"Whatever you do may seem insignificant, but it is most important that you do it”

Exposing Children to Violence – Informal Investigation.

Child abuse 2

Children exposed to any from of violence can enact that violence out onto others which is not uncommon knowledge. Scientists, neurologists, child behavioural experts, psychologists and psychiatrists have all used various forms of analysis that have shown children exposed to “continued” violent acts can then copy their abuser or abuser[s] traits. It must also be noted though, not all children or adults turn out to be abusers of which should never be used in debate.

We wish to make it clear now that this article documents on true factual information based on hunting and exposing children to violence. This article is not in anyway supportive of “responsible hunting or trophy hunting” nor are its authors or organisation[s]. We also wish to state clearly now this article is informal and based on whether any hunting exposure or “human on human violence” can later lead to murder or animal abuse.

This week’s article we focus on “trophy hunting”, “responsible hunting” and “children exposed to violence”. International Animal Rescue Foundation Africa has since 2011 been lobbying all African country ministries to implement restrictions and/or bans on trophy hunting for various reasons listed below;

  • Hunting blocks purchased by hunting organisations reduces land mass for “wild animals”.
  • Trophy hunting has been linked directly to poaching of which evidence has clearly shown many hunters dabbling in the black market wildlife trade.
  • Sport hunting is linked to serious declines of many African and non-African native species decline as stated in various on-line journals written by ourselves, non-related wildlife organisations and the IUCN.
  • Child abuse – sport hunting and “responsible hunting”. Children exposed directly to uncontrolled sport hunting have shown more “abusive traits” and mental illnesses compared to those that are taught “responsible hunting”. However this article should not in any way be used as debate to prove that “any hunting” can later lead to children killing. Concluding we have clearly shown that “exposing children to ANY violence can directly lead to more narcissistic and/or psychopathic violent behaviours.

Today we focus on sport hunting, trophy hunting and “abuse”.

  • Sustainability of hunting means that the use of these natural resources must be assured not only in the present but also to future generations.
  • Trophy hunting is the selective hunting of wild game animals. Although parts of the slain animal may be kept as a hunting trophy or memorial (usually the skin, antlers and/or head), the carcass itself is sometimes used as food.
  • Abuse can be noted as cruel and violent treatment of a person or animal that can lead to the “abused” then showing direct similar traits carried on from their “abuser[s]” of abuse to others late on in life.

International Animal Rescue Foundation Africa welfare experts are become increasingly concerned with regards to the increased exposure of sport hunting to minors within South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe. Pictures and videos of children as young as “seven” years old have emerged on-line and off depicting them sat with a sport hunted lion, giraffe, elephant, leopards and even crocodiles being some of the most commonly seen photographs.  Our concerns are with regards to minors being exposed to such violent acts of animal killing whilst child is still within the developing stage and not fully understanding rights and wrongs from piers.

g8h

Please note this article does not change our perspective on “trophy hunting or responsible hunting.

Sport/Trophy Hunting –

Trophy hunting is the selective hunting of wild game animals. Although parts of the slain animal may be kept as a hunting trophy or memorial (usually the skin, antlers and/or head), the carcass itself is sometimes used as food. Trophy hunting has firm supporters and opponents. Public debate about trophy hunting often centres on the question of the morality of sport hunting and the question of the extent to which the money paid by trophy hunters benefits the population of game animals and the local economy. Trophy hunting should not be confused with poaching, the practice of taking game illegally.

