un-babble... finally

It is so damn GOOD to hear a US President speak with complete sentences, cohesive logic, and interesting and original thoughts after 8 years of hearing nothing but top-level babble. I suspect that even Republicans have finally breathed a sigh of relief, despite President Obama's liberal slant. Disagree with his policies, but hail his ability to tell you about them!

For 8 years I was embarrassed by President Bush's inability to speak, make sense, defend his policies in real time, show a semblance of leadership or do anything but embarrass the United States in front of itself and the rest of the world. I was embarrassed by the fact that close to 50% of the American people voted this man into office TWICE! I was enraged that he took us to war to kill so many of our own and innocent Iraqis and to spend so much of our tax dollars. I was saddened that he took a Trillion dollar surplus and turned it upside down. I was disgusted by the enemies that he made around the world for the United States. I couldn't believe the double-speak that created the Homeland Security department and the lack of freedoms meted out to those that spoke against the US and wore a turban.

I didn't watch the TV news during those 8 years, so now I can read about it as history. This is a much better way to do it. I can get through my frustrations fast and see the outcomes immediately as I read the history.

President Obama is an extremely intelligent, but down-to-earth man. Read his books and you find he has thought about everything and has common sense ideas on how to solve them. Most involve using other intelligent people to construct plans and execute them in concert with our legislators and the appropriate community of involvement for the particular issue.

As far as his success as a President, time and events yet to unveil will tell, but to know that the United States is back on track with firm and intelligent leadership is a wonderful feeling. I think I can raise my head in pride now... finally.

Bailouts

No body asked my opinion. That's why I'm writing it in my blog. Just in case someone stumbles across this, they will know it. 

What the heck is happening to this country? We are suffering from too much "everyone owes me" syndrome. I think our generation got that idea from grateful post-war parents anxious to please us after so much of their own sacrifice before and during the WWII. They didn't want us to ever go through that so they heaped every spare cent on us, making us learn to expect having things given to us. We then transfered this habit to our kids.  

So, these same people now seem to feel that since they have had it so good in the past, they should continue to have it good, even when they haven't earned it. If they make bad decisions when trusted with the public good, they think "someone" should help them fix it. The idea that we should reward or "bail-out" people for making bad decisions isn't a good idea. We've made some really stupid mistakes in high places in this country in the last few years that should prove that.

 First it was the dot.com disaster. Did mature, intelligent people really think that you could "wish" upon a company a value that had no basis in reality and make it so?  How did Yahoo get to have a multi-billion dollar value when they had almost no product? How did so many companies get valued so high without any basis in reality?   Greed. Pure and simple it was greed and the lack of any regulations to watch that the greedy monsters weren't taking over Wall Street.

Then we get this mortgage debacle. Thanks to the idiocy and self-serving nature of our elected officials we had no watch dogs telling people you can't borrow money way below market value and expect the economy to stay healthy.  We had greedy mortgage lenders who preferred to issue a loan to unqualified borrowers that they could resale for a profit even though they knew their clients had no way to pay it back. Now we have $700 billion dollars of non-existent taxpayer money being manufactured to "bail-out" the greedy banks and help the victimized homebuyers either keep their ill-got homes or get other loans.  Thanks to no oversight by duly elected officials. We put our trust in the people that we elected and they let us down big time!

Now we have the auto industry crying again that they will cause the ruin of the nation if the government doesn't manufacture more money and help them out of a totally predictable and inevitable situation.  How many times does this have to happen before we stop doing it?  Back in the mid-seventies, we got a taste of what driving large gas-guzzlers would do in a gas shortage.  GM and others refused to do anything other than a few short term solutions. They eventually kept on building automobiles that averaged 14 miles to the gallon while the Japanese, the Koreans, the English and even the Germans made cars that got from 30 to 50 mpg.  They had been told by countless politicians, environmentalists and anyone that had a head on his or her shoulders that the United States couldn't survive much longer with such inefficient cars.  Now after the other Greedy segment of our society (the oil barons) have wrung out every extra dollar we had in the bank, no one wants a car with 14 mpg.  and few can afford a new car due to our economy being so bad.   So.. why shouldn't they go under and every person or company that helped them do so suffer the same fate?  Maybe out of the ashes will grow a better transportation industry with much greater fuel efficient vehicles, alternative fuels and a greener footprint for the environment.

