[Closed] dig out the pitchforks.....

[img] [/img]

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/us-tv-presenter-melissa-bachman-blasted-over-smiling-photo-with-lion-she-stalked-and-killed-8944363.html ]Independent Linky[/url]

Thanks Jamie...i was having a moment

Is it me or does that look like terrible PhotoShopping?

This family have been getting some stick on twitter for a few weeks;

[img] [/img]

for not letting it finish its lunch, I think.

While it may not be deemed as morally acceptable, and not something I'm interested in doing, but surely if it's legal in that country then what's the issue?

I had a roll on bacon this morning, I just didn't take a photo of me enjoying it to put on twitter

Vile imo 👿

@redsox: This is for 'sport', killing for the sake of killing. I doubt they'll be eating the lion or elephant

As someone posted on the petition link...
“Hunting is not a sport. In a sport, both sides should know they're in the game.”

Some of the licensed hunting is done to control numbers to help the local environment and other species. That may be the case here. Neither species is desperately endangered iirc. Getting dumb foreigners to pay for your cull makes good financial sense.

It's their choice, I wouldn't but it is up to them. Some people ride singlespeed ffs!

If people are genuinely bothered, why not campaign to have hunting banned?

Singling out one hunter is stupid and pointless.

Could we organise a sort of hunger games reality show where all the contestants are hunters?

I don't get the mentality of someone who wakes up and thinks " I want to shoot a Lion "

nuke - Member

Vile imo

@redsox: This is for 'sport', killing for the sake of killing. I doubt they'll be eating the lion or elephant

As someone posted on the petition link...
“Hunting is not a sport. In a sport, both sides should know they're in the game.”

And this type of shooting is not even hunting. The trackers take the wannabe Great White Hunter to where they know the animal will be .. there is no field craft of stalking skill involved.
Rather pathetic really.

Some people ride singlespeed ffs!

Perhaps we should allow Hunting of SS riders?

What's the point of hunting those animals? No fun at all.

For fun we should hunt those hunters instead ... including the family. Then their left overs can be feed to the poor Nile crocodile.

The world is infested by maggots and nothing change ...

I prefer the Predators hunting ground.

'killing for the sake of killing'

Often not actually

http://www.globaleye.org.uk/archive/summer2k/focuson/mars_pt1.html
http://perc.org/articles/building-campfire-paradigm
http://www.fao.org/docrep/u5200e/u5200e06.htm

Generally, hunting like this brings far, far more benefit to both local communities and wildlife than national parks or safari tourism, and a sustainable culling regime brings huge amounts of foreign cash into rural communities, meaning that poaching has reduced and the animals become protected as a community resource rather than eradicated as a pest.

Brings this to mind
[img] [/img]

meaning that poaching has reduced and the animals become protected as a community resource rather than eradicated as a pest.

Utter bullshit with no evidence. Want to blame it on the labour party next Zulu? While you still have a chance? Before you get your fifth banning?

(Feel free to tell us why you were banned by the way...anytime...I'm sure the forum will enjoy it.)

If only people that complained were consistent with their animals welfare stance. Why aren't they also complaining about Halal and Kosher meats (i.e. meats not stunned before slaughter) not having to be labelled as such, and consequently some meat product we buy has those parts of the animals that Jews and Muslims are not allowed to eat in, hence we are either unwittingly or unwillingly supporting animal cruelty.

It's an unfortunate fact of life, that often, to protect something, one must monetise it. And of course managing livestock involves selective culling. Which is why the World Wildlife Fund use to be involved in elephant hunting until people who knew diddly squat about anything outside a town kicked up a stink.

Some of the licensed hunting is done to control numbers to help the local environment and other species. That may be the case here. Neither species is desperately endangered iirc. Getting dumb foreigners to pay for your cull makes good financial sense.

It's their choice, I wouldn't but it is up to them. Some people ride singlespeed ffs!

African Elephants are listed as vulnerable and people have been campaigning to list Lions as endangered for years (they are endangered but we wouldn't want that getting in the way of a hunt would we?)

