also happens to coincide with the best interest of their fellow creatures. To me, this hard-hearted attitude is proof that there is indeed a Satan – the deceiver and father of lies, as the Bible says. Satan and his demons must be laughing up a storm at the stupidity of human beings!

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that our becoming born again believers in the Lord Jesus Christ happened before our change in eating habits. We thank God that, through His Holy Spirit, He gave us the compassion and empathy to feel for His other creatures. In turn, our health improved, and we received many other blessings.

Be sure to visit Dr. Joel Fuhrman's website at http://www.drfuhrman.com/

THE ROLE OF DIET IN ARTHRITIS

For years people have suspected that foods are an important factor in the development of rheumatoid arthritis. Many notice an improvement in their condition when they avoid dairy products, citrus fruits, tomatoes, eggplant and certain other foods.

Initially, the evidence was anecdotal. A woman from the Midwest once suffered from painful arthritis. Today she is a picture of health, thin and athletic, and her arthritis is totally gone. It seemed that dairy products were to blame for her arthritis, for when she eliminated them from her diet, the arthritis disappeared completely.

A 1989 survey of over one thousand arthritis patients revealed that the foods most commonly believed to worsen the condition were red meat, sugar, fats, salt, caffeine, and nightshade plants
(e.g., tomatoes, eggplant). Once the offending food is eliminated completely, improvement usually comes within a few weeks. Dairy foods are one of the principle offenders, and the
problem is the dairy protein, rather than the fat, so skim milk products are as much a problem as whole milk.

An increasing volume of research shows that certain dietary changes do in fact help. For example, polyunsaturated oils and omega-3 supplements have a mild beneficial effect, and researchers have found that vegan diets are beneficial. One 2002 study looked at the influence of a very low-fat vegan diet on subjects with moderate-to-severe RA. After only four weeks on the diet, almost all measures of RA symptoms decreased significantly. The Journal of Rheumatology published a study that found a gluten-free vegan diet improved the signs and symptoms of RA. An uncooked vegan diet, rich in antioxidants and fiber was shown in another study to decrease joint stiffness and pain in patients with RA. Some research studies have looked at fasting followed by a vegetarian or vegan diet. A review of multiple research studies concluded that this dietary treatment might be useful in the treatment of RA.

Vegan diets dramatically reduce the overall amount of fat in the diet, and alter the composition of fats. This in turn can affect the immune processes that influence arthritis. The omega-3 fatty acids in vegetables may be a key factor, along with the near absence of saturated fat. The fact that patients also lose weight on a vegan diet contributes to the improvement.

In addition, vegetables are rich in antioxidants, which can neutralize free radicals. Oxygen free radicals attack many parts of the body and contribute to heart disease and cancer, and intensify the aging processes generally, including of the joints.

Iron acts as a catalyst, encouraging the production of these dangerous molecules. Vitamins C and E, which are plentiful in a diet made of vegetables and grains, help neutralize free radicals. Meats supply an overload of iron, no vitamin C, and very little vitamin E, whereas vegetables contain more controlled amounts of iron, and generous quantities of antioxidant vitamins.

As well as being helpful in preventing arthritis, antioxidants may also have a role in reducing its symptoms. Some arthritis treatments, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, work at least in part by neutralizing free radicals. For the most part, however, vitamins and other antioxidants will be of more use in preventing damage before it occurs, rather than in treating an inflamed joint.

A diet drawn from fruits, vegetables, grains, and beans therefore appears to be helpful in preventing and, in some cases, ameliorating arthritis.

The Four-Week Anti-Arthritis Diet (adapted from Foods That Fight Pain, by Neal Barnard, M.D.) For four weeks, include generous amounts of foods from the pain-safe list in your routine.
At the same time, scrupulously avoid the major triggers. It is important to avoid these foods completely, as even a small amount can cause symptoms.

You may well experience benefits earlier than four weeks, but for some people it can take this long for chronically inflamed joints to cool down.

Pain-safe foods virtually never contribute to arthritis or other painful conditions. Pain-safe foods include:

Brown rice

Cooked or dried fruits: cherries, cranberries, pears, prunes (but not citrus fruits, bananas, peaches or tomatoes)

Cooked green, yellow, and orange vegetables: artichokes, asparagus, broccoli, chard, collards, lettuce, spinach, string beans, summer or winter squash, sweet potatoes, tapioca, and taro (poi)

Water: plain water or carbonated forms, such as Perrier, are fine. Other beverages, even herbal teas, can be triggers.

Condiments: small amounts of salt, maple syrup, and vanilla extract are usually well-tolerated.

After four weeks, if your symptoms have improved or disappeared, the next step is to nail down which one or more of the trigger foods has been causing your problem. Simply reintroduce the foods you have eliminated back into your diet one at a time, every two days.

Have a generous amount of each newly reintroduced food, and see whether your joints flare up again. If so, eliminate the food that seems to have caused the problem, and let your joints cool down again. Then continue to reintroduce the other foods. Wait at least two weeks before trying a problem food a second time. Many people have more than one food trigger.

It is not recommended to bring meats, dairy products, or eggs back into your diet. Not only are they major triggers, but they also encourage hormone imbalances that may contribute to joint pain, and also lead to many other health problems.

Avoid Major Arthritis Triggers:

1. Dairy products*
2. Corn
3. Meats**
4. Wheat, oats, rye
5. Eggs
6. Citrus fruits
7. Potatoes
8. Tomatoes
9. Nuts
10. Coffee

*All dairy products should be avoided: skim or whole cow�s milk, goat�s milk, cheese, yogurt, etc.

**All meats should be avoided: beef, pork, chicken, turkey, fish, etc.

HOWARD LYMAN: MAD COWBOY TURNED VEGAN

You may savor the following excerpts from Howard Lyman's book "Mad Cowboy."

" There is, simply, a never-ending stream of good news about vegetarian food. In the words of Natalie Angier of the New York Times, "The truth is that the more researchers understand about the ingredients found in fruits, vegetables, beans, and herbs, the more impressed they are with the power of those compounds to retard the bodily breakdown that results in cancer and other chronic diseases.

But you never hear any good news about meat. You never switch on the news to learn that a medical study at Harvard has revealed that roast beef boosts the immune system, or that fried chicken helps prevent arthritis, or that ham is good for the prostate. There's not a single encouraging news tidbit about veal, say, aiding the gonads. Nothing positive ever turns up even about the highly-regarded turkey escalopes fontina. There's simply never anything health - enhancing that any researcher can uncover about flesh foods. Meanwhile, a torrent of revelations confirms the benefits of plant foods.

Some who are ignorant of the facts may tell you that you can't get enough protein on a vegetarian diet - but as we know, most Americans suffer from an unhealthy excess of protein. You will have absolutely no problem getting sufficient protein on a balanced vegetarian diet. Other naysayers may warn you that you're likely to become anemic. In fact, most vegetarians have very healthy hemoglobin levels; only those who eat a diet of junk foods and dairy products may run into problems.

Some sceptics may bring up the cloudier matter of vitamin B12. It's a fact that only animal foods contain substantial amounts of this vitamin (writer of this blog notes: tempeh contains B12, so does dulse seaweed and Brewer's yeast). The human need for vitamin B12 is miniscule - about 2 micrograms per day, and our bodies store this vitamin for a period of years. To be conservative, I recommend supplemental B12 found in many cereals , soy milks, and other packaged foods that are enriched with B12. Nutritonal yeast and textured vegetable protein are also good sources. Finally, all multivitamins -including vegetarian formulas - contain more B12 than you will ever need.

Never mind the statistics about heart attacks and cancer, never mind that vegetarians live longer than meat eaters, never mind the obesity rate that is the common result of an animal-based diet, never mind all the environmental reasons for a diet that is plant-based.

Study after study has linked the consumption of animal products to heart disease. When I say to you the consumption of meat, fish, poultry, and dairy products is the primary cause of atherosclerosis in nonsmokers, I am not just giving you my opinion; I am reporting a medical fact that has been established with as much scientific unanimity and consistency as the fact that smoking cigarettes dramatically increases the risk of lung cancer, emphysema, and heart disease.

As the noted preventative health care expert Dr. Jjulian Whitaker points out, 'Death from heart disease is as unnecessary as dying of drug abuse, yet it is taken as a normal thing.'

What would happen to all the jobs in the meat industry if the entire nation went vegetarian? They would be lost of course. Gone would be all the jobs in slaughterhouses - the most dangerous jobs in America as well as all the other foul jobs in meat processing, not to mention all the minmum-wage jobs flipping burgers.They would be replaced by even more jobs - safer, cleaner, more satisfying, and probably better-paying jobs - in the production and selling of organic, healthy, plant-based products. The savings in medical costs attributable to meat consumption, estimated at $28 to $61 billion annually, would be plowed back into the economy and boost its productivity enormously." - from "Mad Cowboy" by Howard Lyman

KILLING IS BAD KARMA: EASTERN VS. WESTERN VIEWS ON ANIMALS

2006-06-28T09:59:00.000-07:00

According to Eastern philosophy, humans amass great amounts of negative karma from abusing animals and/or people. Since we can sense, but not see karma, it is assumed that karma is either a myth or a trivial matter - nothing to be concerned about. But the great Hindu saints and Buddhist bodhisattvas inform us that our karma, which we create all by ourselves, is the reason we continue to suffer and reincarnate. We knowingly or unknowingly create our own good - or bad - karma with every single thought, word and deed.

Karma as the Webster Dictionary puts it:

1.) in Buddhism and Hinduism, the totality of a person's actions in one of the successive states of his existence, thought of as determining his fate in the next.

2.) loosely, fate; destiny.

Here's how I define karma:

For every action there is an equal or opposite reaction. Karma travels with you; it never goes away and it always keeps perfect score, and your karma has been with you since your soul was created (how ever many lives that is). It is like a guide keeping you in line and making sure you get everything you deserve, good or bad. In other words when you harm others you are harming your self; when you are good to others you get good things in return.

Much of what Western societies believe about animals can be traced back to the ancient Greeks, Romans and various interpretations of the Bible. About the time Buddha reached full enlightenment, ancient Greek philosophers believed that Greek men were superior to all other humans and animals. In Eastern cultures, animals are given much more consideration than Western societies give them, although animal cruelty has always been a universal scourge. Animal cruelty exists for two main reasons: it provides income and/or it provides pleasure.

To a Buddhist or Hindu, it makes perfect sense not to kill animals. In Western societies, animal cruelty is considered an unavoidable fact of life, and in some instances, cruelty to animals is a preferred lifestyle. Yet, virtually all of this mass exploitation is unecessary. Not a single slaughterhouse, fur coat, hunting season or rodeo do we need. This entire man-made cornucopia of massive butchering, suffering and subsequent bad karma is totally unnecessary.

Unlike the Judeo-Christian tradition, Buddhism affirms the unity of all living beings, all equally posses the Buddha-nature, and all have the potential to become Buddhas, that is, to become fully and perfectly enlightened. Among the sentient, there are no second-class citizens. According to Buddhist teaching, human beings do not have a privileged, special place above and beyond that of the rest of life. The world is not a creation specifically for the benefit and pleasure of human beings. Furthermore, in some circumstances in accordance with their karma, humans can be reborn as animals and animals can be reborn as humans.

In Buddhism the most fundamental guideline for conduct is ahimsa: the prohibition against the bringing of harm and/or death to any living being. Why should one refrain from killing? It is because all beings have lives; they love their lives and do not wish to die. Even one of the smallest creatures, the mosquito, when it approaches to bite you, will fly away if you make the slightest motion. Why does it fly away? Because it fears death. It figures that if it drinks your blood, you will take its life. . . . We should nurture compassionate thought.Since we wish to live, we should not kill any other living being. Furthermore, the karma of killing is understood as the root of all suffering and the fundamental cause of sickness and war, and the forces of killing are explicitly identified with the demonic. The highest and most universal ideal of Buddhism is to work unceasingly for permanent end to the suffering of all living beings, not just humans.

Speaking of Buddhists, one of the world's most respected spiritual leaders - the 14th Dalai Lama - has repeatedly spoken in favor of vegetarianism, and he also favors animal rights causes. A few years ago, the author of this blog mailed a letter to the Dalai Lama (to his Dharamsala, India address), and his personal secretary replied that His Holiness was very much in favor of vegetarianism. The information below was obtained from PETA's KFC website and other websites concerning the Dalai Lama.

In his appeal, His Holiness writes, “On behalf of my friends at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), I am writing to ask that KFC abandon its plan to open restaurants in Tibet, because your corporation’s support for cruelty and mass slaughter violate Tibetan values … I have been particularly concerned with the sufferings of chickens for many years. It was the death of a chicken that finally strengthened my resolve to become vegetarian. … These days, when I see a row of plucked chickens hanging in a meat shop it hurts. I find it unacceptable that violence is the basis of some of our food habits. … It is therefore quite natural for me to support those who are currently protesting against the introduction of industrial food practices into Tibet that will perpetuate the suffering of huge numbers of chickens."

" In the mid 1960s, the Dalai Lama was impressed by ethically vegetarian Indian monks and adopted a vegetarian diet for about a year and a half. While he has eaten meat in moderation ever since, the Dalai Lama has repeatedly acknowledged that a vegetarian diet is a worthy expression of compassion and contributes to the cessation of the suffering of all living beings. However, he eats meat only on alternate days (six months a year). He is a semi- vegetarian, though he wishes to be a full one. By making an example of cutting his meat consumption in half, he is trying to gently influence his followers.

This Thanksgiving, staff of the Fund for Animals are thanking the Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, for recent statements in support of animal rights. In an audience with representatives of The Fund for Animals earlier this month, the Dalai Lama commended the animal rights movement for working to end the suffering of animals, and urged everyone to consider a vegetarian diet. Speaking with The Fund for Animals' national director, Heidi Prescott, and program coordinator, Norm Phelps, the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize recipient said, "People think of animals as if they were vegetables, and that isn't right. We have to change the way people think about animals. I encourage the Tibetan people and all people to move toward a vegetarian diet that doesn't cause suffering."

His Holiness also condemned the abuse and killing of animals for entertainment purposes, such as the practice of hunting wild animals for sport. The Dalai Lama invited the Fund for Animals to work with his government in exile in India to help encourage people to become vegetarian and to protect animals from suffering.

Tibetan Buddhist master, Chagdud Rinpoche, stated: "Saving and protecting life creates tremendous virtue. All beings are equal in that they all seek happiness, don't want to suffer and value their lives as we do."

Eastern philosophy is a vast and extremely profound subject. Eastern religions have been a source of fascination, guidance, and enlightenment for thousands of years. To this day, India , Nepal, Bhutan and Tibet continue to produce most of the world's great enlightened masters. Understanding karma is critical to understanding Eastern philosophy. - By Scott Palczak

CHRISTIANITY, JESUS & ANIMAL RIGHTS

2006-04-02T12:17:00.000-07:00

Animal rights people are not necessarily atheists. We consider animal rights to be a philosphy - and a preferred lifestyle - but not a religion.We know that people across the planet ferociously guard their often conflicting beliefs about morality and self-imposed notions of the Almighty. To emphasize certain points, I'll be fairly heavy-handed in my critique of Christian thinking. Bear in mind that religious discussions are endlessly futile, and few people are converted through logic alone.

Most, but not all, Christians believe that humans have a right to kill animals they intend to eat. Really? This seems to be another case of God said we can take what we want - so let's kill it and grill it! But how do Christians KNOW that humans have a right to kill and eat animals? Are they on a higher plane of consciousness where God is blissfully smiling down on all this remorseless animal killing? Are they in communion with God, and therefore know how pleased the Creator is to have his creatures butchered and eaten? Perhaps Christians "sense" that it is okay to eat meat, shoot animals, skin chickens alive - but what if they are simply wrong?

Exactly what Jesus ate for lunch and dinner we do not know, but we do know for certain that he was not a trapper, hunter, or rodeo cowboy. There's also no mention of him branding and castrating livestock. Interestingly, the New Testament contains references to people eating fish, but Jesus Christ himself ate fish only twice. Their is absolutely no mention of Jesus Christ being a butcher or eating red meat. Because people ate fish in the New Testament, we cannot logically surmise that Jesus was a hunter or rancher. Such notions of Jesus being an animal abuser are impossible to support using scriptural writings. Simply contorting Jesus to fit personal ideas of morality is not true worship, and it leads to innacurate impressions of what Jesus taught.

For instance, we cannot assume that because our football team is winning, that Jesus is on our side. Jesus Christ couldn't care less about football, and he'd prefer that people did not bash each other's heads for sport. Nor can we surmise that because animals abound, then it's God's will that we kill them. Unless we have obtained a very high level of consciousness - call it Christ consciousnes, kingdom of heaven or whatever - we simply cannot be certain of God's will.

Where is it written that Christians must or should eat meat? Where is it written that Jesus was a hunter or champion bull rider? Where is it written that killing and butchering animals is the road to heaven? I can just as easily portray Jesus as a peaceful man who did not abuse animals, and I'd be far more accurate based on written accounts of his life.A careful study of the lives of Christian saints reveals that none of them indulged in animal killing or animal abuse. Many, many saints were fond of animals.

Indeed, untold millions of sentient beings have suffered immensely over the centuries because of ungodly people inflicting pain, misery, injustice and death in the name of their Almighty. Historically, people have rationalized their ungodly behavior. They will use any rationale - religion or philosophy - as an excuse to conquer, exploit, subjugate, discriminate, or inflict pain.

Eastern and Western saints tell us that Jesus was a very highly evolved being, that he was in fact an incarnation of God. Some contemporary Christians claim to have a relationship with Jesus. But how can mere mortals even begin to fathom Jesus Christ's extremely high level of consciousness? Wouldn't it be more wise to assume that Jesus Christ was very decent toward animals, as Saint Francis was? Saint Francis was a great proponent of animals, and one of the most highly revered saints in Western history. I consider Saint Francis to have been a much greater being than the average person who simply finds the idea of killing animals convenient or necessary. Saint Francis was trying to teach people valuable lessons about animals and the natural world we share with these creatures.

Much of what Western societies believe about animals can be traced back to the ancient Greeks, Romans and various interpretations of the Bible. About the time Buddha reached full enlightenment, ancient Greek philosophers believed that Greek men were superior to all other humans and animals. In Eastern cultures, animals are given much more consideration than Western societies give them, although animal cruelty has always been a universal scourge. Animal cruelty exists for two main reasons: it provides income and/or it provides pleasure.

To a Buddhist or Hindu, it makes perfect sense not to kill animals. In more anthropocentric Western societies, animal cruelty is considered an unavoidable fact of life, and in some instances, cruelty to animals is a preferred lifestyle. Yet, virtually all of this mass exploitation is unecessary. Not a single slaughterhouse, fur coat, hunting season or rodeo do we need.

Unlike the Judeo-Christian tradition, Buddhism affirms the unity of all living beings, all equally posses the Buddha-nature, and all have the potential to become Buddhas, that is, to become fully and perfectly enlightened. Among the sentient, there are no second-class citizens. According to Buddhist teaching, human beings do not have a privileged, special place above and beyond that of the rest of life. The world is not a creation specifically for the benefit and pleasure of human beings. Furthermore, in some circumstances according with their karma, humans can be reborn as humans and animals can be reborn as humans.

Eastern religiouns provide extremely complex views of karma and different levels of consciousness that cannot be found in Western writngs. However, a saint is saint regardless of where they are from, and no one can be a saint who harms any sentient beings. Mother Theresa was not known for her hunting, fishing or trapping abilities, but she was known as a great humanitarian.

To a growing number of Christians there exists no means of reconciling the institutionalised violence of the meat industry, and its inherent disrespect for life, with divine will. Far from being a substitute religion or a modern day heresy, vegetarianism is increasingly advocated on Biblical grounds. To many, it is not merely an objection to the conduct of the world, but a physical statement of faith.

The King James Bible states: "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." It also states "thou shalt not kill; and whoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgement." ( Mathew 5:4, 5:21)

The early Hebrews who penned Genesis were not vegetarians, although they accepted this as being God's original aspiration for mankind. Genesis 1:29 tells us: "And God said Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yeilding seed; to you it shall be for meat." Genesis 9:4 states: "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." Leviticus 3:17 states: "It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings that ye eat neither fat nor blood." Ecclesiastes 3:19 states, "Man hath no preeminence over the beast."

My concern is that we do not know exactly Jesus Christ's ideas of the animal world. But we do know what he was not, and he was not an animal abuser. The fact that some people in the New Testament were fed with fish does not logically justify factory farming or massive hunting seasons. Ultimately, people believe what they want to believe. - By Scott Palczak

DICK CHENEY: DRUNKEN HUNTER OF LITTLE BIRDS & MEN

2006-03-10T07:25:00.000-08:00

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.
________________________________________________________________

A DYING & CRUEL PASTIME

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
decline.

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.
________________________________________________________________

CAN HUNTING BE ANYTHING BUT CRUEL?

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.
_________________________________________________________________

HUNTING BIG CARNIVORES MUST STOP!

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.

ANTIHUNTING RESOURCE SITE

SCOTT'S ANTIHUNTING BLOG

VEGANVANGUARD ANTIHUNTING PAGE

HUMANE SOCIETY of the UNITED STATES

PEOPLE KILLED & WOUNDED BY HUNTERS

SCOTT'S ANIMAL RIGHTS BLOG

THE UNGODLY TRUTH ABOUT HUNTING: A CLASSIC ESSAY

2005-09-29T06:36:00.000-07:00

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.

MORE ABOUT HUNTING AND WILDLIFE "MANAGEMENT"

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.

HOW DO WILDLIFE AGENCIES CREATE A SURPLUS OF GAME ANIMALS?

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.

ISN'T HUNTING NEEDED TO CONTROL DEER POPULATIONS?

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.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH HUNTERS?

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 Crowbusters.com and he claims the website is "great fun." Crowbusters.com 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."

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.

GOOD VEGGIES VS. BAD MEAT

2005-09-28T11:56:00.000-07:00

You may savor the following excerpts from Howard Lyman's book "Mad Cowboy."

" There is, simply, a never-ending stream of good news about vegetarian food. In the words of Natalie Angier of the New York Times, "The truth is that the more researchers understand about the ingredients found in fruits, vegetables, beans, and herbs, the more impressed they are with the power of those compounds to retard the bodily breakdown that results in cancer and other chronic diseases.

But you never hear any good news about meat. You never switch on the news to learn that a medical study at Harvard has revealed that roast beef boosts the immune system, or that fried chicken helps prevent arthritis, or that ham is good for the prostate. There's not a single encouraging news tidbit about veal, say, aiding the gonads. Nothing positive ever turns up even about the highly-regarded turkey escalopes fontina. There's simply never anything health - enhancing that any researcher can uncover about flesh foods. Meanwhile, a torrent of revelations confirms the benefits of plant foods.

Some who are ignorant of the facts may tell you that you can't get enough protein on a vegetarian diet - but as we know, most Americans suffer from an unhealthy excess of protein. You will have absolutely no problem getting sufficient protein on a balanced vegetarian diet. Other naysayers may warn you that you're likely to become anemic. In fact, most vegetarians have very healthy hemoglobin levels; only those who eat a diet of junk foods and dairy products may run into problems.

Some sceptics may bring up the cloudier matter of vitamin B12. It's a fact that only animal foods contain substantial amounts of this vitamin (writer of this blog notes: tempeh contains B12, so does dulse seaweed and Brewer's yeast). The human need for vitamin B12 is miniscule - about 2 micrograms per day, and our bodies store this vitamin for a period of years. To be conservative, I recommend supplemental B12 found in many cereals , soy milks, and other packaged foods that are enriched with B12. Nutritonal yeast and textured vegetable protein are also good sources. Finally, all multivitamins -including vegetarian formulas - contain more B12 than you will ever need.

Never mind the statistics about heart attacks and cancer, never mind that vegetarians live longer than meat eaters, never mind the obesity rate that is the common result of an animal-based diet, never mind all the environmental reasons for a diet that is plant-based.

Study after study has linked the consumption of animal products to heart disease. When I say to you the consumption of meat, fish, poultry, and dairy products is the primary cause of atherosclerosis in nonsmokers, I am not just giving you my opinion; I am reporting a medical fact that has been established with as much scientific unanimity and consistency as the fact that smoking cigarettes dramatically increases the risk of lung cancer, emphysema, and heart disease.

As the noted preventative health care expert Dr. Jjulian Whitaker points out, 'Death from heart disease is as unnecessary as dying of drug abuse, yet it is taken as a normal thing.'

What would happen to all the jobs in the meat industry if the entire nation went vegetarian? They would be lost of course. Gone would be all the jobs in slaughterhouses - the most dangerous jobs in America as well as all the other foul jobs in meat processing, not to mention all the minmum-wage jobs flipping burgers.They would be replaced by even more jobs - safer, cleaner, more satisfying, and probably better-paying jobs - in the production and selling of organic, healthy, plant-based products. The savings in medical costs attributable to meat consumption, estimated at $28 to $61 billion annually, would be plowed back into the economy and boost its productivity enormously." - from "Mad Cowboy" by Howard Lyman

IN DEFENSE OF PETA - CLICK HERE FOR MORE ESSAYS!

2005-07-10T11:47:00.000-07:00

Lately, newspaper writers have been fond of blasting PETA, but these writers do little or nothing to alleviate animal suffering. For instance, they could write about the hundreds of thousands of animals that have been deliberately and maliciously killed by Safari Club International. Every year, hundreds of people are killed and wounded by hunters, but newspapers do not consider this a problem worth writing about. Millions of animals are tortured and killed every year in laboratories, but again, newspapers are reluctant to publish this information.

Occassionally, when an extremely egregious case of animal cruelty concerning dogs or cats is discovered, newpapers will rally against the animal abusers. But when it comes to everyday animal abuse in the form of sport, medical research, or factory farming, newspapers couldn't care less about reporting these atrocities.

Michael Fumento writes for Scripps Howard news Service and he wrote a commentary blasting PETA. I completely disagree with Michael Fumento's commentary "PETA must be stopped" (June 18, 2005). Fumento's argument against PETA concerns its undercover videotape of monkeys being abused by lab technicians at Covance primate testing lab. Fumento - who lacks even rudimentary sympathy and empathy for animals - found the PETA Web video totally innocous and accuses PETA of fabricating a case against Covance.

PETA's Web site shows a monkey being crammed into a glass tube. The Covance monkey cages are far too small and sterile to be considered humane. Animal rights people consider the psychological AND physical well being of animals to be of paramount importance. Monkeys can be seen pacing in their cramped quarters with nowhere to go but around in circles in their pathetically tiny, sterile wire cages. But none of this concerns Fumento - it's no skin off his back if animals are abused or neglected.

Fumento states that "real abuse would also violate the Animal Welfare Act." The flaccid Animal Welfare Act is a long-standing farce created by the U.S. government, and it is an impotent, weakly enforced piece of legislative feces. Budgetary constraints and strong opposition from animal breeders, pharmaceutical companies, and experimenters themselves, as well as an inadequate number of inspectors, have resulted in poor enforcement of the act.

Fumento obviously considers monkeys to be little more than resources. PETA may not win their case against Covance, but unlike Fumento, they know animal cruelty when they see it.

Fumento could have written about factory farm abuses which are more common than McDonald's junkfood. He could have written about what a scourge cattle ranching is on the environment and the millions of acres of tropical rainforests that are being destroyed by cattle ranching. He could have spoken out against the stupid rantings of Ted Nugent who claims to kill every cat that he sees. Read more about Nugent's dementia on this blog at "Ted Nugent is a Sadistic Animal Killer."

Across this weary planet, people love to complain about anything and everything: governments, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Barbara Bush, Barbara Streisand, sports teams, jobs, bosses, wives, husbands, husband's wives - all are deserving, suitable targets. Animal rights people like to complain about how inhuman people can be towards animals. And there is much to complain about! It is that simple and that complex.

Where is it written that meat eaters are more ethical than vegetarians, vegans or animal rights activists? Look around and you'll see that our wars were not started by vegetarians. Was the Vietnam War - which killed, wounded and crippled hundreds of thousands of people - started and perpetuated by vegans? George Bush and Dick Cheney tossed this country into the Iraqi furnace; they definitely are not vegetarians. In fact, OldDick is an avid duck hunter.

Our jails, prisons, mental hospitals and entire penal system are not filled with vegetarians or animal rights activists. I'd like to see a single legitimate study showing that vegetarians have a higher percentage of wife-beating alcoholics than the general meat-eating public. Am I to believe that most pimps, drug users, drug dealers, prostitutes, killer cops and cop killers are vegetarians? Where are the studies proving that people eating a high animal-protein diet are living longer, healthier lives than strict vegetarians? I'll ask the more thoughtful reader this question: Of all the alcoholics, wife beaters, child abusers and drug addicts you may have known, how many of these people - and there are millions of them - were vegetarians or animal rights people? Probably none.

Osama Bin Laden and his merry band of head hunters are not vegans or vegetarians, and neither is George Bush or Dick Cheney. Perhaps if Old Dick had spent less time duck hunting and more time studying Middle Eastern policies, the U.S. wouldn't be embroiled in that vile Iraqi mess. The list of atrocities committed by meat eaters and people who are not animal rights activists is endless.

What I perceive is this: flesh-eaters exploiting other flesh eaters out of good-old-fashioned American greed. Look at the edipemics of heart disease, cancer and strokes, and you'll link them to double-bacon cheeseburgers, double - layer pizzas with extra toppings, fried chicken, etc. Vegans are not promoting this madness. Nor do vegetarians or animal rights people sell cigaretttes to lung cancer patients or whiskey to alcoholics. There is no evidence that animal rights people or vegetarians are heavily into drugs, alcohol, gambling, prostitution, wife beating, child abuse, street gangs, or police brutality.

Furthermore, numerous studies have determined that animal abusers can and will abuse children. Why aren't newspaper writers harping against people who abuse animals and children? Could it be that PETA - which is probably 70 percent female - is an easy target for newspaper writers who lack the courage and convictions to tackle bigger game.

People are foolish enough - or deluded enough - to put their faith in that crazy Atkins diet. They actually believe that eating liberally of meat, dairy, cheese, eggs and butter has no health consequences! What a convenient fantasy. Robert Atkins himself had suffered a heart attack while eating one of his artery-clogging, fat-laden breakfasts on April 25, 2002. But he and his cardiologist said it was not diet related! He was also clinically obese at the time of death. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that massive quantities of satured fat and cholesterol will eventually wreak revenge on the human body.

Read my essay on this blog titled "Vegetarians Have Less Disease," and you'll learn about the health benefits of eating a strict vegetarian and/or vegan diet. You'll learn that the vast majority of diseases can be reversed (cured) with a strict low-fat vegan diet. You will not aquire this knowledge from watching McDonald's or KFC commercials.

According to Kevin Trudeau's book "Natural Cures They Don't Want You to Know About," the so-called "war on cancer" is a fraud. The book states: "Consider that modern Western medicine has "searched" for the "cause" and "cure" for cancer and other degenerative diseases for well over 100 years and has failed miserably even though:

1.) The mission was entrusted to the "best" researchers in the medical, academic and industrial sectors.

2.) They have private and government contracts with huge amounts of money.

3.) They falsify reasearch procedures, lie about results and cover for each other.

Dr. Linus Pauling, PhD., twice Nobel laureate, called the war on cancer largely a failure.

The natural porpose and driving force of the pharmaceutical industry is to increase their sales of pharmaceutical drugs that treat ongoing diseases, and to find new diseases or rename old diseases to market their existing drugs.

The eradication of any disease inevitably destroys a multi-billion dollar market for prescription drugs as a source of revenue. Therefore, deadly toxic chemical drugs are developed to treat symptoms but not cure anything."

It's been known for at least a hundred years that a natural raw foods diet, colonics, fasting, vitamins and minerals can be used to cure the vast majority of diseases. Pharmaceutical companies and the food industry control the media, and they absolutely do not want natural cures for any disease made known to the public.

Each year, on the average, two to three people are killed in every state by hunters and approximatey 1,000 people are wounded. In 1988, 177 people were killed and 1,719 were injured by hunters. And don't forget the 150 MILLION animals (or more) that are shot at, killed and wounded annually in the United States.

A solitary hunter was indicted for starting California's largest wildlfire - called the Cedar Fire - which killed 15 people, destroyed 2,200 homes and charred 273,000 acres! And the hunting industry tells us how safe and careful hunters are! We are told by newspapers and our state wildlife agencies how wonderful hunting is, and that we must recruit children as young as eight years old to keep up this stupid tradition.

It's interesting that butchering animals and eating them is considered more rational than protecting them. It seems the masses are more driven by money and the pleasure principle than concern for their fellow creatures. It may be more "normal" to die from heart disease than it is to be a vegan, but I'll choose the latter.

As a society we do not need a single slaughterhouse. Not a single one! Nor do we need fur coats or rodeos or even one lonely rancher. All this unnecessary oppression of animals is optional. It exists for two main reasons: animals are killed for profit and they're killed for pleasure.

Animal abuse is a paradox because it is both ubiquitous and hidden at the same time. We all live within miles of a windowless, depressing slaughterhouse. People fish near our homes, animals are hunted within miles of our residence. But all this is hidden from public view, except for fishing. Domestic dogs are chained in junkyards and low-rent neighborhoods. Yet, all of this mass abuse is totally uneccessary! Society appears sane and humane. Ah, but look closer, behind closed doors, in houses or apartments, in parks at night, and you'll find children and animals being abused. And this abuse is a hidden epidemic.

It is neccessary for society to trivialize animal suffering for it to continue its oppression of animals. And where is it mandated that society be driven by conscience? More precisely, it is driven by the pleasure principle, sex, greed and aggression which explains the untold crimes committed against humans and animals. The driving force in society is greed and satisfaction of the senses; the slightest dietary self-sacrifice is considered too radical for most people.

VEGETARIANS HAVE LESS DISEASE

2005-05-27T18:00:00.000-07:00

Everyone reading this essay knows of someone who has contracted cancer, heart disease or arthritis. Everyone, including the media, is interested in a cure for cancer. The media lavishes attention on finding a breast cancer cure, early detection and treatment options. Conspicuously absent is a focus on the very significant role of diet and nutrition in both preventing and treating cancer.

Aren't dietary and lifestyle reforms at least as important as finding a cancer cure? Certainly, we can and should choose a diet and lifestyle that minimizes our risk of contracting cancer and other degenerative diseases. The wise cancer patient will chose a diet and mode of living that maximizes her ability to fight cancer.

Studies have shown that vegetarians have much less cancer ( 50% less ) than nonvegetarians. The link between higher fat consumption and the increasing ccurence of common cancers has been known for years. We also know that the link between fat and breast cancer is also well established because breast tumors are fueled by estrogens. Women who eat a plant-based, low fat diet can quickly drop their estrogen level.

A National Cancer Institute report stated that vegetables and fruits protect against cancers if consumed in large enough quantities. Hundreds of scientific studies have determined this. Research indicates that raw vegetables contain the most powerful anti-cancer ingredients of all foods. And beans, including soy, have added anti-cancer benefits protecting against reproductive cancers, such as breast and prostate cancer.

In his book "Eat to Live," Dr. Joel Fuhrman explains: "Research shows that those who avoid meat and dairy have lower rates of heart disease, cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, and obesity. The data is conclusive: vegetarians live longer in America, probably a lot longer. Remember, long-term vegans almost never get heart attacks." To quote a respected authority, William Castelli, M.D., director of the famed Framingham Heart Study: "We tend to scoff at vegetarians, but they're actually doing much better than we are. Vegans have cholesterol levels so low, they almost never get heart attacks."

Coronary artery disease and its end result - heart attacks, the leading killer of American men and women - is almost 100 percent preventable. Cholesterol levels can de decreased by reducing both saturated fat and animal protein while eating more plant protein.

Dr. Fuhrman explains in his book "Fasting and Eating for Health" that it cannot be denied that vegetarian populations live longer and healthier lives than meat-eating populations. Not only does the epidemiologic evidence from around the globe point to this, but also the studies on healthy vegetarian populations show that there is a significant survival advantage when animal foods are eliminated from the diet.

