Lots of people who love animals have some misconceptions because they haven't been able to live in the country and own a wide variety of animals. I've got lots of pics and lots of insights if you'll keep reading. If you're the type of person who champions the rights of animals, your arguments on their behalf should be based on facts so that you'll have maximum credibility.

Ethical questions about human interaction with animals boil down to one pivotal question: what is mankind's duty to animals? This question can only be answered after considering one big fact: Nature has set up a brutal system. Mankind has added to it with fur farms and factory farming that is inhumane.

Can I have a conversation with Animal Lovers that doesn't divide us into "for" and "against"? I love animals. I also keep them as pets and livestock. I am also a hunter. I know some things about animals.

The Lion King and his buddies are cartoon characters. Real lions, warthogs, and whatever the skinny sidekick was supposed to be, would have eaten Wildebeest fawns. Even the "Hakuna Matada" bugs they ate were drawn as if they were made of candy. To have a civil discussion we need to respect the truth. Cartoons are not the truth. Cartoons and the lessons they teach children are not Nature. If you formed your opinions about Nature as a child and haven't reevaluated them, it might be time.

If we make any decisions about what to think about Nature without looking to Nature for example and guidance, we set ourselves up for failure, for self-loathing and for contempt for our fellow man, because we can't change Nature's fundamental system. We can do what we can to minimize our participation in the cruel circle of life, and we should, if we feel led to do so. But any omnivorous human can point to his incisors and his rights as an individual for absolution. Nature dismisses the charges against him.

It is given, to the individual on a spiritual quest, to ponder and decide ethical questions regarding animals. Sadly, most of us humans are not on a spiritual quest. Accepting the fact that Nature has set things up cruelly and accepting the fact that other humans don't much give a damn about animal rights, are two important parts of that spiritual journey. I'm not saying to say nothing or do nothing, but arguments should be coherent and focused. Unfortunately, they're all over the place. Can we agree on some things? We've let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Animal consciousness varies, and it seems as if the higher the consciousness, the lower the act of using that animal for food. This argument is employed by vegans, who eat plants, who some scientists say have a level of consciousness. You can't not eat. So something dies so you can live, unless you never eat greens.

What Universal force is keeping track of every individual diet? Is it the same one that put us on this earth, the earth where animals kill and eat each other as part of a natural cycle? Or are there conflicting deities? In that case, we'd be safest on the more-powerful deity's team. I'd guess that's the more-aggressive one, the one who put us in this world and allows or even requires one body to eat another to live. But God is Love, so I have to reject the whole notion of confused and conflicting deities. Let Him explain Himself in His good time. I can ask for answers, but I'm powerless to demand them of Him. So He can't penalize me for not knowing it all, unless He is insane. But He is not. I trust His sanity.

I can speak with authority about an animal's level of consciousness. I've taken care of goats, geese, ducks, rabbits, chickens, cattle and turkeys. Most people don't keep these animals as pets because their consciousness is so limited. For example, I ordered an assortment of poultry from a hatchery. I soon got a box of chicks in the mail. (Yes, poultry comes through the US Postal Service, and they do a fine job of keeping these boxes separate from other mail, calling you as soon as the shipment arrives, and keeping the chicks from temperature extremes.)

As the poultry grew I began to understand how limited these birds were. For a month I would walk out, scoop some feed out of the bag and toss it on the ground in the pen. After awhile it would dawn on the birds that there was food, and they’d come running over to get it. Every morning I would do the same thing, approach the pen, scoop the feed, throw it, and wait for the birds to figure out there was now food on the ground. Sometimes it took a few minutes, sometimes longer. They could be pretty dense.

After a month or so they got smart and associated my presence with food. The ducks would all quack and the turkeys would make a “whirrrrrrrrr”, almost like a gobble but quieter. All the poultry would come running to the edge of the fence when they saw me. I was happy to see them too.

