Share this
Twitter
Myspace
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
Tags
Article Index
BY ANTHONY P. MAURO SR.
COMMENTARY
The title of this article is certain to be controversial. But, I think that consideration of controversial issues helps us to become more informed and makes us engaged and active citizens. After all, it is the mission of the New Jersey Outdoor Alliance to educate conservationists so that they can be a catalyst for advancing environmental health through policy and legislation.
Perhaps, this controversial topic may have the result of moving us towards this end.
The philosophers tell us to have compassion for negative people, although I admit it is often a test of my own temperament. But, as I find it unpleasant to be around negative people I am struck by the fact that it must be far more unpleasant for the negative person, since they are forever bound to their own torment.
Negative people are troubled souls. They view themselves as victims of all types of imagined enemies, and those displaying the most bluster and belligerence usually represent the most fear-filled. After all, isn’t anger a manifestation of fear and therefore evidence of one’s vulnerabilities?
I include animal rights activists as negative people because they are not content to live their lives at peace with their world view, but instead work as despots to control those with differing ideas and values. Special targets of their tyranny are people that fish and hunt. It is a negativity that has provoked animal rights activists to behave in unscrupulous ways and without a sense of personal boundaries.
For example, I recently read a letter from an animal rights activist attempting to fool an unsuspecting public with a harebrained theory that scientific game management techniques (harvesting/hunting game) actually increase game populations. Her theory, simply stated, is that if 50 deer are harvested from a population of 100, the deer will notice 50 deer are departed and will produce a biological phenomenon that will result in multiples of the number of fawns than would have been born (e.g. 4 fawn births, instead of the 2 fawn births considered normal).
In an attempt to give gravity to her silly premise she invented an authoritative sounding title to place under her name: “Wildlife Policy Specialist.” Now, the woman has no college education in the fields of animal biology or wildlife management, nor has she ever noted any official wildlife training. She even omitted from her letter that she is a representative of an animal rights organization.
Similarly, there is another person representing an animal rights organization that promotes himself as an “Investigator.”
Is there an official and legitimate profession which certifies animal rights investigators? Does this profession have any official oversight? What does an animal rights Investigator investigate?
What is the depth of vulnerability that people feel that leads them to deceive others with imaginary importance and make believe titles, such as Wildlife Policy Specialist and Investigators?
In another attempt to fool the public, the same organization that the woman and man belong to went to great lengths to have a Ph.D promote a similarly outlandish game management theory. They advanced the Ph.D’s theory and referred to him as an expert, but omitted that his field of expertise is chemistry and not biology or game management. His research was never made legitimate by peer review (peer review is when a community of experts in a narrowly defined and relevant field perform an impartial review). It is similar to a podiatrist using his credentials to represent an expertise related to the workings of the heart.
Who would rely on a foot doctor for diseases related to the heart? How low is one’s self image that they would substitute their agenda for the truth?
I am not against hunting at all, just against over-hunting and hunting for fun. My family hunt for what we need, we use every part of the animal that we can and boil the rest for the dogs if it is edible. It should be a little more credible to hear all this from a person who's family are hunters who have seen less and less animals per year due to hunting.
I read your blog and is this the best you've got for a zinger?
You write, "The conclusion of Mr. Mauro’s simple-minded commentary includes the following question (which is hardly an editorial coup de grâce): “What depth of negativity causes (animal-rights activists) to overtly act with hostility and domination towards people with differing views? An animal-rights activist could just as easily ask: “What depth of (narcissism) causes (Mr. Mauro) to overtly act with hostility and domination towards people with differing views?”
Really?? That's akin to an 8 year old saying, "No I'm not, YOU ARE".
Your blog represents exactly what Mr. Mauro is talking about. There are activist "leaders" who will go to any extreme, including misrepresenting themselves, their qualifications and their data to get their way. Moreover, these "leaders" have in fact, been tied to organizations which advocate physical harm to other human beings. Yet those who share similar anti-hunting views never bother to verify what they are being told or by whom. As a result, they are being mislead with completely baseless information being represented as fact. Emotions take over and facts are no longer a consideration. So Mr. Mauro suggests we must have compassion for those who are not aware they are being lead like kids to kool aid.
You then take issue with Mr. Mauro's credential's, calling him a "charlatan" worthy of the same scrutiny he writes about. Fair enough. Mr. Mauro represented himself as "“chairman and co-founder” of three related organizations and the author of “three books on conservation, hunting and the outdoors.” Yes, those facts are correct. Unlike the so called "activist leaders"; Mr. Mauro is representing himself for what he is. He's not being looked into by the FBI; hasn't made terrorist threats and hasn't presented any facts that cannot be verified. Have you ever looked into the organizations he is involved in or read his books? Are you aware of the indisputable data used in the development of his books? Have you ever looked into the rest of the organization to see how it works and what it does? Have you ever looked beyond an opinion article or are you doing precisely what activists do when they are stumped? Ignore the facts and instead make personal attacks. For example, take the Stop the NJ Black Bear Hunt Facebook page. There are several areas where a hunter politely asks anyone "I would greatly appreciate it if you could tell us what viable, cost effective alternative you propose that will keep the population in balance while at the same time have the added benefit of reducing incidents between humans/bears as was seen in the 2003, 2005 and 2010 hunts." You will not find one answer to the question. That is the crux of the conservationist argument for the bear hunt, but no one seems to be able to comeup with a viable, cost-effective response. Instead, it's reaponded to with emotion.
As to "hostility and domination", I interpret that as people wishing death or harm to others (as many activists wish upon hunters in these facebook type pages). If Mauro wanted to be "mean" he would have posted the names of the illicit activists (which I can assure you they are real people), but he did not. Mr. Mauro did not threaten anyone's lives or even interfere with their right to protest. He did not call upon hunters to take action against activists. He expressed his opinion and urged compassion.
Yet you compare him to Jim Jones??? I will remind you that Jim Jones lead over 900 people to (in his words) "commit an act of revolutionary suicide protesting the conditions of an inhumane world.". It is this very type of disgusting comparison which Mr. Mauro would call hostile.
My first instinct was to tell you to go drink some more kool aid, but I'll show a little compassion instead.
I read your blog and is this the best you've got for a zinger?
You write, "The conclusion of Mr. Mauro’s simple-minded commentary includes the following question (which is hardly an editorial coup de grâce): “What depth of negativity causes (animal-rights activists) to overtly act with hostility and domination towards people with differing views? An animal-rights activist could just as easily ask: “What depth of (narcissism) causes (Mr. Mauro) to overtly act with hostility and domination towards people with differing views?”
Really?? That's akin to an 8 year old saying, "No I'm not, YOU ARE".
Your blog represents exactly what Mr. Mauro is talking about. There are activist "leaders" who will go to any extreme, including misrepresenting themselves, their qualifications and their data to get their way. Moreover, these "leaders" have in fact, been tied to organizations which advocate physical harm to other human beings. Yet those who share similar anti-hunting views never bother to verify what they are being told or by whom. As a result, they are being mislead with completely baseless information being represented as fact. Emotions take over and facts are no longer a consideration. So Mr. Mauro suggests we must have compassion for those who are not aware they are being lead like kids to kool aid.
You then take issue with Mr. Mauro's credential's, calling him a "charlatan" worthy of the same scrutiny he writes about. Fair enough. Mr. Mauro represented himself as "“chairman and co-founder” of three related organizations and the author of “three books on conservation, hunting and the outdoors.” Yes, those facts are correct. Unlike the so called "activist leaders"; Mr. Mauro is representing himself for what he is. He's not being looked into by the FBI; hasn't made terrorist threats and hasn't presented any facts that cannot be verified. Have you ever looked into the organizations he is involved in or read his books? Are you aware of the indisputable data used in the development of his books? Have you ever looked into the rest of the organization to see how it works and what it does? Have you ever looked beyond an opinion article or are you doing precisely what activists do when they are stumped? Ignore the facts and instead make personal attacks. For example, take the Stop the NJ Black Bear Hunt Facebook page. There are several areas where a hunter politely asks anyone "I would greatly appreciate it if you could tell us what viable, cost effective alternative you propose that will keep the population in balance while at the same time have the added benefit of reducing incidents between humans/bears as was seen in the 2003, 2005 and 2010 hunts." You will not find one answer to the question. That is the crux of the conservationist argument for the bear hunt, but no one seems to be able to comeup with a viable, cost-effective response. Instead, it's reaponded to with emotion.
As to "hostility and domination", I interpret that as people wishing death or harm to others (as many activists wish upon hunters in these facebook type pages). If Mauro wanted to be "mean" he would have posted the names of the illicit activists (which I can assure you they are real people), but he did not. Mr. Mauro did not threaten anyone's lives or even interfere with their right to protest. He did not call upon hunters to take action against activists. He expressed his opinion and urged compassion.
Yet you compare him to Jim Jones??? I will remind you that Jim Jones lead over 900 people to (in his words) "commit an act of revolutionary suicide protesting the conditions of an inhumane world.". It is this very type of disgusting comparison which Mr. Mauro would call hostile.
My first instinct was to tell you to go drink some more kool aid, but I'll show a little compassion instead.
Why is it "live and let live" until that means you have to stop killing?
Why is there a constant hypocrisy of "everyone's entitled to live how they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone" when 58 billion (yes, BILLION) creatures are killed unnecessarily for food alone each year?
And yes, it IS unnecessary. Unless you truly believe that vegans/vegetarians are mythical beasts like unicorns and dragons and secretly eat animal products to survive when nobody is looking.
Take your sentimentality, take your tradition, and take your skewed moral bias and try, for once, to hold it up to the scrutiny of logic and fact and apply it to something beyond selfish endeavors.
But this is not quite so cut and dry. Animal rights activists gain absolutely nothing from getting people to stop hurting animals. And that is exactly what they want. They see an injustice in the world and they want to help bring it to an end. It is no different than an abolitionist who fought to help end slavery, someone who tries to help end world hunger, or any other number of issues we face in the world. They see an injustice and they try to put an end to it and raise awareness about it.
For someone who wants to discuss negativity and say that animal rights activists are negative, I thought his article came across as being negative. He is negative and wants to change the way other people do things. He says he's against animal rights activists wanting to stop those who have different ideas and values, but HE wants to stop animal rights activists, who have different values and ideas of his own. So he's doing exactly what he is accusing them of doing! If he believes that people should all be at peace with the world and not try to instill change where they see an injustice, then all activists, volunteers, and others who try to make change should stop what they are doing. Sound good? I think not!
Animal rights activists are trying to help the world be more peaceful. There is no peace in killing, no matter how you do the deed. Peace comes from not harming other living creatures and helping the world to be more compassionate toward all living things, not just those that walk on two legs and foolishly rule the roost.
Furthermore, he opens his article by mentioning philosophers and compassion. Many philosophers were animal rights advocates and even vegetarians. Their thoughts on compassion were not just for humans, but for other animals as well!
"As long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seeds of murder and pain cannot reap the joy of love." —Pythagoras
This crippling psychosis is very similar to the extremely contagious 'Vegan/PETA Derangement Disorder' disorder.
Symptoms include a pathological and debilitating fear of tofu, an uncontrollable full-body twitching whenever the word 'humane' is heard and an overwhelming compulsion to speak the words 'extremist agenda' over and over again.
The phenomenon is true about numbers of offspring increasing when a population of species is markedly reduced. Too bad his mom reproduced.
amen
Before you are so quick to ask aspersions on an established biological fact, you should have a gander at the mathematics which form the foundation for the theories of population dynamics.
The leaders of these groups are the Evil Twins to the Pied Piper, and are far more dangerous than most people understand. The FBI is not the only organization keeping track of these fools: the highly regarded Southern Poverty Law Center is very concerned. AR activists feel compelled by their delusional mental state to force others to take on their belief system or die, there is a line drawn in the sand for them, and they just can't allow anyone to 'harm' an animal. Now human beings, well that is a different story for these angry, depressed and hateful folks. Self-loathing needs to be shared, I guess.
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/11/03/animal-rights-activist-if-you-spill-blood-your-blood-should-be-spilled/
I also suspect that their diet is a big factor in the negativity. Lacking critical amino acids, Vitamin B12 (humans cannot always absorb B12 supplements, can only benefit from animal protein sources) causes depression, agitation, sleeplessness, difficulty with concentration and learning, memory issues, a host of nervous system and mental functions, including basic intelligence. There is a reason why there are very few 'lifetime' vegans.
Keep up the good work.
You wrote, “But as I find it unpleasant to be around negative people I am struck by the fact that it must be far more unpleasant for the negative person, since they are forever bound to their own torment… I include animal activist as negative people because they are not content to live their own lives at peace with their world view, but instead work as despots to control those with differing ideas and values. ”
Let me start by putting all my cards on the table. I’m an animal rights activist who has many strong, negative feelings about blood sporter’s like you. Doesn’t mean I hate you personally. Just hate what you do and am devoted to stopping negative behavior towards animals.
And I have to say, I find it far more “unpleasant” to be around positive, wrong-minded folks- no matter how happy and upbeat they may be about their particular odious beliefs and subsequent behaviors.
And since I’ve surely offended you and have nothing else to lose, I might as well say it… The bulk of your commentary was pointless, mean-spirited, and small-minded to say the least. Instead of addressing the animal rights positions, you went out of your way to build up straw men and women to in turn tear them to pieces with accusations of misrepresentation and being under qualified to speak intelligently on the matters. Are these real people? How about a link or names or something to validate your statements? And what was your point anyway? Did you even take the time to listen to what the animal rights people had to say, or are they beneath you for lack of proper credentials? In case you are interested to know what your enemies actually believe, here’s a primer: http://www.animal-rights-library.com/index.htm.
Assuming the people you mentioned are real flesh and blood activist and not creatures of your own invention, I will agree with you that I find it quite frustrating when people tack on meaningless titles and degrees to attempt to validate their points (or disguise the lack thereof). I don’t care who you are or who you think you are. Just show me the facts and communicate your position. I’m perfectly capable of discerning truth from lies without being bullied into an opinion by “experts”.
Often I find the free thinking, self-educated and self-appointed ”specialist” to be far more enlightening than the narrow-minded PhD’s who are more often than not bound by their sectarian peers- all corporate and wage slaves who are out of a job if they don’t tow the party line which is always, “Money over morality!”
Am I a negative person? Depends how you look at it really. I despise hunting and any other forms of violence towards animals- including humans. In fact there are many things in this world I hate and am determined to fight against, but I consider that to be a positive attribute. Otherwise I’d be just another smiling apathetic coward.
Sincerely,
Greg Hoone
www.veganworldblues.com
Another issue to consider is the amount of money and control this brings to many of them. All of us involved with animals in any way should support one another. The hunters and anglers are now just experiencing a little of what the pet breeders and farmers have experienced with this cult. We need to pull together and support one another as this cult like the squeaky wheel have a lot of money to grease our representatives bank accounts. A bill before congress called the PUPS bill is their first step to control what you do with all animals. Although you may only consider them just negative, they are working very hard to stop your way of life and they do it a little bit at a time by changing the public's opinion of what you do. Remember that HSUS and PeTA both said they want the public to think of hunting and fishing like drunk driving in the minds of the public. You cannot ignore them any longer if you want your rights. Its time to join together to fight this dangerous menace to our country and our rights as human beings.
Animals over knuckleheads, that is.