He continues, "Studies comparing vegetarians to nonvegetarian groups show much less cancer among vegetarians, especially those avoiding dairy products. Whenever we look at populations who consume high levels of fruits and vegetables, we find reduced levels of cancer and disease in general. Just as heart disease and cancers are strongly related to a high consumption of animal foods, the same can be said of autoimmune illnesses and osteoporosis. Multiple studies have linked osteoporosis not to low calcium intake, but to diets high in protein, salt, refined sugar, caffeine, and phosphorous contained in soft drinks."

In America, eating sugary, fatty foods is the great American pastime. Eating junkfood has become a virtual secular religion based on gluttony and hedonism as the goal of human life. Billion-dollar corporations saturate the American body and psyche with their fat-laden, artery-clogging, cancer-causing garbagefare which is helping to create epidemics of arthritis, cancer, heart disease, strokes, etc.

Bad luck or accidents are not the reasons that people develop chronic degenerative diseases, rather, these conditions are earned through years of poor dietary habits and poor nutrition. Consider too, the long-term effects of smoking or exposure to environmental toxins and the source of common diseases is less of a mystery.

Yet, these serious, debilitating illnesses can be reversed. Joel Fuhrman M.D. writes in his book "Fasting and Eating for Health" that he has helped hundreds of patients recover from serious, degenerative diseases by fasting and eating a healthy, low-fat vegan diet. Joel Fuhrman's book should be read and thoroughly digested by all medical doctors and serious laymen. Visit Joel Fuhrman's website at http://www.drfuhrman.com/

Dr. Dean Ornish mentions in the book "Breast Cancer - Beyond Convention" that "incidences of clinically significant prostate, breast and colon cancers are much lower in parts of the world that eat a predominately low-fat, whole-foods, plant-based diet. Subgroups of people in the United States who eat this diet also have much lower rates of these cancers than those who eat a typical American diet."

Despite increasingly sophisticated methods of diagnosis and treatment, our so-called "War on Cancer" is being lost; cancer is still the second leading cause of death in the United States. The War on Cancer and other degenerative diseases is being lost because the standard American diet is more powerful at creating disease than medical science is at curing it.

We all know that obesity is a national epidemic which is fueled by ceaseless TV commercials reminding us of the joys of gluttony. Where are the commercials reminding us of the health hazards of these foods? Some of these "foods" are so dangerous they should be seved with a warning label.

Early detection, surgery and radiation can be very effective treatments against cancer, but they cannot prevent a reccurence of the disease, which is quite common. A true cure consists of correcting the underlying causes of the cancer using proper diet, lifestyle and nutrition. And standard medical treatments cannot reverse conditions that are operating concurrently with cancer. For that, a holistic approach is needed.

Actually, few if any diseases, can really be cured by modern medicine. It is a basic fact that drugs and surgery cannot cure disease. A true "miracle drug" would be one with no side effect, and that miracle has yet to occur. All drugs are basically toxins that when injested will accumulate in the body. But a healthy, low-fat vegan diet can allow the body to heal itself because the proper healing environment is created and all obstacles to healing are removed.

Symptoms may be relieved, pain diminished, and offending body parts removed, but the underlying causes of the disease must be addressed for a true cure to occur. Holistic medicine does not view cancer as a localized, foreign invader as much as it is the body's attempt to localize toxins resulting from poor diet, wrong lifestyle and/or a toxic environment.

Cancer and other serious, degenerative diseases are at epidemic proportions because people are not living in harmony with natural laws of diet and healthy living. Eating greasy- fried double bacon cheeseburgers, french fries, double-layer pizzas, ice cream and more has mass appeal, which is why we have massive amounts of disease. It is no great secret that the American diet is highly toxic.

According to Kevin Trudeau's book "Natural Cures They Don't Want You to Know About," the so-called "war on cancer" is a fraud. The book states: "Consider that modern Western medicine has "searched" for the "cause" and "cure" for cancer and other degenerative diseases for well over 100 years and has failed miserably even though:

1.) The mission was entrusted to the "best" researchers in the medical, academic and industrial sectors.

2.) They have private and government contracts with huge amounts of money.

3.) They falsify reasearch procedures, lie about results and cover for each other.

Dr. Linus Pauling, PhD., twice Nobel laureate, called the war on cancer largely a failure.

The natural porpose and driving force of the pharmaceutical industry is to increase their sales of pharmaceutical drugs that treat ongoing diseases, and to find new diseases or rename old diseases to market their existing drugs.

The eradication of any disease inevitably destroys a multi-billion dollar market for prescription drugs as a source of revenue. Therefore, deadly toxic chemical drugs are developed to treat symptoms but not cure anything."

It's been known for at least a hundred years that a natural raw foods diet, colonics, fasting, vitamins and minerals can be used to cure the vast majority of diseases. Pharmaceutical companies and the food industry control the media, and they absolutely do not want natural cures for any disease made known to the public.

Millions of people suffer from painful inflammatory conditions. Here again, it is NOT meat and dairy to the rescue - it is fruits and vegetables. Anti-
inflammatory eating can be boiled down to six simple rules:

1.) Eat plenty of fruits and vegetables - at least five servings each day
2.) Add flaxseed oil to your diet
3.) Eat very little meat, poultry, cheese, butter, and other animal products - or become a vegetarian or vegan.
4.) Take a multi-vitamin mineral supplement everyday
5.) Eat less
6.) Eliminate or at least decrease junkfood intake

As if mountains of scientific evidence are not enough, we also have personal testimonies of people who have lived on a strict, whole-foods vegan diet. Paul Bragg was one such individual and in his book "The Miracle of Fasting" he stated that even though he was past 85 years of age, he could jog several miles, swim, and even perform difficult yoga postures while standing on his head! Imagine Robert Atkins performing such feats.

Robert Atkins himself had suffered a heart attack while eating one of his artery-clogging, fat-laden breakfasts on April 25, 2002. But he and his cardiologist said it was not diet related! Atkins was also clinically obese at the time of death. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that massive quantities of satured fat and cholesterol will eventually wreak revenge on the human body. I'd like to see a single legitimate study showing that Atkins dieters are living long and healthy lives.

For some reason, the general public more readily accepts the reality of living - or dying - with serious, self-imposed diseases than it does in changing dietary habits. To become a junkfood vegetarian is not the goal. Hundreds of healthy, tasty vegetarian and vegan recipes exist in books, magazines and on the Web. However, to reverse diseases a very strict low-fat, healthy vegan diet is required, although depending on the condition, some people eat a small amount of fish. Sometimes fasting is necessary, which will require expert supervision, depending on the severity of the illness.

Diseases among middle-aged and elderly people is the rule not the exception. The American Medical Association, the media, and most doctors have little appetite for natural healing methods that use diet and/or fasting, and this is a major disservice to the American public. Instead of reading about hundreds of people cured of serious, debilitating diseases using naturopathy, we have been saturated with articles about the Atkins Diet. Where are the studies showing us that Atkins dieters are living long and healthy lives? Where is the evidence showing us that meat and dairy are effective foods to fight cancer, heart disease, or any disease for that matter?

Fighting disease is not only big business - it is serious business. A wise person will reflect on what causes diseases to form and what foods are most effective at preventing or controlling these conditions. An ounce of prevention is worth at least a pound of cure. - By Scott Palczak

HOT DOGS RAISE RISK OF PANCREATIC CANCER - STUDY MAY 2, 2005

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A diet containing plenty of processed meats, like hot dogs and sausages, raises the risk of pancreatic cancer, according to a large multiethnic study unveiled on Wednesday.

Researchers found that heavy consumers of processed meats - 40 grams a day or more - were 67 percent more likely to develop cancer of the pancreas than study partcipants with the lowest intake.

In addition, a diet rich in pork and red meat - 70 grams a day or more - also increased pancreatic cancer risk by about 50 percent, according to the study.

Meat consumption has been linked to pancreatic cancer in the past, but study results have been inconsistent.

This seven-year study examined the relationship between diet and pancreatic cancer in 190,545 men and women of African - American, Japanese - American, Caucasian, Latino and Native Hawaiian descent.

It is believed that chemical reactions that occur during the preparation of processed meats might be responsible for the association.

The results were reported at a meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research in Anaheim, California.

SHOOTING DOGS IS WRONG

2005-04-28T18:44:00.000-07:00

Recently, the Denver Post published a front-page story about Dan MacEachen who operates a sled-dog service titled "Krabloonik Kennels." Dan had a disgusting and morally repugnant habit of shooting his unwanted sled dogs in the head and burying them in pits filled with excrement. The practice of shooting domesticated pet dogs is legal in Colorado, and is considered a legitimate form of euthanasia by some depraved people.

After much negative publicity, brought on by local TV news stations and newspapers, Dan MacEachen said he would no longer shoot his unwanted sled dogs, but instead, he would try to have them adopted or have them euthanized by lethal injection. Congratulations, Dan, for joining the 21st century and abandoning the barbaric practice of shooting innocent dogs in the head. MacEachen seems to have serious psychological problems regarding animals - and God knows what else - and their proper treatment.

In a related story, the Rocky Mountain News ( "Man who burned puppies receives 10 1/5 years in prison," April 30, 2005), ran an article about a puppy killer. The article states: " A man who told investigators he got a sexual high from hearing the screams of puppies he set on fire was sentenced to 10 1/2 years in prison on Friday.

Ryan Tortura, 20, broke into the Colorado Humane Society shelter several times in February 2004, stealing four puppies in two break-ins Feb. 16.

The defendant told investigators he got a rush from setting these puppies on fire, that it was almost orgasmic for him, said prosecutor Kathy Sasak, who called Tortura a deranged and dangerous young man."

The decision of Dan MacEachen, who runs Krabloonik Kennels, to euthanize unwanted dogs by lethal injection is less abhorrent than shooting them and throwing them into excrement-filled pits, but certainly leaves a lot to be desired.

Shooting dogs should not be legal; it should be a felony. Consider too, that some sick creeps may actually enjoy killing dogs. In his hyperbloodthirsty book about God, guns and hunting, Ted Nugent states that "sportsmen" knew "instinctively" that stray cat and dog populations had reached "epidemic proportions" in 1970, and that their numbers had to be reduced.

Recently, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources let hunters vote in favor of shooting stray cats, although this depravity probably will not be signed into law. Apparently, there are people who enjoy killing cats and dogs, and they see nothing wrong in doing so. Organizations such as PETA believe that animal cruelty is a hidden epidemic, and all animals - not just domestic dogs - deserve to be treated humanely. PETA is right on, as usual.

Sadly, it has taken negative press coverage - rather than his own sense of humanity and compassion - to make MacEachen realize that shooting his dogs is not acceptable. Worse still, the underlying issue remains unaddressed. These dogs appear to be a major cornerstone of his business. His success hinges on their service. Unfortunately, the decision to kill them (no matter how humane the method) when they are unwilling or unable to pull a sled is representative of how our society treats companion animals; that is, as disposable "things" to be tossed aside like old clothes when they are no longer useful or entertaining.

Marie Belew Wheatley, head of the American Humane Association, says shooting domestic dogs is barbaric. She promises to do everything she can to outlaw what MacEachen did. Wheatley launched a crusade against pet shooting last week after hearing of a sled-dog owner near Aspen who euthanizes with a gun. Wheatley, based in Denver, says she'll start her campaign in Colorado and then take it national. "It's inhumane and not necessary," Wheatley said. "Sodium Pentobarbital is so immediate. In three to five seconds the animal is dead."

Wayne Laugesen, who writes for a Boulder, Colorado newspaper titled "Boulder Weekly," actually wrote in favor of shooting domestic dogs in the head ("Shooting your dog," April 14, 2005). Wayne apparently believes that a bullet to the brain is better than lethal injection because when his friend brought his dog to the animal shelter, the technician could not find a vein and poked the dog several times causing the poor creature to snap angrily.

Wayne stated in his column that companion dogs are shot in the head every day in rural America.To ranchers, hunters and other like-minded people, animal "problems" should be taken care of using lethal means. And, of course, some people favor violent euthanasia over more humane, civilized methods.

