Who Needs “Old Highly Endangered Black Rhinos” Anyway?

Black Rinos in Ngorongoro Crater Wiki

Black rhinos in Ngorongoro crater

The fury continues over the  endangered black rhino that Corey Knowlton paid $350,000 to slaughter in Namibia, because after all the endangered black rhino is an old guy and who needs old endangered black rhinos anyway?

Bob Barker, host of the Price is Right and passionate animal rights activist, wrote an open letter to the Dallas Safari Club, who held the auction that allowed Knowlton to purchase a permit, issued by Namibia, to murder one of less than 5000 black rhino’s left in the world. Oh but don’t forget, that rhino’s life means nothing because he’s old!

===

Bob Barker Urges Safari Club Not to Auction Off License to Kill Older Male Rhino

 For Immediate Release

January 10, 2014

Contact:
Moira Colley 202-483-7382

Dallas, Texas – As the Dallas Safari Club prepares to auction off a license to kill an endangered black rhinoceros in Namibia—a much-criticized move that the club has defended by explaining that it will preselect an animal who is “old and unable to reproduce”—TV icon Bob Barker has fired off a letter urging the club to call off the auction, writing, “As an older male myself, I must say that this seems like rather a harsh way of dealing with senior citizens.” Barker goes on to point out that killing an endangered animal for money is no way to fight poaching (that is, killing endangered animals for money).

Bob Barker’s letter to the Dallas Safari Club is available below.

Ben Carter, Executive Director
The Dallas Safari Club
13709 Gamma Rd.
Dallas, TX 75244

 Dear Mr. Carter:

I am writing to ask you to call off your planned auction of a chance to kill an endangered black rhino in Namibia. The rhino that your organization reportedly has in its crosshairs is an older “non-breeding” male who has apparently been deemed expendable. As an older male myself, I must say that this seems like a rather harsh way of dealing with senior citizens.

I can certainly sympathize with this animal’s plight (and I would think that many of your older members could as well). How many seniors have been written off simply because they have a certain number of birthdays under their belts? But just because you’re “retired” doesn’t mean you don’t have anything more to offer. In fact, I personally feel that I’ve accomplished a great deal since I quit my day job. Surely, it is presumptuous to assume that this rhino’s life is no longer of any value. What of the wisdom that he has acquired over the course of a long life? What’s the world coming to when a lifetime’s experience is considered a liability instead of an asset?

There are only about 5,000 black rhinos still alive in Africa. What kind of message does it send when we put a $1 million bounty on one of their heads? These animals are endangered for that very reason: money. What makes you any better than the poachers who kill rhinos to feed their families? At least, they are honest about their less noble motives. You try to dress up greed under the guise of “conservation.”

True conservationists are those who pay money to keep rhinos alive—in the form of highly lucrative eco-tourism—as opposed to those who pay money for the cheap thrill of taking this magnificent animal’s life and putting his head on a wall.

If you want someone’s head to go on a wall, pick mine. I will happily send you an autographed photo to auction off instead. My mug may not fetch as much money as that of a dead rhino, but at least we’ll all live to enjoy another sunrise in our sunset years.

Sincerely,

Bob Barker

For more information, please visit PETA.org.

Read more: http://www.peta.org/media/news-releases/bob-barker-urges-safari-club-auction-license-kill-older-male-rhino/#ixzz2qye3ugeT
===
Black Rhino chewing on plants Wiki

Black Rhino chewing on plants – I’m sure the critically endangered black rhino, targeted for death, would rather be doing this!

Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society, has stated if Knowlton does in fact kill the rhino, HSUS will try to block Knowlton from bringing the rhino “trophy” back to the US. That would be some justice but I think the rhino would prefer to live out the rest of his life in peace instead of being hunted and murdered.

“The Humane Society opposed the Dallas Safari Club Auction and says it plans to fight Knowlton’s efforts to bring the black rhino trophy into the United States.

If Knowlton does hunt and kill the black rhino, he’ll need a special permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to import the animal into the country under the Endangered Species Act.

Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society, wrote in an online blog post that killing one endangered animal to save the species is an “Orwellian idea” and worries that it will inspire hunters to pay millions of dollars for the chance to kill orangutans, elephants or tigers.

“Where will it end?” wrote Pacelle. “The first rule of protecting the rarest animals in the world is to protect each living member of that species.”

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/16/us/black-rhino-hunting-permit/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

===

Meanwhile, American wolves continue to be trapped, tortured and slain in the US and their deaths haven’t garnered one/thousandth the outrage  the black rhino’s plight has. Still I’m glad to see people waking up and realizing the brutality and senselessness of trophy hunting.  It’s all about respect you know. Corey Knowlton says he respects the Rhino. Yes, he respects the Rhino alright, right to his grave.

Black Rhino Skull Wiki

Corey Knowlton says he’s getting death threats and has hired a security firm for protection.  The “old endangered black rhino” should hire bodyguards too for protection, since his life is in mortal danger. It’s not fun being a hunted animal. Pot meet kettle!

===

Posted in: Trophy hunting, Slob Hunters, Animal Cruelty

Photos: Courtesy Wikipedia

Tags: Endangered Black Rhino, Trophy Hunting, Namibia, Corey Knowlton, $350,000 for a life, Dallas Safari Club, Bob Barker, PETA, Wayne Pacelli, Humane Society of the United States, animal cruelty

Stop The Euphemisms Hunters – You’re Killing Wolves Not Harvesting Turnips!

Walla Walla Pack Pup ODFW

Wolves Are Killed Not Harvested

October 11, 2013

“Sport” hunting is a brutal business. It means taking the life of an innocent animal for personal gain. The hunting industry doesn’t like the word  kill because it exposes the lie that animals die peacefully after being arrowed, shot, trapped, choked and generally tortured to death. So they sanitize the cruelty of hunting by using euphemisms to describe their evil deeds. Harvest is a favorite.

Harvest: The gathering of a ripened crop

Are wolves ripened crops to be harvested as  turnips, green onions, tomatoes, carrots, potatoes, lettuce, pumpkins, squash, bell peppers, grapes, etc? Or are wolves and other living creatures sentient beings who feel pain, who suffer, who bleed, who die?

Admit what you’re doing  killers of beauty.  You’re not harvesting anything. You’re making a conscious decision to take an innocent animal’s life. Stop sanitizing your actions. We have your number, you kill for sport. You may have the law on your side, laws that were created by people like you, who’ve turned our wildlife into “crops” but you don’t have karma on your side.  And I believe in karma, oh yes, karma can be a b@#%h!

Kill: causing or able to cause, death; destructive deadly; murder, homicide..Websters New World

To put to death;To deprive of life….The Free Dictionary

===

Hunting for Euphemisms: How We Trick Ourselves to Excuse Killing

Dec 21 2011, 8:57 AM ET

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/12/hunting-for-euphemisms-how-we-trick-ourselves-to-excuse-killing/250213/

===

Photo: Walla Walla Wolf Pup ODFW

Posted in: Wolf Wars, Animal Cruelty, Trophy Hunting

Tags: Harvest/kill, hunting/killing, euphemisms, sanitizing killing, lack of empathy, dominion, wolves aren’t crops

More Stupidity From The Fringe…..

