An American Dentist Killed Zimbabwe’s Famous Lion
- Thread starter HTSS_TR
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: 757guy
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
OK fine. He's legal. Doesn't mean we have to like it or give him a pass. Doesn't mean I should get my teeth cleaned there.
Its legal in some countries to stone women to death for infidelity.
Legal yea
Lions are to the people of Zimbabwe like black bears are to the people of Minnesota. Hundred of bears are taken legally each year in Minnesota.
What's the difference between taking deer, bears, lions, pheasants, moose, geese?
I have no obligation to explain anything to you. I don't like the guy. Most people in the world don't like him. If he has to take crud from people for the rest of his life, well that's just part of living in a free informed society.
Things are changing. The number of rednecks is far outnumbered by animal lovers and that disparity is only going to get larger as time progresses.
"Rednecks and animal lovers" What does this even mean?
Hunting is done in the name of conservation.
Originally Posted By: 757guy
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
OK fine. He's legal. Doesn't mean we have to like it or give him a pass. Doesn't mean I should get my teeth cleaned there.
Its legal in some countries to stone women to death for infidelity.
Legal yea
Lions are to the people of Zimbabwe like black bears are to the people of Minnesota. Hundred of bears are taken legally each year in Minnesota.
What's the difference between taking deer, bears, lions, pheasants, moose, geese?
I have no obligation to explain anything to you. I don't like the guy. Most people in the world don't like him. If he has to take crud from people for the rest of his life, well that's just part of living in a free informed society.
Things are changing. The number of rednecks is far outnumbered by animal lovers and that disparity is only going to get larger as time progresses.
"Rednecks and animal lovers" What does this even mean?
Hunting is done in the name of conservation.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Hunting is done in the name of conservation.
Hunting this lion is in the name of conservation? I typically get the impression that hunting is done in the name of bringing home a prize.
Hunting is done in the name of conservation.
Hunting this lion is in the name of conservation? I typically get the impression that hunting is done in the name of bringing home a prize.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Hunting is done in the name of conservation.
Hunting this lion is in the name of conservation? I typically get the impression that hunting is done in the name of bringing home a prize.
Absolutely.
Lions have no predators. If their population is left unattended, it will boom and hurt the species as well as others in the long run. Lots of lions running around means less food for them, they'd be more willing to do daring things to eat. (go after people, roam the more human populated areas etc.)
Don't forget the money the dentist brought into the local economy by purchasing the tag (or whatever it may be), paying for a guide, lodging and other traveling expenses.
As far as it being done to bring home a prize, yet it is. What is the problem with this? I sure hope you aren't against hunting for food at least..
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Hunting is done in the name of conservation.
Hunting this lion is in the name of conservation? I typically get the impression that hunting is done in the name of bringing home a prize.
Absolutely.
Lions have no predators. If their population is left unattended, it will boom and hurt the species as well as others in the long run. Lots of lions running around means less food for them, they'd be more willing to do daring things to eat. (go after people, roam the more human populated areas etc.)
Don't forget the money the dentist brought into the local economy by purchasing the tag (or whatever it may be), paying for a guide, lodging and other traveling expenses.
As far as it being done to bring home a prize, yet it is. What is the problem with this? I sure hope you aren't against hunting for food at least..
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Your post is the exact type of overreaction so typical in this entire thread. No where did I advocate exterminating all predators nor adopting Lions like kittens. I want people to use their common sense and wake up to the fact this was a savage, brutal, predator not some Disney character out of the Lion King. People are treating that Lion as something more than what it was. It is the Disney movie syndrome. They see that Lion almost like a character out of the Lion King. The same way people see Deer here in the US in a way influenced by the movie Bambi. Totally unrealistic. If you think I am wrong you haven't been yelled at by anti hunters accusing you of shooting "Bambi" or some other Disney character.
Those movies are not an accurate representation of wildlife. They make people see them as things they are not. Especially Lions. Lions are not majestic, noble, regal animals. They are brutal, vicious, killers that would take out a human without a second thought. People either forget that or just don't know it.
People are outraged over what happened due to moral objections to hunting period and also because they have elevated that Lion to something it is not. Their emotions are in play and not their brains. The objections and levels of vitriol go far beyond what actually happened.
Don't misunderstand I am 100% AGAINST poaching. Anyone in that incident who knowingly took place in luring that Lion out of a protected area into a legal area to harvest it should be prosecuted. That is where my indignation ends though. I don't have objections to legal hunting as so many do( and that is ultimately behind their anger )nor do I start talking about the poor Lion and how majestic they are and so on. The fact this particular Lion had a name given to it in the refuge is another reason people are elevating that Lion's importance. We wouldn't have heard much of anything about it if it was a different Lion. But oh boy, it was Cecil so the world is in an uproar. The fact it was Cecil makes it no more or less wrong and tragic.
I also know that given the chance that Lion would have taken out humans without pause just as the one in the link I provided did( and in the exact same preserve Cecil was in ). There ARE people who would be shocked if that happened. I can hear it now..." I can't believe Cecil did that...he was such a noble and peaceful animal". People these days have no clue about wildlife and how savage it can be. I was trying to add some perspective to peoples rants is all.
The hunter had all his paperwork in order and was legally hunting. I have seen no proof he was aware of any illegal acts and when he took the Lion he thought he was doing so legally. He is not going to be prosecuted. The guide it appears illegally lured the Lion out of the preserve to a place the hunter could take it yet there is no proof the hunter knew he was doing it. So this whole story is blown out of proportion and is very misleading( as is the norm with today's media manipulating the facts to suit their agendas ). Cecil has become more than just a Lion that was poached( which is awful - again don't misunderstand me and take my comments as apathy ). People have emotionalized this whole thing and it is out of control.
