I thought there was a thread about this, but it didn't turn up on the search. Anyway, this dick got outed in a big way for killing a beloved par Lion, and the people who helped him are getting charged in court. I don't mind hunting, and in most cases support it. This squirrley gak though, is cowardice and cruelty gak wrapped in one package.
LordofHats wrote: So what's the story? Cecil was on a Conservation park, and this guy lured the lion our of the preserve somehow and killed it?
Is that something safari hunters do often?
Yep. He had some guys go onto the park with bait and lured a semi tame Lion to a prearranged spot off the park where he got off a half assed shot with an arrow, causing the Lion to die in agony 40 hours later. He then tried to destroy the tracking collar it was wearing.
What ifif he did it with a clean shot all nice and honorable? And didn't bait it? Would that have been better?
Human s are past hunting, and it is something we should learn to live without.
You would then argue incorrectly. If animal populations are not culled in certain areas, they die a slow death by starvation or disease. What this guy did was reprehensible, though.
That's rather unfair. There's a lot of perfectly legitimate, functional, and useful hunting programs out there.
Wild boar in the US for instance are an invasive, vastly overpopulated, non-native, destructive animal that has both a strongly negative environmental effect as well as being responsible for huge amounts of property damage, and can be very dangerous to people and other animals. Hunting them not only reduces the effects their unintended presence has on the environment, but reduces dangers to other animal populations, reduces damaged, and results in lots of good meat.
Deer likewise in many places are vastly overpopulated, and hunting is part of how their numbers are kept in check to prevent ecological harm.
These animals also provide meats that you don't typically get in stores, and their harvest is a whole lot less ecologically damaging than the methods of modern meat farming.
From those perspectives, there's a lot positive about these kinds of hunting. There's a big difference between trophy hunting and these kinds of hunting.
What this guy did was monstrous however, and ultimately likely didn't just kill one lion, but probably 7 once the cubs are included
hotsauceman1 wrote: What ifif he did it with a clean shot all nice and honorable? And didn't bait it? Would that have been better?
Human s are past hunting, and it is something we should learn to live without.
It still would have been illegal, because it was on a game preserve.
Now, if this was a nuisance lion, who needed to be destroyed, and he had made a clean shot of it, then yes that would have been absolutely fine.
That's rather unfair. There's a lot of perfectly legitimate, functional, and useful hunting programs out there.
Wild boar in the US for instance are an invasive, vastly overpopulated, non-native, destructive animal that has both a strongly negative environmental effect as well as being responsible for huge amounts of property damage, and can be very dangerous to people and other animals. Hunting them not only reduces the effects their unintended presence has on the environment, but reduces dangers to other animal populations, reduces damaged, and results in lots of good meat.
Deer likewise in many places are vastly overpopulated, and hunting is part of how their numbers are kept in check to prevent ecological harm.
These animals also provide meats that you don't typically get in stores, and their harvest is a whole lot less ecologically damaging than the methods of modern meat farming.
From those perspectives, there's a lot positive about these kinds of hunting. There's a big difference between trophy hunting and these kinds of hunting.
What this guy did was monstrous however, and ultimately likely didn't just kill one lion, but probably 7 once the cubs are included
Indeed. In addition, there is a lot of evidence that even endangered species can benefit from culling.
It does bear mentioning that this particular lion was pretty old. They live only 10-14 years in the wild and he was 13, and males are actually very unlikely to live past 10 due to fighting. In all likelihood he would have either died of old age or been killed by another lion in the next year or so. Which would have resulted in the deaths of his current crop of cubs anyway, not to mention the ones which would have been born next cycle. His death will actually allow younger males to come in and establish themselves, ensuring a healthier population.
Regulated trophy hunting of lions(and other animals) would actually bring a lot of money for their conservation. There are a lot of rich people who would pay 7+ figures to bag an exotic animal legally. A dozen or so animals a year, carefully selected to ensure they are expendable, would raise millions for conservation. Far more than donation and regular tourism brings in. Hunting is actually the biggest provider of conservation money in the world. It helps the animal populations remain healthy with the money it generates, plus it is an excellent paste time and provides good meat. Most hunting programs in Africa also donate the meat to local villages, helping people in poverty. Cecil would have been a prime candidate for this type of program.
Naturally this doesn't excuse this guy's very very illegal way of doing it. He should suffer the full consequences.
Hunting just for sport is disgusting. Hunting is okay if it has an actual use, like getting food or wildlife management. But hunting just for entertainment is sick. Then again, the comments and abuse this guy is receiving is also sick.
People need to calm down a bit.
That's because you have no idea what you're talking about.
I agree with some of the other posters in this thread, that if this had been done responsibly and legally it could be very beneficial to conservation efforts as a whole. But in this case, luring a lion with a tracking collar off of a preserve for an illegal kill is disgraceful.
I have hunted and fished for food since very early childhood. I was taught always to minimize suffering of any animal (and we always carried snips to cut snares wherever we found them) and to maximize the use of the animal as food.
I believe in hunting bountiful animals, in as humane a way as can be found, to provide food.
I also would like to string up the idiot who did this and all 'big game' 'sports' hunters who take life for their own jollies. They are not true hunters but sadistic killers. They are beneath contempt.
Oh, I know why. I still think Hunting is wrong for a number of reasons, most being that you dont need to kill anymore.
Hunting isnt needed anymore, its a primal barbaric thing that we left the feth behind.
and those that do it in the name of "Conservation" are just excusing themselves of deplorable behavior.
What about where the pests destroy the earth that could be used for crops/cattle and also eat food/kill kept animals. Do they get a free pass because killing them is 'deplorable'?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Oh, I know why. I still think Hunting is wrong for a number of reasons, most being that you dont need to kill anymore.
If you wanna eat meat, someone has to kill the animal.
Hunting isnt needed anymore, its a primal barbaric thing that we left the feth behind.
You do realize that not everyone lives near a super market where they can pick up their $3.99 chuck steak? Millions of people still rely on hunting for survival, even in America. And they have a vested interest in keeping their hunting grounds pristine.
and those that do it in the name of "Conservation" are just excusing themselves of deplorable behavior.
All the money which comes from hunting licenses and pays for all those national parks we have in the US say you are wrong. It raises more money than all those tree huggers and bunny lovers could hope to.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Oh, I know why. I still think Hunting is wrong for a number of reasons, most being that you dont need to kill anymore.
Hunting isnt needed anymore, its a primal barbaric thing that we left the feth behind.
and those that do it in the name of "Conservation" are just excusing themselves of deplorable behavior.
You really are speaking from innocent ignorance here. What this jackass did was wrong on many levels, but I know in Maine, where I grew up, hunting Deer was preferable to seeing an over abundant herd starve to death. The deer population there actually grew in proportion to the farms that were developed.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Oh, I know why. I still think Hunting is wrong for a number of reasons, most being that you dont need to kill anymore.
If you wanna eat meat, someone has to kill the animal.
Hunting isnt needed anymore, its a primal barbaric thing that we left the feth behind.
You do realize that not everyone lives near a super market where they can pick up their $3.99 chuck steak? Millions of people still rely on hunting for survival, even in America. And they have a vested interest in keeping their hunting grounds pristine.
.
Cool, for those people, it makes sense. but if you make enough, or live near a place that offers that, you have no excuse, especially if you are killing endangered specied
hotsauceman1 wrote: Oh, I know why. I still think Hunting is wrong for a number of reasons, most being that you dont need to kill anymore.
Except, we do. The only difference is that it's not done on an individual level, most of us outsource that killing to a slaughterhouse. We kill more animals than ever to feed ourselves. Don't kid yourself here. Humanity still needs to kill. The only reason difference is that you don't have to do it yourself, someone else will do it for you.
Hunting isnt needed anymore, its a primal barbaric thing that we left the feth behind.
For industrialized slaughterhouses, yes. They're very productive. They're hardly less barbaric and the process is often a whole lot more ecologically damaging than responsibly designed and limited hunting programs. You just don't have to see it yourself. That's all.
and those that do it in the name of "Conservation" are just excusing themselves of deplorable behavior.
And how else would you control invasive and destructive wild boar? Hunting and eating them is a whole lot more effective and eco-friendly than any alternative I can think of. How would you propose to control deer populations that have exploded way beyond what the ecosystem can sustain in many places?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Oh, I know why. I still think Hunting is wrong for a number of reasons, most being that you dont need to kill anymore.
Hunting isnt needed anymore, its a primal barbaric thing that we left the feth behind.
and those that do it in the name of "Conservation" are just excusing themselves of deplorable behavior.
Hunting is indeed needed. Sure, there are other sources of food, but hunting is needed to keep many species in check and from them over populating and leading to mass starvation, not to mention invasive species are needed to be hunted to make sure they don't mess environments up, as well.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Oh, I know why. I still think Hunting is wrong for a number of reasons, most being that you dont need to kill anymore.
If you wanna eat meat, someone has to kill the animal.
Hunting isnt needed anymore, its a primal barbaric thing that we left the feth behind.
You do realize that not everyone lives near a super market where they can pick up their $3.99 chuck steak? Millions of people still rely on hunting for survival, even in America. And they have a vested interest in keeping their hunting grounds pristine.
.
Cool, for those people, it makes sense. but if you make enough, or live near a place that offers that, you have no excuse, especially if you are killing endangered specied
Incorrect. Its perfectly valid for someone to go out and hunt even if they have access to modern conveniences. Or do you also think that there is no excuse for people who choose to raise and slaughter their own animals either?(when they don't need to)
And hunting of endangered species still can serve a variety of purposes. Licenses can be made very expensive, generating massive amounts of money to aid in protecting the animal. Even endangered species need sick or elderly animals to be culled, might as well get some money for it. Naturally such hunting needs to be very tightly controlled, but it has numerous benefits. Plus getting shot is often the best way to go for a wild animal. No such thing as a peaceful death for them. They are doomed to either be torn apart by another animal, many of whom will begin eating before their prey is even dead, or die a long and painful death from disease or starvation. A quick case of lead poisoning is relatively merciful.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Oh, I know why. I still think Hunting is wrong for a number of reasons, most being that you dont need to kill anymore.
If you wanna eat meat, someone has to kill the animal.
Hunting isnt needed anymore, its a primal barbaric thing that we left the feth behind.
You do realize that not everyone lives near a super market where they can pick up their $3.99 chuck steak? Millions of people still rely on hunting for survival, even in America. And they have a vested interest in keeping their hunting grounds pristine.
.