Effects of elk overgrazing in Yellowstone

“The top photo……from a paper by Ripple and his colleague Robert Beschta, was taken in 1991; the photo below is from 2002 and illustrates the recovery of streamside cottonwoods after just seven years of wolf presence.”…Todd Palmer and Rod Pringle

October 9, 2013

Wolves are being slaughtered left and right but that’s not enough for the wolf haters. They still  find it necessary to visit this blog and spew their anti wolf dogma. The main talking points are centered around the sub species of wolf reintroduced in 95/96.  The story goes that Occidentalis is the big, bad Canadian wolf who replaced the sweet, loving Irremotus. That of course is BS. Yes, Occidentalis was the sub species reintroduced to Yellowstone and Central Idaho..but the myth that they are super wolves is absolutely ridiculous. Wolves are wolves, apex predators who are vital to healthy Eco-systems.

Unlike human hunters, who kill the strongest and genetically sound animals, wolves select out the weak, sick, old and yes sometimes the young, which  helps control ungulate populations. Wolves don’t hide behind AR-15′s, they go toe to toe with their prey, that’s fair chase. Human hunters use heavy firepower, traps, snares and every sneaky trick in the book to torture, abuse, maim and kill animals.  Trophy hunters have nothing to be proud of. NOTHING! They wouldn’t be such big, brave “hunters” if they were limited to using their bare hands. Fair chase my a@%.

Canus lupis Irremotus are very similar to Canis Lupus Occidentalis, who are a bit heavier but still both sub species are wolves. They live in packs, hunt cooperatively and put family above all else.

“Canis Lupus Irremotus…..This subspecies generally weighs 70–135 pounds (32–61 kg) and stands at 26–32 inches, making it one of the largest subspecies of the gray wolf in existence. It is a lighter colored animal than its southern brethren, the Southern Rocky Mountains wolf, with a coat that includes far more white and less black. In general, the subspecies favors lighter colors, with black mixing in among them”…..Wiki

Occidentalis has always lived on both sides of the Northern Rockies US/Canadian border, since wolves know no boundaries. Anyone who believes otherwise is living in a fantasy world.  The idea that Occidentalis is foreign to American soil is absurd. They’ve been crossing back and forth across that “border” for tens of thousands of years.

The burning question I have for the professors of wolfology is if Irremotus was loved so much, why the hell did their wolf hating forefathers try to wipe them out?  Of course  attempting to reason with the unreasonable is an exercise in futility, so I don’t expect a cogent response to that question.

The other favorite talking point of wolf haters is the Yellowstone elk herd. Wolves are accused of decimating the elk in Yellowstone, when in fact it was the feds who were killing Yellowstone elk for decades, in the wolf’s absence, due to the damage elk were wreaking in the park.

“Once the wolves were gone the elk began to take over. Over the next few years conditions of Yellowstone National Park declined drastically. A team of scientists visiting Yellowstone in 1929 and 1933 reported, “The range was in deplorable conditions when we first saw it, and its deterioration has been progressing steadily since then.” By this time many biologists were worried about eroding land and plants dying off. The elk were multiplying inside the park and deciduous, woody species such as aspen and cottonwood suffered from overgrazing. The park service started trapping and moving the elk and, when that was not effective, killing them. This killing continued for more than 30 years. This method helped the land quality from worsening, but didn’t improve the conditions. At times, people would mention bringing wolves back to Yellowstone to help control the elk population. The Yellowstone managers were not eager to bring back wolves, especially after having so successfully ridding the park of them, so they continued killing elk. In the late 1960s, local hunters began to complain to their congressmen that there were too few elk, and the congressmen threatened to stop funding Yellowstone. Killing elk was given up as a response, and then the population of the elk increased exponentially. With the rapid increase in the number of elk, the condition of the land again went quickly downhill. The destruction of the landscape affected many other animals. With the wolves gone, the population of coyotes increased dramatically, which led to an extreme decrease in the number of pronghorn antelope.However, the increase in the elk population caused the most profound change in the ecosystem of Yellowstone after the wolves were gone.”.…..Wiki

Elk numbers had swelled to over twenty thousand while wolves were away…a very bad thing for Yellowstone. As Aldo Leopold so eloquently states in Thinking Like A Mountain:

“I have lived to see state after state extirpate its wolves. I have watched the face of many a newly wolfless mountain, and seen the south-facing slopes wrinkle with a maze of new deer trails. I have seen every edible bush and seedling browsed, first to anaemic desuetude, and then to death. I have seen every edible tree defoliated to the height of a saddlehorn. Such a mountain looks as if someone had given God a new pruning shears, and forbidden Him all other exercise. In the end the starved bones of the hoped-for deer herd, dead of its own too-much, bleach with the bones of the dead sage, or molder under the high-lined junipers.

“I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer. And perhaps with better cause, for while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades. So also with cows. The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf’s job of trimming the herd to fit the range. He has not learned to think like a mountain. Hence we have dust-bowls, and rivers washing the future into the sea.”

Do your homework wolf haters and stop parroting talking points drilled into your heads by the hunting and ranching cabal.

===

ff

Submitted on 2013/07/14 at 1:17 pm | In reply to Helga Guillen.
Kill them alL!
===

Andrew Light

Submitted on 2013/08/02 at 3:37 am
You antis need to go back to high school and learn about “carrying capacity.” fuck these wolves. bet half of you didn’t know these aren’t even the same breed of wolves we once had. i hope all your pets get eaten by wolves. Trap and hunt for life, come stop me please.
====

LUNATIC OUTPOST FTW

Submitted on 2013/08/17 at 5:46 pm
who cares kill the wolves, IDGAF. stupid libtards.
===

steve

Submitted on 2013/08/28 at 7:08 pm
You guys dont have much of a clue about wolves! You need to be educated on wolves! You should look at the web site “saveelk.com”. Read the Lynn Stutter on the truth about wolves!
====

80hd

Submitted on 2013/09/03 at 11:21 am
Dispelling a myth, eh? The original wolves in Yellowstone were C. l. irremotus…. the wolves introduced were C. l. occidentalis. Guess where they came from?
====

O.
submitted on 2013/09/17 at 10:28 am | In reply to Jan.| In reply to Jan.
Dear Jan,
I have lived in the West all my life. I am dedicated to conservation and habitat improvement for all native wildlife. The Canadian Grey Wolf is not native to Idaho, Montana or Wyoming. The Rocky Mountain Wolves that were documented living here in the 1980′s and early 1990′s were scavengers and did not efficiently hunt in packs. The native wolves were solitary, except during mating season, had large territories and made very little impact on prey species within their range.

The efforts to control the exploding population if this invasive species of wolves are warranted by the respective States because they need to protect native wildlife, livestock, tourism, habitat, and a number of other issues which are more important than accommodating a Federal Government’s program to establish a feral nightmare.
It is not about killing wolves. It is about protecting our ecosystems.
Respectfully,
O.

====

Mark

Submitted on 2013/09/23 at 2:40 pm
That’s all fine and good but humans shouldn’t die so that these predators can thrive. Pure bleeding heart BS..