I strongly disagree with Wayne, and Boulder Weekly published my letter (Shooting dogs is wrong, April 28, 2005 ) which reads as follows.

Wayne has an affinity for shooting animals. A few months ago, he wrote in favor of blasting prairie dogs, and now he advocates legally shooting domestic dogs. Shooting dogs is violent and morally repugnant, and it highlights the wretched treatment that many animals endure in our society.

People often kill animals for incredibly trivial reasons. Legalized dog-shooting is morally problematic. Because it's cheaper and more convenient than giving animals sodium pentobarbital, some people may simply shoot their pets. Puppy mill owners, sled-dog owners, and others who abuse dogs as resources can arbitrarily decide to shoot their animals.Dogs are killed for not behaving improperly, or because they cannot be trained, or they're too expensive, etc. Shooting companion animals should be outlawed because it allows pet owners to shoot their animals for any reason whatsoever. Furthermore, a shot to the head does not guarantee a quick or painless death. Eye witnesses to Mac Eachen's dog-shooting sessions stated that they saw dogs' eyes and legs moving after being shot in the head. Does it get any more sadistic than this?

Sodium pentobarbital is the method of choice of virtually 100% of veterinarians, and is considered the most humane method of euthanasia. A professional veterinarian - as opposed to a technician - should be skilled enough to locate a vein and administer an injection properly. Some animals may need to be sedated before the injection. A properly performed injection of sodium pentobarbital is the morally right choice for companion animals - not shooting them in the head. - By Scott Palczak

CLUBBING BABY SEALS IS BARBARIC

2005-04-03T18:46:00.000-07:00

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 http://www.protectseals.org.

WELCOME TO FACTORY FARM HELL

2005-03-15T08:53:00.000-08:00

April 22 is Earth Day, a time to reflect on our environmental sins. Earth Day traditionally conjures up ideas of saving rain forests, global warming, and saving endangered species. But what about factory farming and livestock pollution? Factory farms - which incarcerate tens of thousands of animals in a single facility - create 130 times more waste than humans, and now surpass factories as the premiere polluters of America's waterways.

The magnitude of the livestock industry is staggering. Each year the U.S. produces 7 BILLION chickens, 85 million pigs, 112 million cattle, nine million sheep and 300 million turkeys. The U.S. generates 1.4 BILLION TONS of animal manure every year.Cattle manure tops the list at 1.2 BILLION TONS. Where, you may ask, does this monstrous landslide of manure go? Ideally, it should be converted into fertilizer, but most of it is left untreated to poison streams, rivers, lakes and other waterways.

No vision of hell is complete without a corporate hog farm. Tens of thousands of gnawing, squealing pigs are crammed inside fetid, windowless warehouses where huge fans ceaselessly churn twenty-four hours a day. As "National Hog Farmer" magazine says, "overcrowding pays." Over 80 percent of pigs raised in the U.S. are intensively confined to the point where they can't even turn around without stepping over other animals. Satan himself could not have devised a more diabolically cruel place except for the slaughterhouses where these helpless creatures will be shackled, hoisted and killed. This wicked nightmare is all in a day's work for some people.

John Robbins wrote in "Diet for a New America," "Before they reach their end,the pigs get a shower, a real one. Water sprays from every angle to wash the farm off them. Then they begin to feel crowded. The pen narrows like a funnel; the drivers urge the pigs forward, until one at a time they climb unto a moving ramp . . . Now they scream, never having been on such a ramp, smelling the smells they smell. I do not want to overdramatize because you have read all this before. But it was a frightening experience, seeing their fear, seeing so many of them go by. It had to remind me of things no one wants to be reminded of any more, all mobs, all death marches, all mass murders and extinctions . . ."

Huge industrial operations, headed by poultry tycoons such as Don Tyson and Frank Perdue, and hog czar Wendal Murphy, are causing an environmental blitzkreig. Their collosal factory farms are poisoning our groundwater and waterways with nitrogen and phosphorous. In North Carolina, 420,000 million tons of hog manure flooded a creek in July, 1999. California alone, has 1,600 dairies generating more waste than the entire human population of Texas. In the Lone Star State, 2 million cattle are kept in feedlots surrounding Amarillo, and the slaughterhouse kills a bovine every thirteen seconds.

A consortium of meat moguls led by Smithfield Foods of West Viginia is planning to construct a behemoth factory hog farm in northwest Utah,designed to produce 2.4 million hogs each year, with a waste output exceeding that of Los Angeles! Wastes generated, including nitrogen and phosphorous, are acutely toxic to fish and at lower levels; phosphorous and nitrogen cause excessive algae growth. Algae overgrowth depletes oxygen, polluting rivers so badly they barely support fish or any aquatic life.

In the town where I live there is a "turkey plant" which, according to the local newspaper, uses 850,000 gallons of water a day - 5,304,000 gallons a year. This windowless, depressing factory of death produces 3,017 tons of nitrogen a year and 1,000 tons of phosphorous. The plant kills 17,000 turkeys a day - 5,304,000 per year.

In America, 300 million turkeys are butchered in one year. The American Society of Agricultural Engineers estimates that, nationally, turkeys generate 33 BILLION pounds of waste annually. Included in this deluge of dung is 488 million tons of nitrogen and 186 million tons of phosphorous.

A report by the U.S. Department of Commerce states that 1/3 of all raw materials and half this country's water are guzzled by the livestock and factory farm industries. According to Department of Agriculture statistics, one acre of land can grow 20,000 pounds of potatoes. That same acre of land, if used to grow cattle feed, can produceless than 165 pounds of beef. John Robbins wrote in his book "Diet for a New America"that to produce a single pound of meat takes an average of 2,500 gallons of water - as much as a typical family uses for all its combined household purposes in a month."

Monumental animal suffering and environmental pollution are created for the almighty hamburger, hot dog, chicken wing, and of course, dollar. I believe that factory farms and the livestock industry cannot survive indefinitely by bleeding the ecosystems that support them. Our overburdened, polluted planet will eventually be depleated of quality grazing land and/or the price of meat will become prohibitive to all but the wealthy.

The evolution of factory farming is the natural consequence of our society's materialistic and objectifying attitude toward nature. We are riding high on the hog of arrogant consumption - with little regard for future generations. Americans are caught in a maddening, high-speed treadmill of overconsumption and self- destruction. In a society enamored with efficiency, productivity and profits, abysmal animal cruelty and environmental concerns are swept aside by a tidal wave of avarice, gluttony and apathy.

Factory farming is a rich man's luxury. It springs more from greed than necessity.Contrary to the claims of animal scientists and agribusiness technocrats, factory farming cannot and will not feed the starving masses. Corporate animal factories consume vast amounts of resources and grains, and these grains could be fed directly to hungry people. Our hungry planet of over 6 billion people cannot be sustained by an inefficient, wasteful meat-based agriculture.

That insolent icon of American success - or should I say decadence - the hamburger, is fast becoming a symbol of global destruction and environmental degradation. Ancient, noble and majestic rainforests are being plundered, gutted and charred to create yet more grazing land. Vast areas of the Amazon rain forest resemble Iraqi towns after a U.S. invasion. About FIFTY PERCENT of the earth's land surface is being used to graze livestock. Millions of bovines are causing world-wide deforestation and desertification merely to satisfy overfed Americans and Europeans with cheeseburgers and steaks.

In the United states alone, ranchers can legally access 260 million acres of public lands, most of which have been ruined by over 120 years of grazing. Ranching has the distasteful distinction of ruining more wildlife habitat and native vegetation than any other land use. It seems that wherever animals are abused - whether it be for sport or profit - nature is abused.

Here's a quote from the book "Waste of the West," written by Lynn Jacobs: "The ranching establishment's assault on the environment, therefore, includes campaigns against a huge number and variety of animals. Most of the score or so native large mammal species in the West have been decimated by ranching, both intentionally through slaughtering efforts and indirectly through the harmful effects of livestock grazing and ranching developments. Indeed, most larger and a great many smaller animal species are in some way assailed as enemies. The mass carnage carried outfor the sake of privately owned livestock continues today throughout the grazed 70% of the West, including public lands . . ."

Ranchers live in a world of self-imposed violence against animals. American ranchers continually shoot, trap, poison or persecute the following wild animals: coyotes, prairie dogs, mountain lions, bobcats, golden eagles, bighorn sheep, bison, wild horses, burros, jackrabbits and even ravens. Most are killed simply for sport. And don't forget roping, dragging, branding and castrating helpless calves. It appears that animal cruelty is a preferred lifestyle for some people.

We've all heard the tired stories about coyotes killing livestock and prairie dogs invading ranches and how they must be "controlled." Every animal killer has used similar, worn-out rationales, resulting in untold misery for countless animals.

Ranchers and hunters underestimate the intelligence of people who are not animalkillers. We know that ranchers and hunters kill animals for fun, and they have disdain for animals they consider "vermin" which include prairie dogs, and they also hate "varmints" which include coyotes. I have also read that hunters and ranchers can and will shoot stray dogs and cats, which contradicts any fanciful notion of hunters respecting animals.

Many people, including myself, would sell the family ranch instead of killing innocent animals who have as much right to live as I do. Or, better yet, we'd choose not to live on a ranch in the first place. Perhaps we'd build a fence, but we definitelywould NOT shoot animals!

Animal cruelty exists for two main reasons: It is profitable or it is considered fun. Huge sums of money are being made from exploiting livestock, research animals, and wild animals. It is no great surprise to learn that humans can be viciously sadistic toward not only animals but people as well. Where this aggression originates in the homo sapien psyche is anyone's guess, but it is a fact of life. It is also a fact of life that humans can show kindness toward animals, and that is a much loftier goal. Anyone, even a child, or a fool can abuse a weaker, more powerless being.

Sigmund Freud believed that humans get their violent tendencies from the unconscious mind. In this view there is a dark realm inside everyone, what Carl Jung called the shadow. In this realm lie atavistic impulses of rage and fear.

Human beings can live very well on a vegetarian or vegan diet. It is public demand - not necessity - for meat, dairy and eggs that allows these atrocities against animals to continue. The smallest dietary self-sacrifice is too much for most Americans. For that, we can thank the American lifestyle of overconsumption and the ceaseless garbage fare advertised on television. The self-imposed standard American diet is a slow killer and crippler. Millions of people suffer needlessly from serious, degenerative diseases brought on by indulging in meat, dairy, fried eggs and other nonessential foods.

Eating liberally of meat and dairy products has consequences. The exorbitant cost of health care in America is largely related to the high-fat, artery-clogging, cancer-causing diet enjoyed by the masses. Many studies have shown that vegetarians have much less(50% less) cancer than nonvegetarians. They also have lower rates of heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity. In his book "Eat to Live," Joel Fuhrman explains: "Remember, long-term vegans almost never get heart attacks." To quote a respected authority, William Castelli, M.D., director of the famed Framingham Heart Study: "We tend to scoff at vegetarians, but they're doing much better than we are. Vegans have cholesterol levels so low, they almost never get heart attacks."

Despotic agribusiness and their government cohorts have rationalized and denied for too long the animal welfare, consumer health, and environmental damage done in the name of profit. It is truly amazing how remorseless corporations have become. There is an indefatigable madness and technocratic insolence - a nose-thumbing at nature and animals - that factory farming displays. It is born out of avarice and gluttony far more than necessity: It is a remorseless blight on the land and I want nothing to do with it.

I could write endlessly about the cruelty and depravity of homo sapiens, and I have tried hard not to belabor the issue, as tempting as it may be. Each individual plays his or her role in the world, and every one of our thoughts, actions, and reactions affect our environment. Virtually all animal exploitation is unnecessary. Not a single factory farm, slaughterhouse, hunting season, rodeo, puppy mill, or fur coat do we need.

Dr. Steven Best said it best: "The problem is the human species itself, which but for rare exceptions is destructive, and imperialistic. Universally, humans have vested interests in exploiting animals and think they have a God-given right to do so. To change these attitudes is to change the very nerve center of human consciousness. That is our task – no more and no less."

