Can we hunt him using an Apache?

[anonymous-user]

ofcorsa said:

Rude-boy said:

greed, BUT.
This is a bit different. I am much more on the fence when it comes to fox hunting and game bird shooting but when it comes to big game, and in particular endangered animals I can't even begin to express the utter contempt in which I hold those who consider it sport. Hunting a lion with a bowie knife I can almost get, even if I still could not support it due to the state of the population. Using a cross bow and guns though is cowardice.

Lions are not endangered.

Yes they are. They're not on official lists but their number has halved in the last 30 years and extinction by 2050 is predicted. They will likely be on the official lists soon, but probably not soon enough.

[chrispmartha]

ofcorsa said:

Lions are not endangered.

Neither are domestic cats, should he be allowed to go round shooting them with a bow and arrow?

[ofcorsa]

Apple and oranges


Although in this instance the bloke was at best reckless and at worst a total tt. Poaching is not excusable especially big game.

Edited by ofcorsa on Thursday 30th July 14:52

[Camoradi]

nute said:

The hypocrisy of those who are wishing pain and suffering on this guy for what he did is breathtaking. I wonder how many of those calling for him to be beheaded or shot with his own bow would actually be willing to personally do what they are calling for.

I do understand the economic case for trophy hunting but I cannot for the life of me understand why this cretin was trying to kill a lion with a bow. If this has to happen it should happen in a humane way and not lead to the suffering of the poor animal as evidently happened.

...and to those who see a difference between killing an animal for food as opposed to "sport", i don't think the animal concerned would share your views.

I too agree that those asking for his head on a stick are going too far. Personally I'd like to think that lack of income alone will now curtail his hunting days.

I read that bow and arrow or crossbow was often the preferred weapon when hunters were operating in the wrong area or poaching. Much quieter than a rifle and therefore less likely to attract attention.

[Gandahar]

I didn't use any slug pellets this year after seeing what happened to snails and slugs last year. It was not a pretty sight. I've got two or more rats living under my shed at the moment and I'm thinking how can I move them on without killing them with rat poison which is not very nice.

I doubt my two rats would get into the Daily Mail.

While I don't agree with this is chap doing what I do think is that the bigger picture has to be taken into account and that is how the ever expanding human population gets on with nature.

I have a bee buzzing about .. that's ok
I have a wasp buzzing about ... that's not ok.

If we got visited by some massively powerful species who were not species centric, like we are, would they make a difference on how we treat lion or rat, or bee or wasp?

Edited by Gandahar on Thursday 30th July 15:34

[Wrathalanche]

MrBarry123 said:

The world would be a better place without trophy hunters however him losing his livelihood is comfort enough for me.

You'd probably find these species would be disappearing far faster if it wasn't for those willing to part with hundreds of thousands of their own dollars to shoot at selected specimens.

[ringerz]

Gandahar said:

I didn't use any slug pellets this year after seeing what happened to snails and slugs last year. It was not a pretty sight. I've got two or more rats living under my shed at the moment and I'm thinking how can I move them on without killing them with rat poison which is not very nice.

I doubt my two rats would get into the Daily Mail.

While I don't agree with this is chap doing what I do think is that the bigger picture has to be taken into account and that is how the ever expanding human population gets on with nature.

I have a bee buzzing about .. that's ok
I have a wasp buzzing about ... that's not ok.

If we got visited by some massively powerful species who were not species centric, like we are, would they make a difference on how we treat lion or rat, or bee or wasp?

Edited by Gandahar on Thursday 30th July 15:34

I agree with you there mate. A good friend of mine was telling me to buy rat poison a few months ago to get rid of a rodent problem in my flat - I refused to. My friend didn't have a problem with it, despite them being a lifelong vegetarian (but yet wears calf skin and drinks milk). Nothing is black and white and I think most of us are on quite shaky moral ground when it comes to our treatment of animals - myself included. I don't have to eat meet - none of us do, we do it because we enjoy it, therefore animals are still being exploited for our enjoyment in some way. Most things in fact we use animals for - clothing etc, have other materials that could be used. We just prefer to use animals in this way.

We should probably be more honest with ourselves that if we eat meat or use animals products - we are being a t*** to an animal of some sort. Not as big a t*** as that dentist running around with bow and arrow, but we aren't much better. I'm sure the pig I eat doesn't care much for the difference.

[Cheese Mechanic]

Wrathalanche said:

You'd probably find these species would be disappearing far faster if it wasn't for those willing to part with hundreds of thousands of their own dollars to shoot at selected specimens.

Precisely, not only does that income help fund the Reserves themselves, it also helps the security of those reserves via armed Rangers.

The reserves are finite areas, so can only host a certain density of wider species. For some culls are needed. Hunters are happy to pay, to initiate those culls. Its controlled, helps sustain the reserve, and, very importantly, the security it provides , helps deter poachers, by far the biggest threat most animals have. Particularly those packing ivory, or who feature in Chinese traditional remedies.

Although matey here appears not to have intended to behave illegally, it looks like he was taken for one and shot the "wrong" lion. Clarence's absence was a story before in was unveiled the circumstances, so matey has copped a nightmare from internet hysteria , via the carreer neurotic.

[MrBarry123]

Wrathalanche said:

MrBarry123 said:

The world would be a better place without trophy hunters however him losing his livelihood is comfort enough for me.

You'd probably find these species would be disappearing far faster if it wasn't for those willing to part with hundreds of thousands of their own dollars to shoot at selected specimens.

