05/26/11 Torture Because of the Penis Bone
Animal Friends' reaction to Nadan Vidosevic's murder of a bear
- Do Croatian hunters confirm the survey outcome on the connections between penis size and hunt enjoyment?
Nadan Vidosevic, a former presidential candidate, the president of the Croatian Economy Chamber and the director of Kras company as well as a passionate hunter on innocent animals for over 10 years, has caused outrage within the Croatian public when he shot a brown bear who lacked a front paw. He paid the pleasure of murdering a so-called "trophy bear" with a 76,000 kuna fine, while for the murder of another, smaller and therefore by the hunter's code less valuable bear, he paid the fine of 14,000 kuna. This money could have been donated to charity instead of paying for the murders.
For the majority of citizens violence and execution of numerous animals carried out by hunters is incomprehensible and ethically repulsive when in the 21st century hunting is no longer a means of survival and when there are already over 60 billion animals who are bred and slaughtered for food in humiliating conditions every year. It is even more arrogant to kill a defenseless animal, who in this particular was case disabled, mainly for fun, recreation and to brag about the trophies – the bear's skull and fur and his penis bone, which is especially appreciated by hunters.
A survey by Dr. Brian Upchurch from the Diminutive Male Genitalia Disorder Research Organization (DMGD) has showed a genetic correlation between small-sized penises and the thrill of killing by hunting. It appears that, when it comes to hunters, not even high political and social functions or material wealth can compensate for an inadequate penis size so they reach the peak of enjoyment and thrill by killing innocent animals.
Even though hunters oppose that attitude and claim that they do not find pleasure in killing, it is a surprising fact that they then intentionally bring lethal weapons instead of cameras with them while roaming the woods. Moreover, although they like to represent themselves as protectors of wild animals, spilling the brains of innocent creatures can hardly be called protection.
It is sad and immoral that the political structures that bring laws and regulations connected to the so-called animal management in hunting areas are mostly made of hunters. They benefit themselves, bringing regulations that protect their own interests to kill and not by any means the interests of animals to live undisturbed in their natural habitats. Hunters try to extinct animals from their habitats so they can artificially breed them to have someone to shoot at.
For the cold-blooded killing of wild animals one does not need skill or courage, but only an emotional and ethical deficiency of a hunter on whose reticle a human can easily be found, which is proved by many cases of mutual killings of fellow hunters. Independent of those surveys, it is certain that the majority of citizens does not think of killing animals by hunters as socially acceptable or as a result of their emotional balance and humaneness. Quite the opposite, citizens fear hunters, their arrogance and the possibility of hunters shooting them or their companion animals carelessly and abruptly.
It is time that the patriarchal and primitive violence against animals for sadistic and perverse pleasures of hunters be replaced with the culture of compassion and ethical treatment of animals.