Bruce Willis Offers DIY Instructions On How To Kill A Wolf

14
by Michael dEstries February 8, 2010
Categories: Animals
Tags: .

Let’s be clear on one thing: Bruce Willis is not promoting the idea of killing wolves for sport. The world has Sarah Palin to turn to for that screwed up DIY. Instead, the 54-year-old actor is offering tips in the latest issue of “Men’s Journal” on survival skills, impressing women, etc.

One such tip is what to do if attacked by a wolf. He suggests the first thing to do is to “give the wolf your arm.”

He explains, “You’ve got to lean into it, stick your arm all the way down his throat. He can’t swallow it because he’s gagging on your arm. You reach in, you grab a handful of something – guts, the back of its throat, whatever you can hold – and pull it out. And try to avoid those claws while you’re doing it.”

So, there you have it. If you’re ever in the wild and some hungry wolf decides to attack, you can thank Bruce Willis as you offer up your arm and hope to God he wasn’t bullshitting you. Unless there are two wolves, and then you’re just screwed.

About Michael dEstries

Michael has been blogging since 2005 on issues such as sustainability, renewable energy, philanthropy, and healthy living. He regularly contributes to a slew of publications, as well as consulting with companies looking to make an impact using the web and social media. He lives in Ithaca, NY with his family on an apple farm.

View all posts by Michael dEstries →
  • Chastity

    I understand as self defense but…

    we’re the ones who are intruding on their territory. So in a way, we’re the idiots.

  • Jae

    There is no “us” and “their” territory. There is only shared territory and sometimes good game management involves culling wolves. Stop knocking hunters so reflexively.
    Are you trying to promote something based in ecology or simply wage trite cultural warfare?

    If EcoRazzi was really serious about the “eco” in their name they’d offer a much more nuanced approach to the management and interaction with the rest of the natural world than the populist fluffy bunny fare their obviously pedestrian writers offer.

  • http://vegan--japan.blogspot.com/ herwin

    two wolves ? you got two arms , right ? So technically you could shove in both your arms in the animals mouth..

  • http://elishares.blogspot.com Elisha

    This same method applies when there’s a dog attacking you. Make sure you use your “weaker” hand to be the bait.

  • Chastity

    Jae, your argument is steeped in anthropocentrism–which so happens to be the driving factor for the numerous ecological disasters. Hunters aren’t doing anyone a favour–especially the nonhuman animals who die because of that very mentality. Hunters, the ever so complacent individuals they are, are adding more animals to the endangered species list and are ruining the biodiversity–which is a HUGE environmental disaster. Don’t even get me started on animal agriculture…

    If you want to kill for taste (pleasure), there are numerous studies that will tell you that the human body thrives better off without the consumption of animals.

    If you want to kill for sport, that would still be out of pleasure which would be a terrible excuse.

    If you kill out of self defense, then fine. But there is no other justifiable reason to enslave and/or kill animals. It is still a human’s fault for entering an area where there will be nonhuman animals who have had very limited contact with humans. Why should this shock anyone? Even the surfer who survived a vicious shark attack acknowledged that he was risking his life by entering their territory.

    Yes, I am a vegan before you start wondering. I’m also a very rational, consistent vegan who is armed with facts and statistics if you need them. (I didn’t include them because it would make this a tad longer than expected). Even then, science is not necessary when trying to prove that animals deserve to live in freedom and not have their lives dictated by some self-congratulatory human being.

  • AnaKinG

    Yeah, rational vegan. really, there’s no such thing. Being a vegan, it’s just a personal choice. there’s no rational behind it, as much as you want to believe there is. You just choose not to read counter argument, or just as quickly disregard anything that goes against your belief. Sooner you realize that, sooner you’ll be happy and people around you be happy. Please stop passing judgement based on your own belief onto others.

    Peace ;)

    • http://vegan--japan.blogspot.com/ herwin

      seems like you are the one doing the fast passing judgement with your “there is no such a thing as a rational vegan”.
      Being vegan is a rational and ethical choiche. Ethical because we think there def is something wrong with abusing animals for food that we can do without. (stop eating meat and you only will improve your health). and Rational because, well, a vegan diet has so much positive impact on the environment, available water, food distribution in the world, etc.

      It is rather the meateater who holds on to personal and emotional arguments based on … well, emotions, eh. Meat isnt healthy or has any rational personal or comunital benefits, so the only options are the emotional ones like “meat is delicious” and “we humans are meateaters”,but mostly meateaters are simply in a phase of denial, just like the cigarette smokers of the past..

      And isnt meateating also not a worse version of forcing one’s believe to innocent other living beings with severe consequences? I mean, there is nothing respectful about eating meat, its purely based on animal cruelty and greed, wouldnt you agree ?

      Please stop passing judgement to others and look at your self.

    • ddpalmer

      How about the fact that humans evolved eating meat and our bodies are designed for an omnivorous diet? So being a vegan is unnatural for a member of the species Homo Sapien.

  • http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-MV-Bob-Barker/249736727804?v=wall Hart Ryan Noecker

    I’d like to shove my arm down Bruce Willis’s mouth for campaigning for that sonuvabitch George W Bush.

  • Chastity

    PS I don’t see why animal consumers victimize themselves and act as if they’re the ones in the minority. Veganism isn’t a personal choice. If you want science to back up the anthropology, impromptu historical lessons and environmental statistics, sure I’ll give you the statistics where it is needed. However, this is also an emotional social justice issue. You don’t need rationality to fight for equal rights or women’s rights. Do you know how offensive that would be if someone were to ask for science to prove that women or Africans were worthy of compassion and respect? The lack of emotion is precisely why nonhuman animals are viewed as inanimate commodities. Oh, and don’t start taking my words out of context to fit your argument (“OMG you just compared animals to Africans?!”)

    It’s very wrong to enslave and consume animals whether anyone says so or not. Is it a personal choice to not be a racist? Is it a choice to not be a rapist or murderer? Before you start rolling your eyes, there’s plenty of truth in the above arguments I mentioned. Racism is a form of discrimination. With nonhuman animals, that would be speciesism. I can mention racism because I myself have been a victim of it and there are other non-white vegans who feel the same as I do and I can confirm that speciesism is the same thing. What about rape? Dairy is rape because they artificially inseminate a cow incessantly until she is too exhausted or economically “useless.” And murder? How else would you define the act of slicing one’s throat? Or what about a gunshot to the head?

    DDpalmer, that’s a fallacy. A professor of anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal confirmed that humans were meant to be herbivorous. In addition to that, the University of Calgary recently found that humans have been eating grain for 100 000 years. If you want to throw in the Native American argument (“they prayed over the animal’s body…”*eyeroll*) the Chocktaw people were vegetarians (according to an older definition of what vegetarian was–there’s a very big possibility that vegetarianism was actually in reference to veganism) AND the consumption of animals (hunting, wearing, creating homes, etc) was a European influence.

    Also keep in mind that the majority of fatal illnesses past and present originated from the domestication and consumption of animals. (i.e. swine flu, AIDS, avian flu, tuberculosis, measles, etc).

    A lot of this is the past. What about the future? The more we consume animals, the more degradation will take place. And no, grass fed, free range, “humane” is not the answer for they are either

    1) marketing tactics (the animals all end up in the same slaughterhouses)
    2) if, say, that flesh is what the sticker says, those “methods” require more land and more water.
    3) or all of the above.

    To further emphasize the irrationality of animal consumers, I present to you this quote:

    The standard diet of a meat-eater is blood, flesh, veins, muscles, tendons, cow secretions, hen periods and bee vomit. Then, once a year during a certain holiday in November, meat-eaters use the hollowed-out rectum of a dead bird as a pressure cooker for stuffing…and people think vegans are weird because we eat tofu?” – vegan bodybuilder Robert Cheeke

    You simply can’t have your meat, milk, cheese, and eggs and eat them too.

    • ddpalmer

      Well Chastity I don’t know which professor you are talking about. But when I searched for “anthropology montreal university human vegetarian” the first site I got was at http://veg.ca/content/view/285/113/ where I found the following.

      “The degree of meat in the early hominid diet is a matter of controversy and the more conservative view sees evidence for including small amounts of meat in the ancestral diet through opportunistic foraging and scavenging.”

      “While the amount of meat consumed by our distant ancestors is still hotly debated, there is consensus that the Pleistocene diet consisted overwhelmingly of vegetable material. While chimpanzees are known to kill, this behaviour is not necessarily dietary but ritualistic and their diet is at least 94% plants and fruits.”

      Overwhelmingly and 94% both mean that meat WAS eaten by our earliest ancestors many millions of years ago.

      And as we get closer to the present we find; “The National Geographic Society’s recent report on Neanderthal life in glaciated Europe, for example, cites evidence of cannabilism and reliance on hunting for food.”

      Now I know Neanderthals are not direct ancestors of modern humans but they diverged from the line to us about 600,000 years.

      Our direct ancestors were the Cro-Magnon and from another site we get; “They used stones as tools to open skulls and bones for brain and marrowfat. They would eat leopard’s prey that was left in the trees. Insects and bird eggs were available.”

      So it appears that from millions of years ago to a few hundred thousand years ago our ancestors ate meat and that the percentage in the diet increased over time.

      Then we have your statement; “Also keep in mind that the majority of fatal illnesses past and present originated from the domestication and consumption of animals. (i.e. swine flu, AIDS, avian flu, tuberculosis, measles, etc).”

      Really? The MAJORITY of fatal illnesses? How about bubonic plague, malaria, dysentery? I agree that some diseases have originated from domestication and consumption of animals, but to say the majority is really overstating the case.

      I am not saying vegetarianism isn’t healthy. I am saying humans have evolved to eat meat. Eating meat is perfectly natural and eating meat won’t cause immediate horrible diseases as many vegetarians seem to want us to believe.

      You don’t want to eat meat for whatever reason? Fine don’t eat meat that is your choice. But the majority of the people in the world make the choice to include meat in their diets. And trying to scare them or claiming some type of moral superiority will not get them to change.

  • Chastity

    ddpalmer,

    I don’t place myself on a pedestal nor do other vegans. It’s not some grand epiphany to respect animals. I have two dogs and two cats and it’s hypocritical to treat them as if they are members of my family and then turn around and pay someone to bludgeon their peers for my selfish desires. Besides, veganism is not a system of beliefs. It’s a social justice issue. Animals deserve respect like everyone else does. They don’t need pity and they don’t need indifference from those who don’t know better. They need justice and they need compassionate humans to act on that. Just because I acknowledge this and do what I say, it does not make me or other vegans morally superior. This “moral superiority” criticism is yours and others’ projection. You’re quick to repeat the cliches that others have used without really knowing why. Have you even seen Earthlings? If you haven’t, then you cannot even begin to fathom what it’s like for the nonhuman victims whose lives are devoted to serving human ends.

    As for the Concordia professor, my animal consuming friend (who would automatically be an unbiased source for mentioning this to me) was the one who told me about his prof saying that. I will ask him who he was.

    Historically, everyone consumed animals. Vegans, including myself, don’t refute that. However, don’t mistake “historical” for “biological” and “natural.” Biologically, we are not equipped to be omnivorous. Not even our canines can do that (which are meant for hard fruit and nuts). If we have a prof at Concordia who says that humans were meant to be herbivorous, cancer patients and diabetics who REVERSED their condition from adopting a plant based diet and the American Dietetic Association confirming that a plant-based diet is adequate for all people in every stage of life, I think this is enough evidence that humans are better off with a plant based diet. No amount (light, moderate or heavy) of animal parts and bodily fluids will do that favour for you. Donald Watson, who was the founder of The Vegan Society and inventor of the term “vegan,” had been vegan for 60 years and passed away at age of 95 in 2005. Even people throughout history were faring well with this arrangement–Pythagoras being one of the well known vegans (the term “vegan” came about in 1944 and earlier records of the word “vegetarian” were leaning towards the definition of vegan as we now know it.) He lived to be 99 years old. Another myth is that plant-based consumers require supplements. Yes, even B12 can be found in mushrooms, seaweed (although seaweed has been known to a slightly questionable source) and nutritional yeast. The concept of a plant based diet coupled along with the genuine respect for animals (aka veganism) is not something modern.

    What everyone thinks as nutritionally sound is really just based on pleasure which is definitely not an adequate reason to carry on with the consumption of nonhuman animals.

    As for the bubonic plague, it originated from rats. Malaria originated from chickens and ducks. I tried to find the origins of dysentery but had trouble because there is more than one type. Some say it’s because of feces in the water, others say that it originates from other viruses (whose origins lie in the domestication of animals)

    • ddpalmer

      A friend told you about a professor. And I give you a reference to a vegan website where two professors who are promoting veganism say that early hominids ate meat. But your one professor that a friend told you about is a better source.

      Yes bubonic plague came from rats that were around people because of the grain the people had stored to eat. Nothing to do with meat eating.

      If malaria comes from ducks and chickens then why are their strains that infect monkeys and apes? Because that is not where it came from. It is spread from human to human by mosquitoes. It really took off when people started to settle in larger communities, giving the mosquito a large supply of targets. And why did people start congregating in large groups? Because of agriculture.

      If we can use anecdotes, my great uncle is 97 and spends 3-4 hours a day every day helping his grandson tend his ranch. He eats meat at every meal and smokes at least a pack of unfiltered cigarettes a day. So I guess that proves meat and cigarettes are better for you than vegetables since my great uncle is older than Donald Watson.

      And why do you keep those poor animals in bondage. Shouldn’t you let them free to live as nature intended?

  • Chastity

    ddpalmer, I do not know much about those illnesses to elaborate. I will have take a look though.

    “And why do you keep those poor animals in bondage. Shouldn’t you let them free to live as nature intended?”
    I have no idea if you are playing devil’s advocate or not but I will answer anyway. Dogs and cats have been domesticated for centuries–but that’s not to say let’s continue eating, wearing, experimenting on cows, pigs, chickens and other animals as entertainment. The only difference in our interaction with them in North America is that they are cared for with no intentions of enslaving them for profit or for pleasure. Breeders–whether they are reputable, backyard or puppy mills–are the ones who are in the wrong for doing this but as long as we don’t fix animals while this situation is happening, the population is going to increase and more animals will be killed because of that. You must also keep in mind that it is humans who created this problem and who have decided to take on the role of animal control (aka the murder of innocent dogs and cats otherwise known as euthanization). The breeders have to stop breeding animals into existence, animal control officers need to relinquish their control and we must stop making purchases from breeders and the property status of all animals must be eliminated. The best thing at the moment would be to rescue these animals from death row and to care for them without any intention off of profiting off them or putting them in ridiculous costume pageants or whatever other thing that would be considered pleasure or profit.

    It’s definitely a situation that requires numerous solutions.

    For the “Donald Watson lived to the age of 95″ argument, I wasn’t emphasizing that we live longer, I was emphasizing that veganism is very healthy and doable even hundreds of thousands of years ago. Big Agri nowadays loves to fund scare studies to prevent one from pursuing an flesh and bodily fluids-free diet. I do find it very fascinating that those who were plagued with illnesses with no known medical cure were reversed with a plant based diet. Besides, going back on the moral issue, If someone has compassion and is interested in living that, my arguments validate that one can pursue veganism without worrying about their health.

« PREVIOUS POST
NEXT POST »