This poor woman is being demonized for shooting a lion legally

[gaseousclay]

i'm with Mr. Pond on this issue. On the one hand, I acknowledge that African hunts contribute to the local economy and that the meat harvested from these hunts go to the locals. However, with dwindling lion populations on the rise I fail to see how trophy hunting is helping to conserve those populations. Conservation efforts in the US versus Africa are two different things. Deer in the US are in no way in danger of becoming extinct due to effective conservation practices. Unless I saw data to prove that lion populations are on the rise i'll continue to view trophy hunting of this sort morally wrong. Now, if lion populations were healthy and if there was an effective conservation effort in force I would say lion hunting is fine by me. But, in the meantime It's hard for me to swallow the idea that it's ok to hunt these beautiful creatures and call ourselves stewards of nature, especially when the numbers refute the idea that their numbers are healthy. At what point do we stop hunting lions before they dangle closer and closer on the precipice of extinction?

[doofus47]

I'm not a trophy hunter. It's not my thing. I look at the money people spend to do these things and I think "I could salt away my kid's college fund." Other people have other priorities and more disposable income. Others will pay big money to fly to the same remote locale to kill exotic animals. Fine for them. I understand that other people will pay equally big money to fly around the world to take pictures of exotic wild animals from cars. I wouldn't do that either. I don't fully understand the interaction of public land/public property game licensing, conservation, human protection, the economic benefits of photo safaris versus game safari hunts to make a comprehensive opinion. That would probably take a book.

Here's what I believe I know:

1. Trophy hunting can create an economic counter-incentive in the local human population that can counter-balance or out-weigh the rewards for killing the local fauna themselves. So, it can give an economic incentive to cease the decline of a species' population. It also keeps animal populations in balance where before there may not have been a check to growth.

2. If the lions in that particular area where Bachmann was hunting were heading for extinction, the potential financial loss would entice all local parties to keep their income source flowing. Again, I don't have any data on the local lion population. I don't doubt that overall lions might be dropping, but local to this hunt, maybe they're like coyotes. Again, with no data, I'll let my assumptions of economic self-interest give the local gov't and population the benefit of the doubt.

I don't understand why anyone in the greater South African population is so incensed that they wish to ban her from their country. It's not like she snuck into the country, off'd a lion, pee'd on their flag, robbed a bank, then snuck back out and posted to FB a selfie picture of planking on the dead lion. She came to kill a lion. She (or her production company) paid for her license, guide, permits, etc. If they have a problem with the system, I would suggest they don't understand the interaction of local laws, conservation and economics any better than I. There might be something else going on.

To the OP's original post title, I reply "Haters gonna hate." People who don't understand hunting, shooting, getting outside, chicks with guns, trophy hunts, how to turn game into food, etc will probably all stand in line to gripe about that photo. All it takes to sign an internet petition is about 30 seconds of their time to show they care so deeply and know so little. If her sponsors leave her because of that ignorant barking, then the sponsors really don't understand those things either and maybe should be in another line of business.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by Brian Pflueger

"Fenced In"... yeah... and only 21,000 acres, 32 square miles.

That's the size of the entire ranch, the lion was in a 4,900 acre section. That's just a little more than 7 and a half square miles. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ation-animals/

Compare/contrast to a prides normal territory of about 100 square miles, and rogue males roam much more than that.

Presumably they keep it separate from the other animals they keep for their canned hunts so as not to risk it killing them. That's just enough space to give the hunter the illusion that they're really stalking the lion, much like the Safari Park at the San Diego Zoo gives the impression of actually being on the African savannah. And, of course, the guides know exactly where it is the entire time.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by BigD_ in_ FL

And how is that different than the white tail deer hunters who join a "hunt club" where they have about 2000 fenced acres with 8' high game fences, feeders, food plots and decoys?

At least in her case her quarry can fight back and kill you if you aren't careful

It's not much different. I'm no fan of those kinds of hunts, it may not be unethical but it's nothing to brag about on Facebook either. Isn't the hunt more about the thrill of the chase than the kill? The chance that you might come home with nothing, so getting your quarry is that much more meaningful? Kind of like fishing in a stocked pond, it'll put food on the table but will never be that day of fishing you'll tell stories about for years to come even if you catch more that day than you ever have.

[Andrew S]

Pond, you keep saying you have provided an alternative but I still don't see it.

" we need to halt habitat erosion."

How? Who is going to do it? With what money? With what authority? What about the people that this is going to affect?

'addressing the black market demand"

Same question.