This country has made numerous mistakes because the voters and thus the politicians have refused to look to the future more than 2 to 4 years. We didn't elect the only person that wanted to do this in ages (Al Gore) and instead they elected a totally incompetent person to lead the country for 8 years.  He has proven his worth through his accomplishments (or lack thereof).  I suspect that all the voters that elected him have suffered by losing large amounts of investment money and I hope they have learned their lesson.  The lesson? We need to take our duty of voting much more seriously. We need to elect officials that have qualifications to do their jobs, not just vote for friends, actors, or politicians with empty promises to make you richer. We need to stop thinking about how WE personally will make out with this or that politician in office, but how our COUNTRY will make out in the long run. That's true patriotism in my opinion.  Flying the flag won't solve this problem.  Only doing your homework will solve it.  This will probably never happen, but we need to do it to survive the challenges ahead of us.

So.. let's let the auto industry (and their Unions) figure this out on their own. I personally have to figure out how to live on Social Security and any little jobs I can find on my own. It will be a lot harder to buy the essentials when my dollar buys a lot less because the government is adding to the money pool with empty paper promises by printing a Trillion dollars or more of worthless paper to "bail-out" irresponsible and greedy industries. A dollar has to be earned by an equivalent amount of work or else it just devalues it.  Let the auto industry mend their ways, start building fuel-efficient cars, work to build cars with alternative fuels and cars that respect the air we (try to) breathe.

Over the years I've heard a lot of people say that they think the Democrats coddle the poor people too much. They complain about welfare and unemployment insurance and the programs that try to bolster the lower income people in our society.  They've said, why do people think they are "owed" something. They said, "people should have to work for a living".  Well, those same people are the ones who now think we "owe" the bankers, the investment community, the auto industry to save their butts.  Is it OK to coddle the rich and not the poor?   

My blood pressure has probably surpassed it's danger point, so I'm going to stop typing. The world will not stop or change because I stop typing or even because I wrote this blog. It's off my chest now and you can disagree all you want, but it will still be off my chest!

Good luck in the coming disaster.  You'll need it.

Sarah Palin and the Vice-Presidency

I just can't keep this to myself. You don't have to read it. You can probably guess what I'm going to say.

I first thought that McCain's VP choice was a clever one. After all, it was the democrats that were brave enough to run a woman for President. If you were inclined to think that was liberal and something worth doing, then you'd be proud of the Democrats.

But.. to have the Democrats themselves reject a good women candidate, even if it was for a black candidate, then have the Republicans put a woman on the ticket that could easily one day have the Presidency fall in her lap, well, that's just clever politics.

But is it? How can a Republican majority vote for a woman that has 5 children, 4 at home, and an infant in need of constant care with Down's Syndrome? Who is supposed to give these children the care they need? Obviously, her stint as Governor has taken a toll on her 17 year old daughter who is now pregnant out-of-wedlock. Would Dr. Laura, the staunch conservative talk show host and defender of children approve of this working mother? I'd be interested to hear her take on this. Who would take precedence if Palin became President. Her children or the nation. And her becoming President would be an all too real scenario with the older Candidate McCain running for President and winning and dying prematurely.

I'll admit that her positions on many life and political issues are extremely distasteful to me. Refusing to put the Polar Bear on the endangered species list to avoid causing problems with energy harvesting on the North Slope is one. Being a Moose and Caribou hunter is another. (See photo below as Caribou is dying in agony with Sarah looking on with one of her young children. Do you think she had Caribou steaks that night to relieve her hunger. They probably don't have grocery stores in Alaska.)

I wonder what part of the bible told Sarah Palin to torture this Caribou?

Being against personal freedoms for gays and pregnant mothers is another. Being a member of the NRA is another. Allowing wolves to be shot from helicopters is another. Telling religious students (as governor of Alaska) that God is on "our" side in the Iraq war. The fact that she's had no national or international political experience is another big issue for me. What was McCain thinking?

