Cecil The Lion Part Two.

[Vam]

Is you who is missing the point Vam. Check my previous post.

I've just checked it again, and I'm none the wiser...

[Robocop]

Hi Rob, wildebeest are hunted for trophies, but killing one doesn't make as big a headline as killing the king of beasts, the noble lion.

If Cecil had been a wildebeest do you think that so much fuss would have been generated?

The whole hysteria around Cecil was media generated.

Hi Luddite, and appreciate the reply. I would say that no, I don't for a second think the same amount of coverage or 'fuss' or whatever people want to call it would have been generated. Not even close.

I fully agree that the media played a huge part in this, but then you could say that about multiple news stories out there from murder to fraud to, well just about anything that captures the zeitgeist aspect here.

I still stand by everything I said though and the above doesn't change this or my opinion on hunting, or the once Mighty Cecil!

[Si_Crewe]

People treat dogs as if they're human, I've heard then refer to themselves as the dog's mummy and daddy.

Lions kill and eat other animals and, as far as I know, there are no maudlin threads about the poor little wildebeest.

So get real and stop anthropomorphising animals, sure they don't deserve to end up as a trophy for some rich twat but get real.

There's a certain irony to you criticising people for anthromorphising pets but then suggesting that it's hypocritical that we don't care when a lion eats a wildebeest.

Ignoring the obvious difference, in that the lion is killing to eat, we don't object when a lion kills a wildebeest BECAUSE we know that a lion is "only" an animal and is acting out of primal instinct.

I have it on good authority that humans are the most intelligent species on the planet and that we possess a variety of enlightened ideals such as self-awareness, compassion, morality, restraint, problem-solving and abstract-thought.
All of those things allow us to consider whether or not there is a good reason to shoot a wild animal, what impact that death might have on the eco-system and whether or not there is a suitable alternative to killing the creature in question.

So, it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that humans are critical of another human who fails to adopt these enlightened ideals and we are also capable of understanding that an animal shouldn't be held to the same standards that we hold other humans to.

[Si_Crewe]

If Cecil had been a wildebeest do you think that so much fuss would have been generated?

The whole hysteria around Cecil was media generated.

I'm not sure what point you think you are making here, TBH.

So, something bad happened in Africa, it was reported in the UK and that means it should be dismissed as "media generated"?

Of course it's fucking "media generated".
The "media" is how we hear about anything that happens more than a couple of miles away from us.
Can't the wars in Asia, earthquakes in Japan or shootings in the USA also be dismissed as "media generated" if that's how you judge these things?
Does that mean we shouldn't be concerned about them?

Perhaps you're just ignorant (again, in the literal sense rather than the perjorative) but the issue here wasn't that "a cute lion got shot".

The issue was that a rich yank paid a heap of money to a bunch of scumbags so they could lure a lion away from a game-reserve using big chunks of meat and then he shot it with a crossbow.
More broadly, the issue is also that Zimbabwe used to be a fucking superb country until Mugabe took over and now, as a result of that, it's been royally fucked and corruption is rife.

So, no.
it's not about a lion getting killed.
it's about all the fucked-up shit that happened in order to create the situation where a lion got killed for no good reason.

[Robocop]

I think it's fair to say that anything that gets coverage in the news or captures the public's imagination is going to get more exposure just by the very nature of media and people.

It has no relevance to the majority of points that many posters have made on this issue, and whilst I kinda see what luddite is getting at, it doesn't address or counter any of them. As Si says above- the media is how we hear about anything going on in the world.

Not talking about luddite per se but I think that on topics such as this some get different issues conflated. The 'well you eat meat so you can't complain or stand up against trophy hunting' is a classic case in point.

For me it's as simple as this- anyone who takes pleasure in killing an animal for 'fun' or for 'sport' whether it's a lion or a wildebeast or anything else is worthy of disdain. Hunting for food, or killing animals though mercy or though culling or whatever else is very different.

As always, just my opinion.

[Maddog]

I think it's fair to say that anything that gets coverage in the news or captures the public's imagination is going to get more exposure just by the very nature of media and people.

It has no relevance to the majority of points that many posters have made on this issue, and whilst I kinda see what luddite is getting at, it doesn't address or counter any of them. As Si says above- the media is how we hear about anything going on in the world.

Not talking about luddite per se but I think that on topics such as this some get different issues conflated. The 'well you eat meat so you can't complain or stand up against trophy hunting' is a classic case in point.

For me it's as simple as this- anyone who takes pleasure in killing an animal for 'fun' or for 'sport' whether it's a lion or a wildebeast or anything else is worthy of disdain. Hunting for food, or killing animals though mercy or though culling or whatever else is very different.

As always, just my opinion.

So hunting is fine, as long as you don't really enjoy it?

[Robocop]

I think it's fair to say that anything that gets coverage in the news or captures the public's imagination is going to get more exposure just by the very nature of media and people.

It has no relevance to the majority of points that many posters have made on this issue, and whilst I kinda see what luddite is getting at, it doesn't address or counter any of them. As Si says above- the media is how we hear about anything going on in the world.

Not talking about luddite per se but I think that on topics such as this some get different issues conflated. The 'well you eat meat so you can't complain or stand up against trophy hunting' is a classic case in point.

For me it's as simple as this- anyone who takes pleasure in killing an animal for 'fun' or for 'sport' whether it's a lion or a wildebeast or anything else is worthy of disdain. Hunting for food, or killing animals though mercy or though culling or whatever else is very different.

As always, just my opinion.

So hunting is fine, as long as you don't really enjoy it?

Hunting for food and necessity, no problem. Hunting for fun and taking pleasure in killing an animal for 'sport', not so much.

[Maddog]

Lions were first fingered as being particularly tough on Africa’s cheetahs in 1994. A researcher documented the big cats attacking and killing up to 57% of cheetah cubs in Tanzania’s Serengeti National Park. (They rarely ate the cubs, although the cheetah mothers often consumed the remains of their offspring after the lions had left.)

Things seemed almost as bad for African wild dogs, long-legged canines that are not related to domestic dogs. They have colorful, patchy coats and hunt ungulates such as wildebeest and gazelle. In the park, researchers documented that as the lion’s population surged (it nearly tripled from less than 50 to nearly 200 between 1966 and 1998 because of increasing numbers of prey, particularly wildebeest), the wild dogs, which had once numbered about 50, declined. Eventually, in 1992, the animals vanished from Serengeti National Park altogether, although small numbers persisted in lion-free areas outside the park’s boundary. Biologists have estimated that lions kill up to 32% of the canines.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/04/ ... xist-lions

[Maddog]

I think it's fair to say that anything that gets coverage in the news or captures the public's imagination is going to get more exposure just by the very nature of media and people.

It has no relevance to the majority of points that many posters have made on this issue, and whilst I kinda see what luddite is getting at, it doesn't address or counter any of them. As Si says above- the media is how we hear about anything going on in the world.

Not talking about luddite per se but I think that on topics such as this some get different issues conflated. The 'well you eat meat so you can't complain or stand up against trophy hunting' is a classic case in point.

For me it's as simple as this- anyone who takes pleasure in killing an animal for 'fun' or for 'sport' whether it's a lion or a wildebeast or anything else is worthy of disdain. Hunting for food, or killing animals though mercy or though culling or whatever else is very different.

As always, just my opinion.

So hunting is fine, as long as you don't really enjoy it?

Hunting for food and necessity, no problem. Hunting for fun and taking pleasure in killing an animal for 'sport', not so much.

Hunting for food generally is far more expensive than going to the store. It's much like fishing. If you don't enjoy it, you're wasting your time and money.

[luddite]

I think it's fair to say that anything that gets coverage in the news or captures the public's imagination is going to get more exposure just by the very nature of media and people.

It has no relevance to the majority of points that many posters have made on this issue, and whilst I kinda see what luddite is getting at, it doesn't address or counter any of them. As Si says above- the media is how we hear about anything going on in the world.

