My Daughter The Anti Hunter

I was siting talking to my aunt. The conversation moved on to deer stalking, a sharp pain in my side announced that my daughter [TLB - the littlest bushwacker] was joining the conversation using Full-Contact Sign Language.

TLB: "Daddy STOP killing animals"
SBW: "You liked the venison we ate at Christmas, you didn't complain then"
TLB: " I know daddy, I wanted to say something, but it was so delicious!"

More soon
Your pal
SBW

Spencer Angeltvedt: Dishonest or Stupid?

"It inspires me everyday knowing that paris hilton tweeted and follows me!"

Spencer Angeltvedt

I've recently been contacted by a young man whose opinions are both strongly held and weakly thought out, and it would apear I'm not the only one. All kinds of people are welcome guests on the comments section of this blog, some of you I'm broadly in agreement with, some of you hold dear opinions which I feel are erm, less than well thought out, but its usually interesting to hear what you have to say and hopefully by exposing myself to the learnings and opinions of others I'll expand my own thinking. Hopefully.

Enter Spencer Angeltvedt actor, model and blogger. I too was young good looking and stupid once, time took care of young and good looking, stupid has been, if not cured, put into remission by engaging in debate.

Spencer was bold enough to write a comment on my blog post about Andy Richardson's goose hunting video, claiming he had stumbled across the video and been upset by its content.

Offence isn't given its taken

If you see a blog post that is titled with the words 'Goose Hunting' is reasonable to surmise that it'll contain content about the hunting of geese, right? Seeing as Spencer had taken the trouble to start a conversation with me I felt it would only be a matter of common courtesy to read some of his writing and respond. What a treat awaited me. In his post Do Hunter's Love Animals? Spencer treats us to a glimpse into the depths shallows of his thinking

'Well until I hear a hunter say he/she is going to track down the sickest and thinnest dear to end its suffering by killing it, then I will continue to know that they kill for fun and use excuses to justify it'

I was of course happy to oblige and wrote to him, confirming that part of our management practice is indeed to shoot and animals that are suffering due to genetics or as a result of injury. Sadly this wasn't good enough for brave Spencer and after a couple of days he deleted my comment.

On the same post Spencer implies that a man who has shot a trophy mountain sheep is in some way less virtuous than a woman who is feeding what are represented as wild birds. Spencer let me spell this out for you. 

When an animal has reached the age and size where it would be regarded as a trophy it has passed its genes on several times, and is starting to decline in health, it will be forced away from breeding opportunities by younger males, it's worn teeth will limit its ability to gain adequate nutrition through browsing and its fate will be starvation, illness, being eaten alive by predators, or a mixture of the three. Meanwhile your claim that a woman feeding wild birds is a sign of her love of animals is misguided at best. By creating clusters of feeding animals she is also creating the ideal circumstance for passing disease from one bird to another. She's not evil, just thoughtless. Bit like Spencer really.

Spencer also likes to post ghoulish videos of animals being mistreated on cattle farms purportedly for the company Burger King, as regular readers will know my interest in hunting stems from my abhorrence of the industrialised food chain so I commented that this sort of behaviour was what had lead me to start hunting. Not inline with Spencer's already fully-formed opinions this too was promptly deleted. 

I was delighted to see that one hunter at least has passed muster in Spencer's eyes - Gordon Ramsey - celebrity chef and hunter has been campaigning against the killing of sharks for their fins and in doing so has earned Spencer's seal of approval. My guess is that Spencer doesn't waste any time researching his opinions before posting them and is unaware that Gordon has killed and eaten quite a few of the luverly cweacherz that Spencer believes he is standing up for.

Amusingly it turns out Spencer has 'form' for this kind of behaviour. A blogger called The Wandering American has awarded Spencer 'Douchebag of the week'.

"There’s a 99.9999999999999% chance you have no idea who this guy is but I think you should know about him anyway. Spence writes about animal abuse and climate-change and other issues along those lines which is fine and good. However, he’s a typical liberal in that if you don’t fully agree with whatever he says, he’ll attack you while claiming that he’s in the right. As you can see in the image below, I left a cordial comment merely pointing out some new research that has been stirring up some interesting debate. What is this guy’s first reaction? He calls me naive and then verbally abuses me, a guy who took time out of his busy day to read a site that had been recommended by a fellow blogger. There’s a word I’ve picked up in my time abroad for guys like that. Twat."

