Because all the people outraged are not throwing cash at the conservation programs in Africa to keep them funded.
They generate 75 million from managed hunts to keep these sanctuaries open... and people who donate only generate 9 million with 9 million in government grants.
If maybe all the people outraged actually spent their money and effort, these conservation programs wouldn't need to take this blood money... but internet outrage is usually done by non-involved cheapskates.
The alternative is to not take the money, end the hunts, have the reserves closed, and taken over by corrupted governments and developed for cattle and all those animals to go extinct.
So yeah, I think I will take 'conservation off the backs of big game hunters' over 'shutdown and extinction at the hands of penniless lazy internet whiners.'
To every moron who clogged my facebook feed this week with this story... I recommend http://www.awf.org/
A great Charity, and while they do have to help maintain game preserves, it is due to lack of actual funding. the work they have done with endangered species has been amazing. If they had 1 dollar for every time someone forwarded this stories link they probably could double their funding.
Hunting isn't illegal. It's approved of by the African governments and they set limits on animals taken each year/have conservation areas where hunting is not permitted. I fail to see any difference between this and someone hunting American game.
Heck, I've wanted to go on an African safari for years now. What I want to know is what her parents do, those per-animal fees are not cheap for most of that game. I wonder if she has a boyfriend...I want to marry into some of that kind of money!
You have to control the population and kill some of them or it becomes too difficult for all of them to remain alive as a viable herd.
That is conservation in a nutshell and the culling of the herd has to be done for different reasons:
- You kill one, so that the rest can survive on the resources that are available.
- You kill an animal that is hurting the group itself, which often happens when an old alpha-male tries to kill every other male even if they are not a threat to him.
- An animal with sickness is hurting the herd.
There is no way around it, these animals have to be removed from the herd so that the herd can survive. Now that we have established that these animals have to die we have two basic options:
1) Game Wardens can kill them. The objective is achieved, the herd is healthy.
2) Permitted Hunters can kill them. The objective is achieved, the herd is healthy, and the preserve has additional money to continue operation.
It's nothing to be outraged over.
It's no different than having an old car that needs to be junked. You can take it to the junkyard and let them junk it, or you can put in in a parking lot and charge people $10 to take 3 swings with a sledgehammer to junk it and raise money for [insert pet project here] while you are doing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote: I think we can all pray that lions eat her face, then she gets gored by a hippo and finally trampled by elephants. It's the only way.
Seriously though she's glamourising something that many countries are having problems stamping out.
Countries are having problems stamping out conservation?
People who hunt like this are disgusting.
They are doing a job that needs to be done, and they pay good money to these areas to do it which is then used to keep all the animals alive.
These are the type of hunters that are disgusting:
Poachers who hunt healthy animals that are important for the survival of the herd, cut of what they want, and leave the rest there to rot.
Hunting takes many forms. Hunters who poach are the scum of the earth. Hunters who hunt for conservation are doing a helpful job. And you have people like this chick who might not be conservationists at heart, but who hunt in a legal fashion and only take the animal they are instructed to take and support the local conservation program by culling the herd and paying them good money to do so.
Seriously, people have nothing better to complain about than this? Terrorists are burning the Middle East down, our country is on the tank, the president is a weak limp wristed pansy with no respect and the bad guys in the world are laughing at him, our borders are being flooded with illegals, and people are concerned about someone legally hunting some animals? Get your heads out of your asses people. There are more important things to worry about.
I went on a safari in January. I shot lots of animals, with a camera.
I don't see what is so exciting about killing these animals. I fail to see how it can be more engaging to pursue one with the goal of killing it, than with the goal of filming it, of attempting to take that one great shot.
I understand the economics of these sanctioned hunting trips, I fail to understand the desire to do it.
I'm going to leave this here though, because it's a nicer image than the one above.
Raven911 wrote: Seriously, people have nothing better to complain about than this? Terrorists are burning the Middle East down, our country is on the tank, the president is a weak limp wristed pansy with no respect and the bad guys in the world are laughing at him, our borders are being flooded with illegals, and people are concerned about someone legally hunting some animals? Get your heads out of your asses people. There are more important things to worry about.
You tell that truth brother.
YEAH! YEAH!
Keep preachin'. 24/7/365. Keeps the hope of abetter america tommorow alive.
I understand the economics of these sanctioned hunting trips, I fail to understand the desire to do it.
I agree... But photo safaris and charitable donations alone would spell death for these animals... If someone gets a boner for killing a lion and pays 500k for it... if the alternative is 'nothing' then so be it.
I have worked in US parks and had to do 'conservation' activities which involved dealing with managed huts and population control. It sucks... but is needed. At least most of the animals we had to cull could be turned into food and used in our area.
Medium of Death wrote: I think we can all pray that lions eat her face, then she gets gored by a hippo and finally trampled by elephants. It's the only way.
Seriously though she's glamourising something that many countries are having problems stamping out.
Countries are having problems stamping out conservation?
People who hunt like this are disgusting.
They are doing a job that needs to be done, and they pay good money to these areas to do it which is then used to keep all the animals alive.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse there, unless you think I said she was glamourising conservation.
The job doesn't need to be done in such a manor. The animals could be put to sleep.
At the end of the day all she is doing is taking glamour shots with dead big game animals so absolute witches can rub one out to a power fantasy of them killing one and then fething her on it.
Money is obviously an issue but they can get just as much money from tourism. Like Redbeard, my parents recently went on tours to see many of these wonderful creatures and nothing had to die.
If they are endangered why would they need to be culled? It seems odd that a species would be low enough on population to get on the endangered list while simultaneously having enough numbers that we need to organize hunts to keep the population in check.
Funny how the typical westerner has little to no idea on real conservation efforts that the people in africa are making.
these game parks, whether you believe in it or not, are playing a vital role in keeping these species alive and protected, they are necessary until a time in which mankind develops some sort of baseline respect for the environment and the wildlife living in it collectively, then measures like this are necessary
these game parks play a neccesary role in the conservation effort, these kills bankroll and finance the protection of these game reserves
*they provide local villages a share of the profit and employment
*many villages and farmers view alot of these animals as pest's so they kill them either to protect their farms of for there meat
* the money incentive will stop poor farmers and villages from killing them outright, whilst the tens of thousands of us dollars to be made assigns a sense of worth to the people, meaning whilst it's all fair and well for some white person living in a developed counry who has probably already exterminated most of their flora and fauna to view this is as some sort of outrage, to the poor un-educated farmer or villager who has no real understanding of the environmental value each species plays in their ecosystem, or perhaps who's friend or family member may have been attacked by a lion or perhaps their vegetable crop has been trampled by a herd of elphants ther point of view is going to be different.
there are many reasons why these species are dissapearing and they need to be adressed urgently
such as
* traditional medicines common in asia and western countries that use parts of endangered species, one of the greatest reasons for these maginificent creatures dying out
* trinkets such as furs and pelts and all other crap using ivory rhino parts, particulalry by wealthy asians and westerners
land shrinking for development, also think about that coffe your drinking those coffe beans probably came from land which has been cleared coffe bean pantations and all the species of animas that have been destroyed for the western addiction of caffiene
and the iphone your using, those precious metals have been mined in some developing country, where the land has been cleared and the habitat for these animals has been destoryed, also the cheap timber furniture probably comes from the same place
so my arguement basically is that as of right now these game parks are playing a pivotal role in preserving these species, it doesnt matter whether you think it's right or wrong, what matter is it work's and is working, and until the world collectively places some sort of value on the enviroment in which we live and actually makes an effort to conserve what is left. then parks like these are the solution we have,or put more effort into helping developing countries such as those throughout africa with their enviroment than out choices are limited
Just because we don't agree with it isnt going to stop the demand or poaching of these species. For now these game parks are working so its just something people are going to have to deal with.
PS i do not condone these practices, but if its making an impact of preserving these species then i will support it, regardless of the morality of it, because morality is not going to save these beautful creatures
As I understand it there is limited hunting of some endangered species in order to conserve them. Not being a specialist I don't know the particulars but it seems that she is at least part of this program in some way.
Aside from support from countless hunters, the Sportsman Channel will be airing a show in 2015 featuring Jones and her amazing hunting adventures. Stay tuned.
Clearly all about the conservation and not shooting a lion in the face.
Yes on a game park she would have payed tens of thousands of dollars to kill each animal.
that money would've been split up between, the local villages, the government and then that money is used to preserve the game parks, so manage the breeding and pay rangers to patrol and protect the land
Im not entirely sure what the issue is but from what i understand
she was given/bought permission to take out animals within a conservation area probably meaning that those specific animals are relatively sustained? or is it that people are having problems with them killing animals with bullets as it is not "humane"
Here's how it works. You as a hunter pay a safari agency per day to house you and have an expert guide to lead you around/generally put up with you being an idiot who doesn't know what they're doing. usually for a couple of weeks. The agency keeps that money and usually gets a pretty nice profit.
Per each animal you actually want to shoot you need to pay a certain "game tax". This varies from about $50 for a wildebeest or baboon to a few hundred for various planes game, and quickly approaches "if you have to ask..." territory for the prestige stuff like leopards or elephants. Note that this money is paid regardless of whether you actually get the animal you want. You shoot and fail to bring the animal down? Still have to pay. To the best of my knowledge that is a mainly government tax that is used to keep the remaining population alive. They hire experts to figure out how many animals they can have hunted while still keeping the population stable to increasing.
A friend of mine grew up in Africa and had some experience with various hunting safari companies. That's where I heard this from. If I'm wrong I apologize in advance.
Just because the money is being used for conservation doesn't make it any less repulsive.
Look, someone who can afford to drop $100,000 to shoot an elephant, and who claims to care about conservation, could just as easily donate that money to a conservation program.
The bottom line is that the people engaging in these programs don't really care about conservation. Conservation is being inflicted upon them in order to legitimize their desire to kill beautiful things.
It's a real shame that so many parks can only afford to protect these species by pandering to these rich hunters. Necessary evils are still evil.
Medium of Death wrote: I think we can all pray that lions eat her face, then she gets gored by a hippo and finally trampled by elephants. It's the only way.
Seriously though she's glamourising something that many countries are having problems stamping out.
Countries are having problems stamping out conservation?
People who hunt like this are disgusting.
They are doing a job that needs to be done, and they pay good money to these areas to do it which is then used to keep all the animals alive.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse there, unless you think I said she was glamourising conservation.
The job doesn't need to be done in such a manor. The animals could be put to sleep.
At the end of the day all she is doing is taking glamour shots with dead big game animals so absolute witches can rub one out to a power fantasy of them killing one and then fething her on it.
Money is obviously an issue but they can get just as much money from tourism. Like Redbeard, my parents recently went on tours to see many of these wonderful creatures and nothing had to die.
They still get the same amount from tourism even with the hunting. But it would cost them a lot of money to just put them to sleep.
They don't need to put them to sleep at all. Would you believe that eco-systems existed before humans showed up to manage them.
I was over there, nothing goes to waste. An old, wounded animal feeds predators, then feeds scavengers, then feeds insects. And, then the hyenas eat all the bones besides the skulls. (That's the reason you will find skulls and no other animal remains - the skull is the only part the hyenas leave).
I don't believe that any of these hunts are part of a planned culling, because the parks that don't have hunting have stable populations. They're part of generating cash, hopefully to pay for conservation, but knowing Africa, much of that money probably finds its way into someone's pocket.
Redbeard wrote: They don't need to put them to sleep at all. Would you believe that eco-systems existed before humans showed up to manage them.
I was over there, nothing goes to waste. An old, wounded animal feeds predators, then feeds scavengers, then feeds insects. And, then the hyenas eat all the bones besides the skulls. (That's the reason you will find skulls and no other animal remains - the skull is the only part the hyenas leave).
I don't believe that any of these hunts are part of a planned culling, because the parks that don't have hunting have stable populations. They're part of generating cash, hopefully to pay for conservation, but knowing Africa, much of that money probably finds its way into someone's pocket.
Happy the photo safari made you an expert in wildlife management and conservation. I've been on a military base before, where do I apply for Secretary of Defense?
Redbeard wrote: They don't need to put them to sleep at all. Would you believe that eco-systems existed before humans showed up to manage them.
I was over there, nothing goes to waste. An old, wounded animal feeds predators, then feeds scavengers, then feeds insects. And, then the hyenas eat all the bones besides the skulls. (That's the reason you will find skulls and no other animal remains - the skull is the only part the hyenas leave).
I don't believe that any of these hunts are part of a planned culling, because the parks that don't have hunting have stable populations. They're part of generating cash, hopefully to pay for conservation, but knowing Africa, much of that money probably finds its way into someone's pocket.
Happy the photo safari made you an expert in wildlife management and conservation. I've been on a military base before, where do I apply for Secretary of Defense?
LOL at the person acting like "put to sleep" is different from killed.
seriously, you are ignorant if you think that these hunts are not a good thing...
everyone benifits, the other side of the coin is to lose funding, and thus more animals...
controlled, responsable hunting is not the issue,
POACHERS are the issue, and funding from people like this girl is what stops poaching.
some very good points have been made about "do nothing, spend nothing" internet quarter backs thinking their outrage does more good then actual people giving money to stop poaching/extinction hunting,
these do nothings/spend nothings tend to ignore the fact that hunters and their orgs are by FAR the largest contributers to preserving wildlife heritage around the world.
OFC all the do nothing spend nothing types will disagree,
Sure i get people think hunting is 100% bad for the environment but hunters enjoy the environment just as much as the next guy, maybe even more as they spend more time in it. Back when ducks were going down it was ducks unlimited, not the environmental movement that bought up a crud ton of marshes and set them aside for the ducks to preserve them for future generations. And this was funded by contributions by hunters and people entering raffles for commemorative shotguns.
OFC all the do nothing spend nothing types will disagree,
So, Insult those who disagree with them. How do you know they are "Do nothing Spend Nothing" Types?
If they disagree they must be nobodies who do nothing but get mad and type. Nopes its not like I dont give to thee WWF or things like that.
But it is a submissive handwave "If you disagree you are part of the problem" I think if these people where really caring about the enviroment then why not give that 500k to the reserve itself?
Whilst I don't personally like the idea of posing with dead animals you've shot, I also don't particularly care if others do it given all the reasons d-usa has already pointed out.
OFC all the do nothing spend nothing types will disagree,
So, Insult those who disagree with them. How do you know they are "Do nothing Spend Nothing" Types?
If they disagree they must be nobodies who do nothing but get mad and type. Nopes its not like I dont give to thee WWF or things like that.
not trying to insult you, if you actually DO contribute $ or time, then you are not a do nothing are you?
even someone who donates, if they are critizising these hunts, is ignorant of the benificial nature of them.
they generarate revenue to protect the species, while at the same time controlling which animals are actually hunted,
the fact of the matter is that far more is gained from this practice then is lost.
if "altruism" was enough to fund these alone, then we wouldnt have had this problem in the first place, but it just doesnt work like that, its an unavoidable fact that you will get much more funding if you offer something in exchange then if you just wait with your hands out.
your hearts in the right place though, we all care about preserving our natural heritage.
OFC all the do nothing spend nothing types will disagree,
So, Insult those who disagree with them. How do you know they are "Do nothing Spend Nothing" Types?
If they disagree they must be nobodies who do nothing but get mad and type. Nopes its not like I dont give to thee WWF or things like that.
Considering you were judging people in your opening post it is hardly fitting for you to be offended.
OFC all the do nothing spend nothing types will disagree,
So, Insult those who disagree with them. How do you know they are "Do nothing Spend Nothing" Types?
If they disagree they must be nobodies who do nothing but get mad and type. Nopes its not like I dont give to thee WWF or things like that.
Most facebook outragers are "do nothing, spend nothing" types.
FWIW:
-- The elephant wasn't killed. It was hunted, dosed, tagged and tracked, allowed to recuperate, and released.
-- Meat from all of the killed animals was given to local villages that used it for food.
Im not offended. I just hate the dimissive handwave of "If you cant do anything, then you cant have an opinion" which is what that statement boils down to. What if they really cant? Like no money? My Cousin and me are huge Enviromentalists. I give my tips every week to WWF, but she has 4 kids so she cant do that. Does that mean she cant have an opinion that disagrees?
and if that opinion is not fully thought out and dismisses out of hand the benifits of the situation, then that opinion might be dismissed out of hand itself. Especially when there is so much hate aimed towards these hunters despite their actions being positive ones (not saying you or anyone you know is hating on anyone)
props to you for giving though! very rare to see non hunters actually donate!
hotsauceman1 wrote: well I only give my tips because 15$ isnt a whole lot so I might as well give to someone who an use it. Stupid Beer Drinkers. They never tip.
I dunno. I have a few friends that bartend at breweries in Cincinnati and they'd disagree to the tune of $200-$300 on a slow night.
hotsauceman1 wrote: well I only give my tips because 15$ isnt a whole lot so I might as well give to someone who an use it. Stupid Beer Drinkers. They never tip.
I dunno. I have a few friends that bartend at breweries in Cincinnati and they'd disagree to the tune of $200-$300 on a slow night.
Once you've had enough drinks you can't add up a proper 15%, so you just dig your hand into your wallet and slap down whatever comes out on the counter then hope it's enough. Anybody else have that problem? Just me?
hotsauceman1 wrote: well I only give my tips because 15$ isnt a whole lot so I might as well give to someone who an use it. Stupid Beer Drinkers. They never tip.
I dunno. I have a few friends that bartend at breweries in Cincinnati and they'd disagree to the tune of $200-$300 on a slow night.
Maybe its the Area, It isnt a Bar. It is beer at a water Park.
hotsauceman1 wrote: well I only give my tips because 15$ isnt a whole lot so I might as well give to someone who an use it. Stupid Beer Drinkers. They never tip.
I dunno. I have a few friends that bartend at breweries in Cincinnati and they'd disagree to the tune of $200-$300 on a slow night.
Once you've had enough drinks you can't add up a proper 15%, so you just dig your hand into your wallet and slap down whatever comes out on the counter then hope it's enough. Anybody else have that problem? Just me?
I tip $1 for a beer or straight bourbon. $2-$3 for a cocktail, depending on the complexity.
hotsauceman1 wrote: well I only give my tips because 15$ isnt a whole lot so I might as well give to someone who an use it. Stupid Beer Drinkers. They never tip.
And here is the crux of the issue.
Your $15 is definitely good, but its not very much.
On the other hand, $100,000 for someone to have a chance to bag an animal you will have to destroy anyway will definitely do some major good.
If you sell a dozen lion tags every five years, at half a million each, you'll have a steady income and be able to keep the population healthy. Younger animals will be able to fill the void left by the aging adults and you will maintain a healthy population. And have the money to do it.
The animals will die anyway, either by being culled or from natural causes. Might as we'll make you some money along the way.
I believe also that they occasionally have to kill alpha lions that are threatening to take over a pack because they end up killing all the others save for a few breeding females.
hotsauceman1 wrote: well I only give my tips because 15$ isnt a whole lot so I might as well give to someone who an use it. Stupid Beer Drinkers. They never tip.
And here is the crux of the issue.
Your $15 is definitely good, but its not very much.
On the other hand, $100,000 for someone to have a chance to bag an animal you will have to destroy anyway will definitely do some major good.
If you sell a dozen lion tags every five years, at half a million each, you'll have a steady income and be able to keep the population healthy. Younger animals will be able to fill the void left by the aging adults and you will maintain a healthy population. And have the money to do it.
The animals will die anyway, either by being culled or from natural causes. Might as we'll make you some money along the way.
I guess it just comes down to the fact that people who give altuistically will never meet the type of money those who do it for greedy or selfish purposes do.
cincydooley wrote: I believe also that they occasionally have to kill alpha lions that are threatening to take over a pack because they end up killing all the others save for a few breeding females.
I think that's a NatGeo nugget....
That was pretty much the scenario for the Rhino Hunt Auction they did earlier this year I think.
I guess it just comes down to the fact that people who give altuistically will never meet the type of money those who do it for greedy or selfish purposes do.
Many will argue there is no such thing as altruism...
I guess it just comes down to the fact that people who give altuistically will never meet the type of money those who do it for greedy or selfish purposes do.
Yes, because no one gives large amounts of money altruistically.
hotsauceman1 wrote: well I only give my tips because 15$ isnt a whole lot so I might as well give to someone who an use it. Stupid Beer Drinkers. They never tip.
And here is the crux of the issue.
Your $15 is definitely good, but its not very much.
On the other hand, $100,000 for someone to have a chance to bag an animal you will have to destroy anyway will definitely do some major good.
If you sell a dozen lion tags every five years, at half a million each, you'll have a steady income and be able to keep the population healthy. Younger animals will be able to fill the void left by the aging adults and you will maintain a healthy population. And have the money to do it.
The animals will die anyway, either by being culled or from natural causes. Might as we'll make you some money along the way.
I guess it just comes down to the fact that people who give altuistically will never meet the type of money those who do it for greedy or selfish purposes do.
So hunters are greedy and selfish now? That's a new one.
Happy the photo safari made you an expert in wildlife management and conservation. I've been on a military base before, where do I apply for Secretary of Defense?
I never claimed to be an expert, or requested a job in the field. However, I do donate to conservation programs, read the literature, and attend a couple of lectures each year.
Like I said previously, I understand the economics involved in selling these licenses. I understand that it raises needed funds for the conservation of the species. That said, I still think those people who feel the need to kill these animals are scum. The fact that some good comes of their scumminess is some consolation, but they're still scum.
hotsauceman1 wrote: well I only give my tips because 15$ isnt a whole lot so I might as well give to someone who an use it. Stupid Beer Drinkers. They never tip.
And here is the crux of the issue.
Your $15 is definitely good, but its not very much.
On the other hand, $100,000 for someone to have a chance to bag an animal you will have to destroy anyway will definitely do some major good.
If you sell a dozen lion tags every five years, at half a million each, you'll have a steady income and be able to keep the population healthy. Younger animals will be able to fill the void left by the aging adults and you will maintain a healthy population. And have the money to do it.
The animals will die anyway, either by being culled or from natural causes. Might as we'll make you some money along the way.
I guess it just comes down to the fact that people who give altuistically will never meet the type of money those who do it for greedy or selfish purposes do.
So hunters are greedy and selfish now? That's a new one.
Ok, Let e rephrase to something else. I guess the money given for nothing will always be dwarfed by those who give money for something they can have/experiance/use
I dont hate hunting(Its one my bucket list atleast once) But I do not like hunting endangered animals like that.
hotsauceman1 wrote: well I only give my tips because 15$ isnt a whole lot so I might as well give to someone who an use it. Stupid Beer Drinkers. They never tip.
And here is the crux of the issue.
Your $15 is definitely good, but its not very much.
On the other hand, $100,000 for someone to have a chance to bag an animal you will have to destroy anyway will definitely do some major good.
If you sell a dozen lion tags every five years, at half a million each, you'll have a steady income and be able to keep the population healthy. Younger animals will be able to fill the void left by the aging adults and you will maintain a healthy population. And have the money to do it.
The animals will die anyway, either by being culled or from natural causes. Might as we'll make you some money along the way.
I guess it just comes down to the fact that people who give altruistically will never meet the type of money those who do it for greedy or selfish purposes do.
So hunters are greedy and selfish now? That's a new one.
I could agree that hunters that poach an elephant, chop it to pieces, and cut of the tusks to make ~$3,500 are greedy.
But somebody paying $38,500 to hunt an elephant? That doesn't sound greedy to me...
Within the context of this thread "hunters are selfish and greedy" is perfectly fine for defining a person who has enough money to protect these animals but uses it to kill them instead.
Redbeard wrote: They don't need to put them to sleep at all. Would you believe that eco-systems existed before humans showed up to manage them.
I suggested "putting them to sleep" as a benefit of the doubt as if it was truly a greater part of the process of conservation to kill these animals. Despite how ass backwards that seems.
So basically as originally thought it's just a bs marketing exercise claiming conservation?
Happy the photo safari made you an expert in wildlife management and conservation. I've been on a military base before, where do I apply for Secretary of Defense?
I never claimed to be an expert, or requested a job in the field. However, I do donate to conservation programs, read the literature, and attend a couple of lectures each year.
Like I said previously, I understand the economics involved in selling these licenses. I understand that it raises needed funds for the conservation of the species. That said, I still think those people who feel the need to kill these animals are scum. The fact that some good comes of their scumminess is some consolation, but they're still scum.
I agree, Hunting animals that are near extinction is just wrong.
Y'know, I stand by my original Statement, yes it is greedy. IF they truly cared for the enviroment, then give the money and expect nothing but a warm fuzzy feeling inside. The fact that you disquise killing an animal as conservation is sickening
Happy the photo safari made you an expert in wildlife management and conservation. I've been on a military base before, where do I apply for Secretary of Defense?
I never claimed to be an expert, or requested a job in the field. However, I do donate to conservation programs, read the literature, and attend a couple of lectures each year.
Like I said previously, I understand the economics involved in selling these licenses. I understand that it raises needed funds for the conservation of the species. That said, I still think those people who feel the need to kill these animals are scum. The fact that some good comes of their scumminess is some consolation, but they're still scum.
I agree, Hunting animals that are near extinction is just wrong.
Y'know, I stand by my original Statement, yes it is greedy. IF they truly cared for the enviroment, then give the money and expect nothing but a warm fuzzy feeling inside. The fact that you disquise killing an animal as conservation is sickening
And people would just write checks to the Girl Scouts and say "no thanks, I don't need those cookies, I have a warm fuzzy feeling that is better than any Thin Mint could ever be".
trying to change the unchangable human nature of risk/reward incentivizing basically every action we make, is folly,
adapting to, and working with that human nature produces actual results.
may as well go "why do we even need money? why cant we all just do our best and get stuff because we love everyone/thing?"
if altruism worked, these animals would not have been poached into endangerment in the first place....
the simple fact that altruistic donations are far FAR surpassed by " hunter who actually supports the sustaining of wildlife/enviroment i sustainably hunt" donations, is proof enough of what method works better.
Happy the photo safari made you an expert in wildlife management and conservation. I've been on a military base before, where do I apply for Secretary of Defense?
I never claimed to be an expert, or requested a job in the field. However, I do donate to conservation programs, read the literature, and attend a couple of lectures each year.
Like I said previously, I understand the economics involved in selling these licenses. I understand that it raises needed funds for the conservation of the species. That said, I still think those people who feel the need to kill these animals are scum. The fact that some good comes of their scumminess is some consolation, but they're still scum.
I agree, Hunting animals that are near extinction is just wrong.
Y'know, I stand by my original Statement, yes it is greedy. IF they truly cared for the environment, then give the money and expect nothing but a warm fuzzy feeling inside. The fact that you disguise killing an animal as conservation is sickening
These animals were going to need to be killed at some point anyway. By selling licenses to hunt and kill them the programs raise money and likely stop these people from hunting animals illegally. It's not like people with lots of money have been stopped by laws before now is it? Now if you say you don't mind hunting it means you cannot disagree with the act of killing an animal. If you say you understand why they need to be killed you can't have a problem with that either. You must only have a problem with glorifying the death of these animals which while understandable is more just poor taste on the part of those glorifying it than any particular moral system.
No they arent. Because something didnt DIE so they girl scouts could get the money. You seem to misunderstand that they are different cases.
@cincy: The African Elephant is labeled as "Vulnerable"
White Rhino is "Near Threatened"
Happy the photo safari made you an expert in wildlife management and conservation. I've been on a military base before, where do I apply for Secretary of Defense?
I never claimed to be an expert, or requested a job in the field. However, I do donate to conservation programs, read the literature, and attend a couple of lectures each year.
Like I said previously, I understand the economics involved in selling these licenses. I understand that it raises needed funds for the conservation of the species. That said, I still think those people who feel the need to kill these animals are scum. The fact that some good comes of their scumminess is some consolation, but they're still scum.
I agree, Hunting animals that are near extinction is just wrong.
Y'know, I stand by my original Statement, yes it is greedy. IF they truly cared for the environment, then give the money and expect nothing but a warm fuzzy feeling inside. The fact that you disguise killing an animal as conservation is sickening
These animals were going to need to be killed at some point anyway. By selling licenses to hunt and kill them the programs raise money and likely stop these people from hunting animals illegally. It's not like people with lots of money have been stopped by laws before now is it? Now if you say you don't mind hunting it means you cannot disagree with the act of killing an animal. If you say you understand why they need to be killed you can't have a problem with that either. You must only have a problem with glorifying the death of these animals which while understandable is more just poor taste on the part of those glorifying it than any particular moral system.
Maybe, I go to my uncles place and get unnerved by the bear pelts, Deer heads and other things. Then I find out he didnt even use most of the meat.
hotsauceman1 wrote: No they arent. Because something didnt DIE so they girl scouts could get the money. You seem to misunderstand that they are different cases.
But that wasn't the criteria you used.
You said that you either give money for nothing, or you are greedy and selfish.
hotsauceman1 wrote: No they arent. Because something didnt DIE so they girl scouts could get the money. You seem to misunderstand that they are different cases. @cincy: The African Elephant is labeled as "Vulnerable" White Rhino is "Near Threatened"
Happy the photo safari made you an expert in wildlife management and conservation. I've been on a military base before, where do I apply for Secretary of Defense?
I never claimed to be an expert, or requested a job in the field. However, I do donate to conservation programs, read the literature, and attend a couple of lectures each year.
Like I said previously, I understand the economics involved in selling these licenses. I understand that it raises needed funds for the conservation of the species. That said, I still think those people who feel the need to kill these animals are scum. The fact that some good comes of their scumminess is some consolation, but they're still scum.
I agree, Hunting animals that are near extinction is just wrong. Y'know, I stand by my original Statement, yes it is greedy. IF they truly cared for the environment, then give the money and expect nothing but a warm fuzzy feeling inside. The fact that you disguise killing an animal as conservation is sickening
These animals were going to need to be killed at some point anyway. By selling licenses to hunt and kill them the programs raise money and likely stop these people from hunting animals illegally. It's not like people with lots of money have been stopped by laws before now is it? Now if you say you don't mind hunting it means you cannot disagree with the act of killing an animal. If you say you understand why they need to be killed you can't have a problem with that either. You must only have a problem with glorifying the death of these animals which while understandable is more just poor taste on the part of those glorifying it than any particular moral system.
Maybe, I go to my uncles place and get unnerved by the bear pelts, Deer heads and other things. Then I find out he didn't even use most of the meat.
Well, is it the waste that annoys you? The death? The killing itself? The trophies of it perhaps? (This is in regard to your story of your uncle) I can understand disliking the act of glorifying in killing. Not everyone see's it as such and it's not always that.
OFC all the do nothing spend nothing types will disagree,
So, Insult those who disagree with them. How do you know they are "Do nothing Spend Nothing" Types? If they disagree they must be nobodies who do nothing but get mad and type. Nopes its not like I dont give to thee WWF or things like that.
Most facebook outragers are "do nothing, spend nothing" types.
FWIW:
-- The elephant wasn't killed. It was hunted, dosed, tagged and tracked, allowed to recuperate, and released. -- Meat from all of the killed animals was given to local villages that used it for food.
Well, is it the waste that annoys you? The death? The killing itself? The trophies of it perhaps? (This is in regard to your story of your uncle) I can understand disliking the act of glorifying in killing. Not everyone see's it as such and it's not always that.
Gloryfiying the killing and making no use of it beyond the trophy. Most arguments I hear in favor of hunting is "Tradition" and stuff branchinh from that. Well if you followed tradition they didnt display the animal in funny poses. They used the pelt for clothing, bones for toothpicks and so forth. But seeing that hunters not use it as nothing more as a sport of killing animals and proving you are good at killing something is wrong and disgusting to me. If you want to hunt for food, good, I love venison. but if you kill a buck, take a pic then leave it like alot of hunters I know, then you are scum
TheCustomLime wrote: I'd rather big game hunters get their willies up (Or the female equivalent) than the animals go extinct. It's really the lesser of the two evils.
How about we go after the poachers? Or lets the big game hunters go after them.
There we go, I fixed the problem. no you donate to hunt poachers.
There are far more greedier people who have done and still do far more damage to the world and our society than this girl will ever do. She'd need a small nuclear bomb and a heavily populated metropolitan city to do an equivalent damage. Rail at this girl all you like but there are far worse people who get away with far worse gak. At least her greed had a side-effect that helped.
TheCustomLime wrote: I'd rather big game hunters get their willies up (Or the female equivalent) than the animals go extinct. It's really the lesser of the two evils.
How about we go after the poachers? Or lets the big game hunters go after them.
There we go, I fixed the problem. no you donate to hunt poachers.
"Hey guys, that Alpha-Rhino male just killed two younger rhinos that are of breeding age and 3 children. We just lost males that can be used to grow the herd and no female will breed with the Alpha-Rhino because he is too old and cannot sustain the herd. He is going to kill more of them!"
"It's okay, we killed the poachers."
"But that doesn't address the problem. We lost 6 Rhinos already, there will be no new rhinos with the alpha killing everything. We have to do something about him!"
"Aren't you listening, the poachers are gone!"
"But..."
"Pssst.....poachers....."
purplefood wrote: There are far more greedier people who have done and still do far more damage to the world and our society than this girl will ever do. She'd need a small nuclear bomb and a heavily populated metropolitan city to do an equivalent damage. Rail at this girl all you like but there are far worse people who get away with far worse gak. At least her greed had a side-effect that helped.
Someone once told me something. "There is someone who always has it worse, but that means your problems dont matter" This is the same princible. There is always a worse person, but that doesnt make this any more good.
TheCustomLime wrote: I'd rather big game hunters get their willies up (Or the female equivalent) than the animals go extinct. It's really the lesser of the two evils.
How about we go after the poachers? Or lets the big game hunters go after them.
There we go, I fixed the problem. no you donate to hunt poachers.
"Hey guys, that Alpha-Rhino male just killed two younger rhinos that are of breeding age and 3 children. We just lost males that can be used to grow the herd and no female will breed with the Alpha-Rhino because he is too old and cannot sustain the herd. He is going to kill more of them!"
"It's okay, we killed the poachers."
"But that doesn't address the problem. We lost 6 Rhinos already, there will be no new rhinos with the alpha killing everything. We have to do something about him!"
"Aren't you listening, the poachers are gone!"
"But..."
"Pssst.....poachers....."
And again your fail to see comedy. Im trying to defuse a tense thread here with a bit of joke.
TheCustomLime wrote: I'd rather big game hunters get their willies up (Or the female equivalent) than the animals go extinct. It's really the lesser of the two evils.
How about we go after the poachers? Or lets the big game hunters go after them.
There we go, I fixed the problem. no you donate to hunt poachers.
Hunting people for money isn't alright under any circumstances. Hunting animals... still isn't okay but when given the choice would you rather them be all dead or have just a handful die?
I would rather no animals die at all. I love animals but charity isn't cutting it.
TheCustomLime wrote: I'd rather big game hunters get their willies up (Or the female equivalent) than the animals go extinct. It's really the lesser of the two evils.
How about we go after the poachers? Or lets the big game hunters go after them.
There we go, I fixed the problem. no you donate to hunt poachers.
"Hey guys, that Alpha-Rhino male just killed two younger rhinos that are of breeding age and 3 children. We just lost males that can be used to grow the herd and no female will breed with the Alpha-Rhino because he is too old and cannot sustain the herd. He is going to kill more of them!"
"It's okay, we killed the poachers."
"But that doesn't address the problem. We lost 6 Rhinos already, there will be no new rhinos with the alpha killing everything. We have to do something about him!"
"Aren't you listening, the poachers are gone!"
"But..."
"Pssst.....poachers....."
not to mention that this is how they get the money to combat poachers in the first place... because the $ sure isnt coming in through altruistic means.
TheCustomLime wrote: I'd rather big game hunters get their willies up (Or the female equivalent) than the animals go extinct. It's really the lesser of the two evils.
How about we go after the poachers? Or lets the big game hunters go after them.
There we go, I fixed the problem. no you donate to hunt poachers.
"Hey guys, that Alpha-Rhino male just killed two younger rhinos that are of breeding age and 3 children. We just lost males that can be used to grow the herd and no female will breed with the Alpha-Rhino because he is too old and cannot sustain the herd. He is going to kill more of them!"
"It's okay, we killed the poachers."
"But that doesn't address the problem. We lost 6 Rhinos already, there will be no new rhinos with the alpha killing everything. We have to do something about him!"
"Aren't you listening, the poachers are gone!"
"But..."
"Pssst.....poachers....."
Find me an Alpha Rhino than can see off two younger challengers but cannot breed.
Find me an Alpha Rhino than can see off two younger challengers but cannot breed.
I'm going by the case earlier this year. They were talking about it quite a bit on NPR. He was killing younger rhinos but none of the females would mate with him anymore.
purplefood wrote: There are far more greedier people who have done and still do far more damage to the world and our society than this girl will ever do. She'd need a small nuclear bomb and a heavily populated metropolitan city to do an equivalent damage. Rail at this girl all you like but there are far worse people who get away with far worse gak. At least her greed had a side-effect that helped.
Someone once told me something. "There is someone who always has it worse, but that means your problems dont matter" This is the same princible. There is always a worse person, but that doesnt make this any more good.
No it just shifts them down the list of gak we need to deal with. This girl has assisted in animal conservation efforts. Whatever her motivation it's hardly a solely evil act you may think her crass for celebrating but that's your opinion. You may think referring to it as 'assisting animal conservation' as dressing it up but that it what she has done. The people who caused a global recession and probably helped kill a few thousand people are still rich and still free. The outrage over stuff like this is so incredibly misplaced it is unreal. There are millions of homeless, starving and sick people in the world but clearly this 19 year old girl who helped out with animal conservation-because she fancied hunting something people usually can't hunt and could pay for it-is clearly just as bad as all the poverty, famine, disease, torture and war in the world. I'm not saying animal conservation isn't important or isn't a noble cause, i'm saying that there are plenty of worse things in the world that people do not get angry about.
TheCustomLime wrote: I'd rather big game hunters get their willies up (Or the female equivalent) than the animals go extinct. It's really the lesser of the two evils.
How about we go after the poachers? Or lets the big game hunters go after them.
There we go, I fixed the problem. no you donate to hunt poachers.
"Hey guys, that Alpha-Rhino male just killed two younger rhinos that are of breeding age and 3 children. We just lost males that can be used to grow the herd and no female will breed with the Alpha-Rhino because he is too old and cannot sustain the herd. He is going to kill more of them!"
"It's okay, we killed the poachers."
"But that doesn't address the problem. We lost 6 Rhinos already, there will be no new rhinos with the alpha killing everything. We have to do something about him!"
"Aren't you listening, the poachers are gone!"
"But..."
"Pssst.....poachers....."
Find me an Alpha Rhino than can see off two younger challengers but cannot breed.
purplefood wrote: There are far more greedier people who have done and still do far more damage to the world and our society than this girl will ever do. She'd need a small nuclear bomb and a heavily populated metropolitan city to do an equivalent damage. Rail at this girl all you like but there are far worse people who get away with far worse gak. At least her greed had a side-effect that helped.
Someone once told me something. "There is someone who always has it worse, but that means your problems dont matter" This is the same princible. There is always a worse person, but that doesnt make this any more good.