====

matt

Submitted on 2013/09/30 at 1:57 pm
This is the biggest hunk of shit that I have ever read. You tree hugging fucks need to get a real job! “Protecting the Wolves” from the big bad ranchers and hunters. Please!

The “reimbursements” for cattle killed in New Mexico, are still yet to be seen. Countless cattle killed on ranches and not a penny in site. Furthermore, when the average cost to introduce one of these wolves is upwards of $1 million dollars, and our tax dollars go to this bullshit rather than the present deficit that our failed president has bestowed upon our country…
Sickening

===

John

Submitted on 2013/10/06 at 3:40 pm

Thought you might like to read a response from one of the sickest part of the population. How much time do any of you spend on wildlife conservation? How many hrs per year do any of you spend on habitat renewal? I am willing to bet not as much time as your average hunter. I enjoy every second I spend in the wilderness I personally see hundreds of animals in a year. I also see the impact on the animals from over population. I see the side of nature most of you want to pretend doesn’t exist. The starving animals and the displaced wolves, coyotes, fox and others. You say its wrong to kill a coyote. Say that when you find one in your backyard about to rip your child apart. Ask a rancher how they feel about wolves. You won’t hear many say they like them.

Now onto “trophy hunting”. Trophy hunting and caged hunts are as different as night and day. Any respectable hunter would never take part in a caged hunt. Most people that do are rich wall street types that have no morals in the first place. A true Trophy hunter is not a butcher. They are men and women just like you. However they posses what some call the alpha gene. Most of these ” butchers” and “serial killers” see more animals than all of you combined. Maybe the kill one or two. They kill them because they are the oldest and largest of the type. A damn hard thing to do. Instead of blaming hunters maybe you should focus you misguided anger towards the developers. The ones who keep pushing the city further into the habitat of these animals. Believe it or not I love animals just as much if not more than most of you. I however am not afraid to get my hands bloody fixing the mess created by the non hunter. You might hand out meals at a soup kitchen. But hunters are the ones who put the meat on the plate.

===

NOBODY

Submitted on 2013/10/04 at 4:41 pm | In reply to Daniel Martinez.

I live and hunt in Wyoming. Now hear me out, I do not hate wolves and do not want them to go extinct, but wolves have killed over 50% of our elk herds near Yellowstone and have completely decimated our moose, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, and deer herds. I agree that shooting a wolf right when it exits the park is kind of unethical, and that Wyoming needs wolves in its ecosystem. The thing is, these wolf populations have to be kept in check, and hunting is a good way to do that.

===

These hateful views are represented by the hunting and ranching monopoly,  who in turn control policy makers in Washington, on both sides of the aisle. Their disinformation campaign has spread like a virus across this country and is contributing to the mass slaughter of wolves now taking place!

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

===

Why We Need Wolves In Our Parks

Todd Palmer and Rob Pringle

Posted March 20, 2009 | 12:32 AM (EST)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-palmer-and-rob-pringle/why-we-need-wolves-in-our_b_177209.html

===

Top Photo: Courtesy Huffington Post

Bottom Photo: Courtesy of Brett Havestick

Posted in: Wolf Wars, Trophy hunting, Biodiversity

Tags: Canis Lupus Occidentalis, Canis Lupus Irremotus, anti wolfers ill-informed, biodiversity, trophic cascades, Aldo Leopold, Thinking Like A Mountain, trophy hunting animal abuse, hateful rhetoric, non science based thinking, lies and damn lies.

“It Puts The Lotion In The Basket”….

buffalo bill tumblrBuffalo Bill/Silence of the Lambs

May 27, 2013

Yes, that’s the famous line uttered by the infamous serial killer, Buffalo Bill (Jame Gumm) in Silence of the Lambs.  What does he mean when he makes that statement? If you remember the movie, Gumm captures a woman he plans to kill for her skin and places her in a deep well in his house. He wants her to rub lotion on her body to make her skin softer,  so he lowers a basket containing skin lotion into the well and repeats the famous line, “It puts the lotion in the basket.” He uses the word IT when addressing her because he doesn’t see her as human, he sees her as an object, one he plans to exploit for his own sick pleasure.

He reminds me of trophy hunters who objectify their prey and see them as nothing more than targets for their sick games.  They display a sense of entitlement that is beyond arrogant, as if animals have been put on earth just to amuse them. They have no ability to comprehend the level of brutality their actions entail. Their behavior is in the minority, the vast majority of human beings abhor this cruelty and yet these “brave hunters” wield tremendous power due to the backing of wealthy and powerful pro-trophy hunting organizations, like the Safari Club International, who seem to have the ability to  influence state governments, even countries, who allow them to carry out  legalized slaughter of  innocent wild animals.

Serial killers and trophy hunters have many things in common. They kill for fun, for power and control and the  love of killing.  Most keep souvenirs taken from their victims, whether it’s skin, bone, fur or head to mount on the wall, so they can relive the seminal event, the extinguishing of a life.  They take pictures and video to document the suffering and death of their victims.  BUT although it’s absolutely illegal to kill a human being, taking the life of an innocent wild animal, in the name of sport, is a legal billion dollar industry.  There are guns to buy, ammo, camo, licenses, expensive rigs, the list goes on and on. It’s now fashionable to carry the AR-15 assault rifle to kill  innocent animals, under the guise of “hunting”.  Every year,  in North America alone, wolves, bears, mountain lions and other unfortunate animals die brutal deaths in the name of trophy hunting and that doesn’t account for the animals that can be killed on sight, no need for a license. Anyone can dispatch coyotes, foxes and bobcats any time of the day or night in many states. Wyoming wolves are also subjected  to this brutality in the newly designated  “predator zone”, which encompasses a large portion of the state. No accountability, any method of killing allowed, pups, pregnant alphas, entire packs, no matter,  as long as the killers report a wolf has been killed within ten days. Yeah,  like the majority of wackos who commit these outrageous acts will suddenly give a crap about reporting their “fun and games”.

So is there a connection between serial killing and trophy hunting? Gareth Patterson, world-renowned conservationist and champion of African lions, thinks so. What about you? It’s fairly clear isn’t it?  Sadism is alive and well.

===

Is Trophy Hunting a Form of Serial Killing? By Gareth Patterson

Lion expert and conservationist Gareth Patterson takes aim

“For me – and the many people who contact me to offer their support – killing innocent animals for self-gratification is no different from killing innocent people for self-gratification. By extension, then, trophy hunting – the repeated killing of wild animals – should surely be viewed as serial killing. And in the same moral light humanity’s thinking is, I feel, beginning to approach such a level of morality.

What are the comparisons between trophy hunting and serial killing?

To attempt to answer this question, I did some research into the gruesome subject of serial killing. I learnt firstly that serial murder is a grotesque habit which analysts regard as addictive. Serial murder, I learnt, is about power and control – both linked to the killers’ longing to “be important”.

It appears when the serial killer commits the first act of murder, he experiences feelings such as revulsion and remorse, but the killing – like a dose of highly addictive drug – leads to more and more murders until the person is stopped. Researchers have discovered that serial murderers experience a cooling-off period after a killing, but as with a drug craving, the compulsion – the need to kill – keeps building up until the killer heads out again in search of another victim.

