Cecil

[Daz39 962]

 

Simple for me, I don't agree with hunting for trophies.

 

Hunt to eat, hunt to clear vermin, hunt to protect others - hunting for nothing other than bragging rights?

 

Doesn't sit easy. Then I was always taught that everything I kill should be put into the food chain.

 

Killing for killings sake? Nope.

 

Just my humble opinion.

all meat is given to the local tribes for free, the skins are usually shipped to taxidermists, so more of a trophy shot animal is used than many other forms of hunting, what is killing for killings sake??

 

I had read the carcass was left to rot in the sun. The guy took the pelt and head. ???

 

Killing for killings sake? Killing something that has no need to be killed.

 

You (not you specifically) can't call people on here hypocrites, shooting rabbits in a country that is BY LAW a rabbit clearance zone is hardly the same as someone shooting a tagged pride leader, a protected animal. You just can not class what he did, or that twat of a woman constantly posing with Giraffes, rhino, Big cats does, with what the majority of people on here do.

 

We kill vermin, most of us use the animals we kill for either dog/ferret food, or human consumption.

 

Am I really a hypocrite for saying some animals SHOULD be off limits?

 

or are we doing our utmost to remove species from the planet forever? But hey, if someone pays $35,000 it is ok, we can go buy another one, oh wait......

[paulus 26]

 

 

Simple for me, I don't agree with hunting for trophies.

 

Hunt to eat, hunt to clear vermin, hunt to protect others - hunting for nothing other than bragging rights?

 

Doesn't sit easy. Then I was always taught that everything I kill should be put into the food chain.

 

Killing for killings sake? Nope.

 

Just my humble opinion.

all meat is given to the local tribes for free, the skins are usually shipped to taxidermists, so more of a trophy shot animal is used than many other forms of hunting, what is killing for killings sake??

 

I had read the carcass was left to rot in the sun. The guy took the pelt and head. ???

 

Killing for killings sake? Killing something that has no need to be killed.

 

You (not you specifically) can't call people on here hypocrites, shooting rabbits in a country that is BY LAW a rabbit clearance zone is hardly the same as someone shooting a tagged pride leader, a protected animal. You just can not class what he did, or that twat of a woman constantly posing with Giraffes, rhino, Big cats does, with what the majority of people on here do.

 

We kill vermin, most of us use the animals we kill for either dog/ferret food, or human consumption.

 

Am I really a hypocrite for saying some animals SHOULD be off limits?

 

or are we doing our utmost to remove species from the planet forever? But hey, if someone pays $35,000 it is ok, we can go buy another one, oh wait......

 

can we legally kill for dog food, ferret food when we have no need to unless the killing is to prevent some animal or other from eating into someones profits then it has to be for sport or animal management, the general license and the hunting act 2005 seem to endorse this. most on here kill for killing sake, me included but its a choice we make, as long as its conducted within the law then who decides whats acceptable to kill, as i said earlier the Maasai kill lions for much the same reasons we kill foxes, protection of live stock, does this mean the lion does not deserve to be killed and yet the fox does. animal management think about it, where does that fit in with morals and ethics or maybe its just down to monetary value in the end.

[jeppi26 1,855]

Culling any species for reasons of crop/livestock or human protection, prevention of disease or control of foreign species is acceptable to a lot of people, Natural England agree, there are laws and regulations in place to control what can or cannot be done. We have laws that can mean a shooter is prosecuted for cruelty, there are conditions on an FAC limiting what you can shoot with which calibre. Crucially, any kind of bowhunting is illegal here and most of us wouldn't argue with that.

Native Africans still use bows and spears, they always have, to protect their animals, rightly so but I bet a lot now have access to rifles. If they hunt an animal they know how to do it, their reason for hunting is valid, no better or worse than Eskimos hunting seals or us shooting rats, rabbits and pigeons. Valid reasons and the use of effective weapons are of paramount importance to most of us.

So why do some people fail to understand the repugnance that some of us feel at an animal in his prime, not threatening humans or livestock being killed? Cecil was on a reserve where he was protected, he was baited off the reserve to be shot with an unsuitable weapon simply because he was a spectacular example, just for a rich man to satisfy his craving for a head and pelt to hang on the wall.

We cannot apply our laws and ethics to Africa or it's native people but the dentist as a so called civilized man from the Western world should NEVER have attempted to shoot the lion under those circumstances and certainly not with a crossbow. If an animal has to be culled then let there be a good reason, allow hunters to pay to take that animal for the correct reason, but make sure they use a suitable weapon to try and prevent 40 hours of suffering.

Why isn't a compound bow a suitable wepon ??? There's many off animal (a lot bigger than lions) shot with them and died. It's only coz it toke 40h to trck and finish it everyone is hearing about it. If the lion ad died in minutes not a word would be said but that's my opinion

[budharley 945]

Culling any species for reasons of crop/livestock or human protection, prevention of disease or control of foreign species is acceptable to a lot of people, Natural England agree, there are laws and regulations in place to control what can or cannot be done. We have laws that can mean a shooter is prosecuted for cruelty, there are conditions on an FAC limiting what you can shoot with which calibre. Crucially, any kind of bowhunting is illegal here and most of us wouldn't argue with that.

Native Africans still use bows and spears, they always have, to protect their animals, rightly so but I bet a lot now have access to rifles. If they hunt an animal they know how to do it, their reason for hunting is valid, no better or worse than Eskimos hunting seals or us shooting rats, rabbits and pigeons. Valid reasons and the use of effective weapons are of paramount importance to most of us.

So why do some people fail to understand the repugnance that some of us feel at an animal in his prime, not threatening humans or livestock being killed? Cecil was on a reserve where he was protected, he was baited off the reserve to be shot with an unsuitable weapon simply because he was a spectacular example, just for a rich man to satisfy his craving for a head and pelt to hang on the wall.

We cannot apply our laws and ethics to Africa or it's native people but the dentist as a so called civilized man from the Western world should NEVER have attempted to shoot the lion under those circumstances and certainly not with a crossbow. If an animal has to be culled then let there be a good reason, allow hunters to pay to take that animal for the correct reason, but make sure they use a suitable weapon to try and prevent 40 hours of suffering.

It's not a crossbow ! Plenty of deer and animals have been injured using rifles ,it's all about shot placement you should know that ! Unfortunately this time he injured the animal ( it happens to us all you said ) .what makes you think that a compound bow shooting at 350fps hasn't got the capabilities of a clean kill is it because you think using a rifle is the only way or is it because he fecked up and the Animal was injured for 40hrs . comparing it to shooting a fox with a sub 12 is ridiculous as is using words like "barbaric " and "sick and "twisted " when you clearly don't have a clue of the power ,capabilities of using a COMPOUND BOW . Edited August 6, 2015 by budharley

[budharley 945]

Tbf mate I havnt used a compound for hunting ,I believe a pass through in the engine room using the heads they hunt with is going to leave an animal with massive vital organ damage . Isn't that the aim with rifle or bow ?

[Rez 4,961]

A bow and arrow, in its most simple of methods, or most technical, does not have the amount of energy transfer to kill. Everything dies quickly through transfer of energy. You can't argue against that.

 

The lion in question must of been a big unit to say the least, not to mention his hide... a arrow, whatever speed it is travelling does not transfer enough energy to cause enough damage internally. It's too clinical and clean. There is also no spread of energy, it would literally go in and out.

 

A bullet on the other hand breaks up on impact, (depending on the type of round used of course) and the impact is far more intense. We can all view this on the web with gun hoe yanks blasting various calibres and rounds at ballistic gels. The Lehigh 300 blackout round is a good example to search for. A bullet as we now it, but with a small indent at the tip, travelling at 2400 FPS from a decent bolt rifle would of took that lion much more humanly than any arrow. Not that I'm saying it should of been shot with anything.

 

The compound bow method of hunting is more to feed an urge of hunters to take the biggest of animals with the oldest method of weaponry. It's more statisfaction.

[pianoman 3,587]

There are untold numbers of rabbits, millions of them in this country and billions throughout the world; and we go out and shoot them because....