Harsh but fair.

We are all born ignorant, staying that way is optional.

Your pal

SBW

Ethics, Karma And Dead Deer

Dear You know who you are.

We live in a world where it is socially acceptable to have others mistreat animals before we eat them. Fact.

Unless you have hunted: felt your nervous system change gear and go into predator mode, killed and felt the vortex of emotions, then feasted on the flesh of another being, your opinion is abstract, a fantasy based on accumulated preferences, prejudices, and reactions to social norms. It's your right to engage in that, I'd defend that right to the death if need be. Just, please, please dont eat a burger from a factory farm and tell me killing is wrong.

So you used to be vegetarian, but now you eat some meats, but nothing with a face. A lot of animals died for your vegetables to grow, so it's OK to kill mice and bugs but not deer? I keep searching google images for that 'fish that doesn't look like fish', and the 'faceless animal' (we both know you've never tried worms) and they don't seem to exist. Those soya beans grew in a field where a lot of plants and animals had to die for a mono-culture to exist. Your morality, the same morality your parade in front of me, can only exist if someone else kills and processes animals for you out of your sight.

Oh you like eggs? Me too, lets us put the suffering of the factory chicken to one side for a moment, and think of the Fox who had to die so you could have eggs. Non lethal means? So you'd prefer Mr Fox starved to death rather than the bullet he never saw coming?

Karma: I'm going to spell this out for you. Nowhere in the original concept is there a one-to-one relationship between actions. End Of. Karma is not a concept of fairness, never has been never will be. "Karma's a bitch, she'll get you every time" is an entirely western concept. A comfort blanket for the person who wants revenge, but wants to take no responsibility for seeking revenge and cannot bear to think of themselves as a vengeful person. I'm sorry but life just isn't one plus one equals two.

Now for the emotive bit:

The other day a wannabe Buddhist and I sat down for a chat, I'll admit I was stirring the pot - when I need to spend time with someone who agrees with me I stay at home and talk to myself - I told him about WDM Bell and the 1,100 elephants he shot. Bear with me I said it was the emotive bit.

Wannabe Buddhist pulled his 'oh the pain of the world' face and told me that it was to be Bell's karma to be the last elephant, and to be shot by a fat american. Putting to one side his prejudice against fat people (frankly he could lose a few himself) and his prejudice based on the accident of a persons birthplace.
Bell did it for the money, yes he revelled in a sense of adventure, but fundamentally he shot the elephants because he wanted the money their ivory was worth. As a by product of the way he hunted, he fed hundreds of people. Yep he went to Africa and fed poor people. Where Elephants lived wild and free he shot them without their ever having known he was there, they were dead before the rifles bang reached their ears. The locals ate them. Where the Elephants were trampling and eating the crops of the poorest people on earth, he turned the loss of farmed foods into meat. Now tell me about about your cozy definition of Karma.

Sitting Bull "when the buffalo are gone we will hunt mice, for we are hunters and we want our freedom."

Let's not get started on the racism of your views about indigenous hunting, me and the deer are indigenous to northern europe, maybe if I dressed a little more colourfully you'd show me the same courtesy?

At last when we've talked it over, and you can't overcome the simple honest logic of the meat eater hunting their own dinner, I ask you if your objection isn't simply that I enjoy it, and you've said yes, so I'd like to pose this question

We humans are hard wired to enjoy the things we need to do in order for us to survive, thrive and procreate. Only in industrialised society do people toil at jobs they hate, to live lies that leave them unfulfilled.  I wish to live wild and free in nature, I'd like my dinner to live the same way, it's a freedom I'd extend to you too.

Thanks for reading
SBW

If this post has made you think differently about your dinner, or your more certain than ever, or somewhere in between Leave a Comment I'd like to hear what you think.

