Bowsite.com

My interview of Michele was well received and lots of positive comments as both men and women. Recently she has come under attack by some anti hunting group.

I reached out to Michele to take down her interview but haven't heard back. It will be her call of course.

Darn, anti's. Polar bears are not going extinct. Michele is not evil. Just the opposite, she is a wonderful lady who is a credit to hunters and women everywhere.

Just go down and look at the comments.

Tom: Any idea where your SCI stuff is appearing that attracts the anti's? That would be interesting to figure out if they are tracking you personally for some reason.

I'm wondering if ara's perceive woman as weak and therefore more likely to give in to pressure? I personally know nothing could be farther from the truth but its just a thought.

Delete those idiot posts and what Pat said, that guy "anonymous" on the internet is a whacko. He's always trouble. Nearly every place I know requires a sign up to post comments. Doesn't eliminate the nut cases, but sure reduces them.

Congrats Michelle, very good. I enjoyed the interview and the pics. Here's to many more adventures.....

Ron

It's much more important to reach out to the millions of people who don't hunt, but are not extremist anti-hunters in their views. These are the people that make the difference at the ballot boxes.

Great photo!

P.S. "Minnesota Girl!"

So although I don't think we change these extremist antis, we do as JLS says, reach out to those who are neutral or less radical and more rational. Well said JLS.

http://modernmarketingjapan.blogspot.com/2012/03/woman-kills-polar-bear-hunting-big-game.html

Support for people like Michele is a given from people like us. Lots of Canadian and American soldiers have given their lives so we had the freedom we do. We can not let any nut bar anti hunters try to take that away from us.

Its sick to think that a group or individuals, who have not fought for or sacrificed anything, think they can dictate their personal beliefs upon us.

This will soon be a photo but with a white bear.

Good luck on your hunt Tim. In Canada we have a pizza, I call it the Great White North. Maybe you can feature it at your places soon.

As far as any death threats made or to be made on Ms Leqve her husband, family and anyone else via internet forums, be advised terroristic threats are illegal, regardless of the person's intent to carry them out or not. Same thing for threatening a legislator who attempts to pass a bill folks don't like ( pro-gun, anti gun, anti-hunting, changes in policy, etc.) That is: "a shameful act that diminishes all of us." So disagree but stop the micro aggression, violent overtones or personal threats please.

Remember before enlightenment chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment chop wood and carry water.

Jaquomo: You're welcome, and thanks for your concern. Happily, I have no compulsion to harm myself or anybody else. I hope someday you'll feel the same. Pigsticker: I haven't taken any extraordinary steps to remain anonymous, but maybe I should have! You could probably find me if you really applied yourself. What would you do with my personal information if you had it? I'm willing to subject my opinions to your scrutiny, not my body. You're a trained killer. Why would I reveal myself? I congratulate you on your culinary skills. The tenderloin looks succulent and delicious.

Midwest: Your comment doesn't offend me, but it doesn't contribute anything to the conversation. It's just kind of empty.

TD: Loser has one o. How you accept that quantum shift in your knowledge will reveal your true potential more than any further killing.

Scoot: Kindly leave my family out of this.

A: man was put on earth by (a) God? or

B: we evolved naturally with the rest of the animals? or

C: we are aliens beings from somewhere with no natural place here?

Do you believe the lives of all warm blooded (excluding humans) animals are of equal value? Or would you differentiate between cold blooded, birds and mammals? (you mentioned turkeys)

Michelle was saving some of those cute seals. Why doesn't anyone care about saving seals from bears anymore?

So does THAT also mean ALL animals? And , as you stated, "diminishes all of us". Can you explain your meaning of this statement so I can understand your position?

my best, Paul

You on the other hand chose to veer of the path of life and embrace an abstract philosophical that suited your world view. We as hunters answer an innate bond of predator and prey. Eyes to the front are a dead giveaway to our former self. As far as your identity and body both mean nothing to me and a wasted mind fraught with unsubstantitive ideology that was created off of a false premise fails the the first test of logic. If the foundation of your position is false then everything else is false. You are trying to turn the pyramid upside down and you play it all out the amoebas and micro organisms are greater than the only group that has the capacity to take care of the rest. As a woman you should celebrate when a woman like Michelle steps out of the feminine social confines and excels at a more dominated activity.

I have followed her exploits for quite some time as well women’s basketball. Unfortunately, women would rather go watch male sports and then banter about the inequality of athletics. Recently a woman dominated the Moab 240 beating both male and female entrants and several threads on Bowsite celebrated her dominance. Even if you were aware of this once again you would have decided not to celebrate her accomplishment because she doesn’t share your worldview. Please pick up a bow and go hunt, kill, and eat before you condemn your own kind. Celebrate both life and death!

Paul@thefort: My position is that the bear was a sentient non-human minding his own business, in his own habitat. Ms Leqve's attack was unprovoked. Humans can be the most compassionate animals on the planet. I wish she'd just taken a photo.

JTV: "The golden rule is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated" - Wikipedia

"Do to others what you want them to do to you." -Jesus Christ

"What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others." -Confucius

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." -Siddhartha Gautama (AKA Buddha)

"One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires." - Jupiter, Teacher of the Gods

Pigsticker: I can tell from your typing that this is a very important issue to you, too. Thank you for your effort. If you would kindly proofread your post for clarity, I will try to address your points one by one.

GotBowAz: Oh yeah? :)

I’m afraid I cannot get behind Ms Newkirk because of her extremist world view. She’d rather all domestic animals be killed rather than be subjected to “slavery”. She’d prefer a dog not have a life to begin with, rather than have a long, very happy life with loving family members. And all to suit her concience. That is self centered!!

Do you believe we should eventually rid the world of all meat eaters?

APauls: Humans no longer have to kill sentient beings in order to survive. We have choice, and that choice makes eating a moral issue. Do we choose the momentary pleasure of the taste of an animal's flesh in our mouth? Or do we choose to allow that animal to experience it's life, instead. Happy birthday.

And just to be clear, I do not accept that your “morals or ethics” have any more inherent value or validity than mine or someone else’s. That is a dead end.

I’m getting the impression you would like us archery hunters to eat in a way that you would consider more “ evolved”.

You are ok with the taking of an animal’s life If needed for food. The polar bear in question was eaten by the locals. And further to that that rather large sum of money was left with the locals. Now with that money they can buy much more food than that one polar bear would provide. So in fact more bears will live because that one died.

I’m not sure what career you have or where you live (though you can easily find that out about me) but I can assure you that your life uses resources to carry on.

The Inuit also use resources to sustain their lives. One of the resources they have is animals. And wisely they are gathering the golden eggs rather than killing the goose. Do you have a right to further your life’s ambitions and yet deny others the same using means available to them?

You have a right to an opinion, but your opinion is not right just because it’s yours.

I’m also quite sure that the “sentient” seals, muskox and caribou would welcome the relief. Killing only one polar likely saves many hundreds of other sentient lives. Do those lives have less value?

So mathematically you have no argument. And as I said above, morals and ethics are completely subjective and you have no right to subject me to yours.

I have a historically implied right to kill and eat formed by thousands of years of doing so. You have only a very short term, self realized vision of what is right. That’s called a world view not a world order.

Bill Obeid: That's not why I'm posting here.

Scoot: The pleasure of the kill comes at the expense of a sentient being's life. That provides a moral imperative for protest, which is absent from yoga or bowling. Also, the idea that today's actions are justified by tradition; is flawed. Can you see why? Liberally minded screwballs won't change anything. Change comes from within.

Ambush: The polar bear was not killed for food. The unpredictable knock-on effects of killing an apex predator in such a sparse environment is a risible defense. I imagine there is a diversity of opinion among the Inuit regarding the incident. I imagine there is grief. If they have resorted to selling polar bear kills, then alternative revenue streams are urgently required. If -as you imply and I highly doubt- their culture doesn't value the animal beyond a raw material to be harvested, then their culture needs to grow. You have the legal right to kill (and eat!) within certain parameters. You have no moral right to kill and eat other sentient beings, when there are alternatives. Rights don't come from history, that's why you don't have the right to own a slave, but your ancestors may.