 

A. We legally can.
B. They can decimate crops if left unchecked.

C. They make a very cheap, tasty meal

D. Mixy is a bloody cruel disease and no animal should suffer like this. Even if it is classed as a pest.

E. They reproduce in high numbers and replenish their numbers constantly.

Compare and contrast this with the fact that, 20 years ago there were over 70,000 Lions in the African continent. Today there are fewer than 25 thousand. And the number is dwindling...

More are poached, shot or, generally killed for whatever reasons, than they can reproduce by birth of new cubs. The new pride-male will kill his predecessor's cubs, however many, outright to bring the females into heat as the new male establishes himself as the Alpha of the pride.

Rabbits don't do that.

It is far from hypocritical to say there is no difference between killing a Lion and killing a rabbit. There is a gulf of a difference!

Tribesmen killing a predatory Lion to protect their herds and themselves is one thing. That's their livelyhoods under threat by a powerful Alpha predator. Not quite the same case with a white westerner paying 35 grand to bag one for nothing more than fun! Not to say doing it illegally.

If we don't give a shit about one lion being shot, the weapon used is not the critical issue here, then, we won't mind much if another gets shot however so dispatched, nor should we mind if another is killed after that, and another...and another.

Till one day, there will be none left. So, we can sit on our uncaring arses and watch as another species gets slaughtered wholesale, till it too, is wiped from the earth. And then another after that.

Where do we draw the line?

I have no problem shooting an animal that can reproduce in greater numbers faster than I can shoot them on the crop fields they are chewing up scoffing. But I do have concerns for killing an increasingly dwindling species of wild animal, found only in one continent in the world, for nothing more than a thrill and a trophy!

The truth is, either you care about the protection of endangered wildlife species of this planet and the wish to allow them to thrive, live and die by natural means. Or, you don't give a rat's arse one way or another.

Me personally, I say it was absolutely wrong in every way to have done this for a trophy. That's killing for killings sake. And the fact that, Africa is a land where the rich can spend tens of thousands to shoot a large animal while the native population starves and thirsts and dies for want of clean water, decent food and medicines for £3 per month from all of us, is a measure of just how f****d-up the world currently is.

Edited August 7, 2015 by pianoman

[skycat 6,173]

to pianoman: That was a totally brilliant read. And put so much better than I could have done myself. It is all too easy to allow oneself to adopt a laissez faire attitude. Thank you for putting things in context.

[J Darcy 5,871]

A bow and arrow, in its most simple of methods, or most technical, does not have the amount of energy transfer to kill. Everything dies quickly through transfer of energy. You can't argue against that.

 

The lion in question must of been a big unit to say the least, not to mention his hide... a arrow, whatever speed it is travelling does not transfer enough energy to cause enough damage internally. It's too clinical and clean. There is also no spread of energy, it would literally go in and out.

 

A bullet on the other hand breaks up on impact, (depending on the type of round used of course) and the impact is far more intense. We can all view this on the web with gun hoe yanks blasting various calibres and rounds at ballistic gels. The Lehigh 300 blackout round is a good example to search for. A bullet as we now it, but with a small indent at the tip, travelling at 2400 FPS from a decent bolt rifle would of took that lion much more humanly than any arrow. Not that I'm saying it should of been shot with anything.

 

The compound bow method of hunting is more to feed an urge of hunters to take the biggest of animals with the oldest method of weaponry. It's more statisfaction.

You know nothing about bows. They are not designed to kill with shock energy. Arrows can be used to take much bigger game than a thin skinned lion, eg eland, cape buffalo etc. Many of the lion bowkills I have seen on video have complete pass throughs, the heart and lungs being perforated. You cannot compare bullets and broadheads, they are two different animals.

Upon a shot from a bow it is expected for the animal to run for 15-20 seconds until the blood stops the heart/lungs working and the animal falls over in a faint through loss of blood/oxygen to the brain.

 

As in all shooting, it is all about shot placement. If you went out and shot a rabbit with a .22 air rifle but it got away injured, does that mean the weapon should be banned, or simply that you didn't aim correctly?

 

There are MILLIONS of bowhunters in the USA, if the arrow were not effective then bowhunting over there would have been stopped a long time ago.

[J Darcy 5,871]

There are untold numbers of rabbits, millions of them in this country and billions throughout the world; and we go out and shoot them because....