No it just shifts them down the list of gak we need to deal with. This girl has assisted in animal conservation efforts. Whatever her motivation it's hardly a solely evil act you may think her crass for celebrating but that's your opinion. You may think referring to it as 'assisting animal conservation' as dressing it up but that it what she has done. The people who caused a global recession and probably helped kill a few thousand people are still rich and still free. The outrage over stuff like this is so incredibly misplaced it is unreal. There are millions of homeless, starving and sick people in the world but clearly this 19 year old girl who helped out with animal conservation-because she fancied hunting something people usually can't hunt and could pay for it-is clearly just as bad as all the poverty, famine, disease, torture and war in the world. I'm not saying animal conservation isn't important or isn't a noble cause, i'm saying that there are plenty of worse things in the world that people do not get angry about.
Fair point. I guess we all have out own things we worry about. To me it isnt her specific, its the idea of celebrating a kill.
Also....did you just change you avatar for this thread?
purplefood wrote: There are far more greedier people who have done and still do far more damage to the world and our society than this girl will ever do. She'd need a small nuclear bomb and a heavily populated metropolitan city to do an equivalent damage. Rail at this girl all you like but there are far worse people who get away with far worse gak. At least her greed had a side-effect that helped.
Someone once told me something. "There is someone who always has it worse, but that means your problems dont matter" This is the same princible. There is always a worse person, but that doesnt make this any more good.
No it just shifts them down the list of gak we need to deal with. This girl has assisted in animal conservation efforts. Whatever her motivation it's hardly a solely evil act you may think her crass for celebrating but that's your opinion. You may think referring to it as 'assisting animal conservation' as dressing it up but that it what she has done. The people who caused a global recession and probably helped kill a few thousand people are still rich and still free. The outrage over stuff like this is so incredibly misplaced it is unreal. There are millions of homeless, starving and sick people in the world but clearly this 19 year old girl who helped out with animal conservation-because she fancied hunting something people usually can't hunt and could pay for it-is clearly just as bad as all the poverty, famine, disease, torture and war in the world. I'm not saying animal conservation isn't important or isn't a noble cause, i'm saying that there are plenty of worse things in the world that people do not get angry about.
Fair point. I guess we all have out own things we worry about. To me it isnt her specific, its the idea of celebrating a kill.
Also....did you just change you avatar for this thread?
Gloryfiying the killing and making no use of it beyond the trophy. Most arguments I hear in favor of hunting is "Tradition" and stuff branchinh from that. Well if you followed tradition they didnt display the animal in funny poses. They used the pelt for clothing, bones for toothpicks and so forth. But seeing that hunters not use it as nothing more as a sport of killing animals and proving you are good at killing something is wrong and disgusting to me. If you want to hunt for food, good, I love venison. but if you kill a buck, take a pic then leave it like alot of hunters I know, then you are scum
Well, that isn't really true in this case.
The deceased animals go to the local villages for food.
Does it really make a difference who killed it if there isn't any of the waste?
And also, I need to meet these hunters of yours that are leaving the deer and not eating it. I don't personally know anyone like that, and I know everyone I hunt with would be irritated at that waste. That's some good meats.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But doesnt that happen in nature though? Kinda the order of things?
extinction also happens in nature, humans causing it is no different then other animals/weather/ect causing it.
Except we choose to do it.
"The Nazis killing 6 million Jews is no different to a Volcano wiping out a city of 6 million people."
See the ridiculousness of that statement?
wow, hitler godwin much? the rediculousness of your statement i do see,
as it isnt different, not to the dead people anyways... getting killed by a crazy person, or a comet, you are still just as dead.
also, extintion and genocide are totally diffferent concepts so dont equate the two like that unless you want to be wrong...
plenty of species go extinct without mans help, no force of nature specifically targets on sub group of a species based on their invisible man inthe sky beliefs.
if tigers simply hunted all the rhinos to extinction, you are 100% ok with that... if another animal (man) does it in a way that not only DOESNT make them go extinct, but actively works to preserve the species and help it thrive, you start going crazy about how unnatural it is and compare it to the holocaust...
that you cannot comprehend that the tigers CHOOSE to hunt as well shows just how little you thought this through, and shows that your emotional outrage will not be confined by concepts such as "reality"
hotsauceman1 wrote: But doesnt that happen in nature though? Kinda the order of things?
extinction also happens in nature, humans causing it is no different then other animals/weather/ect causing it.
Except we choose to do it.
"The Nazis killing 6 million Jews is no different to a Volcano wiping out a city of 6 million people."
See the ridiculousness of that statement?
wow, hitler godwin much? the rediculousness of your statement i do see,
as it isnt different, not to the dead people anyways... getting killed by a crazy person, or a comet, you are still just as dead.
also, extintion and genocide are totally diffferent concepts so dont equate the two like that unless you want to be wrong...
plenty of species go extinct without mans help, no force of nature specifically targets on sub group of a species based on their invisible man inthe sky beliefs.
if tigers simply hunted all the rhinos to extinction, you are 100% ok with that... if another animal does it (man) you start going crazy about how unnatural it is and compare it to the holocaust... that you cannot comprehend that the tigers CHOOSE to hunt as well shows just how little you thought this through, and shows that your emotional outrage will not be confined by concepts such as "reality"
Genocide is purposeful extinction (or the attempt) of a part of the human race.
Tigers eat what they need. They understand, on a basic, fundamental level, that if their food supply goes extinct so do they.
How many animals have gone extinct in the last 200 years due to their own actions? Now how many extinctions in the last 200 years have been because of man?
And technically referencing the Final Solution would be invoking Himmler more than Hitler.
Genocide is purposeful extinction (or the attempt) of a part of the human race.
ummm, I feel like if you cannot understand what extinction means (total loss of an entire species) then this conversation wont go anywhere....
elimination an ethnic group within a species =/= extinction of that species
either way, that you claim animals who go extinct due to one animal (man) encroaching on their territory/over hunting as "causing" their extinction, or as "unnatural"
but consider other animals doing the same to be "natural" and due to the now extinct animals own actions, or lack there of, just furthers my point about you reserving your emotional outrage for one specific animal, man, and care not for other methods of it.
either way, in this case, the pay to hunt is actually the force working against extinction, not for it.
This animal is almost gone? Quick, I must kill it before someone else does!
I'd rather these people hunt something a a bit more plentiful, but as long as it's being controlled and it's it serves a purpose, I'll keep my thoughts to myself.
Genocide is purposeful extinction (or the attempt) of a part of the human race.
ummm, I feel like if you cannot understand what extinction means (total loss of an entire species) then this conversation wont go anywhere....
elimination an ethnic group within a species =/= extinction of that species
either way, that you claim animals who go extinct due to one animal (man) encroaching on their territory/over hunting as "causing" their extinction, or as "unnatural"
but consider other animals doing the same to be "natural" and due to the now extinct animals own actions, or lack there of, just furthers my point about you reserving your emotional outrage for one specific animal, man, and care not for other methods of it.
either way, in this case, the pay to hunt is actually the force working against extinction, not for it.
The vast majority of extinctions in the past 500 years have been as a direct result of human action. Even the animals which died from other animals (so, not man) were often because man introduced predators into the environment and so fethed up the local ecosystem.
Mr Nobody wrote: Why can't we hunt poachers instead? It makes for a great movie.
How ironic and entertaining it would be to hunt poachers.
I remember that book (book first, then turned into a movie). When it came up in a literature discussion class I was the one who immediately understood the hunter guy's reasoning and motivation, then explained it to the rest of the class.
Mr Nobody wrote: Why can't we hunt poachers instead? It makes for a great movie.
Spoiler:
How ironic and entertaining it would be to hunt poachers.
Because poachers can shoot back.
It's only "fun" if you're not really in actual danger.
But that's what makes it such an achievement. Hunting lions was cool because they're ferocious and dangerous. Poachers are the new lions/tigers/bears.
I don't think it's about the danger any more (if indeed it ever was). They're no longer aiming an elephant gun at a rhino within charging distance. It's lying several hundred metres away with a telescopic sight and killing the animal without it ever knowing you were there.
A Town Called Malus wrote: I don't think it's about the danger any more (if indeed it ever was). They're no longer aiming an elephant gun at a rhino within charging distance. It's lying several hundred metres away with a telescopic sight and killing the animal without it ever knowing you were there.
Just for people's information, the big bore rifle cartridges originally used for hunting stuff like buffalo could reach out to 1000+ yards. You just had to get very good at judging distances and basically elevate the gun to 30+ degrees. The terrifying (or impressive if you look at it that way) thing is that the bullet still had enough energy to make a kill at that kind of range. I personally am not capable of doing that since I've never gotten to set up a target at 500 yards and practice.
I'd feel confident out to about 120 meters. At that point, I'd be regretting that when the gunsmith converted my rifle from military to sporting they took off the bayonet lug. You're within spitting distance anyway...Yes, I just admitted I am crazy enough to want a bayonet on my hunting rifle. I should probably wander away from the internet for today
scarletsquig wrote: It shouldn't come as a surprise that there is a large correlation between people who have a lot of money and people who are donkey-caves.
The latter is a highly effective life skill for acquiring the former.
I'm sorry, what? Hunting makes you an donkey-cave now?
A Town Called Malus wrote: I don't think it's about the danger any more (if indeed it ever was). They're no longer aiming an elephant gun at a rhino within charging distance. It's lying several hundred metres away with a telescopic sight and killing the animal without it ever knowing you were there.
Just for people's information, the big bore rifle cartridges originally used for hunting stuff like buffalo could reach out to 1000+ yards. You just had to get very good at judging distances and basically elevate the gun to 30+ degrees. The terrifying (or impressive if you look at it that way) thing is that the bullet still had enough energy to make a kill at that kind of range. I personally am not capable of doing that since I've never gotten to set up a target at 500 yards and practice.
I'd feel confident out to about 120 meters. At that point, I'd be regretting that when the gunsmith converted my rifle from military to sporting they took off the bayonet lug. You're within spitting distance anyway...Yes, I just admitted I am crazy enough to want a bayonet on my hunting rifle. I should probably wander away from the internet for today
There's no such thing as too crazy when it comes to the OT forum...
Redbeard wrote: Just because the money is being used for conservation doesn't make it any less repulsive.
Look, someone who can afford to drop $100,000 to shoot an elephant, and who claims to care about conservation, could just as easily donate that money to a conservation program.
