Sounds like your panties are pinching your ######. If the $70000.00 U.S. Dollars saved even one Zimbabwean's life I have no issues with a lion being hunted either for Trophy or meat if that what they are into. Are you going to stand on your soap box and tell me any different. Please tell us here that you value an animals life more than an innocents life possibly a starving child and expose yourself for what you are a troll!!!
'What lion?' Zimbabweans ask, amid global Cecil circus
- Thread starter Suka
- Start date
Sounds like your panties are pinching your ######. If the $70000.00 U.S. Dollars saved even one Zimbabwean's life I have no issues with a lion being hunted either for Trophy or meat if that what they are into. Are you going to stand on your soap box and tell me any different. Please tell us here that you value an animals life more than an innocents life possibly a starving child and expose yourself for what you are a troll!!!
- Location
- AB foothills
Post count is irrelevant, but, when someone shows up and starts posting such as you did it seems very suspicious and gives us a very good idea what you are here for.
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
There's no such thing as "illegal trophy hunting". It's either hunting or it's poaching. No matter what type of hunting you do, the end result is the same for the animal, and just because someone hunts an animal for the trophy doesn't mean the meat somehow miraculously becomes inedible or gets wasted. I'm not sure why people always assume this.
Because there's no real news....
To break it down to the simplest detail, the only news is that there apparently was no lion quota, so a lion was poached. All the rest is just emotional reactions.
The lion may have got eaten by Robert Mugabe & his family some time in the future anyway. Read the article.....seems its as common as eating cows over here. LOL
http://munchies.vice.com/articles/robert-mugabe-wants-to-eat-a-lion-for-his-birthday
http://munchies.vice.com/articles/robert-mugabe-wants-to-eat-a-lion-for-his-birthday
Bittereinder
CGN Regular
- Location
- Ontario (GTA)
Thanks fair enough. Maybe "poaching for a trophy". I don't see the relevance about the meat anyway. It's nice if it gets eaten, but I'm ok with trapping for fur, hunting for pelts. Some animals are just a lot larger. As long as wildlife populations are not adversely affected, I don't see what the big deal is about how exactly the biomass gets recycled.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
I know it will probably be a waste of time, but I'll try to give you a quick enlightenment on the finer points and realities of trophy hunting.
A meat hunter hunts for any animal that can be legally taken under the criteria of his tag. Its better if its a young animal, but really, anything, young, old, male, female, or pregnant female, will do. Trophy hunting by contrast, is selective, and the hunter seeks out an individual animal, typically the oldest male of the species. Being old, the animal no longer contributes to the continuation of the species, and is often found alone, in the case of an old lion, or frequently in small groups of it's peers, as in the case of buffalo. Thus the removal of that animal is not a factor to the continuation of the species in that area.
The oldest animal didn't get old by being stupid or unlucky in life, he has great knowledge of his home range, and is far more difficult to hunt, thus the hunter's chance of success is diminished. But then being old is only part of the hunter's criteria. Trophy quality must make the animal desireable, and a discerning hunter will pass up many old males, after many time consuming and difficult stalks, in his search for the right one.
In nature, an old animal is not to be envied. His future holds only a lingering death through starvation, predation, or disease, the trophy male taken by a hunter has indeed won the lottery, and is awarded a comparatively quick and painless death. But whether from a hunter's bullet or from nature's cruelty, death is the final outcome. When the animal is taken, often the meat is used for bait, particularly if it is unsuitable for human consumption. Many animals, birds, and small organisms depend of the carcasses of dead animals in order to make a living; much is denied them when an animal is taken by a meat hunter. For these reasons and many others, trophy hunting therefore meets a higher standard than meat hunting.
Clearly you are not a meat hunter, and while the question of whether or not you are a shooter is irrelevant to the subject, I'd be surprised if you were. To answer your question concerning the consumption of lion meat, some folks consider it excellent fare, as is also the case with North American mountain lions, although personally I'm resistant to eat the meat of predators. Predators kill for pleasure. All of them, consider a weasel in a chicken coop, it will kill far more than it can make use of. Some people are predators, some aren't, which is something of an anomaly in the natural world, usually animals are predators or they are not. Perhaps it comes from too many generations of easy living, separated from the natural world. There is no shame in being a predator, but there is little glory in being a sheep.
Last edited:
I wish people would get as excited about the death of thousands of innocent civilians in attacks by all sides in the Middle East right now, never mind the systematic rape of girls and women in that conflict and in wars in Africa too.