Where are the anti-hunting activists screaming "YOU KILLED BAMBI!"? I don't think anyone that nutty gets taken seriously, even if they went as far as protesting outside of Palmer's office. Yes, you will see plenty of stupid comments in online news stories...just like there are in every other online news story.
My point is, it doesn't matter that the lion is dangerous. Lions have existed with people for thousands of years (not in a Lion King kind of way)...it's only in the last 100 or fewer years that people nearly wiped out lion populations, which is why it's not a free for all anymore (for most people). It's not a moral battle between viscous lions and people. Just because lions are dangerous doesn't mean they don't need protecting to keep populations from simply disappearing, which is what was happening before conservation efforts started. We're talking about populations going from half a million to tens of thousands in a matter of maybe 50 years or less...that is a problem.
I'm sure some people are upset just because Cecil had a name, no doubt about it. It doesn't mean that questions shouldn't be raised about the ethics of baiting an animal out of a protected area, especially when that animal was being tracked for research. It doesn't make the whole issue invalid. I don't think anyone except the people who were there will ever know if Palmer was fully aware of what was going on or not.
And yes, the news took this and ran with it because it was way more juicy than the usual poaching story. That's the way the media works, nothing new there.
Your post is the exact type of overreaction so typical in this entire thread. No where did I advocate exterminating all predators nor adopting Lions like kittens. I want people to use their common sense and wake up to the fact this was a savage, brutal, predator not some Disney character out of the Lion King. People are treating that Lion as something more than what it was. It is the Disney movie syndrome. They see that Lion almost like a character out of the Lion King. The same way people see Deer here in the US in a way influenced by the movie Bambi. Totally unrealistic. If you think I am wrong you haven't been yelled at by anti hunters accusing you of shooting "Bambi" or some other Disney character.
Those movies are not an accurate representation of wildlife. They make people see them as things they are not. Especially Lions. Lions are not majestic, noble, regal animals. They are brutal, vicious, killers that would take out a human without a second thought. People either forget that or just don't know it.
People are outraged over what happened due to moral objections to hunting period and also because they have elevated that Lion to something it is not. Their emotions are in play and not their brains. The objections and levels of vitriol go far beyond what actually happened.
Don't misunderstand I am 100% AGAINST poaching. Anyone in that incident who knowingly took place in luring that Lion out of a protected area into a legal area to harvest it should be prosecuted. That is where my indignation ends though. I don't have objections to legal hunting as so many do( and that is ultimately behind their anger )nor do I start talking about the poor Lion and how majestic they are and so on. The fact this particular Lion had a name given to it in the refuge is another reason people are elevating that Lion's importance. We wouldn't have heard much of anything about it if it was a different Lion. But oh boy, it was Cecil so the world is in an uproar. The fact it was Cecil makes it no more or less wrong and tragic.
I also know that given the chance that Lion would have taken out humans without pause just as the one in the link I provided did( and in the exact same preserve Cecil was in ). There ARE people who would be shocked if that happened. I can hear it now..." I can't believe Cecil did that...he was such a noble and peaceful animal". People these days have no clue about wildlife and how savage it can be. I was trying to add some perspective to peoples rants is all.
The hunter had all his paperwork in order and was legally hunting. I have seen no proof he was aware of any illegal acts and when he took the Lion he thought he was doing so legally. He is not going to be prosecuted. The guide it appears illegally lured the Lion out of the preserve to a place the hunter could take it yet there is no proof the hunter knew he was doing it. So this whole story is blown out of proportion and is very misleading( as is the norm with today's media manipulating the facts to suit their agendas ). Cecil has become more than just a Lion that was poached( which is awful - again don't misunderstand me and take my comments as apathy ). People have emotionalized this whole thing and it is out of control.
Where are the anti-hunting activists screaming "YOU KILLED BAMBI!"? I don't think anyone that nutty gets taken seriously, even if they went as far as protesting outside of Palmer's office. Yes, you will see plenty of stupid comments in online news stories...just like there are in every other online news story.
My point is, it doesn't matter that the lion is dangerous. Lions have existed with people for thousands of years (not in a Lion King kind of way)...it's only in the last 100 or fewer years that people nearly wiped out lion populations, which is why it's not a free for all anymore (for most people). It's not a moral battle between viscous lions and people. Just because lions are dangerous doesn't mean they don't need protecting to keep populations from simply disappearing, which is what was happening before conservation efforts started. We're talking about populations going from half a million to tens of thousands in a matter of maybe 50 years or less...that is a problem.
I'm sure some people are upset just because Cecil had a name, no doubt about it. It doesn't mean that questions shouldn't be raised about the ethics of baiting an animal out of a protected area, especially when that animal was being tracked for research. It doesn't make the whole issue invalid. I don't think anyone except the people who were there will ever know if Palmer was fully aware of what was going on or not.
And yes, the news took this and ran with it because it was way more juicy than the usual poaching story. That's the way the media works, nothing new there.
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Your post is the exact type of overreaction so typical in this entire thread. No where did I advocate exterminating all predators nor adopting Lions like kittens. I want people to use their common sense and wake up to the fact this was a savage, brutal, predator not some Disney character out of the Lion King. People are treating that Lion as something more than what it was. It is the Disney movie syndrome. They see that Lion almost like a character out of the Lion King. The same way people see Deer here in the US in a way influenced by the movie Bambi. Totally unrealistic. If you think I am wrong you haven't been yelled at by anti hunters accusing you of shooting "Bambi" or some other Disney character.
Those movies are not an accurate representation of wildlife. They make people see them as things they are not. Especially Lions. Lions are not majestic, noble, regal animals. They are brutal, vicious, killers that would take out a human without a second thought. People either forget that or just don't know it.
People are outraged over what happened due to moral objections to hunting period and also because they have elevated that Lion to something it is not. Their emotions are in play and not their brains. The objections and levels of vitriol go far beyond what actually happened.
Don't misunderstand I am 100% AGAINST poaching. Anyone in that incident who knowingly took place in luring that Lion out of a protected area into a legal area to harvest it should be prosecuted. That is where my indignation ends though. I don't have objections to legal hunting as so many do( and that is ultimately behind their anger )nor do I start talking about the poor Lion and how majestic they are and so on. The fact this particular Lion had a name given to it in the refuge is another reason people are elevating that Lion's importance. We wouldn't have heard much of anything about it if it was a different Lion. But oh boy, it was Cecil so the world is in an uproar. The fact it was Cecil makes it no more or less wrong and tragic.
I also know that given the chance that Lion would have taken out humans without pause just as the one in the link I provided did( and in the exact same preserve Cecil was in ). There ARE people who would be shocked if that happened. I can hear it now..." I can't believe Cecil did that...he was such a noble and peaceful animal". People these days have no clue about wildlife and how savage it can be. I was trying to add some perspective to peoples rants is all.
The hunter had all his paperwork in order and was legally hunting. I have seen no proof he was aware of any illegal acts and when he took the Lion he thought he was doing so legally. He is not going to be prosecuted. The guide it appears illegally lured the Lion out of the preserve to a place the hunter could take it yet there is no proof the hunter knew he was doing it. So this whole story is blown out of proportion and is very misleading( as is the norm with today's media manipulating the facts to suit their agendas ). Cecil has become more than just a Lion that was poached( which is awful - again don't misunderstand me and take my comments as apathy ). People have emotionalized this whole thing and it is out of control.
Where are the anti-hunting activists screaming "YOU KILLED BAMBI!"? I don't think anyone that nutty gets taken seriously, even if they went as far as protesting outside of Palmer's office. Yes, you will see plenty of stupid comments in online news stories...just like there are in every other online news story.
My point is, it doesn't matter that the lion is dangerous. Lions have existed with people for thousands of years (not in a Lion King kind of way)...it's only in the last 100 or fewer years that people nearly wiped out lion populations, which is why it's not a free for all anymore (for most people). It's not a moral battle between viscous lions and people. Just because lions are dangerous doesn't mean they don't need protecting to keep populations from simply disappearing, which is what was happening before conservation efforts started. We're talking about populations going from half a million to tens of thousands in a matter of maybe 50 years or less...that is a problem.
I'm sure some people are upset just because Cecil had a name, no doubt about it. It doesn't mean that questions shouldn't be raised about the ethics of baiting an animal out of a protected area, especially when that animal was being tracked for research. It doesn't make the whole issue invalid. I don't think anyone except the people who were there will ever know if Palmer was fully aware of what was going on or not.
And yes, the news took this and ran with it because it was way more juicy than the usual poaching story. That's the way the media works, nothing new there.
I think we have more common ground on this than it appears. I think we are both trying to make points the other is not seeing clearly.
Oh, and I have been accosted by anti hunters more times than I care to recall. I have had the whole Bambi thing hurled at me many times while Deer hunting. I have had people holler and swear at me while pheasant hunting and waterfowl hunting. I even had one moron purposely fly his remote controlled air plane( small hobby type not one a person flies in )back and forth over my duck decoys to stop me from shooting anything on a marsh. I have seen it all. The anti's are insane.
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Your post is the exact type of overreaction so typical in this entire thread. No where did I advocate exterminating all predators nor adopting Lions like kittens. I want people to use their common sense and wake up to the fact this was a savage, brutal, predator not some Disney character out of the Lion King. People are treating that Lion as something more than what it was. It is the Disney movie syndrome. They see that Lion almost like a character out of the Lion King. The same way people see Deer here in the US in a way influenced by the movie Bambi. Totally unrealistic. If you think I am wrong you haven't been yelled at by anti hunters accusing you of shooting "Bambi" or some other Disney character.
Those movies are not an accurate representation of wildlife. They make people see them as things they are not. Especially Lions. Lions are not majestic, noble, regal animals. They are brutal, vicious, killers that would take out a human without a second thought. People either forget that or just don't know it.
People are outraged over what happened due to moral objections to hunting period and also because they have elevated that Lion to something it is not. Their emotions are in play and not their brains. The objections and levels of vitriol go far beyond what actually happened.
Don't misunderstand I am 100% AGAINST poaching. Anyone in that incident who knowingly took place in luring that Lion out of a protected area into a legal area to harvest it should be prosecuted. That is where my indignation ends though. I don't have objections to legal hunting as so many do( and that is ultimately behind their anger )nor do I start talking about the poor Lion and how majestic they are and so on. The fact this particular Lion had a name given to it in the refuge is another reason people are elevating that Lion's importance. We wouldn't have heard much of anything about it if it was a different Lion. But oh boy, it was Cecil so the world is in an uproar. The fact it was Cecil makes it no more or less wrong and tragic.
I also know that given the chance that Lion would have taken out humans without pause just as the one in the link I provided did( and in the exact same preserve Cecil was in ). There ARE people who would be shocked if that happened. I can hear it now..." I can't believe Cecil did that...he was such a noble and peaceful animal". People these days have no clue about wildlife and how savage it can be. I was trying to add some perspective to peoples rants is all.
The hunter had all his paperwork in order and was legally hunting. I have seen no proof he was aware of any illegal acts and when he took the Lion he thought he was doing so legally. He is not going to be prosecuted. The guide it appears illegally lured the Lion out of the preserve to a place the hunter could take it yet there is no proof the hunter knew he was doing it. So this whole story is blown out of proportion and is very misleading( as is the norm with today's media manipulating the facts to suit their agendas ). Cecil has become more than just a Lion that was poached( which is awful - again don't misunderstand me and take my comments as apathy ). People have emotionalized this whole thing and it is out of control.
Where are the anti-hunting activists screaming "YOU KILLED BAMBI!"? I don't think anyone that nutty gets taken seriously, even if they went as far as protesting outside of Palmer's office. Yes, you will see plenty of stupid comments in online news stories...just like there are in every other online news story.
My point is, it doesn't matter that the lion is dangerous. Lions have existed with people for thousands of years (not in a Lion King kind of way)...it's only in the last 100 or fewer years that people nearly wiped out lion populations, which is why it's not a free for all anymore (for most people). It's not a moral battle between viscous lions and people. Just because lions are dangerous doesn't mean they don't need protecting to keep populations from simply disappearing, which is what was happening before conservation efforts started. We're talking about populations going from half a million to tens of thousands in a matter of maybe 50 years or less...that is a problem.
I'm sure some people are upset just because Cecil had a name, no doubt about it. It doesn't mean that questions shouldn't be raised about the ethics of baiting an animal out of a protected area, especially when that animal was being tracked for research. It doesn't make the whole issue invalid. I don't think anyone except the people who were there will ever know if Palmer was fully aware of what was going on or not.
And yes, the news took this and ran with it because it was way more juicy than the usual poaching story. That's the way the media works, nothing new there.
I think we have more common ground on this than it appears. I think we are both trying to make points the other is not seeing clearly.
Oh, and I have been accosted by anti hunters more times than I care to recall. I have had the whole Bambi thing hurled at me many times while Deer hunting. I have had people holler and swear at me while pheasant hunting and waterfowl hunting. I even had one moron purposely fly his remote controlled air plane( small hobby type not one a person flies in )back and forth over my duck decoys to stop me from shooting anything on a marsh. I have seen it all. The anti's are insane.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: 757guy
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
OK fine. He's legal. Doesn't mean we have to like it or give him a pass. Doesn't mean I should get my teeth cleaned there.
Its legal in some countries to stone women to death for infidelity.
Legal yea
Lions are to the people of Zimbabwe like black bears are to the people of Minnesota. Hundred of bears are taken legally each year in Minnesota.
What's the difference between taking deer, bears, lions, pheasants, moose, geese?
I have no obligation to explain anything to you. I don't like the guy. Most people in the world don't like him. If he has to take crud from people for the rest of his life, well that's just part of living in a free informed society.
Things are changing. The number of rednecks is far outnumbered by animal lovers and that disparity is only going to get larger as time progresses.
What free and informed society are you talking about? A free and informed society knows that hunting is a valid and valuable conservation tool. Hunters are free to participate and non hunters are informed and know it is not a bad thing.
So you think all hunters are rednecks? Man you are one of the most intolerant people I have ever come across on an internet forum. No middle ground for you on anything. Those that agree with you are right and everyone else is scum.
Wow.
Originally Posted By: 757guy
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
OK fine. He's legal. Doesn't mean we have to like it or give him a pass. Doesn't mean I should get my teeth cleaned there.
Its legal in some countries to stone women to death for infidelity.
Legal yea
Lions are to the people of Zimbabwe like black bears are to the people of Minnesota. Hundred of bears are taken legally each year in Minnesota.
What's the difference between taking deer, bears, lions, pheasants, moose, geese?
I have no obligation to explain anything to you. I don't like the guy. Most people in the world don't like him. If he has to take crud from people for the rest of his life, well that's just part of living in a free informed society.
Things are changing. The number of rednecks is far outnumbered by animal lovers and that disparity is only going to get larger as time progresses.
What free and informed society are you talking about? A free and informed society knows that hunting is a valid and valuable conservation tool. Hunters are free to participate and non hunters are informed and know it is not a bad thing.
So you think all hunters are rednecks? Man you are one of the most intolerant people I have ever come across on an internet forum. No middle ground for you on anything. Those that agree with you are right and everyone else is scum.
Wow.
The guy is a jerk of the first order and he kills for sport. (The great white hunter even missed with his shot and had the guides follow the wounded animal for 40 hours so he could be put out of its misery). I hope someone deserving got the fir and meat as this jerk only wanted the head I suppose. Ed
That's the real issue, though. Being a jerk isn't illegal. If it were, well, the prisons would be busting at the seams more than they are now.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
"Rednecks and animal lovers" What does this even mean?
Hunting is done in the name of conservation.
Heck, even Bernie Sanders loves hunting. And it is a free but MISinformed society, as the so-called "news" was complete baloney...
"Rednecks and animal lovers" What does this even mean?
Hunting is done in the name of conservation.
Heck, even Bernie Sanders loves hunting. And it is a free but MISinformed society, as the so-called "news" was complete baloney...
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
In my view,I see this as if someone lured an animal trophy they wanted so bad out of the zoo,so they could get it on neutral grounds. From what I read,he saw it was tagged and therefore knew it was protected,and tried to get rid of the evidence. He's a very smart,intelligent,and educated guy who obviously knows right from wrong,legal from illegal. He's no dumb-[censored],that's for sure. If he honestly and sincerely knew he'd made a mistake,he would've reported the incident to the proper authorities instead of trying to cover it up,especially since from what I've also read that he's been in trouble for some kind've "poaching" or something before?
I'm not stating any of this as fact,it's only what I've read in the news.
I'm not stating any of this as fact,it's only what I've read in the news.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Hunting is done in the name of conservation.
Hunting this lion is in the name of conservation? I typically get the impression that hunting is done in the name of bringing home a prize.
As a hunter I can assure you that I do not hunt just to bring home a prize( it would be called a trophy when referring to hunted game ). Now, if you mean hunting Lions that would be for a trophy mount/photo certainly because Lion isn't exactly considered prime table fare( I wouldn't eat one ). I personally have no desire to hunt any kind of dangerous big game like that but I respect the rights of others to do so legally.
I also acknowledge that hunting Lions is a valuable conservation tool as the other member explained. It helps keep their numbers down which benefits their species as well as the game species they prey on. Have too many Lions and they decimate the game herds which leads to starvation and sickness for the Lions. Have too few Lions and the game species over populate, eat all their food, and then they starve and get sick. So keeping a healthy population of Lions( and I mean number of them )benefits their species and the game species. With no real predators( other Lions are their biggest natural threat )humans are the ideal tool to keep their populations at the optimum level.
You can apply this same use of conservation hunting here in the US for species like coyotes, wolves, and even normal game animals. The Snow Goose population for example has blown up so large that they are destroying their breeding grounds by over feeding. Snow geese will grub around for roots of grasses and other ground cover plants and it destroys the ecosystem where they do it in large numbers. They have destroyed countless areas with over feeding. Extended bag limits and even special spring seasons with no bag limits or shell number restrictions have been in place to try and reduce their numbers for their own good. Hunting is a viable, legit, and productive conservation tool used around the world.
When I do hunt( waterfowl, upland birds, small game, deer, etc... )I hunt for 3 main reasons.
1. Mainly I hunt waterfowl and upland birds and I do so for the dog work( well I did - sick now and don't get out much ). I love watching my dogs make retrieves and work cover to flush pheasants and grouse. Love it!
2. Just getting outside and being in the woods, fields, marshes, etc... in the fall and winter. Nothing better to me than a coastal saltmarsh during duck season or the fall fields chasing pheasant.
3. I enjoy eating the game I take. I love geese( Canada ), pheasant, and ruffed grouse especially. I do shoot some species that I only eat some of( mainly diver ducks species )or none of( sea ducks )BUT I know people who do enjoy those species so if I do harvest them they are eaten and used if I can't/don't like them. If I shoot a deer I can't eat it all before the next season comes around so I give a lot of it away including to food banks that accept wild game.
I have nothing but the utmost respect for the game I harvest and it never goes to waste. I will spend an entire day trying to chase down a crippled duck or pheasant. Where most would give up and say it is lost I will work at it with my dogs until it is brought to bag or is undeniably lost. I don't take losing birds lightly and will count lost birds as part of my bag limit. My Lab, Thunder, and I were written up in the local newspaper years back recounting one such hunt in which I worked very hard to finally bring a wounded bird to bag. I even took Thunder once out onto the marsh to help another hunter retrieve a bird when I was in a suit coming home from a funeral. I will do whatever it takes to bring downed game to hand.
Now, with all of that said, I do have some "trophies" mounted. I have 13 ducks mounted( all different milestones from my own 1st duck, dogs 1st and last retrieve, special birds, etc... ), a Canada goose mounted, a brant mounted( my dog retrieved it for a warden - shot by poachers "I" turned in - he gave it to me after he was done with it so I had it mounted so it wasn't just thrown out ), 2 pheasants, a turkey tail, a set of deer antlers( my 1st deer ), and a rainbow trout.
With all of those trophies mounted I can tell you with 100% sincerity that they were all eaten as well except for the brant and the trout. The brant had been kept by the warden in the freezer as evidence( uncleaned )too long for me to want to try and eat it. I never thought to ask about the trout meat when I went to pick it up. The deer and turkey mounts were done by me so I had the carcasses her to take the meat myself. All the ducks, geese, and pheasants were done by my taxidermist who saves me the meat. He gets the work done fast so the meat is still viable when it comes back. I do my best to make sure that I am not just shooting the animal to mount it and then waste the meat.
The only time I intentionally shoot anything I know that I/others wont eat( other than for pest control )is when I shoot mergansers( I target the common species vs hooded or red breasted )for dog training. They are absolutely horrible tasting and I generally pass on shooting them because of it. I know a few guys who eat them but mostly they are too strong and fishy and awful for people to eat( even my Brother's cats won't eat the meat ). I usually shot 4-6 a year and freeze them to use in the off season for dog training. I might shoot more or less depending on the dog's age and ability. A young dog who needs more work means I shoot more of them. An older dog who is fully trained and I only shoot a couple to use for special training as a treat for the dog( i.e. real bird vs training dummy ).
Mergansers are a very tough skinned bird and they stand up to thawing, freezing, thawing, freezing, etc... very well. You can use the same bird 4 or 5 times( if it gets wet - more if it stays dry )before it is done. I then take it out onto the marsh and leave it for the gulls, coons, foxes, and other wildlife. While this may seem like a waste I use them in place of pen reared domestic birds. If you hunt over dogs for birds( especially waterfowl but upland as well )at some point you use live( i.e. real )birds in training. I can shoot mergansers for free( common species is not endangered in any manner - too many really )that hold up really well. It works better than buying birds that need to be replaced more often. I can get away with 4-6 mergansers that might take me a dozen or more pen raised birds that aren't as tough.
Didn't mean for this to turn into a novel( a whole page responding to one sentence - forgive me getting carried away )but not all hunters are in it just for the prize. The vast majority do it for good reasons. As with anything the perception of those who don't do something( in this case hunt )gets skewed by the few bad apples and biased media reporting that makes us all look bad.
In closing this out I want to make one last point. I want to point out to the non hunters reading this that a HUNTER is someone who pursues and harvests wild game within the boundaries of the laws governing that pursuit and harvest and does so ethically. A POACHER harvests wild game outside of those laws and boundaries using unethical methods like spotlighting, baiting( when it is illegal - sometimes it is ok ), harvesting game on refuges, shooting species out of season or when there is no season, etc.... A poacher is not a hunter. One engages in the legal harvest of wild game and one engages in illegal harvesting. It is no coincidence that the anti hunting media and organizations( like PETA and the Humane Society )refer to poachers as hunters. It is done purposely to associate bad things with hunting. If they referred to hunters and poachers correctly it wouldn't serve their bias agenda. And no I am not paranoid. It is done purposely by them.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Hunting is done in the name of conservation.
Hunting this lion is in the name of conservation? I typically get the impression that hunting is done in the name of bringing home a prize.
As a hunter I can assure you that I do not hunt just to bring home a prize( it would be called a trophy when referring to hunted game ). Now, if you mean hunting Lions that would be for a trophy mount/photo certainly because Lion isn't exactly considered prime table fare( I wouldn't eat one ). I personally have no desire to hunt any kind of dangerous big game like that but I respect the rights of others to do so legally.
I also acknowledge that hunting Lions is a valuable conservation tool as the other member explained. It helps keep their numbers down which benefits their species as well as the game species they prey on. Have too many Lions and they decimate the game herds which leads to starvation and sickness for the Lions. Have too few Lions and the game species over populate, eat all their food, and then they starve and get sick. So keeping a healthy population of Lions( and I mean number of them )benefits their species and the game species. With no real predators( other Lions are their biggest natural threat )humans are the ideal tool to keep their populations at the optimum level.
You can apply this same use of conservation hunting here in the US for species like coyotes, wolves, and even normal game animals. The Snow Goose population for example has blown up so large that they are destroying their breeding grounds by over feeding. Snow geese will grub around for roots of grasses and other ground cover plants and it destroys the ecosystem where they do it in large numbers. They have destroyed countless areas with over feeding. Extended bag limits and even special spring seasons with no bag limits or shell number restrictions have been in place to try and reduce their numbers for their own good. Hunting is a viable, legit, and productive conservation tool used around the world.
When I do hunt( waterfowl, upland birds, small game, deer, etc... )I hunt for 3 main reasons.
1. Mainly I hunt waterfowl and upland birds and I do so for the dog work( well I did - sick now and don't get out much ). I love watching my dogs make retrieves and work cover to flush pheasants and grouse. Love it!
2. Just getting outside and being in the woods, fields, marshes, etc... in the fall and winter. Nothing better to me than a coastal saltmarsh during duck season or the fall fields chasing pheasant.
3. I enjoy eating the game I take. I love geese( Canada ), pheasant, and ruffed grouse especially. I do shoot some species that I only eat some of( mainly diver ducks species )or none of( sea ducks )BUT I know people who do enjoy those species so if I do harvest them they are eaten and used if I can't/don't like them. If I shoot a deer I can't eat it all before the next season comes around so I give a lot of it away including to food banks that accept wild game.
I have nothing but the utmost respect for the game I harvest and it never goes to waste. I will spend an entire day trying to chase down a crippled duck or pheasant. Where most would give up and say it is lost I will work at it with my dogs until it is brought to bag or is undeniably lost. I don't take losing birds lightly and will count lost birds as part of my bag limit. My Lab, Thunder, and I were written up in the local newspaper years back recounting one such hunt in which I worked very hard to finally bring a wounded bird to bag. I even took Thunder once out onto the marsh to help another hunter retrieve a bird when I was in a suit coming home from a funeral. I will do whatever it takes to bring downed game to hand.
Now, with all of that said, I do have some "trophies" mounted. I have 13 ducks mounted( all different milestones from my own 1st duck, dogs 1st and last retrieve, special birds, etc... ), a Canada goose mounted, a brant mounted( my dog retrieved it for a warden - shot by poachers "I" turned in - he gave it to me after he was done with it so I had it mounted so it wasn't just thrown out ), 2 pheasants, a turkey tail, a set of deer antlers( my 1st deer ), and a rainbow trout.
With all of those trophies mounted I can tell you with 100% sincerity that they were all eaten as well except for the brant and the trout. The brant had been kept by the warden in the freezer as evidence( uncleaned )too long for me to want to try and eat it. I never thought to ask about the trout meat when I went to pick it up. The deer and turkey mounts were done by me so I had the carcasses her to take the meat myself. All the ducks, geese, and pheasants were done by my taxidermist who saves me the meat. He gets the work done fast so the meat is still viable when it comes back. I do my best to make sure that I am not just shooting the animal to mount it and then waste the meat.
The only time I intentionally shoot anything I know that I/others wont eat( other than for pest control )is when I shoot mergansers( I target the common species vs hooded or red breasted )for dog training. They are absolutely horrible tasting and I generally pass on shooting them because of it. I know a few guys who eat them but mostly they are too strong and fishy and awful for people to eat( even my Brother's cats won't eat the meat ). I usually shot 4-6 a year and freeze them to use in the off season for dog training. I might shoot more or less depending on the dog's age and ability. A young dog who needs more work means I shoot more of them. An older dog who is fully trained and I only shoot a couple to use for special training as a treat for the dog( i.e. real bird vs training dummy ).
Mergansers are a very tough skinned bird and they stand up to thawing, freezing, thawing, freezing, etc... very well. You can use the same bird 4 or 5 times( if it gets wet - more if it stays dry )before it is done. I then take it out onto the marsh and leave it for the gulls, coons, foxes, and other wildlife. While this may seem like a waste I use them in place of pen reared domestic birds. If you hunt over dogs for birds( especially waterfowl but upland as well )at some point you use live( i.e. real )birds in training. I can shoot mergansers for free( common species is not endangered in any manner - too many really )that hold up really well. It works better than buying birds that need to be replaced more often. I can get away with 4-6 mergansers that might take me a dozen or more pen raised birds that aren't as tough.
