Trophy hunter shot while shooting lions

[Two23]

Hunting for pleasure is a manifestation of stunted mental growth, or worse.

I disagree.  I believe it's an inherited part of being human.  To a degree, it's hardwired into our make up, just as myy well fed cat still catches small varmints on occasion. It was eating protein rich meat that allowed our brains to grow back when we were swinging from trees in Africa.  I think it's an integral part of the culture you're from.  I grew up on a farm (still own it), and still live in a very rural state.  Even the women will go out and shoot a bird or two.  I am well educated (post grad degree), respected by those who know me, and still constantly seek to expand myself.  If you want to attempt to make a case that I'm somehow "stunted" because I go out a few times a year and shoot a duck or two, I suggest that shows an intolerance for those from a place and culture different from your own.


Kent in SD

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Exactly, Kent.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Slobodan, what do you mean by that comment?

Lost for thought,

Tom. I will explain when I find a bit more time. I write these one-liners from work.

[pegelli]

I disagree.  I believe it's an inherited part of being human.  To a degree, it's hardwired into our make up, just as myy well fed cat still catches small varmints on occasion. It was eating protein rich meat that allowed our brains to grow back when we were swinging from trees in Africa.  I think it's an integral part of the culture you're from.  I grew up on a farm (still own it), and still live in a very rural state.  Even the women will go out and shoot a bird or two.  I am well educated (post grad degree), respected by those who know me, and still constantly seek to expand myself.  If you want to attempt to make a case that I'm somehow "stunted" because I go out a few times a year and shoot a duck or two, I suggest that shows an intolerance for those from a place and culture different from your own.


Kent in SD

I agree, there's little harm in the type of hunting you describe here, even though I personally prefer photography over shooting with guns (or arching)

However I think there is a difference with "canned" hunting for trophies in Africa which I find more questionable, but if people want to do it it's up to them. If people get killed by accident in such an adventure that is obviously to be regretted, but no different than lots of other fatal accidents while being involved in different activities.

But the example where an endangered species is lured from a reserve by a food trail, wounded by an archer who then trusts his "asistants" to finish off the job with guns, but still poses with his trophy if he has killed it singlehandedly is far over the top for me (the luring, wounding, killing and posing)

[Peter McLennan]

I shot a squirrel once with a .22 when I was a kid.  Bugged me for days after.  That was enough for me.
Killing animals for fun is for me incomprehensible.

[Rob C]

I disagree.  I believe it's an inherited part of being human.  To a degree, it's hardwired into our make up, just as myy well fed cat still catches small varmints on occasion. It was eating protein rich meat that allowed our brains to grow back when we were swinging from trees in Africa.  I think it's an integral part of the culture you're from.  I grew up on a farm (still own it), and still live in a very rural state.  Even the women will go out and shoot a bird or two.  I am well educated (post grad degree), respected by those who know me, and still constantly seek to expand myself.  If you want to attempt to make a case that I'm somehow "stunted" because I go out a few times a year and shoot a duck or two, I suggest that shows an intolerance for those from a place and culture different from your own.


Kent in SD

Where's your problem? Shooting ducks to eat is obviously a zillion miles from shooting large mammals which are far different things to ducks, and if you are not going to put said large beasts into the pot, you deprive yourself of the only valid excuse there may be. Culling, at least in Scotland, is usually the preserve of skilled gamekeepers who know how and what to shoot humanely. Unsurprisingly, one seldom hears about them having shot one another. At least, by accident.


But beyond that, equating the wiring of present-day man with the hunter-for-survival of yesteryear is disingenuous in the extreme, as you probably know perfect well. We are all, on that basis, wired to rape our neighbour's wife and justifiably so (!) in order to perpetuate our own set of genes. Would you buy that, then? Hardly; it doesn't conveniently fit the paradigm you wish to half-justify for other ancient instincts.

A pet cat, as I know about from the gang of over thirty semi-wild ones we once found ourselves feeding, is not on the same emotionally developed level as even a dog. You can read something in a cat's eyes? I can imagine that I read something in the behaviour patterns of a horse I have recently become new best friends with, but in truth, anthropomorphism aside, I know it's really love for the carrots. Quoting cat behaviour as attempt to draw simile with human behaviour is silly. I hope you think we are further evolved than that!

Actually, the huntin' and fishin' ethos you allude to is not that foreign to my experience; family in Scotland were always fishing their local farmer-friend's stretch of river and shooting rabbit. But hey, they - and we - dined well when we visited. I never hit a thing with the .22 other than the ground or possibly an innocent bush or tree. And that was before I discovered my more compassionate side.

