Who's the bigger beast? Helpless Lion killed by Tory Party UK Donor

kildare.17hmr

seamus wrote: »

"Look at me, I can fire a weapon at a creature from 200m away and kill it, I'm such a fncking legend".

Posing beside something you've killed with a gun is just telling the world how much of a coward you are.

Drop the guns and go fight it at 2m using a sword and shield or something, otherwise you're just a spineless pussy.

so you would prefer an animal to be repeatedly slashed and stabbed with a sword and suffer a long painful death rather than an instant death by a bullet?? Another stupid uneducated post

gargleblaster

"People" who kill for fun have no souls.

Raising animals in captivity and letting rich tourists come play with the baby lions, and then turning around and releasing those tame lions once they're grown so that brutal soulless excuses for humanity can shoot them for "fun" - with the justification that these soulless ****s are rich, and they'll give lots of money which can be used to continue this cycle is evidence that bird flu just needs to hurry the hell up and cull this herd.


And no, fishing is not killing for fun. Fish that is caught and kept is food. Fish that are released are released. That's an extremely weak attempt at rationalization.

kildare.17hmr

gargleblaster wrote: »

"People" who kill for fun have no souls. <br />
<br />
Raising animals in captivity and letting rich tourists come play with the baby lions, and then turning around and releasing those lions for brutal soulless excuses for humanity to shoot for "fun" - with the justification that these soulless ****s are rich, and they'll give lots of money which can be used to continue this cycle is evidence that bird flu just needs to hurry the hell up and cull this herd.<br />
<br />
<br />
And no, fishing is not killing for fun. Fish that is caught and kept is food. Fish that are released are released. That's an extremely weak attempt at rationalization.

<br />
luckily for me then i dont believe in religion or souls so that point means absolutely nothing to me.
I feed the ducks and bring my kids to do it too, ill shoot ducks too and we will all eat them. They also have a pet rabbit and we eat rabbit too.
There are culls done on the deer heard in the phoenix park to keep numbers under control and keep the heard in top condition, if this was not done they would all suffer. <br />
<br />
Fishing is the exact same as hunting if your not releasing your catch, alot of anglers go after thebig trophy fish too

gargleblaster

I'm not religious either. By 'soul' I mean the part of us that makes us more evolved than dung beetles. We are capable of emotion and reason. We can think, and therefore anyone who doesn't see why killing for fun is wrong must be missing that vital part of themselves.

As for trophy fishers, that is a good point. They are soulless ****s too. I had forgotten how many people would pay so that they could kill a beautiful animal for "fun", so they can pose with it like a ****ing moron, thinking it means anything but that they are morons.

Culling a herd is not killing for fun. I wish I didn't have to point that out.

kildare.17hmr

and apparently your missing the vital part of you that helps you put a point across like an adult without cursing and name calling like a child

do you think the person pulling the trigger would be doing it if they did not enjoy it?

titan18

I find it interesting that a lot of people make the point about it being used to control numbers and make some money whilst doing that. Considering the human population is out of control and will continue increasing, are ye saying that it's ok for human hunting to happen, and if not, why is it ok for hunting of animals?

seamus

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

so you would prefer an animal to be repeatedly slashed and stabbed with a sword and suffer a long painful death rather than an instant death by a bullet?? Another stupid uneducated post

I would prefer that the animal wasn't killed at all.

But if someone must get their jollies through killing an animal, they should at least have decency to make it a fair fight.

I'd respect them then.

gargleblaster

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

and apparently your missing the vital part of you that helps you put a point across like an adult without cursing and name calling like a child

do you think the person pulling the trigger would be doing it if they did not enjoy it?

:pac: It's AH, I take advantage of the relaxed rules by venting about these soulless ****ing assholes. I'm so very sorry you are offended by the childishness of my calling these assholes morons. It is my opinion that they are. Sue me. :rolleyes:

Not sure what you're trying to say with your question. I guess the answer is no. They would not be out killing animals for fun if they didn't think it was fun. Would you mind explaining whatever point that question was supposed to allude to? Thanks.

Oh I see now, you're trying to say that those people who cull herds are doing it for fun. Weak.

kildare.17hmr

titan18 wrote: »

I find it interesting that a lot of people make the point about it being used to control numbers and make some money whilst doing that. Considering the human population is out of control and will continue increasing, are ye saying that it's ok for human hunting to happen, and if not, why is it ok for hunting of animals?

you cant compare killing humans to killing animals. Seriously

kildare.17hmr

so you Cant have a serious conversation without name calling in ah no? you said a cull was not for fun and that is what my question was about.

Shane L

Killing and hunting is a necessary evil at times. If more people knew how the meat on their table was killed it would be a good start before they began preaching about how sadistic and evil hunters are. I don't agree with the killing of this lion btw but this money is going towards the preservation of these animals.

titan18

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

you cant compare killing humans to killing animals. Seriously

Why?

gargleblaster

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

so you Cant have a serious conversation without name calling in ah no? you said a cull was not for fun and that is what my question was about.

What gives you the idea that I can't have a serious conversation without namecalling? My statement that in this particular forum I take advantage of the relaxed rules to vent implies that in other forums I do not do this. I suppose I shouldn't expect that implication to be obvious. Mea culpa.

Anyway yes, since you seem to be interested and it's not obvious to you already, yes I am quite capable of having a serious conversation without calling morons morons. But it's AH and I ****ing loathe sport hunters so I will continue to call them morons. Deal with it ok? It's not germane to the discussion anyway so please just let it go.

When someone says they're doing something "for fun" that often implies it's for no other reason. Culling actually does have a reason beyond just allowing those doing the shooting to get their rocks off by killing things, if that's the kind of person they even are.

Samba

For those arguing about sustainability

I'm curious to know what becomes of the animal once it's shot?

I ask because my bro went on a spear fishing trip to Senegal, everything fished had to be given to the local markets. I wonder is there any such agreement in place with these big game animals, though I suspect the killers are allowed to bring home a trophy, which shouldn't be allowed.

I had to have a chuckle about his comment "I've felt threatened by some of these animals".

Sure sometimes the animals bite back but for the most part they never stand a chance.

kincsem

I wouldn't hunt for a few reasons. I don't like killing, and I don't have the money. It could cost tens of thousands of dollars for a week's hunting. And hunting is controlled with prices for each species. Only species with healthy populations are hunted / culled.

I think the word hunting suggests that the shooter crawls around and tracks the animals. More likely the are driven in four-wheel drive vehicles to the animals. My guess is they shoot the more dangerous animals from the vehicle, or when standing close to them, and possible supported by other guns.

Antelope tend to stand sideways on to you when they see you which makes them an easy target. Very few animals would present a challenge to a shooter.

More surprising to me was learning that there are wildlife parks in the USA stocked with African animals, where US citizens hunt. The park owners are called "outfitters". I think that means they supply the animal you want then bring you out to shoot it. This situation does not make sense to me. I can understand hunting in Africa where the large fees support the salaries of wildlife rangers, and where some species need to be culled to restore balance.

kincsem

kincsem wrote: »

More surprising to me was learning that there are wildlife parks in the USA stocked with African animals, where US citizens hunt. The park owners are called "outfitters".

http://www.777ranch.com/

Son Of A Vidic

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

so you would prefer an animal to be repeatedly slashed and stabbed with a sword and suffer a long painful death rather than an instant death by a bullet?? Another stupid uneducated post

You totally missed the point Seamus was making. I would have suggested maybe Hand to Paw combat, now of course I would want the Lion to win. But the point is to highlight the spineless and chicken shít manner in which big game animals are killed. Then these wánkbags pose beside the corpse, fúcking wimps.

kildare.17hmr

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

You totally missed the point Seamus was making. I would have suggested maybe Hand to Paw combat, now of course I would want the Lion to win. But the point is to highlight the spineless and chicken shít manner in which big game animals are killed. Then these wánkbags pose beside the corpse, fúcking wimps.

i think you are missing the point about hunting and what exactly it entails. Finding, Stalking, observing then taking the shot. Hunting is a sports and alot of skill and practice is required, its not just a case of pick up a rifle and shoot the first thing you see. If any of you took the time to try it you would see that,

Im sure you could pay to do it the way you and seamus are saying if you were crazy enough and had deep enough pockets!

steddyeddy

Well I have to say theres a point to be made here thats overlooked the african lion isnt endangered but it is a threatened animal and categorised as vulnerable. Lion populations have been steadily declining over the last century and the people thinking its alright to shoot them for sport are the same type of people who hunted the Barbary lion to extinction. Comparing their hunting to shooting crows and fishing is a completely different ball game.

You cannot have a "its only a lion" aproach in a country where rhinos, elephants and gorillas are dwindling in numbers thanks to people who place no value on their life.

kincsem

My impression is the decline in numbers in Africa is more to do with habitat taken for farming, and poaching by local population for the table. Poaching can be on a commercial scale, a bit like a beef farmer who gets his stock free.

Many people do not realise that Africa does not have much wildlife of the type seen in zoos. Most of the wildlife is in game parks which might be from 50 square miles to a few hundred square miles in area, probably much less that five percent of the land area.

Wildlife keeps close to water for obvious reasons, and the only water year round is the few big rivers. Large parts of the continent have a six months dry season (nil rain), and a six months wet season.

steddyeddy

The other point I should make is that this guy is also pictured standing next to a pair of elephant tusks while smiling. Elephant poaching is a huge problem in Africa and this and this guy is not part of the solution. Anyone who thinks hes a decent guy havent a clue.

steddyeddy

kincsem wrote: »

My impression is the decline in numbers in Africa is more to do with habitat taken for farming, and poaching by local population for the table. Poaching can be on a commercial scale, a bit like a beef farmer who gets his stock free.

Many people do not realise that Africa does not have much wildlife of the type seen in zoos. Most of the wildlife is in game parks which might be from 50 square miles to a few hundred square miles in area, probably much less that five percent of the land area.