One friggin' Lion. So what?
One friggin' Lion. So what?
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
The meat argument is generally brought about by hunters who won't admit they enjoy the various aspects of hunting. In order to explain hunting to others, the sole argument they can come up with is that they hunt "for the meat". Many non hunters tolerate meat hunters since they can then also justify their own consumption and purchase of goods derived from animal parts. After all, there's no need to kill an alligator to make a $2500 purse, but if someone else kills it for the meat, then it's OK to purchase.
I just don't understand why many think the meat from animals taken by 'trophy' hunters is somehow different than meat from animals shot by 'meat' hunters. If I shoot a moose with a 65" spread and get a head mount, is that somehow vial and disgusting compared to the guy who shoots it and leaves the head and antlers in the forest? To me,the latter is the wasteful individual.
That interpretation of trophy hunting was dreamed up by an idiot. I consider myself somewhat of a trophy hunter, and I do not kill for the pleasure of killing. When I hunt deer, I hold out for a mature buck with the most interesting antlers that I can find, and If I don't find one , I don't kill any deer that year. I also don't purchase my supplementary deer tags, which would allow me to kill two extra deer every year. So if I really hunted because I enjoy killing, why would I pass up the opportunity to kill those animals? Your definition is just as flawed as your argument, so perhaps you would be better off finding another forum to post your nonsense.
longbranch*
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Victoria,BC.
According to Wikepedia old Cecil was in his last year of natural life. Not that it matters, but if in fact he was so well known and lived within "baiting distance" to the edge of the park line , I'd say he did well. Will be interesting to hear the real facts about the incident ie: Mainly was it a legit outfitter with required permits etc? Was there a line in the sand or a fence? How can you bait a lion over distance ...here kitty,kitty or drag a chunk of meat?
All in all it sounds like a bad show for everyone involved, but not necessarily a crime. We shall see.
All in all it sounds like a bad show for everyone involved, but not necessarily a crime. We shall see.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
There is no meat or trophy from shooting a prairie dog, but thousands of hunters invest a ton of money in the gear to hunt varmints, and spend many long summer days in that pursuit. What is the motivation? Is it to save the farmer or rancher from the expense of extermination? No, its due to the satisfaction and enjoyment the hunter gets from making successful hits on small, distant, live targets with a rifle. They are killing for pleasure, and frankly there should be no shame for a predatory species to like killing. We've been taught that we kill in order to have hunted, rather than the reverse, so in terms of big game hunting, killing is not the primary motivation, but neither can we shrink from it. Killing is what we do.
No actually, no more to come...... zap..... Karpenter = ban hammer!
------------
NAA.
it's rather funny isn't it, not to mention the 2 or 3 guides that just got busted for poaching up here on our home turf and no one seams to care to the degree that they do about a lion, which in both cases someone paid big bucks into the local economies to be the trigger man
Sometimes much is in a name.
Firstly, to press the emotional button of the sheeple: name the animal.
(for emotional response: "Cecil" beats "...male lion...")
Secondly, the term "trophy hunter" is a poor descriptor -- a tiresome ball-and-chain on the hunting community -- wrongly implying that it's all about the trophy when for most, it's all about the hunt. The trophy only catalogs and commemorates the hunts.
If it were all about the trophy, an impressive mount could be purchased for a fraction of the cost of a hunt.
I know of at least one trophy hunter who's mounts are perpetually in storage while he is out perpetually hunting.
If there is to be consistency, then condemn every subsistence hunter with a set of antlers above the fireplace, representing Tommy's first deer or dad's big moose. Those are commemorative tokens taken from the animal... trophies.
If there is to be consistency, then condemn every varmint hunter who has expressed pleasure or satisfaction while clearing nuisance animals from farmland.
Why outrage over a single lion, but never fields and fields of gophers?
Ironically, the misunderstanding of "trophy hunter" often arises from people who impose their Gucci and Louis-Vuitton worldview on what the term must mean -- maybe it's no coincidence that Hollywood condemns the loudest -- the culture that derives happiness from material acquisition and judges success by the accumulation of material wealth -- seen through their filter, a "trophy hunter" is automatically derogatory, like a "trophy wife".
What if the hunting community began referring to "trophy hunters" as something else?
How powerful is a name?