Educative responsible hunting –

  1. Safe – bottom line you must follow the safety rules for gun handling and hunting. If you endanger yourself, others or property you are not a responsible hunter.
  2. Lawful – Game laws can be complicated and tempting to bend or break. But they have a vital purpose and must be followed to the letter and spirit.
  3. Clean Kill – Responsible hunters only shoot at game they know they can kill, not to see if they can hit it. Accidents happen, but we do everything we can to make one-shot kills. Excuses like I didn’t have time to sight in, or practice or check my pattern are just not tolerable by “responsible hunters”.
  4. Full Utilization – If you kill it you eat it. If you don’t like mergansers and don’t know anyone who does – don’t shoot them. For game like moose it takes planning ahead to be sure you can get it out of the woods and cool it down before it spoils, not as easy as you might think. The exception to this rule is damage or cull shooting. But that is different than hunting and I still think the critter should be used if at all possible, even if it is just cleaning the coyote skull for the local Boy Scout troop.
  5. Fair Chase – If it is a 100% guaranteed kill or the animal can’t get away it is not an ethical hunt. The outcome of the hunt must be in doubt up to the second the trigger is pulled. Anything else is just shooting or slaughtering. Within this definition is lots of room and it will vary between hunters and even the same hunter. There is inherent conflict between fair chase and clean kill. If you erect to high a barrier to harvest, say using a homemade stick bow, you could, without a lot of discipline, set your self up for wounding animals because your skill level is not high enough to be successful under reasonable conditions.
  6. Support Conservation – This applies primarily to more experienced hunters. I don’t think you can call yourself a responsible hunter unless you are actively supporting wildlife conservation beyond buying licenses and paying tax on equipment and ammo. We need to be in the arena supporting scientific management and environmentally sound policies- politically, physically and monetarily. I also don’t think paying dues to a hunting club or conservation organization is enough. It is a great start but not enough. We need to be actively engaged with that club, doing things like habitat work on the ground and making those phone calls to legislators.

As one can clearly see trophy hunting and responsible hunting are not in any way shape or form the same. The only identical similarities are that of killing, harvesting and permits. Whilst we are completely against all hunting it must be noted that there is by far more control within “responsible hunting” and that of “trophy hunting”.. Responsible hunters educate their children on “killing humanely, quick kills, slaughter and preparation, ensuring wildlife disruption” is kept to a bare minimal. The trophy/sport hunter does not “kill for the meat, lacks education on the animal[s] they are to shoot, many are very poor hunters with hardly any firearms training, funding generated within the trophy hunting business rarely supports wildlife preservation. Our own evidence plus that of law enforcements clearly shows that an educated hunter is less likely to commit violent crime to an animal. However it must be made clear now that regardless of whether the child has been educated on the rights and wrongs of animal killing the fact stands at this; Any child exposed to any form of violence is more susceptible to become abusive or to enact violent crime[s]/anti social behaviour.

Brain development and exposure to violence;

At birth, the human brain is undeveloped. Not all of the brain’s areas are organized and fully functional. It is during childhood that the brain matures and the whole set of brain-related capabilities develop in a sequential fashion. We crawl before we walk, we babble before we talk. The development of the brain during infancy and childhood follows the bottom-up structure. The most regulatory, bottom regions of the brain develop first; followed, in sequence, by adjacent but higher, more complex regions.

The process of sequential development of the brain and, of course, the sequential development of function, is guided by experience. The brain develops and modifies itself in response to experience. Neurons and neuronal connections (synapses) change in an activity-dependent fashion. This “use-dependent” development is the key to understanding the impact of neglect, exposure to violence and trauma on children.

These areas organize during development and change in the mature brain in a “use-dependent” fashion. The more a certain neural system is activated, the more it will “build-in” this neural state: what occurs in this process is the creation of an “internal representation” of the experience corresponding to the neural activation. This “use-dependent” capacity to make an “internal representation” of the external or internal world is the basis for learning and memory. The simple and unavoidable result of this sequential neurodevelopment is that the organizing, “sensitive” brain of an infant or young child is more malleable to experience than a mature brain.

While experience may alter and change the functioning of an adult, experience literally provides the organizing framework for an infant and child. The brain is most plastic (receptive to environmental input) in early childhood. The consequence of sequential development is that as different regions are organizing, they require specific kinds of experience targeting the region’s specific function (e.g., visual input while the visual system is organizing) in order to develop normally. These times during development are called critical or sensitive periods. Whilst these times are developing, exposure to environmental abuse, animal abuse or both can alter the way in which the child brain later functions in life. (E.g) exposing a child within the developing times acts of animal slaughter and abuse can lead the child to believe that what their pier/parent or sibling is enacting is completely normal behaviour. After all child is “developing” and will not know right from wrong. Another concern raised is when the child’s brain is fully developed between the ages of 20-25. Prolonged exposure “violent acts” is again seen as normal of which crime then becomes a concern.

