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

kildare.17hmr

steddyeddy wrote: »

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.

<br />
it seen a good video of hunting in Africa, the guys came across an elephant that had stepped on a landmine and couldn't walk and was obviously in pain its a common problem apparently. They shot it and rightly so. But as was already said if he had a licence to shoot the elephant there is no problem

kincsem

I don't understand the "Em yes we do" comment

but I hope you realise that it is large scale commercial poaching, not millionaire single trophy hunters, that is the reason why these animals are endangered. My guess is the commercial poaching must have high-level protection, either by financing, or removing gamepark security / funding.

When I was there poachers were caught and the evidence (large quantities of meat) was stored in the central police station in the capital. A few days later the evidence was missing and the case had to be dropped. Who had the power / influence to make the evidence disappear?

Irish Guitarist

I hate this attitude people have of "they're not endangered" or "there's plenty of them around". People used to think like that about numerous animals that are now extinct.

sink

I have no desire to hunt an animal, but I'm not opposed to it either. I'm not overly sympathetic to the plight of an individual wild animal. Nature itself is amoral and humans who are just another part of nature can't do anything to change that. Hunter and prey is the story of life, it is part of life's very essence and shaped every facet of every living creature through the process evolution by natural selection. While I am unconcerned about the plight of an individual animal, the survival and fitness of a species and an entire ecosystem matter greatly to me.

Having just watched the Louis Theroux documentary if find myself sympathising with the breeders and the hunting industry. They have managed to create an economic benefit and motivation to preserve and balance the survival of species and their natural environment that would otherwise be endangered by human encroachment through cultivation and industrialisation.

steddyeddy

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I hate this attitude people have of "they're not endangered" or "there's plenty of them around". People used to think like that about numerous animals that are now extinct.

They are one or two steps above endangered anyway.

steddyeddy

kincsem wrote: »

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.

Ill clarify where I am at aswell I am not saying hes a d"£k because hes a hunter im saying hes a d%^k because hes killing a animal categorised as threathened.

I have experience on the other end of the spectrum having previously worked in conservation in africa in the karisoke research centre and the chimpanzee conservation centre. Im sure you know from your time in africa that if you throw enough money around the place you can do pretty much anything regardless of the morality and this has caused massive problems. There is a massive problem with poaching in africa and as you say this is responsible for most cases of population decline. Money like in the case with the lion has been the major factor in poaching. Ivory and Rhino horn is worth a lot of money and the charcoal trade in africa is responsible for the most recent threats to the gorilla.

I came into conatct with many anti poaching groups who wouldnt look favourably on those who shoot animals classed as threathened. Just because the major reason for population decline isnt some rich guy looking for kicks doesnt mean its any better! He is still reducing the population of a threathened animal for no good reason.

steddyeddy

sink wrote: »

I have no desire to hunt an animal, but I'm not opposed to it either. I'm not overly sympathetic to the plight of an individual wild animal. Nature itself is amoral and humans who are just another part of nature can't do anything to change that. Hunter and prey is the story of life, it is part of life's very essence and shaped every facet of every living creature through the process evolution by natural selection. While I am unconcerned about the plight of an individual animal, the survival and fitness of a species and an entire ecosystem matter greatly to me.

Having just watched the Louis Theroux documentary if find myself sympathising with the breeders and the hunting industry. They have managed to create an economic benefit and motivation to preserve and balance the survival of species and their natural environment that would otherwise be endangered by human encroachment through cultivation and industrialisation.

People involved in gorilla conservation have simularly used gorilla tourisim to boost local economies.

steddyeddy

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

<br />
it seen a good video of hunting in Africa, the guys came across an elephant that had stepped on a landmine and couldn't walk and was obviously in pain its a common problem apparently. They shot it and rightly so. But as was already said if he had a licence to shoot the elephant there is no problem

If the elephant stepped on a landmine I waould have shot it myself. As regards the legality of the issue, luckily my moral compass isnt that attuned to africas laws. I can decide wheter its right or wrong for myself. A lot of what was done to endangered animals in africa was formerly legal.

