The Adler Ban - Another Angle

So what basically happened? We're told in the advent and aftermath of the Lindt Café siege in Martin Place it was decided that the federal government would ban the Adler 110 Lever Action Shotgun.

There's more to slap under the microscope here. A lot more. But the helicopter view of it all says it was very poor governance by a group of political leaders who didn't know what they were talking about. Worse still how many fell in behind it. I've complained before that whilst we have a number of good politicians we are missing great statesmen, great legislators and visionary leaders who can identify & champion good infrastructure projects with over the horizon benefits. We're pretty much bereft of vision and understanding in some of the halls of power.

But specifically the Adler. What specifics?

Well to my knowledge there has never been a siege or mass killing in this country with a lever action firearm of any sort let alone a 12 gauge. A 12 gauge that with some ammunition has an effective or accurate range of 50 meteres.

Its not new technology. Refined yes, but lever actions have been around since roughly mid 1860s. That's 150 years.

High capacity? Well here's the really odd part. Prior to the promotional campaign of the Adler there were lever action shotguns in Australia. There were & are lever actions legally owned right now in Australia with 7+1 just like the Adler. Most rifles can have a 10 shot magazines. Many shooters in revolver clubs use a Smith & Wesson Model 617. Its a .22 revolver with a 10 shot cylinder. Capacity is a bit dubious.

High firing rate, well yes that's true but it depends exactly on what you compare it with. No faster than the S&W 617. Now if you compare it with most bolt action, or pull bolt actioned rifles its probably quite slow. With the lever action you're firing one shell at a time til empty, then you're reloading the magazine, one shell at a time, til full then again, manually cycling the firearm to shoot one shot at a time. With detachable magazines in a rifle, you would not only be slower with the Adler, in some cases the Adler is a veritable snail. Enter any magazine fed firearm, with 4 magazines or a revolver with a speed loader and fire off 24 rounds through it as fast as you possibly can. Now get your time and compare it to firing 20 rounds through an Adler. It can easily be 5 times slow because a magazine change is a lot quicker than manually reloading 8 rounds in an Adler...one at a time. (We won't mention how accuracy suffers at a high firing rate)

So what caused the uproar and what are some of the other outcomes it can produce?

I suspect the Nioa team knew they had a sales gem on their hands. As I understand it they worked with the Turkish company Adler to develop, produce and market a lever action firearm that easily fell within the current legislation or rather regulations to allow it to run a 7+1 capacity. How was it going to compete with what wasn't a hugely popular style of firearm? Well it needed to be able to fire 8 rounds but it needed to have a competitive advantage over is competitors and so it had to be a very very tough durable and reliable gun. So with the cameras rolling they "torture tested" 2 Adlers with the 2 different barrel lengths and as fast as they could, they fired 5000 shotgun rounds through each one. It ran like water down a drain pipe...perfectly. After that footage was released & went near on viral, the job was done. The sales pitch was delivered. Pig shooters and others who need good reliable follow up shots with a few spare rounds in reserve saw the potential...especially when it didn't miss a beat like its competitors probably would.

Had this firearm been released without fan fare, it would have sold in slow reasonable amounts, built its own reputation over time and eventually sold the same amount as the video test did. Timing was poor considering the Lindt Café had happened even though that firearm wasn't a lever action, wasn't a licenced firearm and it was bought off the black market by a deranged psychotic as was the case with Port Arthur Massacre.

Here's the outcome we want to highlight though.
The Federal Government had no way at all of banning the Adler 110 Lever Action Shotgun sale, none. It complied with all firearms regulations in Australian states and territories. Firearms are a state matter not federal. The Federal Government could not intervene at all. They couldn't ban the sale of the Adler nor any other 7+1 lever action firearm in gun shops, but they could ban the importation.

This is still the case now. You could, if there were some in Australia, legally buy, own and use them...the barrier is the import ban.

Some will disagree but this is a glaring case of "SOVEREIGN OVER REACH" by the federal government. It wasn't illegal, the government broke no law but they used what little they had to force their will upon the states. One of the aims of Federation was to protect the sovereign rights of the states. Now it seems the ban is there until more is learnt or known and the NFA is finalised.

There is no technical reason to ban the Adler. Its old technology, its not rapid fire or is depending on what you compare it with but certainly isn't rapid fire compared to many other legal firearms we have. Its not about high capacity because many legal firearms have greater capacity and aren't regarded as overly dangerous to the community. It also is a firearm that had nothing to do with Martin Place or Port Arthur.

What we can say is this over reaction was ill conceived, poorly understood and made some people look like fools. There was no consultation and without the Nioa torture test it would probably would have come in untouched, unchallenged and got the thumbs up. But this over reaction as poorly dreamt up by people asleep or drunk at the wheel as it is, should never have gotten as far as it has. The system is very flawed when poor decision making like this becomes unlegislated policy.

The system is not just flawed, it could be dangerously broken because we've witnessed Sovereign Over Reach where the Feds are enforcing their will upon the states. There are a number of good politicians who see this for what it is, dumber than bait and dangerous. The Shooters & Fishers Party haven't missed a beat. Nor have the Victorian Nationals who slammed this back in late July when things started over reaching. There are some federal MPs & Senators that are onto this too and making good noises about the stupidity of it all.

Ahhh not so good in Western Australia where the Nationals vow to continue "to balance the rights of lawful shooters with community safety". That's the sum total of their policy, seriously not a public word more on the matter. Feel well represented by intelligent law makers? Not one word for or against, no opposition to Sovereign Over reach by the Federal Government. No comments like their Victorian counterparts saying the import ban should be lifted and its should remain classed as Class A firearm because its not new, not high capacity, not rapid fire and each round has to be manually cycled. Victorian Nats all over this and were at the beginning at late July.

WA Nationals are out to lunch, complying with Liberal wishes and 3 of them are keeping their cabinet seats that grant them an extra $130,000 per year in the pay packet.

Poor over reaction to a badly misunderstood item and supporting Sovereign Over Reach by a different government in a different parliament. Complain loudly. The decent elected representatives in WA may have trouble hearing you over the din created at the Liberals and Nationals banging around in the lucrative trough.

Poor response to an issue that didn't exist and net result is Sovereign Over Reach.
Remember that term. It's coming for you.

Cattle Live Exports and the blind followers of the Vegan Cult.

On the 23rd of August 2015, the ABC Radio station "ABC 720AM" posted the photo below on their FaceBook page. It was accompanied with the following interesting explainer.

Did you know...in the 1880 cattle were shipped from Kimberley pastoral stations to abattoirs in North Coogee, but the jetty for the ships wasn't quite long enough, so the cattle were driven off the boats and forced to swim ashore....

Then the replies flowed in regarding it being disgusting, cruel etc. Cows of course can swim quite ok, some of them can swim better than some of us. Funny how people from crowded Soy Latte quaffing cake houses in leafy suburbs can negatively judge the actions of people from 135 years ago as if the standards and the equipment from today were available back then. I'd expect (yes I'm guessing) the crew had to deliver the load and they had to go off the ship somehow.

Then of course it moves onto "SENTIENT BEINGS" and how their rights were infringed. The whole thread climaxed with the invented claim (among others) that we need to evolve because these days "we don't need to eat meat"

I'm not actually sure which is more staggering. The level of absurdity within the claim or the ability of educated people to swallow it up without even thinking deeply, seriously and all the while deftly side stepping facts, logic and common sense.

Saying we've evolved to a point where we no longer need to eat meat is parallel and equal in stupidity as claiming that we've evolved to a point where we no longer need to enter the ocean and splash around. Peer reviewed scientific study papers please.

If you don't want to swim in the water don't go in the water. Simple.
As for food, same-same. Its your body so you can choose to fuel your body any way you want. Eat a balance diet or go vegetarian or vegan or what ever but do you have to enforce your cult moral laws on all others in Australia?