Cool, for those people, it makes sense. but if you make enough, or live near a place that offers that, you have no excuse, especially if you are killing endangered specied
Incorrect. Its perfectly valid for someone to go out and hunt even if they have access to modern conveniences. Or do you also think that there is no excuse for people who choose to raise and slaughter their own animals either?(when they don't need to)
And hunting of endangered species still can serve a variety of purposes. Licenses can be made very expensive, generating massive amounts of money to aid in protecting the animal. Even endangered species need sick or elderly animals to be culled, might as well get some money for it. Naturally such hunting needs to be very tightly controlled, but it has numerous benefits. Plus getting shot is often the best way to go for a wild animal. No such thing as a peaceful death for them. They are doomed to either be torn apart by another animal, many of whom will begin eating before their prey is even dead, or die a long and painful death from disease or starvation. A quick case of lead poisoning is relatively merciful.
Amen, brother, as anyone who has come across carcasses in the woods of animals that starved to death would say.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Oh, I know why. I still think Hunting is wrong for a number of reasons, most being that you dont need to kill anymore.
Hunting isnt needed anymore, its a primal barbaric thing that we left the feth behind.
and those that do it in the name of "Conservation" are just excusing themselves of deplorable behavior.
You are still wrong. I live in a place where White Tail Deer have no natural predators. Mostly because Humans have driven them out. We used to have Cougar, Wolf, and Bear in my area but not anymore. Instead, we have Humans. White Tail Deer are barely kept in check with the hunting seasons we have. Damage to vehicles and crops is tremendous. So much that we have out of state hunters come to help us with population control. Even then, they have extended hunting seasons and provided extra tags to hunters. Still we have deaths from wrecks involving deer and crop destruction.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Agreed, hunting like this serves no purpose other than an ego boost to those with small genitalia.
wow.. not even thinly veiling an insult on an entire group of people then...
Poaching and what this guy did is totally wrong,
But hunting animals for food is just as if not more humane then raising live stock.
Seems you too are in agreement.
if he meant *poaching* then maybe you are correct, but he said *hunting* which could mean all big game hunting for all we know.
which is why we have two different terms, what the dentist did is not hunting, its poaching.
in another note, lots of social media is lynching this guy, putting out his full name, address of practice ect ect.
not sure how I feel about that, as I really do want him to suffer legal ramifications like being imprisoned, but lots of people are calling for some really.... out there punishments.
You can only roll your eyes at the comments from a certain spicy sauce loving Californian. Hunting is necessary. I don't personally hunt, but I will enjoy venison from friends who do. Friends who hunt because they want this type of meat for eating, for giving to friends, and for helping keep populations in check. Hunting is supposed to be controlled and regulated to keep the system in check. "But nature should police itself, right?" Answer: no. Nature DID police itself. But mankind has driven out nature's police over deer and similar animals when we've modernized and industrialized. So we have to take over the responsibilities that nature put onto animals like wolves and bobcats. Do I think we're in the right? Not really, I generally prefer animals to humans. But it's the way the world is now. So live in it or find some other option. Try not to shoot off at the mouth over something you know absolutely nothing about, and then continue to make a fool of yourself.
Also, the guy in Africa was a total dicklick. Luring it off, then killing it? And having it go through 40 hours of agonizing death? He should suffer the same damn fate. Or be crucified. Whichever is more painful.
There is hunting for food and sport, and then there's poaching. This is poaching. And he deserves to be fed battery acid.
I've hunted and have a lot of hunters in the family, I definitely agree with and understand a lot of the reasons for hunting. Food, population control and indeed conservation are all solid, legitimate reasons to hunt.
What this guy did was none of those. It was shady as all hell, and a completely weak-ass way to hunt. I hope he is prosecuted, or hell, thrown in a Zimbabwean jail.
timetowaste85 wrote: You can only roll your eyes at the comments from a certain spicy sauce loving Californian. Hunting is necessary. I don't personally hunt, but I will enjoy venison from friends who do. Friends who hunt because they want this type of meat for eating, for giving to friends, and for helping keep populations in check. Hunting is supposed to be controlled and regulated to keep the system in check. "But nature should police itself, right?" Answer: no. Nature DID police itself. But mankind has driven out nature's police over deer and similar animals when we've modernized and industrialized. So we have to take over the responsibilities that nature put onto animals like wolves and bobcats. Do I think we're in the right? Not really, I generally prefer animals to humans. But it's the way the world is now. So live in it or find some other option. Try not to shoot off at the mouth over something you know absolutely nothing about, and then continue to make a fool of yourself.
Also, the guy in Africa was a total dicklick. Luring it off, then killing it? And having it go through 40 hours of agonizing death? He should suffer the same damn fate. Or be crucified. Whichever is more painful.
There is hunting for food and sport, and then there's poaching. This is poaching. And he deserves to be fed battery acid.
Crucifixion, depending on his health and how they do it, it could last for days. Or if you are going the Hammurabi route since he skinned the lion you could flay him alive.
Seriously though screw poachers, literally driving some species to extinction.
timetowaste85 wrote: You can only roll your eyes at the comments from a certain spicy sauce loving Californian. Hunting is necessary. I don't personally hunt, but I will enjoy venison from friends who do. Friends who hunt because they want this type of meat for eating, for giving to friends, and for helping keep populations in check. Hunting is supposed to be controlled and regulated to keep the system in check. "But nature should police itself, right?" Answer: no. Nature DID police itself. But mankind has driven out nature's police over deer and similar animals when we've modernized and industrialized. So we have to take over the responsibilities that nature put onto animals like wolves and bobcats. Do I think we're in the right? Not really, I generally prefer animals to humans. But it's the way the world is now. So live in it or find some other option. Try not to shoot off at the mouth over something you know absolutely nothing about, and then continue to make a fool of yourself.
Humans are just as much a part of nature as any other animal.
timetowaste85 wrote: You can only roll your eyes at the comments from a certain spicy sauce loving Californian. Hunting is necessary. I don't personally hunt, but I will enjoy venison from friends who do. Friends who hunt because they want this type of meat for eating, for giving to friends, and for helping keep populations in check. Hunting is supposed to be controlled and regulated to keep the system in check. "But nature should police itself, right?" Answer: no. Nature DID police itself. But mankind has driven out nature's police over deer and similar animals when we've modernized and industrialized. So we have to take over the responsibilities that nature put onto animals like wolves and bobcats. Do I think we're in the right? Not really, I generally prefer animals to humans. But it's the way the world is now. So live in it or find some other option. Try not to shoot off at the mouth over something you know absolutely nothing about, and then continue to make a fool of yourself.
Humans are just as much a part of nature as any other animal.
Well, Hordini, that really depends on your views of Humankinds history. Some believe we are not from this world.
Dreadwinter wrote: I live in a place where White Tail Deer have no natural predators. Damage to vehicles and crops is tremendous. So much that we have out of state hunters come to help us with population control. Even then, they have extended hunting seasons and provided extra tags to hunters. Still we have deaths from wrecks involving deer and crop destruction.
We have moose (called elk in Europe) instead, something like 120,000 of them over the whole country. Crop destruction, check. Vehicle damage and even deaths, check - was something like 1300 collisions involving moose in 2012. We have no shortage of hunters willing to shoot them when it's season (as many as a third of our ~300K hunters take part) and that's good for everyone, even the moose population. Our pitifully few wolves and not that numerous bears could never eat enough to keep them in check, and the growing population would run out of food at some point. Not to mention crop damage and collisions would increase by a lot. And for some reason the green people who think we shouldn't hunt moose never seem to think about how many predators we'd actually need to keep the population stable. Perhaps it wouldn't really sink in until wolves hunt down and eat their little Fifi in the suburbs of Helsinki...
As for the article at the start of the thread, I can't even understand how this guy can call himself a hunter. If you can't use a bow then don't use it on animals you have no idea how to kill!
I think we most make a distinction between sports hunting and hunting for survival and/or population control, i can agree with the latter but not with the first. I think Discovery should make a new naked series now with illegal sports hunters set on an island with the last cannibal tribe
I think hunting purely for entertainment, cutting off the head and skinning the kill then leaving it to rot, is wrong.
Hunting for entertainment and then using the animal for meat or whatever? Perfectly good. Hunting for entertainment but it's under direction to help curb numbers to keep a population healthy? Perfectly good.
I personally, do not like the idea of hunting for entertainment, but so long as they use the animals resources and do their best to kill with the least pain also I'm really quite ok with it. It's just something I wont do.
Personally, what this guy did was wrong. dead wrong.
Hunting however, is perfectly acceptable. Even hunting for sport is okay, so long as you don't waste the meat left over. If you and your mates go hunting for fun, and then bring back what you kill for dinner later then that's totally okay. Just don't shoot it, and leave it where it'll just rot away wasted.
Interesting stat on the news. 30 years ago, the lion population was 80,000.
These days it's around the 25,000 thousand mark...
I'm not against a blanket ban of hunting. I buy the conservation argument. I buy the earlier argument of culling a moose population of 120,000 plus that's out of control and causing damage to people and property because there are no natural predators to keep them down.
I buy the fishing and hunting to feed yourself argument.
But this trophy bagging scumbag who inflicted a cruel death on Cecil the lion to boost his ego...
Sport hunting isnt responsible for the population decline of African megafauna, farming methods human overpopulation and the oriental medicine industry are.
Hunting has quotas, stick within the quotas it is ok.
But its killing the cute animals, some may say.
Its time to return to grey areas.
Hunting bans because they are 'wrong' and abortion rights because they are 'right' are two sides of the same coin if you look clearly enough.
One person cannot have fun and kill a fox, another can and kill a fetus.
These are grey areas, have been a long time with a fair argument on each side. Hunting is part of the instinct of man, and the closer one is to the earth the closer one is to it. The vast majority of the anit-hunting movement is based on the concensus of urban opinion. The same urbanites who want their leather jackets, cheap burger and chicken pieces made in factory farming and cheap bread made from GM food.
We are all part of the problem, we are all human, its its easy for the urban majority to point at something they aren't doing because its not in their sterilised worldview. The hunting debate in the west is clearly polarised between urban and rural communities, yes you will get individuals who live outside the zone, but that is not indicative.
Note that this whole furore is a furore here, it isnt one in Zimbabwe, killing that specific lion is, but lion hunting isnt. They don't mind. Because they are savage? No because they are closer to the earth than mainstream western society.
The case highlighted here, with a dodgy practice and a celebrity lion is not indicative of the whole.
Sport hunting isnt responsible for the population decline of African megafauna, farming methods human overpopulation and the oriental medicine industry are.
I agree that hunting isn't the main reason for the decline of the lions, but it is still a significant reason, as are the above factors you mention.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Oh, I know why. I still think Hunting is wrong for a number of reasons, most being that you dont need to kill anymore.
If you wanna eat meat, someone has to kill the animal.
Hunting isnt needed anymore, its a primal barbaric thing that we left the feth behind.
You do realize that not everyone lives near a super market where they can pick up their $3.99 chuck steak? Millions of people still rely on hunting for survival, even in America. And they have a vested interest in keeping their hunting grounds pristine.