SellingJuan

I saw a big section on this in the sunday times magazine a few months ago. It is sadistic and sick. Just as killing foxes is. What makes all this hunting worse is that there is no need for it. Your not going to eat it etc. There is a reason why fox hunting was banned in England.
But Ireland is so backwards they still allow it.
So what happens all the English people come over here to hunt foxes or do the "HUNT" on there F ing horses. Im not a hippie who lives and trees and eats mud but ffs these people are sick and I wouldnt dream of considering them human. They are rats in our society who hind behind there 22 rifle. Generally unfit and incapable of anything so they sit down and look through a scope and kill innocent animals. I myself have an air rifle and I wouldnt think about kiling birds or rabbits etc.
I just use it for targets,
So all in all logically them people are better of dead (in terms of our ecosystem)

steddyeddy

kincsem wrote: »

I don't understand the "Em yes we do" comment

Apologies I should have made that clearer. I meant that elephant populations are threathened and categorsied as such. That means that the population has been in decline.

but I hope you realise that it is large scale commercial poaching, not millionaire single trophy hunters, that is the reason why these animals are endangered. My guess is the commercial poaching must have high-level protection, either by financing, or removing gamepark security / funding.

Poaching has high level backers. The recent murder of a gorilla family in a national park was organised by the head of the park itself because of his connections with those in the illegal charcoal trade. The fact that this guy wasnt the biggest factor in these animals decline is irellavent because he is contributing to the problem for no good reason.

When I was there poachers were caught and the evidence (large quantities of meat) was stored in the central police station in the capital. A few days later the evidence was missing and the case had to be dropped. Who had the power / influence to make the evidence disappear?

Indeed poaching makes a lot of money for some corrupt government officials. The solution I was most familar with when dealing with gorilla poachers is to simply shoot them (not that I did it myself). It works and if not for this method theres a good chance the mountain gorrila would be extinct by now. The anti poaching patrol I was in contact with (the rai sikhs) would also practice a method called by the locals sikio Risasi-mlipuko which is another violent method that is a deterrenet. The world wildlife fund also puts pressure on local governments to ensure poaching is dealt with.

Einhard

Little Miss Lady wrote: »

I'm a vegetarian...

But asides from that there is a world of difference between killing animals to eat to stay alive compared to 'just for the fun of it'

Is there? How? As you somewhat demonstrate with your vegetarian status, and others fully demonstrate through veganism, there is no imperative to eat meat to stay alive. People can live healthy lives entirely on 100% meat-free diets, but most don't. And the simpe reason for their refusal to do so is pleasure. In the same way that this man derives pleasure from shooting animals, I and billions like me, derive pleasure from eating animals. They are killed to satisfy our tastes, not because they are essential for our wellbeing. We eat for fun in other words. Just as this man kshoots for fun. There is really no substantive difference between slaughtering an animal for food, and slaughtering an animal for the sake of it- both are done to satisfy the impulse for pleasure. To be consistent then, you'd have to agree that all meat eaters are just as wicked and evil as this man. Would you accept that contention? And if not, why not?

Little Miss Lady

Einhard wrote: »

Is there? How? As you somewhat demonstrate with your vegetarian status, and others fully demonstrate through veganism, there is no imperative to eat meat to stay alive. People can live healthy lives entirely on 100% meat-free diets, but most don't. And the simpe reason for their refusal to do so is pleasure. In the same way that this man derives pleasure from shooting animals, I and billions like me, derive pleasure from eating animals. They are killed to satisfy our tastes, not because they are essential for our wellbeing. We eat for fun in other words. Just as this man shoots for fun. There is really no substantive difference between slaughtering an animal for food, and slaughtering an animal for the sake of it- both are done to satisfy the impulse for pleasure. To be consistent then, you'd have to agree that all meat eaters are just as wicked and evil as this man. Would you accept that contention? And if not, why not?

You see where the difference lies between callous hunters and simple meat eaters is that hunting is done just for fun, mostly with animals who when dead, there is no purpose for their carcases other than to rot away..
This is what is so horrible about hunting..
For example, the Lion, in the original post, what good is his dead body to anyone??..
The pleasure of seeing an animal like that in it's natural habitat far out weighs any argument for enjoyment any hunter would say they get from killing it for no particular reason.
And in my opinion the same could be said for the likes of foxes, deer and rabbits etc..

Hunting is on a far different level than to having to kill animals for meat.
Vegetarianism isn't for everyone.
Some foods do not agree with all people so therefore there has to be other ways to get nutrition and yes, unfortunately, that means having to kill certain animals for food.
It doesn't mean I agree with it but it's no where near the same as hunting an animal just for sport..