Didn't mean for this to turn into a novel( a whole page responding to one sentence - forgive me getting carried away )but not all hunters are in it just for the prize. The vast majority do it for good reasons. As with anything the perception of those who don't do something( in this case hunt )gets skewed by the few bad apples and biased media reporting that makes us all look bad.
In closing this out I want to make one last point. I want to point out to the non hunters reading this that a HUNTER is someone who pursues and harvests wild game within the boundaries of the laws governing that pursuit and harvest and does so ethically. A POACHER harvests wild game outside of those laws and boundaries using unethical methods like spotlighting, baiting( when it is illegal - sometimes it is ok ), harvesting game on refuges, shooting species out of season or when there is no season, etc.... A poacher is not a hunter. One engages in the legal harvest of wild game and one engages in illegal harvesting. It is no coincidence that the anti hunting media and organizations( like PETA and the Humane Society )refer to poachers as hunters. It is done purposely to associate bad things with hunting. If they referred to hunters and poachers correctly it wouldn't serve their bias agenda. And no I am not paranoid. It is done purposely by them.
Originally Posted By: Eddie
The guy is a jerk of the first order and he kills for sport. (The great white hunter even missed with his shot and had the guides follow the wounded animal for 40 hours so he could be put out of its misery). I hope someone deserving got the fir and meat as this jerk only wanted the head I suppose. Ed
If you knew anything about hunting you would know that a clean one shot kill is not always possible. Especially when bow hunting. You can be the most ethical, upstanding, law abiding hunter there is and still miss a shot and wound an animal. Animals killed for human consumption don't always die instantly. Sadly, as much as we would ALL like to see it happen instantly and without pain, that is not reality.
Would you have felt better if they didn't follow the Lion to put it down and end it's suffering? To me that is the one ethical thing in that whole sad mess. The guide is the one to do it as well as they know the area( which someone from the US wouldn't ), are armed properly for it, and have the experience to follow a wounded Lion into the bushes to finish it. A wounded Lion is NOT something to mess with and is not something the dentist should have tried to do.
They made sure the animal was finished off so it didn't suffer which is a good thing. 40 hours is almost 2 days so they put real effort into it. A poacher just after a trophy mount would have moved on and looked for another animal by then.
I have never heard of Lion meat being edible? Maybe some African tribe would eat it but I don't know? I have no problem with a Lion being hunted, legally, for a mount as said above^^^ It is a valid conservation tool and actually helps the Lions and game animals when their numbers are kept at optimum levels.
The guy is a jerk of the first order and he kills for sport. (The great white hunter even missed with his shot and had the guides follow the wounded animal for 40 hours so he could be put out of its misery). I hope someone deserving got the fir and meat as this jerk only wanted the head I suppose. Ed
If you knew anything about hunting you would know that a clean one shot kill is not always possible. Especially when bow hunting. You can be the most ethical, upstanding, law abiding hunter there is and still miss a shot and wound an animal. Animals killed for human consumption don't always die instantly. Sadly, as much as we would ALL like to see it happen instantly and without pain, that is not reality.
Would you have felt better if they didn't follow the Lion to put it down and end it's suffering? To me that is the one ethical thing in that whole sad mess. The guide is the one to do it as well as they know the area( which someone from the US wouldn't ), are armed properly for it, and have the experience to follow a wounded Lion into the bushes to finish it. A wounded Lion is NOT something to mess with and is not something the dentist should have tried to do.
They made sure the animal was finished off so it didn't suffer which is a good thing. 40 hours is almost 2 days so they put real effort into it. A poacher just after a trophy mount would have moved on and looked for another animal by then.
I have never heard of Lion meat being edible? Maybe some African tribe would eat it but I don't know? I have no problem with a Lion being hunted, legally, for a mount as said above^^^ It is a valid conservation tool and actually helps the Lions and game animals when their numbers are kept at optimum levels.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
From what I read,he saw it was tagged and therefore knew it was protected,and tried to get rid of the evidence. He's a very smart,intelligent,and educated guy who obviously knows right from wrong,legal from illegal.
I wouldn't blame him if he distrusted due process in Zimbabwe. Then again, that would be among the last places I'd consider going hunting, for that reason alone.
From what I read,he saw it was tagged and therefore knew it was protected,and tried to get rid of the evidence. He's a very smart,intelligent,and educated guy who obviously knows right from wrong,legal from illegal.
I wouldn't blame him if he distrusted due process in Zimbabwe. Then again, that would be among the last places I'd consider going hunting, for that reason alone.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: Garak
Then again, that would be among the last places I'd consider going hunting, for that reason alone.
Man you got that right,same here!
Then again, that would be among the last places I'd consider going hunting, for that reason alone.
Man you got that right,same here!
Animals getting ready for slaughter get injured in the killing process too. The only difference is that they cant get away. I was raised on a farm and have first hand experience with this.
Raising animals for food isnt as clean as the anti hunter crowd likes to think.
Raising animals for food isnt as clean as the anti hunter crowd likes to think.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
From what I read,he saw it was tagged and therefore knew it was protected,and tried to get rid of the evidence. He's a very smart,intelligent,and educated guy who obviously knows right from wrong,legal from illegal.
I wouldn't blame him if he distrusted due process in Zimbabwe. Then again, that would be among the last places I'd consider going hunting, for that reason alone.
Agree with Garak. Well, assuming he really didn't know it had been illegally lured out of the refuge. I made a post in this thread many pages back talking about the ethical dilemma involved with illegal kills( accidental ones anyway ). You want to do the right thing and own up but you have to be prepared to be treated as if it was done purposely. You do not get credit for being honest. The book is thrown just as hard at you as it is if you did it intentionally and got caught.