"The latter would mean big companies paying realistic wages and the west, in turn, paying higher costs."

What big companies? Define realistic wages.

[Cowboy_mo]

Based on their comments I seriously doubt that Chicagoan or Pond have ever been to Africa in person and have 1st hand knowledge of the situation.

The vilification of this woman is absolutely ridiculous. First, she put many thousands of dollars into the economy of that country. Second, since she was properly licensed the country issuing the license has the responsibility to determine the correct number and sex of animals that can be harvested. Third, a properly licensed outfitter and PH/guide will NOT jeopardize the animal population for a single client.

I was in South Africa in 2010 and took 5 plains game animals. What Chicagoan and Pond are suggestion sounds like what Green Peace sued South Africa over Elephant harvesting in Kruger National Park. Green Peace said every elephant should be allowed to live its full natural life. At the time Kruger officials were harvesting a certain number of animals from the herd every year in order to maintain a stable population in the park. Somehow, Green Peace (a so called conservation group) won the suit and elephant population control was stopped. The result of this brilliant idea was the doubling of the elephant population in Kruger Park in less than 10 years. Guess what happened to the habitat in Kruger Park and the surrounding area when the elephants started leaving the park to avoid starvation.

The woman did nothing wrong and I applaud her harvest!

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

Finally I got to see the video. As soon as I read/seen its a Bachman involved. Well that's understandable. A member of a very wealthy old family here in MPLS/ St. Paul. And of late has been is trying to make a name for herself as a professional TV huntress. As far as a petition. Who's paying the freight there to hunt exotic animals Elan Burman or Bachman. I highly doubt Burman's petition or anyone else's is going to ban Bachman/s from doing business in Africa. As far as the lion is concerned. If Melissa Bachman paid all necessary fee's and licenses to film the harvesting of a trophy male lion in that African Nation. Hey I'm good with it. Those who aren't. Now is the best time of the year to start a petition drive up. Yesiree. _

[Brotherbadger]

Personally, i'd never do big game trophy hunting. It's just not for me. BUT, if she wants to do it, and does it legally? It's not my place to judge her. She spent her own hard earned money, and the meat was eaten by the locals. The animal wasn't wasted, the hunter got her trophy and South Africa got it's $22,000(the cost to hunt Lions in SA). Seems like a win-win for everybody involved.

[Pond, James Pond]

Pond, you keep saying you have provided an alternative but I still don't see it.

" we need to halt habitat erosion."

How? Who is going to do it? With what money? With what authority? What about the people that this is going to affect?

'addressing the black market demand"

Same question.

"The latter would mean big companies paying realistic wages and the west, in turn, paying higher costs."

What big companies? Define realistic wages.

What?
Did you think I was going to draw up a water-tight comprehensive international 5 point plan to incorporate actions by all concerned from the comfort of my study?!

Really, just sit down and think about the powers at play and the answers are pretty clear. Not easy to implement, but clear.

That is for organisations and governments to hammer out.
But if ecosystems are under threat because the land they depend on is being appropriated, then it seems evident to me that is where you need to act.

If chain smoking, overweight far-east businessmen honestly think that the best possible remedy to fix bedroom issues is powdered rhino hair, that needs to be addressed too. That means local export agencies, foreign governments all acting to educate as well as enforce the law

Realistic wages. I don't know the going rate, but I know that the costs we pay in supermarkets for a majority of things are artificially low.
I can buy a T-shirt in London for about £3. "Wow! What a bargain!" Then you hear of the same company's sewing factory collapsed in Bangladesh, killing hundreds: that is why it costs £3. Because some other poor so-n-so is footing the bill in poor facilities and worse pay. Think it's different in Africa?!

Lion numbers, whale numbers, gorilla numbers, rhino numbers, etc. They are all symptoms of an overall problem. If you try to address "just" lion numbers, or rhinos, yes some progress can be made, but it will always be limited.
Our system is pretty ill but we mostly don't see it.

The precise "How" you will have to get from elsewhere. That is why I detailed how to get that Jason Clay talk. He can show you how these things can be achieved.

[leadcounsel]

I'm vehemently pro gun and pro freedom.

That said, I am appalled and disgusted by all sorts of sport hunting, particularly for rare or endangered creatures.

Shame on humans for destroying this earth with our totally irresponsible, selfish, instant gratification ways.

The populations of many of these species would be fine, but for human hunting for sport, trophy, or horrific items like animal heads, racks, ape paws, elephant tusks, etc. The trade of these items is incredibly barbaric (this does not include the deer/elk heads and similar mounted from hunting for food, which is an acceptable and natural predatory instinct through the food chain).

