You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Karma?
http://upshout.net/luziano-ponzetto-death-after-falling-while-shooting-birds/
[i]The infamous vet, Luziano Ponzetto, who received death threats and hate mail last year after posing with big game animals he shot, has died while hunting birds in Italy. The 55-year-old Ponzetto had a veterinary clinic near Turin, Italy. But after sparking worldwide fury among animal lovers by posing smiling next to a lion he had shot and then uploading it onto his Facebook page, he was forced to step down as the medical director of a kennel business.[/i]
Well he should be remembered for showing that the appalling trophy hunting still existed and the backlash at least prompted some action with airlines refusing to take the trophies etc.
Karma would obviously be the birds posing for a selfie having pushed him off the cliff.
No, not karma. Just a tragic death.
And no - I'm no fan of game hunting.
Interesting programme on BBC the other week, I'm increasingly impressed with Stacey Dooley as a presenter, she has some of that disarming 'Lois Theroux' faux-naïf style that gets people to open up
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04gjlhz/brainwashing-stacey-2-living-with-big-game-hunters
Newp, that's karmic rertibuion alrighty!
Ninfan have downloaded that waiting to watch it.
In the final analysis he was a hunter carrying out a perfectly legal activity. What I find almost bizarre is the "outrage" that he was a vet and a hunter. As a vet he would well understand the reality that certain animal populations require management including culling.
fury among animal lovers
Funny how an awful lot of 'animal lovers' seem to have very little compassion for their fellow humans.
No, not karma. Just a tragic death.
Yup
Sad news and not Karma.
The whole frothing at the mouth by certain parts of the western world in how Africa should manage its wildlife does so much more harm then good. Trophy hunting is a by product of sustainable conservationism and without it large parts of the African bush would look very different to what it does today.
Banning trophy hunting would see the mass extinction of wildlife outside of the National parks in South Africa, Botswana and to a lesser extent Kenya.
Animal welfare advocates from their western metropolitan homes are also helping the Rhino and central African Elephant become more and more endangered by their flat refusal to start the dialogue in legalising ivory sales.
I don't get the attraction of trophy hunting but I believe that it represents a considerable part of some rural economies in Africa. That's not necessarily a perfect situation but it might be the reality. Locals will only tolerate large, dangerous animals to be around if they have some value and hunters provide that.
Also, wild animals live a brutal life and often suffer excruciating deaths through injury, disease or predation. More often than not trophy hunters will only take large mature males who are nearing the end of their breeding age. They'll often kill other males and will kill cubs aren't theirs so they need to be removed.
Hunting isn't black and white. It's shades of grey.
Funny how an awful lot of 'animal lovers' seem to have very little compassion for their fellow humans.
Do you know this to be actually true ?
It sounds unlikely to me.
Interesting programme on BBC the other week, I'm increasingly impressed with Stacey Dooley as a presenter, she has some of that disarming 'Lois Theroux' faux-naïf style that gets people to open up
She's quite fit too.
Stacey Dooley's awful and I don't think any of it is faux.
Funny how an awful lot of 'animal lovers' seem to have very little compassion for their fellow humans.
Do you know this to be actually true ?It sounds unlikely to me.
Who banned hunting and vivisection?
[img] 
[/img]
Do you know this to be actually true ?It sounds unlikely to me.
Maybe an awful lot was overstating it, but the vitriol coming for a few loud voices makes me shake my head.
Banning trophy hunting would see the mass extinction of wildlife outside of the National parks in South Africa, Botswana and to a lesser extent Kenya.
I realise this an emotive subject, but mass extinction? Botswana banned commercial hunting 2 years ago. Presently big game numbers are up but that is most probably due to poaching outside Botswana's borders driving game in to Botswana. Very hard to predict long term impacts with other influences are so large (poaching and climate change). Most (all?) commercial hunting in SA is in fenced game parks where the 'wildlife' population is closely 'managed'. I can accept the argument that some of those lodges in less photogenic locations may not be financially viable without big game hunting, but many would be. I think that was the primary argument for lobbying against CITES Appendix 1 recognition for lions, opposed by SA and EU countries. I guess we will see.
Also, wild animals live a brutal life and often suffer excruciating deaths through injury, disease or predation. More often than not trophy hunters will only take large mature males who are nearing the end of their breeding age. They'll often kill other males and will kill cubs aren't theirs so they need to be removed.
Jumjam that is a bizarre argument. Are you saying we should not allow nature to takes its course? The things you highlight, infanticide, terretorial battles that kill, painful deaths occur every day throughout nature, predators and prey. The animals, their behaviours, the whole ecosystems have evolved over thousands of years. Trophy hunters are supposed to take male lions who have been removed from the head of the pride. They no longer pose a risk to other males or cubs.
Locals will only tolerate large, dangerous animals to be around if they have some value and hunters provide that.
I understand there have been successes in training guard dogs for livestock, for example, where farmers now tolerate predators. Also I would say don't think everyone's perception of value is monetary.
As said a very emotive and complex issue.
Most of the animals shot by these "Big game hunters" are bred for shooting and are essentially tame. Very little effect on wild populations. Just distasteful blood lust from people with mental health issues.
You're celebrating the death of someone who did things you don't like or don't approve of. These things are legal and don't harm any other person and is something we do every day in this country. Its not something I would do i suspect that I would find it hard to be friends with someone who did these things but for as long as We eat animals for pleasure and convenience we can't really judge anyone.
What you're saying here is no different to when vile people used to suggest that AIDS/HIV was divine retribution for being gay.
What you're saying here is no different to when vile people used to suggest that AIDS/HIV was divine retribution for being gay.
[img] 
[/img]
You're celebrating the death of someone
In OPs defence - thread title?
(Apologies to OP if really were celebrating)
In OPs defence - thread title?
Actually yes you're right though I'm not sure how you reconcile not wishing something on someone but then saying that it's a higher spiritual power that is punishing you for your wrong doing.
^. That's not a definition of Karma that I'm familiar with (Buddhism). In fact quite the opposite:
Kamma is an impersonal, natural law that operates strictly in accordance with our actions. It is law in itself and does not have any lawgiver. Kamma operates in its own field without the intervention of an external, independent ruling agency. Since there is no hidden agent directing or administering rewards and punishments, Buddhists do not rely on prayer to some supernatural forces to influence karmic results. According to the Buddha, kamma is neither predestination nor some sort of determinism imposed on us by some mysterious, unknown powers or forces to which we must helplessly submit ourselves
[url] http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/87.htm [/url]
I'm aware that 'karma' also means (less specifically) 'what goes around comes around'.
I had a discussion about this event with Mrs MR early this morning. She's an animal rights advocate and after reading the news yesterday she said something similar to me (ie do you think it is karma?) regarding his death.
I immediately imagined I detected in her the whiff of schadenfreude. So I asked her what she meant by 'karma'? She said 'cause and effect', to which I responded 'yes, inasmuch as it's physics, although complicated by chaos/coincidence!' At which point I got 'that look', and the coffee made my brain hurt so went back to watching Star Trek Beyond. Which was nice,
Can't speak for the OP of course but I'm often aware of my own small pleasure at hearing other's (criminal's) misfortunes and pull self up on it. I put it (clumsily) like this: 'If I'm appalled at the lynch mob, then would I also be appalled at my desire to see the mob themselves be hanged? But simply stating 'karma?' is not in itself an admission of rolling in revenge fantasy?
I blame gravity.
I'm increasingly impressed with Stacey Dooley as a presenter, she has some of that disarming 'Lois Theroux' faux-naïf style that gets people to open up
Agreed. At first she seems impossibly dumb - and she may be - but she also asks some of the simple questions that get to the heart of a problem. She did a good programme about Greece a while ago.
What you're saying here is no different to when vile people used to suggest that AIDS/HIV was divine retribution for being gay.
Only if you accept an equivalence between being gay and enjoying killing something.
Just distasteful blood lust from people with mental health issues.
Pretty much how I see it. Regardless of how good it may be for certain economies, I'll never agree that there is any good reason to shoot a Lion unless it's dying painfully.
As TJ says I don't like that some people are such ****ing degenerates that they'll actually pay money to go kill a giraffe or a lion. Jeez, just go buy a Rolex like the rest of the idiots.
[img]
[/img]
yes its an emotive issue. i despise the big brave 'trophy hunters' posing proudly besides their kill for a picture that will go on their wall to show off to their friends at home. look how brave i am to kill a majestic wild animal in its habitat with a shotgun. look at the size of it, and i killed it!! hardly a fair fight me ode but there you go. i wont be needing the viagra this week darling. b*st*rds.
see, told you it was emotive.
Maybe he was pushed
Funny how an awful lot of 'animal lovers' seem to have very little compassion for their fellow humans
I like animals.
I think most people are c@£$%.
I also like bacon.
Who designed that EGO pyramid? I'd like to know how they can tell a snail has a bigger ego than a jellyfish.
Funny how an awful lot of 'animal lovers' seem to have very little compassion for their fellow humans.
I am an animal lover and I have little compassion for a lot of humans, not sure why that is funny though.
Wildlife management and culling is one thing. Enjoying killing to satisfy a blood lust and then posing with the corpse to demonstrate what a big man you are is something else. The world is a better place without him.
He certainly did not deserve to die but neither did the lion.
I'm not sure how you reconcile not wishing something on someone but then saying that it's a higher spiritual power that is punishing you for your wrong doing.
If you've ever read anything I've ever written on a religion thread ever, you'll have your answer to that one.
"Schadenfreud" such a good word, especially when combined with 'whiff' 🙂
jimjam - Member
....Also, wild animals live a brutal life and often suffer excruciating deaths through injury, disease or predation. More often than not trophy hunters will only take large mature males who are nearing the end of their breeding age. They'll often kill other males and will kill cubs aren't theirs so they need to be removed....
And human intervention is needed why?
I have nothing against hunting for the pot. As someone who eats animal products that would be hypocritical.
However I don't understand why we don't commit to old-fashioned asylums those people who go out killing for fun, sport they call it. They are self identifying as the sort of people who should be removed from public life.
Also, those so called conservation areas in Africa are often areas that have been cleared of the native population to create them. The animals were there in plenty when the locals lived there; maybe accepting humans are an active part of the landscape is the best way to conserve wildlife.
Wildlife management and culling is one thing. Enjoying killing to satisfy a blood lust and then posing with the corpse to demonstrate what a big man you are is something else.
Strange argument
How does one preclude the other?
How does it make a difference to the animal being killed?
You appear to be appointing a lot of emotion to the shooter that is little more than supposition (reminiscent of how all mountain bikers are red-bull fuelled death wish adrenaline junkies?)
If an animal is going to be culled anyway, then why the hell not get the maximum possible money and enjoyment out of the process?
Also, those so called conservation areas in Africa are often areas that have been cleared of the native population to create them. The animals were there in plenty when the locals lived there; maybe accepting humans are an active part of the landscape is the best way to conserve wildlife.
Seen little evidence of this, in fact most of the 'campfire' type hunting programmes are the exact opposite, they involve the local communities and by generating income from 'rich white trophy hunters' they give the wildlife value as an important resource for the community, who are keen to protect it from poaching and over exploitation for bush meat or persecution to protect crops and livestock.
WWF recognise this
The ", but" was the give away 😉
Wildlife management and culling is one thing. Enjoying killing to satisfy a blood lust and then posing with the corpse to demonstrate what a big man you are is something else.
Strange argument
Plus one.
If culling is to be part of a programme of wildlife management, why not get idiots to fund it to feed their egos?
If an animal is going to be culled anyway, then why the hell not get the maximum possible money and enjoyment out of the process?
Because one would prefer not to live in a society where people kill for pleasure.
I'm uneasy when blatantly immoral activities are justified because they "generate income".
Industrial-level cannibalism might be great for the economy but we manage (for now at least) to do without.
As a vet he would well understand the reality that certain animal populations require management including culling.
If we are really going to be honest with ourselves, there is only one species on this planet that really needs culling. Seven billion and counting...
If we are really going to be honest with ourselves, there is only one species on this planet that really needs culling. Seven billion and counting...
Oh, well said.
certain animal populations require management including culling.
What this little knot of euphemisms usually means is either:
1. We need to kill anything which poses any threat to productivity or profits
or
2. We like killing things and this is a good excuse.
3.
We've introduced something we shouldn't have.
Not always on purpose.
I used to hunt rabbits and the odd wood pigeon.
They all got eaten.
I used to quite enjoy it.
Was asked to help keep rat numbers in check on a local farm.
Didn't enjoy that at all.
3.
We've introduced something we shouldn't have.
Not always on purpose.
I used to hunt rabbits and the odd wood pigeon.
They all got eaten.
I used to quite enjoy it.
Was asked to help keep rat numbers in check on a local farm.
Didn't enjoy that at all.
Yep. I have no problem with hunting for the pot and would do it myself if I had the land.
But trophy hunting completely mystifies me.
Read much Hemingway?
🙂
Lots of rich fantasists out there.
It mystifies me too.
Because one would prefer not to live in a society where people kill for pleasure.
[img] 
[/img]
I'm uneasy when blatantly immoral activities are justified because they "generate income".
Industrial-level cannibalism might be great for the economy but we manage (for now at least) to do without.
'Morals' are just a self important way of saying 'what I think' - other people and societies have different morals, yours aren't superior to theirs except in your own head.
What differentiates industrial level meat production (in a society where nobody really needs to eat meat) from killing animals for fun - the only difference is that you stand one step further away from doing the evil deed yourself
'Morals' are just a self important way of saying 'what I think' - other people and societies have different morals, yours aren't superior to theirs except in your own head.
Ignoring your characteristically abrasive tone for a moment...
That is an extremely bleak world view. There are clearly some actions which are, as objectively as is possible, pointlessly cruel.
You have a tendency on these boards to attack anyone who objects to anything on moral grounds as "self important". I feel a bit sorry for you.
You have a tendency on these boards to attack anyone who objects to anything on moral grounds as "self important".
Really, I can't recall having ever used the phrase on this site before, but I am sure you will be able to point me to it. Or perhaps you'll be able to put forward a cogent argument and explain why you think that one person or societies morals outweigh another's, so we can have an intelligent debate about it, rather than relying on a passive-agressive sideswipe that adds nothing to the debate?
I feel a bit sorry for you
Well, thanks (I guess?) but don't you think that expecting me to really care about what you think of me is a bit, well... self important?
the only difference is that you stand one step further away from doing the evil deed yourself
If slaughterers were posing on Facebook with the piles of chickens they'd just killed your argument might have merit.
What's the difference?
[img] 
?format=2500w[/img]
Fail
No thanks necessary, old chap.
But back to the issue of trophy hunting, whilst (as I think you're arguing) it is culturally acceptable to some, do you think this is, in itself, a justification?
If so, can that justification be applied to other practices, considered acceptable to some but barbaric to most?
Female genital mutilation is acceptable in some cultures. Are the objectors "self-important"?
Or to stick with animal rights if you prefer: How about bear baiting? Is it "self-important" to object to this practice?
whilst (as I think you're arguing) it is culturally acceptable to some, do you think this is, in itself, a justification?
No, of course it isn't
I'm saying that moral/cultural arguments are entirely neutral, they are no more justification than they are reason for castigation, they are entirely a social construct whereby you choose to project your opinion of what is right or wrong on another person.
If there are valid arguments to be made on, for example, the importance of biodiversity or the inherent value of other species and mans role in the ecosystem, then let's make them, but claiming moral superiority is merely a comfortable sideline that carries no weight in and of itself.
Edit:
The trophy hunter, for example, sits there and says that they spend thousands of pounds killing an animal that was going to be killed anyway, and that money goes into the local economy, providing income and jobs and a better lifestyle for marginal communities, and engenders wildlife populations with an economic value that means those communities benefit from them, protecting them rather than suffering crop and livestock losses, or resorting to unplanned and unmanaged poaching, selling ivory to get money.
If the only argument you have in return is 'well, I don't like it' (which is essentially all that the moral argument is) then you bring nothing to the debating table, you might as well say 'because God says so'.
No, of course it isn't
I'm saying that moral/cultural arguments are entirely neutral, they are no more justification than they are reason for castigation
I'm aware of moral relativism as a philosophical position, but don't know many people who make real-world moral decisions in that manner.
Everyone has a personal set of morals. At the basis of most people's would be "do not inflict needless violence on another creature, human or animal".
In my view, this is a valid argument in itself against trophy hunting.
If there are valid arguments to be made on, for example, the importance of biodiversity or the inherent value of other species and many role in the ecosystem, then let's make them
I don't think these arguments are necessary. I think "it is wrong to shoot a sentient creature purely for the pleasure of doing it" trumps any idea that some creatures are more or less deserving of shooting, due to their position in an ecosystem.
Re your edit:
The trophy hunter, for example, sits there and says that they spend thousands of pounds killing an animal that was going to be killed anyway, and that money goes into the local economy, providing income and jobs and a better lifestyle for marginal communities, and engenders wildlife populations with an economic value that means those communities benefit from them, protecting them rather than suffering crop and livestock losses, or resorting to unplanned and unmanaged poaching, selling ivory to get money.
Once again, you take an extreme philosophical position (in this case utilitarianism) to justify hunting. I think we've been over this. In short, there are many barbaric practices which might make money, but that is no reason to do them.
If the only argument you have in return is 'well, I don't like it' (which is essentially all that the moral argument is)
If you just don't see anything wrong with shooting animals for fun, then we're back where we were 20 minutes ago, with me feeling a bit sorry for you and you thinking I'm self-important.
Have a good one.
All trips up on that word needless though doesn't it?
Who really 'needs' to eat meat? Short of a tiny number of aboriginal hunter gatherers in extreme climates, none of us.
Beyond that it's just arbitrary lines.
How is killing cows to eat them, even though we don't really need to, morally acceptable?
Is eating dogs and cats morally acceptable? Horses? A lot of people in the UK would say no. It's entirely arbitrary.
All trips up on that word needless though doesn't it?
Who really 'needs' to eat meat? Short of a tiny number of aboriginal hunter gatherers in extreme climates, none of us.
Beyond that it's just arbitrary lines.
How is killing cows to eat them, even though we don't really need to, morally acceptable?
Is eating dogs and cats morally acceptable? Horses? A lot of people in the UK would say no. It's entirely arbitrary.
I don't disagree with any of that.
But beware of the logical trap of "whataboutery". Just because some other cruel things happen, doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about any cruel things at all.
Just because some other cruel things happen, doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about any cruel things at all.
I don't think it does either
I just think that 'morals' are a self indulgent sideline that draws us away from the real issues. They add nothing to the debate.
I just think that morals are a self indulgent sideline
Yes I get that. I just doubt you'd stick to this position if someone burgled your house 😉
Anyway I have to go but its been fun 🙂
killing an animal that was going to be killed anyway
Do we know that to be true? I was under the impression (rightly or wrongly) that a lot of these 'big game' animals are becoming endangered. We're running out of tigers, are we not?
Even if they do need to be controlled, the idea of a rich white man doing it for the lols leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There's a reason I have the username I do.
There's a reason I have the username I do.
You are a sexually agressive, middle aged woman ain't ya?
Don't tell me all my flirting has been for naught!
I assumed the goatee was kinda an HRT thing but I'm not that fussy 😉
Also......'mon the big cats!
Do we know that to be true? I was under the impression (rightly or wrongly) that a lot of these 'big game' animals are becoming endangered. We're running out of tigers, are we not?
I think the honest answer is that 'it varies' but where it is under permit there are agreed numbers and a conservation basis on which to make that decision, for example where there is a big old bull elephant selected for culling so as to allow a younger one to come through and replace him, often if it's a limited population and they want to prevent inbreeding. From what I understand with Tigers, most of the licences are given for maneaters, and the clients are on a waiting list, so willing to fly over at the drop of a hat if a licence is issued.
I clearly wouldn't equate this with canned hunting, which I don't support in any way, but I see no problem with a sustainable 'crop' of wild animals that are being culled for predominantly conservation reasons being used to maximise revenues for the communities (see the WWF discussion) though I also recognise that even within these programmes there is a risk of corruption, but that seems to be endemic in many areas of the public sector in some African/Indian etc. Countries, and needs to be well managed to prevent.
Even if they do need to be controlled, the idea of a rich white man doing it for the lols leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There's a reason I have the username I do.
I think my simple answer there is "does it really make any practical difference to the animal being culled" and as such I do have reservations about the American fascination with bow hunting. I think that if you are doing any culling it ought to be with the highest principles of animal welfare, and anyone planning to do it should be able to demonstrate an understanding of and ability to reach a competent standard of marksmanship etc. Which I certainly had to do with deer management (albeit I originally trained to do that as a career)
I wasn't happy to see him alive, shooting beautiful animals. Don't give a shit that he's dead. One way of stopping him, I suppose.
You are a sexually agressive, middle aged woman ain't ya?
I get that a lot.
Whilst I definitely don't understand what trophy hunters enjoy about killing such an animal, I don't judge them when it is done legally as it can be a huge source of income (and meat) for the local economy and normally what funds the parks conservation and anti-poaching staff.
Also it is often the fact it has such a value to the rich white man with the gun that it is still alive. If it was worthless, the locals would of killed it as a pest as who wants a giant mammal trampling their crops or eating their livestock. Whilst we might view it as beautiful to see on holiday, if you had it strolling through your garden you would most likely view it differently.
ninfan - Member
"Also, those so called conservation areas in Africa are often areas that have been cleared of the native population to create them. The animals were there in plenty when the locals lived there; maybe accepting humans are an active part of the landscape is the best way to conserve wildlife."
...Seen little evidence of this, in fact most of the 'campfire' type hunting programmes are the exact opposite, they involve the local communities and by generating income from 'rich white trophy hunters' they give the wildlife value as an important resource for the community...
You won't see much evidence, the actual locals having been removed a couple of generations back.
. Whilst we might view it as beautiful to see on holiday, if you had it strolling through your garden you would most likely view it differently
If I had a lion wandering around my garden I'd lock the door and gaze in admiration through the window, rather than digging out my bow.