If you were an animal trainer and it took the animal a month of training to get them to associate you with food, you’d realize that animal was dumber than a box of rocks.

Livestock headed for the slaughterhouse are stressed by the ride and the change in surroundings, but when they get there, if handled humanely, there is a best-case scenario. With such a limited consciousness and a quick kill, they may never even be aware of their last moment. Its possible they really do "never know what hit them".

Every body will eventually have a last moment. Not knowing when yours will come could be considered more merciful than knowing when and waiting for it. The whole setup is brutal, however. Why should you have to part with your body, your life on earth, all that you've come to know? I don't know. I do know that what goes on here on earth is not the ideal; far from it. We can seek to improve upon it, but not before we take an honest look at it.

Pets are different from livestock in that they have interacted with humans at a deeper level. The mind strives to connect with and harmonize with other minds. An animal harmonizes with its peers, be they a flock of birds or humans. One of my chickens thinks its a duck and hangs out with the ducks rather than with the other chickens. This is because the ducks can't fly over the fence but chickens can and do, and wander all over my yard. The chicken that thinks its a duck couldn't fly over the fence until it got older, and was left behind with the ducks until it decided it liked ducks. I haven't seen it get in the pond, though, so I don't know how much of its identity is given over to the duck side.

(Ugh! That pun even made me groan.)

I suppose the chicken in question would follow me around, if I had raised it to do so from the time it was a chick. Maybe it would think it was human, or at least supposed to hang out with humans.

To minimize the deep bond that forms between some pets and some owners is to ignore the truth as much as to say that cartoons are real. But I think that some pet lovers equate the consciousness of their pets with equal levels of consciousness within livestock or wild animals. I think that's a mistake. I had an in-law, a pig farmer, who had a heart attack and keeled over dead into the pigpen. The pigs considered him a feast. Well behaved house-dogs that get out and form a pack with other dogs can become savages.

An animal doesn't make decisions based on ethical considerations. That's what makes us different. We've tried, and sometimes succeeded, to rise above treating each other inhumanly, and that's our claim to superiority over those beings who must participate in the carnage that is a part of Nature. A wolf has no choice but to kill to survive. Is a wolf unethical? No. Is it intelligent? No doubt. A person can claim superiority over unethical men and women who abuse animals, because we can choose not to abuse. But that claim of superiority alienates and shows a complete lack of tact. Do we want a better deal for animals or do we want to be right, and say so loudly, and by doing so become ineffective?

Hunters have been vilified by some in our society. Because large predators have been driven from some habitat, these ecosystems are out of balance. Without hunters, prey populations skyrocket and exceed the holding capacity of the land. Also, humans have been in North America for at least 10,000 years, so they are a part of the ecosystem. To ban hunting by humans is not to ban hunting, because Nature set up a system of prey and predators, and if the predators don't perform, Nature calls on starvation and disease to restore balance.

I don't consider hunting to be animal abuse. Animal abuse is causing unnecessary pain. It is much more painful for an animal to die a slow death from starvation or disease than a well-placed rifle round. It is also less painful and quicker to have a hunter end an animal's life than a wild predator. I saw two coyotes kill a deer last summer. I know more than most people about this aspect of Nature.

I read about activists who opposed a bear hunt. Their strategy was to follow bear hunters and when they shot a bear, rush in with first aid. One of the most glaring flaws in their plan was the misunderstanding of bears. A large, wounded bear is perhaps the most dangerous creature in the forest, and the activists would have been unable to communicate their good intentions to the bear. So its important that activism on behalf of animals include understanding of animals.

To get maximum results as quickly as possible, those of us working to minimize the suffering of animals must employ an understanding of humans and Nature, and more importantly, ethics. Any activism which is based on cartoon ethics or condemnation of mankind for participation in a system that Nature set in motion is bound to be met with ridicule. Then the reasonable message will be unheard. Its a simple message:

Where we can and when we can, we should minimize the suffering of our fellow earthlings.