Not talking about luddite per se but I think that on topics such as this some get different issues conflated. The 'well you eat meat so you can't complain or stand up against trophy hunting' is a classic case in point.

For me it's as simple as this- anyone who takes pleasure in killing an animal for 'fun' or for 'sport' whether it's a lion or a wildebeast or anything else is worthy of disdain. Hunting for food, or killing animals though mercy or though culling or whatever else is very different.

As always, just my opinion.

So hunting is fine, as long as you don't really enjoy it?

Hunting for food and necessity, no problem. Hunting for fun and taking pleasure in killing an animal for 'sport', not so much.

What surprises me is that hunting is frowned on but fishing for sport isn't.
Anglers often fish for "sport", posing with their trophy for a photo then throw them back.
Their argument is that fish don't feel pain or stress, how the hell do they know.
In my opinion mistreating fish in this way is just as bad as mistreating animals.

Perhaps we need a campaign about the killing of Egbert the shark by a nasty deep sea fisherman.

[Maddog]

I think it's fair to say that anything that gets coverage in the news or captures the public's imagination is going to get more exposure just by the very nature of media and people.

It has no relevance to the majority of points that many posters have made on this issue, and whilst I kinda see what luddite is getting at, it doesn't address or counter any of them. As Si says above- the media is how we hear about anything going on in the world.

Not talking about luddite per se but I think that on topics such as this some get different issues conflated. The 'well you eat meat so you can't complain or stand up against trophy hunting' is a classic case in point.

For me it's as simple as this- anyone who takes pleasure in killing an animal for 'fun' or for 'sport' whether it's a lion or a wildebeast or anything else is worthy of disdain. Hunting for food, or killing animals though mercy or though culling or whatever else is very different.

As always, just my opinion.

So hunting is fine, as long as you don't really enjoy it?

Hunting for food and necessity, no problem. Hunting for fun and taking pleasure in killing an animal for 'sport', not so much.

What surprises me is that hunting is frowned on but fishing for sport isn't.
Anglers often fish for "sport", posing with their trophy for a photo then throw them back.
Their argument is that fish don't feel pain or stress, how the hell do they know.
In my opinion mistreating fish in this way is just as bad as mistreating animals.

Perhaps we need a campaign about the killing of Egbert the shark by a nasty deep sea fisherman.

It's all bullshit unless you're a vegan. If you're not, you support animal slavery in which animals are born into captivity, kept alive until they are no longer useful and then killed. Farm animals never die of old age and males rarely live past one year. Then some whiney hypocrite eating a burger want's to judge someone that will harvest one animal, while leaving a hundred go, to live out there lives in freedom.

[luddite]

I think it's fair to say that anything that gets coverage in the news or captures the public's imagination is going to get more exposure just by the very nature of media and people.

It has no relevance to the majority of points that many posters have made on this issue, and whilst I kinda see what luddite is getting at, it doesn't address or counter any of them. As Si says above- the media is how we hear about anything going on in the world.

Not talking about luddite per se but I think that on topics such as this some get different issues conflated. The 'well you eat meat so you can't complain or stand up against trophy hunting' is a classic case in point.

For me it's as simple as this- anyone who takes pleasure in killing an animal for 'fun' or for 'sport' whether it's a lion or a wildebeast or anything else is worthy of disdain. Hunting for food, or killing animals though mercy or though culling or whatever else is very different.

As always, just my opinion.

So hunting is fine, as long as you don't really enjoy it?

Hunting for food and necessity, no problem. Hunting for fun and taking pleasure in killing an animal for 'sport', not so much.

What surprises me is that hunting is frowned on but fishing for sport isn't.
Anglers often fish for "sport", posing with their trophy for a photo then throw them back.
Their argument is that fish don't feel pain or stress, how the hell do they know.
In my opinion mistreating fish in this way is just as bad as mistreating animals.

Perhaps we need a campaign about the killing of Egbert the shark by a nasty deep sea fisherman.

It's all bullshit unless you're a vegan. If you're not, you support animal slavery in which animals are born into captivity, kept alive until they are no longer useful and then killed. Farm animals never die of old age and males rarely live past one year. Then some whiney hypocrite eating a burger want's to judge someone that will harvest one animal, while leaving a hundred go, to live out there lives in freedom.

Burger, wash your mouth out Madders.

I own up to being a hypocrite as I eat most creatures but I've never hunted anything, neither have I fished.

Regarding animal slavery, you are spot on but it's a necessary evil, hunting and fishing for sport isn't.

Hysteria about one animal's death isn't rational though.

[Vam]

I think it's fair to say that anything that gets coverage in the news or captures the public's imagination is going to get more exposure just by the very nature of media and people.

It has no relevance to the majority of points that many posters have made on this issue, and whilst I kinda see what luddite is getting at, it doesn't address or counter any of them. As Si says above- the media is how we hear about anything going on in the world.

Not talking about luddite per se but I think that on topics such as this some get different issues conflated. The 'well you eat meat so you can't complain or stand up against trophy hunting' is a classic case in point.

For me it's as simple as this- anyone who takes pleasure in killing an animal for 'fun' or for 'sport' whether it's a lion or a wildebeast or anything else is worthy of disdain. Hunting for food, or killing animals though mercy or though culling or whatever else is very different.

As always, just my opinion.

Logged on just to say...very well said

[Robocop]

Lions were first fingered as being particularly tough on Africa’s cheetahs in 1994. A researcher documented the big cats attacking and killing up to 57% of cheetah cubs in Tanzania’s Serengeti National Park. (They rarely ate the cubs, although the cheetah mothers often consumed the remains of their offspring after the lions had left.)

Things seemed almost as bad for African wild dogs, long-legged canines that are not related to domestic dogs. They have colorful, patchy coats and hunt ungulates such as wildebeest and gazelle. In the park, researchers documented that as the lion’s population surged (it nearly tripled from less than 50 to nearly 200 between 1966 and 1998 because of increasing numbers of prey, particularly wildebeest), the wild dogs, which had once numbered about 50, declined. Eventually, in 1992, the animals vanished from Serengeti National Park altogether, although small numbers persisted in lion-free areas outside the park’s boundary. Biologists have estimated that lions kill up to 32% of the canines.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/04/ ... xist-lions

Come on now Madders, you're not trying to say the, erm, 'evil serial killer' animals you describe above somehow justify hunting in any way surely?

We know that animals kill other animals. Sometimes they don't do it for food but for a variety of other reasons be it eliminating the competition for prey or even maybe for what us humans might perceive in our minds as 'fun'.

None of that is relevant here IMO. Animals are not 'evil' of course, they do what they do because they're.. well.. animals. I've never really understood those who think a fox is 'evil' or 'bad' because it might enter a chicken coop and kill not just one bird for food but every chicken he sees. This is what they do, he's a damn fox, and when we subscribe human emotions to them on a like for like basis, we're treading down a rather rocky road.

The only exception I might make is where perhaps an alien species is introduced and it decimates a local ecosystem and threatens to cause permanent damage, but even if those animals were to be culled, I'd hope the people doing the killing saw it as a job as opposed to an opportunity to post a selfie of them with a great big shit eating grin on their face next to a pile of severed heads.

[Robocop]

I think it's fair to say that anything that gets coverage in the news or captures the public's imagination is going to get more exposure just by the very nature of media and people.

It has no relevance to the majority of points that many posters have made on this issue, and whilst I kinda see what luddite is getting at, it doesn't address or counter any of them. As Si says above- the media is how we hear about anything going on in the world.

Not talking about luddite per se but I think that on topics such as this some get different issues conflated. The 'well you eat meat so you can't complain or stand up against trophy hunting' is a classic case in point.

For me it's as simple as this- anyone who takes pleasure in killing an animal for 'fun' or for 'sport' whether it's a lion or a wildebeast or anything else is worthy of disdain. Hunting for food, or killing animals though mercy or though culling or whatever else is very different.

As always, just my opinion.

Logged on just to say...very well said