Skip to content

Keep Guantanamo Open for Animal Abusers

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

Before we become too divided over whether or not to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, let’s understand that we’re asking the wrong question. What we need to be thinking about is utilizing the military prison facility to indefinitely house those who’ve terrorized and murdered species other than our own. I’m referring, for example, to the subhuman monsters who participate in dogfighting.

In her voice-over for the WPLG (the Miami-based ABC affiliate) news video provided above, reporter Sasha Andrade says, “A good Samaritan called animal services … to report a crime. She says a pet owner … repetitively threw dogs in a trunk and let them fight to death. It’s called ‘trunking,’ and unfortunately it’s becoming a trend in the underground dogfighting community.”

Call me a cynic, but I think I’ve found a way to bring together the bureaucrats who can’t agree on what to do about the detainees who’ve been held at Guantanamo Bay, or about what to do with the facility itself. The answer is: Turn the place into a prison for animal abusers.

I also think we could settle our differences over the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” “extraordinary rendition,” and “black sites,” if we would turn our punitive focus to those who terrorize and murder other species for spiritual reward.

I have no doubt that such detainees could be convinced — with the help of dogs, for example — to give up information about domestic, animal-targeting terror cells whose intended victims deserve the protection of an aggressive War on Terrorism Against Nonhuman Species.

Congressman Introduces “Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act”

Rep. Dan Benishek

Rep. Dan Benishek

Rep. Dan Benishek of Michigan has introduced a foul piece of legislation that would “direct Federal public land management officials to exercise their authority under existing law to facilitate use of and access to Federal public lands for fishing, sport hunting, and recreational shooting.” What follows is an open letter to Rep. Benishek.

Rep. Benishek,

It’s difficult to tell from the text of the proposed “Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act” where your cretinism ends and your arrogance begins. While some people believe that these are distinct diseases with hardly discernible symptoms, I’ve been assured by the Center for Fewer Humans’ research director, Marcus Aurelius Armitage, that cretinism and arrogance are really just different stages of the same affliction.

Anyway, that’s neither here nor there. I’m writing to ask that you grow some stones and replace the tired euphemisms that litter HR 1825 with more accurate language.

As I’ve pointed out before, “‘wildlife management’ is a rather uninspired euphemism for ‘sanctioned slaughter.'” Instead of asserting in your proposed legislation that “recreational anglers and hunters have been and continue to be among the foremost supporters of sound fish and wildlife management and conservation in the United States,” why not admit — with that chest-thumping bravado you and your knuckle-dragging ilk like to display — that “recreational anglers and hunters have been and continue to be the most merciless serial killers our nation’s wildlife have ever had to fear”?

When you say that “recreational fishing and hunting are environmentally acceptable and beneficial activities that occur and can be provided on Federal public lands and waters without adverse effects on other uses or users,” you simply betray the cretinism we talked about earlier. You’ve got to specify — so as not to look like the ignoramus that you are — that those murderous “activities” don’t have “adverse effects” on the American drooling class.

And when you worry that “opportunities to … fish, hunt, and shoot are declining,” you might want to look out your Cannon House Office Building window, and then into a mirror, and wrap your puny mind around the differences between the drooling class and those members of our species who’ve crawled out of the primordial ooze and evolved.

Do you understand what I’m getting at here, Dan? If not, ask one of the staffers who’s dedicated his or her career to holding your slimy, prehuman hand.

Wishing you all the worst,

David

Florida Woman Trampled by Bull on “Cracker Day”

Photo by Bart Slingerland

Photo by Bart Slingerland

Get yourself a video clip of a stateside Marine rushing to the aid of a fallen civilian and you’ve got a story about selflessness. At least that’s what many nonthinking journalists believe.

Case in point: A video provided to CNN by the Orlando, Florida-based CBS affiliate WKMG-TV boasts the headline “A woman in Florida was trampled by a bull during a ‘money grab’ game at a rodeo event.”

In the video, John Weideman-Beal tells a reporter that while he was helping Desiree Cicero, who’d been knocked ass over teakettle by a pissed-off bull, the creature “got me in the head, right in the temple. That should have killed me, and it’s an act of god that it didn’t.”

