Q1: "Do I have to be a vegetarian or vegan to participate in WAAG events or meetings?"
A: Absolutely not. All WAAG senior members are either vegetarian or vegan, but we welcome everyone who wants to help make any positive change in the community and world. We do, however, ask people to avoid wearing animal products - it tends to distract passersby and give them the wrong impression. With that being said, with the exception of fur, this is not a rule as many people simply cannot afford to go out and by animal-free clothing just for one event.

Q2: "What is the difference between Animal Rights and Animal Welfare?"
A: Basically, Animal Rights is about respecting the rights* of others [advocating for their rights to be free from exploitation and other human induced harms] while Welfarists believe that exploitation is justifiable, as long as it is carried out "humanely"**. Rightists advocating for improved conditions in the animal exploitation industry [i.e. PETA vs KFC Canada] is not "hypocritical", as some have claimed, as any victory is a step toward our end-goal of animal liberation, which greatly benefits our species as well as the environment. There are no downsides for the human race by extending the circle of compassion to encompass all animal life instead of just our own tribe.
*legitimate rights, not imaginary ones. Imaginary rights = the "right" to do something based on self-serving wants.
**The term "humane" is far too broad, rendering it nearly useless for any meaningful usage for protection purposes. Making exceptions opens the door for more, as well as technicalities in any laws enacted, therefore keeping the door wide open for cruelty.

"What do you mean by ‘animal rights’?"
People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests regardless of whether they are "cute", useful to humans, or endangered and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful and even if everyone dislikes him or her). For more information on why animals should have rights, click here.

"Animals don’t reason, don’t understand rights, and don’t always respect our rights, so why should we apply our ideas of morality to them?"
An animal’s inability to understand and adhere to our rules is as irrelevant as a child’s or as that of a person with a severe developmental disability. Animals are not always able to choose to change their behaviors, but adult human beings have the intelligence and ability to choose between behaviors that hurt others and behaviors that do not hurt others. When given the choice, it makes sense to choose compassion.

"It’s almost impossible to avoid using all animal products; if you’re still causing animal suffering without realizing it, what's the point?"
It is impossible to live without causing some harm. We’ve all accidentally stepped on ants or breathed in gnats, but that doesn’t mean that we should intentionally cause unnecessary harm. You might accidentally hit someone with your car, but that is no reason to run someone over on purpose.

"What about all the customs, traditions, and jobs that depend on using animals?"
The invention of the automobile, the abolition of slavery, and the end of World War II also necessitated restructuring and job retraining. Making changes to customs, traditions, and jobs is part of social progress - not a reason to deter it.
[[More pointedly, concentration camps and gas chambers provided jobs and income; closing them did not cause economic destruction for Germany, and we are better off without them.]]

Q3: "Why don't you people do something for [enter group] instead of helping [enter another group]?"
A: A disingenuous attack which is nothing more than a diversionary tactic to take attention away from the issue at hand. The usual form is "why don't you help humans instead of wasting time on animals!?", which exemplifies a human-supremacist mentality, and is notably (at the very least 99.999% of the time) exclusively employed by those who do nothing for the group (in this case, humans) which they profess preferential treatment be given.

     Animal Rights takes in the larger picture, although there is nothing wrong with issue-specific groups or campaigns, Animal Rights fundamentally is Human Rights (as humans are neither plant nor mineral). When we make exceptions to harm one group, there will invariably be exceptions made for others - including our own. It would reflect poorly on the state of our species if we truly could only care about one thing at a time and remain blind toward the interconnectedness of life. Where would the shallowness end as the circle of compassion constricts?

     Humans are animals, and our species unavoidably does suffer the consequences of harming nonhumans, whether it be directly [eating ourselves to poor health] or indirectly [starving children in another country, harming rural communities, environmental pollution and soil degradation, global warming etc.]

     This question is irrelevant as the questioner typically does nothing substantial for said group [human] which they profess to value more than the other [anything not human]. Human Rights activists recognize that Animal and Human Rights are not mutually exclusive, but rather, are complimentary to each other.

     The question used to be "why don't you help white people instead of wasting your time on blacks?", although not put quite so politely, which goes to show that the questioner/attacker only wants those aided who they value - those deemed as being 'lesser' be damned. Fortunately there are many more who's compassion is not limited by [intentional or subconscious] such petty prejudices.

