This poor woman is being demonized for shooting a lion legally

Status
Not open for further replies.
That said, I am appalled and disgusted by all sorts of sport hunting, particularly for rare or endangered creatures.
Click to expand...

First off, the Panthera Leo is not classified as endangered, or rare. It is considered "Vulnerable". While this may not seem like a difference, it actually is. It means that the animal is not currently at risk for extinction in the wild, while Endangered means it is at a high risk for extinction.

People can pat themselves on the back by hunting to contribute to the overall preservation. I don't know how I feel about that. I would prefer if these were just protected all together and allowed to live unmolested.
Click to expand...

Hunting on a whole is not even close to the greatest threat to the Lion population. It is ranked 6th behind Housing and Urban Development, Shifting agriculture, Small-holder farming, Nomadic Grazing and Small-holder grazing. While eliminating hunting would help, it would not come close to reversing the decline of the population. To do that, wholesale changes in the native countries needs to come about. I agree it would be best to allow the numbers to climb to normal numbers, however the vast majority of the Lions being killed for "Sport" are ones that are old(not all, unfortunetly, but a majority all the same) and cannot hunt natural pray. These lions instead go for livestock around their habitat. I guess it comes down to who do we protect first, the livelihood of the farmer, or the life of the old lion?

There is a real psychological problem with killing something for the pure sake of killing it. It is one of a million examples of the decay of our hollow society and values. I cannot imagine taking ANY pleasure in ending the life of a creature unnecessarily, whether it's a house mouse, a snake in the yard, a gopher, a dog, a deer, an elk or an elephant.
Click to expand...

I am completely against the killing of animals for sport, but i also subscribe to the theory that it is not my place to judge what someone does, as long as it is legal. Many people think killing an animal, even for food should not be allowed. They feel anyone who hunts or fishes is a sociopath who should be jailed. Are they in the right? Not in my opinion.

Only humans can take land and encroach on the animals that have been there since the dawn of time, and then justify murdering them for sport, income, 'self defense,' etc. wholesale right down to extinction. Shameful. And killing for sport must be some sort of deranged mentality.
Click to expand...

Humans have been living in the Lion's habitat for thousands of years now. The difference is we now have to balance how our lives are encroaching on their ability to live. This is a reasonably new phenomenon that we are still learning how to manage.

People who are 'for' sport trophy hunting can come up with all sorts of 'feel good' reasons to support it. But the numbers show that WE as a human species are irresponsibly destroying then wholesale, destroying their habitats, and hunting them into extinction. We've done it with many species and continue to do it. Hunting to preserve simply doesn't work. Making the killing of these creatures illegal with stiff penalties DOES work. The whale has made a comeback not through hunting, but through making their killing and trade illegal.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Hunting CAN work and HAS worked in the past, it just has to be done correctly. Let's look at deer populations in America. They are currently at an all time high. In the late 1800s, they reached a low of 500,00 due to overhunting and destruction of deer's natural habitat(see a trend here?). In 1900 the Lacy Act(along with other laws) helped set the road to recovery, and now the deer population in America is estimated at 25 million. Now, will something like that work for the Lion population? I don't know(maybe if you raise the fee to hunt them to something like $100,000, and limit the killing to only Lions over a certain age. Limit the funds to only be used to help set up/fund wildlife sancuaries or something), but making a blanket statement that "hunting to preserve simply doesn't work" is at the least, inaccurate. Does it work in every situation? No, but again, it has worked in the past.
 
Maybe I have gotten too old and after losing too many friends, I now value life, and don’t care for “Trophy Hunting”. I do not have an urge to kill the largest, healthiest, animal. I would rather they live a long life. I am saddened when rare healthy animals are killed just to make a rug or a wall mount.

I don't know the solution or have the answers to it all.
 
Pond, no water tight plan. Just something more than conjecture.

What organizations and governments? You realize this is Africa right? And shouldn't the African people get a say?

What happens to the people that depend on that land when these orgs and govs strip it away from them?

Prices aren't artificial. They are priced by the market. The employer wants labor for a particular wage. The employees want to earn a particular wage. They work together for mutual benefit. What you are proposing is artificial. You don't seem to realize that if you force higher wages in those countries that the corporations employing those people would just leave. Working in factories or as guides for hunters provides opportunity to these people. What you are proposing would strip those opportunities from them. Then what are they going to do?

And what happens when the animals stop being a commodity for these people again? They will turn their backs to poaching again because it will no longer affect them.
 
leadcounsil,

All manor of things are illegal with stiff penalties. People still do them. They tried that with endangered animals already. It didn't work. Recent efforts that have opened up tightly regulated hunts have improved the populations of many species. I don't know how it has affected lions in particular because I haven't really seen much information on them.

There are already trade restrictions on ivory and lots of other items. Poachers still wantonly slaughter the animals for it.

I don't say this as a trophy hunter either. Just as someone on the sideline that has seen it work. I've got no skin in the game so I don't need to invent anything to make me fell better. I think I first read about it in the Wall Street Journal. Prior to that article I thought as you did and felt that hunters were making a bad situation worse but that doesn't seem to be the case. It is the poachers that are killing without abandon and doing real damage. Setting aside a handful of tags a year at several thousand dollars a piece to fund conservation works. We do it here with success. They have started doing it there and is has shown to be just as successful. If it works it works. What you or I think of the hunters taking part doesn't change that.

You talk about "psychological problem with killing something for the pure sake of killing it" but that is an over simplification. In my experience it is the anti-hunters wishing death upon hunters that seem to have a psychological problem.
 
African populations of people are growing. Areas changing from wild to agricultural are increasing. This all results in a diminution of habitat which then results in a lessening of the populations of wild animals.

There are already multitudes of laws and regulations promulgated from the efforts of the CITES people. Still, poaching continues. Sadly, much of it operates under the auspices of the rulers of various African thugocracies.

The bottom line is that the healthiest numbers occur where there is a monetary value to a wild animal.

It is irrelevant how any of us here feel about trophy hunting or sport hunting. If there is any honest concern for the health of a species, it seems to me that the best way to ensure that is to go with what is known to work.

The woman killed one lion. Her money contributes to the protection of the lion species, in that area. And the system has been operating for decades, a sign of success.
 
I can neither condemn nor justify this ladies actions.

Reason I can't:

I don't live in Africa.
I've never been to Africa(and will probably never be fortunate enough to go).
Don't know the legalities of hunting in Africa or know the "why's and why not's" for the hunting laws being what they are in Africa.
Can't tell ya for certain who benefits from these kind of hunts in Africa.

What I do know about hunting in Africa is only what I hear. And we all know how truthful that can be. :rolleyes:

Guess I'll just have to reframe from judgment on this topic till I've actually been to Africa and know how things are firsthand instead of basing my judgment on hearsay.
 
If you're not hunting to feed your family you're just killing something to kill it.
Click to expand...

And how many of us in the U.S.A. rely solely on hunting to feed our families? I shake my head when statements like this are made.:confused:

ETA: I have worked in native Alaskan villages where subsistence hunting is the order of the day. Yet even there, in the remote north, where everything is either flown in or barged in in the summer, beef cheeseburgers could be had any day of the week! I have seen caribou hunted in the name of subsistence, only to be fed to the dog teams... the same dog teams who remain chained all winter because they are no longer needed since the snow machine was invented.

To believe that nothing should be hunted unless it is eaten by the hunter is egotistical, at the least!
 
Last edited:
Pond, no water tight plan. Just something more than conjecture.
Click to expand...

