Sunday, January 27, 2008
"I did, however, observe a bow hunter last month while hiking through the woods. This gentleman must have weighed in at about 250 lbs. This was probably his first sporting experience since the hot dog eating competition at Nathan's."
Why does Torricelli feel the need to engage in ad hominem attacks against this individual? How does attacking him for his appearance lend any credibility to his argument? Answer: it doesn't. It's simply self-indulgence.
"He was perched in a tree with lunch and refreshments. Below him were scattered melons and corn. With the onset of winter the deer are without plentiful food. The smaller deer in particular can't find anything to eat and are quickly attracted to the pile of seeds. The great hunter must have been resting thirty or forty feet from his prey. Felling the helpless and hungry animal requires all of the skill and precision of a bather finding the surf. The arrow flies directly down on the feeding animal."
Here, Torricelli makes two points, one I agree with, the other I don't. His first comments about baiting deer are right on the money. Baiting wildlife with food, is, in most states illegal. At the very least, it is very poor sportsmanship. I don't know if baiting is illegal in New Jersey, but if it is, did Torricelli report this individual to a game warden? If not, why not? I certainly would. I do not hesitate to report any illegal activities I see from hunters and anglers, because such activities are bad for wildlife and conservation, not to mention they ruin the experience for those of us who do it ethically and legally, as well as bringing general disrepute on all sportsmen.
Torricelli's second point that it is easy to make a shot from above on deer is off the mark. In bowhunting, most shots require skill, even at close range. Many factors come into play, including wind, the angle of the shot, the draw weight of the bow, the type of sight being used, etc.. Shots from above are often more difficult than shots in which the archer and the target are level with one another. Anyone who has tried archery can attest to the fact that it is more difficult than it looks. I doubt that Mr. Torricelli has ever picked up a bow in his life, let alone made a difficult shot.
"It only gets worse. The slaughter is only part of the story. Days latter my dog begins to arrive home with various body parts. Whole legs, ribs and skulls arrive at my door. It isn't enough that the animal is killed."
How does Torricelli know that the parts his dog was dragging home came from a carcass abandoned by a hunter? He offers no proof. How does he know it didn't come from roadkill or some other source? Furthermore, why does he irresponsibly let his dog roam about the countryside at will?
"The carcass is left to rot. Provisions have been made for homeless centers to receive the meat to feed the needy. It would make some sense out of the killing. It's just too hard to climb down from the tree and recover the dead animal. There's just so much exertion that one sport can impose on its participants."
Here again, I must concur with Torricelli on this. Leaving a carcass to rot is at best unethical, and at worst, in many states, it is illegal to waste edible wildlife. Again, it also begs the question, however, if it is illegal in New Jersey, and Torricelli knew it was going on, why did he not report it to authorities?
"A small wounded doe was found hovering behind my barn. Her leg was nearly severed by a single blast from our precision marksmen. She shook in terror if you approached. Her panic caused her to urinate as her wide eyes conveyed pure terror. She couldn't move but she dragged herself on three legs to attempt a futile escape."
If this deer was found on Torricelli's property, and was wounded this badly, it didn't get there from very far. A hunter would have wounded it very close to where it was found. If that is the case, they were very likely trespassing on Torricelli's property. And yet, we aren't told whether anyone was trespassing, and whether or not Torricelli confronted them or notified law enforcement. Notice also the self-contradictory statement in the last sentence: "she couldn't move but she dragged herself..". All of it leads me to question the truthfulness of Torricelli's little tale.
"I killed her. I ended her misery. "
Now Torricelli's story just gets better. He claims he killed her. How did he kill her? Was it in humane fashion? Why doesn't he tell us? Furthermore, did he have a license to kill a deer? If not, he himself is technically a poacher and a lawbreaker! Intentional killing of wildlife without the proper license to do so is poaching, Senator Torricelli. Also, what did he do with the carcass? Did he hand it over to wildlife officials as he should have? Why doesn't he tell us? When one looks critically at Senator Torricelli's story, very little of it adds up.
"60,000 deer will be slaughtered in New Jersey this year because we tolerate these yahoos and haven't the will to humanely control the population."
One wonders what ideas Torricelli has in mind "to humanely control the population". Since he would apparently rather just rant than offer solutions, one has to wonder. Perhaps he has "deer birth control" in mind. Such a solution is a known failure on many levels. First, it is extremely labor intensive because the vast majority of the female deer in the population have to be treated in order for it to be effective. It is thus very, very expensive. Hunting, by contrast, actually generates revenue for wildlife departments, making them fairly self-sufficient and thus making wildlife management far less of a burden on taxpayers. Secondly, it can take years for the population to decline and tangible results to be seen. Third, and most importantly, are the negative ecological impacts of such a policy. The drugs used in "deer birth control", once they are introduced, have the potential to contaminate the entire food chain and have very negative ecological consequences. It is not a viable solution, despite the false claims of the AR community. Perhaps Torricelli had predator introduction in mind. Reintroduction of native predators to ecosystems has great ecological benefits, but if he's looking for a "humane" solution, this isn't it. The death that prey animals suffer at the fangs and claws of predators is often far less humane than any arrow or bullet from a hunter.
I wonder if Torricelli is a vegan or vegetarian. My guess is no, which costs his rant something in terms of moral credibility. If Torricelli is a meat eater, as I guess he probably is, then he is simply paying someone else to do the "dirty work" of killing animals for him to eat ( even if he is a vegan, the production of his food still involves animal suffering and death ). At least hunters have the courage to recognize where food comes from and do the killing themselves. An anti-hunting omnivore ranks right up there with many ARAs as the worst kind of hypocrite.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
"Each year I give around 250 lectures on ethical veganism to over 10,000 students explaining that victims of discrimination, slavery and murder come in all shapes and sizes."
Ten thousand students! Now that's a scary thought isn't it? Here we have a convicted felon, who is an unabashed advocate for terrorism and violence, and he lectures to 10,000 students a year, some of them even at the middle school level? Why is this nutjob allowed anywhere near a school or the impressionable minds of young people? We don't allow the Ku Klux Klan, Islamic radicals, or any other hate and violence promoting individuals or groups to lecture in schools. Why should Yourofsky be allowed to spew his venom, when, he in fact is no different? Any school administrator who would allow this person to speak to children ought to terminated and never allowed to work in education again.
"So, while my lifestyle and lectures are based on compassion, those who refuse to stop harming animals force me to support 'eye for an eye' and 'by any means necessary' philosophies."
What Yourofsky is espousing here is the philosophy of the desperate. The animal rights movement has utterly failed to convince people that it is wrong to use animals for utilitarian purposes such as food, clothing, scientific research, companionship, etc.. Yourofsky knows this. Since he and his movement cannot achieve what they want through changing minds, in desperation, they resort to tactics of violence and terrorism instead. Where else do we see this kind of "philosophy" in the world today? Does the term "radical Islam" or the name al-Qaida ring a bell? Just like Yourofsky and his ilk, they too have failed to convince the majority of the world that their way is best, and they too turn to the same type of threats and actions.
"Rapists, murderers and child molesters should be vivisected, executed and dissected, allowing researchers the opportunity to gather useful information that would actually benefit human health for a change."
In the previous statement above, Yourofsky claims that his lifestyle is "based on compassion". Now, he comes up with this little gem! Can't you just feel the compassion oozing from Mr. Yourofsky? It seems that Yourofsky's understanding of rights only includes animals and he is utterly ignorant of basic human rights. He is also utterly ignorant of the contributions that scientific research using animals has made to human health, as the list is quite extensive.
"Every woman ensconced in fur should endure a rape so vicious that it scars them forever."
Wow. I did a double take and had to read this twice to make sure that's really what I was reading. I've read a lot of things from ARAs in my time, from the amusing to the idiotic to the utterly crazy, but this about takes the cake. Yourofsky has just advocated, in no uncertain terms, that a woman be raped. A rape is one of the most heinous, horrible crimes of violence that can be committed against a woman. To advocate it is so hateful, so venomous, and so misogynistic that one is at a loss for words. Bear in mind that this is not only just one of the leaders of the animal rights movement, but one of the leaders that actively targets young minds for indoctrination and recruitment.
"I'll be lecturing at USI on Tuesday, January 29, in the Mitchell Auditorium from 7-9 p.m."
I'm torn as to how I think the student body and faculty and Indiana Southern should deal with Yourofsky's "speech". One part of me hopes that the hall is full and that the good people of ISU boo him off the podium and drive him from their campus. On the other hand, perhaps the best thing is for no one to show up at all. Perhaps one of the best things that can be done with a criminally-minded, hate-mongering, misogynistic lunatic is to just ignore him and thus give absolutely no creedence to his hate and lunacy.
There's little more that I can add to Yourofsky's screed that it doesn't say for itself. Animal rights advocates wonder why the majority of the world dismisses them as crazy. When one of the prominent figures of their movement spews this kind of vile insanity, it is all to easy to see why that is the case. If I had to bet the farm, I would also guess that you won't see any of Yourofsky's rhetoric condemned on any pro-AR blog or website.
P.S. Has anyone ever noticed that some AR cowards like to threaten women who wear fur, but you never, ever hear them threaten big guys that ride Harley's and wear leather from head to toe?
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
Here are some statistics from the Virginia Dept. of Agriculture on PeTA's animal killing activities for 2006. PeTA killed a total of 3,229 animals in 2006. This includes 248 animals classified as wildlife. PeTA adopted out only 12, that's right just 12, companion animals. What's really interesting to me are the statistics concerning wildlife. PeTA returned only one single animal to the wild. Only one. That is an absolutely horrible record compared to some of the wildlife rehabilitation organizations out there. PeTA's hypocrisy on this issue is once again incredulous. PeTA kills more animals in one year, simply as a matter of convenience , than the average hunter will kill in his/her lifetime, and yet it's we hunters who are supposed to be the "bad guy" according to them? The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. PeTA has admitted in the past that it has the resources to actually care for all of the animals it takes in, but it still chooses not to. PeTA would rather spend its 29 million dollar budget on propaganda and cheap publicity stunts than actually caring for animals. To them, it's all about power, money and drawing attention to themselves, folks. How can anyone take an organization seriously that claims animals have rights, but then kills the vast majority of those same animals entrusted to their care?