No meat eater I know is upset or trying to guilt people into dropping their evil immoral vegan ways?
Why? Because no one cares, its your body, fuel it your way. There is no moral law broken by eating meat. No guilt to be had. Heck you can eat triple decker bourbon and coke sandwiches 20 times a day if you want to, wouldn't advise it but if you too silly to stick to a balanced diet that's your choice and no one has the right to impose guilt upon anyone.

As we've said before, "SENTIENT BEING" is a term from philosophy, not science. What definition we can apply to the sentient being is they can feel and experience things, react to stimuli. With that in mind, please remember that bacteria, nematodes, earth worms and many other soil fauna qualify as "sentient" and therefore the number of individuals with rights are being killed in their millions just to produce a kilo of apples, kilo of celery or kilo of any other vegetable or fruit.

Irony much?

 

Never ever seen a doctor say we need to stop eating meat, seen them say we need to reduce sugars and processed foods and get back to proper portions of a balanced diet but nothing about we need to evolve (mentally I assume) and don't "need" to eat meat.

Its very very sad to see educated people in a 1st world country falling for cult like rubbish that is devoid of science, logic and common sense. They're unaware they're following cult propaganda and deeply believe they're pushing a noble and morally superior cause.
Now if Christians knocked on their door to try & spread the Good Word you know they'd be the hypocrites champions of their cult and blow a fuse and the intrusion of intolerance and bigotry.

 

Irony too much.

 



New Proposed Electoral Boundary Changes - Problems & Solutions

When the cry is "One Vote = One Value" and things get changed we end up with regular reviews of Electoral Boundaries. Nothing sinister to be seen. It can however cause an extra burden on some MPs which in turn actually reduces a person's effective representation in Parliament.

Here's a picture with current boundaries on the left & proposed new boundaries on the right. ( http://www.boundaries.wa.gov.au/ )

 

There's smaller less obvious changes to the seat of Albany & Wagin which are going to have serious negative impacts as well but with the maps you can see the obvious negative impacts. Three already large, overly large electorates will become 2 behemoth size electorates. The electorate of North West Central will be over 1500 kms in length from east to west. Rough count shows 13 Shires will be in the electorate. One of them being the Shire of Wiluna is 950kms from Perth and over 185,000 square kilometres on its own. Onslow also in the new big electorate, 1100+kms from Perth and 1600kms from the furtherest part of its own electorate. How is this smart?

One vote one value on the head count yes. In reality on the ground and on the Parliament floor no. How can one MP service all that area effectively? That's close to 900,000 square kilometres of environment issues to hover over. That's 900,000 square kilometres of industry to hover over. Then there's overblown problems of delivering education, policing, health, electricity, water and many state based social services. Where somehow the far flung constituents have an equal vote to the residents of the electorate of Cottesloe but on the ground the people of the remote area suffer.

The cost of getting services to all the people of North West Central is one thing, the range of services is not equal to the electorate of Cottesloe who also enjoy many more amenities from the tax payers purse and only covers 38 square kilometres opposed to the proposed  North West Central's 900,000 square kilometres.

The disparity and inequity is every bit as mammoth as the size and remoteness that causes it.

One Vote is One Value only in the seat arrangements in Parliament on a per capita basis.
No public transport in Onslow, Carnarvon, Meekatharra, Wiluna. You can drive a cab all around the Cottesloe electorate far cheaper than you can drive you own car 1% of the way around the North West Central boundary.

ONE VOTE ONE VALUE ? NOT BY A LONG SHOT

 

So yes there is a set of solutions on offer. Offer no service in the electorate of Cottesloe that cannot be offered in the electorate of North West Central to an equal or greater standard. Great solution but won't be introduced. We all know that.

Maybe the only solution we need is a smart solution. But it will require lateral thinking and on those grounds many won't get their head around it. It would face opposition but it would raise the standard of effective representation of the far flung people of the proposed new North West Central and yet maintain the metro area's cherished One Vote One Value aspect.


The large electorates maintain one vote in the seat of parliament they occupy but the bigger electorates have 2 or more MPs elected working as a team, representing their constituents more equitably than they currently can. Yes electors on election day elected not a candidate but elected 2 or 3 candidate team of MPs who collectively have only one vote.


That or we see MPs rotated so the Premier for example has to spend one term as the members for Eyre etc. No another nice thought that would never happen.


Imagine 2 or 3 MPs covering the proposed new North West Central all from the same elected party. Gets it down to around 300,000 square kilometres each, still far greater than Colin Barnett's 38 square kilometres but a vast improvement and allows the MP to have only 4 shire councils to liaise with instead of 13+.

 

Tell me it can't be done & I know I'm talking to a barrier to equity in representation in the Western Australian Parliament.

If you're on social or not, copy the link, spread the concept and maybe, just maybe a political party will see the merit & run with it

Dear Minister - Re Lawful Firearms

So, here is the reply I sent the Minister on 4th of June 2015. Hopefully I have clarified problems in the Act, including the inconsistency over "it's not the calibre" reflecting in her reply. I don't blame the minister. She has a ton of stuff on her every minute of the day and she has pretty much a helicopter view of day to day issues at best, but the calibre inconsistency and the return of the baseless "Port Arthur" angle being brought in needed correction. Letter is lengthy so fair warning :-)


Dear Minister,
Apologies, I may have not worded my main point properly.
I'm at a loss regards the non prescriptive nature of a firearm being judge by "appearance" which is entirely subjective by whomever the officer on the day might be.
I think this part of the current legislation needs attention and applying a more prescriptive guideline as to what actually constitutes a military style firearm. This also protects those working under the Act from unfair critics.

I hope to provide a better wording of how this affects me in the farming operation I own and run.

A lever action rifle was a military firearm well over 100 years ago, but isn't any more. Lever actions are now freely available under the legislation.

A M1 Garand is also no longer a military rifle, but was during WW2 & the Korean War. One rifle that closely resembles it is the Ruger 10/22 which, as a primary producer I qualify for. The calibres are different.

At present we have feral animals in amongst our bluegum plantation. A self loading centrefire firearm in .223 would actually be of great benefit to our feral control programme. We run cattle in an ongoing rotational system in the plantation and whilst cells of trees & pasture are unoccupied by livestock we can properly address feral animals. At present I use a bolt action .223, but I have one shot because I cannot get a clean and accurate 2nd shot off before ferals move 8 to 12 feet in the old language and are lost from view/rifle range into the next row of trees and are gone. So its firstly find the feral, take aim & fire. Then come back a fortnight or two later (or longer) when I can finally approach them within an accurate firing distance again.

A solution to this would be a Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle which is a self loading .223.
I was told I cannot get this firearm because of the legislative section you also cited in your correspondence "
That "a self-loading centre fire rifle designed or adapted for military purposes or a firearm that substantially duplicates such a firearm in design, function, or appearance".The Ruger M14 Mini Ranch Rifle is self loading centrefire but it is not designed or adapted for military purposes.
It does duplicate in design and function a M1 Garand which was a World War II firearm.
The M1 Garanad is, like the lever action is no longer a military firearm, its a collectible historical firearm.
The Ruger M14 Mini Ranch Rifle also substantially replicates the Ruger 10/22 which I can qualify for.

The Ruger M14 Mini Ranch Rifle also differs from the now non-military M1 Garand in that the Ranch Rifle is .223 not the larger 30-30 calibre. The .223 a humane cartridge size for larger ferals like dogs & kangaroos giving less recoil and better chance of an accurate 2nd or even 3rd shot on feral animals.

With utmost respect minister your letter related that in regards to the Ruger 10/22 "The calibre of a firearm has no bearing on determining whether a firearm meets the criteria under regulation 26" - In the case of myself needing a Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle, the main difference between it and the Ruger 10/22 is the calibre, one is .22 & one .223. Both have the same appearance, both have the same design and function, neither are military firearms nor resemble current military firearms.
Both have the same bullet diameter. The main difference is one is rimfire, one is centrefire and one has more powder powering it than the other.

Here are 2 comparison photos.
Firstly the Ruger 10/22 then the Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle. Neither resemble military rifles.  One has more powder powering it. Under Regulation 26 one of the rifles below sits on the prohibited list with mortars, hand grenades, bazookas, machine guns, tear gas guns, chemical and incendiary ammunition & 20mm missiles etc.

Neither are based on military rifles, both are completely legal in other states of Australia and very much available to primary producers.

In my situation as a primary producer running an innovative farming operation with a complex management system to allow renewable timber plantation & beef cattle to be combined we're held back by not being able to use the specific tool for our operation. We have a greater feral problem than an operation without renewable timber aspect because we have higher shelter for feral animals and hence harder to shoot and control. Its a feral haven. Ironically I can more easily get a larger 30-30 calibre lever action (or even larger) but its overkill, harder to manage an accurate first and second shot and more importantly has a far greater range (distance) than I'm comfortable with.

If I farmed cattle on a renewable timber plantation in Queensland, this firearm would not be on the prohibited list and easily accessible to a farmer. I genuinely urge the minister to review this and a small number of other firearms that fall into Cat. D that should be made available to those of us with genuine and reasonable need.

In closing Minister, you also referenced the Port Arthur massacre, one of the saddest and darkest events in Australian history. It is worth noting that firearms used there were actual high powered automatic military assault rifles. All were illegally purchased by a person of very serious mental dysfunction who did not have a firearms licence nor even a drivers licence and should not have been in possession of any firearm at all. Aside from his serious mental sickness, he was not a legal and lawful fire arm owner with a genuine & reasonable need. You'll note that I do not use his name. For my own reasons I refuse to use his actual name and only refer to him as the convicted gunman. I understand the Minister's deep regard for keeping the community safe but some firearms, in strict circumstances should be off the Cat D list as they are in other states of Australia.

Below is a FN AR-10, identical to one of the military assault rifles used at Port Arthur. This will show how far removed the Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle is from an assault rifle.

 

 

I wish to thank the Minister for her genuine regard for the community in an area of legislation that has some faults and lacks harmony with other states and fails some of the genuine need of some primary producers. I understand the current legislation is not of your making Minister & you're working hard to improve things. I hope I have been able to show you a side that may not have been presented to you and an area I hope you can rectify.

Very best regards
Peter Robins

The Letter to the Minister re Legal Firearms & their "Appearance Test"

So I sent an email off to LIZA HARVEY MLA - Western Australia's Minister for Police, Road Safety, Training and Workforce Development & Women's Interests re a recent firearms issue that effects Legal firearm owners. There's a couple of issues in the letter I sent, some surrounding the "appearance" of a military firearm causing an otherwise legal firearm being refused at the application level.

I pointed out to the minister that a 1795 Springfield Musket is an ex-military firearm but it isn't refused on grounds of appearance.
I also pointed out I am currently legal to own a Ruger 10/22 semi automatic .22 rifle as long as it doesn't look military even though no matter what an owner does to it, it was never military as it was .22 calibre.

My point was, that the "appearance" test was subjective and highly flawed and needed either scrapping or replacing with a sensible but very clear and prescriptive set of guidelines. At present a firearm might be rejected by one officer but passed by another. It is a wrong and clumsy system based on no logic at all.

 

Lever actions were once military firearms also, but are not any longer and haven't been for a long time. They are legal for recreational shooters and primary producers. My point was missed by the minister that when does a defunct military rifle become OK for the general public and miss the "appearance rule"?

 

Here's the minister's reply to my letter. Have a read then read part two. :-)

 

 

 

Hunting - cruel or cultural, good or bad?

Lets define some stuff first...

Hunter - Well you get that, self evident.

Huntress - Well same thing except female. FWIW I see the pursuit of hunting as gender neutral, just as I see the term farmer gender neutral. I don't believe in "farmer's wife" if she's part of the farming operation, she's a farmer too. I don't believe in "hunter's wife" unless the wife does not hunt & I think a woman who hunts is hunting, not huntressing. If you use the term huntress though its ok with me, just splitting the hairs a bit.

Fishing - Well you're trying to catch fish which is of course a form of hunting...odd though that some fishermen or "fishers" don't call or see themselves as hunters. No dramas either way.

Illegal Hunters - Pretty obvious again, people hunting where they shouldn't which in most cases is breaking the law which is why I don't like the term "illegal hunters" cos I'd prefer to see them well separated from proper hunters who are law abiding people. As a hunter, don't lump me in with them, makes it just that little tiny bit easier for those wishing to ban hunting. There's a better name for those who hunt illegally, its the only name I use for them. To me they are...

Poachers - People who break the law and hunt illegally. You may have done it before, don't care about then, concerned about now & forever...make sure you're a law abiding legal hunter. Separate your lawful pursuit from those that break the law at every opportunity. Look to condemn and oppose "poaching" when ever the chance arises. Mention poachers aren't hunters, they're criminals. Why? Same reason the Drag Racing fraternity say "Street Racing isn't Drag Racing, its just dumb"
Drag racing happens at properly built tracks and is run formally and legally in the safest possible environment. Street racing is illegal can more easily kill them and/or innocent people. Same deal, distance yourself from poaching, make your hunt legal and lawful and you then give opponents one less thread to pull.

I'd define some of the hunting opponents but who knows where the language would go ;-)

Now, the view.

What is wrong with hunting? Well if you 're a tribesman somewhere nothing really. In fact very few people get wound up about it. Now if indigenous people around the world are allowed to "morally" be fine with continuing their cultural tradition I'm in a very happy place in the world.
Hunting in my family goes back longer than we can account for. My race is actually irrelevant, fact is if one person is ok to hunt culturally so am I. Long as I obey the law of the land there is no moral problem, nothing to seek mental counselling over, I'm good to go. If you're a hunter, become a good shot. If that means hitting paper targets or some other drill, do it. The better shot you are, the better the chances of encasing hunting as a normal part of every day life. Be seen to be practising, be precise and careful with your firearm or bow...fuss over it.

What will some people who oppose hunting say & how do we respond?

Simple...respond calmly. If you're hunting an animal you don't launch out of a trench with fixed bayonet screaming at the top of your lungs. Nope, you study your prey, you stay concealed, control your breathing after going through all the things you do and gently pull the trigger as calmly as you can to try and get the best, cleanest shot you can. You want the dispatching of an animal to be quick, clean and hopefully with it never knowing what hit it. Cleary you can't sedate it in its sleep, this all happens in the wild but you do put effort into the cleanest shot possible. Some folk are better than others with this, get used to it. Soooo why would you do any different to one of your worst critics???
A critic that would clearly prefer to stir you up so you lose your lolly, raise your voice, throw away your temper and hurl abuse. Once you're in that place, YOU are the quarry and YOU are in the THIER sights. You are on toast because it makes their job of demonising you far too easy. You keep your cool, know your subject, defend it properly and at some point if need be inform them "I'm doing nothing wrong at all by being a hunter and nothing I can say will change your mind, its now we must part, there is no point continuing the discussion because both of us are steadfast and I don't need to vent my spleen or blow off steam. Have a nice day" Whilst you may not EVER convince hunting is fine, you might convince the person/s standing next to them watching you're not an unreasonable monster, a thug or a verbal bully. You may well begin to appear to others to not quite tally with the blood thirsty murderer tag your accuser had previously levelled. How you conduct yourself is how people will judge you. People are not fools, eventually some will see their extremist friend as being a very unreasonable person. If they ever have a fall out, its not something they're going to think about, but you could possibly rate higher than the extremist. Many of the extremists are Rebels Without A Clue, going through their young angry stage. It will pass. If you hurl abuse you are fully and most likely permanently situated on the monster thug list. Remember its very emotive for them, if you remain cool, calm and collected like you might in the field you are miles in front. Robert Borsak once asked an extremist "Can't you intellectualise it?"

What did he mean? Its real simple. The extremist has a view, a view they're passionate, extremely passionate about. They're emotionally involved and highly strung over it. They have arrived at a position and push the daylights out of the position, but unable to simply say WHY it is what they think? No its a little more than that even. Many will not want to sit down and converse at length so you can explore not what they believe but why, what's it all based on.

Why is that? Ahh simple, I'm no brain surgeon. I'm a dumb ol' ploughboy/cowboy at best on a good day but I do know one thing if you say something is very very wrongon all sorts of emotional levels, you ought to be able to got through every nut & bolt of your position to explore & explain...and if you want to stay on Rant Level 10 & avoid (as Robert put it) trying to intellectualise it then you have a serious problem.

a) You don't understand it past emotional thought bubble and placard slogans
b) You're actually afraid of what will be laid bare, possibly the extremist is actually intolerant and very wrong.

But they mention morals - Yes be aware you will come across a lot of terms, phrases and words which are not relevant to what you're doing. Opponents will pull unrelated issues over to help oppose your hunting position because they need to bolster what is a failing argument. "Seriously thing" ? you bet, be aware and respond accordingly as you would in the bush.
Morals or hunting is immoral is one of the biggies, so to is murder, sentient beings, rights of the animals...so we need to go through them one at a time, nice and slow.

Murder - I usually ask under what statute is it murder because that's a criminal charge that a person is held account for when taking the life of another human. No one who took the life of an animal whilst legally hunting has ever been convicted on a murder charge. If I was called a murderer I would take great issue with that, I would then have been called guilty, convicted and sentence to a serious criminal charge. Its factually wrong, its accusing me of serious crime and its just plain dumb nonsense. You'll know straight away the person opposing hunting is using emotive language designed to shock, upset and then rally other totally indifferent people to agree with what they hate. Seriously I try not to use the word hate about things or people I don't agree with, but I do hate peas and asparagus. I support the farmers that grow it right up to the consumers that enjoy it. My hate is with me for me...not as a tool to shut down a form of horticulture or farming of vegetables that actually don't affect me at all.

Sentient beings - If you're not read any other blog spoutings from me, well you probably missed this explainer before so we'll try to tackle it...briefly if we can. Animal Rights people will claim its a sentient being and deserves to live without pain or suffering. They extend this further to oppose all forms of animal farming, pet ownership (unless its their own pet), manufacture of any products made or derived from animals and then the biggy...they oppose meat as food. Animal Welfare (AW) seeks to improve the welfare of the animal within the idea that animals are not humans and some are food. Animal Rights (AR) seeks to free all animals, turn everyone vegan and live at one with nature. Yep there's some bad acid dropping going on there. Extended to its full extend, we sit on a rock and do nothing to help nor hinder the animal, eat grass and make clothes out of hessian.

Thing is, "sentient", "sentience" and "Sentient beings" are not terms from science, they are terms from philosophy. Like a lot of philosophical ideas, some (for some people) get taken to the next level and a cult or worldview evolves. The premise is that a sentient being is an animal that feels pain and pleasure therefore it has inferred rights to be free of pain and the ability to feel pleasure and live its life unhindered by us. Who gave the rights? Ahh they're inferred. Who inferred them first? Ahh we don't know but we can track this all back long before Peter Singer and others. In fact we can find philosophical traces nearly 200 years ago and its not been refined a great deal since then. My view, its still being invented.

So we have animals that because they feel, have rights that no one gave them but somehow without any basis these rights do exist even though they're not quantified or formalised properly yet. Oooook.

If you believe that I gotta bridge in Sydney you just have to buy.

Hunting is ok, its neither moral or immoral. Its not murder just like the lion killing the antelope isn't murdering or being moral/immoral. In the case of duck season and number of programmes like "Farmer Assist" where hunters are helping farmers by hunting on properties to get feral numbers down. Will it eradicate ferals?

Probably not, but every dead fox, wild dog or wild car is a win. As most of the hunters do this at their own cost, there is no other cost efficient solution that even comes close.

Ricky, Ricky, Ricky...what the???

Yeah Rick Gervais weighed into the whole young lady shooting the giraffe thing. Weighed in heavily, as heavily and thorough as you can on Twitter's 140 character tirade limit.

Here's some things, I might be wrong, but I think he's promoting Brand Gervais as much as anything. Lets face it for an ageing comic hack, you gotta stay current, raise a twitter storm. Job done. Job done easier when your short messages are acid laced and provide no real depth of knowledge, experience or understanding...let alone research.

I googled online, not the best research tool, but it seems better than whatever Ricky is or isn't using. I looked to see if he's vegan. What I did find was a number of comments of interest. apparently he eats cheese and free range meat and wants to be a vegetarian. Hmmm, ok.
He is or has been very outspoken on the topic of us humans using animal based products. He's very much against it.

I found a curious tirade against Ricky from a vegan group called the Feminist Vegan Network. Who regarded him as a bit of a sexist pig, bit of a woman abuser and not a proper vegan. My reading of it was, those are all lowest of the low insults to that network. No real help, except even they thought he was a hypocrite.

So, in regards the lass who shot the giraffe & then posed with it. Again google looked. I don't know how we verify all this but she's a mother of 8 and a grandmother. She has a hunting programme on the TV, cable, internet or some platform so she at least derives some sort of income out of it. Maybe that's why she posts the photos on social media, seems reasonable enough.

Here's some other things...
1) She's quite the bloody good shot
2) She paid some big dollars to take that animal. (think local economy)
3) Locals used the entire animal
4) No real biggie but kind of like PETA, Animals Australia footage etc its kinda old news. It was taken 5 years ago.
5) Along with paying for her time at the hunting lodge, she has paid for trackers, hotel, food & beverage, vehicles you name it.
6) The Giraffe I'm told was an ousted bull. Further told being an older bull, it will go into decline as its time with the herd is over and if it were to try to return, their retirement plan is pretty much zero. Retired bulls ousted by a new dominant bull can be healthy for a year or so before declining & dying but it kinda depends on the injuries they've sustained from the fight with the new dominant bull. In any case, the ousted bull is history and his clock to the end is ticking very fast.
7) Under the various land management plans in that country, taking of the giraffe is highly regulated to ensure a sustainable giraffe population to avoid over hunting. The cost of a giraffe hunt is at one lodge (which we think is the one Rebecca Francis used) is $3000. Its one of the dearest animals to kill & its stays such a high price because its so tightly regulated and numbers per year for harvesting are kept low.
8) Harvesting, we use this word for good reason. Its a highly regulated & controlled harvest, not a species wipe out. Locals get the carcase, the meat. The shooter can and often does get the rights to taxidermy the pelt and export it home. Lot of paper work involved but many do it.

So what exactly did she do wrong? On what level and under which particular moral law did she commit wrong doing?

Ricky is never clear on this. Not clear on harvesting or the highly regulated nature of the harvest.

What he is clear on is he's completely & totally against hunting.
Apparently he recently said "Sport is fair. If hunting was a sport the animal would have a gun too. If it doesn't you can't call yourself a sportsman. Just a c***."

Wish he'd make his mind up, one minute hunting is a grim sport, then it isn't a sport. Bit of a problem when you think and post on the run I guess.

On the topic of trophy hunting Gervais has said "men and women that do it [trophy hunt] are equally vile and worthless".Ahhh don't catch a fish on a line, then take a photo...whether you eat it or catch & release.

Gervais went onto tweet "It's critical now. Poaching and Trophy Hunting are causing extinction. Don't believe anything different. They kill for fun & money." - Poaching is bad and should be opposed by all. So he's half right there. Trophy hunting and poaching are two distinctly different things.

Gervais also stated that the hunters were "rich psychopaths who get their cheap f*****g thrills" - I think he added the word rich to connect with not rich people, 'I'm one of you' when on his last hunting trip, house hunting, Ricky was looking at buying a  £11million mansion.
Hmmm noble of him to not go into an exclusive mansion that may even have a bigger carbon burden than hunting with a bow. Funny. Ricky's hypocrisy, not his stage & TV work.

But here's the monumental beauty from Ricky...
"And would we allow some billionaire sicko to shoot one cancer patient if he gave a million dollars to cancer research? No. Of course we f*****g wouldn’t. If they really wanted to do a good deed they would donate the money, and not shoot the animal. They would be heroes then. As opposed to murdering scum."

We don't actually cull or harvest sick humans with cancer. That's because we can distinguish the difference between a human and a non human. Speciesist? Well yes...that thankfully is also what stops most of us from wanting to eat other people. Comparison is invalid, flawed, misleading and false.

Ricky could, of course spend $10,000 and have 3 ousted giraffe bulls put down by a vet, money still goes into the system and no shooting happens. Why doesn't he do this? Simple he doesn't want to do good deeds, he wants to rule others actions. Ricky has not saved ONE giraffe, but he has gone house hunting for a £11million mansion. Good deed? Nope he's a narcissistic atheist...all about him

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIquHbS3wHg

Animal Cult Extremists.

Over on Facebook there's a dedicated community page titled "I Love Animals But Hate Animal Rights Activists" (you can find it at https://www.facebook.com/ILAHARA?fref=nf )

Its a page worthy of your attention because it will cause you to stop and think seriously about what is being said by radical animal rights extremists. Basically they come across all manner of absurd claims, comments & attacks from Animal Rights Activists usually fired against sensible, free thinking people.

This latest one the page highlighted below is a classic in the genre of profoundly vague thought bubble doctrine of the weirder sects of the animal cult. Sometimes I wonder are their comments out-loud-words as they think out ways to arrive at an idea or a way of legitimising what's really some very perverted cult talk. Have a look see and don't be afraid to read it 3 or 4 times slowly before reading further down the page. Chances are the more you read, the more you'll discover or worry. You're not going to re-read it and find yourself relaxed at their position.

 "It’s easy to no longer use animals - once we go from disconnect in our heart, to connect…and remember what our spirit has always known: that we didn’t come into this life in bodies that require us to harm any other sentient being in order to live… or to thrive. Once awakened, we make a quantum leap, with no going back, and no desire to go back."

Let's break it down into sections...
"It’s easy to no longer use animals -" No problem there, go about your life as you deem appropriate. Although there is the pesky qualifier here, exactly what does no animal use look like? You live in a cave with no medical help and have a garden where no member of the animal kingdom is used?
No vaccinations I hope.

"...once we go from disconnect in our heart, to connect"Ahh there's a cord from our cardio-vascular system to what exactly? Oh you mean a connection of compassion, endearment etc? Interesting concept, one that's one of the many philosophical strains that have developed by academia and not-so academia to further get us away from theism and in a lot of cases get people well away from Christianity.
If you're theist, that is you believe in God the creator then God (insert which ever one you actually follow) is probably not a vegetarian or vegan god. Rather he or she created animals, plants, chemicals, vapour, water, gas, plasma, rocks and minerals...well everything.
There is no theist system where veganism is the only way, although there's a couple that do go close and skirt the non use of animals thing. However, you'll find your garden variety animal extremist may well borrow aspects of that religion, they will however NOT be full & faithful followers of that religion, like branches of Hinduism, because they have pesky and painful other aspects like vows of poverty. Instead if they do believe in any god it will be a bought product from the IKEA-Theology where you Build-Your-Own Deity for a rock bottom price of $44.95 plus shipping and handling.
They cannot properly belong to a theist religion because things they profess to promote start imploding like a rat plague spreading over a minefield. Better to use extremely vague conceptual words and phrases like "connect, disconnect, heart" - Fooled yet?

"and remember what our spirit has always known:"
Ahh you have a spirit that is separate from your mind? Yep that's a way aways from most theist religions for sure. Your spirit knows, but you haven't. Of course what happens when two people with their own spirits have views that are diametrically opposed? Not just them the person, their "spirits" know and believe in totally opposing things? What happens?
Well the one that's right is...wait hang on!!! "Remember"??? So we know what our "spirit" has always known. This "spirit" that has always known stuff remains very very vague and deliberately distant and conceptual, it also tends to cop a passing mention before the thought bubble can be examined and so easily found wanting.

"...that we didn’t come into this life in bodies that require us to harm any other sentient being in order to live… or to thrive."
Ahhh said who? This life instructional claim did come from somewhere, from someone. Who? Was it a transcendent law giver, a creator, a God, a deity, the origin of the one true Theism? If so who?
If it came from a human, who was it, when and what exactly qualifies them to give such instruction?
Is he/she a prophet of a particular brand of theism and they were just delivering the words of the almighty? If so, which god is this because at present using the Bible, its not currently possible to receive a direct revelation from God so its not that deity so which on is it? Now that's just the "who's the origin" question which splits the source into deity or human being. If its a human being and there is no deity at all, why on earth would or indeed should we take any notice at all. If we're all just animals and results of evolution, natural selection and plain old quirky, mad nature operating with nothing more than pure luck and chance why at all are these premises somehow binding? It's like peeling an onion, you can stop and say "Says who?" or you can go layer after layer after layer and find the deeper you go, the more problem the premise has when its opened up and we go deeper. It just gets more and more nonsensical the further you go. It never ever gets more simple...as youd expect.

"Once awakened, we make a quantum leap, with no going back, and no desire to go back"
Possibly this is the case because if you take a cursory glance, fight the urge to stop, think and question more deeply you will remained completely fooled. I find it odd, as odd as odd gets, that a person makes a determination yet they do not fully or properly understand, nor have questioned that which they ardently believe and fight for.
It is verbose poetry, that is a noble premise which implodes upon itself when more closely questioned. Guess what, it fools many people fully & completely. Watch a shampoo advert or a face cream or other beaut product advert. It doesn't moisturise hair, does not add body, does not make you younger. In physics and any other field, its just not possible. However it still sells and no one fully challenges the advertising companies that spin vague webs that trap people.
Parallel much?

Here's another...

“In order to shift to a compassionate vegan ethic, we need to establish caring as a mode of living. We need to make people feel safer caring. Compassion is very female, feminine. It’s not safe for us to be compassionate. We are called ‘baby,’ told to ‘grow up,’ we are feminized. How can we reclaim the ethic, which is female-identified, while putting down women?”

Your turn, look closely, break it down into bite size bits, chew vigorously and ruminate on it. Yes, its bitter pockets of hot vacuous air. Signifying nothing. You bet its fooled people.

Duck Season - Pros and Cons...and idiots

Duck Season in Victoria opened this week and as I should of expect the Veganazis came out in force.
Animal Liberation Victoria stepped up to the plate, commented on the FartBook page and roused the fools to slaughter. It started with their clever campaign pictured below, well cunning not clever because anyone clever would do their homework.

Reoccurring themes were hunters were blood thirsty, it was blood lust, that hunters had small genitals, it's immoral entertainment, un-necessary, hunters are psychopaths just dying to kill small defenceless birds of flight. Then questions were asked, simpleton talk like "what if that was happening to you?"

But really what are some genuine facts.
Lets go through them in order but firstly, what is duck season?
Well despite what some might like to infer or suggest, its not put on to help entertain recreational hunters. Duck Season is a partial cull of a fast moving migratory waterfowl who's numbers have got so great, they're unsustainable. A Duck Season is part of an Integrated Land Management Plan to avoid boom/bust population swings as many of us have seen since the 1960s with emus in regional Australia. Numbers go through the roof to plague proportions then numbers plummet due to starvation. A partial cull at the right time can avoid the un-necessary cruel end.

So the accusations, how do they stack?

1) "Hunters are blood thirsty"
- Well yet to see a blood thirsty hunter. If someone hungers for blood and killing I'd kinda expect them to do so somewhere on some species without waiting for annual Duck Season. Emotive generalisation without proper proof or validity.

2) "...it was blood lust""
- Same as above...Emotive generalisation without proper proof or validity.

3) "...that hunters had small genitals"
- Why is that even brought up? Seems that guns ownership points to unmanly men taking up phallic symbols to compensate for issues with the wedding tackle. Which if it isn't ridiculous already, there's a bunch of recreational hunters who are women wondering how that odd psyche assessment applies to them. Thankfully they think its as weird as weird gets as do most reasonable people. Pretty sure its just an attempt at insulting the person to compensate for lack of facts or valid position.

4) "...it is immoral entertainment"
- Last bit first, Duck Season is a part of an Integrated Land Management Plan to partially cull a very fast, migratory water fowl back to ecologically sustainable numbers. It is not put on to solely allow hunters to kill for fun. Its sustainable management to avoid ecological imbalance. Hunters are just the mechanism to achieve that aim because they're not only effective, they're highly cost effective, they actually pay money to do the job for the government department that helps nature conservation. Unless Veganarchists can talk ducks into not breeding we're in for problems. Baiting doesn't work, trapping will not work. Shooting does.

-Second bit... "immoral". Well again to class something immoral, you're making a moral judgment. You cannot make a moral judgement without citing a moral code or a moral law giver. I have a Christian Worldview and the Bible has no comments at all about hunting and eating meat being an immoral act. If a person can cite the moral grounds I'd be grateful. Now if a person is queezey and cannot stomach it, that's fine. I get that. But you should not translate a stomach upset or nausea with a moral compass.

5) "..un-necessary"
- Well impossible to make that judgement without looking at the source documents that allow a DUCK SEASON to be opened. The Integrated Land Management Plan. Some states haven't had duck season for a while now...because the science and the numbers do not warrant it at present. What do the Victorian authorities say about duck numbers? Well don't ask the activists, they don't know, they haven't asked and they don't care.

6) "hunters are psychopaths just dying to kill small defenceless birds of flight"
- Psychopaths? What, a serious mental health determination with no professionals giving personal mental assessment? Invalid emotional rant...again
Dying to kill small defenceless birds of flight? Ahhh well if one is an avid recreational hunter, then yes they might well be very keen to go get involved in DUCK SEASON. They have forked out good money, its tightly managed and regulated and there's big fines for illegal hunting. You bet those with licences will be keen to get their money's worth within the bag limit.

Now that's probably as deep as you need go, but every now and then someone goes all out dumb a**

One incredible individual for going all out in the dumber than dumber stakes.
This poor lass said, and yep we not only quote, we cut n paste so its exactly her words...

"My understanding is that meat only started being consumed out of pure survival during the ice age as plants obviously didn't grow. We're not in the ice age now and our health stats should be enough cause for concern..."

Now had I thought long and hard about this...if I had seriously thought about it, I would have asked the following...
a) Did all animals go from vegan to omnivore/carnivore?
b) What about lions, cheetahs, dogs, eagles and all other current day predators were they all vegans then with ice age and lack of plant growth they changed?
c) How long does your understanding tell you the said Ice Age go for, because as flawed as Evolution Theory goes its not evolution, its natural selection because timeframe is so short...or if not, what?


But I never got that far. Despite the hundreds of questions that "understanding" causes I never got past one difficult point. If the Ice Age caused a serious survival situation due to "fact" that "plants obviously didn't grow" what did all the omnivores eat? I mean the definite herbivores of today...some birds, cattle, horses, sheep, squirrels, hamsters, guinea pigs, antelopes, deer, goats, giraffes, etc etc. They must have gone meat eating and then switched back and stayed herbivore right up til now yeah? Or...

Yep my question was if "plants obviously didn't grow" what did the animals eat?

Silence was the stern reply. It was at this point I could see valid reasoning in some hunter supporters quoting one of the characters from the film Tropic Thunder "Never go full retard"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6WHBO_Qc-Q
Too late she did.

Never ever mistake "My understanding is that..." for a proven fact or generally accepted normality.

Yep, the Veganarchists will swamp the duck shoot protest thing.
They're not about ecology, sustainable environment, conservation work. Nothing.
They want Animal Liberation, where all animals are untouched by us, where all species come together and hum Koom-by-Yah whilst we all peacefully graze on grass and tree leaves, a beautiful place where the unicorns run free. A strange place where the vegan does not walk everywhere, does not eat only what they grow themselves, or where their clothes shoes, watch, mobile phone, computer don't come from overseas sweat shops and their electricity, lights, power, water, heating all come from fairies.

"Everybody know you never go full retard". Too late for some.

James Aspey - and issues not tackled when you're silent.

So James Aspey travelled around Australia on a year long vow of silence to promote animal rights.
He goes on the TV magazine show "Sunrise" for his first spoken interview. Not just his first interview but its where he's promised that they'd be the TV Show where he'd break his silence FIRST. Turns out to be a big let down. Why? His credibility is now shown to be shot.

Turns out in that preceding year he broke his silence quite a few times. 5 or 6 times by his own admission. So, when he messes up and speaks does he start again each time? No, then you move ahead to a vow of silence with no "intentional" speaking. Convenient. Turns out he intentionally broke his silence anyway by whispering the name of his then newly acquired girlfriend into her ear. Start again? Nope. Press on he did, because there are schedules to meet, media engagements, no need to unfairly weigh down a stunt with something pesky and invasive like integrity.

So now James is talking again, we know what he's saying but what is of interest is he isn't saying and sadly not being asked? Simple...

Its based on the old sentience thing again. Its a term from philosophy not science. Its a twisted approach that's as twisted as the use of the term Species-ism. Again, this too comes from philosophy.
Their approach is, if you kill a fellow human being its murder, so therefore if you kill an animal it too is murder. The contention is if killing a human is murder then killing any animal is murder because if you separate the rules based on species then you're a specie-ist, a filthy rotten low down morally debauched Species-ist. However funny thing happened on the way to the debate via the jungle. The lion kills the antelope, ahh but that's not murder, that's nature...the rules of abhorrent moral transgression ONLY apply when its human to animal. When its non human animal killing non human animal the moral law is strangely not applicable. When its non human animal killing human, it also doesn't apply. Now when you see the selected application of (their) moral laws, which is based on the basis of one's species, you can easily bring up the very weird and contradictory nature of the application of the term "Species-ism" & "Species-ist". Hmmm, who's the Species-ist now???You know you're probably going to find a someone instantly adopting a vow silence on the matter.

I had an exchange with a capital "V" Vegan recently, but it wasn't James. What's a capital "V" Vegan? Lower case vegans are normal every day people going about their ordinary every day lives who just happen to fuel their body with non animal food products for a range of reasons, but they're not pushing it on others, they're just doing it. Capital "V" Vegans are of the Vegan Cult or Veganarchists. They're animal rights extremists. They can view lower case vegans as cop outs and hopeless moderates.

The thing is the poor dear gives me quite an extensive serve on why eating meat is a disgusting abomination, why it should be opposed and outlawed. Not to mention why such immoral people should hang their heads in shame. Her main point of reference was "Sentience". Again a term from philosophy but her take on it is because an animal has (sentience) awareness, can feel pleasure and pain it therefore has "inferred rights".

Interesting. "Inferred" not definite, just suggested or inferred. Here we have a moral law without the moral law giver. I could have pressed her down the "who's the moral law giver" path and we would have heard the loud crack of a logic implosion. We could be cruel and inspect her life and assess her moral score card because if she's the moral law giver, she must be morally correct in every way or she has a dilemma. I didn't, I gently pressed on "Sentience".

I said what if the animal was somehow, with science that maybe doesn't currently exist kept in stasis from conception, some sort of suspended animation, so it grows without sentience, emotion, awareness, emotions...would that be preferable? I could see the shock in her face rising but I went on to say that in such a fanciful example, the creature might therefore go from conception to birth to plate with no awareness whatsoever, no feelings, no emotions, would that be ok?

Well lets just say she rejected the notion & emotionally replied for quite a few minutes and it was hard for her not to pop a blood vessel at a guess. She was not happy at that futuristic suggestion at all. Yes she used words like disgusting, abhorrent and immoral.

When she concluded & calmed somewhat I calmly asked, "Can I ask you one more question please?" She said yes. I asked "It seems unrelated but when you look at the underlying morality you apply to animal rights owed due to sentience do you support or oppose abortion & is your chosen position free of species-ism"

She had quite the stunned look on her face, I guess she smelt a trap and so she should. In the brief moments she was collecting herself I added "I understand the desire for a woman to have full rights over her body and I'm fine with that but do her rights over ride those of the already begun life that's effectively in stasis developing, without sentience? I say this because many people are now agreeing life begins at conception, not birth"

She was flat out processing this and it caused some dilemma. I wasn't suggesting an unborn child without sentience should therefore be ok as food along with a tomato, rice or pasta. Nor was I thinking anyone in a coma is ok for a BBQ either just because they have no awareness, emotion or feeling. I was using her notion of sentience to show her notion of Species-ism was false, wrong and misleading.

If she was pro abortion then it was ok to end a life of a human if the older human's decides for whatever reason but morally wrong to eat a beef sausage or pork ribs. A little odd & strangely "Species-ist" if the moral rules apply to a sheep, cow or pig but not to a (unborn but very alive) human even if the human is currently un-sentient.

If she was anti abortion then she has the dilemma of why oppose abortion if sentience is not present yet wouldn't support the futuristic idea of a fully non sentient cow, sheep or pig?

Somehow, which ever way she goes she's got a sizable dilemma, a confronting truth she cannot dismiss once she sees it.

She originally says meat eaters are immoral Species-ist because we apply rules to protect humans from murder but not animals. Yet she too is "Species-ist" by applying different rules solely on the basis of Species. Seems if were all honest, we're all Species-ist & if I were to favour any species, why would I not favour my own. Not 100% sure how the sentient being known as an antelope feels about the moral laws not applying to the lion behind them tripping them up. Someone needs to speak up for the voiceless antelope being murder by the lion, whilst Fervent Animal Rights Activists are being very species-ist stacking pressure on meat eating humans only and not other natural predators.

For the record she was not humiliated in front of her friends or anyone else for that matter. I calmly said, "When you're playing with what you think are ethics or morals you have to realise that with humans there will always be uncomfortable loose ends. You better challenge your thinking long, long before you confront others with a principle you wish to enforce or you can find things like truth very confronting".

For the record, abortions happen for a wide range of reasons. Some of them are to save the mother's life from certain death, some its to save her socially and a myriad of other reasons, some valid some not.

My aim was not to have a Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate, but to challenge the fact that sentience seems to only favour the animal and not equally favour the human. That as a result of that fact her premise was actually flawed and she was actually a species-ist. Once she saw, rather reluctantly she was Species-ist & sentience isn't solid grounds either we could probably move onto the "inferred rights", who invented them, when were they devised, who handed them down to capital "V" vegans. I think she saw the contradiction and dilemma of her argument. It was double crossing her the more she spoke. I think she soon worked out it was more than just flawed, it was totally wrong. Having another conversation is something I'd very much like but looks like that's never going to happen. Having shown "Species-ism" for what it is I wonder should I have just gone after the dilemma and contradiction of "sentience" instead. I think no second chances of another conversation were ever going to be likely.

I think as a result of the discussion, whenever terms like sentience, sentient beings, specie-ist or species-ism come up she'll probably go on a vow of silence herself. Sadly morning TV magazine shows are never going to put grist through the mill properly. It would be nice though for some media group to show James Aspey some interest and ask him the harder questions...even if he goes silent for another year, but we know he's never gone a whole year in the first place...EVER.

The 365 Day Vow of Silence That Wasn't 365 Days At All

If you've not heard of James Aspey, he's an Australian Animal Rights Activist who took a vow of silence for 365 days to "raise awareness for animals and peace over violence". Nice motherhood statement but for me it more closely resembles a simplistic thought balloon whish almost looks deliberately vague. In the video cited he actually says its to raise awareness of Animal Rights. Not animal welfare...Animal Rights. He even openly claims its about Animal Liberation. Hmmm, he's already off to a bad start, but here's the worry, it'll fool an awful lot of people.

So how did he go on his 365 days? Well I saw his spot on Sunrise and noticed a lot of questions they should have asked weren't. It was treat as a positive puff piece and whilst he probably was really happy with the exposure, with no decent journalistic rigour applied it kind of stands up as high as the cutesy animal in the lame human interest slot at the end of the news just after the weather.

It turns out, he didn't go the full 365 days. No need to take my word for it either. He's put up his own youtube spot on it, it was a radio interview where he came clean. Not sure if he intentionally set out to make an on air confession or whether he's a poor sod who got caught out on air and revealed himself as a bit of a goose.

You decide for yourself, listen to it while its still on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3UP4lOAHDw

Now couple of things to note, there's not so much vision as there is audio in this youtube piece however of note, the first image you see is a caricature of a guy with his arm around a pig with the slogan Vegan Extremist. This straight away sets him up for everything he is and some of it is not good. His is a world view where choice has to be limited to what he has decided is just, fair and moral and its not mainstream. His foundation for the moral decision is founded in...well he doesn't go that far and it should have been just a small part of the interview to not just understand what he believes, but what the basis for it is and what is the origin of judgement call he makes in what are "truth claims" without any foundation at all.

OK some folk are going to read this and there'll be the usual "Haters gunna hate" spiel...I'll be a hater, and/or intolerant, unfair, immoral and maybe accused of self righteous pontificating. That'll be pretty funny...if I agree totally with James I'll be tolerant, fair, moral level headed yada yada yada.
But if I have a different view, oops a hater. Of course telling people they're unjust, immoral, murderers, unethical etc for eating a chop, sausage, steak or drinking milk, THAT is not intolerance or "hating". Ooooooh nooooo, course not.

Ok his interview was interesting, very distracting is the devolved Australian version of a Woodstock accent which some folk call neo-hippy. "A tiger snake umm like kinda crawled over me or whatever..." But that and the other bro, man, dude language I'll try and put aside.

Apparently he woke up and saw friends and said "What's up bro..." and that happened 5 or 6 times.
Plus the time he whispered the name of his newly acquired girlfriend's name in her ear.
So sadly on Sunrise he wasn't so forthcoming. He wasn't the "Voiceless 365 except for 6 or 7 times guy", nope on Sunrise he hadn't spoken for 365 days and Sunrise was the place of his first words for a year...except that's a lie.

The guy who says he kept a vow of silence for 365 days, actually didn't. Was he fair dinkum? I think he was serious about the cause, think he was serious about the attention, very serious about the media interest, the cultivation of the persona he was developing but if he was fair dinkum, then if you blow it, you have to start again or you didn't actually stay silent for 365 days. How long was his longest stretch without speaking, we don't know. Might have been 10 months could have been 50 days we really don't know. Fact is we can only go by his word and his word only and going by what he told Sunrise he wasn't truthful comparing it to what he (more truthfully) told Steve & Basil & 6PR 882 News Talk.

Now if we're talking about a moral and ethical issue as I think he may suggest, he's kinda on thin ice at best when it comes to morals and ethics. My honest assessment at first glance...EPIC FAIL.

In response to humanely slaughtered comments he states "In my head I'm going, humanely slaughtered? Dude there's no such thing" and he goes on you cannot compassionately kill something inferring that all slaughter is by default cruel, malicious and vile. Who said its a job to aspire to, to enjoy immensely? It is for many of us a job, a thing we do and it neither incites joy or hate nor any emotion as any job does. Its not a hobby, sport, joyful pursuit, its just a thing we do, part of life. Now if you want to be vegan, go for it. Whatever floats your boat, fuel your body how ever you see fit for whatever valid or mad reasons you wish to choose. If I ever qualified as intolerant I guess I'd be forcing people to give up veganism and pushing for it to be outlawed and make milk/egg/meat eating compulsory. That would be intolerant. They want us to stop animal products in the food chain. If they're telling meat eaters they must stop, and their basis cannot be challenged closely because that's hate and intolerance. What the???

Now apparently the real foundations for the vegan position isn't quite made so well. He has made facebook comments about we don't "need" to eat animal based food products.
Let's address it as a "needs" issue. We don't need power windows in cars, but they exist so should we ban them?

We don't need tattoos, do we ensure people don't have them? I mean there may be health issues or objectionable material themed into tattoos that we don't "need" at all. Do we stop them altogether, ban them? No of course not. If we took his don't need to angle all art would cease and maybe Sunrise and all the other shallow mind numbing media vehicles would be gone too. I'm reminded he's stated "
Sometimes you just need to go to Bali and not come back until you have 2 sleeves!" - pointing two his very tattooed arms. So we don't "need" to eat animal based food products, but sometimes we do "need" to get go to a 3rd world Asian country and get both arms fully inked. Ahhh how's that "need" angle even float in a real world? Want tattoos? Go for it, its your skin, your money and in some cases your health and definitely YOUR choice. Want to eat meat? Go for it, or not. No force feeding here at all and animals have always been a food source. EPIC FAIL.

I enjoyed his FaceBook comment/question - "Eating meat is manly??? You're joking, right?"
If I said that, yes I would be joking, so too would Sam Kegovich or Richie Benaud. Eating meat is not a question of manliness or manhood...otherwise women would not eat animal food products. Nice try, not a very good try but effort is noticed to be outweighing cogent thought. Lets slow it right down...its not about manly, its just, well its just food. Honest.

I note the real big one. Sorry I get the feeling he may not fully understand Speciesism as I think many people do not. His comment is/was...

 "Speciesism: The core of the ENTIRE issue, in my opinion. One of the most important things I ever posted!"

Lets look at the core. The vegan contention is if a human kills and eats an animal, milks a cow, collects eggs etc for food it is unfair, transgression of Animal Rights and these violations are a direct result of the horrible actions summed up to be Speciesism.

We should point out sentient beings and also speciesism are philosophy terms, not scientific terms. So the entire debate is based on differing philosophical view points. To the vegan, acts of Speciesism are despicable acts of hate and oppression where one species (human) elevates itself over another species (non human), exploits it, enslaves it, murders it and uses it for its own purposes generally for food and other products.

Here's where it fails.
To the Vegan Activist, the Vegan Extremist, the Animal Rights Extremist, the Animal Liberation Extremist the transgressor, the one's committing "Speciesism" are all humans and only humans.

The lion takes down the antelope, kills its prey, sometimes devouring and swallowing parts of its kill before its actually dead, at times still conscious and aware. The Shark eats the fish, alive because its not humanely slaughtered and processed, its just ripped apart violently and devoured in a frenzy more often than not. No table manners in the wild. The cat catches the mouse, plays with it, eventually eats it...or not. The wattle bird raids the nest of other birds, eating the eggs or killing the live young and eating them. The snake eating insects, lizards and at times even its own young. The wild dogs, pigs, cats or other ferals killing native fauna or farmed animals like sheep or cattle, all natural animal instincts. All survival. All animals doing what animals do naturally but none of them are committing heinous acts of "Speciesism". $3 note odd.

None of those creatures are guilty of murder, violence, killing unjustly or denying another animal its animal rights. No. Only the human is actually a "species-ist". That's akin to saying only one particular race can be racist. Singling out humans and saying they enslave animals, commit violence and murder whilst all other species are ok to kill and eat one another...well if Speciesism is a valid term the Veganarchist Extremist has taken the cake. They are the supreme "speciesist"  they apply Speciesism to humans and no other species. How's that work???

Here's where little old meat eater me agrees wholeheartedly with James Aspey.
I too agree with "Speciesism: The core of the ENTIRE issue"

It is the entire issue and the hidden part is these inferred rights that all animals have, presumably all animals except humans have to have an inventor. Who created these rights? Who first postulated that these rights do or should exist because before the birth of this mysteriously un-named law giver there must have been no "rights" inferred or otherwise. Lets explore that Veganarachist. Normal vegans rest easy. You're cool with me, its the cult followers that need torchlight.

You cannot have a moral law without a moral law giver. I do believe in God. I believe I'm a Gentile follower of Jesus Christ, Son of God, the God of the Jews. It seems that according to some, the close examination of perceived contradictions from non believers is not only right, its required to show the pre-decided ridicule the Bible heaps upon itself, yet the same amount of rigour (which is generally not very learned rigour anyway) is never applied to other worldviews with the same fervour. Many Jews & Christians point to this being a subtle pointer as to which is the true God as the others aren't opposed so vigorously.

With Sentient, Speciesism and Speciesists being philosophical terms, a faith or religion is afoot.
Either hidden, or not known by its followers.

But applying any such rigour to the Vegan Cult is the work of haters and we all know intolerant haters are gunna hate.

My faith (which none of you reading have to follow or adhere to) shows eating meat and animal based food is quite ok. Its given as a gift of God. Telling me I'm unjust, immoral and unethical is old news. The Bible says we're all fallen and as a result we fall short of being worthy of Heaven. Old news, I know I'm as bad as any person who's ever walked the earth, we all are. Following my faith is apparently going to be ok, long as I go Vegan which is on the side of justice. Ahhh what the???

Who's the intolerant hater now?

There's vegans who don't eat meat/milk/eggs/etc for whatever reason and its a fuel choice based on their own views. Then there's the Veganarchist Cult followers pushing an agenda which is not consistent with Christian, Jewish, Muslim doctrine. Hey I just picked the big 3. There's others.

So we see the Vegan's "moral laws" but who is their moral law giver?
If there isn't one, then someone's just making stuff up and trying to pass personal preference off as ethically perfect judgement and therefore (here's the important bit) condemning to damnation anyone not of the vegan cult. Tolerance?

If they're true atheist, then its all nature and all is fair cos we're all animals. A true full blood atheist has other dilemmas and contradictions but on face value, you cannot accuse them of being "species-ists"

James clearly feels very strongly about the Animal Liberation, Animal Rights and Species-ism.
Passion however does not make a position fact or actually correct even slightly.

Sadly Sunrise does not have the budget, time or resources to properly flesh out issues underlying the whole Vegan Cult. They also do not have the audience that has an inclination for deeper analysis.
If that were to ever happen James would be like a lame antelope to the lion. He would have been devoured savagely.

Instead he gets a good 15 minutes of fame, more regularly than maybe all of us put together.
Fine by me and I think eventually it'll be better if we see more James Aspey type stunts and gain air time.

Maybe more people will stop, take a deep breath and seriously think for a moment.

I would never ever make a Vegan eat meat, and I sure as hell I'm not going to sit back and eat the organic horse sh*t many vegans are serving up.

Test it all, don't be fooled by the fools.