 

With optimal experiences, the brain develops healthy, flexible and diverse capabilities. When there is disruption of the timing, intensity, quality or quantity of normal developmental experiences, however, there may be devastating impact on neurodevelopment — and, thereby, function. For millions of abused and neglected children, the nature of their experiences adversely influences the development of their brains. During the traumatic experience, these children’s brains are in a state of fear-related activation. This activation of key neural systems in the brain leads to adaptive changes in emotional, behavioral and cognitive functioning to promote survival. Yet, persisting or chronic activation of this adaptive fear response can result in the maladaptive persistence of a fear state. This activation causes hypervigilance, increased muscle tone, a focus on threat-related cues (typically non-verbal), anxiety, behavioral impulsivity — all of which are adaptive during a threatening event yet become maladaptive when the immediate threat has passed.

This is the dilemma that traumatic abuse brings to the child’s developing brain. The very process of using the proper adaptive neural response during a threat will also be the process that underlies the neural pathology, which causes so much distress and pain through the child’s life. The chronically traumatized child will develop a host of physical signs (e.g., altered cardiovascular regulation) and symptoms (e.g., attentional, sleep and mood problems) which make their lives difficult.

STN_BRAIN_21_04_13__339308k

There is hope, however. The brain is very “plastic” — meaning it is capable of changing in response to experiences, especially repetitive and patterned experiences. Furthermore, the brain is most plastic during early childhood. Aggressive early identification and intervention with abused and neglected children has the capacity to modify and influence development in many positive ways.

The elements of successful intervention must be guided by the core principles of brain development. The brain changes in a use-dependent fashion. Therapeutic interventions that restore a sense of safety and control are very important for the acutely traumatized child. In cases of chronic abuse and neglect, however, the very act of intervening can contribute to the child’s catalogue of fearful situation. Investigation, court, removal, placement, re-location, and re-unification all contribute to the unknown, uncontrollable and, often, frightening experiences of the abused child. Our systems, placements and therapeutic activities can diminish the fearful nature of these children’s lives by providing consistency, repetition (familiarity), nurturance, predictability and control (returned to the child). Yet the poorly coordinated, over-burdened and reactive systems mandated to help these children rarely can provide those key elements.

Hunting;

Surveys conducted over a period of five years by ourselves and third parties have  shown that responsible hunters that teach their children to hunt are less likely to see their children enact violence onto others. The responsible hunter will during the process of educating their child ensure child is tutored correctly, understands the correct protocol of humane quick kill, importance of killing, preparing and feeding family all meat from the slaughtered animal. Father and/or mother will teach child that what is taken from the land must be given back, to aid conservation to ensure that no animal that they kill is “left suffering”. Whilst we are totally against hunting it must be noted that whilst the teacher is constantly with their child teaching wrongs from rights abuse in the later years is kept to a bare minimal. This “type” hunting may reduce future abuse because father and mother has “educated” their child. There is little education within the trophy hunting sector and as explained many animals are left to suffer from inexperienced hunters that can barely hold or shoot a rifle professionally.

Occasionally we view and hear debates with regards to hunters turning out to be abusers or even killers based on the fact their mother, father or family relative have taught them to kill animals. There are also cases where many people have stated if you have been abused as a child whether it be exposure to abuse or physical abuse you’ll later on turn out to become an abuser. We would like to dispel this theory as its not entirely factual. Not all children or adults even exposed to violence then become an abuser. Cognitive therapy, counselling or medication has helped to alive-ate many children and young adults exposed to violence within their early years. In many cases some children are not even affected by such violent exposure however it must be noted that the “victim” will never entirely forget their past.

Below is the story of a man that was never exposed to “any hunting” – he taught himself. Please do note though the “early abuses” inflicted down to him of which he was bullied at school and didn’t have an entirely good relationship with his father. Hansen later went on a killing spree hunting his victims down in the same way a trophy hunter or responsible hunter would stalk and kill an animal.

Robert Hansen;

A.K.A.: “The Alaska’s Serial Killer”
Classification: Serial killer
Characteristics: Rape – Flew his victims into the Alaskan wilderness and hunted them down like wild game
Number of victims: 17 – 21
Date of murders: 1973 – 1983
Date of arrest: June 1983
Date of birth: February 15, 1939
Victims profile: Women (prostitutes, topless dancers, or topless barmaids)
Method of murder: Shooting (.223-caliber Ruger Mini-14 rifle)
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, USA
Status: Sentenced to a term of life imprisonment plus 461 years on February 28, 1984

Hansen was married in 1961 and divorced within the year, following his first arrest, on charges of arson. Six years later, he wed another Pocahontas native and she followed him to Anchorage, Alaska, where he opened his own bakery and prospered in a new land, safely removed from the painful memories of childhood and adolescence. Hansen took flying lessons and purchased his own private plane, earning a reputation as an outdoors man and hunter who stalked Dahl sheep, wolves, and bear with a rifle or bow and arrow.

In 1972, Hansen was arrested twice more, charged with the abduction and attempted rape of a housewife (who escaped his clutches) and the rape of a prostitute (who did not). Serving less than six months on a reduced charge, he was picked up again, for shoplifting a chain saw, in 1976. Convicted of larceny, he was sentenced to five years in prison, but the verdict was overturned on appeal, the Alaska Supreme Court regarding his sentence as “too harsh.”
Unknown to local authorities, Hansen’s visible activities were only the tip of a very lethal iceberg. According to his subsequent confession, Hansen preyed consistently on women in the decade between 1973 and 1983, murdering 17 and raping another 30 who survived.

As targets, he selected prostitutes, “exotic” dancers and the like, abducting them by airplane to the wilderness outside of Anchorage, where they were forced to act out Hansen’s private fantasies. “If they came across with what I wanted,” he explained, “we’d come back to town. I’d tell them if they made any trouble for me, I had connections and would have them put in jail for being prostitutes.” Resistance — or demands for payment after sex — resulted in assorted victims being murdered, sometimes with the ghoulish touch of Hansen stripping them and stalking them like animals, making the kill with a hunting knife or his favorite big-game rifle.

The first indication of a killer at large came in 1980, when construction workers unearthed a woman’s remains near Eklutna Road. Stabbed to death in 1979, she was never identified, dubbed “Eklutna Annie” by police assigned to work the case. Later that year, the corpse of Joanna Messina was found in a gravel pit near Seward, and a special task force was organized to probe the killings. Topless dancer Sherry Morrow had been dead ten months when hunters found her body in a shallow grave beside the Knik River, but the discovery brought authorities no closer to a solution in their case.
In 1983, Hansen decided to save time and energy by bringing his victims home. He called it his “summer project,” laying the groundwork by packing his wife and two children off on a European vacation. Next, he began running ads in a local singles newspaper, seeking women to “join me in finding what’s around the next bend, over the next hill.”

On June 13, 1983, a 17-year-old captive escaped from Hansen en route to his airplane hangar, handcuffs still dangling from one wrist as she ran for help. Her charges brought Hansen to the attention of task force detectives, and he ultimately confessed to a series of 17 murders, including that of Paula Golding, found by hunters in September 1983.
On a flying tour of the wilderness, Hansen began pointing out graves to state troopers, and they recovered eleven bodies over the next eight months. Several victims remained anonymous, their names unknown even to Hansen, but others were identified as Rox Easland, Lisa Futrell, Andera Altiery, Angela Fetter, Tersa Watson, and Delynn Frey — all reported missing from the Anchorage area during Hansen’s reign of terror.

On February 18, 1984, Robert Hansen pled guilty on four counts of first-degree murder, in the cases of “Eklutna Annie,” Joanna Messina, Sherry Morrow, and Paula Golding. Charges were dismissed in the other cases, but it scarcely mattered, as Hansen was sentenced to-a term of life imprisonment plus 461 years.
Michael Newton – An Encyclopedia of Modern Serial Killers – Hunting Humans..