If dislike for people murdering animals with no intention of eating them means intolerance, yes, then I buy that with some small pride. I am as intolerant of people who throw shit out of the car as they drive, or those morons who chew gum and drop it on the pavement. I will not comment on the chewing of gum; I think that says all that need be said all by itself. Singapore had a great intolerance for that! :-)

Rob

[KLaban]

I shot a squirrel once with a .22 when I was a kid.  Bugged me for days after.  That was enough for me.
Killing animals for fun is for me incomprehensible.

As a kid influenced by peer pressure I shot a bird, I've never forgotten the guilt I felt after the event and still regret it now.

I simply cannot understand why anyone would want to kill such a magnificent beast as a lion. Just sick.

[Rob C]

As a kid influenced by peer pressure I shot a bird, I've never forgotten the guilt I felt after the event and still regret it now.

I simply cannot understand why anyone would want to kill such a magnificent beast as a lion. Just sick.

Ditto, but murder by catapult. I regret my skinned, dead birds but I was probably fourteen at the time... if that absolves me today of guilt on behalf of then.

:-(

[Robert Roaldi]

Where's your problem? Shooting ducks to eat is obviously a zillion miles from shooting large mammals which are far different things to ducks, and if you are not going to put said large beasts into the pot, you deprive yourself of the only valid excuse there may be. Culling, at least in Scotland, is usually the preserve of skilled gamekeepers who know how and what to shoot humanely. Unsurprisingly, one seldom hears about them having shot one another. At least, by accident.


But beyond that, equating the wiring of present-day man with the hunter-for-survival of yesteryear is disingenuous in the extreme, as you probably know perfect well. We are all, on that basis, wired to rape our neighbour's wife and justifiably so (!) in order to perpetuate our own set of genes. Would you buy that, then? Hardly; it doesn't conveniently fit the paradigm you wish to half-justify for other ancient instincts.

A pet cat, as I know about from the gang of over thirty semi-wild ones we once found ourselves feeding, is not on the same emotionally developed level as even a dog. You can read something in a cat's eyes? I can imagine that I read something in the behaviour patterns of a horse I have recently become new best friends with, but in truth, anthropomorphism aside, I know it's really love for the carrots. Quoting cat behaviour as attempt to draw simile with human behaviour is silly. I hope you think we are further evolved than that!

Actually, the huntin' and fishin' ethos you allude to is not that foreign to my experience; family in Scotland were always fishing their local farmer-friend's stretch of river and shooting rabbit. But hey, they - and we - dined well when we visited. I never hit a thing with the .22 other than the ground or possibly an innocent bush or tree. And that was before I discovered my more compassionate side.

If dislike for people murdering animals with no intention of eating them means intolerance, yes, then I buy that with some small pride. I am as intolerant of people who throw shit out of the car as they drive, or those morons who chew gum and drop it on the pavement. I will not comment on the chewing of gum; I think that says all that need be said all by itself. Singapore had a great intolerance for that! :-)

Rob

I'm with you 100% on the gum chewing thing.

[tom b]

I think this thread has wandered too far into gun control territory.

If you want to kill things, come to Australia.

We have feral pigs, horses, camels, foxes, dogs, cats, water buffaloes, rabbits and a few others. Plus you can have the chance to shoot a skippy or two or three or more.

Bye the way, if you are in America there is a good chance that you have given your dog/cat kangaroo meat at some time.

Enough said,

[Farmer]

I think this thread has wandered too far into gun control territory.

If you want to kill things, come to Australia.

We have feral pigs, horses, camels, foxes, dogs, cats, water buffaloes, rabbits and a few others. Plus you can have the chance to shoot a skippy or two or three or more.

Bye the way, if you are in America there is a good chance that you have given your dog/cat kangaroo meat at some time.

Enough said,

You can't shoot roos without a licence.  All native fauna is protected and it's a criminal offence to injure or kill without a licence or lawful excuse (generally threat to life).  I haven't checked, but I doubt you're allowed to hunt brumbies (wild horses) and you cannot hunt cats or dogs, even if suspected of being feral.  Rabbits, yes, pigs, yes.  Buffaloes?  Maybe, but mostly they're bred and you can't hunt them on private land without permission and not sure about on Crown land.

There is commercial hunting, of course, licenced for population control of certain species and there is recreational hunting of numerous introduced species.

[Tony Jay]

You can't shoot roos without a licence.  All native fauna is protected and it's a criminal offence to injure or kill without a licence or lawful excuse (generally threat to life).  I haven't checked, but I doubt you're allowed to hunt brumbies (wild horses) and you cannot hunt cats or dogs, even if suspected of being feral.  Rabbits, yes, pigs, yes.  Buffaloes?  Maybe, but mostly they're bred and you can't hunt them on private land without permission and not sure about on Crown land.

There is commercial hunting, of course, licenced for population control of certain species and there is recreational hunting of numerous introduced species.

Absolutely!
Rightly or wrongly it is not open slather here in Australia...
Australia is the the most regulated country on the planet - right down to the length of the grass in one's backyard.
Never get the impression that you can come here and just start blasting away at whatever takes your fancy.
As Phil has said nearly all wildlife is completely off limits for hunting.
Pest control in stock farming areas is allowed but is also strictly controlled with licenses and quota's.

Recreational hunting is only allowed for selected feral species and is also strictly controlled by permits and quotas.
Even owning the weapons is strictly regulated here.....

Tony Jay

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I am as intolerant of people who throw shit out of the car as they drive, or those morons who chew gum and drop it on the pavement...

I am annoyed by those people too (and many, many others, but I digress).

But... do you also stop them, harass them, beat the crap out of them? Or if the offender, shortly after throwing things out of the car, ends up in a car accident and dies, do you applaud and claim the society is better off without them? Because that is the parallel of what we are talking about in this thread.

[tom b]

Absolutely!
Rightly or wrongly it is not open slather here in Australia...
Australia is the the most regulated country on the planet - right down to the length of the grass in one's backyard.
Never get the impression that you can come here and just start blasting away at whatever takes your fancy.
As Phil has said nearly all wildlife is completely off limits for hunting.
Pest control in stock farming areas is allowed but is also strictly controlled with licenses and quota's.

Recreational hunting is only allowed for selected feral species and is also strictly controlled by permits and quotas.
Even owning the weapons is strictly regulated here.....

Tony Jay

I think you missed my point. This thread has wandered into gun control territory. That thread was locked along with a number of others. The last words seemed to be "NOTICE is served".

Cheers,

[Two23]

I agree, there's little harm in the type of hunting you describe here, even though I personally prefer photography over shooting with guns (or arching)

However I think there is a difference with "canned" hunting for trophies in Africa which I find more questionable, but if people want to do it it's up to them. If people get killed by accident in such an adventure that is obviously to be regretted, but no different than lots of other fatal accidents while being involved in different activities.

But the example where an endangered species is lured from a reserve by a food trail, wounded by an archer who then trusts his "asistants" to finish off the job with guns, but still poses with his trophy if he has killed it singlehandedly is far over the top for me (the luring, wounding, killing and posing)

We are in total agreement.


Kent in SD

[Two23]

Where's your problem? Shooting ducks to eat is obviously a zillion miles from shooting large mammals which are far different things to ducks....

Don't tell anybody, but I generally also shoot either an antelope (out West) or a deer (on my farm) every autumn.  And, I once shot an elk in one of our state parks.  (They sell licenses to control population and the proceeds stay with the park.)

I will also once again bring up the point that our culture/background makes a significant difference.  Anyone growing up on a farm quickly learns it's unwise to get emotionally attached to the animals you raise.


Kent in SD

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Tony's story makes perfect sense, which doesn't mean you have to agree with it. But if you don't agree the omen is on you to provide logical counter arguments because statements like these only undermine your own credibility.

It might make sense, but only partially.

My comment about Tony's post being "unbelievable nonsense" was  meant as a rhetorical device, to turn the table for his use of the same phrase to dismiss Kent's post without a shred of evidence or counterargument (apart from a straw man one). The fact that there are other ways to deal with wildlife, like game reserves, does not invalidate canned or sport hunting, as long as legitimate. That's a non sequitur argument.

Nothing in the above description of 'canned' hunting ever even classifies as the SPORT of hunting. Sport hunting requires the on-foot tracking and hunting of WILD animals in their own habitat that are free to act as they see fit. In Africa, it is not unknown for these actions to result in the death of the hunter.

Agreed.

BTW culling is not hunting.

Creating one's own definitions to suit the argument.

Fundamentally, the argument for hunting, sport or canned, as a necessary component of conservation is spurious, misinformed, and often downright disingenuous... Hunting, especially the 'canned' variety, mentioned in the OP runs hopelessly counter to any of the principles of conservation

Straw man. Who said that hunting, even the canned variety, has to abide by the principles of  conservation? There are other, legitimate reasons for both.

[Alan Klein]

Here we go again.

Well, we need a fix.  It's been awhile since they shut down the climate thread.

[tom b]

I thought I would stop, I know I should stop, I know I should stop, I know I should stop.

But does straw man = fake news. 

Cheers,

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... does straw man = fake news. 

No, straw man is a logical fallacy:

straw man
ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.:

The term comes from the military practicing bayonet use on straw men:



Of course, once in a real fight, with a real opponent, one would soon realize that it was much easier to defeat a straw man.