A philosopher once remarked that human history is a tale of barbarism. Isaac Asimov wrote "To insult someone we call him 'bestial.' For deliberate cruelty, 'human' might be the greater insult." In his book "Autobiography of a Spiritually Incorrect Mystic," Osho stated "The whlole past history of humanity has been sick, unhealthy, insane. In three thousand years, five thousand wars have been fought. This is just utterly mad, it is unbelievable." Equally mad, equally unbelievable is humanity's treatment of the animal world. - By Scott Palczak

RANCHING IS ANIMAL ABUSE

2005-02-15T06:14:00.000-08:00

In the United states alone, ranchers can legally access 260 million acres of public lands, most of which have been ruined by over 120 years of grazing. Ranching has the distasteful distinction of ruining more wildlife habitat and native vegetation than any other land use. It seems that wherever wild animals are abused - whether it be for sport or profit - nature is abused.

Ranchers live in a world of self-imposed violence against animals. American ranchers continually shoot, trap, poison or persecute the following wild animals: coyotes, prairie dogs, mountain lions, bobcats, golden eagles, bighorn sheep, bison, wild horses, burros, jackrabbits and even ravens. Most are killed simply for sport. And don't forget roping, dragging, branding and castrating helpless calves. It appears that animal cruelty is a preferred lifestyle for some people. Ranching people are hunters and like hunters they share a notion that animals must be "controlled," which is part of their addictive thinking process. So-called "wildlife management" and ranching share the same goal of using animals as resources that must be managed or controlled.

We've all heard the tired stories about coyotes killing livestock and prairie dogs invading ranches and how they must be "controlled." Every animal killer has used similar, worn-out rationales, resulting in untold misery for countless animals.

Ranchers and hunters underestimate the intelligence of people who are not animal killers. We know that ranchers and hunters kill animals for fun and they have disdain for animals they consider "vermin" which include prairie dogs, and they also hate "varmints" which include coyotes. I have also read that hunters and ranchers can and will shoot stray dogs and cats, which contradicts any fanciful notion of hunters respecting animals.

Many people, including myself, would sell the family ranch instead of killing innocent animals who have as much right to live as I do. Or, better yet, we'd choose not to live on a ranch in the first place. Perhaps we'd build a fence, but we definitelywould NOT shoot animals!

The well-known writer and environmentalist Edward Abbey could effortlessly summarize ranching abuses: "The rancher (with a few notable exceptions) is a man who strings wire all over the range, drills wells and bulldozes stockponds; drives off elk and antelope and bighorn sheep; poisons coyotes and prairie dogs; shoots eagles, bears and cougars on sight; supplants the native grasses with tumbleweed, snakeweed, povertyweed, cowshit, anthills, mud, dust and flies. And then leans back and grins at the TV cameras and talks about how much he loves the American West. Cowboys also are greatly overrated.

Do cowboys work hard? Sometimes. But most ranchers don't work very hard. They have a lot of leisure time for politics and bellyaching (which is why most state legislatures are occupied and dominated by cattlemen.) Anytime you go to a small Western town you'll find them at the nearest drugstore, sitting around all morning drinking coffee, talking about their tax breaks."

Edward Abbey continues: "All I want to do is get their cows off our property. I despise arrogance and brutality and bullies. So let me close with some nice remarks about cowboys and cattle ranchers.They are a mixed lot, like the rest of us. As individuals, they range from the bad to the ordinary to the good. Let those cowboys and ranchers find some harder way of making a living, like the restof us do. There's no good reason we should subsidize them forever. They've had their free ride. It's time they learned to support themselves."

Howard Lyman, the mad cowboy turned vegetarian, wrote: "At eight or nine I began milking cows and branding calves. At ten I learned how to castrate calves. Dick and I liked to grab a couple of twenty-two caliber rifles and shoot anything that moved, and a few things that didn't. We shot deer and elk, which we skinned and ate. We shot all kinds of birds: sparrows, crows, magpies, killdeer, curlews, partridge.

When we had an infestation of gophers, we shot a THOUSAND IN ONE DAY . . . After all the tons of herbicides and pesticides and chemical fertilizer I'd poured into it, the soil looked more like asbestos . . . The trees on and around the farm were dying . . . The birds were gone."

- By Scott Palczak

RODEO AND STOCKSHOW SHOWCASE ANIMAL ABUSE

2005-02-06T07:55:00.000-08:00

Fortunately, that vile National Western Stockshow and Rodeo in Denver is gone, at least for another year. And, of course, the media stampeded us with coverage of this supposedly great event. Stock shows promote animals as commodities or "stock," while rodeos profit by abusing animals for "entertainment." Since rodeos are an outgrowth of ranching, they also exploit animals for the almighty dollar. Ranchers and would-be ranchers view animals mainly as resources - and vermin or varmints -and the rodeo appeals to this utilitarian, dominionistic view of animals.

Rodeo is a ritualized exaggeration of ranch life symbolizing the triumph of humans over nature and the conquest of animals. It supports the value of subjugating nature, and reenacts this "taming" process whereby the wild is brought under control. As a by-product of ranching, the rodeo showcases the spirit of aggressiveness and exploitative conquest. Rodeo fans frequent these lowbrow events because of the expectation of death, injury or trauma to animals and rodeo cowboys.

Angry bulls are a real crowd pleaser. Electric prods called "hotshots" are routinely used on the animals. Undercover videotapes have caught rodeo employees kicking bulls in the head, yanking their tails and overusing cattle prods for no intelligent reason. Make no mistake, livestock can and will be injured or killed because of command rodeo performances.

Professional rodeo has rules stating that veterinarians should be on call for injured animals, but these rules are barely enforced, and probably not enforced at all during amateur rodeos. The real problem is preventing these injuries in the first place, which their rules are unable to do. If an animal is severly injured during a rodeo performance, it will be euthanized or sent to slaughter - or should I imagine that rodeos provide a hospital for injured and crippled livestock!

Several millenia ago, bulls were worshipped and then sacrificed to appease gods. Today,the grand champion steer is an admired feature of the stock show and is subsequently slaughtered, reminiscent of the ancient Egyptians who would exalt their favorite bull in a ritual before sacrifing him. You may research this matter by reading Jeremy Rifkin's book "Beyond Beef." The ranching mentality has little to no appreciation for animals - unless the creatures are utilized or sacrificed in some way.

Rodeo people have a vested interest in keeping public attention away from animal injuries. Wounded or dead animals are simply dragged away and the show continues. Two horses were killed in 1999, while performing in the National Western Stockshow and Rodeo in Denver. One horse rammed a wall head on and the other was bucking so hard that it suffered a broken back. If that isn't animal cruelty, then what is ? I have, in my possession, the Denver Post article describing the depressing event. A paragraph from a letter in the Boulder Daily Camera reads:

"At this same event last year (Mexican Rodeo 2004) the audience witnessed one horse's leg being snapped by a flank strap as it came out of the bucking chute. The horse ran around the arena with one leg dangling until the staff could remove it and put it down. Many people in the audience came forward and complained to the National Western Stockshow board and were told the strap didn't cause the fatal injury. Many horse experts in attendance were basically told they didn't see what they saw." ( Boulder Daily Camera, January 13, 2005)

Calf-roping is an especially callous form of "entertainment," with fleeing calves lassoed, jerked backward, thrown to the ground and tied with a rope. Obviously, this is neither gentle nor humane treatment and it causes considerable suffering - and in some cases death - to the fear- stricken calves. Rodeos have their own impotent and weakly enforced rules regarding animal welfare; they are unable and unwilling to prevent animal injuries.

In an ideal world, there would be no stock shows, rodeos or animal abuse. Humans would live in harmony with nature instead of trying to subdue it. Central to the stockshow/rodeo mentality is the self-serving anthropocentric notion that animals exist only to serve humans, and who cares if the poor creatures are killed or punished in the process.

Rodoes glorify and sanction animal abuse as if it were family fun and a meaningful American tradition. It's my opinion that stock shows and rodeos are a breeding ground for the oppression and mistreatment of animals. Unfortunately, a certain percentage of people will always have a primal fascination with riding, roping, wrestling, chasing, and otherwise manhandling animals. If animal cruelty is disguised as "sport" or recreation, then it becomes more socially acceptable. After all, who doesn't want more recreation? By encouraging these atrocities, our society is still living in the nineteenth century.

- By Scott Palczak

WAYNE LAUGESEN SHOOTS PRAIRIE DOGS

2005-01-30T08:12:00.000-08:00

Boulder, Colorado is a unique city with liberal leanings toward animal rights, vegetarianism, and the environment, where tree-hugging hippies are embraced as enthusiaticically as the trees themselves. Boulder loves the Dalai Lama, Tibetan Buddhism and Eastern religions. Now enter Wayne Laugesen, who writes for a local paper entitled "Boulder Weekly." Wayne is a self-styled hunter and self-proclaimed rancher, a conservative writer who relishes every opportunity to set straight these animal rights people and ridicule the city of Boulder.

In Wayne's world, self-imposed violence against many animals is justified, and he teaches his children how and why he shoots prairie dogs. (Cats in Microwaves, Jan. 1-7, 2005). Wayne states, "I like prairie dogs and do not shoot most of them." Imagine what torture he'd commit against animals that he didn't like. How much is not shooting most prairie dogs? Is shooting a hundred enough? Is a thousand enough? How about five thousand? Maybe we should marvel at Wayne's self restraint for not killing every prairie dog he sees.

Many people, including me, would sell the family ranch instead of killing innocent animals. Or, better yet, we'd choose not to live on a ranch in the first place. Perhaps we'd build a fence, but we would NOT shoot these animals! If Wayne stated that he enjoys killing prairie dogs because he gets sadistic pleasure from it, or that he considers them vermin, at least he'd be honest with himself, his children, and his readers.

We've all heard the tired stories about coyotes killing livestock and prairie dogs invading ranches and how they must be controlled. Every animal killer has used similar, worn-out rationales, resulting in untold misery for countless animals. Ranchers and hunters kill animals for fun, and they have disdain for animals they consider "vermin" which include prairie dogs, and they also hate "varmints" which include coyotes. I have also read that hunters and ranchers can and will shoot stray dogs and cats, which contradicts Wayne's fanciful notion of hunters respecting animals.

Wayne states that he "humanely" kills prairie dogs by shooting them in half with well-placed bullets. Only someone with a hunter's mentality could imagine that cutting animals in half with bullets is humane. Wayne coddles his conscience - or lack of it - by indulging in this fanciful notion of humane bullet-killing. It is truly amazing how casually some people can inflict misery on other beings.

Wayne tells his own children that humans have "a right to kill animals they intend to eat. " Really? This seems to be another case of God said we can take what we want - so let's kill it
and grill it! Have fun, God is on your side! But how does Wayne KNOW that humans have a right to kill and eat animals? Is Wayne on a higher plane of consciousness where God is blissfully smiling down on all this remorseless animal killing? Is Wayne in communion with God, and therefore knows how pleased the Creator is to have his creatures butchered and eaten?

The early cowboys imagined the world of living beings as a heirarchy, with God sitting at the top and man right below the Creator. This self-serving interpretation of the scriptures gave ranchers a presumed God-given right to use animals as they pleased: rodeo and ranching certainly reflect this belief. But where is it written that Christians must or should eat meat? Where is it written that Jesus was a hunter or champion bull rider? Where is it written that killing and butchering animals is the road to heaven? A careful study of the lives of Christian saints reveals that none of them indulged in animal killing or animal abuse and many, many saints were fond of animals.

Indeed, untold millions of sentient beings have suffered immensely over the centuries because of ungodly people inflicting pain, misery, injustice and death in the name of their Almighty. Historically, people have rationalized their ungodly behavior. They will use any rationale - religion or philosophy -as an excuse to conquer, exploit, subjugate, discriminate, or inflict pain.

I believe that teaching children to respect ALL animals is the superior goal. If Wayne truly wants to set a moral example for his children, he should teach them to respect all animals
- including prairie dogs - and not make lame excuses to destroy these innocent creatures.

- By Scott Palczak

TED NUGENT IS A SADISTIC ANIMAL KILLER

2005-01-23T08:39:00.000-08:00

In his hyperbloodthirsty book about God, guns and hunting, Ted Nugent leaves the reader with the strong and accurate perception that he loves to kill animals. He is addicted to killing animals as strongly as some people are addicted to drugs or alcohol.

