Sport, culling, controlling numbers, land pressure, killing livestock, economics.
All done by humans for the benefit of humans, because our idiotic, unsustainable and wholly self-centred species has been a total scourge on this planet.
We are the ones that want culling. Disgusting and shameful.

Chances are she didn’t actually take the shot which killed it. I spent 9 months living on a safari park [gap year], which included hunting trips for their customers. The head ranger boasted how he earned more in 3 weeks as a “professional hunter” (i.e big dollar customers) than he would earn in 3 years as a head ranger.

He was there to “assist” the customer (hunter) complete the kill – i.e if the customer fires a bad shot, and wounds the animal (which happened most of the time, sadly).

So, its Ok to gain personal gratification from cutting it up, cooking it, eating it – and even wearing it (nice leather belt/shoes anyone?) but not from squaring the circle?

Ok show me where I said that? Extrapolating what you think I said to try and trip me up doesn’t work. My circle is quite firmly square. However, I am able to discern a subtle difference between accepting that the human being has evolved as an omnivore and therefore eats meat as part of it’s diet – killing for food, as opposed to paying to kill for fun.

killing for food, as opposed to paying to kill for fun.

Strange argument – its OK to shoot an animal in the face if you’re doing it for the right reasons, as if the moral justification of why you’re murdering a cow makes any difference to the cow?

So, it would be OK to kill start killing people if I did it for a reason that fits in with your moral compass?

Oh, you’re going to shoot me to eat me? that makes it OK then, I mean, wouldn’t want you to be doing it just for shits and giggles!

Awesome bit of selective quoting, only bettered by your great leaps of unsupported logic.

Well, I call it logic but I doubt it would pass muster in any true evaluation of logic.

Please show me where I have said that I support the killing of anything, man or beast. You said if I were to criticise that I should square the circle, I did 27 years ago.

What I did say is that I am able to discern a difference in killing as a form of entertainment and doing so for survival. Just as the lion in the picture would have been able to do before someone paid to get their jollies killing it.

The lion killed to survive, it did not kill for fun or, if it did derive any pleasure, it did at least have the good grace to eat what it had killed.

Vegans supporting big game hunting, very weird.

I don’t see how its any different from someone having their picture holding a brace of pheasants, its just certain animals are held in more affection than others.

These reserves are specifically set up for hunting and the animals on them are bred in order to charge people with more money than sense to go and shoot them. Pretty distasteful but no different to organised shoots for pheasants, grouse, deer, etc.

What I did say is that I am able to discern a difference in killing as a form of entertainment and doing so for survival.

No, you didn’t mention survival – you mentioned killing for food, Humans can survive perfectly well without it – nobody living south of the 80th parallell really needs to eat meat for survival, they do it for convenience and enjoyment (and in fact, the arguments for both human health and the environment for them not eating it are extraordinarily strong)

Big hitters be hitting big.

Pigface – Member

Vegans supporting big game hunting, very weird.

?????

nobody living south of the 80th parallell really needs to eat meat for survival

Absolutely.
I believe Kayak24 summed it up perfectly.

can you explain how the purpose of satisfying a persons unnecessary desire to eat meat is more important than the purpose of another persons unnecessary desire to kill big animals?

Both directly result in the death of an animal purely so someone can gain personal satisfaction from it,

Eating is generally not considered “personal satisfaction” nor an unnecessary desire but biological imperative?

Hunting for pleasure is a not a biological imperative.

What an absolutely beautiful cat 🙁

If there needs to be culling for protection etc (and it’s a last measure) or killing for food then I believe it should be done efficiently and respectfully.

What if instead of a lion it was a soldier standing over the body of someone he/she had just killed holding their gun up and smiling? There should be no pleasure in taking a life, ever.

Eating is generally not considered “personal satisfaction” nor an unnecessary desire but biological imperative?

Eating meat is not a biological imperative. Not any more. Neither is hunting.

So, it would be OK to kill start killing people if I did it for a reason that fits in with your moral compass?

If they started swinging the ban-hammer for straw men…

Never mind, not long to wait one imagines.

Vegans supporting big game hunting, very weird.

I am not a vegan, nor am I supporting big game hunting, I am however pointing out the hippocracy of anyone who would be morally outraged by big game hunting, and yet is happy to eat meat. For me they are morally equivalent, an animal dies for someones pleasure.

Lions killed in South Africa can be sent to anywhere in Europe or America. In the five years to 2011, 4,062 carcases were exported from the country, the majority of which were lions specifically bred to be killed.[/u]

So, pointless killing for cowardly blood lust satisfaction. Not a path anyone wants to be going down.

Eating meat is not a biological imperative

who has claimed it was?

you got to love to middle classes. Morals to fit everything.

What has class got to do with it?

I believe Kayak24 summed it up perfectly.

Thanks, my younger brother does have a way with words… 😉

I am however pointing out the hippocracy

She shot a hippo as well? That’s going too far.

(sorry, it’s the idiot thread’s fault)

No the hippos are in charge. They meet and have a vote about who gets it..

Are you sure they don’t meat?!?!

Conservation is full of contradictions. In Africa and elsewhere, legitimate hunting is an important cash cow that plays an important role in animal welfare (yes, I see the contraction). But there are very grey areas especially some camps were game is reared purely for sport and the hunt is little more that a set up for lazy, rich foreigners to satisfy a blood lust with an easy, pre-arranged kill. The early cartoon with the bear hits home.

But I see little moral distinction between this case and driven pheasant shoots in the UK other than the fact that the lion “looks” more appealing than a pheasant and rouses stronger emotions.

@Kayak23 – oops, too far into a bottle of Shiraz!!

teamhurtmore – Member

Are you sure they don’t meat?!?!