I am sure you will argue over and over but the fact is and will remain that to take a living things life because it amuses you is just a bit disturbing for me to take in.

kildare.17hmr

SellingJuan wrote: »

I saw a big section on this in the sunday times magazine a few months ago. It is sadistic and sick. Just as killing foxes is. What makes all this hunting worse is that there is no need for it. Your not going to eat it etc. There is a reason why fox hunting was banned in England.
But Ireland is so backwards they still allow it.
So what happens all the English people come over here to hunt foxes or do the "HUNT" on there F ing horses. Im not a hippie who lives and trees and eats mud but ffs these people are sick and I wouldnt dream of considering them human. They are rats in our society who hind behind there 22 rifle. Generally unfit and incapable of anything so they sit down and look through a scope and kill innocent animals. I myself have an air rifle and I wouldnt think about kiling birds or rabbits etc.
I just use it for targets,
So all in all logically them people are better of dead (in terms of our ecosystem)

your taking hunting with hounds on horse back and putting it together with hunting with a firearm, they are completely different and just so its clear it was hunting with hounds that was banned in the uk, you can still go and shoot as many foxes as you like there as you can here. i hunt foxes, i am fit and very active, if i wasn't i couldn't do what i do in the places i do it, when i go hunting i cover 6 Miles or so sometimes of hilly ground, Most lads that stalk deer do it in the mountains which involves a **** load of hiking carrying a bag, gun and what ever else they might have and after the shot is taken they have to carry the deer which could be another 50kg back down!

carlybabe1

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

Ehhh, think ye just quoted your own point there. My question to you is, why? why should it have to be repeatedly anything?? Why do people assume they have the right to hunt another animal for 'sport'?? Its an ego boost for dickheads who have to prove thier manhood to themselves by getting the better of what they would call a 'dumb' animal...........please somebody tell me im not the only one to see the irony here

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

<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

Champion!!! So you obviously have no empathy, and as such are teaching your kids to have no empathy either.....well done you.
I teach my kids empathy, how else will they ever know how to treat people or how to earn respect or give respect.

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.

cool!! You have no problem hunting, but get offended at cursing..

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.

:eek::eek: I just dont want to know :(

kildare.17hmr

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Ehhh, think ye just quoted your own point there. My question to you is, why? why should it have to be repeatedly anything?? Why do people assume they have the right to hunt another animal for 'sport'?? Its an ego boost for dickheads who have to prove thier manhood to themselves by getting the better of what they would call a 'dumb' animal...........please somebody tell me im not the only one to see the irony here

i assume nothing, the people who make the rules decided its ok to shoot and hunt not me. im not trying to prove anything to anyone let alone myself, like i have already said i enjoy it simple as. I dont like to see an animal suffer and there is a big difference between me shooting an animal and it having a near instant death and an animal suffering.

champion!!! So you obviously have no empathy, and as such are teaching your kids to have no empathy either.....well done you.
I teach my kids empathy, how else will they ever know how to treat people or how to earn respect or give respect.

my kids are very respectful and know exactly how to treat people and animals. They have been to my friends farm and fed and played with lambs, fed calves and chickens, they also know that these animals are food, what is the difference?? Have Your kids ever been to a petting zoo and fed a lamb or a goat??

cool!! You have no problem hunting, but get offended at cursing.

not offended by the cursing at all but i think if he wants to make a point he can do it without name calling

Irish Guitarist

A while ago I heard of prizzly bears for the first time. It's the offspring of a grizzly bear and a polar bear. I searched Google images and soon found out that there has only ever been one photo of this animal taken. That photo was of a bunch of moronic Americans with stupid smug grins on their faces crouching next to a prizzly that they had just shot. These morons kill an incredibly rare animal like this and then feel proud of themselves. :mad:

sheesh

Do all you people really feel this strongly about hunting??

or is this a bit like the atheists threads?

garv123

sheesh wrote: »

Do all you people really feel this strongly about hunting??

or is this a bit like the atheists threads?

these threads come up alot in AH and A&PI

same thing. hunters are cruel bla bla.

Not every hunter is a trophy hunter.
the majority of hunters gut and skin what they shoot and bring it home and feed the family with it, such as deer, duck, pheasant and wood pigeon.
Dont see whats wrong with this when people have no problems eating chickens, pigs and cows who all live crappy lives.

so unless you're a vegetarian u cant complain about that kind of hunting.

steddyeddy

garv123 wrote: »

these threads come up alot in AH and A&PI

same thing. hunters are cruel bla bla.

Not every hunter is a trophy hunter.
the majority of hunters gut and skin what they shoot and bring it home and feed the family with it, such as deer, duck, pheasant and wood pigeon.
Dont see whats wrong with this when people have no problems eating chickens, pigs and cows who all live crappy lives.

so unless you're a vegetarian u cant complain about that kind of hunting.