PETA and PETEO

"You choose to exploit animals by keeping them as pets to satisfy your emotional needs. I choose to exploit rabbits by killing and eating them to satisfy my dietary needs. The rabbits I exploit roam free until the moment they’re killed, the ones you exploit are kept in some sort of confinement. Don’t pretend you’re somehow morally better simply because you choose a different form of exploitation".

Stonehead

Dear PETA supporter

Can I ask you a question? A question about the things we do to be who we are.

If I am to understand you. You are a courageous defender of those without a voice. You strive to be a benevolent hand, altering the rules, leveling the playing field, so nature conforms to your sense of fair play. You look into animals eyes and see the goodness of a soul that knows none of the cruel ways of man, a soul that looks back in gratitude for your efforts.

I think you're wrong, Walt Disney was an entertainer, David Attenborough is the educator, but I salute your passion and stand in defense of your right to be wrong.

I am a participant in the wonder of nature, the often violent wonder of nature. I have hunted to fulfill my dietary needs, and given the opportunity will do so again. Taking what I need to live, letting everything else live the life it was born to live. Regretfully accepting that life for wild animals will be short and either end in starvation or violence. Sorry but that's just the way it is, always has been and always will be. Wild free animals either starve or are eaten alive by predators. My personal ethic in my role as predator is make sure that when i kill, i do so as suddenly and as comprehensively as possible. I don't wish to see any more suffering, I've seen enough and the human world provides more of that than I can bear to watch most days.

My default setting is to support the underdog, especially when the underdog is trying to act beyond the narrow confines of the accepted wisdom. So naturally my interests and sympathies lie with the Greens. I've even voted for them.

Once upon a time a very nice woman (we've never met, but I project very-niceness on to her) sent me a letter explaining that in the Peoples Republic of Hackney the Labour Party (as it was then known), would be getting elected sure as eggs is eggs. But if I so pleased, my vote (for her) could be used as a gentle reminder that the natural world mattered and was worth preserving and defending. If enough people sent this message such issues would move into the mainstream of political thought.

WOW it's not every day you get to vote for an honest politician! I took up her offer, imagining it to be a once in a lifetime opportunity. Sadly it was, it seems a once in a lifetime opportunity. As I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR CRUELTY.

The thirst for votes, votes at any cost, means The Green Party is offering it's self up to the 'single issue activists' a strategy that will keep them sidelined, just at a time when they should be finding their natural authority.

Instead of moving to the centre of political debate the Green Party have decided that we should first: have so many rabbits that we are unable to grow crops, then as the food source has multiplied, we should have lots and lots of foxes. Foxes who when they've eaten the rabbits will eat, what? Chickens, Ducks, Geese and then?

Apparently we are also to have more of those lovely deer, with their honest soulful eyes, they will eat anything the rabbits can't reach, and for a few years there'll be more and more of them. Many will die agonizing deaths after road traffic accidents. The survivors will starve as soon as their numbers are greater than the food sources will support.

Sadly that's what a total ban on hunting means. I could not support animals being treated in that way. It would be cruel.

I have never met a vegan who knew as much about animals as the hunters I've met. Although I have met vegans who advocate violence towards people who eat meat. Not all vegans are fascist hate mongers, not all people who kill animals do so for the thrill of killing.

I'm not going to dress it up as anything it isn't. There are people who lust after the thrill of killing, you may think of them as a subset of 'hunters' I think of them as criminals. Criminals who are most likely to be reported to a disinterested and under resourced police force, by hunters. Why? Because hunters have the most to lose if 'thrill killers' are afield. Thrill Killers don't need a license, they don't need to put anything back in terms of supporting habitat or managing resources. They are the kind of people who are involved in other acts of cruelty, to humans and animals.

Not all vegans or vegetarians are supporters of PETA, and its immediately obvious that not all PETA supporters are even vegetarian, let alone vegan. I believe myself to be a person who wishes to see the ethical treatment of animals. I just don't happen to be using the same definition of ethical as Ingrid Newkirk and her unthinking supporters. Some people see the horror of factory farming and want never to eat meat again, I see the same horror and wish only to eat meat that lived wild and free. The way i wish to live myself, a freedom I'd extend to you too.

