Zimbabwe 'seeks lion Cecil's killer' Walter Palmer from US

[Red]

You don't have to eat meat to survive.



I totally agree the Cecilt he Lion killing was barbaric and as mentioned previously 100% are against that. Gladiators were killed for fun and no benefit came of that, like it or loathe it there is benefit long-term from legal hunts. Because you are preserving entire species as a result, legal hunts (and this is why I only agree with legal hunts) specifically bread animals for the sole purpose of that hunt, if there was no hunt they would not have been alive in thef irst place, their species numbers are not negatively effected by hunts but other species numbers (including their own) are possitively affected. An animal being humanely killed in a hunt is no different to me eating meat, both time animals have been specfically bread to be killed humanely.



The animals you eat are defenceless. Totally their reasons are the same, they aren't going into those hunts thinking 'great, I'm doing my bit for conservation' but the fact still remains that indirectly they are benefitting conservation.



To all above, would thew orld be better if Trophy Hunting was not a thing. But poaching was easier and as a result Lions, Rhinos, Elephants were poached to extinction? In an ideal world poaching would not be a concern but it is.

Gladiators were killed for fun but it's not correct that no benefit was derived from it. The spectators, organisers etc had lots of fun from watching the fights, it benefited them. This is where I think we disagree because for me when sport involves the suffering of another person or an animal it ceases to fun. How does legal game hunting benefit conservation? Do the organisers of them donate to conservation? I really don't know. If they do, and this might be a tad cynical, but wouldn't that possibly be a self-preservation exercise in terms of them being able to operate without legal impediments in exchange for donations? They also profiteer from the execution of animals for 'fun'.

Aren't you also overstating the contribution legal hunting makes to conservation?

 

[blade1889]

The important point really is that killing for conservation should not be done by trophy hunters.

I wish money came from other places. I wish legal hunts were not needed but their money is. They are needed. As said earlier I could never do it myself, I dont like that it is necessary but me not liking that doesn't alter the fact.

 

[blade1889]

Gladiators were killed for fun but it's not correct that no fun was derived from it. The spectators, organisers etc had lots of fun from watching the fights. This is where I think we disagree because for me when sport involves the suffering of another person or an animal it ceases to fun. How does legal game hunting benefit conservation? Do the organisers of them donate to conservation? I really don't know. If they do, and this might be a tad cynical, but wouldn't that possibly be a self-preservation exercise in terms of them being able to operate without legal impediments in exchange for donations? They also profiteer from the execution of animals for 'fun'.

To the points on gladiators I think we've possibly misunderstood each other. Probably better me phrasing that no other benefit other than fun came from it...contrary to legal hunts.

In South Africa it worked that they have to put a certain % into protecting national parks. And yes that may be so they can be legal and otherwise wouldn't be bothered...the result is still more money going into conservation regardless of motive.

 

[Red]

To the points on gladiators I think we've possibly misunderstood each other. Probably better me phrasing that no other benefit other than fun came from it...contrary to legal hunts.

In South Africa it worked that they have to put a certain % into protecting national parks. And yes that may be so they can be legal and otherwise wouldn't be bothered...the result is still more money going into conservation regardless of motive.

I kind of get where you're coming from blade and I do see the logic in your argument. We're a pretty fucked up species if the only way we can save animals is by barbarically killing other animals for fun.

 

[Cardsfan]

I wish money came from other places. I wish legal hunts were not needed but their money is. They are needed. As said earlier I could never do it myself, I dont like that it is necessary but me not liking that doesn't alter the fact.

Obviously poaching is a serious issue and while it isn't AS morally reprehensible in my opinion it needs to be stamped out for the sheer number of animals it wipes out and the threat of extinction it poses. The issue comes down to funding then, I guess. I don't think it's an acceptable way to raise money, especially for organisations who are supposed to protect animals. As a worst case scenario I suppose the end justifies the means but alternatives need to be found.

 

[blade1889]

Cards if alternatives could be found I completely agree. It would be great if governments funded it themselves or people donated enough money themselves instead of paying to kill an animal. Sadly it doesn't happen like that as much as I think we all agree that we wished it did.

 

[blade1889]

I kind of get where you're coming from blade and I do see the logic in your argument. We're a pretty fucked up species if the only way we can save animals is by barbarically killing other animals for fun.

Totally, I refer you to my first comments of preferring all other animals to humans. The only species with the ability to look after and protect all others, on land, sea and sky but we're the only one that fucks up. And, for now, is out of reach of natural selection keeping us in check.

 

[Cardsfan]

Oh, and as we covered the meat debate in brief, I am a massive hypocrite in terms of my views towards the treatment of animals and the amount of meat I eat. Whilst I think it's acceptable to eat meat for the reasons I listed above. The cruelty in the treatment of some of the animals who are killed for food sickens me but I still eat meat regularly, whether through fussiness or ignorance I don't know. Tempted to try vegetarianism for a short while, perhaps.