I didnt personally slate him because hes a hunter or even because hes a trophy hunter I slated him because he targeted a species categorised as vunerable ie one step above indangered. Do you think its right to shoot an animal which is in steady decline.

kildare.17hmr

steddyeddy wrote: »

I didnt personally slate him because hes a hunter or even because hes a trophy hunter I slated him because he targeted a species categorised as vunerable ie one step above indangered. Do you think its right to shoot an animal which is in steady decline.

I think its right to shoot them in a managed environment like a game park as he did. The lions are kept at a sustainable level for the area they are in and so are not vunerabel in that area so i really dont see a problem. I do have a problem with poachers who shoot as much as they can to fill their pockets, we have the same problem in ireland with deer being poached in certain areas, lads shooting 10 deer a night filling their vans for no other reason than greed then cause problems for honest genuine hunters. You cannot class hunting in the same context as poaching they are completely different, A genuine hunter will do everything he can to maintain healthy population of the species he hunts

foxyboxer

I'm willing to bet that he has an extremely small willy.

ScumLord

Little Miss Lady wrote: »

Hunting any animal for sport is one of the scummiest things a human can do!
Most of these animals have done absolutely nothing to warrant being murdered.
Makes me Sick..

Little Miss Lady wrote: »

I still for the life of me cannot fathom why anyone would want to harm and kill an innocent animal.

What makes this lion so innocent? Lions murder lots of other animals you could say live by the sword die by the sword.

This is a controlled cull where the locals charge rich fools loads of money to pull the trigger on a lion they would probably have killed either way.

markesmith

It's good to see progress from the older Tories. Back in the day, they'd hunt the working class!

rounding tattenham Corner

People like him are actually helping endangered animals survive since the massive fees he would pay to go trophy hunting allows the reserve to be properly guarded and so keeping out poachers.

So the animals get a chance to breed and multiply and every so often they have a few killed, if it was up to poachers (the locals) they would kill every animal.

Samba

ScumLord wrote: »

What makes this lion so innocent? Lions murder lots of other animals you could say live by the sword die by the sword.

Not sure if you're serious?

ScumLord wrote: »

This is a controlled cull where the locals charge rich fools loads of money to pull the trigger on a lion they would probably have killed either way.

I'm sure everyone involved in the industry is full of claims of the sustainability of these hunts and how they benefit local populations, but where are their studies showing these results?

A lot of posters are under the illusion that these hunts are being carried out under very strict policies and guidelines, this is Africa we're talking about, where every guideline, law and policy has a price and if you can pay, it won't apply to you. It would be naive to think otherwise.

I'm not denying that these hunts can potentially benefit threatened species and local industry, but studies have shown thus far, they've had a negative effect due to the large numbers being killed.

My name is URL

Trophy Hunting Can Help African Conservation, Study Says

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070315-hunting-africa.html

ScumLord

Samba wrote: »

Not sure if you're serious?

Yes I am serious, what the hell is the lion innocent of? People seem to think that wild animals are like something out of Disney films and humans are some sort of fallen angles that should live on love and aren't really part of the natural world at all.

I'm sure everyone involved in the industry is full of claims of the sustainability of these hunts and how they benefit local populations, but where are their studies showing these results?

A lot of posters are under the illusion that these hunts are being carried out under very strict policies and guidelines, this is Africa we're talking about, where every guideline, law and policy has a price and if you can pay, it won't apply to you. It would be naive to think otherwise.

The reason I think even the most corrupt Africans will take this seriously is because of the money they can take in. I don't have the facts but I'd be surprised to hear it's any worse than a free for all where anyone can kill what they like.

Samba

My name is URL wrote: »

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070315-hunting-africa.html

'Trophy lion' hunts unsustainable

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8993000/8993557.stm

I don't disagree with it in principal, it can be beneficial, but the current rate is unsustainable, new changes to laws with regards to hunting are being implemented but there's
questions over the ability of the Government and officials to ensure compliance.

foxyboxer

ScumLord wrote: »

What makes this lion so innocent? Lions murder lots of other animals you could say live by the sword die by the sword.
.

This is exactly the sort of case I need to rebuild my shattered practice. I think I can get a hungry carnivore off with just manslaughter as I feel it's killing of the zebra was not pre-meditated. In fact the Lion himself told me so in a voice that sounded like James Earl Jones funnily enough.

RichieC

Shouldn't be called hunting when it involves a gun... it's no contest.