Well, I guess it doesn't matter too much to me, because if the Republicans win this election her negative contributions would probably pale to the damage McCain and a Republican congress would continue to do in the footsteps of President Bush. Why can't the Republicans learn from past experience? McCain is not a bad man. He's just the wrong man for this country at this time.

This country needs the Democrats to win the election. We can't keep having this belief prevail that what is good for the rich is good for the poor. Unfortunately, the rich have but one goal in mind and that is to become richer. The poor have the same goal, but they have no chance to achieve it.

Just my humble opinion.

Sicko - the American Crisis in Living

I've just finished watching the movie, "Sicko". I know. Michael Moore is a very controversial figure. His movie might be considered a bunch of liberal propaganda by a lot of people. I really don't think it matters. Even if only 20% of the situations presented in the documentary about the state of health care and morals in America is not propaganda, we should lower our heads in shame. But I figure at least 80% of it is accurate and to the point.

The point being that almost 50 million Americans have no access to health care in this country and similar numbers don't get what is due them when they have insurance. Millions in this country pay outrageous prices for necessary drugs that people in other countries can get for a fraction of the cost (even you can get them cheaper from these countries by mail).

People's ability to manage their financial lives is the ultimate measure of whether they live at all when they get sick, or live a relatively happy and healthful life. If you've made a mess of your financial life, like I have, or have not had a chance to make a mess of it because of your birth circumstance (being black, Indian, poor, or genetically altered from the norm) you don't get health care or don't get adequate care, and chances are you will die much sooner than the rest.

The fact that the USA is so low in the list of world statistics of countries that provide adequate health care for all of their citizens is testimony in itself that something is dramatically wrong. It's got to be a wake-up call to people who prejudicially think of the United States as #1 in everything to learn that.

The fact that people are continually asked (in so many words) first, how can you pay for the medical care, and second, what is wrong and where does it hurt, tells you something is dramatically wrong in this country.

I've not been able to afford the $1000 to $1200 per month ($10,000 or more per year) for health insurance the past 3 years. My wife and I found an acceptable plan for catastrophe insurance and they wouldn't insure her because of a very common and minor medical condition (minor asthma). So we decided to go it without insurance. We have been self insured for the last 3 years, even though my wife requires several medications and she has had a couple bad medical episodes. The cost still comes out much less than insurance premiums would be. Sure, if one of us has a major problem before Medicare kicks in, we'll be in real trouble. Our drugs are procured from Canada at 40% of the price in America. We go to PA's in small clinics and I'm not afraid to tell them we have no insurance and little means to pay outrageous bills. It works to lower our bill at times. But still we spend a lot of money on medical care.

We are looking forward to Medicare, but my first look shows we won't save anything on prescription insurance, which to date, has been our largest outlay.

OK, you know the problem. Mine personally is no sad or dramatic story. Just a typical uninsured American. Sicko tells of many sad stories, babies dying because of denied insurance, husband denied a bone marrow transplant that seemed to have a great outlook but dying 6 weeks later without it, etc. In fact, I find it interesting that Michael Moore doesn't focus on the lack of insurance in America (that's an obvious problem), but the lack of payment owed to many insured customers for serious diseases. The greed that is the foundation of our health care system (HMOs and Drug companies) is the point of his documentary.

It's also obvious (to me) that many of the rich folk in this country are fearful that they will lose their wealth and power if health insurance companies go under because of a government funded health system. I think that's why some Republican politicians spent so much energy to kill Hillary's health plan and to undermine Bill Clinton. They were representing themselves, their greed and their wealthy political contributors, but not their constituents, for sure. They spread rumors of how horrible health care is in countries that subsidize health care or pay for it in full. Fear is how they try to rule our country. It would be nice to have a leader for this country that would lead our country following the principles that it was originally founded upon. All Men (and Women) Are Created Equal. The conservative right might also remember the teachings of their professed religious basis: the Golden Rule. We should support those less fortunate than us because we'd want them to support us if the tables were turned. What's wrong with giving those less fortunate medical care, in hopes that those that we loved might someday need it too, and receive it?