Trophy hunters are mostly “repeat” killers. This is further fueled by elite trophy hunting competitions. It has been calculated that in order for a hunter to win these competitions in all categories at the highest level, he would have to kill at least 322 animals.

Pornography is perceived by analysts as a factor that contributes toward serial killers’ violent fantasies – particularly “bondage-type” pornography portraying domination and control over a victim.

Hunting magazines contain page after page of (a) pictures of hunters, weapon in hand, posing in dominating positions over their lifeless victims, (b) advertisements offering a huge range of trophy hunts, and (c) stories of hunters’ “exciting” experience of “near misses” and danger.

These pages no doubt titillate the hunter, fueling his own fantasies and encouraging him to plan more and more trophy hunts.

Trophy hunters often hire a camera person to film their entire hunt in the bush, including the actual moments when animals are shot and when they die. These films are made to be viewed later, presumably for self-gratification and to show to other people – again the need to feel “important”?

This could also be seen as a form of trophy which mirrors in some respect pornographic “snuff” videos known to be made by some serial killers. Other serial killers have tape-recorded the screams of their victims, which were kept for later self-gratification.

There is a strong urge to achieve perceived “heroism” in serial murderers. This is linked to the individual’s craving for “self-esteem”. Student Robert Smith, for example, who in November 1996 walked into a beauty parlour in Mesa, Arizona, and shot five women and two children in the back of the heads, said of his motivation to kill: “I wanted to become known, to get myself a name”.

Multiple killer Cari Panzram (among whose victims were six Africans he shot in the back “for fun” while working for an oil company in Africa) once stated of his actions: “I reform people”. When asked how, he replied: “By killing them”. Panzram also liked to describe himself as “the man who goes around doing good”.

The “Stockwell Strangler” of South London in the mid-1980s who told police he wanted to be famous is another example of how the serial killer clearly confuses notoriety for fame.

Are the trophy hunter’s killings linked to the serial killer’s addiction to murder, to achieve what is perceived to be heroism, to deep-rooted low self-esteem, to wanting to be famous – the “name in the trophy book”?

Certainly one could state that, like the serial killer, the trophy hunter plans his killing with considerable care and deliberation. Like the serial killer he decides well in advance the “type” of victim – i.e. which species he intends to target. Also, like the serial killer, the trophy hunter plans with great care where and how the killing will take place – in what area, with what weapon.

What the serial killer and trophy hunter also share is a compulsion to collect “trophies” or “souvenirs” of their killings. The serial killer retains certain body parts or other “trophies … for much the same reason as the big game hunter mounts the head and antlers taken from his prey … as trophies of the chase,” according to Colin Wilson and Donald Seaman in The Serial Killers, a book on the psychology of violence.

In The Serial Killers, the authors wrote about Robert Hansen, an Alaska businessman and big-game enthusiast who hunted naked prostitutes through the snow as though they were wild animals, then shot them dead. Hansen would point a gun at his victim, order her to take off all her clothes, and then order her to run. He would give his victims a “start” before stalking them. The actual act of killing his victims, Hansen once said, was an “anti-climax” and that “the excitement was in the stalking”.

How many times have I heard trophy hunters describing their actions in similar terms? “No, hunting isn’t just about killing,” they say. “It’s also about the stalk, the build-up to the kill”.

Hansen was a trophy hunter, who, according to Wilson and Seaman, had achieved “celebrity by killing a Dall sheep with a crossbow”. He also trophy hunted women but, as a married man with a family, he couldn’t put his human trophies next to those elk antlers and bear skins in his den.

As an alternative, Hansen, it was revealed, took items of jewellery from his victims as “trophies” and hid these in his loft so that, as with his animal trophies, he, the hunter, could relive his fantasy-inspired killings whenever he wished to.

According to Wilson and Seaman, Jack the Ripper cut off one victim’s nose and breasts and “as if they were trophies, displayed them on a bedside table, together with strips of flesh carved from her thighs”.

Jewellery, body parts, clothing such as underwear and so on, are all known “trophies” of the serial killer. One serial killer flayed his victim and made a waistcoat from the skin as a “souvenir” or “trophy”.

What could the non-hunting wives, girlfriends, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and children reveal of the nature and behavior of a hunter in the family? Could they reveal that the hunter had a very disturbed childhood?

Almost half the serial killers analyzed during behavioral research were found to have been sexually abused in childhood. Environmental problems early in life manifest in many cases in violence such as cruelty to animals. Maybe they have a frustrated craving for “self-esteem”, a deep desire to be recognized, a resentment against society? All these factors are some of the known links to the profile of the serial killer.

Lastly, serial killing has been described as a “20th-Century phenomenon”. The same could be said of Western trophy hunting in Africa.”

http://www.bushdrums.com/index.php/forum/topic/574-is-trophy-hunting-a-form-of-serial-killing-by-g-patterson

Sick canned lion hunt in South Africa

The killers drive a pick-up truck inside a tame lioness’ enclosure and kill her with a high-powered bow and arrow.”

===

Photo: Courtesy tumblr

Video: Courtesy YouTube stopmadnessable

Posted in: Wolf Wars, Animal Cruelty, Trophy Hunting

Tags: trophy hunting/serial killing connection, legalized brutality, not a sport, animal suffering, power and control, low self-esteem, culture wars, Gareth Patterson,  canned hunts African lions, cowardly acts

Wolf Rally – Coeur d’Alene, Idaho (August 30, 2012)

Published on Sep 13, 2012 by

“One year after wolves lost federal protection, over 40% of the wolf population has been killed by trophy hunters and trappers in Idaho and Montana. A total of 545 wolves were killed for fun in these two Northern Rocky states. Watch this video to learn more about wolves and help stop the war on wildlife.

“Watch the story of Bella, a husky who lost her leg in a snare that was set in Idaho by a trapper from Wildlife Services at this link:”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxMlQA3V6A0&feature=relmfu

===

Special thanks to Predator Defense, Northern Idaho Wolf Alliance, Friends of the Clearwater, Footloose Montana and all dedicated wolf advocates who made this rally a success. The rally was well covered by the media and made the Los Angeles Times, my good friend Ann Sydow (NIWA) was mentioned in the LA Times article.

It’s our hope this video, produced by Brooks Fahy of Predator Defense, will inspire you to hold your own rally in defense of wolves. They need our voices to save them from brutal state kill/management. While I type this wolves are being bow hunted in Montana and stalked in Idaho. In Montana an 83 pound male wolf was killed outside of Glacier National Park in the North Fork of the Flathead, arrowed to death. It made the front page of the Hungry Horse News ( a weekly Montana newspaper in the Flathead Valley.)

===

C-Falls bowhunter takes wolf

Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 8:15 am By CHRIS PETERSON Hungry Horse News |

http://www.flatheadnewsgroup.com/hungryhorsenews/article_464a30b6-fce4-11e1-9b89-0019bb2963f4.html

===

Our wolves have been hijacked for blood sport. The wolf reintroduction has turned from a success story into a nightmare, thanks to the Obama Administration, his rancher Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and the US Senate Democrats, led by Harry Reid D-Nevada. They sold wolves out in the Northern Rockies to boost Sen. Jon Tester D-MT chances of re-election and hold onto their slim Senate majority.

