Lion killer internationally despised

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.

**Steve steveson**

Orlanth wrote:
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.

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.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
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

Ouze has the way of it.

**Grey Templar**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
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.

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.

**A Town Called Malus**

Grey Templar wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
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.

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.

**kronk**

Grey Templar wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
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.

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.

**Grey Templar**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
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.

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.

**Bullockist**

mega fauna? It still exists? and here i was thinking all the giant wombats died out 50,000 years ago....

**Grey Templar**

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.

**Frazzled**

kronk wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
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.

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.

**Grey Templar**

And for all their ferocity, and deadly tools in their arsenal, I am sure trampling isn't in their list of deadly weapons.

**BeAfraid**

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).

MB

**Mr. Burning**

While our crossbow expert dentis friend is safely back in the US. His two guides are in court in Zimbabwe.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33699346

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.

Makes his claims ring a bit hollow.

**Ketara**

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.

**hotsauceman1**

Frazzled wrote:
Would it be wrong to crowd fund a hitman?

Only if it is agent 47.

**Yodhrin**

Vaktathi wrote:

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.

**Steve steveson**

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.

**Grey Templar**

BeAfraid wrote:

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.

**BeAfraid**

Yodhrin wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:

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

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:
BeAfraid wrote:

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.

MB

**nkelsch**

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.

**Orlanth**

BeAfraid wrote:
Yodhrin wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:

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.

**Grey Templar**

Orlanth wrote:
it comes as a side effect of the gun culture Americans cultivate.

I seriously doubt that is the cause.

**Orlanth**

Grey Templar wrote:
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.

**Frazzled**

Yep most of the dodgy game hunters are American, it comes as a side effect of the gun culture Americans cultivate.

Thats what King George said!

**Grey Templar**

Orlanth wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
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.

**Howard A Treesong**

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.

**d-usa**

On the whole "endangered species" point:

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.

**Grey Templar**

^that exactly

**Xenomancers**

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.

**Grey Templar**

Xenomancers wrote:
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.

**Orlanth**

Frazzled wrote:
Yep most of the dodgy game hunters are American, it comes as a side effect of the gun culture Americans cultivate.

Thats what King George said!

Which one? I don't think any of them were sadistic slobs who got food on the ceiling. Neither was Teddy Roosevelt.