Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 easysauce wrote:

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.

 feeder wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

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.

 Hordini wrote:

 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...

Would it be wrong to crowd fund a hitman?

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.

This Palmer guy is coming out more and more as a scumbag,with other illegal hunt and sexual harassment Cases in his past that went against him.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/07/29/american-dentist-said-to-have-paid-55000-to-kill-cecil-lion/?intcmp=hplnws

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 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.

I agree with MGS. Hunting has it's place.

What this guy did was despicable.

 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...

 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.

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."

 Steve steveson wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 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.

I think the guides were equally to blame for the death of the lion. They took the money and let him do it.

 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.

 Skinnereal wrote:

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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I'm going to bold the important part. ENDANGERED SPECIES.

I think you need to re-read what was said then:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

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.

 kronk wrote:

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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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.

 streamdragon wrote:

 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.