It's time, NOW, to implement a system that allows everyone to have health care. YES, we might have longer waits, we might have some bureaucratic foul-ups (hard to believe any worse than we see today), higher taxes, and a bit less income for doctors, but we'd have a new beginning in the USA. People would not lose their homes, their pride, their health. They'd have a chance to build this country to a place where we might be proud again.

Thanks to Michael Moore for having the guts to step up and battle the giants (he's pretty big himself). He might not be the best personality to be the poster child of health reform, but he's doing something. Much more than me, and probably you too.

Write your congressmen and let them know you want change now. And vote for the candidates this Fall that sound like they are willing to do something about health care reform.

I've never been a "lover" of the USA, right or wrong. I'm grateful for living in a country that offers me freedom to think, freedom to write this blog, and the opportunity to make a comfortable living. However, a lot of these freedoms have been extracted at the expense of many of the less fortunate in this country. Capitalism has bred greed, and our people need to exercise their right to vote measures to correct this trend towards greed. I want this country to become the best again, but it won't happen until we reform our health system (and our education system while we are at it.)

If you don't agree with this, I'm sorry, but it's your right. No matter how you believe, I challenge you to take the time to watch SICKO. Even if you deny those things in the documentary, you'll know what your opposition is up to.

Hope your days are healthy. I'm counting on mine being that way, because I don't want to think of the alternative while living in this country.

Bigger Profits for the Oil Rich

It's time I said a few things that I feel about the rising price of fuel. (I know my public is waiting for this.) It's not the absolute price of fuel that bothers me (at least not intellectually), but the fact that the best I can understand, a few people and companies are getting scandalously wealthy from the latest few years of fuel price increases.

A year ago (Feb 2007) headlines read: "Oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. on Thursday posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company—$39.5 billion—even as earnings for the last quarter of 2006 declined 4 percent." And now (Feb 2008): The company [Exxon] reported Friday that it beat its own record for the highest profits ever recorded by any company, with net income rising 3 percent to $40.6 billion, thanks to surging oil prices. The company’s sales, more than $404 billion, exceeded the gross domestic product of 120 countries." It made me sick to my stomach to even type those words...

OK. Now, I'm a democrat by philosophy, and I still believe that some amount of capitalism is good for this country. People just won't work hard without an incentive. But that's not an excuse for essentially exerting a gigantic stronghold on the fuel market and milking it for all you can, regardless of how it hurts your fellow countrymen. I think of the oil profits as legalized robbery by the oil companies, but worse. No robber could steal as much from me as the oil companies can. It's like stealing on a time payment plan. No robber would force you to pay $400 to $800 a month for the rest of your life, and get away with it.

I've said for many years that the price of fuel must go up to force some action on reducing natural resources and pollution. I have felt that the automobile industry has been as guilty as the oil companies in perpetuating the energy crisis in this country (and the world). Not only have oil companies pumped the precious and dwindling oil resources out of the ground and arbitrarily raised the prices but automobile companies have shown little regard for the fuel efficiency of their products or the pollution created by their products.

We all share a bit in the blame. I could have chosen to buy a car with much less fuel consumption. Unfortunately, most of those cars have a price premium attached to them. A hybrid is way out of my league for instance. People just won't sacrifice a little comfort or status for the sake of the future good of the country. It's called the "tragedy of the commons". If you are offered a bit more of "what you want", you'll take it if you can, independent of what it does to the supply or quality of "what you want". With everyone buying large SUV's, why should you sacrifice your lifestyle, just to save the earth, or to force the auto companies to build a more efficient car, or to protest the high cost of fuel. You get the idea.


The purpose of a government is to take measures to protect ALL of the people even if it requires sacrificing the extravagant needs of the rich. (Unless of course, the leaders are all from the rich class. It's sure good that it only costs $60 million to run for President in this country, or no one would be able to do it.) So, with oil being a resource created more than several million years ago by decaying forests, plankton, and dinosaurs (before any of the corporate oil executives were born), it makes sense to me that it should be a resource belonging to the world community and not a few people living in Texas or Saudi Arabia. Give them a good fee for pumping it out of the ground and for refining it, but don't let them own it. The government has the right and the duty to provide for transportation of people and goods. By letting the price of fuel go so high so quickly without having good alternatives for either fuel efficiency, fuel sources, or transportation modes, they have failed us.... really good.