Ceart: so you believe we evolved and just happen to be the highest life form. I believe differently, but I'll play a long.

So a lion or bear has evolved to be the top carnivore and uses all of its abilities to eat. A little salad here and there but arguably a lot of meat.

Why is it different for a human to use all of its abilities to eat. A little salad here and there, but also meat?

Or have we evolved so high that meat should no longer be on the menu? Why? Who says we have evolved to that point? What if I haven't evolved that far and still think meat has its place on the table?

And to echo prior comments, for your salad to get on the table a LOT of worms, insects, mice, rats, birds and other mammals have been killed, whether indirectly (run over or chopped up with farming equipment) or directly (pests eating the plants need to be controlled). How's that any better than me putting a steak on my plate?

What I find most interesting, is that you chose to address this issue on a hunting website.....to what end? You can't really believe that your posts will elicit any more change in people's views than if I were go on a HSUS or PETA website extolling the virtues of bowhunting.

I live in northern British Columbia and am privileged to personally live and witness many of nature's ways. I can tell that your knowledge comes mainly from reading the facebook posts and blogs of vegans and extremist anti hunters. A little like asking Colonel Saunders to give advice on the purpose of chickens and their well being.

You see, I have hunted with the Inuit people and seen their land and resources. You claim they just need another revenue stream so they don't have to sell bears. What is that revenue stream, who expedites it and who pays for it and does the leg work to accomplish it? What concrete steps are you willing to take to "rescue" them from their ignorance? Platitudes make a very thin broth.

Do you know how wolves kill a moose? It takes hours and sometimes days! When finally exhausted from being chased and having the hide and flesh ripped from it's hinds, they are able to physically over power the bawling animal. Some will sink their fangs into the face and neck of the struggling creature and prevent it from gaining it's feet while the rest start to eat from the hinds. They just eat the moose alive until it is just no longer alive. Do you think that moose is appreciating the "raw beauty of one of nature's top predator"!?! Bears kill the same way. They don't quickly kill large prey, they over power and eat them to death. You know that wolves do kill just for pleasure or in other words for the thrill of the hunt and kill. Why don't your bloggers give cute names to all the moose, elk and deer that are killed by those savage hunters?

Why do so many vegans revere the apex predators? How do you reconcile that to your world view?

In my area bears kill about fifty percent of the moose calves before they are six weeks old. Many times they simply follow a pregnant cow around and harass the cow when she's trying to give birth. She has to face the bear to protect herself. Eventually with the cow constantly spinning the calf emerges and is dangling and being flung about. The bear snatches that new baby from it's mother while she bawls for it's life. No empathy for these sentient beings?

I have a theory about why. So many of your people are the exact opposite of the apex predators in their real life. So they like to identify with them and imagine that that's what they would be in other circumstances. They manifest this behavior the only way they can. By extreme cyber bullying!! Like a pack of jackals.

These people have so far removed themselves from the natural world and it's realities they can no longer even imagine what it is, much less be an integral part of it, immerse themselves in it.

I think Ambush is really on to something here..... the same people who decry killing to eat will literally celebrate, even fixate to obsession, the apex predators..... wolves, bears, lions etc. who do exactly the same as the hunters they disparage, yet in much more brutal fashion. And do so with no remorse. The moose, elk, deer are then NOT seen as their precious "sentient beings" but now simply become nothing more than a food source for their predator de jour. Somehow they live or see themselves through that predator. Maybe that scratches an itch they have no clue of how or why it itches......

Hunters chose to be participants in the natural world, not outside observers setting themselves apart. That is their right, their instinctual heritage as it has been for many thousands of years, all the years they have walked the earth since creation. Literally ingrained as part of us, as it is a part of all predators. As hunters they know where their food comes from and cherish that. Hint: it does not come from a market, anonymously wrapped in cellophane on a foam tray. We know it, are a part of it as it literally becomes a part of us. We can thank God for our good fortune in providing it for us and our families. As mankind has done since it's very beginning.

In Newkirk's perfect world there are no cows, sheep, chickens, goats, pigs, dogs, cats, horses or budgies and so on. Better to not be born than born a "Slave".

In Newkirk's perfect world it is better for a species to not or barely exist than to exist in robust, healthy numbers but be hunted.

In Newkirk's perfect world only people of her beliefs have a right to exist. Zero tolerance for different views, and righteously inflamed by hatred for those that would dare think they could somehow have some tenant of counter truth.

Ceart, I suspect that you are one of those people that constantly declare that humans should stay out of the way of Mother Nature and let her maintain that natural balance. But you are also one of those that applaud loudly the efforts undertaken when someone finds a baby seal on a beach, malnourished and alone and they "rescue" it. Then later they get a few moments of glory as the seal is released back into the wild on the nightly news. Self gratification, "look at what a great caring person I am!", feel good .What happened to letting nature taking it's course. Why did Mother Nature need a helping human hand in this case? I have a particular distaste for the ones that get their "feel good" from "saving" wretchedly maimed and disfigured animals and sentencing them to a life of pain and disability just so they can virtue signal. Why the hell do you have to put a cougar through months of extreme pain and then permanent disability by giving it fake feet, only to live a greatly diminished live!?! It got burnt in a wildfire caused by lightning! Mother Nature at work!! I'll tell you why. So you can parade yourself in front of others and think of yourself as compassionate.

Ceart, you quoted a multitude of deities earlier on. Which one of those bestowed on you the right to trample my rights. Which one "enlightened" your conscious to the point of being morally superior to me? Which one gave you the authority to pronounce absolute right and absolute wrong?

The difference between me and Ms Newkirk (and by extension, you) is that I will allow you to be vegan, and not kill animals and live your life how you feel best gives you happiness. Whereas you and Ms Newkirk will not accord me the same respect. You are consumed by forcing your morality onto me on the mere whim that "you could be right".

As for a woman killing a polar bear in the Arctic. I read some of the ridiculously vitriolic commentaries by "your" people. ".... chased by dogs until it was too exhausted to fight for it's life...". A few things. That same bear will go into a village or camp and catch, kill and eat dogs. He's thinking the same when he lets the dogs catch up to him. These dogs are more wolf than domestic dog. They thrill at the chase and know that if the bear is killed, they will eat all the fat and meat they want. It's instinctual and something you admire in other apex predators. And the reason the bears and dogs (mostly wolf) react the way they do is because this same scene plays out a multitude of times in the wild throughout their lives without the presence man.

I'll leave you with one more thought. The Inuit people had a harsh life and life had little time left for idolizing or romanticizing animals. They needed them for food. Period. One of the ways they killed polar bears was to put sharpened bones into balls of frozen fat and put them out in a bears path. The bear would eagerly swallow the fat balls whole. The fat melted in the bear's stomach and the bone daggers would perforate its guts. Now it was a matter of trailing the bear, for days, as it sickened and died a slow painful death. Not exactly like a day working at Starbucks for the Inuit hunter, but hey, you take what you get to earn a living.

I think Ms Leqve's bear got a deal on his death.

And you are off in your opinion of the Inuit as well. They are hunters though-and-through. I know, because I live among them. A common shirt worn up here goes like this: "Vegetarian" Old Inuit word for "Bad Hunter." They scoff at the neo-urban fools who think themselves righteous for abandoning who they really are. They all think it ridiculous.

They relish the hunting of polar bears and no polar bear that is killed by white or Inuit hunter goes uneaten. You're assuming. That's a fantastic way to be wrong.

"Do to others what you want them to do to you." -Jesus Christ - Also stated the Mankind has dominion over the animals. They were put here to feed us.

Scoot: Challenges like climate change, micro-plastics, ocean acidification etc will require new laws. You're right, of course. Change comes from the Government. What I meant was I (as a screwball "liberal") haven't taken it upon myself to change your mind regarding veganism. I'm here because I had something to say about the terrible thing Ms Leqve did. Thanks for listening.

JTV: Your rights don't come from your constitution, that document merely articulates them. Also, there is no God.

smarba: It's different for humans because we have the choice. Having the choice makes what we eat a moral issue. We can cause unnecessary suffering, or we can choose not to. Sharks and bears don't have that choice. That's the difference. If you're talking about biological evolution, I assure you- you are almost certainly capable of thriving on a well planned plant based diet. Your intestines are much longer than an obligate carnivore of your size, and are more suited to plant matter than meat. Your jaws have powerful molars and work with the grinding side to side motion typical of plant eating mammals. Your eyes are up front like a predator it's true: but so are gorilla eyes. That probably helped our ancestors triangulate on fruit and safe branches to grab. (Ever get that dream where you're falling and suddenly snap awake? That may also be an evolved mechanism that stopped our tree swinging ancestors from meeting a sticky end!). So you can almost certainly do it, if you want to, biologically speaking. But if you mean some kind of personal moral evolution, I really can't say. All I can say is for me it's been a gradual process - like, over a decade. Other people seem to just decide and 'dats dat'. Finally, it's true that many animals are killed in the harvesting of grains/vegetables. And I agree that pesticide misuse is an urgent problem. But a plant based diet is still more compassionate and sustainable than any other. Veganism is about excluding, animal cruelty as far as possible and practical.

Medicinemann: Regarding your first point- I hope you find the attached illustration illuminating. Regarding your second point- funny story. I was on facebook, and I saw that photo of Ms Leqve posing with the bear. I knew immediately it was fake. It had to be. First of all, it just looked super fake. Like, not even photoshopped- more like she'd been cut out of an awkward family photo and glued into a collage with a gigantic sleeping bear. Even the bear looked fake. Besides, who in their right mind would smile and pose after doing something like that? So I googled Ms Leqve. And holy mother of god, she really did it, didn't she. And among the petitions and outpouring of anger and confusion - I found this forum, where other human beings were professing their support and admiration. So, here we are.

You've made a choice, albeit a poor one for your health because we evolved as omnivores and part-time predators, not as vegans.

And another question: What makes your opinion as to what anyone should do worth a damn? Just because some people, after 300,000 years of evolution, decided a couple decades ago that we should no longer eat meat, how does your opinion or your (what I would consider phony) moral crisis have any merit? I consider your moral crisis to be ridiculous. Why is your opinion any more valid than any hunter's? You're the one trying to change the nature of a specie after 300K years. The burden of proof is on you. We see your kind as just another unfortunate side effect of urbanization - the ultimate scourge of the earth.

Sorry, I don't have a choice. I was born a predator and I will always be one. You cannot change DNA in 50 years.

That statement proves beyond a doubt that you may be well spoken and even educated but you have no real knowledge regarding wildlife populations and drivers. You have no intention of becoming better informed, you wish only to moralize and chastise. You talk down from an imagined height. You can no more definitively say there is no God than I can say there is, yet somehow you believe your position unassailable.

You can go back to your clannish cyber wards where you can lick, pet, caudal, encourage and congratulate one another on your much higher consciousnesses. We need neither your approval nor your condescending silliness and frankly we are just to well grounded and intelligent to even entertain any such nonsense.

Mind you, I'm not dissing farmers per se, especially those who practice wise farming practices. And we all have to eat...grains and other farmed products are now necessary for you life and mine. Nevertheless, it is agriculture not it's virtual opposite (hunting) that has brought the world to it's current environmental and population dilemma. Indeed, it is hunting that has been the only sustainable long term mode of human existance (over several hundred thousand years). I am sure you would wish to exterminate virtually all forms of hunting, but therein lies the complete irony when it's virtual complete opposite is what is killing our world and the world of Nature.

2nd - as is the usual with these types of discussions, the anti side will switch their justifications to meet their needs. How can you say there is no God, but quote Jesus Christ? You might want to drop that quote from your arsenal.

IdyllwildArcher: Societies all over the world have lived without meat since ancient times. In modern times, it's really quite easy to live a long healthy life on a plant based diet. That's what's up. I don't mean to ignore your issue regarding 'choice', I just don't know what to tell you. If you're right, then your freedom is an illusion, and you exist in an entirely predetermined universe. I'm not your friend, but talk to one.

Ambush: Your critique of my athiesm is valid, but does not rebut the quoted assertion. Farewell.

David A.: Thanks for the book recommendations, I'll take a look. My trudy foodie has found a new level since we went vegan, it's been amazing. But those salads aren't our creations - those were images from https://minimalistbaker.com and http://www.onegreenplanet.org. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make though, regarding agricultre. Yes, it is the foundation of civilization. Yes, it is the reason for things being the way they are, good and bad. And yes, there are serious urgent problems with our agriculture today. Veganism is part of the solution. Big game hunting is not.

JB: How can I...?

"These are dark and desperate times. I know that some of you are afraid. It's alright. It's perfectly natural. But I want you to know that I am not. I am not afraid to die this day because what we do here is necessary. It may seem impossible, our enemies may appear to be endless, but that doesn't matter. Because there is no one else. Look at me. I believe in an idea, an idea that a single individual who has the right heart and the right mind that is consumed with a single purpose, that one man can win a war. Give that one man a group of soldiers with the same conviction, and you can change the world" - Captain America

Why do you find it necessary to force your world view onto others if you truly are able to agree that you could be wrong? What about free will and choice. Cyber bullying companies, for example.

I won’t trouble you anymore, but will only speak of you in the third person to others. Then youll be relieved of the duty of any soul searching that your captive mind is still capable of.

You are what you eat has never rang so true!!

You missed one. Not sure if it was intentional or not. My guess is yes, it was intentional.

"Veganism is part of the solution. Big game hunting is not."

Opinion, not fact. Gotta love how libs are all about choice.... Their choice.

Bottom line, you think ur right and we are wrong. Just run on along amd keep thinkin that. We will continue as we've been commissioned to do....

The best that people like Ceart can hope for is that there is a God and he is merciful beyond belief.

You're not sure what point I'm trying to make? Then read my post again, all the serious ecological problems of the world today stem from agriculture, not big game hunting. In fact, a very strong case could be made big game hunting is a conservative plus for wildlife, but I'm sure you know the arguments. I challenge whether you really know the arguments agriculture is destroying the planet, at the tune of nearly 200,000 acres of rainfourest daily, much of which is from slash and burn agriculture, but the total daily lost to agricultural clearing may be a million acres or more. DAILY. And I listed other ways agriculture is poisoning the planet and it's inhabitants including polar bears whose tissues contain farm by product residues such as pesticides (but many more) which threaten the bear's endocrine and reproductive system. Do a Google search, "Polar bears + contaminated tissues"...

And while agriculture is an important part of the foundation of our civilization, it is hunting which made us human. Which begs, the question, are we fully human if we don't hunt? Mind you, I love veggies but in the year 2555 (if man is still alive) and we are munching on algae biscuits, where will the animals be, the great herds, the seemingly infinite ocean life, even the wild birds? Mostly gone. And few will know really why.

Regarding your heartfelt concern for plummenting animal populations, I am sure that your vegan brothers and sisters would gladly accept your charitable contributions to secure future animal habitat.......but in case no such organization exists, there is always the National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF), the Wild Sheep Foundation (WSF), or Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF)......all of which DO purchase habitat for animals. You might want to research how many dollars are spent by HSUS (especially Wayne Pacelle....before he had to step down), PETA, and VeganStreet for conservation of animal habitat......and compare that with the monies donated by various hunting organizations. Another interesting comparison might include the estimated numbers of wild turkeys at the beginning of the 20th century, versus the number at the beginning of the 21st century....or whitetail deer populations. I think you will find that plummeting is not an accurate term.

Come to think of it....I cannot find a single, NON-hunting organization (edit : one that does not allow or recognize hunting as a valid conservation tool), that cares enough about animal habitat, to design, fund, and implement a conservation model that DOES secure future habitat for wild game. I genuinely hope that you CAN name one.....I would be most interested to hear of them, their 501(c)3 status, and the science on which their habitat model is based.

I would consider the Conservancy Group to be a non-hunting organization. Here in Lancaster PA, the Lancaster Conservancy group has acquired about 1,000 acres, most of which is open to bowhunting. They just acquired another 500 acres that adjoins the land I currently hunt. While many of their members lean left of center, they have always supported hunting on most of their properties. I plan on helping with work being done on the new 500 acres.

But to your point, groups like HSUS, World Wildlife Fund, etc, do absolutely ZERO for habitat. Their $$ are tied up in fund raising and administrative costs.

Which ones?

Who does "Next Level Thinking" remind you of?!!?

Looks like she's letting the ARA's win.

When I release an arrow (or bullet, as I rifle hunt too) an animal typically is dead within seconds. Often the animal makes no reaction to the fatal wound, but merely stands there and keels over quietly.

Every living thing, including you and me is going to die at some point. Which causes more "unnecessary suffering": dead in seconds or dead in hours or days from hunger, thirst or predators gnawing at various parts of your body?

Wild animals rarely die in their sleep. Unless you count freezing to death. So I fail to see how hunting increases "unnecessary suffering?"

Hypothetically if animals could reason like humans, which they aren't capable of, would any of them vote for starving to death over a bullet or arrow? If a human faced the choice: be locked in a cold prison cell with no food or water and absolutely no hope for escape, or a bullet to the forehead, how many humans would prefer the former option?

I fail to see the logic in your point of view. Hypothetically if we evolved to be the apex animal in the entire ecosystem, what part of "survival of the fittest" says "but once you're the fittest you need to deviate from evolution and do the opposite"?

Ceat, you should also read Pollen's books - and he's admittedly pro vega and not particularly in favor of hunting and admits he favors animal rights somewhat. Read his conclusions! lol

This is BS and you know it. The only one that has that's of any note are the Indians and they do it because they believe in reincarnation. Their lacto-ovo diets are based off of BS, just as yours is.

I'll second Paul Shephard's books. "The Tender Carnivore and the Sacred Game" is a very good book, as is his last book that was a collection of his final works and written by his wife called "Coming Home to the Pleistocene."

They're not hunting books per se, but do a good job explaining how we evolved and hunting's role in that.

Another good one is "The Vegetarian Myth." I'm sure it's nothing you want to hear, but exposure to opposing views is healthy.

The fact of the matter is, a purely vegan diet is not good for the human body nor the planet. It can be argued that feeding this many billions of people is not good for the planet, but mass agriculture on a scale to feed this many people surely is not and the only carbon neutral, renewable source of food that doesn't destroy entire ecosystems, is the hunting of wild animals.

crop -> livestock -> human is less efficient than crop -> human.

There are differences between animal-based and plant-based agricultures. The former eats the latter. That's sad, because 925 million people are suffering from the effects of hunger, and 2.5 million children under the age of 5 die of starvation each year. So although there is enough food to feed everybody; it's being fed instead to animals which are then eaten. According the the university of Minnesota if all food crops were fed directly to humans instead of animals, around 70% more food would be added to the world’s supply, which would be enough to feed 4 billion additional people. The British Dietetic Association's policy statement asserts : "a cultural shift towards a more plant based diet is required to reduce GHG emissions, improve land and water use and relieve other environmental pressures." The Peer reviewed Plosone environmental study of diets observes that "The largest environmental benefits across indicators were seen in those diets which most reduced the amount of animal-based foods, such as vegan (first place in terms of benefits for two environmental indicators), vegetarian (first place for one indicator), and pescatarian (second and third place for two indicators) " Also, given how many bowsite.forum users argue that God/human-superiority entitles them to kill non-humans; suggesting that non-hunters might be non-human is reckless.

Medicinemann: Tell you what. I'll overlook the fact that non-hunting conservation organizations wouldn't view wildlife as 'game'; and try to find an organization that nonetheless meets your terms. I'll try to do that, if you explain what survival advantage a rabbit gains by being able to feel pain; and why that might not be such an advantage for lettuce. Deal?

Boreal: Homer mentions Lotus eaters in the Odyssey. Herodotus (AKA The Father of History) called them 'Lotophagi', and identified them as indigenous people in North Africa. Diodorus Siculus wrote in Bibliotheca historica of vegetarian tribes in Ethiopia. Apparently. I'm only going by what uncle Google says. The Manusmriti law book from the ancient Vedic period 1500 - 500 BCE states, "There is no sin in eating meat... but abstention brings great rewards."(Bhaskarananda, Swami (2002). The Essentials of Hinduism. Seattle: The Vedanta Society of Western Washington)

Vegetarianism was, and is, mandatory for yogis. According to Yogic culture, saattvik food (“cereals, fresh fruit, vegetables, legumes, nuts, sprouted seeds, whole grains and milk taken from a cow, which is allowed to have a natural birth, life and death including natural food, after satiating the needs of milk of its calf”) calms and purify the mind “enabling it to function at its maximum potential” and keep the body healthy. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_vegetarianism)

The Pythagoreans were vegetarians in 600BCE. Chinese Taoist Monks and Nuns eat an egg-free vegetarian diet. From the Nara period to the Meiji Restoration (IE for a millennium) Japan was vegetarian, with fish ocassionally eaten during celebrations. Buddhists and Jainists have practiced the principle of nonviolence toward animals since the 6th century BCE.

smarba: In your thought experiment you equate the great outdoors with a prison cell. The "choice" you imagine offering a rational animal is more like A) Die because smarba is amused to kill an admirable example of humanity or B) be left alone to take your chances in the wild. Our ancestors didn't evolve bigger teeth and claws than their predators. They used language and technology to step outside of the savage system. If you wear glasses, or shoes, have a laptop, phone or bow, or flashlight or car; you've followed their footsteps and avoided relying on evolutionary fitness to be an apex predator. Just like the rest of us. Apex means the tip. There can't be 7 billion people at the apex.

The tools predators use is wide and varied. Humans got good at it. Then got better. In no way, shape or form does it make us any less a natural predator.

You and your religion are but a handful of humanity. I could be in the minority as well..... still packing into the mountains and packing out that with which to feed a family, well into my 70s, hopefully 80s. You OTOH have never fed a family by your own hand in your life.... relying on someone else who has done the dirty work for you. You just whip out the plastic.....

We feed ourselves and our families by our labor.... by our own hand..... we fail... fail.... fail again..... until we succeed. Success means you feed your tribe! It's deeply rooted to be happy for that.... literally in our DNA to be happy about it. Same as finding a mate to procreate. Or seeing that creation born and thrive. None of that is some man made or conceived manifesto. It is literally nature itself. It should be.... needs to be, celebrated. As mankind has it's entire existence.

If you can't grasp how special and unique that is, then it's little wonder your intolerance and myopic views of those who do.

Furthermore, "efficiency" is not necessary the most important criteria. If it is to you, then switch to eating algae...

You're not well read and are arguing for simplistic ecologies when I'm talking deep ecology. Do you even know what that means? Waste of my time, sorry. One of these days I will find a vegan who really knows what they are talking about. Someone like Michael Pollen. Read his book, at least.

It is also possible that she is here on kind of a vegan's girl scout assignment. If she invades a meat eater's org, she earns her Brussels Sprout Badge.

They’re given to meat eaters to rip and tear meat. And we all get a set !!

Our digestive tracts were set up that way too!!

A leopard can’t change it’s spots.

If we weren’t supposed to eat meat...... than why does it taste so good !!

I guess each to his or her own but please let us all get along!

We could very well have been an assignment. Happens all the time when a troll pops up on the CF. It's how a lot of groups play the game now.

Shoot an elk or deer and the guts and bones are not pollution, but energy to the ecoystem...it's pretty darn efficient...check back in a day or two and you'll see; but that plastic usually dissolves into microbeads and then the trouble really begins...

Typical that they call out and threaten good people that have the guts to attach their real names to their convictions, while they spew hate from behind anonymity.

David A.: You raised the environmental impact of agriculture in defense of hunting. My response shows why that is not a sound argument.

IdyllwildArcher: That's an interesting thought. I don't personally consider veganism to be a religion, but maybe it is, just not in a way I can see? I haven't been vegan for very long, I don't know it's history, I haven't read much about it.

brooktrout59: In what sense can a trophy hunter be vegan?