.
Cool, for those people, it makes sense. but if you make enough, or live near a place that offers that, you have no excuse, especially if you are killing endangered specied
I never understand this argument. I get this from people who happily scarf down a KFC or buy meat from a supermarket at £5 a kg. Apparently factory farming animals in misery to get the lowest price possible so they can buy far more than they need is fine. Me putting a bullet in a destructive, invasive animal like a rabbit or Muntjac, after it has lived it's life wild, killing it instantly is cruel.
Most of the anti hunting arguments are based on squeamishness and ignorance, not on facts. The issue is people are too far from their food and only want to see it packed in plastic. Many people get upset by meat with too much blood in the packing.
As for trophy hunting. Well, if it is this king of stuff where you pay someone to lure an animal in to the cross-hairs of an idiot who can't take a strait shot, then it's wrong. If it is a valid sale of hunting rights to experienced hunters, with strict quotas and rules about what can be shot, where the animals are being culled for conservation, then fair enough. It's a good way to fund conservation, especially in Africa, where the sale of culling rights can mean that land is protected as it is more valuable for hunting than farming.
I try to buy meat from a farm shop when I can, which means I end up paying more. But, I know where it came from, and how it lived.
My Missus went veggie when she saw a program about farming, and the chef-presenter said people should only eat meat if they're prepared to kill it themselves.
Hunting is required as has been covered above, but living in the UK, there's no hunting needed. Most vermin here is generally inedible, or best dealt with in other ways. Larger 'wildlife' is protected.
What this guy did was not hunting, but what sounds line an execution. He didn't hunt it, tracking the prey, lining up the shot, and bringing the end quickly. I have never hunted, but that is what I expect when I hear the term mentioned.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I have hunted and fished for food since very early childhood. I was taught always to minimize suffering of any animal (and we always carried snips to cut snares wherever we found them) and to maximize the use of the animal as food.
I believe in hunting bountiful animals, in as humane a way as can be found, to provide food.
I also would like to string up the idiot who did this and all 'big game' 'sports' hunters who take life for their own jollies. They are not true hunters but sadistic killers. They are beneath contempt.
Vaktathi wrote: Wild boar in the US for instance are an invasive, vastly overpopulated, non-native, destructive animal that has both a strongly negative environmental effect as well as being responsible for huge amounts of property damage, and can be very dangerous to people and other animals. Hunting them not only reduces the effects their unintended presence has on the environment, but reduces dangers to other animal populations, reduces damaged, and results in lots of good meat.
Sounds to me a lot like the issues you get with people...
Wild boar in the US for instance are an invasive, vastly overpopulated, non-native, destructive animal that has both a strongly negative environmental effect as well as being responsible for huge amounts of property damage, and can be very dangerous to people and other animals. Hunting them not only reduces the effects their unintended presence has on the environment, but reduces dangers to other animal populations, reduces damaged, and results in lots of good meat.
Wild boar are a tremendous problem in Texas and Oklahoma. I lived there for 15 years, and ranchers out West are having all kinds of hell with them. They are aggressive, and can injure calves and mothers with their tusks. They can tear down fences, and clear out acres of crop land over night.
Here is a good article on it. Yes, it's 4 years old, but this is still an issue. They are VERY destructive and they need killin.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-plague-of-pigs-in-texas-73769069/?no-ist "Texas allows hunters to kill wild hogs year-round without limits or capture them alive to take to slaughterhouses to be processed and sold to restaurants as exotic meat. Thousands more are shot from helicopters. The goal is not eradication, which few believe possible, but control."
hotsauceman1 wrote: Oh, I know why. I still think Hunting is wrong for a number of reasons, most being that you dont need to kill anymore.
If you wanna eat meat, someone has to kill the animal.
Hunting isnt needed anymore, its a primal barbaric thing that we left the feth behind.
You do realize that not everyone lives near a super market where they can pick up their $3.99 chuck steak? Millions of people still rely on hunting for survival, even in America. And they have a vested interest in keeping their hunting grounds pristine.
.
Cool, for those people, it makes sense. but if you make enough, or live near a place that offers that, you have no excuse, especially if you are killing endangered specied
I never understand this argument. I get this from people who happily scarf down a KFC or buy meat from a supermarket at £5 a kg. Apparently factory farming animals in misery to get the lowest price possible so they can buy far more than they need is fine. Me putting a bullet in a destructive, invasive animal like a rabbit or Muntjac, after it has lived it's life wild, killing it instantly is cruel.
Most of the anti hunting arguments are based on squeamishness and ignorance, not on facts. The issue is people are too far from their food and only want to see it packed in plastic. Many people get upset by meat with too much blood in the packing.
As for trophy hunting. Well, if it is this king of stuff where you pay someone to lure an animal in to the cross-hairs of an idiot who can't take a strait shot, then it's wrong. If it is a valid sale of hunting rights to experienced hunters, with strict quotas and rules about what can be shot, where the animals are being culled for conservation, then fair enough. It's a good way to fund conservation, especially in Africa, where the sale of culling rights can mean that land is protected as it is more valuable for hunting than farming.
I'm going to bold the important part. ENDANGERED SPECIES.
Skinnereal wrote: I try to buy meat from a farm shop when I can, which means I end up paying more.
Not always. My farm shop sells it's lamb cheaper than the supermarket, mostly because you can't factory farm sheep and they cut out the middle man. Their beef, chicken and pork is all cheaper than the same quality (which I admit is subjective) from the supermarket, but more expensive than the cheap stuff supermarkets sell, which I would rather not eat. As you say, you know where it comes from. I know with my local farm shop I have seen the cattle and sheep in the fields around the shop.
Most vermin here is generally inedible, or best dealt with in other ways. Larger 'wildlife' is protected.
Rabbit, pigeon and munkjac are all best delt with by shooting, and not protected at all. Other deer are only protected by a closed season when they cannot be shot. The biggest issue is getting access to land where you can safely shoot them. Relatively easy for rabbit and pigeon to very difficult and expensive for red deer.
Cool, for those people, it makes sense. but if you make enough, or live near a place that offers that, you have no excuse, especially if you are killing endangered specied
Endangered species was not the main thrust of the statement at all. Hence the use of the word ESPECIALLY.
There's quite a few pictures of him and his kills on a dailymail article, and while poaching isn't to be condoned, and I hope he's fined or otherwise punished for breaking the law in Zimbabwe, I have to admit it's a more than a little impressive he's killed a lion and a rhino with a frigging bow and arrow. He's like a IRL farcry protagonist.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-plague-of-pigs-in-texas-73769069/?no-ist "Texas allows hunters to kill wild hogs year-round without limits or capture them alive to take to slaughterhouses to be processed and sold to restaurants as exotic meat. Thousands more are shot from helicopters. The goal is not eradication, which few believe possible, but control."
This is the situation here on the mid-Atlantic east coast with White Tail Deer. There are now approximately 30,000,000 white tail deer in North America, where a century ago that number was about 1,000,000. That's neither sustainable nor healthy for the environment. I don't hunt, but I don't have any problems with people that do. I've had deer break their necks on my fences, destroy my crops (thankfully I'm just a hobby farmer), and throw themselves into the side of my truck. They also spread diseases to some of my pasture animals via ticks and the like.
They also overgraze the grassy areas here, and we're trying to fight back an invasive ground creeper (Creeping Charlie). The problem is that the deer won't eat Creeping Charlie (nothing does, not even my goat and she eats thistle), so as they over graze the grass, the Creeping Charlie moves into the now grassless areas.
Kap'n Krump wrote: ... I have to admit it's a more than a little impressive he's killed a lion and a rhino with a frigging bow and arrow. He's like a IRL farcry protagonist.
Well, for one, he didn't kill the lion with the bow - he just wounded it and then, nearly 2 full days later, finished it off with a gun.
Also, it's a little less hardcore to take on a creature with a bow when A.) You're blinding it with a spotlight and B.) There are 2 guys with rifles trained on your target in case it comes after you.
But I'm not a trophy hunter so maybe the threshold for an impressive kill is a bit lower for them than a layman
Kap'n Krump wrote: There's quite a few pictures of him and his kills on a dailymail article, and while poaching isn't to be condoned, and I hope he's fined or otherwise punished for breaking the law in Zimbabwe, I have to admit it's a more than a little impressive he's killed a lion and a rhino with a frigging bow and arrow. He's like a IRL farcry protagonist.
He didn't kill the Lion with a bow. He wounded it and a separate hunter finished it off with a rifle 40 agony filled hours later.
Sport hunting isnt responsible for the population decline of African megafauna, farming methods human overpopulation and the oriental medicine industry are.
I agree that hunting isn't the main reason for the decline of the lions, but it is still a significant reason, as are the above factors you mention.
Actually it isnt. Game hunting is a tiny proportion of it. Most big game hunters are fully legal, and even the quasi legal ones dance around the quotas rather than plough through them.
The hunters you are thinking of go around game parks with an assault rifle and harvest for items for chinese medicine.
Kap'n Krump wrote: There's quite a few pictures of him and his kills on a dailymail article, and while poaching isn't to be condoned, and I hope he's fined or otherwise punished for breaking the law in Zimbabwe, I have to admit it's a more than a little impressive he's killed a lion and a rhino with a frigging bow and arrow. He's like a IRL farcry protagonist.
He didn't kill the Lion with a bow. He wounded it and a separate hunter finished it off with a rifle 40 agony filled hours later.
And for all we know a similar thing may have happened with the rhino.
Sport hunting isnt responsible for the population decline of African megafauna, farming methods human overpopulation and the oriental medicine industry are.
I agree that hunting isn't the main reason for the decline of the lions, but it is still a significant reason, as are the above factors you mention.
Actually it isnt. Game hunting is a tiny proportion of it. Most big game hunters are fully legal, and even the quasi legal ones dance around the quotas rather than plough through them.
The hunters you are thinking of go around game parks with an assault rifle and harvest for items for chinese medicine.
Same as big game fishing. Very little impact on shark numbers. Chinese medicine and soup and overfishing (the equivalent of farming problems) is the main issue.
Kap'n Krump wrote: ... I have to admit it's a more than a little impressive he's killed a lion and a rhino with a frigging bow and arrow. He's like a IRL farcry protagonist.
Well, for one, he didn't kill the lion with the bow - he just wounded it and then, nearly 2 full days later, finished it off with a gun.
Also, it's a little less hardcore to take on a creature with a bow when A.) You're blinding it with a spotlight and B.) There are 2 guys with rifles trained on your target in case it comes after you.