So, nothing I've said is new. You've probably thought something similar to this. So where do we go now. Well, there are a bunch of options, but none will be done without a cry from the electorate. Make your votes count for something... cry with them.

First, each of us can do something to help. Buy more efficient cars, reduce trips (esp. unnecessary ones that could be combined with others), don't idle your cars, turn off the engine when not going forward, take public transportation (if you are lucky enough to be near it), drive without a heavy foot, slow down, keep it at 60 mph, etc. etc. etc. Do I believe that enough people will do this? No.. not until they are struggling hard to pay for the fuel bill. By then all the poor people will be out of jobs because they can't afford to get to them. Watch out for the next revolution of the people. It's not a far cry to say it will be initiated by this crisis.

Government should tax the hell out of Oil companies and automobile companies. It's their job. Get the multi-billions of dollars in profits that go to gas company executives and share holders and put it into researching and implementing real alternatives to fossil fuels. Put premium taxes on gas-hog vehicles and give them to people buying fuel-efficient vehicles. Take charge of the crisis... damn it, now!!!!!

Whew, ok, I've settled down a bit, and will finally say my life style has been altered by this crisis. I am a landscape photographer that can't afford to drive anywhere to photograph. I live in a motorhome and will barely be able to afford to move it when I have to. I certainly can't afford to tour the country any more. But, it's not about me. It's about this country and this world. What is going to happen when the economy crashes because no one can afford to drive to work, or to the hospital, or to the store? I don't think people will be calm, collected and non-violent. I think the 60's sense of moral indignation will come about again in spades, but this time because of the greed of so few affecting so many. I'd maybe not worry about the terrorists from overseas as much as the people in the lower classes of the USA (yes, we have classes) who will be out of work because it costs them $50 to $100 per day to drive to work and they get paid $100 per day or less. You do the math. (At $5 per gallon, and 15 miles to the gallon, the average commute of 50 to 100 miles per day in Southern California will cost from $25 to $40 per day. Minimum wage in this country ranges from $5.60 to $8 an hour, 8 hours gives $64 at the most, or $45 at the least. Fuel costs (not counting cost of vehicle maintenance) takes up 80% or more of that.)

Health care is important in this country too. I'll say my piece on that later, but until we solve the short and long range problems of energy consumption (vehicles are not the only culprit), we are headed for political upheaval and maybe even violence of a proportion we've not seen for a 100 years or more. Not a threat, just an educated assessment of the facts.

If you think voting for a Republican this year will solve this problem, think again. I don't say there is ANYBODY running for President that will do what is really necessary, but I can't believe that a representative of the party that elected the current President could make anything but a negative impact on the problem.

and that's the truth! (according to me, at least)

Enjoy your day. Stay home and save some fuel. Play with the dog, or the kids or just stare at the sky or listen to that expensive iPhone you bought.

Politics, American Style

OK, I'm gonna confess. I don't watch the news anymore. I get my main dose of daily reality from 4 minutes of Yahoo News, the brief images (and sub-titles) that flit across the silent TV as my wife watches CNN (with her wireless headphones on), and what I pick up traveling across America in my RV from the random comments from sage travelers. I'm old and cynical enough that I've figured that I've heard it all. I'm kinda like my dog Reggie. I get all I want and need from the body language and facial expressions of the politicians. I don't need to hear them. It also helps that I have a healthy dose of prejudicial reasoning (is that an oxymoron?). I can form an opinion rather quickly just from one quick look at them talking (not hearing them, but looking at them.)

I've decided long ago who I'll vote for President in 2008 and why. It's Hillary Clinton. It's simple why. I just want there to be one female President elected before I die. Why? I've wondered what the mothering instinct would do to someone leading our country. Would their genetic tendency to heal our booboos and make peace between all the neighborhood kids carry over to nations? Would their ability to love an ugly and mis-behaving child give them an edge in dealing with egotistical idiots that often become world leaders? Would their ability to woo a man into bed translate into a peaceful way of dealing with any world situation? Would their clever way of passing the credit for any successful decision on to Dad make for a better world for the rest of us?