TD: I was providing examples of non-meat based diets. Frankly I was surprised to find any ancient examples. I have no idea if these ancient people could do hard labor. But modern vegans certainly can:

https://www.ecosia.org/images?q=veganathletes

I'm not on an assignment. If you really think I'm trolling, contact the site admin.

There are diabolical consequences to trying and failing at bow hunting.

Surfbow: The bear is still dead.

Ceart might at least want to take a look here: http://www.arctic.uoguelph.ca/cpl/arcticnews/articles/PolarBears/PolarBear.htm

brooktrout59: It grieves me to admit that your friend may be a vegan.

BTW.... checked out your vegan athletes...... most of it BS..... Mike Tyson was not vegan when he was World Heavyweight Champ even though he may be now. (prolly about the time he got his face tattooed....) Many of those listed were "Vegan Champion" or "Vegan Athlete the Year" or some such. Most pro athletes cannot keep up the muscle mass and strength needed to compete at that level with a vegan diet. i.e. Not many vegan linebackers in the NFL.....

Unlike you I make no moral judgements as to what someone or some cultures eat. Some eat rats, monkeys, dogs, cats or insects. I don't care, long as it's not my dog....(no dog in the fight so to speak)

I do have issues with someone else telling be what I should and should not eat..... especially if they claim so for moral, religious or ethical reasons.

I used to freak out some folks with "no furs" bumper stickers on their Volvo or Beemer..... the ones parked there with leather seats and interior, leather bag, shoes, belts...... so totally unaware and oblivious to the world that they were shocked when I told em "you do know that leather is just fur with the hair scrapped off don't you???"

"There is increasing evidence that PCBs and other organochlorines may affect the immune systems of wildlife, even at very low concentrations. Studies of harbour seals that were fed PCB-contaminated fish showed that immune suppression occurred at a much lower level than other effects-and at levels similar to those found in polar bears in some areas of the Arctic. In 1998, a team of Norwegian scientists that immunized 35 bears and measured contaminant concentrations in their blood found that bears with higher levels of PCBs had lower levels of a group of proteins that function as antibodies. The study was repeated in 1999 with Canadian polar bears, and the data are currently being analyzed.

Organochlorine levels have not changed much since the beginning of accurate polar bear population assessments in the early 1970s, so reproductive effects are difficult to determine. PCBs, DDT or their methylsulfone metabolites are suspected of causing reproductive failure in grey and ringed seals in the Baltic Sea, but at much higher concentrations than in the Arctic. The fact that POPs relocate to target organs when fat reserves are used makes it likely that female bears, fetuses and cubs are at the highest risk from toxic effects because the females fast for up to seven months of the year. Although this theory remains to be proven, a recent study showed that females who had lost cubs sometime during the first year after birth had higher levels of contaminants than those that had kept them.

During the first two years of their lives, cubs have PCB concentrations about twice that of their mothers, largely because contaminants accumulate in the milk they feed on. The breast milk of Inuit women from northern Quebec who eat marine mammals has also been found to contain PCB concentrations 2 to10 arial higher than that of women in the southern part of the province."

Last year, Environment Canada and researchers at the University of British Columbia carried out tests to determine whether testosterone metabolism in male bears is affected by increased concentrations of enzymes in the animals’ livers induced by high levels of PCBs. The Department is also working with Carleton University in Ottawa to test the hypotheses that hydroxy PCB metabolites found in polar bear blood may be interfering with the transport of Vitamin A and a thyroid hormone in blood."

Nobody likes to be told what to do. I'm not here to make the case for veganism. You'll consider it, or not, as you please. I came here to speak my mind regarding Ms Leqve's act of animal cruelty.

David A.: Thanks David, I actually did read the link. It's sad in itself, and also an uncomfortable point for to those who praised Ms Leqve's actions on the grounds of her providing food for Innuit people.

IdyllwildArcher: Well, it's just my reading list from this thread is getting out of hand. I think I can say veganism is not a religion for 2 reasons. 1) There are Christian vegans Jewish vegans and Muslim vegans. There are no Christian and Jewish Muslims. 2) Non-vegans are the ones participating in animal sacrifice. I did read the first few pages of The Vegetarian Myth, and some reviews. (As divided as you'd expect!). It looks interesting. I'll keep reading and if I'm interested I'll track down a copy. I've already resolved to read Tender Carnivore and the Sacred Game. I don't want you to mail me a copy, but thanks for the offer.

JTV: I meant I hate to admit that someone who kills animals for fun or to decorate her apartment can also technically be a vegan. That realization stings, because I have to reconsider some closely held views.

And ditto for their eating seals which they have done for untold thousands of years! Of course you would want these cold weather people eating carrots and what not! Do you realize it is agriculture that is to blame??? These deadly chemicals are not just in the artic biosphere, in fact they are more common closer to the source! Every single vegetable and fruit in OUR local markets has agricultural contaminents/poisons, there are books and hundreds of research papers on this. The only out is to pay exorbitant prices for organic produce and even so, there is no escape from the production, shipping, packaging, and other energy costs. THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH! IMPOSSIBLE!

The above mentioned chemicals are undboubtedly in your tissues as well, which is a concern for you own risks to cancers. So stop, believing vegetarianism or veganism doesn't kill. You have your head stuck in the sand.

I have not seen anyone argue that point so I added it.

JTV your info about the nutritionally limiting vegan diet is spot on. I have a good friend who has tried it (former running partner) and just can't achieve good health without some type of animal protein. Typically eggs, chicken or fish. He has a philosophy of limiting his carbon footprint, non-hunting etc. but actually does go out with the family on owned woods to help with deer drives, packing deer out and butchering. Chooses to be a close to vegan as he can but doesn't push his philosophy on me or his family. Just his choice on philosophy with the realization others don't have to follow his philosophy, nor is he on a higher plane than anyone else.

Ceart go ahead and choose which foods you want to eat or not eat. However you never did answer my question do vegans support the conservation effort with finances to the level that hunters, fisherman and wild game enthusiasts do??? Those efforts help a lot more non-game animals than game animals where ever and whenever they are applied. Increase in antelope, turkeys , wood ducks, deer, various types of trout, coincides with benefits for songbirds, minnows, amphibians, turtles, etc. No one else even comes close to what Pittman Robertson, Dingle Johnson or Wallop Beaudrou (hunter, fisherman tax programs) do for wildlife. That is an undebateble fact. So throw Christ, Budda or Drhama Tushi into the argument of who has the right to kill what to eat but ultimately the consumer forces their will upon the consumed, until we are no longer in human form but that is a matter for a different debate.

My point earlier is that somebody NOT hunting in no way affects harm to animals. They're going to to die and it will very likely be in a MUCH more harmful way than by a hunter's bullet or arrow. So me hunting doesn't INCREASE any harm to an animal - it's coming one way or another.

Somehow a wolf killing and eating an animal for food is all part of touchy feely nature, but me doing so (having evolved to be just an animal at the top of the food chain and all - tongue in cheek) is BAD...

So out of compassion for hundreds of prey animals, I humanly kill a few top predators every year. She and her cult can be assured that the death I provide is one hundred times more humane than the death forced onto the victims of the preds a little farther down the ladder from me. Sleep easy Ceart and company, I have heard your pleas and I am selflessly reducing suffering. This spring, when I release my bow string, I will whisper your name as a prayer to guide my arrow on it's live's saving mission to the bear.

Perhaps I'll write your name on the fletches as a tribute to your caring.

Tonybear61: (how about the . what?) Please reformat your point regarding the [sic]Exter England study, I don't understand the point you are making. I've minimized interaction with you because your arguments come out as an absolute jumble. That makes them difficult to respond to. You've outright called me a lier, multiple times, which makes me disinclined to engage with you. But okay, I'll address your first post, right now, and if you have time to reformat your second post (which raises the admittedly difficult issues of conservation hunting) I'll take a crack at that, too.

"Ceart quit lying"

I'm not

", yes you do have something personally against Ms Leqve ,"

I don't

" stop lying."

I'm not.