But I'm not a trophy hunter so maybe the threshold for an impressive kill is a bit lower for them than a layman
Kap'n Krump wrote: There's quite a few pictures of him and his kills on a dailymail article, and while poaching isn't to be condoned, and I hope he's fined or otherwise punished for breaking the law in Zimbabwe, I have to admit it's a more than a little impressive he's killed a lion and a rhino with a frigging bow and arrow. He's like a IRL farcry protagonist.
He didn't kill the Lion with a bow. He wounded it and a separate hunter finished it off with a rifle 40 agony filled hours later.
And for all we know a similar thing may have happened with the rhino.
Unlikely. If that happened he would probably be dead. If you are hunting a Rhino, you drop it on the first shot, or it tramples and gores you to death.
Kap'n Krump wrote: There's quite a few pictures of him and his kills on a dailymail article, and while poaching isn't to be condoned, and I hope he's fined or otherwise punished for breaking the law in Zimbabwe, I have to admit it's a more than a little impressive he's killed a lion and a rhino with a frigging bow and arrow. He's like a IRL farcry protagonist.
He didn't kill the Lion with a bow. He wounded it and a separate hunter finished it off with a rifle 40 agony filled hours later.
And for all we know a similar thing may have happened with the rhino.
Unlikely. If that happened he would probably be dead. If you are hunting a Rhino, you drop it on the first shot, or it tramples and gores you to death.
Except for when you have people with guns also aiming at it to make sure that doesn't happen.
Kap'n Krump wrote: There's quite a few pictures of him and his kills on a dailymail article, and while poaching isn't to be condoned, and I hope he's fined or otherwise punished for breaking the law in Zimbabwe, I have to admit it's a more than a little impressive he's killed a lion and a rhino with a frigging bow and arrow. He's like a IRL farcry protagonist.
He didn't kill the Lion with a bow. He wounded it and a separate hunter finished it off with a rifle 40 agony filled hours later.
And for all we know a similar thing may have happened with the rhino.
Unlikely. If that happened he would probably be dead. If you are hunting a Rhino, you drop it on the first shot, or it tramples and gores you to death.
Kap'n Krump wrote: There's quite a few pictures of him and his kills on a dailymail article, and while poaching isn't to be condoned, and I hope he's fined or otherwise punished for breaking the law in Zimbabwe, I have to admit it's a more than a little impressive he's killed a lion and a rhino with a frigging bow and arrow. He's like a IRL farcry protagonist.
He didn't kill the Lion with a bow. He wounded it and a separate hunter finished it off with a rifle 40 agony filled hours later.
And for all we know a similar thing may have happened with the rhino.
Unlikely. If that happened he would probably be dead. If you are hunting a Rhino, you drop it on the first shot, or it tramples and gores you to death.
Except for when you have people with guns also aiming at it to make sure that doesn't happen.
Depends. Its tough to hit the right spot on such a heavily armored target, and Rhinos are fast once agitated.
But again, if you are hunting anywhere with dangerous megafauna its pretty standard procedure to have armed buddies. Even in the backwoods of the US deer hunting you want a friend. Cougar and Grizzly will sometimes attack lone hunters. When you've got lions, leopards, hyena, and even many herbivores which will defend themselves you can't go alone.
Yeah. There are two common technical thresholds used for the definition, 45 and 100 kilograms. More generically, it can mean any animal larger than a human which is not generally domesticated.
Africa obviously has the most living examples, but many animals around the world qualify.
Kap'n Krump wrote: There's quite a few pictures of him and his kills on a dailymail article, and while poaching isn't to be condoned, and I hope he's fined or otherwise punished for breaking the law in Zimbabwe, I have to admit it's a more than a little impressive he's killed a lion and a rhino with a frigging bow and arrow. He's like a IRL farcry protagonist.
He didn't kill the Lion with a bow. He wounded it and a separate hunter finished it off with a rifle 40 agony filled hours later.
And for all we know a similar thing may have happened with the rhino.
Unlikely. If that happened he would probably be dead. If you are hunting a Rhino, you drop it on the first shot, or it tramples and gores you to death.
You're thinking of Weener Dogs, dude.
No one has hunted a pack of wiener dogs and lived to tell the tale.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Oh, I know why. I still think Hunting is wrong for a number of reasons, most being that you dont need to kill anymore.
Hunting isnt needed anymore, its a primal barbaric thing that we left the feth behind.
and those that do it in the name of "Conservation" are just excusing themselves of deplorable behavior.
My Sister runs about four Conservancy Programs in Africa and the South Pacific.
NOT ONCE have they needed to "cull" Any Endangered Species, and NONE will benefit from "Culling."
You are correct. It is just an excuse by Hunters to try to rationalize their behavior.
The loss of genetic material in a small population, of even a few animals can be catastrophic for the species.
If an endangered population is threatened with "overcrowding" then it is not "Culling" that is needed, but rather more geography or range for the animals.
This has been a contentious issue between land-owners in Africa (usually lingering Colonialists, or natives who had profited by Colonial collaboration) and the needs of the native populations of humans and animals. Many of the Land Owners do nothing with the land, and a lot of them use their land in the fashion of those who "sold" this dentist a hunting package to kill a lion (they own land next to conservancies that they refuse to sell - and which is not good for anything but range for the animals - and then they sell hunting packages to rich idiots from the USA, Russia, or the Middle East to come kill animals they lure out of the parks).
Professional hunter Theo Bronkhorst and farm owner Honest Ndlovu, are charged with poaching offences for not having the required hunting permit.
US dentist Walter Palmer shot the animal with a bow and rifle.
Mr Palmer, who says he was unaware of the lion's identity, paid for the hunt and could also face poaching charges.
BBC Africa Live: News updates
The two Zimbabwean men, who accompanied him on the hunt, could face up to 15 years in prison if found guilty.
Mr Palmer says he regrets shooting the well-known animal and believed he was on a legal hunt. He relied on professional guides to find a lion and obtain the necessary permits, he said.
Separately, court records have shown that the dentist has a felony record in the US after killing a black bear in the state of Wisconsin in 2006.
Cecil the lion (left) and Walter Palmer, the US dentist who killed the animal
Walter Palmer, who killed Cecil, said he had no idea the lion was a "local favourite"
He was given a one-year probation and fined $3,000 (£1,900), having shot the animal outside an authorised zone and then tried to pass it off as having been killed elsewhere. Records from the Minnesota Board of Dentistry also show that Mr Palmer was the subject of a sexual harassment complaint which was settled in 2006.
A receptionist alleged that he had made indecent comments to her. Mr Palmer admitted no wrongdoing and agreed to pay out more than $127,000 (£81,000).
'An activity I love'
The American tourist is believed to have paid about $50,000 (£32,000) to go on the hunt in Zimbabwe.
Cecil the lion was skinned and beheaded, according to the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force (ZCTF), a local charity.
More than 265,000 people have signed an online "Justice for Cecil" petition, calling on Zimbabwe's government to stop issuing hunting permits for endangered animals.
As news of the killing and details about the perpetrator spread online, there has been a slew of comments on social media condemning Walter Palmer, with some people calling for him to face justice.
How the internet descended on the man who killed Cecil the lion
The killing has provoked outrage on social media
Mr Palmer insists that he believed his guides had secured "all proper permits" for the hunt.
"I relied on the expertise of my local professional guides to ensure a legal hunt," he said in a statement on Tuesday.
He said he had not been contacted by authorities in Zimbabwe or the US but would "assist them in any inquiries they may have".
The dental offices of Walter Palmer in Bloomington, Minnesota - 28 July 2015
The dental practice run by Mr Palmer in Bloomington, Minnesota, was closed on Tuesday
The dentist is believed to be back in the US, although his exact whereabouts are unknown.
"Again, I deeply regret that my pursuit of an activity I love and practise responsibly and legally resulted in the taking of this lion," he said.
The dental practice run by Mr Palmer was closed on Tuesday and a note was placed on the door referring visitors to a public relations firm.
The practice's Facebook page was removed from the site after being besieged by angry comments and the company website was also taken down.
line
Cecil the iconic lion
Cecil the lion, Paula French via AP, 2012
A major tourist attraction in Hwange National Park - Zimbabwe's largest game reserve
The 13-year-old animal was renowned for being friendly towards visitors
Recognisable because of his large size and distinctive black mane
Led two prides containing six lionesses and 12 cubs along with another lion, Jericho
Was being monitored as part of an Oxford University study into lion conservation
line
Night-time pursuit
Cecil was believed to have been killed on 1 July but the carcass was not discovered until a few days later.
The ZCTF said the hunters had used bait to lure him outside Hwange National Park during a night-time pursuit.
Mr Palmer is said to have shot Cecil with a bow, injuring the animal. The group did not find the wounded lion until 40 hours later, when he was shot dead with a gun.
Lions in Africa
35,000
Max estimated lion population
12,000
Max lion population in southern Africa
665 Approx number of 'trophy' lions killed for export from Africa per year
49 Lion 'trophies' exported from Zimbabwe in 2013
0.29% Contribution to GDP of Zimbabwe from trophy hunting
17% Of Zimbabwe's land given to trophy hunting
Source: lionsalert.org, CITES, UICN
AFP
The animal had a GPS collar fitted for a research project by UK-based Oxford University that allowed authorities to track its movements. The hunters tried to destroy it, but failed, according to the ZCTF.
On Monday, the head of the ZCTF told the BBC that Cecil "never bothered anybody" and was "one of the most beautiful animals to look at".
The six cubs of Cecil will now be killed by the new male lion in the pride, Johnny Rodrigues added, in order to encourage the lionesses to mate with him.
"That's how it works... it's in the wild. It's nature taking its course," he added.
Just to separate and interesting snippet.
Separately, court records have shown that the dentist has a felony record in the US after killing a black bear in the state of Wisconsin in 2006.
Cecil the lion (left) and Walter Palmer, the US dentist who killed the animal
Walter Palmer, who killed Cecil, said he had no idea the lion was a "local favourite"
He was given a one-year probation and fined $3,000 (£1,900), having shot the animal outside an authorised zone and then tried to pass it off as having been killed elsewhere.
With all the disgusting things done by the Government in Zimbabwe, it pains me that the first petition I've seen in years relating to the country has to do with a lion.
And how else would you control invasive and destructive wild boar? Hunting and eating them is a whole lot more effective and eco-friendly than any alternative I can think of. How would you propose to control deer populations that have exploded way beyond what the ecosystem can sustain in many places?
I think the problem is terminology. Controlling animal populations through unpleasant but sadly-necessary killing should really be referred to as organised culling, to differentiate it from hunting, which itself needs to be differentiated into hunting for food/survival and hunting for sport. The first two are activities which, while a lot of people believe they should be avoided if possible, at least have a purpose beyond mere gratification. Hunting for sport is reprehensible while the others are excusable/necessary evils for exactly that reason; hunting for sport is inflicting suffering and death on another creature for amusement, and fundamentally is no different from some disturbed kid killing pets for fun, or those twisted "crush porn" videos - they're only treated differently because sport hunting has the weight of tradition on its side.