Ted Nugent lives in a world of self-imposed violence against animals. He and his tribe of bloodthirsty fans have gone over the top in their zeal to inflict pain on sentient beings. Nugent is a pathological animal killer and animal hater. He's deficient regarding conscience in his brutal mistreatment of animals, admits to shooting stray cats and dogs, and seems to have major psychological problems regarding animals and God knows what else.

Hunters have admitted to their need to kill, but this compulsive urge to destroy sentient life is neither necessary nor desireable. Nugent has created his "Kamp for Kids" where - like their motor-city- madman mentor - they can cultivate the desire to kill, stalk, mutilate, shoot or whatever else they do in a madman's camp. Wanton animal slaughter seems fun and normal to hunters, ranchers and others who view animals as trivial resources that exist for human pleasure and convenience.

The creepy vulgarian from Detroit has the insolence to teach children about hunting. Teaching children that brutalizing wildllife is a fun and meaningful pastime only encourages them to abuse animals as objects of sacrifice to compensate for feelings of impotence. Personal power should come from teaching children self control, introspection, and decency toward all animals instead of resorting to killing as a means of satisfaction. Many child hunters will grow up addicted to killing animals. Contrary to what hunters claim, a large percentage will become animal haters. Some will become poachers. Aren't enough animals being killed in North America? Is there a shortage of animal suffering in the United States? Is our society so crass as to believe that killing animals is a positive influence?

Unknowingly, Nugent has highlighted an important point concerning society's maltreatment of animals. He violently abuses his prey in a manner that is no worse than cattle or chickens being slaughtered in a "processing plant." Many laboratory animals are subjected to redundant and unnecessary proceedures on par with Nugent's hideous violence against animals. BILLIONS of animals - in factory farms, laboratories, rodeos, wildlands and ranches - bear the brunt of human malevolence, and it never ends.

There are dozens of ways to teach children the value of life, including true respect for wildlife and the great outdoors. Hunters have largely ruined their own reputation by trespassing, poaching, exceeding bag limits, scaring wildlife, hikers and campers with loud gunfire, shooting at no hunting signs, killing domesticated animals, hunting animals with ATVs, and leaving trash around hunting camps. Hundreds of large and small newspapers across the United States have sanctioned this self-serving nonsense with their "outdoor writers."

In his exceptional book "Dominion," Mathew Scully relates a scene from Nugent's video "Down to Earth": "Mr. Nugent kneels and sarcastically asks for a 'moment of silence' while the viewer is treated to close-up, slow motion replays of hits, including sickening footage of some animals that clearly were gut shot or otherwise sloppily wounded. People dance around their kill, inflicting unmitigated torture on a deer, just plain 'pumped' by the twang and thrashing and gurgling and gut shots."

". . . First thing I slayed . . . I was nine years old. It was a squirrel, these ladies were feeding it, you know, and I said, 'excuse me, bam." No it wasn't a pet squirrel. I had it stuffed and petted it for years after that." - WRIF-FM, Detroit, Ted Nugent as guest D.J., September 26, 1991

"I contribute to the dead of winter and the moans of silence, blood trails are music to my ears . . . I'm a gut pile addict . . . The pig didn't know I was there . . . it's my kick . . . I love shafting animals . . . it's rock 'n' roll power." - Ted Nugent's World Bowhunters Magazine , Volume 1/Number 4, May 1990, p.12

Nobody hunts just to put meat on the table because it's too expensive, time consuming and extremely inconsistent. - Ted Nugent's World Bowhunters Magazine, Volume 1/Number 3, March/April 1990. pg. 7

"On my first bowhunt on the property a few years back, I was on my own for twenty-two days and killed an amazing thirty-three head of big game. I'm surprised I even came home. I was in heaven." - Ted Nugent's World Bowhunters magazine, Volume 1/Number 3, March/April 1990, pg. 15

Nugent fancies himself, among other things, a writer and he wrote an autobiographical book some years ago about God, guns and hunting. Page after page is stuffed with descriptions of killing, wounding, shooting, and chasing a wide variety of unfortunate creatures who crossed his path. And his obvious contempt for animals such as raccoons and jackrabbits is matched only by his love of killing them.

Nugent proudly relates that during a hog hunting foray he took a rest and spied a jackrabbit sitting about 100 yards away. He eagerly dispatched the poor animal with a handgun for no intelligible reason. By his own account, he does the same to raccoons - which he calls vermin - and he says the only good one is a dead one. In Nugent's twisted brain any excuse or no excuse at all is good enough reason to extinguish the lives of innocent animals.

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 . . ."

Which leads to Ted Nugent's claim that he and his Labrador retriever 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."

In his hyperbloodthirsty autobiographical book on God, guns and hunting, Nugent claims that feral dogs and cats were at "epidemic numbers" in 1970 and sportsmen knew "instinctively" that their numbers had to be reduced. Imagine grown men (and a few women) with nothing more intelligent or productive to do than shoot stray dogs or cats. The brave, vigilant Nugent himself doesn't hesitate to shoot stray dogs and cats and this he does under the guise of preventing the spread of rabies. - By Scott Palczak

RANCHERS WANT WILD HORSES SLAUGHTERED

2005-01-19T07:54:00.000-08:00

It seems that wild horses are in the news again. The petroleum and cattle industries want to remove - permanently - these increasingly rare symbols of the American West. Conrad Burns (R-Montana) cleverly attached rider 142 into the Federal Appropriations Bill and this bill removes decades of legal protection for the mustangs and instructs the BLM to sell for slaughter huge numbers of wild horses.

In the United States, ranchers claim that 20,000 to 36,000 wild horses are causing overgrazing on OUR public lands, while they manage to ruin millions of acres with their SIX MILLION head of cattle. I'd wager that six million cattle have done infinitely more damage than several thousand wild horses. Will it ever occur to ranchers that most of the Western states are too sparse and dry to graze large numbers of cattle?

Specifically, Rider 142 instructs the BLM to sell for slaughter all wild horses over 10 years of age, as well as younger horses that have been offered unsuccessfully for adoption three times. This means that 14,000 wild mustangs will become horsemeat in January, to be followed by thousands more. According to the BLM's own estimates, there are only 36,000 wild horses on public lands in the west, a figure activists say is ridiculously high.

Speaking of killing wild horses, I found in my files an article from Outdoor Life magazine (Feb., 2001) promoting the idea of shooting mustangs and burros to increase bighorn sheep and mule deer populations. If hunters truly want to increase bighorn sheep and mule deer herds, they should STOP HUNTING these animals and spend their hunting license money on restoring habitat. Here's a portion of the article from Outdoor Life:

"In 1971, Congress passed the Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro protection Act, reacting to the unregulated slaughter of these animals for the pet-food market. But the legislation hand-cuffed state wildlife agancies from managing these two introduced species. Now California hunting groups are asking the managers of the East Mojave National Preserve to institute a feral burro hunting program to manage burros rather than waste money with capture - and - relocation efforts."

Leave it to those caring, conservation-minded sportsmen to hatch a shameless scheme that includes shooting wild burros. There seems to be a nagging fear among hunters that they're overlooking a potential living target. It isn't enough that they shoot at mule deer, elk, bighorn sheep, jackrabbits, coyotes, prairie dogs and who knows what else. - By Scott Palczak

SOCIETY 'S VIEWS OF ANIMALS

2005-01-15T11:54:00.000-08:00

Within society, there are conflicting ideas and philosophies as to how animals should be treated by humans. At one end of the spectrum are rabid animal killers, contrasted with people who feed birds or volunteer at animal shelters.

Personally, I have never intentionally killed an animal, and I harbor absolutely no fantasies about shooting or injuring animals. In the deepest recesses of my psyche, in my darkest memories, I have found no inclination, no desire to harm animals; on the contrary, I help as many animals as I can. As a society, we do not require a single slaughterhouse, fur coat, rodeo or hunting season, nor do we need to experiment on animals or butcher bovines. Virtually all of this mass exploitation that we take for granted is unnecessary.

From my perspective, the goal of animal rights activism is to eliminate or reduce to a minimum all intentional, and sometimes unintentional, human-caused animal suffering, specifically cruelty toward vertebrates. This is an ongoing, uphill struggle to say the least. Being a strict vegetarian or vegan greatly reduces animal suffering.

Dr. Michael Fox , Ph.D. , former vice president of the Humane Society of the United States, has written some interesting books on animal rights. He writes about Stephen Kellert who conducted a well known survey concerning American attitudes toward animals:

"In the United States today, there is, according to Stephen Kellert, a clear division in people's attitudes toward animals which correlates with where they live and how educated they are. Rural people and those who regularly attend church have predominantly utilitarian and dominionistic attitudes, while urban people and those not affiliated with organized religion have predominantly esthetic, humanistic and moralistic attitudes."

Kellert suggests that: "the most common attitudes toward animals in contemporary American society, by a large margin, are the humanistic, moralistic, utilitarian and negativistic attitudes. In many respects, these attitudes can be subsumed under two broad and conflicting dimensional perceptions of animals. The moralistic and utilitarian attitudes clash around the theme of human exploitation of animals. The former opposes many exploitative uses of animals involving death and presumed suffering (e.g., hunting, trapping, whaling, and laboratory experiments), while the latter endorses such utilization, or other humane activities which might adversely affect animals, if significant human material benefits result."

Michael Fox continues, "Of particular concern and significance are Kellert's findings that regular churchgoers have predominantly negativistic, utilitarian and dominionistic attitudes toward animals compared to nonchurchgoers, who have a more humanistic and moralistic regard for animals."

Stephen Kellert wrote: "Strong differences also existed in concern for the ethical treatment and exploitation of animals and their natural habitats. Specifically, those rarely or never participating in formal religious activities scored far higher on moralistic and lower on the utilitarian scales than respodents who attended services at least once a week. Nonparticipants, in fact, had among the highest moralistic scores of any demographic group, an empathic concern for the rights of animals also reflected in extremely low dominionistic scores."

THE VIRTUES OF VEGETARIANISM

2005-01-12T20:11:00.000-08:00

It's no state secret that humans are enamored with food, sex, greed, and other vices or virtues, depending on their point of view. To some people, a virtue is a vice and vice versa. The slightest dietary self-sacrifice is viewed as too radical and the driving force in modern society is satisfaction of the senses. To be satiated every waking hour is a worthy, attainable goal. Let nothing stop you! You CAN do it!

Americans have a gnawing fear of being underfed. Their stomachs - but not their souls - are being satiated beyond any rational limit. Just listen to the incessant blathering eminating from television commercials, all of them hungry for your money, and ready to fill bloated stomachs with double-bacon cheeseburgers, french fries and double-layered pizzas oozing with saturated fat and cholesterol. Is it any wonder that heart disease, cancer and strokes are the leading killers in the United States?

Don't forget that vegans virtually never get heart attacks, or that vegetarians get 50 percent less cancer, and they have lower rates of all major diseases. Don't forget that vegans and vegetarians spare millions of animals from senseless slaughter and that rainforests are gutted, charred and turned into grazing wastelands to satisfy overfed Americans and Europeans.

To be a vegan or strict vegetarian as opposed to consuming flesh and dairy products is a serious decision. Elderly and middle-aged people often are - and should be - concerned abouth their health. The vast majority of diseases are self-inflicted and the standard American diet is a form of slow poisoning. Heart disease alone kills approximately 600,000 Americans every year, yet this disease is easily preventable and even reversible with a low-fat, healthy vegan diet.

In the book " Animal Experimentation: A Harvest of Shame," the author states that according to the National Cancer Institute, approximately 80 PERCENT of all cancers are preventable. Smoking, excess dietary fat, environmental pollutants, low fiber in the diet predispose human bodies to cancer. We should all know this by now! Meat and dairy products consumers have TEN TIMES the risk of contracting colon cancer when compared to pure vegetarians. For men who eat meat and dairy products, prostate cancer is 3.6 times higher than in pure vegetarians. These are not statistics that you're getting from KFC and McDonald's commercials.

Coronary heart disease and its end result, heart attacks - the leading killer of American men and women - is almost 100 PERCENT preventable. Cholesterol levels can be decreased by reducing both saturated fat and animal protein while eating more plant protein.

Dr. Joel Fuhrman explains in his book "Eat to Live" : "Research shows that those who avoid meat and dairy have lower rates of heart disease, cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, and obesity. The data is conclusive: vegetarians live longer in America, probably a lot longer. Remember, long-term vegans almost never get heart attacks." To quote a respected authority, William Castelli, M.D., director of the famed Framingham Heart Study, "We tend to scoff at vegetarians, but they're doing much better than we are. Vegans have cholesterol levels so low, they almost never get heart attacks." And that's serious food for thought.

MARK TWAIN SAID HUMANS ARE DESCENDED FROM HIGHER ANIMALS

2005-01-08T20:14:00.000-08:00

Mark Twain wrote about human nature: "I have been studying the traits and dispositions of the "lower" animals, and contrasting them with the traits and dispositions of man. I find the result humiliating to me. For it obliges me to renounce my allegiance to the Darwinian theory of the Ascent of Man from the Lower Animals, since it now seems plain to me that theory ought to be vacated in favor of a new and truer one, this new and truer one to be named the Descent of Man from the Higher Animals."
- Letters from the Earth pg. 223

If pleasure and pain are the determining factors that make something an object of moral concern, then it logically follows that animals can and do feel pain and so they deserve to be objects of moral consideration. Now, a person may argue that mammals and birds feel no pain. But this ridiculous notion can be disproved by studying animals' reactions to stimuli. We also cannot feel another person's pain, no matter how great that pain may be. If someone says they are in pain, we can simply label his or her statement as innacurate, or false, or we can call them liars, etc. So, we cannot absolutely prove that any human or animal feels pain.

But most rational, logical people sense that animals can feel pain and that in itself entitles animals to moral considerations. These considerations can be legal protection or the simple knowledge that inflicting pain on any creature - human or animal - is wrong. Every minute of every day, people victimize other humans and animals. Sometimes its caused by greed, anger, hatred, lust or the simple desire to fill one's stomach, but this human aggression is a sad fact of life.

We do not, for instance, shoot retarded people because they are less intelligent than we are. Nor do we beat helpless children because they misbehave. We should not exterminate senile grandparents living in nursing homes because they are feeble-minded and cannot read or write . So it logically follows that animals - who also feel pain - should not be abused because thay are considered less intelligent than we are. This way of life is called "ahimsa" in Buddhism and Hinduism, and it means to refrain from harming any creature. Ahimsa is a logical and thoughtful way to live.

ATKINS DIET IS A CRUEL JOKE !

2005-01-07T18:04:00.000-08:00

People are crazy enough - or deluded enough - to put their faith in that crazy Atkins diet. They actually believe that eating liberal quantities of meat, dairy, cheese, eggs and butter has no health consequences! What a convenient fantasy! Robert Atkins himself had suffered a heart attack while eating one of his artery-clogging, fat-laden breakfasts on April 25, 2002. But he and his cardiologist said it was not diet related! Atkins was also clinically obese at the time of death. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that massive quantities of satured fat and cholesterol will eventually wreak revenge on the human body. I'd like to see a single legitimate study showing that Atkins dieters are living long and healthy lives.

Numerous studies have shown that vegetarians have much lower rates of cancer (50%) and other major diseases. And a healthy vegan has virtually no chance of getting a heart attack -
the leading cause of death in America.

Americans are so shameless in their appetites that heartburn medications are one of the leading drugs in the United States. Soon, the U.N. may have to airlift tons of Rolaids and Tums to medicate bloated and constipated Americans. An entire country has become paranoid of carbs.They're not paranoid about eating vast quantities of meat, dairy and eggs - but carbs!

Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine reports: "The signs are clear. Mountains of low-carb pasta are piling up in warehouses. Low-carb companies are slimming down their payrolls. And the creator of the South Beach Diet is scrambling to distance himself from the low-carb label.

The fad is going bad, according to pollsters, business analysts, and media outlets like the New York Times, which recently reported that the number of Americans following low-carb diets has dropped about 50 percent from a year ago.

As a nutritionist, I can’t pretend to be upset at seeing this boom go bust. Of the many unhealthy ways to lose weight, low-carbing is one of the worst. These high-fat, meat-heavy diets can increase the risk of heart disease, cancer, and other serious medical problems."

AUDUBON MAGAZINE CODDLES HUNTERS

2005-01-05T08:19:00.000-08:00

I recently read Audubon Magazine (Jan.-Feb. 2005) and one of its writers, Ted Williams, also writes for hook-and-bullet magazines. His belief is that enviros and hunters should build a bridge, mend fences and become friends. To this idea I've written the following essay.

Hunters have largely ruined their own reputation by trespassing, poaching, exceeding bag limits, scaring wildlife, hikers and campers with loud gunfire, shooting at no hunting signs, killing domesticated animals, chasing animals with ATVs and leaving their trash around hunting camps. Recently, hunters are pushing for aerial gunning of wolves in Alaska, according to Defenders of Wildlife Magazine (Spring 2004). Hunters and their wildlife manager lackeys have created the enormous white-tailed deer herds in the Eastern states while they slowly drive mule deer in Western states toward extinction. Oh, did I mention they love to shoot coyotes, too?

In May, 2005, the anti-conservation Alaskan Board of Game voted to expand the state’s barbaric aerial gunning program to include grizzly bears. Now, in addition to the hundreds of wolves already slaughtered, up to 81 bears could be killed this year.

A Dec. 29, 2004 Associated Press article stated that "some environmentalists are concerned about grizzlies in and around Yellowstone National Park, where run-ins with hunters accounted for nearly half the grizzly bear deaths in 2004. Hunters acting in self-defense accounted for at least seven of the 19 human-caused deaths in the Yellowstone region this year (2004)." Now, I'll ask the reader, does this seem like conservation to you?

Last night I was rummaging through my vast animal rights files when I uncovered a letter that I had published in my local newspaper a few years ago. I was responding to an article written by a hunter who wanted to bring back bounty payments on coyotes. My anti-hunting, anti-bounty letter reads as follows:

Tim Fitzgerald's article "Bring back the bounty on coyotes" is typical of a hunter posing as a conservationist. Fitzgerald actually believes that paying hunters and ranchers to shoot coyotes will bring mule deer back to their glory days.

Yet, hunters and ranchers already enjoy a year-round open season on coyotes. Government wildlife killers also partake in this coyote-killing bloodfest. The clever canines, however, respond to all this butchery by producing more pups that survive to maturity - therefore, killing more coyotes begets more coyotes! Consider too, that destroying large numbers of coyotes will increase rabbit and rodent populations - further imbalancingColorado's already mutilated ecology.

Every hunter should know by now that mule deer, ultimately, are not limited by predation, but by quality and quantity of habitat. Every dollar spent on liquidating coyotes is one less dollar spent on restoring habitat. The real problem is that Colorado has too much sprawl, too many elk, and too many hunters.

In Fitzgerald's mind, killing more animals is the way to "solve" wildlife problems. Colorado's mountains have become a giant state-run game ranch plagued with poachers and hunters who "bag" too many deer, especially bucks. Every year, this state sacrifices huge amounts of land - and wildlife - to a virtual army of 330,000 wildlife killers. And now, these same hunters want to be rewarded for killing even more wildlife.

If hunters truly want to help mule deer, they should forgo their fall slaughter season, and spend their license money on preserving habitat. - By Scott Palczak

RODEO CRUELTY IS PART OF RANCHING

2005-01-03T08:37:00.000-08:00

With the National Western Stockshow and Rodeo due to arrive in Denver, I've compsed my thoughts about rodeo cruelty against animals and the ranching mentality. Even though many rodeo cowboys are not from rural areas, these people share the rodeo/ranching ethos that animals should be exploited for human purposes, no matter how trivial they may be.

Ranchers live in a world of self-imposed violence against animals. American ranchers continually shoot, trap, poison or persecute the following wild animals: coyotes, prairie dogs, mountain lions, bobcats, golden eagles, bighorn sheep, bison, wild horses, burros, jackrabbits and even ravens. Most are killed simply for sport. And don't forget roping, dragging, branding and castrating helpless calves. It appears that animal cruelty is a preferred lifestyle for some people. Ranching people are hunters and like hunters they share a notion that animals must be "controlled," which is part of their addictive thinking process. So-called "wildlife management"and ranching share the same goal of using animals as resources that must be managed or controlled.

Ranchers and hunters underestimate the intelligence of people who are not animal killers. We know that ranchers and hunters kill animals for fun and they have disdain for animals they consider "vermin" which include prairie dogs and they also hate "varmints" which include coyotes. I have also read that hunters and ranchers can and will shoot stray dogs and cats, which contradicts any fanciful notion of hunters respecting animals.

RODEO CRUELTY IS ANNUAL TRADITION

2005-01-02T18:29:00.000-08:00

Every January, the media in Colorado touts the National Western Stockshow and Rodeo in Denver as some kind of wonderful event. There's an undeniably crude, low-brow mentality about stock shows and rodeos. Rodeos are a malignant relic of the Old West, promoting the age-old idea of humans dominating and competing with animals.

Rodeo association rules are not effective in preventing animal injuries, nor are they strictly enforced (read previous posting about two horses killed). Here are a few sordid facts:

Rodeos routinely use "flank" or "bucking" straps on their animals, which are tightly cinched around the animal's abdomen, where there is no rib cage protection. This belt pinches the groin, creating enough pain to cause the animal to buck. Bucking broncs also frequently have open sores where they are repeatedly gouged with spurs.

Calves roped when running up to 27 mph have their necks snapped back by the lasso - sometimes resulting in neck and back injuries, bruises, broken bones and internal hemorrhages. Calves have become paralyzed from severe spinal cord injury or their tracheas may become totally or partially severed. Stock shows and rodeos promote, or at the very least condone animal abuse because they're based entirely on the suffering, domination and exploitation of animals. - By Scott Palczak

ANNUAL RODEO CRUELTY BEGINS IN DENVER WITH STOCKSHOW - by Scott Palczak

2005-01-01T20:00:00.000-08:00

On January 8, the National Western Stockshow and Rodeo arrives in Denver. Two horses were killed in 1999, while performing in that depressing rodeo. One horse rammed a wall head on and the other was bucking so hard that it suffered a broken back. If that isn't animal cruelty, then what is ? I have, in my possession, the Denver Post article describing the event. You'll read below portions of letters that I've had published in Colorado newspapers over the past several years.

It seems that bruising, battering and harassing livestock is simply proper rodeo etiquette. Calf-roping is an especially callous form of "entertainment," with fleeing calves lassoed, jerked backward, thrown to the ground and lassoed with a rope. Obviously, this is neither gentle nor humane treatment and it causes considerable suffering - and in some cases death - to the fear-stricken calves. Rodeos have their own impotent and weakly enforced rules regarding animal welfare. Rodeos, apparently, are unable and unwilling to prevent animal injuries - protecting their stock from brutality is not a major concern. Ceremoniously battered livestock can easily be replaced with more intact specimens.

Rodeos are a meaningless and archaic tradition that glorify animal abuse under the guise of "family fun." By allowing these atrocities, our society is still living in the 19th century.

In America, male children are being socialized to punish their bodies and to abuse animals. A case in point is "mutton bustin," a popular event of the upcoming National Western Stockshow and Rodeo. The idea of this bizarre event is to induce young boys into the rodeo by having them cling to the backs of agitated sheep.

Young males are socially trained to not only abuse their own bodies through sports, but they are literally taught to brutalize animals in the name of sport by way of rodeos and hunting.

Rodeo patrons spur rodeo cowboys toward self-destruction as the silently give a big thumbs up to violence against animals. After all, the idea of pitting men against animals is an ancient idea that has not lost its appeal. Modern-day rodeos fill this primal niche by serving a spectacle of sugar-coated violence under the thin guise of sport. If bullfighting were to be leagalized in the United States, I'm convinced it would become a major sporting event, surpassing rodeo.

All of this good ol' boy vs. animal nonsense is fueled by newspapers and televsion which promote it as family fun. Junior rodeos teach that contempt for animals by way of roping, dragging, and kicking is good, wholesome entertainment and socializing young males to risk their lives or limbs is also entertaining. - By Scott Palczak