As hunters, we are conservationists, protectors of wildlife and advocates for humane and science-based management of all animals. But in much of the world, we are not seen as protectors of this planet’s vast wild kingdom. Radical extremist groups with deep ties to organized violence are working around the clock to sully the image of the American and international hunter. They have destroyed multi-million dollar businesses and whitewashed their anarchist intentions through a sympathetic mainstream media, with televised images of abused pets in deplorable conditions set to a painfully sad soundtrack.
It is imperative that we understand that the very same organizations playing to American heartstrings are working day and night to morally redefine hunting as inhuman, insane, perverted and evil. Collectively, they’re the so-called animal rights movement. Make no mistake, the animal rights movement wants to destroy hunters and hunting.
In a sick twist of logic, these extremist groups want to bestow animals—whether a lap dog or a barn cat or chickens or beef cows—with the same inalienable rights that protect human citizens of the free Western world. They advocate for a Bill of Rights for pets. A Constitution for barnyard animals. To them, a turkey carved on the Thanksgiving table is morally akin to the murder of a human being. Animal husbandry is slavery. Hunting is homicide.
Who are these people? How did their understanding of man and nature become so perverted? What are their tactics? How will they attack hunters and the hunting industry? What is the world these well-financed, twisted souls want to create?
The modern animal rights movement was born in the 1970s and gained steam within the leftist counterculture. The founders attached their cause to noble, justified movements, like civil rights for African-Americans in the South, and benefited from a halo effect that seemingly legitimized their mission to apply legal personhood to wild and domesticated animals.
The movement gained intellectual roots with the 1975 publication of Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals, by Australian philosopher Peter Singer. He argued that what we consider ethical in human relationships should also apply to our interactions with animals. “To give preference to the life of a being simply because that being is a member of our species would put us in the same position as racists who give preference to those who are members of their race,” he wrote.
This core principle underlies much thinking within the animals rights movement, even today, illogical as it all seems. Singer’s position over the years has become so extreme that he publically advocated for bestiality on British television, claiming it should not be against the law if the animal is able to make a “choice” over whether it wants to participate or not.
"Our physical similarities with other animals are so strong that the taboo on bestiality stems not from physical differences, but from our desire to differentiate ourselves from animals,” he says, stating humans and non-humans should enjoy sexual contact, so long as it’s a “mutually satisfying” activity.
Singer argues that because animals are conscious of their own lives—a debatable point in and of itself in many cases—they should be afforded human rights. Yet he has also said, while advocating for full-term abortion, that parents and doctors should be able to terminate infants born with disabilities. Personhood and life rights, he claimed in a 1993 essay, should not be determined until an infant is 30 days old.
“Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons,” he wrote, concluding that, therefore,“the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”
Peter Singer, Professor at Princeton, Author of Animal Liberation: A New Ethics For Our Treatment Of Animals
In his view, such acts of murder would be justifiable because a newborn child is not yet conscious. These insane claims have led to mass protests against him by advocates within the disabled community, and goes to show how far some animal rights activists will take their twisted line of thinking.
“In the West, we have been dominated by a single tradition for 2,000 years. Now that whole tradition, the whole edifice of Judeo-Christian morality, is terminally ill,” Singer told a reporter in 2004. “I am trying to formulate an alternative. Some of what I say seems obscene and evil, if you are looking at it through the prism of the old morality. That's what happens when morality shifts: People get confused, angry and disgusted."
While Singer spread perverse ideas through academia and the intellectual Left, groups like the Animal Liberation Front and its founder Ronnie Lee took to the streets. A British-born environmentalist, Lee is a known terrorist, listed by the FBI. He served prison time in the 1980s and ’90s for firebombing scientific laboratories connected to animal research. He was one of the first activists to compare hunters and farmers to Nazis—a comparison now parroted by nearly all of the animal rights leaders.
“True animal liberation will not come merely through the destruction of the Dachaus and Buchenwalds that the occupiers have built for their victims, but demands nothing less than the driving back of the human species to pre-invasion boundaries,” Lee wrote, concluding that Earth would be a better place if it was populated by just 50 million people—or a reduction of 99.2 percent of the current world population.