And for the person who made the comment that hunting for sport is OK because sport is a purpose, hence the entertainment industry; last time I checked, most sports do not involve the deliberate maiming and killing of living creatures as their primary aim, indeed even in the most aggressive full-contact sports injury is considered a negative side-effect that should be minimised as much as possible, and even then those sports are participated in only by sentient human adults who can consent to the risk involved.
I'm no animal rights nut, indeed I think most of them are despicable people given how eager they are to excuse the more extreme manifestations of their philosophy(seeing some feckless hippy spank dump a bucket of fake blood over an eight year old girl while screaming abuse at her as she leaves primary school because your friend her father happens to work at a uni biology department with an animal testing lab will tend to leave you less disposed to take the movement that defends those kinds of ALF nutters seriously), but needlessly killing animals for the sake of amusement is pretty sick, IMO.
Yodhrin wrote: Hunting for sport is reprehensible while the others are excusable/necessary evils for exactly that reason; hunting for sport is inflicting suffering and death on another creature for amusement, and fundamentally is no different from some disturbed kid killing pets for fun, or those twisted "crush porn" videos - they're only treated differently because sport hunting has the weight of tradition on its side
Apart from thats simply not true. No hunter wants an animal to suffer, and they suffer far less and die far faster than farmed animals. To talk about hunting for sport being about "inflicting suffering and death on another creature for amusement" is completely wrong and not understand why people hunt. That is no more true than to say a farmer breeds animals to suffer and die. If you have that view I hope you also don't eat meat, because a farmed chicken suffers far more than a shot rabbit.
Using that kind of language is, frankly, offensive, and have made up your mind anyway.
NOT ONCE have they needed to "cull" Any Endangered Species, and NONE will benefit from "Culling."
MB
This is incorrect.
If the current alpha male of a pride is older, he isn't going to be as good protection for the cubs and lionesses. He may also be less fertile, resulting in less cubs overall or more probability of them being born with birth defects. The same with females that are too old as well.
If these animals are culled, it allows younger individuals to take their place and sire healthier offspring.
The only case in which culling is not a viable option is if there are no younger animals to take the place of the culled animals and your only option for a new generation are these older animals. But this is not the case with lions. It is getting to be the case with some Rhinos however.
And how else would you control invasive and destructive wild boar? Hunting and eating them is a whole lot more effective and eco-friendly than any alternative I can think of. How would you propose to control deer populations that have exploded way beyond what the ecosystem can sustain in many places?
I think the problem is terminology. Controlling animal populations through unpleasant but sadly-necessary killing should really be referred to as organised culling, to differentiate it from hunting, which itself needs to be differentiated into hunting for food/survival and hunting for sport. The first two are activities which, while a lot of people believe they should be avoided if possible, at least have a purpose beyond mere gratification. Hunting for sport is reprehensible while the others are excusable/necessary evils for exactly that reason; hunting for sport is inflicting suffering and death on another creature for amusement, and fundamentally is no different from some disturbed kid killing pets for fun, or those twisted "crush porn" videos - they're only treated differently because sport hunting has the weight of tradition on its side.
And for the person who made the comment that hunting for sport is OK because sport is a purpose, hence the entertainment industry; last time I checked, most sports do not involve the deliberate maiming and killing of living creatures as their primary aim, indeed even in the most aggressive full-contact sports injury is considered a negative side-effect that should be minimised as much as possible, and even then those sports are participated in only by sentient human adults who can consent to the risk involved.
I'm no animal rights nut, indeed I think most of them are despicable people given how eager they are to excuse the more extreme manifestations of their philosophy(seeing some feckless hippy spank dump a bucket of fake blood over an eight year old girl while screaming abuse at her as she leaves primary school because your friend her father happens to work at a uni biology department with an animal testing lab will tend to leave you less disposed to take the movement that defends those kinds of ALF nutters seriously), but needlessly killing animals for the sake of amusement is pretty sick, IMO.
I was about to point this out as well.
I was forced to live with this fat slob of a "Big Game Hunter" for a while in 1992 (The guy got food on the freaking CEILING when he ate).
We learned he was wanted by several African Governments for violating Conservation parks to kill animals. He was a freaking sadist.
Eventually, he choked on his own vomit and died with a prostitute not long after I left the place.
Every other Big Game Hunter I have ever met fit this mold as well (My Sister tells me that others that have been caught or killed in some of the ranges she helps administer have equally problematic attitudes).
There is absolutely no reason for this kind of "Sport Hunting," and it does seem to be an proxy for inflicting suffering on others (regardless of whether they WANT to inflict suffering does nothing to offset the fact that they DO inflict suffering - and should know it).
NOT ONCE have they needed to "cull" Any Endangered Species, and NONE will benefit from "Culling."
MB
This is incorrect.
If the current alpha male of a pride is older, he isn't going to be as good protection for the cubs and lionesses. He may also be less fertile, resulting in less cubs overall or more probability of them being born with birth defects. The same with females that are too old as well.
If these animals are culled, it allows younger individuals to take their place and sire healthier offspring.
The only case in which culling is not a viable option is if there are no younger animals to take the place of the culled animals and your only option for a new generation are these older animals. But this is not the case with lions. It is getting to be the case with some Rhinos however.
That is a rationalization of "Benefit."
It is accepting a wrong in place or a better option for the older animal.
Also, Older Animals that cannot provide for a herd are no longer "Alphas." Status rituals among most animals would have settled that sort of issue (especially among elephants - Lions only slightly less).
Rhinos are not herd animals, also. They live mostly solitary existences, and do not have "Prides" or "herds" that they protect, as do Elephants and Lions. White Rhinos tend to be a little more social, but the males are still solitary. One of the reserves my sister helps to manage the breeding populations of has a population of Rhinos. The ONLY time it has become necessary to "cull" ANY of the animals was if they became a danger to human settlements.
And that ISN'T "beneficial" to the animal, or the population. It is a catastrophe.
If people think 'sport hunting' is cruel, I hope they don't eat factory farmed meat. You don't know the definition of cruel until you know what happens in those places...
Either it is food or it isn't... Hunting at least lets the animals walk around and experience a life before they are killed and eaten.
And how else would you control invasive and destructive wild boar? Hunting and eating them is a whole lot more effective and eco-friendly than any alternative I can think of. How would you propose to control deer populations that have exploded way beyond what the ecosystem can sustain in many places?
I think the problem is terminology. Controlling animal populations through unpleasant but sadly-necessary killing should really be referred to as organised culling, to differentiate it from hunting, which itself needs to be differentiated into hunting for food/survival and hunting for sport. The first two are activities which, while a lot of people believe they should be avoided if possible, at least have a purpose beyond mere gratification. Hunting for sport is reprehensible while the others are excusable/necessary evils for exactly that reason; hunting for sport is inflicting suffering and death on another creature for amusement, and fundamentally is no different from some disturbed kid killing pets for fun, or those twisted "crush porn" videos - they're only treated differently because sport hunting has the weight of tradition on its side.
And for the person who made the comment that hunting for sport is OK because sport is a purpose, hence the entertainment industry; last time I checked, most sports do not involve the deliberate maiming and killing of living creatures as their primary aim, indeed even in the most aggressive full-contact sports injury is considered a negative side-effect that should be minimised as much as possible, and even then those sports are participated in only by sentient human adults who can consent to the risk involved.
I'm no animal rights nut, indeed I think most of them are despicable people given how eager they are to excuse the more extreme manifestations of their philosophy(seeing some feckless hippy spank dump a bucket of fake blood over an eight year old girl while screaming abuse at her as she leaves primary school because your friend her father happens to work at a uni biology department with an animal testing lab will tend to leave you less disposed to take the movement that defends those kinds of ALF nutters seriously), but needlessly killing animals for the sake of amusement is pretty sick, IMO.
I was about to point this out as well.
I was forced to live with this fat slob of a "Big Game Hunter" for a while in 1992 (The guy got food on the freaking CEILING when he ate).
We learned he was wanted by several African Governments for violating Conservation parks to kill animals. He was a freaking sadist.
Eventually, he choked on his own vomit and died with a prostitute not long after I left the place.
Every other Big Game Hunter I have ever met fit this mold as well (My Sister tells me that others that have been caught or killed in some of the ranges she helps administer have equally problematic attitudes).
There is absolutely no reason for this kind of "Sport Hunting," and it does seem to be an proxy for inflicting suffering on others (regardless of whether they WANT to inflict suffering does nothing to offset the fact that they DO inflict suffering - and should know it).
MB
I have met one or two, and they didn't fit that profile at all. Sadists? No, they wanted to return to a move primal life, and have already been innured to legalised killing as most are military. It actually helps for veterans to game hunt, and it says alot when the public expect them to go out and kill human beings, but the same public whines if that they cant kill a deer or a lion. Real game hunters have a code of honour about it, one shot, one clean kill, if you cant make a clean shot you don't take the shot, and if you miss completely the animal is never chased. Also real game hunters don't skirt the rules, they kill only if there is a reason to permit the kill. Which is not the same as subsistence hunting.
Yep most of the dodgy game hunters are American, it comes as a side effect of the gun culture Americans cultivate.
Orlanth wrote: it comes as a side effect of the gun culture Americans cultivate.
I seriously doubt that is the cause.
Maybe but the pres are noting that most of the dodgy big game hunters are American, question is why?
American attitudes to guns are widely different from European ones, even amongst gun collectors.
Orlanth wrote: it comes as a side effect of the gun culture Americans cultivate.
I seriously doubt that is the cause.
Maybe but the pres are noting that most of the dodgy big game hunters are American, question is why?
American attitudes to guns are widely different from European ones, even amongst gun collectors.
Correlation. Not causation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nkelsch wrote: If people think 'sport hunting' is cruel, I hope they don't eat factory farmed meat. You don't know the definition of cruel until you know what happens in those places...
Ok, you gotta stop listening to the crazies.
People who raise animals for meat have every reason in the world to make sure the animals are not suffering. Animals which are in pain or a suffering make very bad meat, both in taste and appearance. If animals were truly suffering on the scale many wackos claim, the meat would never reach store shelves. It would be condemned during inspection, every piece of meat processed in America is individually inspected for quality BTW. Animals which are suffering do not make quality meat.
The vast majority of claims or videos regarding animal abuse are fabricated by activists, only a small portion are genuine and are always isolated incidents.
I knew someone who worked on the reserves in Zimbabwe, crazy stuff. They had to cull a certain number each year to manage the herds and would take money from wealthy westerners to make the killing shot. The closest you can legally come to old style big game hunting.