During the contentious budget battle of Spring 2011,  Senator Tester slipped a wolf delisting rider, that prohibits judicial review, into a must pass budget bill. Every Senate Democrat voted for it save three, Wyden, Leahy and Levin.  The very same Democrats who pretend to be  supporters of the ESA weakened it, by stripping wolves of their Endangered Species protections and turning them over to hostile state management, all for a few votes.

To add insult to injury the USFWS under the Obama administration delisted wolves in the Great Lakes (Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin). Minnesota and Wisconsin immediately planned wolf hunts for 2012/2013 but the Wisconsin hunt was challenged in court. Judge Anderson granted an injunction to stop the hunt because Wisconsin wanted to allow hunters to use up to six dogs to hunt to wolves to their deaths.  A Michigan state representative has introduced legislation to allowing wolf hunting. This is the dire situation wolves find themselves in. Wyoming is planning to allow wolves to be shot-on- sight in 80% of the state,  as of October 1, 2012 but faces legal challenges from two coalitions of environmental groups.

Please remember on November 6, 2012 what the US Senate Democrats did to betray wolves. If your Senator is not Wyden, Leahy or Levin  vote them out of office.  We cannot allow politicians to play fast and loose with our wildlife.

===

Wolves not endangered in Rockies? Activists arm for fight

By Kim Murphy

September 4, 2012, 5:38 p.m

On Aug. 30, activists held a rally in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, to memorialize the more than 540 wolves killed in Idaho and Montana wolf hunts since the species was removed from the endangered list in those states in 2011. Last year’s tally in Idaho alone was 379 wolves — not counting wolves killed by government wildlife agents seeking to prevent livestock predations.

“Of the 379 wolves killed in last year’s hunt, 40 were puppies, 56 suffered in leg-hold traps before being killed, and another 67 choked to death in snares,” Ann Sydow of the Northern Idaho Wolf Alliance, one of six organizations sponsoring the rally, said in a statement.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-wyoming-wolves-20120904,0,2035222.story 

===

Video: Courtesy Brooks Fahy

Photo: Courtesy Hungry Horse News

Tags: Wolf Rally Coeur d’Alene Idaho, Predator Defense, NIWA, Friends of the Clearwater, Footloose Montana, trapping, wolf slaughter, Hungry Horse News,  Montana wolf hunt, Idaho wolf hunt

Montana FWP Commissioners, Say NO To Trapping Wolves!!

Don’t do it! Don’t become Idaho! Montana has two national treasures in the state where wolves roam, north Yellowstone (where most park wolves call home ) and Glacier National Park. Why would you be willing to put those fragile populations of wolves at risk? It’s bad enough wolves are being hunted in Montana in the first place but to add trapping as a weapon against such  a small population of wolves, in the third largest state in the lower 48 , is madness!!

Don’t listen to the radical fringe who think the only good wolf is a dead wolf. You forget wildlife watchers in Montana and around the world who want to view wild wolves. You only have to look to Yellowstone, where wolves generate 35 million dollars annualy to the GYA. Wolves are the rock stars of Yellowstone, the animals most people want to see.  By allowing trapping you will certainly put the wolves of Yellowstone and Glacier National park at terrible risk. Yellowstone wolves are habituated to humans. Remember the Cottonwood Pack disaster? Can you imagine the carnage when hunters start laying traps right outside the borders of Yellowstone, where wolves routinely cross over to hunt?

 Don’t go the way of Idaho, whose reputation has taken a huge hit because of the state’s cruelty directed at wolves.

There is no wolf crisis!! Only one dreamed up in the heads of the wolf hating zealots. Elk numbers have been @ 150,000 in Montana since 2009.  Livestock losses to wolves are miniscule.  Ed Bangs (retired USFWS Wolf Recovery Coordinator) recently stated  “To the livestock industry, wolf losses are so small, you can’t even measure them.” 

So why the heavy hand? Why the persecution? You know the truth and you know trapping is barbaric, cruel and completely unnecessary. Do the right thing! DO NOT APPROVE the trapping of wolves in Montana.

The FWP Commission begins at 8:30 a.m. Thursday in Helena at the Montana Wild Education Center, 2668 Broadwater Ave., west of Helena near Spring Meadow Lake State Park.

Be there to support wolves and say no to trapping them!!

====

Wolf trapping: It’s like traditional stoning

I was reading the article this morning regarding the large number of comments about proposed changes to wolf hunting and trapping. I remembered a guy explaining to me awhile back about how the “old timers” go about trapping wolves.

“First ya take yerself a piece of cable and fray it so’s that the broken strands are a pointin up. Then you hang the other end a yer cable in a tree so’s that the frayed end is far enough off of the ground so’s a wolf gotta jump to git to it. Then you put yerself some bait on the frayed end of the cable and when the wolf jumps up to get it his mouth becomes hooked on the barbs and he hangs there til he’s dead.”

Yep, that’s just part of our good old Montana heritage. When can we expect the traditional stoning to begin?

Jim Rolando, Missoula

http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/mailbag/wolf-trapping-it-s-like-traditional-stoning/article_f4f0c2da-cb5f-11e1-a7b0-0019bb2963f4.html

===

I definitely don’t agree with the Missoulian that wolf hunting is necessary but I applaud the editorial staff for taking a stand against  trapping wolves.

Wolf trapping is cruel and unnecessary

Missoulian Editorial

July 11, 2012

http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/editorial/wolf-trapping-is-cruel-and-unnecessary/article_febd699c-cb61-11e1-9e72-0019bb2963f4.html 

===

The Ugly Face Of Wolf Trapping and Snaring

Warning Graphic Videos

===

Photo: Courtesy All Creatures

Videos: YouTube

Posted in: Wolf Wars, Trapping Cruelty, Trophy Hunting

Tags: Montana FWP, say no to trapping wolves, Helena Meeting July 12, stand up for wolves

“It’s Survival of the Weak and Scrawny”….


“Elephants are highly prized among trophy hunters who can pay £10,000 (approx.$16,500) or more for a kill.”

It turns out hunting animals may be more harmful than we thought,  especially trophy hunting.  It could be causing a kind of backward evolution, because the largest and most impressive animals, “prized” by hunters, are diminishing in some species, leading to a reduction in  size and other disturbing changes in the remaining animals.  In other words, the more robust members of certain species are disappearing, not by the process of “natural selection” but by hunting pressure. It’s as if hunters are selectively breeding animals in the wild by killing off the “trophy” animals, leaving the smaller and weaker individuals to breed.

Big horned sheep rams in Alberta, Canada have experienced a 25% decrease in horn size over the last thirty years. Being larger, with huge horns makes them a target for trophy hunters. It then follows the smaller sheep with less impressive horns, have more mating chances.

“Hunters frequently compare their role in the ecosystem to that of natural predators, some of which are disappearing throughout the world. The problem with that analogy is that, unlike hunters, natural predators target the small, the weak, and the sick. Hunters, on the other hand, tend to target the largest, strongest individuals with the largest hides, horns, tusks or antlers.”

It’s not just Big Horned sheep, elephants are also changing.

