Killing Endangered Animals for Sport? Good Idea?

[Silent]

For me I differentiate between the two actions, unless they are killing the sweet little rabbit just to kill something and in that case I would be against it just like I am against killing the lion.

However, if someone is hunting a Rabbit and will plan on putting it on the dinner table, or selling it to someone who will put it on the dinner table then what's the problem?  Or if for example, someone wants Rabbit fur right.. so they go and hunt the Rabbit, eat it and then sell the Rabbit fur to someone else I see no issue in that..

Even, if someone was killing an animal for a specific purpose I would have no issue.. so for example, the tribe in Africa has historically hunted Lion because it has the best fur to use in the cold winter nights I would have no issue with that at all.. this is part of nature, and the use of the animal outweighs the life of the animal in question.. However, when the purpose is to hang the head on a wall??  That is pretty much where I draw the line..

There are many different scenarios, and I will have a different feeling in each one depending on the circumstances, so for me it isn't just a matter of I'm against the killing of animals.. the intent of the killing weigs heavily on my opinion on the subject.

I hope that made sense?

It does make sense for the most part, but I don't completely agree with you. Eating meat is mostly also for one's liking, not because we need it. Myself included btw, I love meat. A lot of animals in the bio industry had a horrible life. Much worse than an animal living in freedom, which got shot by a hunter in the end. I don't see why my personal liking in eating meat (while I can also choose other foods which don't include a dead animal) is more important then someone else's personal liking in hunting for fun. As long as it is within the law ofcourse.

Anyway, I have no intention in making this discussion into one eating meat vs hunting. I'm just expressing that while I don't support and like it, I don't really have a problem with it also as long as it is within the law. I have doubts about this dentist and I suspect he was well aware of shooting an animal which he wasn't supposed to shoot.

[isukgolf]

Short of this being an iconic lion, how does this differ from any other guided hunt?

[rkim291968]

Short of this being an iconic lion, how does this differ from any other guided hunt?

Beyond iconic.  Per study done, there is only 25000 - 30000 lions in the world.   40 years ago, it was estimated to be 250000.  It should not be in the hunt "menu" at all.

The dentist may not have broken any law but his two guides are reportedly being arrested/investigated - heard it on NPR news today.

[Lihu]

No. Hunting should be for food.

[Hatchman]

It's a shame the lion was preyed upon. Outside of protected areas, and even inside, hunters will stoop pretty low. The dentist should have to deal with the pride now unarmed and out in the open as just reward.

[David in FL]

No. Hunting should be for food.

So hunting that specifically manages the wildlife population, to the conservation and benefit of that entire population shouldn't occur?

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

No. Hunting should be for food.

So hunting that specifically manages the wildlife population, to the conservation and benefit of that entire population shouldn't occur?

Yeah, this crossed my mind as well. We just had a hunt for some local mountain lions, because they were killing pets and endangering hikers. I just retained my original statement to avoid confrontation with the hiker types on this site. . .

[rkim291968]

(Sarcasm mode on)

We should have the dentist and lion square off in a closed area.   Dentist should be armed with a bow & arrows to even his chance against the lion.   Lion should be starved for 48 hours to have motivation to eat the dentist.  Lion should be trained to just wound the dentist, and let him hang on for 40 hours (same amount of time the dentist tracked the lion down for kill after shooting him with arrows) and eat him alive.   If the dentist wins, he moves on to fight a grizzly bear.

(Sarcasm mode off)

To the dentist's credit, he came out and apologized.   But his past infraction makes his apology questionable.

[boogielicious]

Let's keep this civil folks.

[Lihu]

(Sarcasm mode on)

We should have the dentist and lion square off in a closed area.   Dentist should be armed with a bow & arrows to even his chance against the lion.   Lion should be starved for 48 hours to have motivation to eat the dentist.  Lion should be trained to just wound the dentist, and let him hang on for 40 hours (same amount of time the dentist tracked the lion down for kill after shooting him with arrows) and eat him alive.   If the dentist wins, he moves on to right a grizzly bear.

(Sarcasm mode off)

X-hunter games/Ultimate fighting. . .I can see someone interested in doing it and others interested in watching this.

You have to give the dentist a big knife, though.

[Hatchman]

Let's keep this civil folks.

Well why start a hot topic thread like this? Beyond my reasoning.

[Abu3baid]

Well why start a hot topic thread like this? Beyond my reasoning.

Because I read it in the news and thought it was worth a discussion. No other reason..

[Hatchman]

I'll give you a hot topic then: I golf at a course and was a member for two years where Michael Vick golfs. Has to bring entourage. Run with that one.

[Abu3baid]

I'll give you a hot topic then: I golf at a course and was a member for two years where Michael Vick golfs. Has to bring entourage. Run with that one.

Start a thread about it... This one is about glory hunting and lions.. :)

[Hatchman]

Because I read it in the news and thought it was worth a discussion. No other reason..

I get it. Not golf related. Guess I didn't have to respond. More for the moderator to notice who wants it civil but it's a hot topic.

[Patch]

I have no disagreements with any of the above posts. I would say as long at the animal is taken legally, there is no crime. Yeah it's too bad for the Lion, but stuff happens Now, myself I do not hunt wild animals, and I have what I feel is pretty good reason. I spent 14 months in Viet Nam as both the hunted, and the hunter. The idea of killing a wild animal just doesn't compare, and doesn't do it for me.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abu3baid

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL


The lion was outside of the park.

There is nothing in the article that states that the hunter or his guides used bate to lure him outside of the park.

Lions are not currently listed as an endangered species.

Sorry, but regardless of how you feel about hunting for sport, this hunter doesn't appear to have done anything wrong. In fact, it could be argued that by harvesting a very old lion, rather than a younger one, he actually helped preserve the population.

from the article.

hey say Walter Palmer paid $50,000 to hunt and kill Cecil with a bow and arrow. The incident occurred around July 6, with a professional hunting outfit r eportedly luring Cecil outside the boundaries of the protected reserve using a dead animal as bait.

And

Quote:

Theo Bronkhorst, the professional hunter who led Palmer to Cecil, has reportedly been suspended indefinitely from the Zimbabwe Professional Hunters and Guides Association for the way the hunt was carried out.

And

Quote:

The death of Cecil not only means one less endangered African lion in the world but also could mean the demise of a whole line of cubs sired by the leader of the Hwange pride.

Did you read the article??

Edit:

Lions

Quote:

African Lions Face Extinction by 2050, Could Gain Endangered Species Act Protection

I read the article you linked to and it said none of those things.

I would think that if you are going to reference info in an article you should link to THAT article, not a different article that does not back up what you are claiming.

As to the issue, this is classic.  A story comes out with all kinds of assumptions and suppositions and gets emotions inflamed, and then the facts come out and it is less than originally stated.  Lions AREN'T endangered.  The dentist did nothing illegal.  But hey, we all feel good getting pissed off about it.

This will be the animals rights equivalent of the confederate flag - using stimulated (and simulated, in some cases, IMO) emotional outrage to try to get a result that cannot be achieved by rational discourse.  IMO

[billchao]

I get it. Not golf related. Guess I didn't have to respond. More for the moderator to notice who wants it civil but it's a hot topic.

So what? Just because it's a hot topic means people can't be civil to each other? The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know. [rule] As to the OT, no, I have nothing against it, as long as it's done legally. This is only a story because the lion was a pseudo-celebrity. I support wildlife conservation and I don't have a problem with it. In fact, many conservation success stories come from business ventures. The American alligator, for example, or the scimitar-horned oryx. There may not be oryxes in the wild, but the species survives largely because of hunting ranches that breed them. The subject is a lot more complicated than "killing = bad." Interesting that the media singles out this story when countless animals die every day due to illegal poaching, yet people are getting fired up over this instead.