Case study – Abused child turns into a serial killer  – Exposing children to violence whether it be hunting, human on human abuse has now led experts to conclude that no matter what the “type” of violence or exposure to violence is inflicted can seriously affect a child’s thinking and thought process later on in life. Many crimes committed by young men and women have been carried out by both sexes just after complete brain maturity. 

This case is rather interesting as it depicts many traits that have been explained within our own past journals and that of others. The young Richard Trenton Chase was a healthy child when born that showed no signs of mental illness or wanting to maim animals or humans. However as Richard developed on into childhood his father an abusive man dished out strict punishment for the most petty of things. Please read more below.

A.K.A.: “The Vampire of Sacramento”
Classification: Spree killer
Characteristics: Mental illness – Necrophilia – Cannibalism – Mutilation
Number of victims: 6
Date of murders: December 1977 – January 1978
Date of arrest: January 1978
Date of birth: May 23, 1950
Victims profile: Ambrose Griffin, a 51 / Teresa Wallin, 22 (three months pregnant) / Evelyn Miroth, 38; her son, Jason, 6; her nephew, David, 22-month-old; and her friend, Dan Meredith, 51
Method of murder: Shooting (.22 handgun)
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Status: Sentenced to death on May 8, 1979. Committed suicide with an overdose of prison doctor-prescribed antidepressants that he had been saving up for the last few weeks on December 26, 1980

Richard Trenton Chase (May 23, 1950 – December 26, 1980) was an American serial killer who killed six people in the span of a month in California. He earned the nickname The Vampire of Sacramento because he drank the blood of his victims and ate their internal organs. He did this as part of a delusion that he needed to prevent Nazis from turning his blood into powder via poison they had planted beneath his soap dish.

Early years/first signs of mental illness

Born in 1950, he was raised in a strict household and was beaten often by his father. In his teens he became an alcoholic and also developed a penchant for killing and mutilating animals and firestarting, all common traits amongst serial killers in their youth.

In high school, Chase had a handful of girlfriends, none of whom he was able to maintain a steady relationship with, partly due to his inability to achieve or maintain an erection, and because of an inability to become aroused in the presence of females. Upon consulting a psychiatrist, Chase was told that the root of his problems was either repressed rage or mental illness. Chase did not seek any further treatment after this diagnosis; it would later be determined that Chase had an aversion to conventional sex and could only achieve arousal and orgasm through violent or disturbed acts, such as killing animals and necrophilia.

Early adulthood

As an adult, Chase moved back in with his mother, where he began to accuse her of attempting to murder him via poison. Chase’s father purchased an apartment for him and forced him to move out of the house.

Alone in his new apartment, Chase began to capture, kill, and disembowel various animals, which he would then devour raw. He then began to put the entrails of the animals he had killed into a blender in order to make smoothies. Chase reasoned that by drinking these smoothies he was preventing his heart from shrinking; he feared that if it shrank too much it would disappear and then he would die.

Institutionalization

In 1975, Chase was involuntarily committed to a mental institution after being taken to a hospital for blood poisoning, which he contracted after injecting rabbit’s blood into his veins

Chase escaped from the hospital and went home to his mother; he was apprehended and sent to an institution for the criminally insane, where he often shared with the staff fantasies about killing rabbits. He was once found with blood smeared around his mouth; hospital staff discovered that he had captured two birds through the bars on his bedroom windows, snapped their necks, and sucked their blood out. Among themselves, the staff began referring to him as “Dracula.”

After undergoing a battery of treatments involving psychotropic drugs, Chase was deemed no longer a danger to society, and in 1976, he was released into the recognizance of his parents; his mother, deciding that her son did not need to be on the antischizophrenic medication that he had been prescribed, weaned him off it.

Post-institutionalization/worsening behavior

His parents put him up in an apartment, where he began to capture, torture to death, and then drink the blood of rabbits, dogs, and cats; on occasion, he killed and ate neighbor’s pets, and at least once contacted the neighbor by telephone to explain what he had done. At the same time, he developed a fascination for firearms and purchased several handguns, with which he practiced obsessively. He became fascinated by the crimes of the Hillside Strangler; he believed the Strangler was also the victim of the Nazi/UFO conspiracy that he believed he was the victim of.

Chase also began to lose interest in caring for himself; he neglected personal hygiene such as bathing, grooming, and brushing his teeth. He stopped eating and dropped to the fairly meager weight of 145 lb.
One day in 1977, Chase rang his mother’s doorbell and greeted her by thrusting a dead cat in her face. He then threw the cat to the ground, knelt down, ripped its stomach open with his bare hands, and stuck his hands inside the cat, smearing its blood all over his face while screaming. His mother calmly returned inside the house and did not report the incident to anyone.

On August 3, 1977, Nevada state police discovered Chase’s Ford Ranchero lodged in a sand drift near Pyramid Lake, Nevada; inside were two rifles, a pile of clothes, a bucket full of blood and a cow’s liver. The officers tracked down Chase, who was naked and screaming in the sand, soaked from head to toe in blood. When questioned, he claimed that the blood was his own, and that it had leaked out of him through his flesh.

On December 27, 1977, Chase fired a .22 handgun into the home of a Sacramento woman. A police search of the woman’s home found the slug in her kitchen; no one was harmed.

The first murder

On December 29, 1977, Chase killed his first victim in a drive-by shooting, in an apparent “warm up” for the crimes he planned on committing. The victim was Ambrose Griffin, a 51-year-old engineer and father of two, who was helping his wife bring groceries into their home. One of Griffin’s sons reported seeing a neighbor walking around their East Sacramento neighborhood with a .22 rifle earlier that week; the neighbor’s rifle was seized, but ballistics tests determined that it was not the murder weapon; however, it was determined that the .22 used to kill Ambrose Griffin was the same one used to fire the bullet into the kitchen of the Sacramento woman two days before.

The second murder

On January 11, 1978, Chase asked his neighbor for a cigarette and then forcibly restrained her until she gave him an entire pack.

Two weeks later, he attempted to enter the home of another woman but, finding that her doors were locked, went into her backyard and walked away; Chase later told detectives that he took locked doors as a sign that he was not welcome, but that unlocked doors were an invitation to come inside. While wandering around, he encountered a girl named Nancy Holden, with whom he attended high school. He attempted to get a ride from her, but frightened by his appearance, she refused.

He went down the street where he broke into the home of a young married couple, stole some of their valuables, urinated into a drawer of their infant’s clothing, and defecated on their son’s bed. The couple came home while Chase was still in the house; the husband attacked him, but Chase escaped.

Chase continued to attempt to enter homes until he came across the home of David and Teresa Wallin. David was at work; Teresa, three months pregnant, was in the middle of taking out the garbage and thus had left her front door unlocked. Chase surprised her in the home and shot her three times, once in the hand (a defensive wound) and twice in the head, killing her; it was the same gun used to kill Ambrose Griffin.

Chase then dragged her body to her bedroom and raped it post-mortem while repeatedly stabbing it with a butcher knife. When he had finished, he carved the corpse open and removed several of her internal organs, using a bucket to collect the blood and then taking it in the bathroom to bathe in it. He then sliced off her nipple and drank her blood, using an empty yogurt container as a drinking glass; before leaving, he went into the yard, found a pile of dog feces, and returned to stuff it into the corpse’s mouth and throat.

The third murder/mass murder

On January 23, 1978, two days after killing Teresa Wallin, Chase purchased two puppies from a neighbor, which he then killed and drank the blood of, leaving the bodies on the neighbor’s front lawn.

On January 27, Chase committed his final murder, which also qualifies as a mass murder. He entered the home of 38-year-old Evelyn Miroth, who was babysitting her 22-month-old nephew, David; also present in the home was Eveyln’s six-year-old son Jason, and Dan Meredith, a neighbor who had come over to check on Evelyn. Evelyn was in the bath while Dan watched the children; he went into the front hallway when Chase entered the home, and was shot in the head at point-blank range with Chase’s .22 handgun, killing him (again, this was the same gun used in the Griffin and Wallin murders).

Chase then turned the corpse over and stole Dan’s wallet and car keys. Jason ran to his mother’s bedroom, where Chase fatally shot him twice in the head at point-blank range; on the way to killing Jason, Chase also shot David in the head.

Chase then entered the bathroom and fatally shot Evelyn once in the head. He dragged her corpse onto the bed, where he simultaneously sodomized it and drank its blood from a series of slices to the back of the neck. Medical examiners reported an inordinate amount of semen in the corpse’s rectum, indicating an “unusual amount” of ejaculations.

When Chase had finished, he stabbed her “at least half a dozen times” in the anus, the knife penetrating her uterus. He stabbed her in a series of vital points on the body, which caused blood from her internal organs to pool into her abdomen, which he then sliced open and drained into a bucket; he then consumed all of the blood. Chase then went to retrieve David’s corpse; he took it to the bathroom and split its skull open in the bathtub, and consumed some of the brain matter.

Outside, a six-year-old girl with whom Jason Miroth had a playdate knocked on the door, startling Chase; he fled the residence, stealing Dan Meredith’s car; the girl alerted a neighbor. The neighbor broke into the Miroth home where he discovered the bodies and contacted the authorities. Upon entering the home, police discovered that Chase had left perfect handprints and perfect imprints of the soles of his shoes in Evelyn’s blood.

Chase, meanwhile, took David’s corpse home with him, where he chopped off his penis and used it as a straw through which he sucked the blood out of the body. He then sliced the corpse open and consumed several internal organs and made smoothies out of others, finally disposing of the corpse at a nearby church.

Exposing violence to children within the “developing times” can lead to deep emotional trauma. Whether it be trophy hunting, responsible hunting or just human on human abuse. Criminology reports have shown that children whom are “taught” rights from wrongs are less likely to pursue criminal activities themselves. Evidence clearly shows although “small” that good parenting decreases adolescent violent tendencies.

Acts of cruelty to animals are not mere indications of a minor personality flaw in the abuser; they are symptomatic of a deep mental disturbance. Research in psychology and criminology shows that people who commit acts of cruelty to animals don’t stop there—many of them move on to their fellow humans. “Murderers … very often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids,” says Robert K. Ressler, who developed profiles of serial killers for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Studies have shown that violent and aggressive criminals are more likely to have abused animals as children than criminals who are considered non-aggressive. A survey of psychiatric patients who had repeatedly tortured dogs and cats found that all of them had high levels of aggression toward people as well. According to a New South Wales newspaper, a police study in Australia revealed that “100 percent of sexual homicide offenders examined had a history of animal cruelty.” To researchers, a fascination with cruelty to animals is a red flag in the backgrounds of serial killers and rapists. According to the FBI’s Ressler, “These are the kids who never learned it’s wrong to poke out a puppy’s eyes.”

Concluding;

These are the kids who never learned its wrong to poke out a puppy’s eyes. So is it correct to state that children whom are taught “responsible hunting” are less likely to kill or abuse other living beings? Based on surveys and other third party information we have shown that responsible hunters are less likely to abuse, what if though them responsible hunters were physically and emotionally abused by their parents or other family members/friends?. Based on criminology reports and forensic adolescent psychiatry its quite evident that regardless of whether you’ve been educated on how to kill animals responsibly or humanely or have little or no educating in hunting whatsoever there is little evidence to actually conclude that responsible hunters are less likely to abuse than those of “trophy hunters”. The real issue here is when a child is exposed to ANY form of abuse within the developing stages of mental maturity. Abuse is abuse no matter how much you sugar coat it, make it look like education its abuse full stop. And whilst our children are within the developing stages of mental maturity it would deeded as “abusive” to educate your child on animal killing whether it be for sport or sustainably. Children learn from a young age fast, they pick up very bad habits from their piers. Just because child is not showing no signs of mental disorders or conduct disorder doesn’t mean for one minute that the child you educated to kill an animal hasn’t been deeply traumatised, and that is a FACT.

 

Thank you taking the time to read this informal article;

Author – Dr Josa C. Depre

International Animal Rescue Foundation  

 

Advertisements

Thank you for your reply, should it merit a response we will respond in due course. This site is owned by International Animal Rescue Foundation and moderation is used.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s