 

A. We legally can.

B. They can decimate crops if left unchecked.

C. They make a very cheap, tasty meal

D. Mixy is a bloody cruel disease and no animal should suffer like this. Even if it is classed as a pest.

E. They reproduce in high numbers and replenish their numbers constantly.

 

Compare and contrast this with the fact that, 20 years ago there were over 70,000 Lions in the African continent. Today there are fewer than 25 thousand. And the number is dwindling...

 

More are poached, shot or, generally killed for whatever reasons, than they can reproduce by birth of new cubs. The new pride-male will kill his predecessor's cubs, however many, outright to bring the females into heat as the new male establishes himself as the Alpha of the pride.

 

Rabbits don't do that.

 

It is far from hypocritical to say there is no difference between killing a Lion and killing a rabbit. There is a gulf of a difference!

 

Tribesmen killing a predatory Lion to protect their herds and themselves is one thing. That's their livelyhoods under threat by a powerful Alpha predator. Not quite the same case with a white westerner paying 35 grand to bag one for nothing more than fun! Not to say doing it illegally.

 

If we don't give a shit about one lion being shot, the weapon used is not the critical issue here, then, we won't mind much if another gets shot however so dispatched, nor should we mind if another is killed after that, and another...and another.

 

Till one day, there will be none left. So, we can sit on our uncaring arses and watch as another species gets slaughtered wholesale, till it too, is wiped from the earth. And then another after that.

 

Where do we draw the line?

 

I have no problem shooting an animal that can reproduce in greater numbers faster than I can shoot them on the crop fields they are chewing up scoffing. But I do have concerns for killing an increasingly dwindling species of wild animal, found only in one continent in the world, for nothing more than a thrill and a trophy!

 

The truth is, either you care about the protection of endangered wildlife species of this planet and the wish to allow them to thrive, live and die by natural means. Or, you don't give a rat's arse one way or another.

 

Me personally, I say it was absolutely wrong in every way to have done this for a trophy. That's killing for killings sake. And the fact that, Africa is a land where the rich can spend tens of thousands to shoot a large animal while the native population starves and thirsts and dies for want of clean water, decent food and medicines for £3 per month from all of us, is a measure of just how f****d-up the world currently is.

 

A nice detailed post....BUT....who is going to protect the lion as a species when they loose their sport-hunted value.?

 

If that lion was 13 years old he was right at the very, very end of his life and there's no way he will have had control over a pride at that age. Why not harvest him to raise revenue to help conserve all the other game species in the area?

 

I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that it is hunters that care more about game species than anyone else, BUT there is one particular item you've forgotten and thats habitat. When the conservancy area is denude of value, then what do you think is going to happen to it? This is Africa not the UK. What will happen is that it will be grazed to death, logs taken for firewood and poached until there is nothing left on four legs. Then where's our lions? You know where they are? They're dead. And all the other game besides.

 

This will have far-reaching consequences in African safari's, and none of it will help any species. In fact, the contrary will be true.

History had proved in africa; you take away the value of a species and it will dwindle away like a flickering candle until it's gone.

 

The facts are that there's a hell of a lot of game in africa that relies purely on sport hunting for its very survival. Whether you like it or not.

[paulus 26]

There are untold numbers of rabbits, millions of them in this country and billions throughout the world; and we go out and shoot them because....

 

A. We legally can.

B. They can decimate crops if left unchecked.

C. They make a very cheap, tasty meal

D. Mixy is a bloody cruel disease and no animal should suffer like this. Even if it is classed as a pest.

E. They reproduce in high numbers and replenish their numbers constantly.

 

Compare and contrast this with the fact that, 20 years ago there were over 70,000 Lions in the African continent. Today there are fewer than 25 thousand. And the number is dwindling...

 

More are poached, shot or, generally killed for whatever reasons, than they can reproduce by birth of new cubs. The new pride-male will kill his predecessor's cubs, however many, outright to bring the females into heat as the new male establishes himself as the Alpha of the pride.

 

Rabbits don't do that.

 

It is far from hypocritical to say there is no difference between killing a Lion and killing a rabbit. There is a gulf of a difference!

 

Tribesmen killing a predatory Lion to protect their herds and themselves is one thing. That's their livelyhoods under threat by a powerful Alpha predator. Not quite the same case with a white westerner paying 35 grand to bag one for nothing more than fun! Not to say doing it illegally.