No way to tell until we do it. Hillary is eminently qualified as a politician. My only question is what kind of mother was she? Since her daughter hasn't been in the news much, I'm gonna guess she did a good job. (Think back on Reagan's kids...)

If she doesn't pass the good ol' boys muster in this less than fair democracy, maybe I'll get to witness another first in my life: a black man becoming President. OK.. he's not the perfect Black man, representing the descendants of the slaves brought to this country against their will, but he's still the right color to be different. If for no other reason, he seems to be brighter than pretty much any Republican I've heard speak. And.. I'd love to see the good ol' boys in the south heat up to boiling. I just hope he has a lot of security around him. I've never felt that color of skin had anything to do with intelligence. Plus.. he's got to be about 10x smarter than our current choice as leader of the free world.

I guess my consolation prize, if neither get elected, is that our slow, rickety democratic system won't crumble if another idiot gets elected as President. Our system seems to have enough give and take that even poor decisions, lack of decision, and political and economic greed keeps this country going generally in the right direction. We aren't loved in too many places around the world, but we seem to keep our heads about us and do the "average" right thing in most years.

My dream is that a President would be elected that got up on a podium in front of millions and say something to the effect: "My fellow Americans... we will be in deep shit if we don't change our ways. We need to quit wasting precious natural resources, we need to look out for our grand-childrens' children's future, and we need to put moral decisions above economic ones. We need to recognize that humans are finally making an impact on this Earth that won't be easy to rectify for the future unless we make some major changes in our daily lives... now. The boundaries between countries are less important than the way we treat the land and natural resources we get from the Earth. Freedom is something that species behaving smart and intelligently towards their sustainer (the Earth) has earned, not something that you have a right to have due to your birth on this planet. Stop having children you can't love and support! Stop wasting and start saving for this planet's future."

If they said that and meant it, and got elected, it'd be a good sign. All would not suddenly be well in the world, but it would look a little brighter.

So... vote for Hillary, or maybe Obama, or just care a little about the rest of us. It might help us survive another 5000 years.

Hunting is murder!

Hunting is bad!

I know. It will do absolutely no good to rant and rave about Hunters and Hunting, except to satisfy my own moral dictates. To me it is a simple matter. Hunters who kill wildlife for sport and recreation are making murder on innocent animals. Sure, there are grey areas, but in the mainstream, it's murder. Sure, the dictionary says murder is: "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." OK. Perhaps, I'm dramatizing it by calling it murder, but it is premeditated, it is with malice and it does result in killing, most of the time. (Often, hunting results in maiming or injuring animals.) The fact that it is not killing another human is a technicality to me that brings up the question of the superiority of the human race over the rest of the animal kingdom. As an educated biologist, my view of life is one of a graduated series of evolutionary steps that go from one life form to another (perhaps with a lot of missing pieces that have dropped out over time). I don't see the major distinctions that most people make between apes, chimps, babbons, and humans, or any other lifeform. So us humans can play the piano, but can we fly 7,000 miles without stopping, can we smell another human a mile away, can we see a small insect from 1,000 feet, can we swim for miles without breathing air, etc. Who says we are superior? (We do, but isn't that a bit circular and egotistical?) We know that most higher forms of life have traits that we previously thought belonged only to human beings.

OK, I got off track a bit. To summarize, I don't see the moral distinction between animals and humans, so to me, hunters are comitting murder. So do ranchers that kill pigs for my bacon and sausge and and cattle for my hamburger. The only difference is that I feel that to kill for food is the natural order of things. To kill for recreation is purely egotistical and down right mean.

Hunters often reply that they are the saviors of the animal kingdom. They help the species by thinning them out. That's really just a glorified excuse to kill. Mother nature provides adequate means for thinning. What they might be right in saying is that they eliminate unwanted members of the animal kingdom that get in the way of the human race. (It works the same between the human races too. We did that with the North American Indians, the Germans did it with the Jews, etc.) What gives a hunter the right to play God with their rifle, bow and arrow, or knifes? They say that their way is more "humane" than mother natures way. Maybe so, but I don't see many of them agreeing to kill their grandparents when they get sick and feeble (indeed just the opposite.. we do everything we can to keep them alive against their will and put anyone in jail that trys to help them end their own suffering!) Just let Mother Nature take care of it.