" Hunting Polar bears (an animal far from being extinct or endangered) "

Debatable. Polar bears depend on sea ice as a platform to hunt seals The long term warming trend in spring temperatures puts them in a very precarious position, regardless of absolute numbers. I'd be against her actions even they were as common as Atlas Bears.

"is something she is proud of,"

...yeah. That's kind of my point.

" the bear was taken legally"

I haven't contested that.

" and hunting fees, other expenses helped support the locals."

I haven't contested that.

" Since you have identified yourself as a vegan, that is by choice is it not??"

Yes. Are we talking about my choice to try not to harm any sentient beings, or her vanity kill which did the opposite?

" Ms Leqve has identified herself as a hunter by choice and that is the right of both of you to do so."

She may have a legal right. I contest her moral right to needlessly end the lives of innocent beings.

" Nobody is making you a vegan, so back off unless you really know what you are talking about as far as conservation, hunters ethic, the religious aspect, what can and cannot be hunted, eaten, and CELEBRATED!! "

I object to all forms of animal cruelty. I reject the notion that an animal's life has no moral value. I reject the notion that barbaric pleasure killings like this should go unchallenged.

"Just like all human ancestors did going back about 150-180,000 years."

Do you have any idea what kind of deranged horror show we're crawling out of, historically speaking? The norms of our ancient ancestors do not constitute a suitable template for our own.

" Can you say the same about vegan, anti-hunter, folks who choose not to interact with nature at a fundamental level?? "

This is not a coherent sentence. Can I say the same what? Also, just because a person doesn't destroy nature's most splendid beings, doesn't mean she can't appreciate them.

"Do they support the conservation effort by equipment taxes, lisc. fees and personal donations as hunters and fishermen?? "

Vegans? Some do, I'm sure. Some don't. Mostly though, they try to do what all humans aught to do: no harm.

"Probably not (although there is that one Gary Larson cartoon), "

Gary Larson rocks.

"As far as any death threats made or to be made on Ms Leqve her husband, family and anyone else via internet forums, be advised terroristic threats are illegal, regardless of the person's intent to carry them out or not. Same thing for threatening a legislator who attempts to pass a bill folks don't like ( pro-gun, anti gun, anti-hunting, changes in policy, etc.) "That is: "a shameful act that diminishes all of us." So disagree but stop the micro aggression, violent overtones or personal threats please."

I have threatened no one. I've been as civil as my outrage about the subject of Leqve allows me to be. By contrast I've been called emotionally disturbed, a hideous troll with reality detachment syndrome, a nut job, spineless, a fool, an espouser of idiocy, a "sick cookie", a misguided fool, and on and on and worse.

There is no innocence in wild animals. That innocent polar bear would eat your child for lunch. Send your daughter to fill a container of water down at the river and that alligator would consume her after he was finished pulling her legs off and drowning her.

Send your husband to the next village for a cup of sugar and a pride of lions see a McDonalds neon sign flashing.

Go for a hike picking bolete mushrooms and it could end with a pack of wolves enjoying your intestines while you watch.

The world still has wild places and we as hunters still get to experience those places and we often seek those places out so we can be reminded that the wilderness is not that far removed from where we are today. We cherish our time afield and we are as wild as the animals we share the planet with.

I’d like to apologize for those that called you names.... that certainly isn’t necessary nor did it reflect well on our community as a whole....especially when you are trying to have an intelligent conversation. But , you and the Bowsite community are coming from two different worlds and your voice certainly isn’t anything any of us can comprehend. I’ve enjoyed your civilized approach but this thread is waning and of course no one’s mind has been changed. I’m still not sure why you immersed yourself in such a hostile environment. We know that there are animal rights people in the world.... but honestly ... when we are out exploring the wild corners of the world we don’t run into any.

Salad eater doesnt like that a lady killed a polar bear 6 years ago, and doesnt believe that humans need to or should hunt animals and eat their meat.

Every other person here is a hunter and salad eater chose to come here to post the distaste for what we here love to do. We have a view of what nature is and what our part in nature is which couldnt be more different than salad eater's.

Some here have had "hurt" salad eaters feelings by calling salad eater a liar and saying salad eater has some mental issues and salad eater has passive aggressively insulted us, what we believe and what we love to do.

Some here have had civil conversation with salad eater to prove our side of things, nothing of which has made a difference. NOTHING that could be said will make a difference with salad eater. Just as none of the things salad eater has said has proven or influenced anything we believe.

We just dont believe the same thing about what nature is. That obviously wont change. Time to head back to the garden, we will do our thing, you can go do yours.

Vegans do no harm? Gimme a break. The most infamous mass killer, Adolf Hitler, was a vegetarian; a fact confirmed by one of his food tasters that survived the Nazi death camps, Adam Lanza, who killed 27 people at Sandy Hook, and Nathuram Godse, who murdered Gandhi (the champion of non-violence), were also vegetarians. The association of meat eating (and hunting for that matter) with aggression and violence stems from deep rooted prejudices, fed by pseudoscientific ‘experts’ and organizations with an agenda, like PeTA. The real cause for aggression violence and destructive tendencies in human society is not so much because of food choices, but because of cultural, social, and religious influences. These are the main drivers of violence and intolerance, as is evident throughout human history. Again key is intolerance, when folks chastise good people like Michele for hunting that is intolerance. If you don't want to eat meat don't, don't want to hunt then don't . I don't want to be a vegan so I won't be just like most of the others on this thread.

That is precisely why wild game meat is usually healthier than beef and even vegetarian food. It usually escapes the pesticides, et. al. So the hunter is not washing the meat to get rid of pesticides that have been directly sprayed upon it as in wheat, rice, corn, lettce, celery, tomatoes, apples, and all the rest...And unlike beef, no antibiotics and hormones. Generally, it's about as clean and healthy as one can get although there are exceptions. And unlike cattle - deer, elk, and even bear are not harmful to the environment, indeed they may be helpful to the environment in which they co-evolved. Hunting and gathering was the ONLY long term mode of human existance that allowed our species to live in relative harmony with the planet for many tens of thousands of years. Our current mode including the one you espouse is experimental and frankly, the experiment is not going well having wrecked the world's ecosystems and brought our species to the brink of overpopulation and enironmental catastrope! You don't have long term perspective...Some of the books suggested can help rectify your ignorance, but they require bandwidth...I have no interest in hunting polar bears, or elephants for that matter but if the hunts helps these species, I wouild be in favor of it. And if you dare ask, how can killing an animal help it's species, we're done here. I'll have wasted enough time with someone who doesn't even have a clue about wildlife management and conservation.

I can tell you what will happen though - you'll be laughed at as they see through your naivete. And if your ilk come up here and try and force them to give it up, you'll quickly find a rifle pointed in your face. These people have been eating whales and other sea mammals for more than ten thousand years. They are hunters and it defines who they are. They don't care what an urbanite with a 50 year-old idea thinks. Just like the rest of us hunters.

We know who we are. You're just trying to figure something out. And it's ridiculous and flies in the face of biology.

Also, The best bowhunters wound more animals than the worst. "It is disquieting to know that we probably wound one deer for every animal harvested." - David Samuel, Bowhunter Magazine.

Ambush: I hope you don't go as far as writing my name on your hunting equipment; but the harm has been done. You've gone from engaging in productive debate, to flinging ineffective insults from the sideline. You then lowered yourself further with calls to doxx me, and now you're at the bottom, with implied threats of violence. You can go no lower, because we'll never meet. But it cheers me to imagine that you may have accidentally NLP'd yourself into thinking "Ceart_Ag_Na_Vegans" (The Vegans are right), every time you handle an arrow.

Bill Obeid: Thanks Bill. It is our capacity to choose that makes killing a moral issue. We have knowledge of good and evil. The wolf, the alligator, the lion - even the lothsome parasites hatching and squirming inside the bear - they are all entirely innocent, because they are incapable of choosing otherwise. Leqve is not.

fastflight: I will reflect upon your quote, but I do encourage you to visit a vegan website and enter the debate. www.reddit.com/r/debateavegan for example. If logic and reason are on your side, you will change a logical and reasonable person's opinion.