I'll say it a third time. Find the link I talked about and watch it. Then you can a) hear from someone with the expertise exactly how it is done and b) you will see how I know that it can be done.
Whilst the exact same scenario may not be at play in the case we are discussing, the principle is the same: getting large corporations to realise there is value in the nature that already exists and that preserving it is in everyone's interest. The good news is that the issues that are putting pressure on lions and other African wildlife are much the same. Address them for one and you will address them for all in that habitat

Prices aren't artificial. They are priced by the market. The employer wants labor for a particular wage. The employees want to earn a particular wage. They work together for mutual benefit.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that it is quite that neat. The big internationals hold virtually all the cards in such situations. The whole reason they are there is because they can get away with labour practices that would never get through labour laws over here.

Even if you adjust for the cost of living there is no way an African labourer gets anywhere near a comparable employment package that someone in the West gets. I mean proportionally, not directly compared.

If it were equitable, then the Fair Trade scheme would never have been needed

It is definitely priced by the market: ours. The African labourer just gets the choice: take it or leave it. We wouldn't like that, why should they. Just look at the bloody strikes at those SA gold and platinum a few months back...

And shouldn't the African people get a say?
Click to expand...

Yes I do. It doesn't stop mobile phone companies looking to places like DRC for Coltan for their circuitry. The conditions in those mines are known to be atrocious: akin to slavery.
But hey... at least that new $300 handset is free on contract!

What you are proposing is artificial. You don't seem to realize that if you force higher wages in those countries that the corporations employing those people would just leave. Working in factories or as guides for hunters provides opportunity to these people. What you are proposing would strip those opportunities from them. Then what are they going to do?
Click to expand...

I think higher wages would be welcome. Don't you? Are you saying that you honestly think they are paying those people anywhere near the maximum they could afford whilst still remaining profitable. The profit margins must be huge!
I just think that if companies are going to do business there, these countries shouldn't be seen as wineskins to be squeezed dry. Which they are.
I also think that we, in the West should know exactly how our lifestyle is subsidised.
When we are charged a price for a product by a company, and that price has been made available by exploiting an ill-represented workforce with few other options, knowing full well that the same approach would be law-suits galore back home, then that is an artificial price.

--------------------​

On another subject relating to earlier posts I will say the following. I spoke to a South African today and asked in more detail about the hunting reserves. Based on what he said I will revise my previous statements about the value of these places in terms of conservation. It seems I underestimated the number of animals that can be bred there and that they can be subsequently allowed access to the nature reserves beyond. This is an encouraging thing.

However, I will say that it is still nowhere near what is needed to address the problem. I felt (and he agreed) that this is more of a hand-brake on the decline of the lion population and by no means a reverse gear. It is not the answer, merely something that can offer a lower rate of decline than without. Nor have I changed my views on people who enjoy killing for pleasure and pointscoring amongst their peers. All the same, I felt that I should acknowledge if my previous statements had been too severe.
 
zincwarrior said:
Good. If you're not hunting to feed your family you're just killing something to kill it.
Click to expand...

Please. :rolleyes:

90% of hunters in America spend FAR more on hunting than the equivalent meat would cost in a store. Hunting to feed your family is a joke for most of us. We had a thread on this not long ago. We typically spend at least twice and often 10x what store bought meat costs.

Besides, why does it have to be "my family"? That lion isn't skinned out and dumped in a ditch. The locals use it for THEIR families.
 
Pond, I think you make dangerous assumptions based on false preconceptions. You are applying our principals and circumstances to a people that they don't apply to. We are all welcome to our opinions though. I'll leave you to it.
 
There is a real psychological problem with killing something for the pure sake of killing it. It is one of a million examples of the decay of our hollow society and values. I cannot imagine taking ANY pleasure in ending the life of a creature unnecessarily, whether it's a house mouse, a snake in the yard, a gopher, a dog, a deer, an elk or an elephant.
Click to expand...

That is a matter of perspective. I am curious how you feel about the house cat?

This link describes just how lethal the cat is to other animals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/science/that-cuddly-kitty-of-yours-is-a-killer.html


Humans too are a part of nature. We are not above it or outside of it. I realize there are some leaps to made in making the comparison between cats and humans but there are similarities. We are both natural creatures and we both kill things for no apparent reason.