One of these guys bodged it when shooting a Leopard (iirc) and they had to hunt the wounded thing all day. Eventually they found a termite nest that had been disturbed as the bottom. One of the party approached it carefully and the leopard lept out the hole but the guy at the front rolled back and pushed it off him. It then landed on the westerner who was mauled by it, took all the flesh off his arms before they killed it.
He told me other stories, like how they had to kill a wild elephant and after they skin it for the leather and cut up and salt the meat for the villagers. Nothing goes to waste if they have to make a kill.
They were typically armed with AK47s but also used Bren guns. His personal sidearm was an old Webley service revolver. They needed this stuff because the people coming in for the chinese medicine trade are murderers and will kill anyone who tried to stop them. After some reserve staff were shot dead they became a lot less keen to risk making an arrest. If they see anyone carrying a gun in the reserve they shout to drop the weapons and if you don't immediately they shoot to kill. The poachers don't mess around, they are ruthless killers that will kill people as quick as they will the animals.
Even endangered species need to be managed. You don't kill them because you have animals to spare, you kill them because you need to improve the health of the entire herd.
There was a case not too long ago that also got some bad press because a game reserve (or government, or something) was auctioning off the chance to hunt one of the animals (I want to say it was a rhino). The hunt would only be for this one particular animal that was an extra male that was causing physical injuries because it was competing for the families and killing younger animals. For the health of the entire herd this animal had to go, and the game keepers could have easily done the job themselves. Instead they used the opportunity to get a lot of money from a tourist which they could turn around and invest in keeping the remaining population healthy and the reserve running.
Bullockist wrote: mega fauna? It still exists? and here i was thinking all the giant wombats died out 50,000 years ago....
I don't think he technically misused the world. Though I only ever hear the term when talking about things like...giant wombats/ dinosaurs. Literal translation is giant land animal over 100 lb. Technically humans are mega fauna lol.
Bullockist wrote: mega fauna? It still exists? and here i was thinking all the giant wombats died out 50,000 years ago....
I don't think he technically misused the world. Though I only ever hear the term when talking about things like...giant wombats/ dinosaurs. Literal translation is giant land animal over 100 lb. Technically humans are mega fauna lol.
I did not misuse the word, except in the incorrect public understanding of the word. We still have plenty of Megafauna around today.
nkelsch wrote: If people think 'sport hunting' is cruel, I hope they don't eat factory farmed meat. You don't know the definition of cruel until you know what happens in those places...
Ok, you gotta stop listening to the crazies.
People who raise animals for meat have every reason in the world to make sure the animals are not suffering. Animals which are in pain or a suffering make very bad meat, both in taste and appearance. If animals were truly suffering on the scale many wackos claim, the meat would never reach store shelves. It would be condemned during inspection, every piece of meat processed in America is individually inspected for quality BTW. Animals which are suffering do not make quality meat.
The vast majority of claims or videos regarding animal abuse are fabricated by activists, only a small portion are genuine and are always isolated incidents.
If those are the lies you tell yourself so you can sleep at night, so be it.
nkelsch wrote: If people think 'sport hunting' is cruel, I hope they don't eat factory farmed meat. You don't know the definition of cruel until you know what happens in those places...
Ok, you gotta stop listening to the crazies.
People who raise animals for meat have every reason in the world to make sure the animals are not suffering. Animals which are in pain or a suffering make very bad meat, both in taste and appearance. If animals were truly suffering on the scale many wackos claim, the meat would never reach store shelves. It would be condemned during inspection, every piece of meat processed in America is individually inspected for quality BTW. Animals which are suffering do not make quality meat.
The vast majority of claims or videos regarding animal abuse are fabricated by activists, only a small portion are genuine and are always isolated incidents.
If those are the lies you tell yourself so you can sleep at night, so be it.
Lies? I say this as someone who actually knows a thing or two about animals, and farming in general. As opposed to activists who don't know jack squat about any of those things.
nkelsch wrote: If people think 'sport hunting' is cruel, I hope they don't eat factory farmed meat. You don't know the definition of cruel until you know what happens in those places...
Ok, you gotta stop listening to the crazies.
People who raise animals for meat have every reason in the world to make sure the animals are not suffering. Animals which are in pain or a suffering make very bad meat, both in taste and appearance. If animals were truly suffering on the scale many wackos claim, the meat would never reach store shelves. It would be condemned during inspection, every piece of meat processed in America is individually inspected for quality BTW. Animals which are suffering do not make quality meat.
The vast majority of claims or videos regarding animal abuse are fabricated by activists, only a small portion are genuine and are always isolated incidents.
If those are the lies you tell yourself so you can sleep at night, so be it.
Its pretty ignorant if you cannot accept proven facts such as meat tastes horrible when it comes from abused, frightened, and mistreated animals.
If you think how we cultivate meat for our table is cruel, don't ever watch what happens in nature when a carnivore eats its prey.
Its pretty ignorant if you cannot accept proven facts such as meat tastes horrible when it comes from abused, frightened, and mistreated animals.
If you think how we cultivate meat for our table is cruel, don't ever watch what happens in nature when a carnivore eats its prey.
And it is pretty ignorant to dismiss widespread industry standards which are still in production today as 'isolated incidents by gotcha journalists' when only now are consumers beginning to explicitly request changes from many accepted practices which cause harm and cruel conditions and actions to animals. Some aspects of the industry are improving, a lot are not... These processes are well documented and widely accepted. Cheap food = abuse is accepted.
And even in 'free-range' raising of animals, cruel actions like nose-ringing are still done to pigs which creates a life of pain and frustration. Anesthetic-free castration is still the norm in pig farming. And we also still have Gestation Crating... which is not widely banned in the US and is still very much the 'norm'. Only in the past 5 years or so have companies begun to phase out such actions due to the awareness of consumers. And this industry standard practices, not even talking about clubbing and hanging which was recently found to be 'not abuse' in court.
And I agree that 'abused, frightened and mistreated animals' taste better. I think a majority of people have had nothing but 'abused, frightened and mistreated animals' their entire lives and can't tell when they have had good well-raised meat.
Birthing crates are actually necessary to prevent the Sow from squishing her piglets. Nose rings haven't been used on a large scale for decades, but they are actually often the only effective way to control these animals. Especially boars and bulls, who are quite dangerous.
Really, the vast overwhelming majority of supposedly cruel practices are really just misconceptions and ignorance perpetuated by activists who prey on the public's lack of knowledge.
Did you know that putting leghorn chickens in larger cages actually makes them more likely to injure themselves? Because they are such high energy and easily stressed they have to either be tightly confined OR totally cage free. You can't have a middle ground, especially when any injury will quickly result in cannibalism(even free range birds will kill and eat each other if there is an injury). And when cage free they spend their time running around instead of actually producing eggs.
Birthing crates are actually necessary to prevent the Sow from squishing her piglets.
Sows dont crush their piglets if they arent kept in exrtremely crampted conditions. Wild pigs and free range pigs can make a nest and care for and raise their piglets without crushing them.
However crate raised sows are mentally unbalanced, and also heavily confined, it is no wonder piglets would get crushed.
Also grey Templar, why do piglets teeth get crushed and their tails docked?
Want to come clean on that.
Really, the vast overwhelming majority of supposedly cruel practices are really just misconceptions.....
Bollocks is it. Even when you do have extreme activists are you saying their videos are fake. Did they make up the gestration crates and fill them with pigs on a film set.
How come time and again we see the same sorts of images. How come authorities in the western world made legislation proving ergonomic legislation, and how often the farming industry is given a deadline to meet new standards. Legislators would not pas legislation banning conditions and give a deadline for compliance if the industry didn't have farming practices that didn't match those figures.
Relax piggies, its all just a misconception. You are hallucinating and are actually in an open sty or a field somewhere. Honest.
.....and ignorance perpetuated by activists who prey on the public's lack of knowledge.
As for preying on the publics lack of knowledge, most of the industrial farming complexes deny the press access, some even go as far as to lobby for legislation banning admissability of insider videos.
If you want to dispel lack of knowledge let the press in to see the factory farms.
But that just wouldn't help your case though.
Did you know that putting leghorn chickens in larger cages actually makes them more likely to injure themselves? Because they are such high energy and easily stressed they have to either be tightly confined OR totally cage free.
Then use a different breed, then they can sit in a hutch with a reasonable run and make eggs.
You can't have a middle ground, especially when any injury will quickly result in cannibalism(even free range birds will kill and eat each other if there is an injury).
Actually you are making the entire living area a nest and nest death applies. Many animals not prone to cannibalism will eat a corpse from a nest death, its the easiest way to get rid of the body and cuts down on (most) disease spread.
And when cage free they spend their time running around instead of actually producing eggs.
They will get around to it. Your animals have lives of their own, and will provide you with their bounty in fair time. If that is not enough for you, if you want chickens to be locked up and lay lay lay it says a lot about the moral character of your farming that you have been denying as true. Maximise profit at the expense of any form of welfare. Thats not being a farmer, it's being a camp kommandant.
If pigs were raised in any other way, only rich people could afford pork.
As for why piglets get their wolfteeth clipped and their tails docked, its to prevent them from injuring their mothers and each other. Pigs like to chew. Removing those teeth prevent them from hurting each other. Removing their tails prevents their penmates from chewing on each other. Less injury means greater animal welfare.
Mentally unbalanced? These aren't humans who we worry about their mental state. We raise these animals for food.
As for the chickens, you can't use any other breed or not use cages. Unless you want eggs to cost $10 a dozen.
Again, animals which are stressed or sick either don't produce food, or only produce bad food. Chickens are actually extremely sensitive to this. If a worker so much as drops a can lid on the floor and makes a loud noise it can stop the chicken from producing for a couple days. A few degrees change in temperature or a few candlefoot changes in light levels can also do this. The fact they lay eggs is proof they aren't as stressed as people claim. Its all about knowing the animal.
As for denying the press access, that is largely due to the public not understanding(Or not being willing to understand) the process because of decades of activist lies which have brainwashed everyone. Plus there is corporate espionage and disease control to worry about, disease being the big one. You can't just let anyone into your facility. Apple doesn't let reporters onto their RnD floors or production lines.
easysauce wrote: so ignorant.. if those pigs are not in those cages they generally prefer to eat each other... sounds like someone who never set foot on a farm lol
So free-range pig farming is a total bloodbath then?
Also, those conditions, whilst not as bad as some, are still totally miserable. It's just grey concrete. It's a prison.
Breotan wrote: Lion hunting should only be done hand-to-hand. Oh, and put it on Pay-Per-View. Same with bull fighting. Those pointy metal sticks are cheating.
Evolution gave lions claws, strong muscles, and sharp reflexes. It gave us brains to figure out who to make pointy metal sticks. Use the tools that nature provided you with.