I know of a number of folks who have hunted decades and never lost one. Others can be reckless just like any other activity. That is one reason a lot of the special population control hunts require Bowhunters Education certificate. They go over proper shot placement tracking, etc. and a qualification to demonstrate shooting skills. The bow is a very effective hunting tool that's why its still around after 150-180,000 years.

Do you also support gay conversion therapy Vegan?

Do you really think you can change the essential, innate qualities that define a person?

I am dearly sorry you were born missing the hunter gene. You have no clue what you are missing out on.

P.S. as a natural born hunter I have absolutely zero desire to shoot a polar bear, but I don't pretend to be intellectually above those that do so I keep my mouth shut about things I don't know about.

" The longer you can keep the masses engaged the greater the chance you may have an influence on at least some of them. As long as people are still replying they are engaged. "

Sorry you may be offended..... but in all honesty I find your very presence here to talk down to a group of hunters with your touchy feely drivel is offensive. If you're going to get very far in this Troll gig you're gonna have to get some thicker skin.

You are not using logic, as logic requires facts. You are quite bereft of them, you are using opinions, feelings and false premises as facts and are refusing to recognize opposing facts when given. A disingenuous debate at best.

WE didn't go looking for YOU to harass or offend...... in fact it is normally in the nature of hunters, especially bowhunters, to be left the hell alone, they live and strive for the very definition of independence. They expect the same courtesy from others. You literally had to go out searching for us to harass. Via a 6 year old thread.

Cry your tears of offense somewhere else. You people gather in packs and very publicly attack others who have nothing to hide while you hide behind keyboards in anonymity like cowards.

If you feel you must keep digging in your hole, by all means continue. In fact, I think you should use a bigger shovel..... this has been very informative as to who it is that oppose hunting and the Disneyland fantasy world they have created and surrounded themselves with. You have lost all connection with any reality that exists outside your urban world.

And this community has been VERY tolerant . . .

I would bet a tidy sum that if I posted under an anonymous name on a Vegan board, and posted a picture of my elk steak, that I would receive death threats from those bastions of "tolerance".

Ceart accuses me of threatening violence toward her. I did not. That is the arena and M.O. of the Anti hunter. She paints all hunters with the same brush and she came here wearing the anti-hunter hat so I lump her in with all anti-hunters. She suggests that because I recommended she be doxx'ed, I mean for her to be threatened or physically harmed. Contempt would be to call her some of the names she has been called already. Here is a quote from an anti-hunter to a bear hunter:

" I'd love to riddle your f-ing body with bullets, skin you alive and put your f-ing murderous head on my wall you piece of shit!!!".

Ceart approves of this, but does not like to be called names.

And "doxxing" That would be a situation going on right now in my province where an anti-hunter tracked down a thirteen your old boy, all the way to his school and encouraged everybody to take whatever means necessary to shame and correct this evil deviant. His crime? There was a picture of him smiling during a day with his dad on his dad's part time trap line. And of course this coward hides in anonymity. Ceart approves of this.

Ceart claims that she is open to debate. More BS. When countered with any facts or science, she simply responds with "but it's a moral choice." Given enough time she will eventually get to "..I know you are, but what am I..". She claimed she wouldn't dare register here with a real name because we are "trained killers". Nothing like a little sensationalism to titillate yourself into feeling like a real soldier!

And one thing used to puzzle me about Ceart's cultist clan. I wondered, why do they always identify with lions, tigers, bears and wolves?? Why never jackals, hyenas and buzzards?? Why always the ones doing the savage killing and not the ones simply picking up the leftovers?!

It is because these are people that are incapable of interjecting themselves into life situations, either physically or intellectually. They are, by themselves, weak and ineffective and yet craving power. They enter a make believe world where they rule, they are the apex predator and they deal out justice to all those that they believe have ignored them. And, like jackals, they band together and attack.

They start bullying campaigns on line to punish people that they think can punish their targets. They don't care about collateral damage. Ceart approves of that.

They can absolutely, ruthlessly destroy lives and careers and feel totally justified because it suits their world view. Ceart approves of that.

But don't call her names, because that is "violence" and her people don't like that. It's unfair.

That picture sickens me ....just as all the maimed and dead animals that our vehicles strike every day.

I guess we should go back to riding horses to avoid all the auto deaths of animals... oh wait.... that’s cruel and unusual punishment to the horse ! Right?

Pat .... please end this !!! It’s run it’s course.

Tonybear61:

The White & Hall paper you raised is behind a paywall. Have you read it? You've declared your lack of interest in continuing the conversation, so we needn't delve into any of the hundreds of papers documenting the shocking impact of meat production on the environment. But in the study you've cited- “Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture,”White and Hall assert that agricultural GHG emissions would fall by (only) around 1/3, because although the great majority of agriculture GHG emission are from animal agriculture - there would be mountains of decaying grain if there were suddenly no animals to consume them. That's bananas. Obviously America's transition to veganism would have to be a process; not a Twilight Zone episode.

It postulates a future without animal agriculture, but where crops are still grown to feed all those billions of animals that aren't there. That is, the single most influential aspect of livestock on US agriculture: land use for feed crops- is not factored into the study.

It asserts that switching to "least-cost" plant-based diets would fail to meet the nation's nutritional requirments. Well, of course.But who would expect anything else? The study has not been well received. “[We] could yield a better nutrient profile if we do restructure the land use,” noted Joan Sabate, a nutritionist at Loma Linda University in California. Mario Herrero, an agricultural researcher at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in St. Lucia, Australia, also thinks the team’s estimate of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions may be low. That’s because the study didn’t take into account how animal-free diets would affect imports, which make up a large part of the U.S. meat market. If Americans stop importing meat, it could lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the countries that produce it, like Brazil, he says. " The Camp Ripley study is also problematic. All of the 'Successful' hunters who partook of the study had their results included. 40% of the unsuccessful hunters had their results omited. The wounding rates of this category of hunters is not included in the study's conclusion, and is enough to bring the results more in line with the wounding rates found by the 1984 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources study (54%), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Quarterly Progress Report 1947(50%)

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Quarterly Progress Report from Camp Ripley, July 15, 1959, (59%)

Causey, M.K., Kennamer, J.E., Logan, J. and Chapman, 1978 bowhunting in Alabama and South Carolina (50%)

Westcott, G. and Peyton, R.B. 1986 report for Michigan (50%)

Langenau, E.E. and Aho, R.W., 1983 Midwestern States (55%)

But I get where you're coming from. "Don’t talk to anyone about wounding animals, especially in public places or among non-hunters... If you videotape your hunts, don’t show bloody kill scenes, rough handling of animals and animals struggling, kicking or quivering as they go down, to non-hunters or anti-hunters." - Larry D. Jones Western Bowhunter Magazine 1991

" Our sport can’t stand forever in the face of growing hatred. Archers must work to counteract that sentiment and build bowhunting in a positive light. The first step should be obvious. Don’t brag about hitting and losing animals. ... There’s nothing honorable about hitting and losing an animal; it just means you screwed up. Don’t brag about it. Just shut up. " -Dwight Schuh, Bowhunting Magazine 1989

elk yinzer: I do not support gay conversion therapy, Elk. Please link or tell me more about the hunter gene.

Scoot: Where the map and fact mismatch

I will burn the map.

-Alasdair Roberts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUUko9rOw5Q)

Ambush: You're a balloon.

From personal experiences it’s pretty clear that non-vegetarians(hunters in particular) are more often at the receiving end of hostility from vegetarians, as we see throughout the comments on this subject. Reality is being denied housing, to being threatened with eviction, and being lynched, meat eaters are more vulnerable in places like India than they are violent. Some of the oldest traditional communities on earth, like the Adivasis, Aborigines, Native Americans, and Inuits practice hunting, but are remarkably peaceful and live in harmony with nature. On the other hand fervent propagators of vegetarianism, like those from the khakhi chaddi brigade are guilty of violence against fellow humans and also supportive of cruel practices like jallikatu, wherein animals are tortured just for sport and nonsensical superstitious beliefs. In fact, mass killing and brutal warfare only emerged with the birth of agriculture around 10,000 years ago. Bowhunting predates that by many, many, years....