 

[Techno Natch]

I kind of get where you're coming from blade and I do see the logic in your argument. We're a pretty fucked up species if the only way we can save animals is by barbarically killing other animals for fun.

Yep that's a sad fact. Still if all the people that are outraged could find a few quid to donate every week then it would probably go a long way towards covering the fees that are lost from such cruel "Sports"

We could even sacrifice eating meat for one night and buy something cheaper like lentils which are also high in protein, that few quid that everyone saved could then be donated towards the conservation of animals. It might also help people find alternatives meals without having meat.

Personally I don't think that killing something before it's natural death has occurred is particularly humane anyway. I felt it was hypocritical of me to be going out trying to disrupt the badger cull and then going home and eating a burger. I used to delude myself by thinking that I made right choices like buying it from a butcher etc, but you have no clue where your meats coming from really or how it's been killed.

We're going off topic but Quorn and Tofu are also something I try to avoid after I found out about their impact upon the environment. I read a report the other day from a scientist who thinks that plants are sentient so at this rate I'm going to end up as a fruitarian or something.

 

[Stevencc]

Don't do it!

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

The important point really is that killing for conservation should not be done by trophy hunters.

Seems win-win to me. If you have to kill the animals better to make some money from filthy-rich Westerners while you're doing it. I don't suppose Zimbabweans have the luxury of turning down that kind of cash.

 

[Red]

I doubt the Zimbabweans running these operations are impoverished Zimbabweans. Far from it.
.

 

[Red]

Oh, and as we covered the meat debate in brief, I am a massive hypocrite in terms of my views towards the treatment of animals and the amount of meat I eat. Whilst I think it's acceptable to eat meat for the reasons I listed above. The cruelty in the treatment of some of the animals who are killed for food sickens me but I still eat meat regularly, whether through fussiness or ignorance I don't know. Tempted to try vegetarianism for a short while, perhaps.

Oozing commitment there mate

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I doubt the Zimbabweans running these operations are impoverished Zimbabweans. Far from it.
.

Even if we assume that as true, where do you suppose the money will predominantly be spent?

 

[smat]

I like Quorn.

 

[Pliny Harris]

Is "Cecil" as in "Cecil the Lion" seriously pronounced "Cess-eel"? Because I find that almost as repugnant as the unnecessary killing of animals.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

sessil

i think

 

[blade1889]

No, thats the lions sister, Cecile

 

[Red]

Even if we assume that as true, where do you suppose the money will predominantly be spent?

I suspect it will not be equally divided between personal profit, overheads and the donations to conservation.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

So?

 

[Red]

So?

So? So I was answering your question.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

So? So I was answering your question.

Well no, I never asked you what they'd spend it on I asked you where you think they'd spend it. The correct answer was Zimbabwe.

 

[Red]

Well no, I never asked you what they'd spend it on I asked you where you think they'd spend it. The correct answer was Zimbabwe.

And in the context of this topic that's relevant because?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

It's relevant because it will indirectly benefit the impoverished Zimbabweans that you suggested it wouldn't.

 

[Pliny Harris]

sessil

i think

Phew. In other news I think my sister might secretly be French.

 

[blade1889]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...k-sawed-pieces-sold-Chinese-market-ALIVE.html

The world is so, so fucked up.

 

[Red]

It's relevant because it will indirectly benefit the impoverished Zimbabweans that you suggested it wouldn't.

It's irrelevant to me because whether or not it either directly or indirectly benefits impoverished people (and I doubt it would) the killing of animals for fun is a barbaric act. Anyone who enjoys decapitating a lion for their own amusement has something seriously wrong with themself .

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

It's irrelevant to me because whether or not it either directly or indirectly benefits impoverished people (and I doubt it would) the killing of animals for fun is a barbaric act. Anyone who enjoys decapitating a lion for their own amusement has something seriously wrong with themself .

So then this isn't about the life of the lion or the well-being of impoverished Zimbabweans, this is about you wanting to protect your own delicate sensibilities. You do realise that animals in the wild mostly die violent and bloody deaths anyway, right?

 

[Cardsfan]

So then this isn't about the life of the lion or the well-being of impoverished Zimbabweans, this is about you wanting to protect your own delicate sensibilities. You do realise that animals in the wild mostly die violent and bloody deaths anyway, right?

For nutrition, yes. Doesn't really matter anyway, as the dominant species on this planet we should show intelligence and morality above animals, we really don't need to add to the figure of animals brutally killed just because "it happens anyway"

 

[Red]

So then this isn't about the life of the lion or the well-being of impoverished Zimbabweans, this is about you wanting to protect your own delicate sensibilities. You do realise that animals in the wild mostly die violent and bloody deaths anyway, right?

Do they really? I honestly thought they dined out in restaurants. Totally absurd making a comparison like that when animals eating other animals is natural and hunters killing animals is for amusement.
I thought my previous post clearly stated that this is about the life of the lion, I don't think I could have made that clearer. So the part I think is irrelevant in this discussion is that of impoverished Zimbabweans, which you brought up.