 

If we don't give a shit about one lion being shot, the weapon used is not the critical issue here, then, we won't mind much if another gets shot however so dispatched, nor should we mind if another is killed after that, and another...and another.

 

Till one day, there will be none left. So, we can sit on our uncaring arses and watch as another species gets slaughtered wholesale, till it too, is wiped from the earth. And then another after that.

 

Where do we draw the line?

 

I have no problem shooting an animal that can reproduce in greater numbers faster than I can shoot them on the crop fields they are chewing up scoffing. But I do have concerns for killing an increasingly dwindling species of wild animal, found only in one continent in the world, for nothing more than a thrill and a trophy!

 

The truth is, either you care about the protection of endangered wildlife species of this planet and the wish to allow them to thrive, live and die by natural means. Or, you don't give a rat's arse one way or another.

 

Me personally, I say it was absolutely wrong in every way to have done this for a trophy. That's killing for killings sake. And the fact that, Africa is a land where the rich can spend tens of thousands to shoot a large animal while the native population starves and thirsts and dies for want of clean water, decent food and medicines for £3 per month from all of us, is a measure of just how f****d-up the world currently is.

 

in a world where money is king, then sentiment will always come second, sad fact is there's more profit in trophy hunting than there is in tourist safaris, just like hare shoots in the this country its unpalatable to some but sustainable and affords protection to the hare, as for this crop protection malarkey, i have a mate whose business shoots over 25,000 pigeons in a three month period each year, is this crop protection of is this about making money? some lad with an air rifle shoots half a dozen pigeons a week, is this crop protection or just killing for killing sake as he will have virtually no impact on the pigeon population.

[J Darcy 5,871]

I think it boils down to disneyfied westerners do not understand how africa works..... like I said on the other thread; how else is the Lion, and other game species, going to survive once it doesn't have a value?

Anyone got any suggestions?

[charlie caller 3,654]

The words being banded about, "barbaric" "sick" "twisted" are the very words used by the antis to describe us, yes you and me, so taking the moral high ground about a fuc*ing lion being killed is all very well, but I wish the country had been so outraged and disgusted, and used the same words and emotive feelings, regarding 1400 girls being raped by Paki gangs in Rotherham, or up in arms about the turd world filth we are being invaded by, all I am saying is, there are far more important things going on than a poxy lion being killed.

[pianoman 3,587]

The words being banded about, "barbaric" "sick" "twisted" are the very words used by the antis to describe us, yes you and me, so taking the moral high ground about a fuc*ing lion being killed is all very well, but I wish the country had been so outraged and disgusted, and used the same words and emotive feelings, regarding 1400 girls being raped by Paki gangs in Rotherham, or up in arms about the turd world filth we are being invaded by, all I am saying is, there are far more important things going on than a poxy lion being killed.

I absolutely agree with you Charlie caller there are far more important issues facing us here, but the topic of this post called for an opinion on the fate of Cecil the lion, and that's what has been rendered be it for, against, or just don't give a f**k. Opinion is a personal value and deserves to be heard whether we agree with it or not.

 

"I may not agree with what you say, but, I defend to the death, your right to say it" is my motto.

 

But, paki sex gangs were/are a matter for a police force that frankly, was/is too bloody spineless and hide-bound with politically correct fears of being branded racist to do anything. These gangs were reported in the trusting belief that the law would do something about them. But they didin't. That is criminal neglect of duty in my book and the senior officers responsible should be put in the dock! That's an issue that is seriously widespread in it's implications. We are being threatened with our very existance by an enemy Islamic muslim society in our own midst with Christ knows what more at Calais and nobody has the bloody guts to admit it, let alone do something positive about it.

 

I don't care a shit if they are "British" by birth, if it's born in a stable, walks on all fours, has a tail and barks, I call it a dog!

 

Given a choice between shooting a lion or a bunch of pakistani savages from west Yorkshire or anywhere else, bent on turning my homeland into an islamic state, I'll take the latter option anytime!

Edited August 7, 2015 by pianoman

[charlie caller 3,654]

Cant fault you there Simon