The bottom line is that the people engaging in these programs don't really care about conservation. Conservation is being inflicted upon them in order to legitimize their desire to kill beautiful things.
It's a real shame that so many parks can only afford to protect these species by pandering to these rich hunters. Necessary evils are still evil.
Clearly throwing money at the problem is the right thing to do, heaven forbid you enjoy satisfying your primal desires.
People hunt. People are biologically adapted to hunt. Nothing wrong with being proud of a kill. Not everyone agrees with your version of morality, but thanks for imposing it upon everyone and calling wealthy hunters "evil."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
scarletsquig wrote: It shouldn't come as a surprise that there is a large correlation between people who have a lot of money and people who are donkey-caves.
The latter is a highly effective life skill for acquiring the former.
Clearly we'd all be better people if we were broke.
Mr Nobody wrote: Why can't we hunt poachers instead? It makes for a great movie.
How ironic and entertaining it would be to hunt poachers.
Because poachers can shoot back.
It's only "fun" if you're not really in actual danger.
But that's what makes it such an achievement. Hunting lions was cool because they're ferocious and dangerous. Poachers are the new lions/tigers/bears.
Never mind in most cases the poachers are piss poor locals who get paid in one poaching hunt, their yearly salary from legal means like agriculture or ecotourism (which is hard to do, but worthwhile to try). The real issue besides demand from Asia and the West is providing real economic progress for those that live with these endangered species so they do not have to decide between letting the family starve or go poaching for ivory, tiger bones etc.
Mr Nobody wrote: Why can't we hunt poachers instead? It makes for a great movie.
Spoiler:
How ironic and entertaining it would be to hunt poachers.
Because poachers can shoot back.
It's only "fun" if you're not really in actual danger.
But that's what makes it such an achievement. Hunting lions was cool because they're ferocious and dangerous. Poachers are the new lions/tigers/bears.
Never mind in most cases the poachers are piss poor locals who get paid in one poaching hunt, their yearly salary from legal means like agriculture or ecotourism (which is hard to do, but worthwhile to try). The real issue besides demand from Asia and the West is providing real economic progress for those that live with these endangered species so they do not have to decide between letting the family starve or go poaching for ivory, tiger bones etc.
Stop ruining my Hollywood induced, super villain stereotype.
Ahtman wrote: If they are endangered why would they need to be culled? It seems odd that a species would be low enough on population to get on the endangered list while simultaneously having enough numbers that we need to organize hunts to keep the population in check.
Because even though they may be endangered, it does not mean they act that way. Alpha lions tend to kill other males to keep their genes the only ones reproducing. When your population is low, that just makes it go even lower.
Ted Nugent made a post the other day about a Rhino that he shot in Africa (on invitation from the government). That rhino had been on record for killing other white rhino's. The money he paid for the hunt went towards the conservation of all rhino's, and it also protected them from one of their own kind who was praying on them.
What was better for the species? Culling the one, or leaving that one alive so it could kill many? Sure the state could just go out there and shoot it, but why do that when they can make money off of allowing others to do it.
It's really no different then the hunting program we have here in the US. We hunters pay for the right to kill animals. It's done in a carefully managed program to help ensure the survivability of the species overall. Maybe when I shoot a deer this fall Hotsauceman and some of you others can make a thread about how disgusting I am. I'll be doing the same exact think this girl did.
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
People hunt. People are biologically adapted to hunt. Nothing wrong with being proud of a kill. Not everyone agrees with your version of morality, but thanks for imposing it upon everyone and calling wealthy hunters "evil."
You're welcome. Nothing about their wealth is at fault, it's what they choose to hunt. You're right, people are biologically adapted to hunt - but to eat. There's nothing in our biology that screams "go kill other predators". In fact, nature has designed predators in such a way that they recognize each other and can convey warning messages such that they don't need to fight each other. Lions and leopards are not prey animals, so your half-baked biology doesn't mean much.
djones520 wrote:
Ted Nugent made a post the other day...
There's a sane source. Is this the same Ted Nugent who was investigated by the secret service over his plans to shoot the president? I like Cat Scratch Fever as much as the next guy, but Nugent's basically a laughing stock and a caricature at this point.
...
It's really no different then the hunting program we have here in the US. We hunters pay for the right to kill animals. It's done in a carefully managed program to help ensure the survivability of the species overall. Maybe when I shoot a deer this fall Hotsauceman and some of you others can make a thread about how disgusting I am. I'll be doing the same exact think this girl did.
Except that deer aren't endangered, and actually require active management as there aren't enough predators left in the US to do the job. I have no issue with you wanting to hunt a deer. If you start bragging about how you're going down to Florida to hunt a manatee, then you're doing the same exact thing that this girl did, and you're just as reprehensible.
cincydooley wrote: So because there are fewer of some animals that makes it worse? Huh?
Well yeah. Shooting one of 5 million deer is not the same as shooting the last Javan tiger would be. In the latter instance that subspecies is gone forever.
Mr Nobody wrote: Why can't we hunt poachers instead? It makes for a great movie.
Spoiler:
How ironic and entertaining it would be to hunt poachers.
Because poachers can shoot back.
It's only "fun" if you're not really in actual danger.
But that's what makes it such an achievement. Hunting lions was cool because they're ferocious and dangerous. Poachers are the new lions/tigers/bears.
Never mind in most cases the poachers are piss poor locals who get paid in one poaching hunt, their yearly salary from legal means like agriculture or ecotourism (which is hard to do, but worthwhile to try). The real issue besides demand from Asia and the West is providing real economic progress for those that live with these endangered species so they do not have to decide between letting the family starve or go poaching for ivory, tiger bones etc.
Stop ruining my Hollywood induced, super villain stereotype.
When trying this "adventure". Better be much smarter and well equipped then the prey your after. Trust me. Man vs man the creativity to win knows no boundary
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
People hunt. People are biologically adapted to hunt. Nothing wrong with being proud of a kill. Not everyone agrees with your version of morality, but thanks for imposing it upon everyone and calling wealthy hunters "evil."
You're welcome. Nothing about their wealth is at fault, it's what they choose to hunt. You're right, people are biologically adapted to hunt - but to eat. There's nothing in our biology that screams "go kill other predators". In fact, nature has designed predators in such a way that they recognize each other and can convey warning messages such that they don't need to fight each other. Lions and leopards are not prey animals, so your half-baked biology doesn't mean much.
djones520 wrote:
Ted Nugent made a post the other day...
There's a sane source. Is this the same Ted Nugent who was investigated by the secret service over his plans to shoot the president? I like Cat Scratch Fever as much as the next guy, but Nugent's basically a laughing stock and a caricature at this point.
...
It's really no different then the hunting program we have here in the US. We hunters pay for the right to kill animals. It's done in a carefully managed program to help ensure the survivability of the species overall. Maybe when I shoot a deer this fall Hotsauceman and some of you others can make a thread about how disgusting I am. I'll be doing the same exact think this girl did.
Except that deer aren't endangered, and actually require active management as there aren't enough predators left in the US to do the job. I have no issue with you wanting to hunt a deer. If you start bragging about how you're going down to Florida to hunt a manatee, then you're doing the same exact thing that this girl did, and you're just as reprehensible.
If a bull manatee was down there killing off younger males and doing damage to the population, and the state invited me to kill it for a fee, how is that reprehensible.
You're arguing that it's better for the population to drive itself to extinction. And that is asinine.
cincydooley wrote: So because there are fewer of some animals that makes it worse? Huh?
Well yeah. Shooting one of 5 million deer is not the same as shooting the last Javan tiger would be. In the latter instance that subspecies is gone forever.
Why?
I thought taking an innocent life was taking an innocent life.
cincydooley wrote: So because there are fewer of some animals that makes it worse? Huh?
Well yeah. Shooting one of 5 million deer is not the same as shooting the last Javan tiger would be. In the latter instance that subspecies is gone forever.
Yeah... because that is what is happening.
As has been explained again and again in this thread, but people seem to keep ignoring so they can continue to stand on their soap box of righteous indignation, these are conservation kills. Culling has to happen for the health of the species overall. It is not as if every hunter can run over there and off one of these animals like it was 1890.
cincydooley wrote: So because there are fewer of some animals that makes it worse? Huh?
Well yeah. Shooting one of 5 million deer is not the same as shooting the last Javan tiger would be. In the latter instance that subspecies is gone forever.
Why?
I thought taking an innocent life was taking an innocent life.
If a bull manatee was down there killing off younger males and doing damage to the population, and the state invited me to kill it for a fee, how is that reprehensible.
You're arguing that it's better for the population to drive itself to extinction. And that is asinine.
Well, again, your source is hardly reputable. Ted Nugent, "I never did drugs". Have you heard what he recorded in the 60s and 70s? The man will lie when it is to his advantage.
And, also again, somehow nature survived for thousands of years without human assistance. Man did not need to step in here.
If a bull manatee was down there killing off younger males and doing damage to the population, and the state invited me to kill it for a fee, how is that reprehensible.
You're arguing that it's better for the population to drive itself to extinction. And that is asinine.
Well, again, your source is hardly reputable. Ted Nugent, "I never did drugs". Have you heard what he recorded in the 60s and 70s? The man will lie when it is to his advantage.
And, also again, somehow nature survived for thousands of years without human assistance. Man did not need to step in here.
Are we not encroaching in on a lot of their territory though. The human race impacts Nature. I'm just saying. Dodo bird comes to mind
If a bull manatee was down there killing off younger males and doing damage to the population, and the state invited me to kill it for a fee, how is that reprehensible.
You're arguing that it's better for the population to drive itself to extinction. And that is asinine.
Well, again, your source is hardly reputable. Ted Nugent, "I never did drugs". Have you heard what he recorded in the 60s and 70s? The man will lie when it is to his advantage.
And, also again, somehow nature survived for thousands of years without human assistance. Man did not need to step in here.
Your right, nature did survive, but how many millions of species didn't?