To me there are certain forms of coercion that are way outside of any ethical position I could ever defend. Causing shock and terror in children then telling them that the only way to stop the feeling of fear is to comply with the wishes of the person causing the fear is despicable. It's despicable in a 'religious' children's home where the wrath of the big bully in the sky will be visited on any child who dares to speak out against the nocturnal visits of that bullies emissaries on earth. Just as it's despicable to show children exceptional images of animal suffering while implying those images are the norm. To me it's not right to attempt to traumatize children in the hope that what marketers call 'pester power' will coerce those children's parents into your chosen belief. It would not be ethical for me to treat another person in that way. That's why I propose 'People for the Ethical Treatment of Each Other'.

All comments welcome, even from those of you whose rage needs to hide behind anonymity.

The Bushwacker.

PS This post was influenced by posts from Hubert Hubert, well worth a read.

The Karma of Hubert? On PETA, Suicide Food, the Cathars and Road Rash

PETA: Your Daddy Kills Animals.

Hunting & Politics: I won't be voting 'Green'.

Celebrity Feeds Rabbit To Coyote

Yawn, it's that time again. Another numpty has tried to cast themselves as a defender and guardian of all that's fluffy, cute [and delicious].The utterly meaningless Leona Lewis, (or 'The Butcher of Hallelujah' as music lovers know her) was, it's reported, enjoying a breath of fresh air between shops in LA when she saw a homeless man sitting on the sidewalk with the rabbit on a lead. She asked him what the was planning to do with it.
Being hungry and homeless he gave the only logical answer '... probably eat it.' Appalled, not by his suffering but, by the idea of one of Disney's little creaures being dinner, she offered him $100 for it. Being poor not stupid he accepted.
That most trustworthy of news sources 'a friend' is quoted as teling whover passes for a reporter these days that the bunny-wunny is now living in Ms Lewis' garden where she fondly imagaines it to be safe from any culinary adventures.
Rumors that Ms Lewis is completely ignorant [of Cats, Dogs, Bob Cats, and Coyotes] are yet to be proved.
Question "Who are these people?" on second thoughts ...GROAN we're surrounded. Modern Life is, as they say, Rubbish
SBW

Thanks to Holy Moly who found the story

Here's a useful guide to hunting rabbits from BASC, who also get the picture credit

Careful With That Thing

I was recently emailed this story by Tobermory. An Aussie called General Cosgrove was interviewed on the radio recently where he was talking about a program where a boy scout troop would be visiting his military base.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL COSGROVE:
Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

The radio went silent and the interview ended.

People! What are they like?

Your pal
SBW

Numpty!!

Brigid from Mausers and Muffins - home on the range found this one.

Beyond that WORDS FAIL ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Clebz - What They Think We Want To Hear?

Outdoor Life have collected together a few choice words about hunting and fishing - all uttered by attention seeking numbskulls.......

Let's start with Macca (Paul McCartney) a man who currently uses his media soapbox to vent his frustrations at his former friend, who had the temerity to die before scores could be settled.

Really, I'm not joking scroll down to controversy.

"Many years ago, I was fishing, and as I was reeling in the poor fish, I realized, 'I am killing him—all for the passing pleasure it brings me.' "And something inside me clicked. I realized as I watched him fight for breath, that his life was as important to him as mine is to me."

Can we believe him?

I would like to draw the courts attention to this interview in the The Sunday Times

He told “the guys, particularly John [Lennon], about this meeting and saying what a bad war this was”. Tariq Ali, [renowned lefty firebrand] who led antiwar demonstrations in London, said:
“This is news to me. We never heard of Paul’s views at the time. “It was John Lennon who was concerned about the war. He never mentioned McCartney and I never thought of asking him to join us.”

Milking cheap sentimentality has its place, song lyrics, being the ideal forum, and he was good at it. But lecturing others on how they should share his views, about the fluffy bunnies playing in the field is inviting mockery.

So Bushwacker, now that you've made your feelings about Mr McCartney known, why the picture of Lilly Allen?

I liked her dress (click the pic for a closer view of the pattern) and, well, what's not to like?

Your pal

Suburban  disgusted of tunbridge-wells BushWacker