There is also loads of evidence that the money payed for hunt permits does nothing for the habitats or population of the animals killed. But keep believing that BS if you makes you feel better. Oh and BTW those Japanese Whalers aren't killing whales for 'whale research' either.

There's a reason why she appears in bikini tops and skimpy vests, posing with big guns and dead stuff. There's a target audience of a few million male redneck yanks who'll have a hard on over that pic, it's a whole different world. To them she's the Fred Dibnah of hunting.

If only people that complained were consistent with their animals welfare stance. Why aren't they also complaining about Halal and Kosher meats (i.e. meats not stunned before slaughter) not having to be labelled as such, and consequently some meat product we buy has those parts of the animals that Jews and Muslims are not allowed to eat in, hence we are either unwittingly or unwillingly supporting animal cruelty.
It's an unfortunate fact of life, that often, to protect something, one must monetise it. And of course managing livestock involves selective culling. Which is why the World Wildlife Fund use to be involved in elephant hunting until people who knew diddly squat about anything outside a town kicked up a stink.

A late entry for straw men per word 2013.

[quote=MoreCashThanDash ]Some of the licensed hunting is done to control numbers to help the local environment and other species. That may be the case here. Neither species is desperately endangered iirc. Getting dumb foreigners to pay for your cull makes good financial sense.
It's their choice, I wouldn't but it is up to them. Some people ride singlespeed ffs!
Exactly the same as deer hunting in Scotland. I wouldn't want to do it but numbers need to be controlled and if an estate can get someone to pay to do it rather than pay someone to do it, better for them.

To be fair it makes a change from some (and I mean some) Americans shooting other Americans because they are black and wearing a hooded sweatshirt.

Exactly the same as deer hunting in Scotland.Exactly the same as deer hunting in Scotland. I wouldn't want to do it but numbers need to be controlled and if an estate can get someone to pay to do it rather than pay someone to do it, better for them

how on earth is it [b]exactly[/b] like this

They are at best vaguely similar,
[img] https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/3054992384/h3B9CFF7A/ [/img]

Licensed hunting.
Controlling numbers.
Protecting environment.
Protecting other species.
Getting folk to pay to do it.

Ok? Care to explain how deer hunting is any different from MCTDs scenario Mr "oh look I found an irrelevant meme"?

If it's not on the endangered list, and you kill it for the express purpose of eating it or for pest control - I'm [i]probably[/i] ok with that. Rough-shooting to put something in the pot is just a new way of doing a very old thing. In this day and age, deer still fall into that category - lions and elephants generally don't.

Trophy-killing for "sport", on the other hand, is repulsive. IMO, of course.

scotroutes - Member

Licensed hunting.
Controlling numbers.
Protecting environment.
Protecting other species.
Getting folk to pay to do it.

Ok? Care to explain how deer hunting is any different from MCTDs scenario Mr "oh look I found an irrelevant meme"?

If you breed them then hunt as you like otherwise no.

Look at the maggots breeding all over ... now you can hunt those with Benneli M4 before they mature into zombies.

🙄

Elephant numbers in Africa are plummeting and are predicted to be close to extinction in 20 years if their rate of decline continues. Poaching is the main culprit as it's rampant at the moment. The main problem is all the big jumbos are being killed first resulting in smaller, younger and less experienced herds which are more susceptible to further poaching and decline from natural causes which experienced Matriarchs could help avoid.

Big game hunting of such fantastic specimens depletes the gene pool of a rapidly declining species compounding the problem.

It's utterly repulsive.

Big game hunting of such fantastic specimens depletes the gene pool of a rapidly declining species

Alternatively, removing a dominant male who has led a group for some time and produced numerous offspring can serve to widen the gene pool where land pressure and group isolation has prevented this happening naturally.

Poaching is the main culprit as it's rampant at the moment.

The poaching is getting worse again in Africa, both due to the endemic african disease of corruption, and also there has been a lot of new investment recently from China so a far bigger demand and more smuggling opportunities for Rhino horn etc. - so the hunting [i]can[/i] put money into anti poachng effort and anti poaching patrols but also, as mentioned above, monetarising the resource increases the value of retaining them to local communities and deters the the poachers.

you kill it for the express purpose of eating it or for pest control

You say that as if 'trophy' hunting can only be the opposite of the above rather than a mutually beneficial side effect.

The ideal African hunting conservation 'model' - eg. campfire - is that if someone is prepared to pay say $50,000 to shoot ONE prime bull elephant, than that money can be used to finance either an anti-poaching team of local people for a year or to fund local communities in other ways such as schooling and healthcare. So the conservation of the species is served by taking out the odd 'cull' animal for a high fee.

There are also many reserves, where specific species need to be managed actively as there may be problems with Apex predators, 'man eaters' for example, plus in farming area's crop protection may also be a good reason to hunt African game - I've heard tales of some clients being on a '24 hour notice' to fly anywhere to get a trophy when the opportunity comes to bag a problem animal.

Admittedly than there is the so-called 'canned hunting', where for example Lions in a relatively small fenced enclosure are basicly 'farmed' so rich hunting tourists can than, for a high fee, shoot a cornered lion in semi-natural conditions - However Its pointless to lump that together in with the valued and worthwhile ways that it [i]can[/i] be done, as its not comparing like with like.

Edit - see this Guardian article on Elephants in the Kruger NP

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/feb/26/environment

You say that as if 'trophy' hunting can only be the opposite of the above rather than a mutually beneficial side effect...its not comparing like with like

I'm not claiming that the two are always mutually-exclusive... but, in my [i]personal[/i] opinion, paying "good money" to shoot a prime bull elephant is an activity carried out by pathetic twonks. Really, what does it prove?

As for how things are unfolding in Africa, I doubt that ideal hunting/conservation schemes are going to be enough to save the species involved. It's window-dressing.

This family have been getting some stick on twitter for a few weeks;

Good. I hope someone burns down their house with them inside it, you know killing for fun like. As for the TV "personality", one can only hope there will be a vicious backlash and she will lose her career. Being the USA, it is unlikely that this will happen.

IMO killing for fun demeans the person carrying out the act, we are (or should be) better than that.

Well, we've had the argument before - but the 'killing for fun' epithet applies just as much to that steak/chicken on your plate when we can all survive perfectly well on a vegan diet.

99.9% of us only eat meat for 'fun' rather than necessity

ninfan, I have been extolling this moral argument for years.So any of you stone throwers have a look at the cruelty that lands on your plate. Unless you are vegans, then, as you were.

but the 'killing for fun' epithet applies just as much to that steak/chicken on your plate

@ninfan - I would agree with you 100%
However, it's the personal gratification of taking the life yourself that seems most abhorrent to me.

I am sure he could explain the joy in that if we asked nicely

Junky, 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?
Neither have any value, both are cruel.
But ironically my experience of farming tells me that its is crueler than either the elephant or the lions life/death. (I'm not justifying the big game shooting btw, I think it is pretty lame, but I cannot stand pix n mix morals)

However, it's the personal gratification of taking the life yourself that seems most abhorrent to me.

I find it much more abhorrent, scary and unjustified for people to allow others to do their killing for them, feeling morally superior as "they do not take any pleasure in killing the animal" but do so love the taste.

Killing something to eat it is not the same as killing something for the fun of it.

Both directly result in the death of an animal purely so someone can gain personal satisfaction from it, whether its a direct result or a by-product bears no standing for the 'victim'

personal gratification of taking the life yourself that seems most abhorrent to me.

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?

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 [b]needs[/b] 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, [b][u]the majority of which were lions specifically bred to be killed.[/b][/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

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.

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 [b]contraction[/b]). But there are very grey areas especially some camps [b]were[/b] 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 [b]rouses[/b] 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.

[i]Hunting for pleasure is a not a biological imperative.[/i]

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;

[i]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 [/i]

You can show support for her here;

[url=

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

😉