“Tusks used to make elephants fitter, as a weapon or a tool in foraging—until ivory became a precious commodity and having tusks got you killed. Then tuskless elephants, products of a genetic fluke, became the more consistent breeders and grew from around 2 percent among African elephants to more than 38 percent in one Zambian population, and 98 percent in a South African one. In Asia, where female elephants don’t have tusks to begin with, the proportion of tuskless elephants has more than doubled, to more than 90 percent in Sri Lanka. But there’s a cost to not having tusks. Tusked elephants, like the old dominant males on Ram Mountain, were “genetically ‘better’ individuals,” says Festa-Bianchet. “When you take them systematically out of the population for several years, you end up leaving essentially a bunch of losers doing the breeding.”

The effects that are taking place are difficult to link solely to hunting pressure @ this early stage because evolutionary changes happen so slowly but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist or hundreds of years of evolution to observe what’s happening.  Trophy hunters target the “biggest and the best”, therefore there are fewer of these alpha animals to pass on their genetics.

 The solution is to err on the side of caution and ban trophy hunting entirely. It’s a cruel and heartless enterprise, there would be no down side to freeing animals from this torture.  It doesn’t belong in a civilized society and should  be eliminated for purely ethical reasons BUT if it’s actually upsetting the natural process and weakening animal species, then all the more reason to rid the world of it.

A 2009 Newsweek article explains it all. Hunters not only don’t play the same positive  role as apex predators, like the wolf and grizzly bear but may be the cause of a deadly reverse evolution.

It’s Survival of the Weak and Scrawny

Jan 2, 2009 7:00 PM EST

Researchers see ‘evolution in reverse’ as hunters kill off prized animals with the biggest antlers and pelts.

Some of the most iconic photographs of Teddy Roosevelt, one of the first conservationists in American politics, show the president posing companionably with the prizes of his trophy hunts. An elephant felled in Africa in 1909 points its tusks skyward; a Cape buffalo, crowned with horns in the shape of a handlebar mustache, slumps in a Kenyan swamp. In North America, he stalked deer, pronghorn antelope, bighorn sheep and elk, which he called “lordly game” for their majestic antlers. What’s remarkable about these photographs is not that they depict a hunter who was also naturalist John Muir’s staunchest political ally. It’s that just 100 years after his expeditions, many of the kind of magnificent trophies he routinely captured are becoming rare.

Elk still range across parts of North America, but every hunting season brings a greater challenge to find the sought-after bull with a towering spread of antlers. Africa and Asia still have elephants, but Roosevelt would have regarded most of them as freaks, because they don’t have tusks. Researchers describe what’s happening as none other than the selection process that Darwin made famous: the fittest of a species survive to reproduce and pass along their traits to succeeding generations, while the traits of the unfit gradually disappear. Selective hunting—picking out individuals with the best horns or antlers, or the largest piece of hide—works in reverse: the evolutionary loser is not the small and defenseless, but the biggest and best-equipped to win mates or fend off attackers.

When hunting is severe enough to outstrip other threats to survival, the unsought, middling individuals make out better than the alpha animals, and the species changes. “Survival of the fittest” is still the rule, but the “fit” begin to look unlike what you might expect. And looks aren’t the only things changing: behavior adapts too, from how hunted animals act to how they reproduce. There’s nothing wrong with a species getting molded over time by new kinds of risk. But some experts believe problems arise when these changes make no evolutionary sense.

Ram Mountain in Alberta, Canada, is home to a population of bighorn sheep, whose most vulnerable individuals are males with thick, curving horns that give them a regal, Princess Leia look. In the course of 30 years of study, biologist Marco Festa-Bianchet of the University of Sherbrooke in Quebec found a roughly 25 percent decline in the size of these horns, and both male and female sheep getting smaller. There’s no mystery on Ram Mountain: male sheep with big horns tend to be larger and produce larger offspring. During the fall rut, or breeding season, these alpha rams mate more than any other males, by winning fights or thwarting other males’ access to their ewes. Their success, however, is contingent upon their surviving the two-month hunting season just before the rut, and in a strange way, they’re competing against their horns. Around the age of 4, their horn size makes them legal game—several years before their reproductive peak. That means smaller-horned males get far more opportunity to mate.

Other species are shrinking, too. Australia’s red kangaroo has become noticeably smaller as poachers target the largest animals for leather. The phenomenon has been most apparent in harvested fish: since fishing nets began capturing only fish of sufficient size in the 1980s, the Atlantic cod and salmon, several flounders and the northern pike have all propagated in miniature.

So what if fish or kangaroos are smaller? If being smaller is safer, this might be a successful adaptation for a hunted species. After all, ” ‘fitness’ is relative and transitory,” says Columbia University biologist Don Melnick, meaning that Darwinian natural selection has nothing to do with what’s good or bad, or the way things should be.

Read more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/01/02/it-s-survival-of-the-weak-and-scrawny.html

“In the Shadows of the Congo Basin Forest, Elephants Fall to the Illegal Ivory Trade”

===
Top Photo: Christophe Morio/Africahunting
===
Bottom Photo: Wikimedia Commons
===
Posted in: Trophy Hunting
===
Tags: Hunting pressure, species evolution in reverse, small is better, hunted animals, damage done by trophy hunting

We Want Justice For Polar Bears Too!!

This petition , created by my friend Linda Camac, sheds light on the brutal slaying of a magnificent polar bear. Chased by dogs until exhaustion, shot full of arrows, he finally succumbs. And as per usual we have the gruesome photo of the trophy hunter grinning over the corpse of their victim.  This outrage was carried out by a Delta Airline’s Hostess named Michelle Leqve. Please read and sign this petition to show your utter disgust over the barbaric killing of this majestic animal.

Click here to read “the story” behind the brutal slaying of this polar bear.  Be warned it is NOT easy to read!!

===

About the Petition

Why This Is Important

“Scientists say polar bears are on the fast track to extinction due to climate change. The satellite photos are indisputable that every year the Arctic sea freezes less, and polar bears must hunt on solid ice. The bears are forced to swim to ice floes that are too few and very far between; in this quest many drown with their cubs. It is predicted that within 15-20 years the polar bear will be no more.
Yet Ms. Michelle Leqve, airline hostess for Delta airlines, finds pushing a member of an endangered species toward extinction not to be a problem. This bear was chased for days, to the point of exhaustion by her team of dogs. Finally the bear stopped running and tried to hold the dogs at bay as they attacked him. During the attack Ms. Leqve pierced this poor bear to death with arrows. As you can see she is very proud to be the first woman to kill a polar bear with a high-powered bow; one of her goals is to attract the attention of Sarah Palin. The beautiful terrified and tortured bear now stands in a doorway of a business in Canada.
This kind of despicable act is truly a black eye for Delta Airlines who employ a person of this caliber.  For the bear who suffered a horrific death for ego, glory”, money and/or attention – please sign.”

 CLICK HERE TO SIGN

===

Polar Bears Sow and cub (Ursus maritimus) in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska.

This is how Polar bears should look, wild and free, not laying on the ice  dead with a trophy hunter grinning over their corpse.

===

Top Photo: Petition Change.org

Bottom Photo: Courtesy Wikimedia Commons, Author Alan D. Wilson

Tags: Animal cruelty, chasing bears with dogs, trophy cruelty  hunting, animal suffering, Polar bear, Delta Airlines

Posted in: Animal Cruelty, Trophy Hunting, Activism

 

“It’s Survival of the Weak and Scrawny”….