Breotan wrote: Lion hunting should only be done hand-to-hand. Oh, and put it on Pay-Per-View. Same with bull fighting. Those pointy metal sticks are cheating.
Evolution gave lions claws, strong muscles, and sharp reflexes. It gave us brains to figure out who to make pointy metal sticks. Use the tools that nature provided you with.
Fair enough, the Lion and hunter can both only use what natural resources are within the arena
Grey Templar wrote: If pigs were raised in any other way, only rich people could afford pork.
Not necessarily, you could place an artificial value on it, you could also distribute pay better. This already happens, beefstock is normally raised in fields.
As for why piglets get their wolfteeth clipped and their tails docked, its to prevent them from injuring their mothers and each other. Pigs like to chew. Removing those teeth prevent them from hurting each other. Removing their tails prevents their penmates from chewing on each other. Less injury means greater animal welfare.
Wild pigs dojnt need their teeth crushed, farm raised pigs dont wither, only caged pigs do. They do so for the reasons you described, because they hurt each other. As to why they hurt each other, it is because they are caged and get frustrated by their appaling living conditions and lack of personal space. It is just a symptom of the oppressive torturous existence they go through, the 'solution' of crushing their teeth of coursde isnt a solution, just a convenienece for the industry. The mental state of the pig remains.
Mentally unbalanced? These aren't humans who we worry about their mental state. We raise these animals for food.
No they arent humans, but it doesnt require a level of rights similar to a human for thesefarming methods to be wrong. A constant mental oppression is a very effective torture, it is certainly so when used on humans.
As for the chickens, you can't use any other breed or not use cages. Unless you want eggs to cost $10 a dozen.
I wonder what people have placed in traditional chicken coops for centuries then. Cats? If it wasnt chickens then perhaps they were, lay lots of eggs those cats do.
Come on.
Again, animals which are stressed or sick either don't produce food, or only produce bad food. Chickens are actually extremely sensitive to this. If a worker so much as drops a can lid on the floor and makes a loud noise it can stop the chicken from producing for a couple days. A few degrees change in temperature or a few candlefoot changes in light levels can also do this. The fact they lay eggs is proof they aren't as stressed as people claim. Its all about knowing the animal.
Bollocks, there are enough pictures of egg laying chickens in obvious extreme stress on the internet. I am counting being unable to spread wings so they atrophy as a fairly stressful condition.
As for denying the press access, that is largely due to the public not understanding(Or not being willing to understand) the process because of decades of activist lies which have brainwashed everyone. Plus there is corporate espionage and disease control to worry about, disease being the big one. You can't just let anyone into your facility. Apple doesn't let reporters onto their RnD floors or production lines.
If you think the practices are defensible the industry should try it, rather than shy away from the light.
Breotan wrote: Lion hunting should only be done hand-to-hand. Oh, and put it on Pay-Per-View. Same with bull fighting. Those pointy metal sticks are cheating.
Evolution gave lions claws, strong muscles, and sharp reflexes. It gave us brains to figure out who to make pointy metal sticks. Use the tools that nature provided you with.
Fair enough, the Lion and hunter can both only use what natural resources are within the arena
nkelsch wrote: If people think 'sport hunting' is cruel, I hope they don't eat factory farmed meat. You don't know the definition of cruel until you know what happens in those places...
Either it is food or it isn't... Hunting at least lets the animals walk around and experience a life before they are killed and eaten.
False Dichotomy.
While eating meat does not necessarily involve Cruel Factory farming (which is something that CAN be eliminated while still providing the meat), Sport, Trophy Hunting IS NECESSARILY cruel.
nkelsch wrote: If people think 'sport hunting' is cruel, I hope they don't eat factory farmed meat. You don't know the definition of cruel until you know what happens in those places...
Either it is food or it isn't... Hunting at least lets the animals walk around and experience a life before they are killed and eaten.
False Dichotomy.
While eating meat does not necessarily involve Cruel Factory farming (which is something that CAN be eliminated while still providing the meat), Sport, Trophy Hunting IS NECESSARILY cruel.
Breotan wrote: Lion hunting should only be done hand-to-hand. Oh, and put it on Pay-Per-View. Same with bull fighting. Those pointy metal sticks are cheating.
Evolution gave lions claws, strong muscles, and sharp reflexes. It gave us brains to figure out who to make pointy metal sticks. Use the tools that nature provided you with.
Fair enough, the Lion and hunter can both only use what natural resources are within the arena
Captain Kirk made a cannon from bamboo, rope, and Awesome.
I do not get the automatic 'he's got a tiny dick or he can't get it up' insult that so many people go to whenever someone does something they don't like. It's so.... infantile. And really, all it tells me is that that person has some sort of obsession with genitalia that that is where their mind goes oh so readily.
Breotan wrote: Lion hunting should only be done hand-to-hand. Oh, and put it on Pay-Per-View. Same with bull fighting. Those pointy metal sticks are cheating.
Evolution gave lions claws, strong muscles, and sharp reflexes. It gave us brains to figure out who to make pointy metal sticks. Use the tools that nature provided you with.
Fair enough, the Lion and hunter can both only use what natural resources are within the arena
Captain Kirk made a cannon from bamboo, rope, and Awesome.
"Look around you – can you form some sort of rudimentary lathe?"
Bromsy wrote: I do not get the automatic 'he's got a tiny dick or he can't get it up' insult that so many people go to whenever someone does something they don't like. It's so.... infantile. And really, all it tells me is that that person has some sort of obsession with genitalia that that is where their mind goes oh so readily.
Its because they get a kick out of killing something. We have another name for them...psychotics.
I spit on game hunters. Lets dump your ass in Compton and see how much of a manly man you are you piece of gak.
Bromsy wrote: I do not get the automatic 'he's got a tiny dick or he can't get it up' insult that so many people go to whenever someone does something they don't like. It's so.... infantile. And really, all it tells me is that that person has some sort of obsession with genitalia that that is where their mind goes oh so readily.
Its because they get a kick out of killing something. We have another name for them...psychotics.
I spit on game hunters. Lets dump your ass in Compton and see how much of a manly man you are you piece of gak.
Don't forget to give them their uniform made out of bed sheets and pillow cases to make sure they get a real experience
Get off of your high hipster Hot Topic horses - the nature of any predator, humans included, will promote predatory activity. Your brain gets a nice shot of dopamine every time you have sex, chase down an animal, eat, make a useful tool, etc. Newsflash: first person shooters, driving games, and sport hunting all tap the exact same drive to conquer and consume. And calling sport hunting "cruel" is abysmally ignorant. Watch a good nature show about predators for an hour or so and you'll see a hell of a lot more cruelty than in a hunting documentary. Nearly all of the animals I've taken using rifle or bow were DRT, which is a lot more than I can say for the animals that get mauled and eaten alive by Hyenas in the African Savannah, or by coyotes in the US.
Get off of your high hipster Hot Topic horses - the nature of any predator, humans included, will promote predatory activity. Your brain gets a nice shot of dopamine every time you have sex, chase down an animal, eat, make a useful tool, etc. Newsflash: first person shooters, driving games, and sport hunting all tap the exact same drive to conquer and consume. And calling sport hunting "cruel" is abysmally ignorant. Watch a good nature show about predators for an hour or so and you'll see a hell of a lot more cruelty than in a hunting documentary. Nearly all of the animals I've taken using rifle or bow were DRT, which is a lot more than I can say for the animals that get mauled and eaten alive by Hyenas in the African Savannah, or by coyotes in the US.
I'll restate: Its because they get a kick out of killing something. We have another name for them...psychotics.
You know what other animal plays with its prey before killing it? Cats. Cats are evil. They are first against the wall when the great Dachshund revolution comes. Trophy hunters are like cats. Therefore trophy hunters are evil too, and will be put against the wall when the revolution comes. Repent yee sinners of your catlike sins!
Get off of your high hipster Hot Topic horses - the nature of any predator, humans included, will promote predatory activity. Your brain gets a nice shot of dopamine every time you have sex, chase down an animal, eat, make a useful tool, etc. Newsflash: first person shooters, driving games, and sport hunting all tap the exact same drive to conquer and consume. And calling sport hunting "cruel" is abysmally ignorant. Watch a good nature show about predators for an hour or so and you'll see a hell of a lot more cruelty than in a hunting documentary. Nearly all of the animals I've taken using rifle or bow were DRT, which is a lot more than I can say for the animals that get mauled and eaten alive by Hyenas in the African Savannah, or by coyotes in the US.
I'll restate: Its because they get a kick out of killing something. We have another name for them...psychotics.
You know what other animal plays with its prey before killing it? Cats. Cats are evil. They are first against the wall when the great Dachshund revolution comes. Trophy hunters are like cats. Therefore trophy hunters are evil too, and will be put against the wall when the revolution comes. Repent yee sinners of your catlike sins!
Proof that sport hunters "play with" their prey before they kill it? I have yet to see a single hunter torture an animal, though I'm sure that people have done such things just as they do them outside of sport hunting.
Sport hunting doesn't fit the DSM definition of psychosis at all. This whole "I don't like it, so I'm going to brand it crazy" approach is a curious throwback to the days of throwing political opponents into mental asylums. In 'Merica, the only response to "stop liking the things I don't like!" is, "Well, man up Nancy."
Well this guy watched a lion die for 40 hours. Bow hunters often don't kill their prey and using an inferior weapon which dramatically increases the likelihood of such.
If you're not taking meat then you just shooting to kill it. They are hunting just to kill something. Thats classic early serial killer behavior. My point stands.
You don't like it, quit getting off killing something that didn't do anything to you. As to man up Nancy. Again, take a taxi to Compton, or Pomona. Wear a T shirt with a rebel flag. Prove your manliness. Come on wussies.
Breotan wrote: Lion hunting should only be done hand-to-hand. Oh, and put it on Pay-Per-View. Same with bull fighting. Those pointy metal sticks are cheating.
Evolution gave lions claws, strong muscles, and sharp reflexes. It gave us brains to figure out who to make pointy metal sticks. Use the tools that nature provided you with.
Fair enough, the Lion and hunter can both only use what natural resources are within the arena
Breotan wrote: Lion hunting should only be done hand-to-hand. Oh, and put it on Pay-Per-View. Same with bull fighting. Those pointy metal sticks are cheating.
Evolution gave lions claws, strong muscles, and sharp reflexes. It gave us brains to figure out who to make pointy metal sticks. Use the tools that nature provided you with.
Fair enough, the Lion and hunter can both only use what natural resources are within the arena
Here in Pennsylvania deer are a huge problem, just drive down one of our roads in western PA and you will see deer killed by cars. Hunting is need to try and keep the deer population in check.
Had a friend of mine son get killed by a deer when he was driving down the road and the deer jumper through his windshield killing my buddies son. Also a a friend when she was driving down the road had a deer go through her window smashing her face and knocked her teeth out. Thankfully she lived but had to go through plastic surgery to fix her face and teeth.
Chute82 wrote: Here in Pennsylvania deer are a huge problem, just drive down one of our roads in western PA and you will see deer killed by cars. Hunting is need to try and keep the deer population in check.
Had a friend of mine son get killed by a deer when he was driving down the road and the deer jumper through his windshield killing my buddies son. Also a a friend when she was driving down the road had a deer go through her window smashing her face and knocked her teeth out. Thankfully she lived but had to go through plastic surgery to fix her face and teeth.
yes they are like big rats and will breed up in an area until they overwhelm it and are starving.
Chute82 wrote: Here in Pennsylvania deer are a huge problem, just drive down one of our roads in western PA and you will see deer killed by cars. Hunting is need to try and keep the deer population in check.
Had a friend of mine son get killed by a deer when he was driving down the road and the deer jumper through his windshield killing my buddies son. Also a a friend when she was driving down the road had a deer go through her window smashing her face and knocked her teeth out. Thankfully she lived but had to go through plastic surgery to fix her face and teeth.
yes they are like big rats and will breed up in an area until they overwhelm it and are starving.
When I was a kid deer 80's hunting in PA if you didn't see a 100 deer during rifle season it was a bad day. You could not shoot doe deer at that time only for 3 days late in the season and they didn't give out many doe tags at that time. Now they give out thousands of doe tags and you can hunt them in most areas the entire rifle season. They are trying to get the deer population back in check but now there is a ton of posted property you can't hunt. Canadian geese are also a big problem here in western pa they upped the limit in September to 10 geese per hunter a day, you can't swim in most lakes because of the amount of goose poop.
Frazzled wrote: Well this guy watched a lion die for 40 hours. Bow hunters often don't kill their prey and using an inferior weapon which dramatically increases the likelihood of such.
If you're not taking meat then you just shooting to kill it. They are hunting just to kill something. Thats classic early serial killer behavior. My point stands.
You don't like it, quit getting off killing something that didn't do anything to you.
As to man up Nancy. Again, take a taxi to Compton, or Pomona. Wear a T shirt with a rebel flag. Prove your manliness. Come on wussies.
I've never watched an animal die for 40 hours - that's called poor shooting and the meat would taste awful. Pretty much every deer I've shot with a bow was DRT - nobody hunts with a cowboys and Indians style bow, and modern bows are exceptionally powerful. If you double-lung an animal, it will die right there. Compared to pretty much any natural death, this is as close as its gets to an ideal way to go.
The dichotomy between trophy hunting and food hunting is really false, because nearly all deer hunters would prefer a big-rack buck to a doe, but they would eat the meat in both cases. And let's be honest here - hunting at all is for the purpose of killing something. I could go to the supermarket any day of the week and buy an equal amount of meat for around the same price as it costs me in licenses, arrows, stamps, gas to and from a hunting spot, etc.
As for your invitation, a good number of hunters (myself included) have "proven our manliness" in plenty of ways, such as serving in combat units operating in war zones. It's pretty ignorant to assume that every hunter is a coward or serial killer...most of us just like being closer to nature which, whether you are prepared to accept it or not, involves predatory activities.
As for your invitation, a good number of hunters (myself included) have "proven our manliness" in plenty of ways, such as serving in combat units operating in war zones. It's pretty ignorant to assume that every hunter is a coward or serial killer...most of us just like being closer to nature which, whether you are prepared to accept it or not, involves predatory activities.
I amazingly don't give a gak. If you don't like the moniker don't do the crime.
As for your invitation, a good number of hunters (myself included) have "proven our manliness" in plenty of ways, such as serving in combat units operating in war zones. It's pretty ignorant to assume that every hunter is a coward or serial killer...most of us just like being closer to nature which, whether you are prepared to accept it or not, involves predatory activities.
I amazingly don't give a gak. If you don't like the moniker don't do the crime.
As for your invitation, a good number of hunters (myself included) have "proven our manliness" in plenty of ways, such as serving in combat units operating in war zones. It's pretty ignorant to assume that every hunter is a coward or serial killer...most of us just like being closer to nature which, whether you are prepared to accept it or not, involves predatory activities.
I amazingly don't give a gak. If you don't like the moniker don't do the crime.
Hunting isn't a crime...aren't you a lawyer?
You younins never getting old phrases. One day I will learn you how to be a hep cat like myself.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: ...most of us just like being closer to nature which, whether you are prepared to accept it or not, involves predatory activities.
That's not true at all. It may be how you feel closer to nature but it in no way means that in order to feel closer to nature you have to kill it.
Thinking that killing something makes you closer to it is pretty chilling, I think. I mean it's basically the exact reason that Joker gave in The Dark Knight for why he liked to use a knife over a gun, so he could see close up all of the emotions of those he killed and so know them better than their friends.
Many people work every day with animals in conservation parks and facilities. I imagine they feel closer to the animals they care for every day than you do to the animals you have hunted.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: ...most of us just like being closer to nature which, whether you are prepared to accept it or not, involves predatory activities.
That's not true at all. It may be how you feel closer to nature but it in no way means that in order to feel closer to nature you have to kill it.
Thinking that killing something makes you closer to it is pretty chilling, I think. I mean it's basically the exact reason that Joker gave in The Dark Knight for why he liked to use a knife over a gun, so he could see close up all of the emotions of those he killed and so know them better than their friends.
Many people work every day with animals in conservation parks and facilities. I imagine they feel closer to the animals they care for every day than you do to the animals you have hunted.
Dian Fossey comes to mind...
Hunting is an important part of our heritage. Our ancestors only survived because they could hunt and get nutrients.
Everyone should, at least once in their life, either raise an animal for meat or go hunting. Its a wonderful experience.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: ...most of us just like being closer to nature which, whether you are prepared to accept it or not, involves predatory activities.
That's not true at all. It may be how you feel closer to nature but it in no way means that in order to feel closer to nature you have to kill it.
Thinking that killing something makes you closer to it is pretty chilling, I think. I mean it's basically the exact reason that Joker gave in The Dark Knight for why he liked to use a knife over a gun, so he could see close up all of the emotions of those he killed and so know them better than their friends.
Many people work every day with animals in conservation parks and facilities. I imagine they feel closer to the animals they care for every day than you do to the animals you have hunted.
Dian Fossey comes to mind...
Hunting is an important part of our heritage. Our ancestors only survived because they could hunt and get nutrients.
Everyone should, at least once in their life, either raise an animal for meat or go hunting. Its a wonderful experience.
If, for example, one hunts a Lion that is supposed to be protected then that could well be a crime.
The problem is people are using the wrong word to describe somthing, either out of ignorance, or because they paint all hunters with the same brush they would paint poachers with.
Hunting is legal and all that, *POACHING* (what happened to the lion) is not legal, and hunters are probably the biggest group actually trying to stop poachers through funding/action/ect.
So when people talk about "hunting like that" what they really mean is poaching, but that is not what they are saying. To use the word hunting to describe what is actually poaching, is the same as calling every soldier who killed someone in battle a murderer.
We have different words for these things for a reason and all that.
Well it's something we can agree on, all hunting is definitely not a crime. If someone actually said that earlier, well... I think we'll both share an opinion on their view.
So how much longer do we all care about this dead lion? Seems like we're about due for a return to our default position of "not caring about Africa or anyone in it".
Ouze wrote: So how much longer do we all care about this dead lion? Seems like we're about due for a return to our default position of "not caring about Africa or anyone in it".
Wait... I thought we weren't supposed to meddle in other countries affairs??
To be fair though, I think extradiction is a bit much.
Ouze wrote: So how much longer do we all care about this dead lion? Seems like we're about due for a return to our default position of "not caring about Africa or anyone in it".
According to facebook we will care however long it takes for us to ignore the wholesale slaughter of babies for parts by planned parenthood.
Ouze wrote: So how much longer do we all care about this dead lion? Seems like we're about due for a return to our default position of "not caring about Africa or anyone in it".
According to facebook we will care however long it takes for us to ignore the wholesale slaughter of babies for parts by planned parenthood.
Ouze wrote: So how much longer do we all care about this dead lion? Seems like we're about due for a return to our default position of "not caring about Africa or anyone in it".
According to facebook we will care however long it takes for us to ignore the wholesale slaughter of babies for parts by planned parenthood.
Well the difference here is that the poacher is racking his kill on his wall.
PP actually sells chopped up baby parts of distinct organs (brains, hearts, lungs). But, nah... what's the outrage in that? They're just blobs-o-cells...right?
Ouze wrote: So how much longer do we all care about this dead lion? Seems like we're about due for a return to our default position of "not caring about Africa or anyone in it".
According to facebook we will care however long it takes for us to ignore the wholesale slaughter of babies for parts by planned parenthood.
Ouze wrote: So how much longer do we all care about this dead lion? Seems like we're about due for a return to our default position of "not caring about Africa or anyone in it".
According to facebook we will care however long it takes for us to ignore the wholesale slaughter of babies for parts by planned parenthood.
Well the difference here is that the poacher is racking his kill on his wall.
PP actually sells chopped up baby parts of distinct organs (brains, hearts, lungs). But, nah... what's the outrage in that? They're just blobs-o-cells...right?
Indiana clears Planned Parenthood of wrongdoing after videos
Grey Templar wrote: Just because you are legally cleared doesn't mean what you are doing isn't wrong.
Ahh, you have to love government effciency. It took them two weeks to clear PP of wrong-doing, in a state where PP doesn't perform any abortion. You have to love the witch-hunt purely for the sake of political showmanship, and not for any actual real world happening .
Ouze wrote: So how much longer do we all care about this dead lion? Seems like we're about due for a return to our default position of "not caring about Africa or anyone in it".
According to facebook we will care however long it takes for us to ignore the wholesale slaughter of babies for parts by planned parenthood.
I thought the media was focussing on the lion so people stopped caring about the Police lead genocide on black Americans?
Ouze wrote: So how much longer do we all care about this dead lion? Seems like we're about due for a return to our default position of "not caring about Africa or anyone in it".
I don't know, we're now starting to see the debate cross into discussion of Internet Mob Justice
Ouze wrote: So how much longer do we all care about this dead lion? Seems like we're about due for a return to our default position of "not caring about Africa or anyone in it".
According to facebook we will care however long it takes for us to ignore the wholesale slaughter of babies for parts by planned parenthood.
I thought the media was focussing on the lion so people stopped caring about the Police lead genocide on black Americans?
I remember an article the BBC did a couple of weeks after the London riots, where various talking heads all "proved" how it all tied into whatever their wildly different pet social theories were. It always comes to mind at these sorts of times.
