Three Completely BS Arguments Made By Anti-Hunters

By Ammoland Editor Joe Evans

USA -(Ammoland.com)- Divisiveness will be the downfall of the outdoors heritage.

Animal-rights organizations prey upon differences of opinion in our ranks, and use it to justify their legislation, court arguments and ballot initiatives. Their sway with non-hunting voters only increases when we repeat similar statements and narrow-minded opinions.

With that said, here are the top-three most absurd statements, arguments and stances from hunters, non-hunters and anti-hunters.

1. “Endangered” Animals

Hunting endangered animals seems like a no brainer – everyone should agree. But what constitutes “endangered”? Certainly, listing under the protections of the Endangered Species Act would be the easiest indicator. Or would it?

Animal-rights groups love to invoke emotional words such as “endangered,” “iconic,” “extinction” and “vulnerable” (usually in conjunction with equally emotional words such as slaughter, senseless and trophy), while resisting actions to remove any game animal from listing (notice they don’t fight removal of non-game animals whose populations reach delisting thresholds). This holds true for animals overseas such as lions and leopards, as well as domestic animals such as wolves and grizzly bears.

What we can do: When it comes to apex predators and removal from an endangered listing, even some hunters hesitate to advocate for …Read the Rest

Source:: AmmoLand