I sometimes think that the term trophy hunting was coined to describe just that action. We as humans, being a part of the natural environment, sometimes feel an inexplicable urge to kill something without any real reason for doing so, other than we are predators.
 
James Pond - Can you put yourself in a native African's place...and imagine that your village is being terrorized by a male man eating lion, with some male lions do take a great pleasure in killing humans, some with slow agonizing deaths.

If you had a choice...would you try to kill this man eater --- while possibly taking great pleasure in doing it --- or would you let somebody else take the responsibility in killing the beast, but still possibly take great pleasure in knowing that you were part of the process in the elimination of this man eater?

In certain rural parts of Africa, they do have a problem with man eating lions, "with the behavior being not unusual nor necessarily aberrant. While tooth decay may explain some incidents, prey depletion in human-dominated areas is a more likely cause of lion predation on humans."
 
Last edited:
I don't agree with Pond! Trophy hunting is a legitimate sport. <period>

I won't try to explain. There's no reasoning with some.
 
Good. If you're not hunting to feed your family you're just killing something to kill it
Click to expand...

Like others have eluded to...'bull hockey'!

I might add that if the only people in this country that were allowed to hunt were those that did so cause they had to in order to feed themselves and family, there surely wouldn't be the millions of $'s per year generated for conservation that there currently is. There just wouldn't be that many hunters.
 
There is a real psychological problem with killing something for the pure sake of killing it. It is one of a million examples of the decay of our hollow society and values. I cannot imagine taking ANY pleasure in ending the life of a creature unnecessarily, whether it's a house mouse, a snake in the yard, a gopher, a dog, a deer, an elk or an elephant.
Click to expand...

The instinct to hunt and kill is hard wired in humans just like it is in all predators. We can pretend it's not, but that's all it would be. Furthermore, the instinct does not kick in only when one has an empty belly. It's always there. Watch dogs running a bear, wolves chasing an elk, lions closing in on a zebra or a human stalking a deer. They love it. It's fun. It satisfies primal instincts.

I shoot animals for food, and 90% of my red meat intake is from game I've killed. But make no mistake, I love hunting those animals. I could spend less on guns, gas, tags and equipment and more on meat from the store but I don't because that's not fun to me. That's boring and I don't know what I'm eating. It's not perverse, it just the way it works. The instinct to hunt is not bred out of me, and I'm not ashamed of it. If I didn't eat the animals I might enjoy it less, but I am pretty sure I'd still enjoy it because it's my nature as a human male to do so. I don't have sex only when I need a baby, and I don't hunt only when my belly is growling. That's the truth.

I think the raising, slaughtering and butchering animals away from the eyes of society so that people become out of touch with the way things work is a decay of values and leads to a hollow society. Killing is part of life, always has been. Humans are at the top of the pyramid. Bummer for the lions. We are smart enough however to not wipe out species if we try. Wildlife preservation by sport hunters is a prime example. Some think that is perverse but it is reality. Folks should not confuse sport hunting with poaching for profit. They are different. And let's not mistake what I am saying as a defense for poaching animals for profit to the point of extinction.
 
Can you put yourself in a native African's place...and imagine that your village is being terrorized by a male man eating lion, with some male lions do take a great pleasure in killing humans, some with slow agonizing deaths.

If you had a choice...would you try to kill this man eater --- while possibly taking great pleasure in doing it --- or would you let somebody else take the responsibility in killing the beast, but still possibly take great pleasure in knowing that you were part of the process in the elimination of this man eater?
Click to expand...

Apples and Oranges:
We are talking about trophy hunting on reserves. Not eliminating random man-eaters which is self-preservation, not "sport". Completely different ball-game. Trophy hunters are not sitting around waiting on stand-by for the next man-eater to surface.

There's no reasoning with some.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top