Wildlife keeps close to water for obvious reasons, and the only water year round is the few big rivers. Large parts of the continent have a six months dry season (nil rain), and a six months wet season.

Sure the reduction in Gorrila populations was mainly due to being hunted bushmeat, poaching, use in the pet trade and more recently the charcoal trade but still it wouldnt help if there was a hunter with more money than sense shooting them for fun would it? This guy is working against the hard work of many people working in conservation. Theres no excuse.

kincsem

steddyeddy wrote: »

The other point I should make is that this guy is also pictured standing next to a pair of elephant tusks while smiling. Elephant poaching is a huge problem in Africa and this and this guy is not part of the solution. Anyone who thinks hes a decent guy havent a clue.

You need more information before you judge. Some old elephant have worn their teeth to nothing and are starving. Shooting them puts them out of their misery.

steddyeddy

kincsem wrote: »

You need more information before you judge. Some old elephant have worn their teeth to nothing and are starving. Shooting them puts them out of their misery.

He isnt the type of guy who shoots elephants, lions or whatever to put them out of their misery. Secondly those tusks dont belong to an old individual, usually an elephant would have to be aproaching sixty to wear their teeth to a significant degree and shooting them to put them out of their misery is just one solution which is dying out. Elephants like us are valued into old age as grandmothers and careers so and elephant in its old age can still contribute towards the health of the species as a whole. The last point I would make is that people die every year protecting animals from paochers and this guy doesnt help.

kincsem

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sure the reduction in Gorrila populations was mainly due to being hunted bushmeat, poaching, use in the pet trade and more recently the charcoal trade but still it wouldnt help if there was a hunter with more money than sense shooting them for fun would it? This guy is working against the hard work of many people working in conservation. Theres no excuse.

Most of the "hunters" are millionaires / billionaires who think they are hunting. They shoot in a controlled game park and the animals they shoot are surplus (I guess).

I have to come clean here. I have been in a half-dozen game parks in Africa on photo or walking safaris. I have met hunters. My life was saved by a walking safari guide (now a hunter) when an elephant charged me from about ten yards. We were eating dessert outside in the dark, he saw the charge, grabbed an empty aluminium garden seat, and threw it in the elephants face.

One morning in a game park which had about 30,000 antelope. I saw a flat-bed pickup truck driving into a herd and chasing them until one dropped from exhaustion, they clubbed it, threw it in the back, and started again.

Why didn't we stop the poaching? They may have had guns, they may have had political protection, they may have paid off the police / park rangers, the ground was flat and there was a few hundred yards of one foot deep water between our position and their poaching spot. That game park had about 350,000 of that species of antelope about twenty years before that time. The fall in numbers was not due to wealthy hunters.

Most of the posters on here just don't know enough.

kildare.17hmr

steddyeddy wrote: »

He isnt the type of guy who shoots elephants, lions or whatever to put them out of their misery. Secondly those tusks dont belong to an old individual, usually an elephant would have to be aproaching sixty to wear their teeth to a significant degree and shooting them to put them out of their misery is just one solution which is dying out. Elephants like us are valued into old age as grandmothers and careers so and elephant in its old age can still contribute towards the health of the species as a whole. The last point I would make is that people die every year protecting animals from paochers and this guy doesnt help.

how would you knowhewouldnt be the type to shoot an animal to put it out of its misery? Every hunter i no would shoot kill an animal to stop it suffering and i no many who have

kincsem

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sure the reduction in Gorrila populations was mainly due to being hunted bushmeat, poaching, use in the pet trade and more recently the charcoal trade but still it wouldnt help if there was a hunter with more money than sense shooting them for fun would it? This guy is working against the hard work of many people working in conservation. Theres no excuse.

I'm sure you are wrong. Neither of us know the details of that elephant population. If he had a licence I would say the population is healthy.

This is the problem
From the late 1970s through the 1980s commercial poachers shot nearly 100,000—about 93 percent—of the elephants in North Luangwa National Park in northern Zambia. The majestic elephants were killed and sold for meat, skin and ivory. The government was powerless to stop the organized poachers.

marcsignal

Jake1 wrote: »

Sickens me that people are allowd to shoot such magnificent animals for 'fun'

dirty bastard.:mad:

couldn't agree more.

This would have been a much nicer picture....

steddyeddy

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

how would you knowhewouldnt be the type to shoot an animal to put it out of its misery? Every hunter i no would shoot kill an animal to stop it suffering and i no many who have

Like I said those tusks do not belong to an old individual, shooting elephants because of old age is dying out and the fact that the guy shoot a creature which is categorised as vunerable.

steddyeddy

kincsem wrote: »

I'm sure you are wrong. Neither of us know the details of that elephant population. If he had a licence I would say the population is healthy.

This is the problem
From the late 1970s through the 1980s commercial poachers shot nearly 100,000—about 93 percent—of the elephants in North Luangwa National Park in northern Zambia. The majestic elephants were killed and sold for meat, skin and ivory. The government was powerless to stop the organized poachers.

Em yes we do the african elephant is also classed as threathened. I am not saying hes doing anything illegal but I am saying hes a douche.