Conservation is full of contradictions. In Africa and elsewhere, legitimate hunting is an important cash cow that plays an important role in animal welfare (yes, I see the contraction). But there are very grey areas especially some camps were game is reared purely for sport and the hunt is little more that a set up for lazy, rich foreigners to satisfy a blood lust with an easy, pre-arranged kill. The early cartoon with the bear hits home.

But I see little moral distinction between this case and driven pheasant shoots in the UK other than the fact that the lion “looks” more appealing than a pheasant and rouses stronger emotions.

Tsk 😀

Neither big or small game shooting sits well with me, however, at least you can eat the pheasants.

Good spot roger! Bloody autocorrect except “rouses” and I was wondering about that!!!! Too lazy to check in the end!

Yes I have no problem with rough shooting but struggle with driven, formal shoots (slaughter?) in the UK. It’s stretching the use of the word “sport” IMO.

Hunting for pleasure is a not a biological imperative.

Considering that we, as a species, have spent by far the longest portion of our time on this planet as hunter gatherers, there might be a case for arguing that our need to hunt is as much a biological imperative as our need to procreate.

(Not saying that either is “right”, mind)

you got to love to middle classes. Morals to fit everything.

you say that as if having morals is a bad thing

What a really odd thing to say

It’s good to know that Zulu Eleven (don’t you get banned for ban evasion?) is wrong about just about any random topic you can come up with, not just the usual ones like global warming.

The death of the animal is one thing. You can argue that all day.

But the really distasteful thing to me, and the bit I don’t understand, is that these people planned a paid trip to go out and kill animals for the pleasure of killing. No eating involved, nothing to do with self sufficiency or anything, just the pleasure of the death.

If I were to go and shoot deer (I never have although I’ve been invited, in places where deer numbers are far too high) then I’d be taking my place as a predator in that part of the food chain, and I’d eat the meat. If these shooters want meat there is plenty of deer out there.

Then there’s the argument about all animals not being the same. Catching a fish doesn’t seem that big of a deal to me, but elephants are long lived animals who show signs of close personal relationships, so you could argue that killing elephants is much more cruel than deer or fish. I don’t know if that’s true, but it’s something to think about.

i think most agree that killing for pleasure is more distasteful than killing for food.

We are in danger of the Pulp fiction scene – essentially meat eaters get all strange on this as some animals are cute and should not be eaten [ kittens for example. Some are too dirty [ rats for example] and some you should never even question eating them – fish in your case bit probably not dolphins [ they are a mammal i know]

That is another debate though.

If somebody wants to pay big bucks to shoot big game that has been bred for hunting (in any sense) so what. I don’t see the pleasure in it or the point, in this instance its not been done for conservation management. The example of the campfire conservation model has been mentioned (in Zimbabwe)which theoretically means the local population can benefit from conservation of game hunting (wide spread corruption makes a mess of the model). Conservation reserves and the income they generate in Africa dose not generally filter down to the local population who have to live with all the big fluffy animals we love watching on TV. The tourism operations are owned by foreign companies, all the profit goes straight out the country, or to the government to spend on guns, London property, luxury goods. The even distribution of he revenue wildlife generates (in any way) is the most important aspect of conservation to ensure its success. People in the west (us lot) have a very romantic view on conservation, animal rights etc. The bottom line is animals (all of them) the countryside (all of it) has to have an ecanomic value, or it wont be around for ever. Dose anybody think that the countryside we enjoy is natural? The African grass lands are natural? They are not. All of it is managed by man. If hunting brings revenue into the area and the local econnomy then its OK by me. The same can be said in the UK. I bet that lion had a better standard of living than the bacon, chicken curry you just ate. And how free range is venison or pigeon? If we stopped hunting, farming meat our landscape would be very different and many species would lose their habitats. If people want to get on the anti hunting rant they had best get on the factory farming/animal welfare/pet industry rant first, and if your going to do that, I think the welfare of poor of the developing world, corruption of governments, financial institutions, capitalism, racism etc, are more important issues to rant about. Where would the ranting stop? So best shut up and eat your sandwich. Go for a bike ride 😉

So best shut up and eat your sandwich

Oooooh get you. 😆

Some classic ‘whataboutery’ up there from craig5.

‘So you say rape is bad, but what about mass murder? Bit more important HMMMM?’

Am I allowed to care about more than one thing at once, or do I just have to pick the most important issue in the world and never mention anything else ever again?

🙄

If you have eaten all your lunch (including your fruit) then yes you can care about mass murder and rape but not at the same time. Is that fair? 🙂

It’s taking this thread an awfully long time to get around to any gardening content.

This is interesting;

And actually, Melissa is only one of roughly 700 hunters per year in South Africa who hunt captive bred lions. About 6,000 to 8,000 lions are kept in cages to supply this industry. The lion she shot will have been petted by streams of tourists as a cub, taken care of by “volunteers” recruited by overseas agencies, dragged around on “lion walks” for tourists, and eventually killed. The bones of that lion will be sent to Asian destinations to contribute to Traditional Medicine pots.

– See more at: http://www.lionaid.org/news/2013/11/lion-killer-melissa-bachman-hits-the-skids.htm#sthash.uyTQv9bD.dpuf

You can show support for her here;

https://www.facebook.com/MelissaBachmanSupporters

Dose anybody think that the countryside we enjoy is natural?

Apparently Prince Charles does. He appeals to us to keep our monocultural deserts going for the sake of the environment 🙄

If we stopped hunting, farming meat our landscape would be very different and many species would lose their habitats.

Er no, many species would get their habitats back!

f we stopped hunting, farming meat our landscape would be very different and many species would lose their habitats.

Er no, many species would get their habitats back!

Three words – Large Blue Butterfly

😉