Sorry but that has to be the biggest lie people tout nowadays.

Take tigers for example... The number in the wild had decreased from over 100,000 in 1990 to less than 3,200 in 2010 - almost entirely down to human causes.

[anonymous-user]

MrBarry123 said:

Wrathalanche said:

MrBarry123 said:

The world would be a better place without trophy hunters however him losing his livelihood is comfort enough for me.

You'd probably find these species would be disappearing far faster if it wasn't for those willing to part with hundreds of thousands of their own dollars to shoot at selected specimens.

Sorry but that has to be the biggest lie people tout nowadays.

Take tigers for example... The number in the wild had decreased from over 100,000 in 1990 to less than 3,200 in 2010 - almost entirely down to human causes.

He said species would be disappearing faster without the influx of cash from hunters. You say a species is disappearing. Your example proves nothing.

[anonymous-user]

Cheese Mechanic said:

Wrathalanche said:

You'd probably find these species would be disappearing far faster if it wasn't for those willing to part with hundreds of thousands of their own dollars to shoot at selected specimens.

Precisely, not only does that income help fund the Reserves themselves, it also helps the security of those reserves via armed Rangers.

To be fair on Wrathalanche, he said "probably", but you're just making it up. You don't really have any evidence to support these claims at all.

[Wrathalanche]

MrBarry123 said:

Sorry but that has to be the biggest lie people tout nowadays.

Take tigers for example... The number in the wild had decreased from over 100,000 in 1990 to less than 3,200 in 2010 - almost entirely down to human causes.

AFAIK there's no legal tiger hunts. Tiger numbers are dropping because of poaching, not trophy hunting. Not in the modern day, anyway.

Trophy hunting, where sanctioned, is not poaching. There appears to be a big misunderstanding here for a lot of people.

In most cases, it is the people who's day job is to keep these animals cared for an protected which are allocating animals for the legal hunts. This money goes towards stopping poaching.

What doesn't help, in this case, is this idiot (the dentist) has blurred the line between hunting and poaching.

[Camoradi]

Wrathalanche said:

You'd probably find these species would be disappearing far faster if it wasn't for those willing to part with hundreds of thousands of their own dollars to shoot at selected specimens.

I think it is possible to make a donation to a fund to aid wildlife conservation without the subsequent kill. This guy would be pulling teeth back in Minnesota if he had made a 50,000 dollar donation to a conservation fund instead.

[Cheese Mechanic]

el stovey said:

To be fair on Wrathalanche, he said "probably", but you're just making it up. You don't really have any evidence to support these claims at all.

Oh really,do not judge me as yourself. Armed rangers on reserves are there as decorations are they?

http://www.victoriafalls-guide.net/game-rangers-sh...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/14...

Who funds the rangers? The sugar plum fairy? Cash strapped African Gov'ts have many avenues for their cash, aside their own pockets , funds from controlled trophy culls help prevent the horror stories in the 2 links.

Incidentally, Tigers were recently quoted as being depleted, they are , thats for sure. Why are measures to protect them not being made ? They are. Why are they not effective? Partly because every poacher in SE Asia is after them (Hugely valuable for Chinese remedies) and the habitat . African plain is easier to police than dense asian jungle.

The poacher is by far the biggest threat to "Big game" animals , that is a fact.

[KTF]

Camoradi said:

This guy would be pulling teeth back in Minnesota if he had made a 50,000 dollar donation to a conservation fund instead.

Or he could be pulling teeth if he had shot something else that wouldn't have generated such a ststorm for whatever reason.

[anonymous-user]

Cheese Mechanic said:

Oh really,do not judge me as yourself. Armed rangers on reserves are there as decorations are they?

http://www.victoriafalls-guide.net/game-rangers-sh...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/14...

Who funds the rangers? The sugar plum fairy? Cash strapped African Gov'ts have many avenues for their cash, aside their own pockets , funds from controlled trophy culls help prevent the horror stories in the 2 links.

Do you have any evidence this dentist's money helped pay for rangers or protect animals?

[ofcorsa]

I'm sure I read Tiger habitat is 1/10th of what it was at peak population. No convenient fall guy for that though I guess.

[Wrathalanche]

Camoradi said:

I think it is possible to make a donation to a fund to aid wildlife conservation without the subsequent kill. This guy would be pulling teeth back in Minnesota if he had made a 50,000 dollar donation to a conservation fund instead.

So the only hope for these animals is for wealthy foreign benefactors to give up large sums of their money for nothing in return? Are you making a donation today then? If so, what percentage of your income?

A far more effective way would be to make the public pay per-righteous-indignation-outburst. £5 per grief. Rhino keepers in Africa would be rolling in it thanks to this story alone.

[Wrathalanche]

el stovey said:

Do you have any evidence this dentist's money helped pay for rangers or protect animals?

I think that's the point here - and why no one is defending this particular 'hunter'. Given the backgrounds of those who took him hunting, it sounds extremely sketchy and completely unsanctioned. So its highly unlikely his money wouldn't do anything other than line some chancer's pockets.

That's why he's facing poaching charges. He's a poacher, not a hunter.

[Camoradi]

Wrathalanche said:

So the only hope for these animals is for wealthy foreign benefactors to give up large sums of their money for nothing in return?

OK, we'll try it your way. 100,000 lions left, so get 100,000 dentists to pay 50,000 dollars to shoot one each. Problem solved...