Would you rather the lions and rhino's went away? Because I will bet my next 10 pay checks that without these efforts, they would be gone. The damage has been done to the species already, and without are help, they will go extinct. But hey, who am I to take the side of world wide conservation agencies, government agencies, biologists, and career game wardens, and the like. You've got that righteous anger going, so obviously you're right.
And the Nuge's hunt of the Rhino is a matter of record, you can look it up if you want to.
From what I can tell these are the slightly unpleasant things needed to keep a species alive.
Yes, it would most likely be in a better state had man not been around.
That matters fething nothing now. What's done is done. You'd rather they just backed off and let them die out now they've damaged them beyond the normal means of self sustaining?
I'd rather rich people got their jollies off culling animals that were going to be culled ANYWAY, and paid big money for the privilege so that money can go towards keeping the species as a whole alive.
I don't fething like it, but it's better for that species.
Ahtman wrote: If they are endangered why would they need to be culled? It seems odd that a species would be low enough on population to get on the endangered list while simultaneously having enough numbers that we need to organize hunts to keep the population in check.
Because even though they may be endangered, it does not mean they act that way. Alpha lions tend to kill other males to keep their genes the only ones reproducing. When your population is low, that just makes it go even lower.
I understand, it is just one of those incongruous things that sounds odd, like using a fire to stop a fire. Mind I don't mean normal hunting, but specifically hunting something listed as endangered.
Redbeard wrote:There's a sane source. Is this the same Ted Nugent who was investigated by the secret service over his plans to shoot the president? I like Cat Scratch Fever as much as the next guy, but Nugent's basically a laughing stock and a caricature at this point.
He is the poster boy for the anti-gun crowd because of how insane and ludicrous he has become.
Jihadin wrote:Spear Fishing is now open in the topic....
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
People hunt. People are biologically adapted to hunt. Nothing wrong with being proud of a kill. Not everyone agrees with your version of morality, but thanks for imposing it upon everyone and calling wealthy hunters "evil."
You're welcome. Nothing about their wealth is at fault, it's what they choose to hunt. You're right, people are biologically adapted to hunt - but to eat. There's nothing in our biology that screams "go kill other predators". In fact, nature has designed predators in such a way that they recognize each other and can convey warning messages such that they don't need to fight each other. Lions and leopards are not prey animals, so your half-baked biology doesn't mean much.
So predators don't prey on other predators? Apparently you missed this day in elementary school:
And if these predators had evolved warning messages to humans that worked, they wouldn't be getting shot up by teenage girls. It's called natural selection. Believe it or not, humans are part of the ecosystem.
With that out of the way, we are left only with the question, "Is it acceptable to kill some animals so that the species can survive?" This doesn't really have a concrete answer, as even keeping a species alive is of questionable value. We are perfectly fine with dangerous bacteria becoming extinct. What are lions doing for us, precisely?
If a bull manatee was down there killing off younger males and doing damage to the population, and the state invited me to kill it for a fee, how is that reprehensible.
You're arguing that it's better for the population to drive itself to extinction. And that is asinine.
Well, again, your source is hardly reputable. Ted Nugent, "I never did drugs". Have you heard what he recorded in the 60s and 70s? The man will lie when it is to his advantage.
Presumably you have substantiation for that?
And, also again, somehow nature survived for thousands of years without human assistance. Man did not need to step in here.
Convenient to say, considering we have no idea what species have been made extinct prior to humans.
Conservation efforts being necessary, in all shapes and forms, I don't really see how anyone wishing the survival of the species can condemn the practice in it's entirety. You may disagree with the manner in which in was carried out, or who it was carried out by, or what paying to hunt big game implies about a person's nature, but the practice is sound.
I suppose the best response would be, if you find her photos reprehensible, unfriend her on facebook. Otherwise you're thrashing against a practice that is trying to prevent the damage humanity has already done from growing.
Are the people who pay to participate in the managed hunts permitted to take the animal afterwards? I hunt, I support hunting, but to call it 'hunting' I think you have to use the animal in some fashion. Otherwise it's just thrill-killing. (Even in the name of conservation, which I agree is a good thing, it's still just allowing someone to pay to indulge in their little blood fantasies).
Second question...what percentage of her new Facebook friends are 'chicks with guns' fetishists looking for spank material, you think? I bet greater than 50%.
Jimsolo wrote: Are the people who pay to participate in the managed hunts permitted to take the animal afterwards? I hunt, I support hunting, but to call it 'hunting' I think you have to use the animal in some fashion. Otherwise it's just thrill-killing. (Even in the name of conservation, which I agree is a good thing, it's still just allowing someone to pay to indulge in their little blood fantasies).
Second question...what percentage of her new Facebook friends are 'chicks with guns' fetishists looking for spank material, you think? I bet greater than 50%.
Probably upwards of 70% in my opinion.
And in regards to using the animal, I'm not sure. It should be used to support the local community. Though if you gave them rhino horn or elephant tusks there's a quite large possibility they'd end up straight onto a ship to china for use in "traditional medicine" which is a huge part of the problem and reason these animals are being poached so much.
MrDwhitey wrote: From what I can tell these are the slightly unpleasant things needed to keep a species alive.
Yes, it would most likely be in a better state had man not been around.
That matters fething nothing now. What's done is done. You'd rather they just backed off and let them die out now they've damaged them beyond the normal means of self sustaining?
I'd rather rich people got their jollies off culling animals that were going to be culled ANYWAY, and paid big money for the privilege so that money can go towards keeping the species as a whole alive.
I don't fething like it, but it's better for that species.
Sad thing is most endangered species are going to be stuffed no matter what we do now. Koalas in Australia got bred with koalas from one sanctuary because that sanctuary was doing quite well and having over population, now a fair few koalas in Victoria seem to be suffering dwarfism of the head . The gene pool was too small and now the koalas are suffering the consequences.
When I hear groups saying there are now 400 individuals in the wild due to conservation efforts I just shake my head and cry inside. Have conservationists ever heard of gene pools or are they just trying to "save " things for the sake of "saving" them.
Shooting them may have been a better policy in the long run.
Hunting has never appealed to me. Killing a defenceless animal (I guess lions aren't defenceless, but with a decent guide you won't get within 60 feet of one anyway) with a high-powered rifle? Is that.... fun?
To each their own, I guess. A pity hunting is so necessary to conservation efforts, since we decimated so much natural habitat, but oh well, it is preferable to extinction.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hunting has never appealed to me. Killing a defenceless animal (I guess lions aren't defenceless, but with a decent guide you won't get within 60 feet of one anyway) with a high-powered rifle? Is that.... fun?
To each their own, I guess. A pity hunting is so necessary to conservation efforts, since we decimated so much natural habitat, but oh well, it is preferable to extinction.
Blackhoof wrote: Hunting has never appealed to me. Killing a defenceless animal (I guess lions aren't defenceless, but with a decent guide you won't get within 60 feet of one anyway) with a high-powered rifle? Is that.... fun?
To each their own, I guess. A pity hunting is so necessary to conservation efforts, since we decimated so much natural habitat, but oh well, it is preferable to extinction.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hunting has never appealed to me. Killing a defenceless animal (I guess lions aren't defenceless, but with a decent guide you won't get within 60 feet of one anyway) with a high-powered rifle? Is that.... fun?
To each their own, I guess. A pity hunting is so necessary to conservation efforts, since we decimated so much natural habitat, but oh well, it is preferable to extinction.
Killing for food isn't killing for fun, or entertainment.
If I had to hunt my own food I would, but I don't think I would take pleasure in it.
Sure it is. I have plenty fun hunting. And then I have even more fun enjoying the tasty yields of my hunts. Be it in steaks, jerkies, or sausages.
I'm just trying to understand how people can get so outraged over kills made by hunting while not having that same outrage for all the kills made by slaughterhouses and kill-farms.
Killing for food isn't killing for fun, or entertainment.
If I had to hunt my own food I would, but I don't think I would take pleasure in it.
Sure it is. I have plenty fun hunting. And then I have even more fun enjoying the tasty yields of my hunts. Be it in steaks, jerkies, or sausages.
I'm just trying to understand how people can get so outraged over kills made by hunting while not having that same outrage for all the kills made by slaughterhouses and kill-farms.
Because people are hypocrites by nature and keep themselves purposely ignorant of the horrors of factory farming. And while Factory Farming is 'accepted' because it is generally viewed as a necessary evil to keep the world fed, the truth is it isn't really needed.
I'm just trying to understand how people can get so outraged over kills made by hunting while not having that same outrage for all the kills made by slaughterhouses and kill-farms.
As you noted earlier, it's about how many of the species there are. Cows and chickens are numerous, killing them doesn't contribute to the demise of a species. If our teenage huntress were out there killing Wildebeest and Zebra, I wouldn't bat an eyelid.
I'm just trying to understand how people can get so outraged over kills made by hunting while not having that same outrage for all the kills made by slaughterhouses and kill-farms.
As you noted earlier, it's about how many of the species there are. Cows and chickens are numerous, killing them doesn't contribute to the demise of a species. If our teenage huntress were out there killing Wildebeest and Zebra, I wouldn't bat an eyelid.
MrDwhitey wrote: From what I can tell these are the slightly unpleasant things needed to keep a species alive.
Yes, it would most likely be in a better state had man not been around.
That matters fething nothing now. What's done is done. You'd rather they just backed off and let them die out now they've damaged them beyond the normal means of self sustaining?
I'd rather rich people got their jollies off culling animals that were going to be culled ANYWAY, and paid big money for the privilege so that money can go towards keeping the species as a whole alive.
I don't fething like it, but it's better for that species.
Sad thing is most endangered species are going to be stuffed no matter what we do now. Koalas in Australia got bred with koalas from one sanctuary because that sanctuary was doing quite well and having over population, now a fair few koalas in Victoria seem to be suffering dwarfism of the head . The gene pool was too small and now the koalas are suffering the consequences.
When I hear groups saying there are now 400 individuals in the wild due to conservation efforts I just shake my head and cry inside. Have conservationists ever heard of gene pools or are they just trying to "save " things for the sake of "saving" them.
Shooting them may have been a better policy in the long run.
