Lions eating a live warthog: food for anti-hunting thought

Suka

Suka

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
65   0   0
Location
Happy on the farm, plan on leaving feet first.
Posting this as food for anti hunting thought. Likely a similar scene is being played out right this second within 20 miles of where you're sitting with coyotes or wolves. Now tell me again how cruel it is for me to hunt, striving for a clean kill.

Warning, Real nature, not for the squeamish. This is almost as bad as the time I saw 3 coyotes eating an antelope as it was being born.

Sorry, don't know how to embed liveleak.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c57_1393182699
 
Idiot said:
Well the one YOU'RE hunting doesn't NEED to die, the Lions can't help what they need to do to survive.
Click to expand...

This is the response I've recieved in the past when using natures uncaring cruelty as an example.
 
Your first mistake is trying to use reason and logic.

Edit:
... also it is rare that animals that are potential food for something else lie down and die peacefully in their old age. It is normal for them to be violently killed an eaten. So the one I'm hunting does in fact HAVE to die, my way is much kinder. Dammit I've been sucked into making YOUR mistake.
 
Last edited:
We often hit moose directly from behind on the track. We preferred when they went under the unit as it made hamburger out of them and an instantaneous death with no unnecessary suffering. When they did not go under and were punted off the track from behind we often broke their backs but did not kill them. Scavengers go for the anus, eyeballs, lips etc. first. It was a very ugly part of the job. The local section troops would be apprised of location but could not always get there first to finish them. Wolves are efficient at bringing an animal down but after that it gets ugly. Too much Walt Disney ( second only after Mutual of Omaha's wildlife show in wildlife violations during filming) conditioned many people to humanize wildlife. People are so isolated from the realities of real life in their little tidy urban settings. As too how to change this ??????.
 
Well, the argument, and its a correct one, is that you do not HAVE to hunt and kill to live. Nature does.

Your argument should not be to use nature, but rather to use slaughterhouses and the practices they use to kill live stock.
 
blasted_saber said:
Well, the argument, and its a correct one, is that you do not HAVE to hunt and kill to live. Nature does.

Your argument should not be to use nature, but rather to use slaughterhouses and the practices they use to kill live stock.
Click to expand...

Good point. I tend to say that as long as the hunting is managed properly it is not their choice to decide what I choose to do. It is not an effective argument as they are generally close minded to that fact. A very frustrating circumstance. We are presently in the minority which is also an uneasy circumstance. The spring bear hunt fiasco in Ontario should illustrate our point clearly that we can be an effective wildlife management tool which is also an economic benefit to an area. These types of facts fall on deaf ears.
 
This video is nothing compared to the one of the Baboon consuming the hindquarters of a baby Gazelle while it bleats in pain on every bite.

Show THAT video to any Bambi-loving anti-hunter and they'll wish for the swift, merciful death of your gun to be applied.
 
bearkilr said:
Nature isn't cruel, we just perceive it to be. It's not "nice" either.

The only animal which is intentionally cruel is man.
Click to expand...

silverfoxdj said:
Well said...
Click to expand...

I don't think it's well said, at all!

Is it not intentional that a predator goes and consumes the flesh of another animal while it writhes in pain?

It is being postulated that the only animal that is "intentionally cruel" are humans, and yet how do we know that the mindset of these intentionally cruel human beings who torture, rape, etc don't have a mindset on some levels exactly like an animal does? The assumption that is being made here is that these supposedly singularly intentionally cruel humans that are so deplorable are capable of empathy. Some humans are not so different from animals; and the last thing we should do is paint humans with a different brush simply because we are the most technologically advanced baboons. As a race we are quite diverse, and you only need to look at the various inhabitants of a single city to understand that.
 
Cat's commonly hunt for sport, a domestic cat's favorite toy is by far a live mouse. While they may not have the ability to conceive, "cruel", it wouldn't make a difference, I suspect. Or likely would it to any other predator.

It's also a misnomer to apply the word, "cruel" to a human hunter. I and my family need to eat as well. The only difference is that I care if my quarry(meat) suffers; other predators do not.
 
Every living thing eventually dies, somehow. Disease, starvation, cold, accidents, drowning or burning in natural disasters, or becoming the victim of a predator. For wild animals, the only predator that takes any care to kill carefully with the intent of making a quick kill with minimum suffering is man.
 
Some people would say that a slow lingering death from illness or old age are horrible... does that make life itself cruel and not worth enduring?
 
nullshine said:
I don't think it's well said, at all!

Is it not intentional that a predator goes and consumes the flesh of another animal while it writhes in pain?

It is being postulated that the only animal that is "intentionally cruel" are humans, and yet how do we know that the mindset of these intentionally cruel human beings who torture, rape, etc don't have a mindset on some levels exactly like an animal does? The assumption that is being made here is that these supposedly singularly intentionally cruel humans that are so deplorable are capable of empathy. Some humans are not so different from animals; and the last thing we should do is paint humans with a different brush simply because we are the most technologically advanced baboons. As a race we are quite diverse, and you only need to look at the various inhabitants of a single city to understand that.
Click to expand...

After watching an 800lb male grey seal rape a newborn pup and literally tear it to pieces, he didn't seem to even notice the remnants as he moved off. While you are right that Jeffery Dahmer likwly would have behaved the same, I'm happy to report that he is as far from the norm in humans as possible. My contention that humans stand alone in having ethics seems rooted in fact and from that its reasonable that we judge their behaviour differently- as hard as that feels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom