Support NeoGAF

[Beelzebufo]

Three things bother me about this story:

1. It's horrible
2. Why is it always mentioned he's a dentist? Come on.
3. These kinds of stories always bring out the "hunting is always evil" crazy people. You and Bambi are killing our planet.

 

[AMUSIX]

I have seen some outrage over this from omnivores turn into them considering a vegetarian diet. Some good may come of this yet.

GAF usually doesn't respond too well to animal rights topics, but feeling anger and sadness over this is great. Just please think about how millions of more animal lives are taken every day in much worse ways and conditions than Cecil's in the name of an unnecessary diet many of you probably support.

What I said does not come from a place of hate but from a place of wishing to help make the world better and our morality more consistent. By necessity it may come off confrontational, but contrary to how many people on GAF respond to these messages that is not intended.

Sorry, but equating sport hunting of wildlife to hunting for food is already a stretch. But then to try to connect to the raising and slaughter of livestock is just more off.

I understand the whole "don't want to kill an animal for food" concept (though, if you really were on the "do the least harm" train, you'd eat free-roam buffalo as a source of protein over anything soy-based) but being against sport hunting, and being appalled by a situation like this isn't based on the same things.

 

[Rentahamster]

Those facts are laughable, I love how they say since the hunting ban in Kenya but in no way mention why the decline and if it has anything to do with hunting. It's such bullshit science, they try and make it sound like because Kenya does not allow animals to be killed for sport, there has been a massive loss in population. What exactly does not suitable for eco tourism mean? It is somehow suitable to hunt with a gun but not a camera?

When hunting is banned, a legal revenue stream is off limits, so in some cases it makes more economic sense to convert wildlife habitats into agricultural land, leading to habitat loss. Furthermore, it leaves poaching as the only alternative, which has no regulations, nor an economic self-interest in sustainability.

Not suitable for eco tourism means there are not enough amenities or infrastructure in place for large groups of people taking pictures and going on safari. Rich people wanting to rough it in Africa tend to want those kinds of things. Rich hunters tend to not need those things.

First, we're talking about big-game hunting, not deer or duck or antelope.

Second, the best thing for conservation of any area is to not have ANY hunting, and that is proven time and time again. The reason why hunting helps in certain areas is that the predators have had their numbers brought down too much (by hunters) so that the prey population needs to be kept in check somehow

I'm talking about big game hunting too. Banning hunting screws up the economics of hunting, which can contribute to poaching as well as limiting funds to combat poaching. It's a similar effect like what happened with prohibition.

 

[Beelzebufo]

I know I'd feel way better about eating a deer that was fucking murdered in the woods than pretty much any commercial food animal. Less bad for the environment, good for the environment, less cruel, more cool.

Might not taste as good as Chickfila tho

 

[EatinOlives]

no -_-

my point was the degree of attention this story was getting seemed to be for the wrong reasons. It's essentially the same as if a celebrity died to gunfire in a city, when every day someone normal dies to gunfire in a city. I don't know at this point. People are picking my posts apart for no reason now. Now I'm a "troll" for posting in this topic. That's enough for me. I'll go back to my gaming thread.

But you said this lion WASN'T a celebrity (and you're right, he wasn't). People don't get this emotional over a lion simply because he had a name that nobody recognized.

It's a really bizarre argument to try to poke holes into people's reactions because they don't meet arbitrary requirements (i.e., "this happened a month ago", "nobody knew who this lion was", "thousands of lions are killed every day, why this one??"). You can apply your argument over literally anything that gets people riled up in social media. Why that injustice and not this one? Why that murder in the inner city and not this one? Why does that funny little video get 10 million views and not this one? Why does this Facebook shitpost get a hundred thousand shares and not this one?

The answer, and I'm pretty sure you already know it, is that these kinds of things get spread around as part of a perfect storm. The real answer is down to the nuts and bolts of how people consciously spread news and information around social media. Yes, that always means some things get more attention than others. What you're pointing out here is 1) absolutely nothing new, and 2) doesn't really have anything to do with the illegal hunting of this lion. Your wording and your insistence of your point makes it clear you weren't only "confused", so I don't know why you kept that charade until you bowed out of the thread. In fact, in this post you're saying they're getting worked up "for the wrong reasons", but through all your posts you were wishy-washy about what those "wrong reasons" were. In the end we still didn't get a decent answer for what these reasons were that you thought were "wrong".

 

[Dai101]

One of the people on my FB feed is saying that the hate against this man is hyperbolic and he should sue Jimmy Kimmel for libel.

Defriended.

And rightfully.

Libel is printed. DUH!

 

[MJPIA]

This is complete, 100% bullshit.

Rarely (VERY rarely) there are instances when a single animal needs to be culled, or when the choice is either to cull part of a herd getting to big for the preservation park or to let them out where poachers will just kill the entire herd. But these instances are not common enough to support any sort of hunting tourism. This is something that every conservation group agrees is best handled by park management or wildlife preservation organizations.

The most common argument is that the money paid to hunt these animals goes, in some part, towards conservation. First, that percentage is unknown, because, for all their talk of being in support of conservation, non of these hunting organizations will say how much of each $50k kill goes back into preserving the animals. But the biggest thing is that hunting tourism only brings in a few million each year, total, while non-lethal tourism (photo-safaris and the like) bring in billions. So, really, hunting does fuck-all for wildlife preservation.

While it is true that photographic tourism and the like generates a lot more revenue than hunting its not that low.
Sport hunting generally contributes somewhere around 30% of the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority total income.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...enyuI-20140624.pdf+&cd=36&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

[BokehKing]

I shoot animals.........


With a camera....

Because they're beautiful.

This guy is Michael Vick status to me, hope he dies slow and paid ful when it comes his time.

(in regards to will I still be mad about it a year from now? Bring it up lol, the hate won't change)

 

[darscot]

When hunting is banned, a legal revenue stream is off limits, so in some cases it makes more economic sense to convert wildlife habitats into agricultural land, leading to habitat loss. Furthermore, it leaves poaching as the only alternative, which has no regulations, nor an economic self-interest in sustainability.

Not suitable for eco tourism means there are not enough amenities or infrastructure in place for large groups of people taking pictures and going on safari. Rich people wanting to rough it in Africa tend to want those kinds of things. Rich hunters tend to not need those things.



I'm talking about big game hunting too. Banning hunting screws up the economics of hunting, which can contribute to poaching as well as limiting funds to combat poaching. It's a similar effect like what happened with prohibition.

This is complete nonsense, there are 50x more people interested in hunting with a camera compared to a gun. Where are you getting the data that people only like to rough it when they are going to kill something? Just making that up? Your basically saying if the people don't get to kill they wont come. Where do people come up with this bullshit.

P.S. If your comparing prohibition you are saying people will only drink when they get to fight. If you take away drunken brawling no one will drink anymore. People that just like to drink and have fun are not willing to go out they will just stay in the comfort of their home. We need drunken brawling in public to make sure people still go out. LOL

 

[tzhu07]

Those people who are posting Yelp reviews are some of the most annoying SJW's around. That's not the proper platform for your criticism, and Yelp makes it very clear that reviews should be based on first-hand experience with the establishment.

 

[Frog-fu]

This type of shit make my blood boil. Wealthy, privileged, ignorant cunts without a modicum of respect misbehaving and committing crimes in countries they are fortunate enough to visit and then having the gall to feel victimised when faced with the consequences.

Fuck this guy and fuck poachers in generals. As if it's not bad enough already these sick individuals still kill beautiful animals like giraffes for some cheap thrills, they still pull this shit. There is no excuse or justification for hunting endangered animals.

 

[Dai101]

Those people who are posting Yelp reviews are some of the most annoying SJW's around. That's not the proper platform for your criticism, and Yelp makes it very clear that reviews should be based on first-hand experience with the establishment.

 

[bsp]

Sorry, but equating sport hunting of wildlife to hunting for food is already a stretch. But then to try to connect to the raising and slaughter of livestock is just more off.

I understand the whole "don't want to kill an animal for food" concept (though, if you really were on the "do the least harm" train, you'd eat free-roam buffalo as a source of protein over anything soy-based) but being against sport hunting, and being appalled by a situation like this isn't based on the same things.

I will disagree, as I perceive much of the outrage over this to be about the unnecessary killing of an incredible creature. Illegal/legal hunt or not. If we are being consistent, that same discontent should be applied towards the standard Western diet.

Would you mind elaborating/linking to other info on your mention of free-roam buffalo perhaps being best in a utilitarian take on animal harm? Wondering what kind of scalability it would have, and availability.

 

[blitzcloud]

And rightfully.

Libel is printed. DUH!

lol

 

[Piggus]

Those facts are laughable, I love how they say since the hunting ban in Kenya but in no way mention why the decline and if it has anything to do with hunting. It's such bullshit science, they try and make it sound like because Kenya does not allow animals to be killed for sport, there has been a massive loss in population. What exactly does not suitable for eco tourism mean? It is somehow suitable to hunt with a gun but not a camera?

So can you provide any kind of research, facts, or evidence of your own other than "I saw animals running around so hunting is bad"?

I don't support big game trophy hunting either FYI. I think there needs to be a different solution there. But there have been numerous studies conducted on this issue, and it's hard to deny those studies just because of your own anecdotal experience.

 

[darscot]

So can you provide any kind of research, facts, or evidence of your own other than "I saw animals running around so hunting is bad"?

I don't support big game trophy hunting either FYI. I think there needs to be a different solution there. But there have been numerous studies conducted on this issue, and it's hard to deny those studies just because of your own anecdotal experience.

I'll just listen to the experts and people that run the nation, I guess they are all idiots and are only holding up a 45 year ban on hunting to destroy the wildlife. The massive support for this is just all a conspiracy, hunting is really the solution.

 

[Rentahamster]

I'll just listen to the experts and people that run the nation, I guess they are all idiots and are only holding up a 45 year ban on hunting to destroy the wildlife. The massive support for this is just all a conspiracy, hunting is really the solution.

There are many instances in governmental public policy where a particular law does not actually encourage, directly or indirectly, the results it intends to achieve.

 

[darscot]

There are many instances in governmental public policy where a particular law does not actually encourage, directly or indirectly, the results it intends to achieve.

For 45 years, come on, lets just give it a rest already. Just pulled this from wiki "Kenya's services sector, which contributes about 63 percent of GDP, is dominated by tourism." 63% of there GDP and they are going to uphold a law for 45 years that is against that?

 

[Stinkles]

The guy should own this. Have a learning moment.

Some real good can come of this.

Go back and face the music, accept or volunteer for extradition, take your medicine and send the world a message, to every dentist, every rich Daddy's girl, every yeehaw dumbass in the world who thinks lion pelts or Rhino horns are harmless trinkets they deserve, that there ARE consequences and they are massive.

These people don't give a fuck about the endangered nature of the species, in fact, that makes it more rare, more exciting. WHat they care about is their wealth and comfort. Threaten that in a very public, demonstrable fashion, and you might make a dent.

 

[Jobbs]

I seriously don't like hunters. I can't relate to or understand anyone who kills innocent animals for absolutely no reason other than their tiny dicks and big guns.

 

[Piggus]

I'll just listen to the experts and people that run the nation, I guess they are all idiots and are only holding up a 45 year ban on hunting to destroy the wildlife.

You mean you'll believe the experts whose conclusions line up with your moral standards, but not the experts who are part of organizations created to protect animals and the environment. Okay then.

The fact is that hunting can and does benefit animal species when correctly regulated, and Kenya's decision to ban hunting of big game doesn't disprove that in any way. And Kenya is also a different country. There are other factors that could contribute to a need for hunting or a need for hunting ban, such as prevalence of poachers, the overall state of the local ecosystem, etc. You're not really opening up to any of this as a possibility despite the loads of research conducted by environmental organizations. Instead you're stubbornly sticking to your guns (or rather your camera) and assuming that Kenya's solution is the only solution that works in building up these populations.

I seriously don't like hunters. I can't relate to or understand anyone who kills innocent animals for absolutely no reason other than their tiny dicks and big guns.

I seriously don't like people who make sweeping generalizations about something they know absolutely jack shit about. There's this thing called food. It often comes from animals, and we call it meat. Have you ever heard of meat? It's pretty damn delicious, and humans have been hunting animals for tens of thousands of years to get it. I mean yeah, we could just get meat from the store. No innocent animal has to suffer then, right?

 

[Rentahamster]

This is complete nonsense, there are 50x more people interested in hunting with a camera compared to a gun.

It does take more eco-tourists to generate the same revenue as a fewer amount of hunter-tourists, yes.

http://www.cas.umt.edu/facultydatabase/FILES_Faculty/1152/Harris 1995 EcotourismVsTrophyHunting.pdf

These people also require greater amounts of facilities and lodging. I think you would also agree that 50 people have larger consumption and waste needs than one person, which also impacts the environment to a degree.

Where are you getting the data that people only like to rough it when they are going to kill something? Just making that up? Your basically saying if the people don't get to kill they wont come. Where do people come up with this bullshit.

I'm saying that it takes a lot more development to host photo safaris than it does to host a hunt, and that the needs and attractors of a large group of photo tourists are different than the needs and attractors of a smaller group of hunter tourists.

http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/issues/biodiversity/killing-in-the-name-of-conservation

Conservancies in Namibia quickly began striking deals with tourism companies. Many conservancies allow trophy hunting because it is far easier to get a hunting concession running than to build the lodges and other infrastructure needed for photo safaris. The fees paid by the operators go directly to the communities. The early returns prompted other communities to create conservancies, and there are now 79 conservancies that cover nearly 58,000 square miles, about the size of Georgia.

http://www.environmentmagazine.org/...t 2011/exploitation-or-conservation-full.html

There is much evidence to suggest that hunting is less destructive than other nonconsumptive forms of ecotourism, such as photographic tourism.23 Hunters have less impact on the environment than photographic tourists as they require fewer local amenities and infrastructure, therefore reducing habitat degradation.24 The income generated from the hunting industry far exceeds that generated from other forms of ecotourism and is derived from fewer tourists, reducing their ecological impact while providing increased revenue for conservation initiatives.25

Kenya banned all consumptive use of wild species in 1977: no sport hunting, cropping, ranching, live capture and sale, taxidermy, trophies, or souvenirs. The country used the hunting ban to build its brand as the destination for wildlife tourism in Africa, and it developed a thriving industry that brings in millions of dollars each year.

Such a tourist industry requires a vast and expensive infrastructure, including airports, roads, and hotels. It also requires political stability, a pleasant climate, and large numbers of readily findable animals. Few places on Earth, let alone Africa, have that combination. Kenya’s high savannas are perfect; Tanzania’s miombo woodland, Zimbabwe’s thornscrub, and Namibia’s desert are not. Hunters will put up with the tougher conditions of those habitats so long as the game are present, but it is nearly impossible to create a luxury photo tourism industry there.

https://www.thefinancialist.com/botswana-moves-to-eco-tourism-from-trophy-hunting/

Botswana, already known as a pricey destination for photographic safaris, is well positioned to attract affluent eco-tourists. But with the price of a week-long photo safari averaging $3,100 per week, the country will have to attract many more tourists to replace hunters, who spend almost $10,000 per week on average. For that reason, some doubt photographers can really make up for the cash trophy hunters bring to the country.

“Your international hunter spends an enormous amount of money compared to your photographic tourist,” Melville Saayman, professor and tourism researcher at South Africa’s North-West University, told The Financialist. “I don’t think eco-tourism initiatives can fill the void left by hunting. It is about the amount spent.”

There are also fears that, rather than preserving wildlife, the hunting ban could actually encourage poaching by local people who can no longer earn a living from the hunting business. Joseph Mbaiwa, acting director of the Okavango Research Centre (ORC), which oversees the conservation of the Okavango Delta, one of the world’s largest and best preserved inland river deltas, told Botswana’s Sunday Standard that, “if the ban is imposed…communities will not be able to carry out some activities for their own benefit. In my view, the incidents of poaching are likely to go up since… the core business that brought revenue for their benefit, has been since cut.”

P.S. If your comparing prohibition you are saying people will only drink when they get to fight. If you take away drunken brawling no one will drink anymore. People that just like to drink and have fun are not willing to go out they will just stay in the comfort of their home. We need drunken brawling in public to make sure people still go out. LOL

Your analogy is very off base. I am equating hunting to other activities that people want to do, which tend to develop many negative externalities when made illegal. As opposed to being legal, but well regulated.

 

[joedan]

On an aside though, do dentists in the US make that much money that they can hop over to Africa and drop 50Gs to hunt? I'm in the wrong profession.

 

[Beelzebufo]

On an aside though, do dentists in the US make that much money that they can hop over to Africa and drop 50Gs to hunt? I'm in the wrong profession.

Yup! That's my plan haha. Even with insurance $$$$$$$

 

[Piggus]

I have seen some outrage over this from omnivores turn into them considering a vegetarian diet. Some good may come of this yet.

GAF usually doesn't respond too well to animal rights topics, but feeling anger and sadness over this is great. Just please think about how millions of more animal lives are taken every day in much worse ways and conditions than Cecil's in the name of an unnecessary diet many of you probably support.

What I said does not come from a place of hate but from a place of wishing to help make the world better and our morality more consistent. By necessity it may come off confrontational, but contrary to how many people on GAF respond to these messages that is not intended.

Your intentions are good, but what would make the world a better place is if I could eat bacon every day without it being a health concern. Animals eat other animals. That's nature. And humans are just animals with the capability to ponder that fact.

 

[pgtl_10]

Those people who are posting Yelp reviews are some of the most annoying SJW's around. That's not the proper platform for your criticism, and Yelp makes it very clear that reviews should be based on first-hand experience with the establishment.

I agree. I hate that stuff.

 

[darscot]

You guys clearly have you believe and I have mine. Lets just leave it at that.

 

[DrForester]

People have been busy.

 

[FrenchMovieTheme]

I seriously don't like people who make sweeping generalizations about something they know absolutely jack shit about. There's this thing called food. It often comes from animals, and we call it meat. Have you ever heard of meat? It's pretty damn delicious, and humans have been hunting animals for tens of thousands of years to get it. I mean yeah, we could just get meat from the store. No innocent animal has to suffer then, right?

i would consider someone who enjoys hunting and murdering animals to have serious mental problems. it's not about supporting animal killing or not. we've all had some type of meat from a slaughtered animal. but you think its normal for someone to gain joy out of killing an animal?

 

[Rentahamster]

For 45 years, come on, lets just give it a rest already. Just pulled this from wiki "Kenya's services sector, which contributes about 63 percent of GDP, is dominated by tourism." 63% of there GDP and they are going to uphold a law for 45 years that is against that?