Upon learning from the reporter of Cicero’s gratitude, Weideman-Beal tells the convalescing woman, via his interviewer, “Better you be living and me in a little bit of pain than anything else that could’ve happened.”

The truth is, none of it had to happen. It did thanks to the Volusia County Cattlemen’s Association, which organized the “64th Annual Cracker Day” event, according to its website.

On “Cracker Day,” apparently, members of Florida’s drooling class gather at what’s more commonly known as a “rodeo” and take turns abusing *other species.

On April 27, in Deland, Florida, Cicero was attempting to remove a ribbon from an unamused bull’s horn when she was deservedly put in her place — that is, facedown in the dirt. While she’d hoped for a cash prize — which I think we can fairly assume she’d have spent on moonshine and crystal methamphetamine — Cicero got nothing for her trouble but a handful of relatively minor injuries.

The sympathy I have is for the creatures who are tortured for the amusement of the drooling class.

Had Weideman-Beal wanted to play the hero on “Cracker Day,” he’d have liberated the real victims of this sanctioned sadism from their brutal enslavement.

And if those who insultingly framed this incident as a story of selflessness had looked into those tortured creatures’ eyes instead of Cicero’s and Weideman-Beal’s, they’d have written about our species’ shameful and revolting selfishness.

* In this context, “other species” refers to those that are neither human nor members of the human drooling-class subspecies.

Bloody Semantics: Poland Debates Humane vs. Ritual Slaughter

Photo by Yofial

Photo by Yofial

If one wants to take a measure of just how arrogant mankind can be, he or she has to look no further than the government officials in Poland who for nearly six months have been giving themselves whiplash trying to figure out which executioners should feign compassion and which should be permitted to luxuriate in their barbarism.

In November 2012, the country’s Constitutional Tribunal, which adjudicates legislative disputes, declared so-called “ritual slaughter” unconstitutional and banned the savage practice as of December 31, 2012.

Thenews.pl reported on November 28, 2012, that “the Attorney General argued that a 2004 amendment, allowing ritual slaughter on religious grounds, was unconstitutional in that it contravenes animal rights legislation dating back to 1997, which only allows slaughter ‘following the loss of consciousness’ after the farm animal has been stunned.”

On December 13, 2012, thenews.pl reported that “Polish coalition MPs have prepared legislation that will ensure that ritual animal slaughter continues in Poland, but are awaiting a decision from the prime minister.”

And on April 24 of this year, thenews.pl reported that “Poland’s government has approved draft legislation that would reinstate the slaughter of livestock according to the customs of Jewish and Muslim minorities.” 

Opponents of the proposed legislation have argued that ritual slaughter is “cruel,” while those who are determined to ensure the legality of the practice have cited religious and economic interests.

At issue — as far as the government officials in Poland are concerned — is whether certain segments of the country’s population should be exempt from practicing so-called “humane slaughter.”

As I pointed out in an August 24, 2012, commentary, “humane slaughter is as insulting a phrase as there is, one that Hitler might have directed Joseph Goebbels to include in Nazi Party press releases.”

What’s particularly insulting about the notion of “humane slaughter” is that it was conceived for us and not for the animals who wait to be led onto the killing floor. It is the terminology and methodology we use to feel better about participating in a largely unchallenged holocaust, as if “stunning” a terrified animal before cutting the creature’s throat makes us less monstrous.

Taxidermy Planned After Turkey Hunter is Attacked by Bobcat

Photo by Gary Kramer/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Photo by Gary Kramer/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Somewhere in an alternate universe, a prideful bobcat named David is looking forward to displaying in his den the stuffed carcass of a once-bloodthirsty human.

“I was out getting lunch when I smelled the foul stench of an interloping human,” David said during a telephone conversation with The Daily Maul. “Then I saw the monster, dressed like a tree and wheezing into a stupid hand-held appliance that he seemed to believe would bring a turkey into his crosshairs. Well, I wasn’t about to let that happen.”

The “monster,” who’s since been identified as 44-year-old Kentucky knuckle-dragger Bud Griffith, never saw David approach.