* * * *
Thought experiment: I am crashing a dinner party for Stop Trophy Hunting, speaking to a young lady:
Her: "So what do you do?"
Me: "I'm a conservational apex hunter"
Her: "What... we're all against hunting! What exactly is that?"
Me: "We work with local government and local communities to cull the oldest and largest males in a group of animals, from time-to-time, and we invest into the local communities to ensure the preservation of those animals and their habitat.
Her: "Why do they need culling?"
Me: "Even well-past their peak breeding years, the old males continue to monopolize the females and dominate the younger males. By selectively culling the apex male -- with minimal stress, in his natural habitat -- we let the younger males contribute to the genetic diversity of the group.
Her: "That's fascinating. I've never heard of Conservational Apex Hunting before. It's so ecologically positive!
It must be difficult to euthanize such a majestic and beautiful animal though."
Me: "The difficult part is tracking him and getting close to him in his own terrain.
Some people have a natural inclination to hunt, maybe it's a longstanding evolutionary trait, but I thoroughly enjoy what I do.
Yes they are beautiful and majestic -- and because they represent the physical apex of the species in that region at that time, I will usually keep and some representational part of the animal -- antlers, horns or even a full mount. Also as a memorial of each expedition."
Her: "I'm okay with that, since they're already culled. I like your honesty. I am so relieved that you're not some kind of trophy hunter."
Me: **cough**
Her: Most guys around here talk about conservation but you are actually getting your elbows dirty doing something worthwhile... I like that.
Maybe we should get out of here and go somewhere a little more private....?
Firstly, to press the emotional button of the sheeple: name the animal.
(for emotional response: "Cecil" beats "...male lion...")
Secondly, the term "trophy hunter" is a poor descriptor -- a tiresome ball-and-chain on the hunting community -- wrongly implying that it's all about the trophy when for most, it's all about the hunt. The trophy only catalogs and commemorates the hunts.
If it were all about the trophy, an impressive mount could be purchased for a fraction of the cost of a hunt.
I know of at least one trophy hunter who's mounts are perpetually in storage while he is out perpetually hunting.
If there is to be consistency, then condemn every subsistence hunter with a set of antlers above the fireplace, representing Tommy's first deer or dad's big moose. Those are commemorative tokens taken from the animal... trophies.
If there is to be consistency, then condemn every varmint hunter who has expressed pleasure or satisfaction while clearing nuisance animals from farmland.
Why outrage over a single lion, but never fields and fields of gophers?
Ironically, the misunderstanding of "trophy hunter" often arises from people who impose their Gucci and Louis-Vuitton worldview on what the term must mean -- maybe it's no coincidence that Hollywood condemns the loudest -- the culture that derives happiness from material acquisition and judges success by the accumulation of material wealth -- seen through their filter, a "trophy hunter" is automatically derogatory, like a "trophy wife".
What if the hunting community began referring to "trophy hunters" as something else?
How powerful is a name?
* * * *
Thought experiment: I am crashing a dinner party for Stop Trophy Hunting, speaking to a young lady:
Her: "So what do you do?"
Me: "I'm a conservational apex hunter"
Her: "What... we're all against hunting! What exactly is that?"
Me: "We work with local government and local communities to cull the oldest and largest males in a group of animals, from time-to-time, and we invest into the local communities to ensure the preservation of those animals and their habitat.
Her: "Why do they need culling?"
Me: "Even well-past their peak breeding years, the old males continue to monopolize the females and dominate the younger males. By selectively culling the apex male -- with minimal stress, in his natural habitat -- we let the younger males contribute to the genetic diversity of the group.
Her: "That's fascinating. I've never heard of Conservational Apex Hunting before. It's so ecologically positive!
It must be difficult to euthanize such a majestic and beautiful animal though."
Me: "The difficult part is tracking him and getting close to him in his own terrain.
Some people have a natural inclination to hunt, maybe it's a longstanding evolutionary trait, but I thoroughly enjoy what I do.
Yes they are beautiful and majestic -- and because they represent the physical apex of the species in that region at that time, I will usually keep and some representational part of the animal -- antlers, horns or even a full mount. Also as a memorial of each expedition."
Her: "I'm okay with that, since they're already culled. I like your honesty. I am so relieved that you're not some kind of trophy hunter."
Me: **cough**
Her: Most guys around here talk about conservation but you are actually getting your elbows dirty doing something worthwhile... I like that.
Maybe we should get out of here and go somewhere a little more private....?