And good conservation programs take that into consideration.
That's how you end up with Zoos killing a giraffe because his DNA is already abundantly present in the population being sustained so that they can make room for a new animal that is not genetically represented in the program.
Of course then you also have the news going crazy and misrepresenting anything that is actually happening...
Can't say that I've never killed an animal. Learned my lesson about what conservation is really about. It isn't about killing an animal.
Hunted some particularly dangerous stuff also. Never got to "kill" it though.
But shooting an animal at 300 yards away after a guide pointed it out to you, is not hunting. It will never be hunting. It is thrilling killing at its most pure.
Worse still is that this girl is a sad sad attempt by her handlers to get rich(er) and famous. It is all right there. She wants to have her own tv show. Adorable young white girl of christain texan values that loves guns and shooting stuff is practically money already printed. And her handlers are really hoping to cash in on this.
That is what really bothers me. Other than that I was always taught that you eat what you kill or you don't kill it.
BrotherGecko wrote: Can't say that I've never killed an animal. Learned my lesson about what conservation is really about. It isn't about killing an animal.
Conservation costs money. Killing the animal generates money. Standing around for internet outrage to fund conservation causes animals to go extinct. If these conservation programs were not paying millions of dollars to these african countries, that land would be overrun by ranchers or god knows what else. Conservation has a lot more aspects to it than 'killing animals to maintain genetic balance' but all of it costs a crap-ton of money.
You shouldn't eat meat unless you have slaughtered and butchered an animal yourself to know what is experienced in taking a life to feed yourself. If you don't have the explicit knowledge of what your eating of meat does to that animal you can never have actual respect for it. If you can't do it and require anonymous murder-machines to prepare your food for you, then you should be a vegan.
Not really true. Humans are mighty accomplished omivores and scavengers. If some one happened to corpse something and it is still edible then chew away. There is no inherit respect that comes from guting and animal and removing its skin. Possibly less for killing something that you do not require but understand tastes good.
If you don't grow your own plants then you shouldn't eat them. If you don't play football you shouldn't watch it on tv. Yadda yadda.
However you should not remove a life for the sake of enjoyment and grabbing lucrative endorsement deals. All the while playing it off as conservation. I understand the whole neccessary evil arguement. That does not mean it should be glorified or celebrated. Rather a symbol of peoples failure or unwillingness to do the truly hard thing and just you know care without having to get your rocks off.
And I do happen to donate. Eat some meat and lots of veggies. An totally okat with hunting for food even if I don't.
"America" doesn't love that guy, some idiots do. She also isn't even close to the most hated person in the US while wildly overstating her impact on the locals.
Having seen the pic I think the problem is the gak eating grin she is wearing; it rubs people the wrong way I bet. It seems odd to be so proud of executing something, but on the other hand if you kill a lion with a bow that is pretty bad ass.
Ahtman wrote: "America" doesn't love that guy, some idiots do. She also isn't even close to the most hated person in the US while wildly overstating her impact on the locals.
Having seen the pic I think the problem is the gak eating grin she is wearing; it rubs people the wrong way I bet. It seems odd to be so proud of executing something, but on the other hand if you kill a lion with a bow that is pretty bad ass.
She's a cheerleader, they only have two expressions - smiling and crying.
Buzzsaw wrote: It's almost like the internet is a machine designed to generate outrage from morally un-serious people. Almost.
Ahtman wrote: Having seen the pic I think the problem is the gak eating grin she is wearing; it rubs people the wrong way I bet. It seems odd to be so proud of executing something, but on the other hand if you kill a lion with a bow that is pretty bad ass.
Buzzsaw wrote: Forgive the image post, but this seemed to quite succintly sum up this particular instance of internet 2-minute hate (taken from here);
It's almost like the internet is a machine designed to generate outrage from morally un-serious people. Almost.
People on an Internet forum are exaggerating and posting a picture from a different part of the internet where people are exaggerating to complain about people on a different part of the Internet who are exaggerating about a story about a girl which is probably exaggerating in the first place.
People on an Internet forum are exaggerating and posting a picture from a different part of the internet where people are exaggerating to complain about people on a different part of the Internet who are exaggerating about a story about a girl which is probably exaggerating in the first place.
What happens in the DakkaDakka off-topic forums is, obviously, of no importance to anyone. When someone with 37 thousand followers tweets "I wish someone would hunt that texas cheerleader bitch animal murderer and hang her head in a lions den. But what do I really think…— ", that's problematic.
Buzzsaw wrote: Forgive the image post, but this seemed to quite succintly sum up this particular instance of internet 2-minute hate (taken from here);
It's almost like the internet is a machine designed to generate outrage from morally un-serious people. Almost.
Well social media is a double edge sword.
People often forget and do not see the blurred reality.
Fasiciniating really. A group of people hunt to stay alive, kill animals. Boom the bad guys.
Hunting is good and bad. Good in that it supplies for the short term to a starving village and allows human beings to live.
And bad in that animal life is taken.
But the thing is do like human life more or animal life more? Either way your being an evil idiot if you side with humans all the way and down with animals. Or animals all the way and down with humanity.
It is good to have a balance in this case. Usually I side with protecting endangered predators, but then... I remember that this is the internet so the information might be misinformation meant to cause me outrage, and I take it with a grain of salt. After reading more about it and I seeing both sides of the argument I weighed the evidence and find it neither morally objectionable or problematic.
She's in the moral gray. Now if she was drowning puppies. I would have a problem. But she's not she's feeding starving children.
People always think in black and white, and not gray and gray.
People just want someone to hate.
I just see this reaction as human nature taking its course and finding it quite hilarious.
How a kid from down the street, was stabbed and raped, and no one blinks an eye. But an animal OH MY GOODNESS! WHAT AN ANIMAL! WHO KILLS ANIMALS FOR ENJOYMENT?
And then sometimes I look at my fellow humans and are sickened by their misbehavior. Treating animals more than human and putting them up above us is nothing good. Seeing them as equals as animals is fine. But do not think them morally in the right. If I put you in a cage with a gorilla it would rip your arms off and make you its party time helper. Giraffe, It would kill you without banking an eye. You anger a horse and it will kill you faster than the best cut throats.
They are animals. They are dangerous. Just like us. We are animals.
I get both sides of the argument its just step back. And look at the whole mess. Reevaluate your priorities. There are more important things than a 19 year old who kills animals for a program meant to keep the populations at a certain degree.
People on an Internet forum are exaggerating and posting a picture from a different part of the internet where people are exaggerating to complain about people on a different part of the Internet who are exaggerating about a story about a girl which is probably exaggerating in the first place.
What happens in the DakkaDakka off-topic forums is, obviously, of no importance to anyone. When someone with 37 thousand followers tweets "I wish someone would hunt that texas cheerleader bitch animal murderer and hang her head in a lions den. But what do I really think…— ", that's problematic.
I'm just trying to understand how people can get so outraged over kills made by hunting while not having that same outrage for all the kills made by slaughterhouses and kill-farms.
As you noted earlier, it's about how many of the species there are. Cows and chickens are numerous, killing them doesn't contribute to the demise of a species. If our teenage huntress were out there killing Wildebeest and Zebra, I wouldn't bat an eyelid.
So then it is lion and rhino's fault they are hunted, instead of being pack into a pen and slaughtered. They should taste better.
But, you still miss the part killing them doesn't contribute to the endangered species demise instead it is keeping them healthy. It just doesn't make your "I am better person for not kill animals myself" look good if you use the facts.
Ahtman wrote: "America" doesn't love that guy, some idiots do. She also isn't even close to the most hated person in the US while wildly overstating her impact on the locals.
Having seen the pic I think the problem is the gak eating grin she is wearing; it rubs people the wrong way I bet. It seems odd to be so proud of executing something, but on the other hand if you kill a lion with a bow that is pretty bad ass.
If I killed a lion with a bow you wouldn't be able to see the rest of my face for the huge gak eating grin I'd be wearing. I look happy enough when I catch a fish. I do always say sorry to the fish when I kill it though. I'm all heart
Ahtman wrote: "America" doesn't love that guy, some idiots do. She also isn't even close to the most hated person in the US while wildly overstating her impact on the locals.
Having seen the pic I think the problem is the gak eating grin she is wearing; it rubs people the wrong way I bet. It seems odd to be so proud of executing something, but on the other hand if you kill a lion with a bow that is pretty bad ass.
If I killed a lion with a bow you wouldn't be able to see the rest of my face for the huge gak eating grin I'd be wearing. I look happy enough when I catch a fish. I do always say sorry to the fish when I kill it though. I'm all heart
Funny you say that you being all heart. I hate yelling "I'm sorry" over a distance so....
Though I want to see the face when you write that check to purchase that ticket to opt the lion out for conservation
Though I would be highly irate if they made the kill easy for you by keeping it cage
dementedwombat wrote: I love that movie. I saw it when I was much younger and decided that my life goal was to end up like those two old guys by the time I'm 60.
dementedwombat wrote: I love that movie. I saw it when I was much younger and decided that my life goal was to end up like those two old guys by the time I'm 60.
Till you order online the biplane eh
I plan on getting the pilot's license before i try flying through the barn.
Jihadin wrote: Let me know when you order. We do not need the license. I just scream instructions at you from the manual
Now though. The two lions from Darkness and Light starring Val Kilmer. The one's in the Smithsonian. Now those are true human hunters
I think you mean The Ghost and the Darkness. With Michael Douglas co-starring. Excellent film and interesting opposing concept to Secondhand Lions which is also excellent.
I don't have a problem with people hunting animals like this, as long as (a) they do it legally/sustainably, and (b) don't brag about it. Seriously, most of these big-game hunters stalk their prey in vehicles and take 'em down while they're sleeping or distracted. You didn't best them in physical combat - you hit 'em from incredibly far off with a big-ass rifle from a safe position. They didn't stand a chance, and you didn't break a sweat. Stop acting like it was some kinda epic, life-or-death encounter.
TL;DR? Basically, this Far Side strip sums up my feelings about braggy big-game hunters.
YEAH! 