“Elephants are highly prized among trophy hunters who can pay £10,000 (approx.$16,500) or more for a kill.”

It turns out hunting animals may be more harmful than we thought,  especially trophy hunting.  It could be causing a kind of backward evolution, because the largest and most impressive animals, “prized” by hunters, are diminishing in some species, leading to a reduction in  size and other disturbing changes in the remaining animals.  In other words, the more robust members of certain species are disappearing, not by the process of “natural selection” but by hunting pressure. It’s as if hunters are selectively breeding animals in the wild by killing off the “trophy” animals, leaving the smaller and weaker individuals to breed.

Big horned sheep rams in Alberta, Canada have experienced a 25% decrease in horn size over the last thirty years. Being larger, with huge horns makes them a target for trophy hunters. It then follows the smaller sheep with less impressive horns, have more mating chances.

“Hunters frequently compare their role in the ecosystem to that of natural predators, some of which are disappearing throughout the world. The problem with that analogy is that, unlike hunters, natural predators target the small, the weak, and the sick. Hunters, on the other hand, tend to target the largest, strongest individuals with the largest hides, horns, tusks or antlers.”

It’s not just Big Horned sheep, elephants are also changing.

“Tusks used to make elephants fitter, as a weapon or a tool in foraging—until ivory became a precious commodity and having tusks got you killed. Then tuskless elephants, products of a genetic fluke, became the more consistent breeders and grew from around 2 percent among African elephants to more than 38 percent in one Zambian population, and 98 percent in a South African one. In Asia, where female elephants don’t have tusks to begin with, the proportion of tuskless elephants has more than doubled, to more than 90 percent in Sri Lanka. But there’s a cost to not having tusks. Tusked elephants, like the old dominant males on Ram Mountain, were “genetically ‘better’ individuals,” says Festa-Bianchet. “When you take them systematically out of the population for several years, you end up leaving essentially a bunch of losers doing the breeding.”

The effects that are taking place are difficult to link solely to hunting pressure @ this early stage because evolutionary changes happen so slowly but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist or hundreds of years of evolution to observe what’s happening.  Trophy hunters target the “biggest and the best”, therefore there are fewer of these alpha animals to pass on their genetics.

 The solution is to err on the side of caution and ban trophy hunting entirely. It’s a cruel and heartless enterprise, there would be no down side to freeing animals from this torture.  It doesn’t belong in a civilized society and should  be eliminated for purely ethical reasons BUT if it’s actually upsetting the natural process and weakening animal species, then all the more reason to rid the world of it.

A 2009 Newsweek article explains it all. Hunters not only don’t play the same positive  role as apex predators, like the wolf and grizzly bear but may be the cause of a deadly reverse evolution.

It’s Survival of the Weak and Scrawny

Jan 2, 2009 7:00 PM EST

Researchers see ‘evolution in reverse’ as hunters kill off prized animals with the biggest antlers and pelts.

Some of the most iconic photographs of Teddy Roosevelt, one of the first conservationists in American politics, show the president posing companionably with the prizes of his trophy hunts. An elephant felled in Africa in 1909 points its tusks skyward; a Cape buffalo, crowned with horns in the shape of a handlebar mustache, slumps in a Kenyan swamp. In North America, he stalked deer, pronghorn antelope, bighorn sheep and elk, which he called “lordly game” for their majestic antlers. What’s remarkable about these photographs is not that they depict a hunter who was also naturalist John Muir’s staunchest political ally. It’s that just 100 years after his expeditions, many of the kind of magnificent trophies he routinely captured are becoming rare.

Elk still range across parts of North America, but every hunting season brings a greater challenge to find the sought-after bull with a towering spread of antlers. Africa and Asia still have elephants, but Roosevelt would have regarded most of them as freaks, because they don’t have tusks. Researchers describe what’s happening as none other than the selection process that Darwin made famous: the fittest of a species survive to reproduce and pass along their traits to succeeding generations, while the traits of the unfit gradually disappear. Selective hunting—picking out individuals with the best horns or antlers, or the largest piece of hide—works in reverse: the evolutionary loser is not the small and defenseless, but the biggest and best-equipped to win mates or fend off attackers.

When hunting is severe enough to outstrip other threats to survival, the unsought, middling individuals make out better than the alpha animals, and the species changes. “Survival of the fittest” is still the rule, but the “fit” begin to look unlike what you might expect. And looks aren’t the only things changing: behavior adapts too, from how hunted animals act to how they reproduce. There’s nothing wrong with a species getting molded over time by new kinds of risk. But some experts believe problems arise when these changes make no evolutionary sense.

Ram Mountain in Alberta, Canada, is home to a population of bighorn sheep, whose most vulnerable individuals are males with thick, curving horns that give them a regal, Princess Leia look. In the course of 30 years of study, biologist Marco Festa-Bianchet of the University of Sherbrooke in Quebec found a roughly 25 percent decline in the size of these horns, and both male and female sheep getting smaller. There’s no mystery on Ram Mountain: male sheep with big horns tend to be larger and produce larger offspring. During the fall rut, or breeding season, these alpha rams mate more than any other males, by winning fights or thwarting other males’ access to their ewes. Their success, however, is contingent upon their surviving the two-month hunting season just before the rut, and in a strange way, they’re competing against their horns. Around the age of 4, their horn size makes them legal game—several years before their reproductive peak. That means smaller-horned males get far more opportunity to mate.

Other species are shrinking, too. Australia’s red kangaroo has become noticeably smaller as poachers target the largest animals for leather. The phenomenon has been most apparent in harvested fish: since fishing nets began capturing only fish of sufficient size in the 1980s, the Atlantic cod and salmon, several flounders and the northern pike have all propagated in miniature.

So what if fish or kangaroos are smaller? If being smaller is safer, this might be a successful adaptation for a hunted species. After all, ” ‘fitness’ is relative and transitory,” says Columbia University biologist Don Melnick, meaning that Darwinian natural selection has nothing to do with what’s good or bad, or the way things should be.

Read more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/01/02/it-s-survival-of-the-weak-and-scrawny.html

“In the Shadows of the Congo Basin Forest, Elephants Fall to the Illegal Ivory Trade”

===
Top Photo: Christophe Morio/africahunting
===
Bottom Photo: Wikimedia Commons
===
Posted in: Trophy Hunting
===
Tags: Hunting pressure, species evolution in reverse, small is better, hunted animals, damage done by trophy hunting

Trophy Hunting, Legalized Animal Cruelty….

Trophy hunting is nothing more than animal cruelty couched as a “sport”. There is nothing sporting about it.

Wolves are being subjected to trophy hunts in the Northern Rockies as I type this. The death toll continues to climb in Idaho, a state that’s declared war on its wolves, along with Montana  and Wyoming.

To understand the brutality of trophy hunting just peruse YouTube to see video after video of trophy hunters displaying their sad corpses, while they “lord over them”, grinning  like Cheshire cats. It’s bone chilling.