Lee’s group, Animal Liberation Front, claimed responsibility for several explosive attacks on veterinary research hospitals, and even threw a Molotov cocktail through the window of a Nobel Prize winner’s house, in the 1980s and 1990s. While most of his targets have been related to scientific research, his early beginnings revolved around shutting down fox hunting in Europe. In recent years, he advocated for armed assault on scientists and hunters. A page on their website shows armed men with AK-47s and black ski masks under the words, “It’s time to hunt the hunters.”
If this sounds like extreme fringe thinking, consider that Britain in 1999 alone had more than 1,200 attacks on people and property in the name of animal rights, causing more than $3 billion in property damage. Unfortunately, this is hardly just a UK phenomenon.
Gary Yourofsky, founder of Animals Deserve Absolute Protection Today and Tomorrow, or ADAPTT, was born and raised in Detroit, but quickly took a page from the violent book of British animal activism. A criminal above all else, he has been arrested 13 times and spent 77 days in a maximum security Canadian prison, facts that his website tout as badges of honor.
In the early 2000s he was paid $10,000 by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to make commercials attacking the circus. That early campaign helped foster a movement, and bears some responsibility for the recent collapse of Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey. His calls to action are often beyond extreme.
In 2006, he said that “Every woman ensconced in fur should endure a rape so vicious that it scars them forever. While every man entrenched in fur should suffer an anal raping so horrific that they become disemboweled.”
Gary Yourofsky, Founder of Adaptt
In 2013, Yourofsky assaulted a journalist for wearing a leather jacket. He has long advocated violence against hunters, fisherman, farmers, ranchers and meat eaters. He’s said many times that people who hunt and eat animals should meet the same fate themselves—killed and consumed—and regularly minimizes the Holocaust and other World War II dead, saying more animals are killed every single year than Jews were during the Holocaust.
“Deer have been transformed into unwilling participants of a bloodthirsty sport, severed-head wall-trophies and venison burgers,” he wrote in an editorial in The Detroit News. “When humans are treated the way hunters treat animals, people scream Holocaust, genocide, massacre and bloody murder. Yet, according to the hunters' mind-set, animals are ‘game’ who deserve to be killed. This ‘game’ is void of rational thought, decency and kindness. It is, quite frankly, sociopath behavior.”
Today, Yourofsky runs a popular Facebook page that mocks hunters and outdoorsmen and celebrates news stories about sportsmen getting hurt, or worse. On a news story about a fisherman getting harpooned in a boating accident, he wrote “Evil people getting hurt/killed ALWAYS makes my day.”
For Yourofsky, Lee and others like them, animal life is equal to human life, and if killing one human saves two animals, then that human being should be killed.
Wherever these individuals use violence and intimidation, PETA isn’t too far behind.
The widely-known American activist organization, one with a long history of manipulating Hollywood celebrities into questionable, sexualized media campaigns, is a key financial contributor to many acts of environmental terrorism. With annual revenue over $30 million, the group has money to burn. As one watchdog group that monitors PETA wrote, they seek “total animal liberation, according to its president and co-founder, Ingrid Newkirk. That means no meat or dairy, of course; but it also means no aquariums, no circuses, no hunting or fishing, no fur or leather, and no medical research using animals. PETA is even opposed to the use of seeing-eye dogs.”
An offshoot of PETA has suggested that house pets should be banned.
PETA has a very ugly track record. It has donated money to the FBI-designated terrorist organization Earth Liberation Front, provided $70,000 in grant money to a known and convicted terrorist and arsonist and, bizarrely, was caught euthanizing thousands of dogs and cats at its own “no kill.”
The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services requires all animal shelters to report the number of cats and dogs they take in each year, and how many were reclaimed, adopted, transferred to other in-state or out-of-state shelters, euthanized or held through the year. By those records, PETA has killed more than 34,000 pets since 1998—over 86 percent of all animals held by PETA in Virginia have been killed. Yet they claim their goal is “total animal liberation, and the day when everyone believes animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours to experiment on, and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitive purpose.”
Yet perhaps the most dangerous group facing hunters is the most mainstream: the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Outdoor Life called them “PETA in suits with deodorant.” HSUS has more than 12 million members, hundreds of millions of dollars in resources, and is personally responsible for 26 successful anti-hunting ballot initiatives. Longtime HSUS leader Wayne Pacelle has said that, “If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would” and that, “Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting.”
HSUS is responsible for those depressing television commercials of abused pets—yet more of their money is funneled into legislative work against hunters than helping pets. Pacelle has won several high-profile victories against hunters, including successful efforts to ban the use of bait and dogs in the pursuit of bears, cougars and bobcats in Colorado, Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington, and a ban on certain traps in California, Colorado, Massachusetts and Washington. Most recently, in 2016, HSUS stalled Florida’s first black bear season, and convinced New Hampshire to withdraw a proposal to establish a new bobcat season. They also advocated for, and received, a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ruling that effectively bans the imports of many lions killed in Africa.
Pacelle and HSUS also fought against the de-listing of the wolf from the Endangered Species list, against the scientific consensus that wolf populations in the American West need state-regulated, hunter-implemented management. He’s also worked to make it harder for hunters to import all international trophies to the United States by threatening airlines with boycotts if they didn’t voluntarily stop transporting hunters’ horns.
“We’re out to minimize suffering wherever it can be done,” he told a radio interviewer at the time, “and wherever our limited resources can be utilized most effectively—abusive forms of hunting now, all hunting eventually.”
Beneath the entire animal rights movements, under all its twisted philosophy and violent tactics, is a foundational belief that the planet would be better off without human beings. They are working—indirectly, and in some cases, directly—toward the extinction of civilization and an end of mankind as we know it. How do they plan to get there? Most experts see two strategies at play in extreme animal rights circles: propaganda and financial terrorism.
“If you wouldn’t eat your dog, why eat a turkey?” That’s the message PETA Kids is sending to elementary school children. Billboards ran that message next to the image of a turkey with a Jack Russell terrier’s head, near public schools in Florida, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee and Utah. In another message aimed at small children, “Buzzy the Bee” relays the message that “slavery should be illegal for all creatures,” equating honey production with forced human servitude. One comic book created and wildly circulated by PETA Kids is titled “Your Daddy Kills Animals,” targeting the children of fathers who fish: “Imagine that a man dangles a piece of candy in front of you. As you grab the candy, a huge metal hook stabs through your hand and you’re ripped off the ground. You fight to get away, but it doesn’t do any good. That would be an awful trick to play on someone, wouldn’t it?”.
If targeting children is the long approach to undermining sportsmen, their second established tactic seeks more immediate results. Take one recent case study: In April 2016, American hunter Josh Bowmar killed a black bear in Alberta, Canada, with a spear. He recorded the ethical, impressive hunt and posted it to YouTube. The animal rights movement and sympathetic media outlets pounced in a social media and television news whirlwind that ended with Alberta outlawing spearing as a legal hunt.
Every day, the gap between social media outrage and real-world violence grows smaller. One enviro-anarchist website called for its members to familiarize themselves "with modern weapons and weapon-craft, as well as combat tactics on par with or superior to those of our enemies. Everyone who wishes to participate in this struggle should obtain a high-quality combat handgun and rifle of common model and caliber.”
Ending hunting is not enough for these people. Their goal is to end modern civilization, and even human beings as a species. Gary Yourofsky has publically described a planet without agriculture, automobiles, cities or any of the hallmarks of civilization. Humans would revert back to small bands of hunter/gatherers—except there would be no hunting.
“Deep down, I truly hope that oppression, torture and murder return to each uncaring human tenfold,” he wrote. “I hope that fathers accidentally shoot their sons on hunting excursions, while carnivores suffer heart attacks that kill them slowly.”
Some philosophers and crack-pot scientists are publicly considering ways to get there by editing the hunting instincts out of our DNA. The idea was first floated as a way to stop domesticated cats from killing birds. It has since been applied fantastically toward an “ideal” natural world where every living, breathing creature is vegan.
The worldview of the animal rights movement is so bizarre, so twisted, so polluted, that many of them try to hide their sick beliefs from the public. It’s our job as hunters to expose them. To remind our neighbor that the head of the Humane Society has said he’d stop all sport hunting tomorrow, if he could. That vegan thought leaders publicly delight when hunters and fisherman are injured or killed. That so-called animal rights activists and environmentalists regularly call for violence against sportsmen. That the philosophers that lead their movement endorse bestiality and the killing of small children with disabilities. That PETA, an organization that everyone has heard of, directly funds terrorist organizations while killing thousands of pets held in their own care.
Our enemies are real. Their logic is unsound. Together, we hunters must band together and fight them head on, with a unified front. It is our job to expose and defeat them.