“I pounced on the bastard’s shoulder and clawed out his wide, surprised eyes — which had been set disturbingly close together as a result of unchecked multigenerational inbreeding,” David said. “Then I waited rather impatiently as he discharged his lead-filled phallus in a desperate attempt to put down his unseen assailant. And when he went to reload, I opened his jugular and watched the mouth-breather bleed out.”

A Neanderthal-management official who arrived on the scene shortly thereafter told David that Griffith’s nasty remains would have to be checked for signs of reverse-zoonotic diseases typically found in the human drooling class.

“If such a disease is present, we’ll incinerate the remains,” the Neanderthal-management official said. “If no disease is found, David will be permitted to take possession of the carcass and do with it what he chooses.”

David told The Daily Maul that his plans would be to “stuff Griffith’s lifeless corpse and add it to my growing trophy collection.”

“It’ll make a terrific conversation piece,” David said. “I’ll never tire of telling visitors how I turned a savage into a statue.”

West Virginia Lawmaker Wants More Hunting Grounds

Photo by Marion Post Wolcott

Photo by Marion Post Wolcott

West Virginia state Sen. Daniel Hall, whose legislative biography cites affiliations with the Friends of Coal and the West Virginia Farm Bureau, is worried that as property owners are increasingly restricting public access to their land, his barbaric constituents are running out of places to kill wildlife.

An April 8 report in The Register-Herald explains that “in his home county, (Hall) noted, about 85 percent of the land is owned by large companies. … Hall said such companies are leasing property to hunt clubs. … the senator has taken the matter up with the West Virginia Coal Association, since much land is occupied by operators, and a lobbyist for the landowners.”

Mr. Hall is hoping that a public-private partnership can secure a killing floor large enough to satisfy his sadistic constituents’ bloodlust — which he told The Register-Herald is “part of the culture in southern West Virginia.”

In other words, Mr. Hall wants the state and those who profit from environmental destruction to invite the savage drooling class into not-yet-destroyed habitats to slaughter the wildlife therein.

The West Virginia Farm Bureau’s parent organization, the American Farm Bureau Federation, “does not support any actions or policy that federal agencies could adopt, or the utilization of any existing authority, to regulate emissions of (greenhouse gases),” according to language on the organization’s website, which outlines a host of insultingly backward policy positions.

And according to its mission statement, Friends of Coal’s “goal is to provide a united voice for an industry that has been and remains a critical economic contributor to West Virginia.”

If Mr. Hall fancies himself a leader, he ought to “evolve” — as so many of his counterparts are wont to do when forced to confront the Neanderthal nature of their politics — and work to improve the lives of all species who make southern West Virginia home. Doing so won’t be easy for Mr. Hall, given that he’s aligned himself with the most arrogant and callous of interests.

Still — his responsibility to represent the voters of his district notwithstanding — if Mr. Hall aspires to more than gutless sycophancy and reelection, he’ll need to get his head out of his ass.

Felony Charge Dropped in Florida Case Against Animal-Rights Activist

Arnold Christopher Lagergren

Arnold Christopher Lagergren

Florida Assistant State Attorney Jonathan Raiche has dropped a felony charge that could have landed Arnold Christopher Lagergren in prison for up to five years under the Florida Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Raiche had added the felony charge to a handful of misdemeanor trespassing and vandalism charges Lagergren was already facing in connection with an August 21, 2011, incident at the Marine Mammal Conservancy in Key Largo, Florida.

Needless to say, this development comes as welcome news.

If there is a downside to Mr. Raiche dropping the felony charge against Mr. Lagergren, it is that the odious Florida Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act itself won’t stand trial.

Mr. Lagergren still faces up to three years in prison and up to $3,000 in fines if convicted on three, first-degree misdemeanor charges filed under Florida statutes 806.13 1b2 and 810.09.

In a November 11, 2011, commentary, I wrote: “the misdemeanor charges Lagergren was already facing sufficiently cover the crimes he’s alleged to have committed.”

Yesterday, I sent Mr. Raiche an e-mail asking what prompted him to drop the felony charge he’d filed against Mr. Lagergren.

In an e-mail response today, Mr. Raiche wrote, “In accordance with our policies, I must decline to comment on this matter as it is a pending case.”

With the felony charge being dropped, the Florida Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and its proponents will accidentally avoid the intense scrutiny they deserve. The law, like its federal model, seeks to define as “terrorists” those who threaten the bottom lines of industries that profit from the enslavement, exploitation, torture, and murder of other species. The irony of that label is as rich as it is insulting.

In a December 20, 2011, commentary, I pointed out that “language on the Office of Policy and Legislative Analysis website reads, in part: ‘The intended targets of (the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act) are a subset of animal rights activists and environmental activists, sometimes called ecoterrorists, who engage in acts of force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises.'”

That “targeting” scheme was codified on behalf of agricultural and pharmaceutical interests. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and state adaptations thereof are relatively little-known, redundant and discriminatory pieces of legislation that most Americans would rail against if they understood the laws’ dangerous implications.

What more Americans need to realize is that the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and state adaptations thereof allow special interests to “target” those whose flesh they want to take.

Prior to Mr. Raiche dropping the felony charge against him, Mr. Lagergren and his attorney, Richard Wunsch, were prepared to argue that “the FAEPA does not apply to this case and therefore the alleged facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt against the Defendant based on the FAEPA,” according to language in a motion to dismiss that charge.

On his Facebook page yesterday, Mr. Lagergren wrote that one downside to Mr. Raiche dropping the felony charge against him is that “it … prevented any negative precedent from being set under the FAEPA.”

Last month, Blum v. Holder, a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, was dismissed by a U.S. District Court judge in Massachusetts, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed the complaint in December 2011.

In my November 11, 2011, commentary, I wrote: “Until state adaptations of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992, and the shameful Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, are repealed, state and federal prosecutors will have to ask themselves if they’re willing to do the bidding of those with pockets deep enough to buy such sinister ‘designer laws.'”

As we’ve been reminded recently, many lawmakers can be easily convinced to bend over for special interests and ignore the majority’s will — although doing so with the lights on only serves to embolden the majority, whose members will eventually take their pound of flesh.

Unfortunately, the chances of the arrogance-steeped Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and state adaptations thereof being repealed won’t improve until many more Americans understand why and for whom these obnoxious laws were enacted.

Connecticut Dog Killer Avoids Prison, Desmond Gets No Justice

Desmond. Photo by Micah Rapini

Desmond. Photo by Micah Rapini

Almost a year ago, I made public my opinion that a Connecticut psychopath named Alex Wullaert should be sentenced to death if found guilty of brutally torturing and murdering his dog, Desmond.

I reported at the time that “Wullaert faces a felony charge under Connecticut statute 53-247(b), which states that ‘any person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, wounds or kills an animal shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years or both.'”

Last week, New Haven Superior Court Judge Maureen Keegan insulted Desmond’s memory by letting the dog’s 23-year-old killer walk out of her courtroom after promising to get help.

According to an article in the New Haven Register, “Judge Maureen Keegan accepted Alex Wullaert’s application for a pre-trial diversionary program for people with psychiatric disabilities. The program is intended for someone with a mental illness, accused of a crime for which prison time may be imposed but the crimes or violations ‘are not of a serious nature.'”

Court documents made available last year by WTNH indicate that “Wullaert … rendered a taped and written voluntary statement admitting he had killed his dog, Desmond, by strangulation.”

Wullaert dumped Desmond’s lifeless body in a nearby lake and marked the spot with a bouquet of flowers to acknowledge “the great memories they had,” the court documents tell us.

The New Haven Register story indicates that during last week’s court proceeding, “prosecutor Joseph LaMotta … mentioned that Wullaert had previously tried to strangle his girlfriend, but after completing a domestic violence program those charges were also dropped.”

There is no indication that Wullaert bought flowers for his then-girlfriend after choking her.

One thing is certain: Had Wullaert killed the girl and dumped her body in a lake, the bastard wouldn’t have avoided prison by entering a treatment program.

Judge Keegan was quoted in the New Haven Register report as telling those gathered in her courtroom: “We know Desmond didn’t get the same rights Alex Wullaert has.”

She might as well have said that the little consideration Desmond was theoretically afforded under Connecticut statute 53-247(b) was too much.

This case reminds us that today, the disparity between the “rights” afforded us and other species, and the applications thereof, can be measured in arrogance. It also reminds us that while we pursue the enactment of more sophisticated laws, what needs to change, above all, is the majority’s attitude toward the lives and well-being of other species.

Legislation to Protect Canned Hunting Facilities Proposed in Indiana

John Stehn/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

John Stehn/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Legislation has been proposed in Indiana that would protect that state’s captive deer hunting industry, including the so-called “deer farmers” who breed the victims. In its latest form, proposed Indiana Senate Bill No. 487 “provides for the licensing and operation of cervidae hunting preserves on which legally farm raised and released cervidae are hunted.”

According to an April 8 article in The Indianapolis Star, the Indiana “House natural resources committee added language to SB 487 that grandfathers in Indiana’s existing high-fence hunting facilities, which have been in a legal dispute with the DNR for eight years over whether they can legally operate.”

An April 1 story in The Indianapolis Star indicates that proponents of the amended legislation believe it “would create jobs and guarantee the state’s nearly 400 deer farmers would have a place to sell their animals.”

Obviously, Indiana’s deer farmers are worried about how they’d survive were the state to ban the operation of these execution grounds.

Fortunately for them, I have a suggestion: They should breed and raise inbred humans and sell them for scientific experimentation. There are plenty of inbred Hoosiers to start with and the demand for their spawn would be huge. Inbred-human farmers could supply research subjects to laboratories around the world and make a lot of money doing so.

I also have a suggestion for those who own and operate Indiana’s captive-hunting facilities: They ought to turn their properties into members-only man caves that serve strychnine and host pay-to-play paintball tournaments whose winners receive the losers’ severed heads as trophies.

Death of Bullfighter Patricia McCormick is Overdue

Upon learning of the long-overdue death of Missouri-born bullfighter Patricia McCormick, I worked diligently to perfect my sewing skills, hopeful that her family would consider donating her ugly carcass to a magic-based reality TV show I’d quickly conceived.

In an obituary that appeared in Texas Monthly (and in a slightly different form in The New York Times), Texas-based writer Bryan Mealer explained that McCormick’s “love of the sport came during a vacation to Mexico City when she was seven years old” after which “she staged mock bullfights in her yard using neighborhood kids.”

If only the aspiring terrorist had stuck to torturing her consenting peers.

McCormick lived longer than many of us would have liked. The Daily Telegraph (London) reported that after she was gored during a bullfight in Ciudad Acuña, McCormick “received a letter that read: ‘I’m sorry the bull didn’t kill you.'”

I, too, am sorry.

Mealer’s Texas Monthly piece tells us that “McCormick had her bullfighting debut on September 9, 1951, in Juárez. According to the Big Spring Daily Herald, a bull trampled her twice and tossed her on its horns before she managed to plunge the estoque between its shoulders. … Reporters also noted that after killing the animal, McCormick, her clothes streaked in its blood, knelt down and caressed its head.”

Needless to say, news of the twisted psychopath’s natural death was somewhat bittersweet.

Before reading that her shriveled remains would be cremated, I tried unsuccessfully to convince McCormick’s relatives and officials in Del Rio, Texas, to send me her lifeless corpse. My plan, I explained, was “to stuff … (and) turn the deceased into a life-size voodoo doll.”

There was no doubt in my mind that at least one forward-thinking Hollywood producer would see the value of a magic-based reality TV show in which I’d regularly bleed McCormick’s loathsome memory.

In a pitch letter I’d started drafting, I promised that “with enough practice, I’ll eventually be able to use my life-size Patricia McCormick voodoo doll to slaughter the world’s most popular matadors on their own killing floors” and promoted my widely shared desire to “let the barbarians who cheer them on watch their murderous heroes get brutally tortured and slain by the badass measures of karma they’d so shamelessly tempted.”

And for those who might be outraged by what they perceive as a savage blood sport, I suggested “marketing the show as an unprecedented glimpse into a misunderstood cultural tradition.”