     The animal rights perspective has been historically embraced by a wide range of brilliant thinkers and humanitarians, like Pythagoras, Leonardo da Vinci, Albert Einstein, Harriet Beecher Stowe, C.S. Lewis, Susan B. Anthony, Leo Tolstoy, Ceasar Chavez, Dick Gregory and Mahatma Gandhi.

     Dr. Albert Schweitzer stated that "compassion...can only attain its full breadth and depth if it embraces all living creatures and does not limit itself to mankind." Nobel laureate Dr. Isaac Bashevis Singer called species bias the "purest form of racism" and animal rights the purest form of justice advocacy, because animals are the most vulnerable of all the downtrodden. Alice Walker wrote the introduction to a book entitled "The Dreaded Comparison," by Marjorie Spiegel.

     In this book, Spiegel compares the treatment of animals today to that of human slaves in the 16th through 19th centuries. Alice Walker agrees, saying, "The animals of the world ... were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women were created for men." That's quite a statement, and it's true; the animal rights movement is a movement for justice, just like abolition, suffrage, civil rights and women's rights.

     It is often fallaciously claimed that those who care about animals don't care about humans; this couldn't be further from the truth as those who care about animals are more prone to also have an increased respect for human wellbeing; case in point: Study Shows Vegans Are More Empathetic, Neurologically Speaking, Than Omnitarians. "Hardcore vegans" are found to display more compassion for humans than their omnitarian counterparts.

Q4: "Do 'you people' have lives/jobs?"
[mumbled low by quickly retreating pedestrians or shouted out by those driving by excessively fast and recklessly as "get a life/job!" -- and sometimes, even more pathetically, by anonymous posting in comment section of news sites or email.]
A: Yes, we have lives; no, we are not the walking dead, or undead -- you may ask a medical professional to take our pulses if you'd like to make absolutely sure of this. (pssst...zombies don't exist!)

     Unfortunately, yes, we have rather busy work/school, social, and family lives; that we find a small amount time in our schedules to volunteer and dedicate to do something positive and beneficial for society by helping others, especially society's most vulnerable, with no want of compensation, is something we are not the least bit ashamed of - especially since there isn't the slightest reason for us to be.

     Thanks for asking and taking such a great interest in our personal lives, but this isn't about us, it is about the message and exposing the misery nonhumans (and often as a result - humans) are forced to unjustly endure for selfish want and the economic benefit of very few - which is where the focus needs to be.

     We have our priorities straight: speak out against injustices wherever we find them, no matter how unpopular the cause may be amongst the general public and those in positions of authority. No one deserves to be excluded from the circle of compassion we have for our own based on arbitrary criteria; be they a different ethnicity, sexual orientation or species; we all feel pain and sorrow as well as the longing for freedom.

     Psychologically speaking, negative attacks such as this oft come from those who actively waste their lives, but instead of addressing this issue and making the proper changes in their lifestyles, they bottle it up, become bitter, and lash out whenever they see someone doing what they know is positive for, and beneficial to society.

     Working to get the rights respected and the lives of others protected from exploitation is the fundamental basis of Animal Rights; we apologize for this concept being too complex for some to comprehend.

Q5: "Aren't Animal Rights people all hypocrites and liars?"
A: No. Perceived "hypocrisies" are based on ignorance as well as biased reportings from individuals and groups who are against certain groups having rights for one selfish reason or another.

     All too often when referred to finding a government link on PETAs website, for instance, to find information, a person will refuse to check it out because of one absurd excuse or another, rather than admit it is due to fear of the truth and proving themselves wrong - this is willful ignorance otherwise referred to as Moral Cowardice.

     Numbers May Vary: When giving statistics, we give the information which is currently available, as time progresses the numbers may vary as more information comes forth, everything is in constant flux, and the exploitation industries aren't exactly forthcoming with information [which they'd rather no one ever see].

     Looking for faults in others rather than improve flaws in oneself is incredibly infantile; we are human, just like every other human, therefore flawed, but we have made the choice to positively evolve our moral edicts. Any imperfections found in the individual does not tarnish the merit of the animal rights movement; however, the Rick Berman's of the world, who have zero intentions of improving upon themselves in any meaningful ways, would rather society believe the opposite were true.

     We do not attack you as a person, the case for flesh-eating is based on lies propagated by money-hungry parasitical liars, and that is where our criticisms are directed, not at the common deceived individual.

Q6: "Which side of the issue can we trust?"
A: That is simple and can be determined through the use of basic logic.
We [ARadvocates] have nothing to gain or lose whether you choose to realize the truth or continue on living the unhealthy lifestyle that was forced upon you from infancy.

     Exploitationists, however, financially have much to gain and lose from every person who funds/rewards and condones their illicit activities. Dairy, egg and flesh-peddling is a trillion-dollar-a-year industry, money is everything to animal agrikulturists.

     Hundreds of millions are spent annually on advertising to keep as many consumers brainwashed as possible and are most often geared toward impressionable children to ensure the next generation of flesh-addicted consumers will continue to unthinkingly support them and waste more money on their products hen they grow up [as has been done by the tobacco industry]. Every customer they lose is hundreds to thousands of dollars in lost annual revenue, and one less person to help promote their products [by word of mouth or pushing this habit on their own children].

     Generally speaking, the most believable party is the one which uses solid, proven and peer-reviewed science and does not have an ever-growing and bloody body count. That the [junk]"food" industry hires proud-to-be glorified professional slanderers [the CCF and others] to assault the messengers in a sad, shameless attempt to divert attention away from the unassailable message is a pretty good tip-off that they're the ones whose credibility is in [very] short supply.

Q7: "Aren't you afraid people will make fun of you, or worse?"
A: The simple fact that we don't eat meat already makes us a target; we realize that speaking out for so-called 'lesser species' will only exacerbate these irrational attacks. It says something about our society when we fear the reactions of others simply for giving up a habit which has so many negatives with no positives for those we devalue nor ourselves.

Unfortunately there are some people who are disturbed enough to go after our families, but this only reveals how vitally important it is that we push our society to evolve and teach true compassion, tolerance and respect for ALL others, and that our wants do not trump the legitimate rights of others. These attacks also clearly demonstrate that making exceptions to harm nonhumans has its repercussions amongst our own species as humans make exceptions to attack their fellow kind.

The anti-rights movement has not been able to assail the message, and for good reason -they can't- so their apologists instead focus on attacking the messengers and on occassion manipulate others into helping them. Violence against nonhuman animals leads to the same disregard for, and mistreatment of fellow humans. Petty and feeble personal attacks are the cost of being a part of positive change in the world, it is something we do not care for, but tolerate; we will not be intimidated or bullied into silence - there are innocent lives which are depending on us [and you] to accept and tell the truth and give voice to the voiceless.

Q8: "Are AR activists 'food Nazis' or 'food nannies' [as claimed by anti-rightists such as the CCF]?"
A: No, this slanderous attack is utterly absurd. AR activists do not participate in, or advocate rounding up any group of living beings, enslaving them, or shipping them off to kill-chambers to be executed over an imaginary right-by-genetic-superiority-complex [or any other silly reason]; harming others is antithetical to our goals and we leave this behavior up to certain industries and their disinformation front-groups.

What we do is merely state that ones wants do not, nor will ever, trump anothers genuine rights. A world of want-equals-right would be the quickest way to eliminating the need of our legal system, but the consequences of applying the views humans have against nonhumans to our own species would be equally devastating to us as it is to them. Imagine that world; "It's my right to 'have my way' with X, because I wanted to, so X can't complain, and you're a fool for saying it's wrong". Rape and molestation is without a doubt wrong, whether it be against the law or not.

Society acknowledges that forcing oneself upon another human is wrong; despite this, we make arbitrary exceptions for others [in this case species] simply because we don't share the same genetic makeup. It is your right to know the facts about vegetarianism - the natural-to-human diet - as well as the detrimental health effects of consuming animal products; we are respecting your right to know the truth about the lifestyle that was forced upon you.

One can be a "food-nanny" or choose to be a food-ninny, it is up to the individual to decide, but knowing the facts first is our educational right. Knowing the truth makes it our humanitarian duty to provide the public with the facts.

Q9: "Are you people terrorists, militants or extremists?"
A:No. The attempt to group AR advocates and the movement itself in with events such as 911 is an absolute mockery of and utterly disrespectful to those affected by this horrific incident. To this very day, not one member of the human species has died because of the AR movement or by advocates of AR; however, the body count of humans impacted by and have died because of animal exploitation is in the millions and growing rapidly.

     It is a sad commentary about any society which would perceive non-violence, advocating for anothers rights, and educating others as "extreme" while viewing exploiting, maiming, assaulting reproductive organs and killing as moderate, reasonable, restrained, judicious, fair, rational or anything of the sort. That so many among our population are unwilling to stop eating meat for fear of becoming unhealthy, dying or being mocked and otherwise persecuted shows that it is not vegetarians or AR activists who are the ones spreading fear amongst the general public.

     We have strong convictions[oft derogatorily referred to as being "militant"] yes, but these are not 'beliefs'; what we know are the facts, which we have accepted under the weight of widely available documentation, and now share the truth with others, to help the downtrodden, voiceless and defenseless, not for the sake of any self-serving agenda or reward - our goal is to educate and eliminate ignorance about tyranny and injustice wherever we can.

"Don’t animal rights activists commit ‘terrorist’ acts?"
The animal rights movement is nonviolent. One of the central beliefs shared by most animal rights activists is the belief that we should not harm any animal - human or otherwise. However, all large movements have factions that believe in the use of force. Keep in mind that Omnitarianism is based on causing intentional harm to others. Are the acts which are inflicted upon non-human animals every second of every day not in itself acts of legitimate terrorism? How far has our society fallen when a person speaks up for the rights of others is considered 'extremist', 'militant' or any other buzzword which has a negative connotation?

[The following is an excerpt from the FAQ found on PETA.org]
"How can you justify the millions of dollars of property damage caused by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)?"
Throughout history, some people have felt the need to break the law to fight injustice. The Underground Railroad and the French Resistance are examples of movements in which people broke the law in order to answer to a higher morality. The ALF, which is simply the name adopted by people who act illegally in behalf of animal rights, breaks inanimate objects such as stereotaxic devices and decapitators in order to save lives. ALF members burn empty buildings in which animals are tortured and killed. ALF "raids" have given us proof of horrific cruelty that would not have otherwise been discovered or believed and have resulted in criminal charges’ being filed against laboratories for violations of the [extremely weak] Animal Welfare Act. Often, ALF raids have been followed by widespread scientific condemnation of the practices occurring in the targeted labs, and some abusive laboratories have been permanently shut down as a result.

It is bizarre that anyone would want to justify pointless enslavement, torture and murder of billions of living, feeling sentient beings every year. One must ask; when did monetary value or gains begin to trump life itself?

An alleged act of "terrorism" includes gifting someone who tortures living sentient beings free subscriptions to pro-life pro-animal magazines!

Q10: "Isn't the Animal Rights movement elitist and based on irrational emotions rather than logic and science?"
A: No. Animal Rights is in fact based solidly on legitimate fact-based science and logic. Animal exploiters from all facets of the industry claimed that of all the animals on this planet, only humans were capable of feeling and thinking, and despite all expert testimony to the contrary, many humans believed and too often still believe this to be true.

     Today, fortunately, many more of us have come to realize that nonhumans are quite capable of feeling the same things we can, including being able to experience fear and pain. We see this most often see these examples through our furry ambassadors of the animal world; domesticated cats and dogs. However, by a Machiavellian-like intellectual disconnect, we fail to comprehend and relate this to other animals that are used for food, vanity and other selfishly unkind desires.

     "Meat tastes good!", "I love steak, bloody and raw!", "it sounds too hard" "I could never give up [insert cadaver-type here]" make up the bulk of excuses given to justify flesh-eating; the rest consists of insults and other silliness, such as; "People Eating Tasty Animals" [this uninspiring attempt at a parody got old in the 80s people...and it, to be accurate, is "People Eating TORTURED Animals".]

     It makes no sense to do to others what you do not want done to yourself, this part of the fundamental [true]hypocrisy for the advocacy of, and participation in, the exploitation of nonhumans. Industry often exploits the ignorance of consumers and uses pseudo[junk]science to further their profit margins.

     There is a seemingly growing number among those of the omnitarian faith who believe that plants are animals which is as equally odd as the notion that animals are machines. The claim that it is cruel [and "hippocretacle"...] for vegetarians to eat plants because "plants feel pain," to which they most certainly do not. The other oddity is that these same people will claim that exploiting animals is 'ok' because they "cannot think or feel pain," to which they most obviously can.

     Dairy groups claim that studies "prove" drinking milk lowers the risk of developing diabetes, BUT their "scientific" studies compared the consumption of milk to that of CARBONATED SUGAR WATER rather than something that is truly healthy and natural. More and more independent and peer-reviewed studies are making direct links to the consumption of animal products to various diseases, including diabetes, which are quickly turning into epidemics.

     Groups, such as the much maligned and dreaded PETA, have been warning consumers about the detrimental effects to humans of omnitarianism for decades, yet they were derided and slandered for these and many other selfless humanitarian efforts; society chose to continue to hold onto their blind faith in industry propaganda rather than those more knowledgeable - the evidence is plain for all to see if one merely chooses to look.

     Vegetarianism isn't about being a "picky eater"; it's about choosing right from wrong, leading by example and living by ones evolving morals; nor is the abstinence from flesh "elitist" in any way, plant-based diets are affordable for all as it costs much less to eat plants rather than animals. The notion of perceived superiority justifies "dominion"[or rather damnation] allowing what we humans do to nonhumans for our wants is itself extraordinarily elitist by definition.

Q11: "Do vegetarians suffer from deficiencies?"
A: Vegetarians are NOT any more likely to suffer a deficiency than omnitarians{flesh-eaters}.
See Vegetarian Faq for more information.

Q12: "Weren't Hitler and Goebbels in favour of Animal Rights?/Wasn't Hitler A Vegetarian?"
[These are both most often brought up in the form of an 'attacusation' rather than legitimate questions.]
A: Absolutely NOT and NO.

This argument is utterly absurd and almost unworthy of serious consideration. The questioner implies that since Hitler and Goebbels allegedly held views supportive of animal rights (e.g., Hitler was a ‘vegetarian’ for some time), the animal rights viewpoint must be wrong or dubious. This is a classic example of the ridiculous smear-by-association tactic meant to try to shame vegetarians and AR advocates into silence.

However, even if this weren’t the case, the merits of an idea cannot be determined by the character of its proponents; so the problem for this argument is simple: bad people and good people can both believe things correctly. Or put in another way, just because a person holds one bad belief (e.g., Nazism), that doesn't make all their beliefs wrong. A few examples will suffice to illustrate this: If Hitler believed in evolution, would that mean we should not believe in evolution? What if Gandhi also believed in evolution? How would we reconcile the two? The Nazis undertook smoking reduction campaigns. Is it therefore dubious to discourage smoking? Early Americans withheld respect and liberty for black people. Does that mean that they were wrong in giving respect and liberty to others? An idea must be judged on its own merits.

Technically, this poor argument against AR and Vegetarianism is an "ignoratio elenchus fallacy", arguing from irrelevance.

Q13: "But PETA kills animals, doesn't that go against Animal Rights and therefore make all of you hypocrites?!"
A: Yes, PETA gives dying animals a quick, painless end, but no, there is no hypocrisy or controversy here.
This is one of many cases of perceived hypocrisy. These beliefs are borne from ignorance and the desire to believe because it fits with ones own prejudices. This is a textbook tactic which is often employed by slanderers who twist and distort the truth to their own ends, these half-truths are spread to discredit others and take away attention from their own total lack of credibility.

     Yes, PETA does euthanize dying animals to alleviate their suffering. PETA stands for People for the ETHICAL Treatment of Animals, NOT "People for the absolute no killing of anything under any circumstances no matter how much terminal pain that life may be in". To allow another to pointlessly suffer from terminal disease or injuries is not ethical.

     Euthanizing animals is the most humane way of ending life that is filled with misery. Guardians who cannot afford to have their dying furry family members euthanized at a vet will bring them to PETA who provides this humane service for free, despite the financial costs, the hits to their "rescue" rating, and the emotional pain to all involved. PETA is listed as a shelter in Virginia solely due to this being the only way that they can purchase and administer the euthanasia drug. It is important to note that PETA is NOT a shelter, and therefore does not take in healthy animals, those are redirected to trusted humane shelters for adoption - to which they do not get [nor want] any credit for saving.

     When PETA rescues an animal, from a breeder or INhumane shelter [think windsor animal 'rescue'], these animals are most often in advanced states of chronic illness [rotting from the inside while still alive] and cannot be nursed back to health no matter how much money is provided for their care. They are also often the first responders to wildlife injuries, such as animal collisions with vehicles, and therefore are the ones to alleviate the suffering of the terminally injured.

     PETA has a yearly revenue of approximately $30million, this is not hoarded, it is spent exactly where it is supposed to be for their GLOBAL operations. There are approximately 4million animals euthanized in US shelters alone every year. As ridiculous as it sounds, Anti-rights activists claim that it is PETA's responsibility to care for every unwanted animal: $30mil divided by 4mil animals further divided by 365days per year would leave them $0.02 to shelter, feed, clean, and give medical attention as well as provide other essential needs to each animal; this is an impossibility and is definitely not their responsibility.

     To accomplish taking on our throw-away society's responsibilities, this task is a highly implausible feat for an honest organization which does not generate money through exploitation to do. The most effective answers to the overpoplulation problem is education and legislation. Cities, like Windsor, require mandatory low-cost spay/neuter clinics - unfortunately we are not currently allowed to have these here.

For more information to further dispel this perceived hypocrisy, visit: PETA: Why We Euthanize
For information on their financial spending, visit their site at peta.org/about/numbers.asp [this openness is something you won't get from the CCF, industry shills who operate the 'petakillsanimals' slandersite].

Q14: "Animals aren't intelligent, so isn't it all right to eat them?"
A: It is a common misconception that because animals can't do everything humans can (e.g., speak French, understand physics or build cars) they are not intelligent. However, recent scientific studies demonstrate that farmed animals are at least as smart as dogs and cats, and that they can think, reason and comprehend complex intellectual concepts. They also experience emotions and have a strong need for nurturing relationships.
For example:

· Research shows that pigs are much smarter than dogs and that their intellectual abilities exceed those of the average three-year-old human child. Mother pigs sing to their young while nursing, and pigs have more than 20 vocalizations to communicate everything from hunger to courtship intentions.

· Dr. Chris Evans, head of the animal behavior lab at Macquarie University in Australia, says that chickens are as smart as mammals and even some primates. Research demonstrates chickens' understanding that recently hidden objects have not disappeared, an intellectual capacity lacking in human infants. Hens are dedicated mothers who turn their eggs up to five times an hour. They also cluck to their chicks, who chirp back from inside their shells.

· Research shows that cows have the ability to solve problems and that they enjoy intellectual challenges. Studies done at Cambridge University showed that cows experienced a "eureka" moment upon discovering a solution to a problem. Their brainwaves and heart rate increased, and some even jumped in the air. While each cow can recognize more than 100 other individual members of their herd, they commonly develop close bonds with only a few others. Cows even shed tears when someone close to them passes away.

· Based on a review of over 500 research papers, biologists reported in the August 2003 issue of Fish & Fisheries that fish are highly intelligent and socially sophisticated: they can recognize individual shoal mates, learn from each other, employ long-term memory, and even use tools. Fish have particularly complex spatial memories that enable them to navigate vast areas of ocean using cues such as polarized light, sounds, smells, and visual landmarks.

Recent discoveries about the emotional experiences and intellectual capabilities of farmed animals confirm that we share much more in common with them than most people had previously realized. Naturally, this new knowledge raises important concerns about whether killing and eating farmed animals is ethically justifiable.

Q15: "Don't hunters do more to conserve the environment than animal rights activists and tax-payers?"
A: No, but they certainly do the most to sanctimoniously exploit and destroy nature for "sporting fun". Hunting license fees do not go toward saving the environment, it goes to supplementing the paychecks of parks officials, otherwise known, in these cases, as glorified 'game' wardens.

     This arguement is an attempt to divert attention away from the real issue at hand; hunters have no legitimate right to violate the rights of others, no matter the amount of money they spend and no matter the species, gender, ethnicity or political/religious views of those they intend to harm for their own amusement. Legalized murder is still murder, no matter how cowardly and unprovoked the execution may be.

     Just like the unspayed cats in our city guarantees a continually growing population, keeping an increased number of females in the wild ensures that each season will bring about a fresh crop of deer to replace the ones who lost their lives during previous slaughters. Currently, there are approximately eight does for every buck in the wild. Laws restrict the number of does that hunters may kill. Deer do not have monogamous mating relationships, and bucks will often mate with more than one female. Voids are made in populations by "management" plans that almost always call for unjustifiable "culls" [a polite way of saying mass-murder].

     In the presence of these voids, animal populations explode to fill them, making these hobbyist executions even more senseless. Thus, exposing what is meant by "management"; keeping populations artificially high so that they can be exterminated year after year for a tidy profit. Hunting is elitist; it is unnecessary, unavoidably cruel, and [at best] poorly regulated. "The only time there is more lying before an election is after a hunt"; rarely is an animal "shot between the eyes" and therefore killed immediately. Rationalizations abound to make weak excuses to try to justify the taking of lives that were just stolen in the name of "victimless fun".

"But if we didn't kill them, they'd die [for one made up reason or another]!"
By this rationale, the proper way to "manage" starving children in Africa and other parts of the world is not to supply them with what they need, but rather, to execute them on the spot. Legitimate management, meaning stewardship, would leave hunting where it belongs - in the dark ages. Court systems around the globe have all condemned the killing of others, in the form of hunting humans, yet excludes nonhumans from the justice system, which exposes another true-hypocrisy of the animal exploitationist cabal.