Trophy hunting  exists because it’s a billion dollar world wide industry, blood money generated off animal deaths.  A macabre killing game, costing millions of  innocent animals their lives. Game farms in South Africa raise tame lions to be killed in “canned hunts”, the most disgusting form of trophy hunting.

In his famous 1999 article, African lion advocate and wildlife researcher, Gareth Patterson,  examines the  connection between trophy hunting and serial killing.

===

Is Trophy Hunting a Form of Serial Killing?

By Gareth Patterson

For me – and the many people who contact me to offer their support – killing innocent animals for self-gratification is no different from killing innocent people for self-gratification. By extension, then, trophy hunting – the repeated killing of wild animals – should surely be viewed as serial killing. And in the same moral light humanity’s thinking is, I feel, beginning to approach such a level of morality.

What are the comparisons between trophy hunting and serial killing?

To attempt to answer this question, I did some research into the gruesome subject of serial killing. I learnt firstly that serial murder is a grotesque habit which analysts regard as addictive. Serial murder, I learnt, is about power and control – both linked to the killers’ longing to “be important”.

It appears when the serial killer commits the first act of murder, he experiences feelings such as revulsion and remorse, but the killing – like a dose of highly addictive drug – leads to more and more murders until the person is stopped. Researchers have discovered that serial murderers experience a cooling-off period after a killing, but as with a drug craving, the compulsion – the need to kill – keeps building up until the killer heads out again in search of another victim.

Trophy hunters are mostly “repeat” killers. This is further fuelled by elite trophy hunting competitions. It has been calculated that in order for a hunter to win these competitions in all categories at the highest level, he would have to kill at least 322 animals.

Pornography is perceived by analysts as a factor that contributes toward serial killers’ violent fantasies – particularly “bondage-type” pornography portraying domination and control over a victim.

Hunting magazines contain page after page of (a) pictures of hunters, weapon in hand, posing in dominating positions over their lifeless victims, (b) advertisements offering a huge range of trophy hunts, and (c) stories of hunters’ “exciting” experience of “near misses” and danger.

These pages no doubt titillate the hunter, fuelling his own fantasies and encouraging him to plan more and more trophy hunts.

Trophy hunters often hire a cameraperson to film their entire hunt in the bush, including the actual moments when animals are shot and when they die. These films are made to be viewed later, presumably for self-gratification and to show to other people – again the need to feel “important”?

This could also be seen as a form of trophy which mirrors in some respect pornographic “snuff” videos known to be made by some serial killers. Other serial killers have tape-recorded the screams of their victims, which were kept for later self-gratification.

There is a strong urge to achieve perceived “heroism” in serial murderers. This is linked to the individual’s craving for “self-esteem”. Student Robert Smith, for example, who in November 1996 walked into a beauty parlour in Mesa, Arizona, and shot five women and two children in the back of the heads, said of his motivation to kill: “I wanted to become known, to get myself a name”.

Multiple killer Cari Panzram (among whose victims were six Africans he shot in the back “for fun” while working for an oil company in Africa) once stated of his actions: “I reform people”. When asked how, he replied: “By killing them”. Panzram also liked to describe himself as “the man who goes around doing good”.

The “Stockwell Strangler” of South London in the mid-1980s who told police he wanted to be famous is another example of how the serial killer clearly confuses notoriety for fame.

Are the trophy hunter’s killings linked to the serial killer’s addiction to murder, to achieve what is perceived to be heroism, to deep-rooted low self-esteem, to wanting to be famous – the “name in the trophy book”?

Certainly one could state that, like the serial killer, the trophy hunter plans his killing with considerable care and deliberation. Like the serial killer he decides well in advance the “type” of victim – i.e. which species he intends to target. Also, like the serial killer, the trophy hunter plans with great care where and how the killing will take place – in what area, with what weapon.

What the serial killer and trophy hunter also share is a compulsion to collect “trophies” or “souvenirs” of their killings. The serial killer retains certain body parts or other “trophies … for much the same reason as the big game hunter mounts the head and antlers taken from his prey … as trophies of the chase,” according to Colin Wilson and Donald Seaman in The Serial Killers, a book on the psychology of violence.

In The Serial Killers, the authors wrote about Robert Hansen, an Alaska businessman and big-game enthusiast who hunted naked prostitutes through the snow as though they were wild animals, then shot them dead. Hansen would point a gun at his victim, order her to take off all her clothes, and then order her to run. He would give his victims a “start” before stalking them. The actual act of killing his victims, Hansen once said, was an “anti-climax” and that “the excitement was in the stalking”.

How many times have I heard trophy hunters describing their actions in similar terms? “No, hunting isn’t just about killing,” they say. “It’s also about the stalk, the build-up to the kill”.

Hansen was a trophy hunter, who, according to Wilson and Seaman, had achieved “celebrity by killing a Dall sheep with a crossbow”. He also trophy hunted women but, as a married man with a family, he couldn’t put his human trophies next to those elk antlers and bear skins in his den.

As an alternative, Hansen, it was revealed, took items of jewellery from his victims as “trophies” and hid these in his loft so that, as with his animal trophies, he, the hunter, could relive his fantasy-inspired killings whenever he wished to.

According to Wilson and Seaman, Jack the Ripper cut off one victim’s nose and breasts and “as if they were trophies, displayed them on a bedside table, together with strips of flesh carved from her thighs”.

Jewellery, body parts, clothing such as underwear and so on, are all known “trophies” of the serial killer. One serial killer flayed his victim and made a waistcoat from the skin as a “souvenir” or “trophy”.

What could the non-hunting wives, girlfriends, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and children reveal of the nature and behaviour of a hunter in the family? Could they reveal that the hunter had a very disturbed childhood?

Almost half the serial killers analysed during behavioural research were found to have been sexually abused in childhood. Environmental problems early in life manifest in many cases in violence such as cruelty to animals. Maybe they have a frustrated craving for “self-esteem”, a deep desire to be recognized, a resentment against society? All these factors are some of the known links to the profile of the serial killer.

Lastly, serial killing has been described as a “20th-Century phenomenon”. The same could be said of Western trophy hunting in Africa.

From The Authors Website:

“My name is Gareth Patterson, known to some as ‘ The Lion Man of Africa.’ I have dedicated the past 25 years of my life to the preservation of the African lion. Shockingly, in those past 25 years, Africa has lost 90% of its lion population. Today it is estimated that only 20,000 lions grace the entire African continent. The lion is now very endangered. Despite this, international trophy hunters come to Africa to kill lions for so-called “sport.” In South Africa lions are bred in captivity to be shot in enclosed spaces by these trophy hunters. This sordid practice is known as “canned lion hunting.” This song is about the story of one lioness, the Dark Lioness, who was killed under these horrible circumstances. We must act now to save the African lion. Anouschka and I have collaborated to produce this song in an attempted to created new awareness to a new audience about the plight of the lion. Thank you very much for your support.”

http://www.garethpatterson.com/index.html

===

The Horrible Life and Death of Lions Raised For Canned Hunts

Warning, graphic video

===

Photo: Courtesy Jamie Kripke / Getty Images

Posted in: Trophy Hunting

Tags: ban trophy hunting, killing for sport, wolves suffering, mercy for animals, Gareth Patterson, decimation of African lions

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,402 other followers

%d bloggers like this: