[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. – Albert Einstein
[/vc_column_text][space][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”23073″][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]
One doesn’t have to be a genius like Einstein to figure out that the ultimate moral goal of our species should be to move forward in regards to our kind treatment of others. Yet, when it comes to our behavior toward animals—especially wildlife— the human species seems to be backsliding these days. Examples of it are many, while advancements are few and far between.
To counter this disparity, perhaps it’s time we stop using the term “human rights” in reference to things that should be considered basic rights for all species. Surely, the human race doesn’t need anything else singling it out to stroke its over-inflated, collective ego. Differentiating between human and non-human rights just encourages those who would sneer or scoff at the notion of animal rights.
(Photo by Vincent van Zalinge on Unsplash)
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Call it fairness, justice, ethical consistency, common decency or for that matter, call them natural rights or even individual rights. Better yet, why not just use the term animal rights and include human beings in with our fellow animal individuals, all deserving of consideration and respect? This notion of human superiority is for the birds.
The new year brought with it a huge sigh of relief for the natural world, now that Donald Trump and his Administration are no longer at the helm of the country and allowed to run rough-shod over environmental and wildlife protection rules, as it had for the past four years. Still, many species are not out of the woods quite yet. Our new President, Joe Biden (although he stated on day one of his governance that he would roll back any bad decisions made by his predecessor) has yet to remedy the issue of the gray wolves’ reckless removal from the endangered species list—leaving states to “manage” them as they would any other “game” species…or worse.
With the wolves’ federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections now lifted, Wisconsin saw its way cleared for the blindest, bloodiest butchering of the noble species since the 1800s. In just three short February days, hunters killed 216 wolves—nearly 100 over their “legal” yet arbitrary quota. In other words, it was a frenzied bloodbath comparable to the bedlam of a bunch of preschoolers let out of class for recess on a sunny, spring day. Yet, unfortunately, it would seem that President Biden is no loyal fan of his beloved domestic dogs’ wild canine cousins either— otherwise he’d be tempted to step in and do something to stop the ongoing insanity.
Now, the state of Montana — though wolves have been off their endangered list for some time—has gone more than a bit loco lately in regards to new anti-wolf legislation that puts them squarely in the category of absolute wolf-hatingist (or at least in a close tie with their over-eager, wolf-loathing neighbors, Idaho and Wyoming). In addition to declaring their “experimental, non-essential” wolves “recovered,” Montana’s rabid state legislators (led by the ill-famed trapper- Governor Greg Gianforte) have passed recent state bills, including allowing neck snares placed on wolves’ travel-ways in addition to their standard leg-hold traps, and granting reimbursement payments for wolf hunters and trappers (much like a bounty straight out of the darkest days of yesteryear). Wolves there are in essence being reclassified as predators, meaning that they (like coyotes) could be killed without limit or even feigned concern for their “conservation.”
[/vc_column_text][space][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]
All that effort to recover the imperiled, if not quite currently endangered species could go to waste. Worse yet, all the careful rearing, nurturing, raising and training of their offspring by adult animals could be for naught if Montana follows Idaho’s example in their planned elimination of 90% of that states’ wolves. Governor Gianforte signed yet another anti- wolf bill extending the already overly enterprising wolf-hunting season, in addition to other bloodthirsty bills allowing the killing of wolves at night with artificial lights and night vision scopes and the use of bait to lure wolves into traps.
Not to be outdone, neighboring Idaho drafted a bill to allow private contractors to reduce their wolf population from 1,500 to 150. It would permit the use of night-vision equipment to aid in killing wolves, as well as allowing the hunting of them while seated on snowmobiles and/ or ATVs. Ah, what a dream-hunt that must be for them—killing big game animals without ever having to lift their abundant behinds from the cushy seats of their all-terrain vehicles.In the scheme of things, it certainly has been a a rapid backslide pertaining to how wolves are perceived, treated and “managed” by those bent on dragging us back to the Dark Ages for animals —the Nineteenth Century— when practices like bounties, culls and contest hunts were commonplace.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”23064″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Hunters and ranchers in the tri-state area surrounding Yellowstone National Park, as well as in the Great Lakes region, are doing everything they can to resurrect the gory glory days of the 1800s, and predatory species like coyotes, cougars and wolves are paying the ultimate price.
The killing of wolves by those who detest them qualifies as a hate crime. By definition a hate crime is, “A crime, usually violent, motivated by prejudice or intolerance toward a member of a social group.” Well, you don’t get much more of a social group than a wolf pack—and you don’t find any greater prejudice or intolerance than among wolf-haters and hunters.
In an effort to defend his wolf hunting, wildlife snuff-filmmaker Randy Newberg presented the following shocking testimony to the court of public opinion (via NPR News), “Having these hunting seasons [on wolves] has provided a level of tolerance again.” The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming state game departments and, most shocking of all, Yellowstone wolf biologists, are all going along with this line of thinking.
Why do these fellow Americans have such murderous disdain for our natural predators? Well, partly because they want to continue to claim all the trophy elk, mule deer and other “big game” animals for themselves. And part of the motive comes from the fact that their open- range cattle have been forced to play stand-in for the wild “game” species our forefathers forcibly removed.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”23070″][vc_single_image image=”23071″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
The fact is, if you really want to save the wolves, go vegan! And urge your friends, family, neighbors and co-workers to do the same. Tell it to the world: Eating meat is killing the planet, one wolf at a time; one species at a time; one ecosystem after another. Every time you order a steak or grill a hamburger, you legitimize wolf-culling for the sake of livestock growers.
And every time someone purchases a hunting license, they validate wolf trapping for the sake of deer and elk hunters. To game managers, every action, right down to the ammo and camo bought at Outdoor World is a show of support for their policies.
Those of us who are already aware might still be surprised just how many people who advocated for the reintroduction of wolves eat meat like there’s no tomorrow. Comfortable in their justification, they reason that cows are “domesticated” or “dumb” and therefore bred for slaughter. Their beef came from a feedlot (or so they assume) and not out on the open range, where wolves are being killed. Others pride themselves in eating only “grass-fed” beef, yet somehow they don’t see how their food choice helps lead to a policy of “controlling” (murdering) wolves.
And how many hunters can honestly say that they don’t mind sharing their elk or deer with the likes of wolves, cougars or coyotes. Meanwhile, mainstream environmental groups and their members cling to the concept of “sustainable” beef. (Surely some of the ranchers and hunters out there can afford to look the other way when desperate wolves come around hoping for a quick meal to stave off hunger pangs).
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”2/3″][vc_column_text]
Rather than continually trying to revise your rationale, wouldn’t it be easier just to remove yourself from the equation and leave the predating to the predators? Homo sapiens can live much healthier on a plant-based diet, like their primate relatives always have. True carnivores, such as wolves, coyotes, cougars, marine mammals or members of the weasel family have to eat meat to survive. If you’re not willing to go vegan for the sake of the animals you eat, maybe you should think of the other animals affected by your bill of fare.
Meanwhile, in spite of great efforts to educate people about the myriad environmental problems associated with factory farming and the dependence on meat consumption in an evermore crowded human world, the number of ruminants raised for food on the planet today is at an all- time high of 4+ billion–double what is was 50 years ago. Regardless of the burgeoning human population, not only do we have a chicken in every pot in this country, we now have cow and sheep parts in every freezer, and pig parts on practically every plate.
This, of course, is all thanks to ever-worsening living conditions for farmed animals.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”23068″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Professor William Ripple and co-authors of a research paper, “Ruminants, Climate Change, and Climate Policy,” prepared in Scotland, Austria, Australia and the United States, noted that about 25 percent of the earth’s land area is dedicated to grazing, and a third of all arable land is used to grow food for livestock. Reducing the number of cattle and sheep on the planet, and thereby reducing the methane gas emissions they produce, is a faster way to mitigate climate change than reducing carbon dioxide alone, the report concluded. The researchers pointed out that greenhouse gas emissions from cattle and sheep are 19 to 48 times higher per pounds of food produced than the gas emitted in the production of plant protein foods such as beans, grains or soy.
To get an idea of how unnatural and unsustainable 4 billion large ruminants is, try to imagine when vast bison herds blackened the plains. At that time there were only 40 million bison in all of North America. There are over 300 million human beef-eaters in the United States, every one of them expecting to see a fully stocked steak house, Subway or McDonald’s on every street corner.
All the while, the media is busily cooking up a spin to answer to meat’s culpability in this planet’s climate crisis. Articles on how methane from grass-eaters is a primary greenhouse gas are often accompanied by the suggestion that pigs and chickens don’t produce as much. In other words, don’t worry your little meat-addicted heads, if this beef-cow-causing- global-warming thing becomes a recognized issue, you can just switch over to other non-ruminants’ carcasses—surely, no one really expects you to become a vegetarian (satire intended)….
The coming decades are going to test just what human beings are made of. Are we progressive and adaptable enough to learn to share the planet with others and become plant eaters, or is our incessant breeding of animals and meat consumption going to put us into an all new classification—planet eaters?
[/vc_column_text][space][/vc_column][/vc_row]