Let me start off by first stating that I am not at all opposed to hunting and both a way of life and sport. However, there are times when big game hunting by rich tourists become sadistic. Yes, I understand that these tourism hunting do help with keeping these conservatories funded, but often these animals are older animals, who are more burden than good in the wild. This latest story of the illegal hunting, beheading, and skinning of a well known lion named Cecil isn't one of those stories.
As the latest updates are coming in, a Minnesota based dentist named Walter Palmer was behind the illegal hunting. While he states that he was duped by his guides, he had previously pled guilty to poaching of a black bear several years ago, so he does have a past history of poaching. Not only that, he sounds like a scumbag as he also settled on a sexual harassment suit. Obviously, we know what kind of Internet retribution can be dealt out, and it appears that this asshole is getting some much deserved loving from the Internet.
The truly sad thing is that the death of this pride leader lion may lead to the death of several (maybe even up to a dozen from some reports) cubs as a new alpha male will kill off all of Cecil's cubs. Ugh.
A big-game hunter from the Twin Cities acknowledged Tuesday that he killed a beloved lion in Zimbabwe with a bow and arrow, but said he regrets what he did and believed that his guides were leading him on a legal hunt.
Walter J. Palmer, 55, of Eden Prairie, a practicing dentist in Bloomington, issued a statement addressing the killing on July 1 of Cecil, which has sparked outrage around the globe.
“I hired several professional guides, and they secured all proper permits,” the statement read. “To my knowledge, everything about this trip was legal and properly handled and conducted.
“I had no idea that the lion I took was a known, local favorite, was collared and part of a study until the end of the hunt. I relied on the expertise of my local professional guides to ensure a legal hunt.”
Palmer, who has on his record a conviction for poaching a bear in Wisconsin several years ago, said he has not been contacted by any authorities in Zimbabwe or the U.S. about his killing the lion, but added he will cooperate with investigators. The public relations firm that worked with Palmer on the statement said he was in the Twin Cities on Tuesday. |
Link - (
New Window )
But on the other hand, I'm not going to stop eating meat, hypocritical as that may be. Humans are natural omnivores and I want to eat meat. I deal with this by being as removed from the production of the meat as possible. Don't know what exactly what goes on in those places, don't want to know either. Anyway, my point was simply that, to me, it's much more of a binary question - do you kill animals, or not? Creating arbitrary boundries for such things seems irrelevent.
My point is that it's usually not a simple as a rule like that. There are various kinds of animals, and some have much less in terms of cognitive lives than others. As a rule, avoiding killing is best, but there are some reasons to do so, esp. if you actually need to to survive.
In frankness, and without spite, your omnivore argument is weak, imho. Human males are also rapists in terms of evolutionary history. The alpha male takes what he wants and the genes of the strongest are spread widely. But that doesn't make it okay for us now, does it? If you don't need to kill to be healthy or to survive, why do it? If you actually need it, that's another thing.
Plus now the Cubs will be killed and eaten.
Every deer hunter I know respects the animal and eats what he kills.
This guy's a douchey but maybe this will bring awareness and raise money.
The whole crazy death threat thing is a little out of whack.
1. a capacity to experience pain (which means we should avoid causing it if we can)
and
2. a life that it can, in some way, enjoy for itself. Animals are different from stones and chairs in this regard; there is something there that carries on its life for some purpose, even if it doesn't understand that purpose. (which means killing it unnecessarily is wrong)
What "we" are as humans is really secondary, imho.
Again, I'm not throwing stones at you here. I genuinely don't see what the fundamental differences are.
legally fishing/hunting and you strictly stay within the limits set by the wildlife departments who study and monitor each species and set seasonal/daily limits and guidelines so as to best ensure the species overall best well being. Some Jethro just going out there and thumbing his nose at that just to satisfy some personal desire by illegally poaching is the antithesis of what most outdoor sportsman who greatly appreciates and respects the animal. That is before even taking consideration into poaching doesn't put money into but instead steals money from the system which helps the animals.
You're a smart guy surly you can see the difference between the two.
Yep. And if an alien race came to earth that was remarkably more cognitively advanced than us, I'd argue with them that morally, it would be wrong to liquidate us for protien; even our stupid lives of hugging our kids, and playing video games, and gardening, and talking about the Giants has value for us, even if in the big picture, much of it is kind of shallow.
Vitamin B12.
Quote:
If you actually need it, that's another thing.
Vitamin B12.
I'll stop soon, because I don't want to get preachy. Most of us don't need to eat meat to get B12. You don't need to kill an animal to eat dairy or eggs, and in any case, most of us are lucky enough to have supplements easily available. This is really more conscience-assuaging, like the "human nature" arguments imho.
Quote:
In comment 12391012 Moondawg said:
Quote:
If you actually need it, that's another thing.
Vitamin B12.
I'll stop soon, because I don't want to get preachy. Most of us don't need to eat meat to get B12. You don't need to kill an animal to eat dairy or eggs, and in any case, most of us are lucky enough to have supplements easily available. This is really more conscience-assuaging, like the "human nature" arguments imho.
Meat is the best source. 80% of vegetarians are low in B12, which can cause a lot of issues. But killing animals for meat is one thing, this glamor hunting is completely different.
I agree, steve; above, I noted that I'm not anti-hunting as an absolute rule. And there's definitely a big difference between the guy who respects the game, and eats what he kills and the industrialized killing of the slaughterhouse.
Steve, I respect you, so now attempt to give you a hard time. I'm not anti-hunting or meat eating as an absolute rule.
Here's a serious question: would you find it morally problematic if some kind of "predator" species did to us what we do as hunters of animals? They kept our species alive, and even helped it flourish, because they enjoyed hunting and killing us.
If you have moral problems with that scenario, then what's the relevant distinction?
Quote:
In many cases if it weren't for the financial support generated from hunters and fisherman many species populations would be in much worse shape.
I agree, steve; above, I noted that I'm not anti-hunting as an absolute rule. And there's definitely a big difference between the guy who respects the game, and eats what he kills and the industrialized killing of the slaughterhouse.
Sorry I missed that one amongst the ones about aliens liquidating us for protein (grin)
Quote:
In many cases if it weren't for the financial support generated from hunters and fisherman many species populations would be in much worse shape.
Steve, I respect you, so now attempt to give you a hard time. I'm not anti-hunting or meat eating as an absolute rule.
Here's a serious question: would you find it morally problematic if some kind of "predator" species did to us what we do as hunters of animals? They kept our species alive, and even helped it flourish, because they enjoyed hunting and killing us.
If you have moral problems with that scenario, then what's the relevant distinction?
I don't really believe in the threat of aliens taking over our planet over so I can't even honestly answer that.
I know you aren't, neither am I you.
Quote:
In comment 12391118 steve in ky said:
Quote:
In many cases if it weren't for the financial support generated from hunters and fisherman many species populations would be in much worse shape.
Steve, I respect you, so now attempt to give you a hard time. I'm not anti-hunting or meat eating as an absolute rule.
Here's a serious question: would you find it morally problematic if some kind of "predator" species did to us what we do as hunters of animals? They kept our species alive, and even helped it flourish, because they enjoyed hunting and killing us.
If you have moral problems with that scenario, then what's the relevant distinction?
I don't really believe in the threat of aliens taking over our planet over so I can't even honestly answer that.
Steve, not the point; much of ethical reflection is about creative application of implicit rules "what if you were a woman? would you still think rape is ok?", etc. At the heart of the golden rule is the ability to put ourselves into another's shoes. This alien example was meant to put you into the shoes of an animal, as a kind of thought experiment.
But I'm done, anyway. Be well.
Quote:
In comment 12391155 Moondawg said:
Quote:
In comment 12391118 steve in ky said:
Quote:
In many cases if it weren't for the financial support generated from hunters and fisherman many species populations would be in much worse shape.
Steve, I respect you, so now attempt to give you a hard time. I'm not anti-hunting or meat eating as an absolute rule.
Here's a serious question: would you find it morally problematic if some kind of "predator" species did to us what we do as hunters of animals? They kept our species alive, and even helped it flourish, because they enjoyed hunting and killing us.
If you have moral problems with that scenario, then what's the relevant distinction?
I don't really believe in the threat of aliens taking over our planet over so I can't even honestly answer that.
Steve, not the point; much of ethical reflection is about creative application of implicit rules "what if you were a woman? would you still think rape is ok?", etc. At the heart of the golden rule is the ability to put ourselves into another's shoes. This alien example was meant to put you into the shoes of an animal, as a kind of thought experiment.
But I'm done, anyway. Be well.
Moondog I respect you and wasn't trying to dismiss your question, and I understood your point but in my opinion it is still isn't applicable to the relationship with man and animal on our earth. But like you suggest it's probably better leaving it alone at this point. That is getting into an entirely different discussion.
Yeah and in the Kimmel clip it aslo shows the jaguar (i think) elephant, etc that he killed. I think those were "legal" though.
Fuck this guy.
Again, I'm not throwing stones at you here. I genuinely don't see what the fundamental differences are.
You can practice catch and release when fishing. You can't un-kill something you just shot.
It's night and day.
Again, I'm not throwing stones at you here. I genuinely don't see what the fundamental differences are.
The issue with regards to my OP is that this lion lived on a sanctuary where it was protected. The guides (and most likely with the knowledge of this asshole dentist) lured it out of the protected area for the sole purpose of killing a magnificent beast. So unless these fish you're speaking of are swimming in some protected sanctuary and are lured out of the area to be fished, you're comparing apples to oranges.
Also, as noted earlier, I have no problems with sanctioned big game hunting that is legal and with the agreement with the conservatory to generate budget for broader conservation efforts. This isn't one of those cases.
And really, the second order effects of this illegal hunting/poaching is that now a large number of lion cubs will be killed as a result.
I have read that the females may go into heat immediately to try to distract the new alpha (who is named Jerhico) from killing all of Cecil's cubs.
Or, the ultimate sport. Hunting humans.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
so the new alpha male doesn't kill them.
I have read that the females may go into heat immediately to try to distract the new alpha (who is named Jerhico) from killing all of Cecil's cubs.
I wish this was the case, but from everything I've heard since yesterday, the females actually can't go into heat if they're nursing or are taking care of cubs. So it's not even up to the lionesses on whether they want to go into heat or not.
I'm hoping that there is a way for the conservationists to grab the cubs, but I'm not sure that they'll get involved, as it will be messing with the natural order of how these prides work.
King Charles XII of Sweden used to do this. At one point, he even thought a knife was unfair and just used whatever sticks or rocks he found in the woods. He was kind of a bad ass that way.
they have doomed the cubs and in some cases even some of the Lionesses when they try to protect those cubs.
Fact is, some prides do not survive when the dominant male gets killed/poached.
We wont be happy till they is nothing left on this planet but humans.
Just hope I wont be here to see it as it's going to be a tough day.
A world without wildlife in it is not a world worth living in.
Yup. These are very dark roads to travel down.
There have been several threads in the past about the power of the Internet and social media having changed stupid mistakes committed by people into lasting legacies. It's definitely sad and scary.
In this case, fuck this guy. His explanation that he didn't know that the hunt wasn't legal seems bullshit based on his past incident of poaching. This guy didn't make a mistake, he consciously decided to be a sadistic fuck and make an illegal kill. He is reaping what he sowed at this point.
I know he is getting blasted on the internet but are many of his patients actually leaving his practice? That really is the bottom line here because if most of them stay he really will just face more embarrassment than financial loss, discounting any possible charges that he may face.
It's hard to find a good dentist that you trust. I don't know if he is good or not but if his patients like him I'm not so sure too many up and leave him over this.
I know he is getting blasted on the internet but are many of his patients actually leaving his practice? That really is the bottom line here because if most of them stay he really will just face more embarrassment than financial loss, discounting any possible charges that he may face.
It's hard to find a good dentist that you trust. I don't know if he is good or not but if his patients like him I'm not so sure too many up and leave him over this.
Steve,
That may depend on how quickly this dies down. His patients may not want to deal with any demonstrators or media that may be camped outside his practice and may just go to a different dentist.
Will be interesting to see how it falls out.
Google Reviews - ( New Window )