Hunters often say they create more animals in the long run due to the wildlife sanctuaries that they support through their generous donations to such organizations as Ducks Unlimited, and through their purchase of hunting licenses. I say let Mother Nature deal with it. If thinning them out is a goal, then supporting wildlife sanctuaries is the equivalent of fattening the calf, or just farming more animals to murder. If they didn't kill them, they wouldn't have to culture them. Humans are so eager to play God with Mother Nature. Let it alone. Give the animals their ranges and stay away from them! I visit a specific wildlife refuge every summer and one of the celebrated residents are Moose. I have seen about 2 moose in 20 visits in the summers. Yet, they allow killing them on this same national wildlife refuge to thin them out!

Hunters have told me (as a photographer) that I also have the trophy hunter mentality. Instead of mounting a head on a wall, I mount a picture of a head on the wall. I'm just as guilty of the crime of possession and greed as they are. I'm sorry, but mine is a zero-sum game, their way messes with Mother Nature, eliminates a life (or more if they have killed a mother still caring for young animals) and leaves less for me to photograph. They consume natural resources and I record them. It's not the same.

Hunters say they are no worse than any meat eater who condones the killing of farmed animals. Although technically correct, again, the natural way for the food chain to function allows for the stronger to kill the weaker to stay alive themselves. There is no genetic or moral imperative that says, "killing for fun and profit only is OK." It's wasteful, period, and it deprives an animal of their natural life span. If only poor people, without the means to buy food were to kill animals for their own consumption, I'd have a hard time objecting. Instead, hunting is mainly a rich mans (or women's) game, just like fishing. It requires expensive tools (rifles, fancy bows and arrows, expensive fishing gear, etc), expensive vehicles and assessories to camp with (RV's, ATVs, tents, horses, horse trailers, stoves, etc), expensive fuel to drive hundreds and thousands of miles to wilderness, and often large license fees to hunt or fish or large membership fees to join hunting clubs. (That's not mentioning things like helicopter rides to chase down wolves or deer, internet fees to kill animals attracted to automatic weapons and web cams, etc.)

OK, I'm also a bit of a sentimentalist too. I enjoy seeing animals in their own environment. I enjoy studying them as they interact with each other and their environment and enjoy their pure beauty. I think they have the same right that I do to compete for a place on this Earth. I can enjoy visiting the wilderness, searching for the animals, trying to avoid scaring or interfering with them and photographing them. Most of the same things that hunters do with the important exception that my trigger finger creates a digital image instead of a dead or injured animal.

So, it still sickens me to see a truck driving down the road, 15 minutes from Yellowstone National Park, carrying two dead 5 point bull-Elk on their trailer, while adults and children only minutes away have spent their entire vacation trying to see the same Elk or Moose from the road and enjoy it as only a person from the city could. Large traffic jams occur with people harmlessly filling their cameras up with digital moose and elk bits because they appreciate the beauty, elegance and natural order of a herd of Elk or Moose. Someone paid from $100 to $1000 or more to our government for the right to deny the rest of us with that pleasure of seeing them in their normal habitats. Is that right?

Again, I have no hopes of stopping this. People claim birthrights given to their grandfathers and great-grandfathers to kill the local Elk, Moose, Bear, Sandhill Cranes, foxes, ducks, etc, etc, etc over the last hundred years. It makes no sense to me at all. (Their grandfathers didn't have a Safeway or other convenience store at every corner to buy what they needed, so maybe the "birthrights" should stop.)

Only one thing I'd vote for. Allowing Hunters with the correct license to "hunt" other hunters. A higher stakes "Paint ball" game that might even the score a bit between the human animals and others.

Don't bother to comment unless you have something constructive to say. Comments like, "Queer", "liberal", or other childish negative comments won't be responded to or appreciated (but expected).