Thousands upon thousands of dollars in fines, loss of gear( can include boats, cars, guns, etc... ), loss of hunting privileges, and even jail time if it is a big enough thing. And that is just here in the US. I would be scared to death if I made a mistake in another country like that.
If the dentist did not see the collar on the Lion when he shot at it I don't blame him for panicking when they finally finished it and he saw it. I would have as well. I find it very possible he didn't see the collar at 1st as it doesn't show up in his big mane in most every photo I have seen of him. You can sort of tell something is on his neck in some of them but you wouldn't realize it while hunting. Also, this is a black collar not a bright red or orange collar that is easily visible. Black color in large, thick, dark, Lion's mane = hard to see.
Here is a photo showing Cecil with his collar. As you can see it is dark and only shows because it has slid up his neck and pushed the hair out of the way...
Now here are 2 shots of Cecil in poses more akin to what you would see hunting. The collar is basically invisible. You would have to see the Lion up close in person or have it slid up to push the hair out of the way to see it. We know now that the Lion had a collar so we look closer and can see that something might be around the neck in these 2 pictures but if you didn't know and weren't purposely looking you would have no clue...
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
From what I read,he saw it was tagged and therefore knew it was protected,and tried to get rid of the evidence. He's a very smart,intelligent,and educated guy who obviously knows right from wrong,legal from illegal.
I wouldn't blame him if he distrusted due process in Zimbabwe. Then again, that would be among the last places I'd consider going hunting, for that reason alone.
Agree with Garak. Well, assuming he really didn't know it had been illegally lured out of the refuge. I made a post in this thread many pages back talking about the ethical dilemma involved with illegal kills( accidental ones anyway ). You want to do the right thing and own up but you have to be prepared to be treated as if it was done purposely. You do not get credit for being honest. The book is thrown just as hard at you as it is if you did it intentionally and got caught.
Thousands upon thousands of dollars in fines, loss of gear( can include boats, cars, guns, etc... ), loss of hunting privileges, and even jail time if it is a big enough thing. And that is just here in the US. I would be scared to death if I made a mistake in another country like that.
If the dentist did not see the collar on the Lion when he shot at it I don't blame him for panicking when they finally finished it and he saw it. I would have as well. I find it very possible he didn't see the collar at 1st as it doesn't show up in his big mane in most every photo I have seen of him. You can sort of tell something is on his neck in some of them but you wouldn't realize it while hunting. Also, this is a black collar not a bright red or orange collar that is easily visible. Black color in large, thick, dark, Lion's mane = hard to see.
Here is a photo showing Cecil with his collar. As you can see it is dark and only shows because it has slid up his neck and pushed the hair out of the way...
Now here are 2 shots of Cecil in poses more akin to what you would see hunting. The collar is basically invisible. You would have to see the Lion up close in person or have it slid up to push the hair out of the way to see it. We know now that the Lion had a collar so we look closer and can see that something might be around the neck in these 2 pictures but if you didn't know and weren't purposely looking you would have no clue...
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Animals getting ready for slaughter get injured in the killing process too. The only difference is that they cant get away. I was raised on a farm and have first hand experience with this.
Raising animals for food isnt as clean as the anti hunter crowd likes to think.
Excellent post and so true.
Animals getting ready for slaughter get injured in the killing process too. The only difference is that they cant get away. I was raised on a farm and have first hand experience with this.
Raising animals for food isnt as clean as the anti hunter crowd likes to think.
Excellent post and so true.
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
I think we have more common ground on this than it appears. I think we are both trying to make points the other is not seeing clearly.
Oh, and I have been accosted by anti hunters more times than I care to recall. I have had the whole Bambi thing hurled at me many times while Deer hunting. I have had people holler and swear at me while pheasant hunting and waterfowl hunting. I even had one moron purposely fly his remote controlled air plane( small hobby type not one a person flies in )back and forth over my duck decoys to stop me from shooting anything on a marsh. I have seen it all. The anti's are insane.
True, I am not against hunting itself. As with everything, it's a balance and the way you do it. And I won't deny at all that media outlets will work the story to get an uproar reaction. That's their goal. The media isn't interested in conservation, they are interested in a sensational story.
I think we have more common ground on this than it appears. I think we are both trying to make points the other is not seeing clearly.
Oh, and I have been accosted by anti hunters more times than I care to recall. I have had the whole Bambi thing hurled at me many times while Deer hunting. I have had people holler and swear at me while pheasant hunting and waterfowl hunting. I even had one moron purposely fly his remote controlled air plane( small hobby type not one a person flies in )back and forth over my duck decoys to stop me from shooting anything on a marsh. I have seen it all. The anti's are insane.
True, I am not against hunting itself. As with everything, it's a balance and the way you do it. And I won't deny at all that media outlets will work the story to get an uproar reaction. That's their goal. The media isn't interested in conservation, they are interested in a sensational story.
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Animals getting ready for slaughter get injured in the killing process too. The only difference is that they cant get away. I was raised on a farm and have first hand experience with this.
Raising animals for food isnt as clean as the anti hunter crowd likes to think.
The Bambi worshippers are pretty much ignorant, uninformed TV educated non thinkers. Meat is made in the store then put plastic wrapped trays.
Animals getting ready for slaughter get injured in the killing process too. The only difference is that they cant get away. I was raised on a farm and have first hand experience with this.
Raising animals for food isnt as clean as the anti hunter crowd likes to think.
The Bambi worshippers are pretty much ignorant, uninformed TV educated non thinkers. Meat is made in the store then put plastic wrapped trays.
- Status