Again if vegan antis would just read the text , take some civics lessons...

Continuing with this post is making my eyes sore, just like being poked with a sharp stick.

Haha! And somebody wishes they could be the “prick” that blows me up!!

Yes, meat production can certainly be harmful to the environment...but this is a hunting forum and wild game is part of the environment and coadapted to the environment AND usually necessary to other biotic elements of the environment. So the question really should be is hunting helpful or harmful to the animals which are hunted?

...This was the question Aldo Leopold asked in defining whether something was good or not in regard to life and the environment, Have you read his books and do you even know who he was? One of the fathers of the conservation movement and the land ethic in N. America. Just happened to be a bowhunter.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ethics-environment-focus-aldo-leopolds-land-ethic-lisa-andrews

Why don't you apply this question to the issues of crop and vegetable production in this country as well as to the world at large? You are a killer and polluter yourself and fail to acknowledge this or to the huge evironmental damages that ensue from agricultural production. It is not hunting which is producing acidification of the oceans, destruction of the rain forests, and the spreading of pesticides into the tissues of almost all humans and animals.

Most hunters on this site have paid for hundreds if not many thousands of dollars in wildlife conservation habitat thru their license fees over the years. Most vegans have donated zip to wildlife conservation and habitat. Zero, zip, nada. You seem to be totally uneducated on the subject of hunting and conservation as well.

You claim various books are on your reading list, that's great then get educated. And you might want to get the view point of the native peoples because for the most part you can be sure you will be considered to be "alienated man". Why? Are they wrong? You are pointing your finger at us but most of your fingers are really pointing back at you...

Beware the severe danger to life on earth from man's alienation from food (will you ever be responsible for a single meal in your entire life other than paying for it?).

...Beware alienated man.

Ahhhh..... the hypocrisy is strong with this one Obi-Wan......

We've been very tolerant, even after it became clear your purpose was to troll the site to harass and disrupt as much as possible. In reality we continue to be tolerant. No one has threatened anyone in any way, shape or form..... only vehemently disagreed with your positions AND your purpose for even being here. Your stated purpose is disingenuous at best.

OTOH..... the REAL darkness exists right under your nose, it is you...... and that sickness has been directed at hunters from you and yours...... not comedic labeling or jokes..... real physical threats directed at them and their family. Violent threats to human beings (I know.... you hate humans too.....) But in your hypocritical little world..... that sick disturbed action is justified. Darkness indeed..... hypocrite.....

You people are sad. You are the very definition of "none so blind as those who will not see...." Human beings eat meat, just as any other predator does. It is the vegan that is the exception to the rule, not the norm. That is an unarguable fact. There likely will never be a time where it becomes illegal to eat meat, as it is physiologically some of the best nutrition available, especially for growing minds and bodies. Again, unarguable fact. Lean wild game free of additives and chemicals..... better yet.

As long as meat is a part of the human diet, hunters will hunt. You and yours.... can go pound sand..... or gather or shop or whatever it is you do..... I couldn't care less.... just go.

A little essay from the perspective of wildlife by Paul Shepard:

A MESSAGE FROM THE OTHERS

From: The Forest, The Sea, The Desert, The Prairie

Dear Primate P. Shepard and Interested Parties:

We nurtured the humans from a time before they were in the present form. When we first drew around them they were, like all animals, secure in a modest niche. Their evident peculiarities were clearly higher primate in their obsession, social status, and personal identity. In that respect they had grown smart, subtle, and devious, committed to a syndrome of tumultuous, aseasonal, erotic, hierarchic power.

Like their nearest kin, they had elevated a certain kind of attention to a remarkable acuity which made them caring, protective, mean, and nasty in the peculiar combination of squinched facial feature and general pettiness of monkeys.

In ancient savannas we slowly teased them out of their chauvinism. In our plumage we gave them aesthetics. In our courtships we tutored them in dance. In the gestures of antlered heads we showed them ceremony and the power of the mask. In our running hooves we revealed the secret of grain. As meat we courted them from within.

As foragers, their glance shifted a little from corms and rootlets, from the incessant bickering and scuffling of their inherited social introversion. They began looking at the horizon, where some of us were both danger and greater substance.

At first it was just a nudge–food stolen from the residue of lion kills, contended for with jackals and vultures, the search for hidden newborn gazelles, slow turtles, and eggs. We gradually became for them objects of thought, of remembering, telling, planning, and puzzling us out as the mystery of energy itself.

We tutored them from the outside. Dancing us, they began to see in us performances of their ideas and feelings. We became the concreteness of their own secret selves. We ate them and were eaten by them and so taught them the first metaphor of their frantic sociality: the outerness of themselves, and ourselves as their inwardness.

As a bequest of protein we broke the incessant round of herbivorous munching, giving them leisure. This made possible the lithe repose of apprentice predation and a new meaning for rumination, freeing them from the drudgery of browsing and the grip of relentless interpersonal strife. Bringing them into omnivorousness, we transformed them forever and they entered the game as a different player.

Not that they abandoned their appetite for greens and fruits, but enlarged it to seeds and meat, and to the risky landscapes of the mind. The savanna or tundra was essential to this tutorial, as a spaciousness open to infinite strategies of pursuit and escape, stretching the senses to their most distant reference. Their thought was invited to a new kind of executorship, incorporating remembrance and planning, to parallels between themselves and the Others and to words-our names-that enabled them to share images and ideas.

Having been committed in this way, first as food and then as the imagery of a great variety of events and processes, from signs in dreams to symbols in metaphysics, we have accompanied humans ever since. Having made them human, we continue to do so individually, and now serve more and more in therapeutic ways, holding their hands, so to speak, as they kill our wildness.

As slaves we stay close. As something to “pet” and to speak to, someone to be there and need them, to be their first lesson in otherness, we have shared their homes for ten thousand years. They have made that tie a bond. From the private home we have gone out to the wounded and lonely, to those yearning for unqualified devotion–to hospitals, hospices, homes for the aged, wards of the sick, the enclaves of the handicapped and retarded, and prison.

All that is well enough, but it involves only our minimal, domesticated selves, not our wild and perfect forms. It smells of dependency.

They still do not realize that they need us, thinking that we are simply one more comfort or curiosity. We have not regained the central place in their thought or meaning at the heart of their ecology and philosophy. Too often we are merely physical reality, mindless passion and brutality, or abstract tropes and symbols.

Sometimes we have to be underhanded. We slip into their dreams, we hide in the language, disguised in allusion, we mask our philosophical role in “nature aesthetics,” we cavort to entertain. We wait in children’s books, in pretty pictures, as burlesques in cartoons, as toys, designs in the very wallpaper, as rudimentary companion or pets.

We are marginalized, trivialized. We have sunk to being objects, commodities, possessions. We remain meat and hides, but only as a due and not as sacred gifts. They have forgotten how to learn the future from us, to follow our example, to heal themselves with our tissues and organs, forgotten that just watching our wild selves can be healing. Once we were the bridges, exemplars of change, mediators with the future and the unseen.

Their own numbers leave little room for us, and in this is their great misunderstanding. They are wrong about our departure, thinking it to be a part of their progress instead of their emptying. When we have gone they will not know who they are.

Supposing themselves to be the purpose of it all, purpose will elude them. Their world will fade into an endless dusk with no whippoorwill to call the owl in the evening and no thrush to make a dawn.

–The Others

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

You have been shoveling your shallowness since March 12th and then you spew that?? You can leave at any time.

Go, but realize you counted no coup, took no scalps, nor have any trophies for your wall. Your hunt was a total failure.

Don't flatter yourself, honey.

“ I'd be okay with people consensually hunting each other”

Basically the definition of war.

Possibly humankind’s most Egregious act. I can think of a no less evolved position. If you find killing animals for food barbaric..... how can you justify killing human beings. Well, I guess I can think of a few inst instances where it’s justified

I write this with a prayer that this thread is finished and she won’t return..