And in those 45 years, Kenya's track record of actual wildlife conservation hasn't been too hot. There have been some improvements, but it's going to take a much more complex approach than just "ban hunting", especially with the large population growth and agricultural needs.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_growing_specter_of_africa_without_wildlife/2183/

On the road from Nairobi into the Great Rift Valley not long ago, a 48-year-old Kenyan taxi driver named Jagata Sospeter pointed out how the landscape had changed in his memory — here a soccer field where rhinos were once commonplace, there a river where hippos used to live, and everywhere, as Kenya’s human population continues to boom, the endless sprawl of shambas, tin-roofed farmhouses surrounded by an acre or two of parched maize plants in place of open range. The one consolation, in a nation where tourism accounts for 10 percent of the gross domestic product, was that wildlife was at least secure within Kenya’s national parks and protected areas.

But a new study says that sense of reassurance is false, with wildlife disappearing just as fast inside Kenya’s national parks as out. According to an analysis by David Western and his co-authors, wildlife declined by 41 percent in national parks from 1977 to 1997, and the decline does not appear to have slowed since then. The study, published on PLoSOne, was commissioned by the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), which manages the country’s national parks. Shortly after the Western study appeared, a KWS spokesman announced that Kenya’s lion population, “the symbol of national strength,” is now declining so fast that lions could be extinct there within 20 years.

“For me, the world is complicated,” said Deutsch, adding that he’d be interested in a study “that doesn’t have an axe to grind from the start.” He rattled off a series of challenges to the survival of wildlife in Kenya — badly-flawed parks, little or no benefits flowing to people living around parks, a lack of income from legal trophy hunting and other consumptive uses of wildlife, the bushmeat trade, political corruption, inadequate protection against poachers — and suggested that in any given situation, either Western’s approach or Leakey’s might be the right way to go.

Soon after the new study appeared, a columnist in Swara, the East African Wildlife Society quarterly, took the entire Kenyan conservation establishment, including Western and Leakey both, sharply to task: “The cosy pretence that all is well within Kenya’s Protected Areas has been simply blown out of the water... Have the courage to admit that everything you have recommended, supported, funded and implemented over the last 30 years in Kenya to conserve wildlife has been a failure — or was it your intention to sit idly by while some 70 percent of wildlife vanished from under your very noses?”

Yet the prospects for reversing this grim trend seem small. The human population of sub-Saharan Africa continues to boom, with a projected increase of a billion more people across the continent by 2050. So both fences and community-friendly approaches will almost certainly need to work — along with some miraculous remedy still to be devised — if Africa’s rich and potentially lucrative wildlife legacy is to last through this century.

 

[Rentahamster]

You guys clearly have you believe and I have mine. Lets just leave it at that.

Having beliefs is fine, but I would much rather look at the research being done over the years about the successes and failures of conservation, and try to encourage the policies that succeed, while changing the policies that have only resulted in failure so far.

 

[Alebrije]

People have been busy.

It seems thw guy won't back to work soon

 

[pgtl_10]

Fuck the dude and his business. Im glad his life is fucked and Im also glad that people now do not go to a business where the owner kills endangered species. Why are you worried about him? He has made a living out of killing majestic animals, beheading them and using their skins as rugs. If you want to rehabilitate the asshole, why don't you send your all your tax dollars to rehabilitate him? Don't drag the rest of us along. I'm not going to send a single penny towards this human filth for his "rehabilitation", which can start by him adopting the lion's cubs.

No one is asking you to donate anything. However, this guy should get punished and then go on with his life. It's why I found Michael Vick going back to the NFL alright went he served his time.

 

[Piggus]

i would consider someone who enjoys hunting and murdering animals to have serious mental problems. it's not about supporting animal killing or not. we've all had some type of meat from a slaughtered animal. but you think its normal for someone to gain joy out of killing an animal?

It's been explained already several times that most hunters don't get joy from the actual act of killing the animal. In hunting, that's not the end game. The joy, or rather satisfaction, comes from the overall experience of being in nature and seeing your hard work pay off. That begins when you get the kill, sure, but it's a hunter's responsibility to ensure that animal didn't die without reason. "Because it's fun" is not a reason most hunters will tell you. Most hunters have an enormous amount of respect for nature and the animals they kill. Can you say that about someone eating a burger? Maybe people who trophy hunt don't have that same respect. I don't know. But you can't say that all hunters hunting because it's fun to kill. That's simply not true.

 

[thepotatoman]

i would consider someone who enjoys hunting and murdering animals to have serious mental problems. it's not about supporting animal killing or not. we've all had some type of meat from a slaughtered animal. but you think its normal for someone to gain joy out of killing an animal?

Aren't you gaining joy out of killing an animal when you choose to buy a meat burger instead of a veggie one? Both can provide very similar nutritional value for very similar prices. The only difference is taste, which is just another form of pleasure.

 

[NealMcCauley]

On an aside though, do dentists in the US make that much money that they can hop over to Africa and drop 50Gs to hunt? I'm in the wrong profession.

Most don't without saving for a long time. Palmer's website listed him as a cosmetic dentist so I guess he was the dental equivalent of a plastic surgeon.

 

[Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!]

Aren't you gaining joy out of killing an animal when you choose to buy a meat burger instead of a veggie one? Both can provide very similar nutritional value for very similar prices. The only difference is taste, which is just another form of pleasure.

Also - when your Dog or Cat proudly brings you a dead animal, they are getting joy out of killing it.

 

[darscot]

Aren't you gaining joy out of killing an animal when you choose to buy a meat burger instead of a veggie one? Both can provide very similar nutritional value for very similar prices. The only difference is taste, which is just another form of pleasure.

Predators do not eat other predators, it has nothing to do with taste. Well the normally do not, it is only in extreme conditions or insanity that predators eat each other. We happily kill each other but this has nothing to do with hunting for food.

 

[Velcro Fly]

Aren't you gaining joy out of killing an animal when you choose to buy a meat burger instead of a veggie one? Both can provide very similar nutritional value for very similar prices. The only difference is taste, which is just another form of pleasure.

big difference between looking an animal in the eye and killing it and buying a burger

i didn't think that needed to be stated but ok

 

[FrenchMovieTheme]

Aren't you gaining joy out of killing an animal when you choose to buy a meat burger instead of a veggie one? Both can provide very similar nutritional value for very similar prices. The only difference is taste, which is just another form of pleasure.

i've never hunted/murdered a cow to cook my steak. but i'm sure you're trying to equate someone buying a burger being equal with some psychopath who gets hard off murdering an animal directly so i'll just put the argument to rest and we can agree to disagree on whatever point you're trying to make

It's been explained already several times that most hunters don't get joy from the actual act of killing the animal. In hunting, that's not the end game. The joy, or rather satisfaction, comes from the overall experience of being in nature and seeing your hard work pay off. That begins when you get the kill, sure, but it's a hunter's responsibility to ensure that animal didn't die without reason. "Because it's fun" is not a reason most hunters will tell you. Most hunters have an enormous amount of respect for nature and the animals they kill. Can you say that about someone eating a burger? Maybe people who trophy hunt don't have that same respect. I don't know. But you can't say that all hunters hunting because it's fun to kill. That's simply not true.

lol without reason? what is the reason to hunt and kill an animal? you can be in nature and experience nature without the end result being that you murdered an animal. i'll never have respect for people who hunt and kill animals, no matter the excuse they give. not that they give a shit what i or anyone else who opposes the practice think

 

[Beelzebufo]

i've never hunted/murdered a cow to cook my steak. but i'm sure you're trying to equate someone buying a burger being equal with some psychopath who gets hard off murdering an animal directly so i'll just put the argument to rest and we can agree to disagree on whatever point you're trying to make



lol without reason? what is the reason to hunt and kill an animal? you can be in nature and experience nature without the end result being that you murdered an animal. i'll never have respect for people who hunt and kill animals, no matter the excuse they give. not that they give a shit what i or anyone else who opposes the practice think

You kill animals because the animals are destroying the world and can be used as food if you kill them. Win win.

 

[Piggus]

i've never hunted/murdered a cow to cook my steak. but i'm sure you're trying to equate someone buying a burger being equal with some psychopath who gets hard off murdering an animal directly so i'll just put the argument to rest and we can agree to disagree on whatever point you're trying to make



lol without reason? what is the reason to hunt and kill an animal? you can be in nature and experience nature without the end result being that you murdered an animal. i'll never have respect for people who hunt and kill animals, no matter the excuse they give. not that they give a shit what i or anyone else who opposes the practice think

So it's okay to "murder" an animal for food as long as someone else does it for you? The reason to hunt and kill an animal, for most hunters, is for food. It's also a form of wildlife population control. People like you who think all hunters "get off" on killing are totally clueless. How many hunters have you actually asked why they enjoy hunting? But hey, if that's what you want to believe, go right ahead lol. Regardless, most hunters probably care a shit ton more about nature and the environment than you do. So by all means continue shedding tears for Bambi while you request an extra side of Babe with your eggs.

Also - when your Dog or Cat proudly brings you a dead animal, they are getting joy out of killing it.

I guess that makes my cat a psychopath.

 

[thepotatoman]

big difference between looking an animal in the eye and killing it and buying a burger

i didn't think that needed to be stated but ok

Oh, so it would have been ok if he instead paid someone else to kill it so he could have it as a trophy?

 

[Chainsawkitten]

I guess that makes my cat a psychopath.

Animals aren't moral agents. Applying morality to animals is nonsensical.

 

[FrenchMovieTheme]

So it's okay to "murder" an animal for food as long as someone else does it for you? The reason to hunt and kill an animal, for most hunters, is for food. It's also a form of wildlife population control. People like you who think all hunters "get off" on killing are totally clueless. How many hunters have you actually asked why they enjoy hunting? But hey, if that's what you want to believe, go right ahead lol. Regardless, most hunters probably care a shit ton more about nature and the environment than you do. So by all means continue shedding tears for Bambi while you request an extra side of Babe with your eggs.




I guess that makes my cat a psychopath.

so the reason for MOST hunters is for food. they get 0 joy out of it, they just have to provide for their family. need to put food on the table! what would they do if they couldn't hunt and kill animals? how would they get food? i'm not sure!

as for hunters probably caring a shit ton more about nature and the environment.... lol, what an odd place to take this discussion! my entire point to begin with is someone who gains joy out of killing an animal has mental issues (in my opinion).

i'm not shedding tears over anything. plenty of people do stupid shit that makes no sense to me aside from hunting so i guess its par for the course. just an observation brah, no need to get salty about it!

 

[pgtl_10]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/29/donald-trump-s-sons-killed-exotic-animals.html

 

[Serra]

So can someone explain to me why he isnt being charged with something?

Tricking a animal participating in a university study out of a wildlife sanctuary and killing it must be illegal.

 

[FrenchMovieTheme]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/29/donald-trump-s-sons-killed-exotic-animals.html

he became one with nature and fed his friends. godbless don jr. or whatever his sons name is!

 

[Dalek]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/29/donald-trump-s-sons-killed-exotic-animals.html

holy fuck those pictures are disturbing...

He also explained how hunting somehow helps people become conservationists.

“Anyone who thinks hunters are just ‘bloodthirsty morons’ hasn’t looked into hunting,” said Donald Jr. “If you wait through long, cold hours in the November woods with a bow in your hands hoping a buck will show or if you spend days walking in the African bush trailing Cape buffalo while listening to lions roar, you’re sure to learn hunting isn’t about killing. Nature actually humbles you. Hunting forces a person to endure, to master themselves, even to truly get to know the wild environment. Actually, along the way, hunting and fishing makes you fall in love with the natural world. This is why hunters so often give back by contributing to conservation.”

 

[RustyNails]

Fuckin Yelp dropped all of those 5000+ reviews! Don't they realize that internet doesn't work like that?