As for people who claim that Lions population is doing fine, according to Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion#Po...rvation_status

Estimates of the African lion population range between 16,500 and 47,000 living in the wild in 2002–2004,[139][140] down from early 1990s estimates that ranged as high as 100,000 and perhaps 400,000 in 1950.

Population does not seem to be doing very well in my opinion, at about 10% today what it was JUST 50 years ago.

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.

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.

I tread lightly and kill only when necessary. I treat all of Gods' creatures' lives with value, as I would want my life treated.

Pond, James Pond said: Firstly trophy hunting in Africa SAVED the plethora of animals now present.

That may well be the case, and what a shame it was ever needed. What a damning indictment of our society's behaviour if we need to rely on hunting revenue to preserve what we've previously all but killed off by other means.

But just because that is what may have happened in the past it does not mean it is how we should proceed.

I don't accept the premise that trophy hunting is the only workable way to preserve nature we have.

I don't accept the premise that trophy hunting is the only profitable way to enjoy and protect wildlife.

I don't accept the premise that the local population are hapless, just waiting for another westerner to come along with a 375 H&H and finally rid them of that [insert species] so they can finally eat/be safe.

I don't believe trophy hunters are overly concerned about preserving these species.
I think it is an argument used to justify the fact that they want to kill stuff that has big teeth and will look good on the wall.
If preservation were their goal, they could donate to conservation org's, go on safaris instead.

I don't agree with killing animals for "a laugh". It is not an activity I can bring myself to respect.


Quote:
lions aren't endangered either

If that is true then why are even the Masai Mara trying to curb their coming of age tradition of killing a lion by spear to prove one's manhood: because they know that numbers are in rapid decline.

Take a look. 450K in 1940 to 20K by 2000. Quite sobering.

When those sorts of changes arise from direct or indirect human activity over just the period of 1940 to the turn of the 21st century, I think that your definition of endangered and mine are very different.

How few do you want there to be before they become worth actively protecting?


Quote:
Wildlife safaris are a billion dollar industry that creates jobs for the people in africa, yankees and euros pay big bucks to hunt ...

Permit the amendment that illustrates that a rifle is not needed to garner the same results.


Quote:
... and atleast some of it trickle down.

"Some" is the operative word there. I bet the main beneficiaries are not the majority of locals and that the "some" is a paltry %.

Professional Hunters are not conservationists. They are Professional Hunters.
If they are preserving these animals it is primarily to make money. What does that mean when that animal no longer becomes profitable/worth maintaining: Bottom line is that trophy hunting is not the only nor even the best means of conservation at our current disposal.

So let's not claim that trophy hunters are motivated by a desire to preserve the Savannah. If they were they could choose from any number of more effective, more sustainable ways of doing so.
Let's rather say it like it is: they do it because they want to kill a big African game animal.

+1

For the price of the failed (insert government program here), we could probably have put drones over Africa to track poachers, and a Special Forces ODA to shoot poachers. Put out warrants on the heads of poachers and start hunting these 'predators.' Perhaps that's where the real sport is.

These rare rhinos have 24/7 guards. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wil...med-guard.html

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.

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.

Trade restrictions tend to work. Our governments just need to agree on banning trade in certain items, and making serious penalties for killing stuff on the no-kill lists. That and setting aside mass areas or land, and not organized hunts, is the best way to ensure future generations will be able to enjoy these majestic animals. It will be heartbreaking when the last of these are killed off and they aren't far from that point.

How good are pro-sport hunters going to feel about yourselves when we have murdered the last elephants, lions, great apes, etc.? Absolutely shameful. And what's more, is that it shines a bad light on hunters AND gun ownership in general.

[Brotherbadger]

That said, I am appalled and disgusted by all sorts of sport hunting, particularly for rare or endangered creatures.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Slamfire]

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.

[Andrew S]

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.

[Andrew S]

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.

[Art Eatman]

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.

[shortwave]

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.

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.

[zincwarrior]

Good. If you're not hunting to feed your family you're just killing something to kill it.

[Wyoredman]

If you're not hunting to feed your family you're just killing something to kill it.

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.

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!

[Pond, James Pond]

Pond, no water tight plan. Just something more than conjecture.

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.

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?

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?

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.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by zincwarrior

Good. If you're not hunting to feed your family you're just killing something to kill it.

Please.

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.

[MJN77]

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.

+1

[Andrew S]

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.

[Ruger480]

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.

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/sc...-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.

[Erno86]

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."

[JimPage]

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.