Cecil the lion. The truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder if the anti's believe that lions are vegetarians? Wonder where they get their tofu?
I believe their hearts are in the right place. I care about animals too. And I want to protect them for future generations. Hell I still stop and move turtles and snakes (snake haters need not respond to that) off the road. But their logic, rhetoric, and motives are so skewed that I don't even waste my time listening to them unless it's on an individual basis.

"Save the trees. Save the animals." It sounds good. But where does the cream for their Starbucks lattes come from? The leather in their clothes or seats in their chevy Volt? The paper from the books they read at Barnes & Noble? Unless they are 100% organic vegan, the food they eat that contain animal biproducts? The dog food they give their toy "whatevathehell" dog? Do they know animals die so they can feed that little $&@!£%#. This list could go on for pages. The fact is that for us to live, things must die. It's, to steal a song from "The Lion King" (ironically humorous if you ask me) The Circle of Life. And as has been stated many times before, Mother Nature is a ruthless _______. 99.999999999999999% of animals don't just lay down and go to sleep and never wake up. They suffer before they die. Whether it be from drought, disease, predators or fire.

Speaking of fire...We're our own worst enemy for that as well. The Forestry Department is the single biggest reason wildfires destroy hundreds of homes millions of acres and lost lives every year. Fire is Mother Nature's way of replenishing the land with nutrients and new life. But every time there's a fire they rush out and spend time and valuable resources to put it out. But then one day, a fire starts. And for 5-10 years they've been fighting fires in this area. And they've put them out. But now, NOW it's got 5-10 years worth of fuel lying on the ground in the form of leaves, twigs, branches, and dead laydowns. And it's got a good wind to help push and feed it the oxygen it needs. And now, now there's NO stopping it. Now instead of having a few small brush and grass fires every couple years, now you've got a full blown wildfire. Firefighters die. Homes are destroyed. And those cute little animals the antis love so much? Yeah, they die from smoke inhalation, asphyxiation, or they burn to death. The path to hell is paved with good intentions.
 
Last edited:
look what i found boys, it must have died in its sleep. i gave it the fresh taste bite and it passed, come join me. eastbank.
 

Attachments

  • Picture 6038.jpg
    Picture 6038.jpg
    121.5 KB · Views: 31
You guys don't get it. If a critter attacks another critter, even if the prey dies a painful, lingering death, dragging its entrails for miles before being consumed, that's okay, it's just nature. If a human does it, even if the prey dies as quickly and painlessly as possible, it's cruelty and the perpetrator is an evil lowlife coward with a low IQ and a tiny penis, whose entire family deserves to die of cancer. ;)
 
In all honesty, I don'
I believe their hearts are in the right place. I care about animals too. And I want to protect them for future generations. Hell I still stop and move turtles and snakes (snake haters need not respond to that) off the road. But their logic, rhetoric, and motives are so skewed that I don't even waste my time listening to them unless it's on an individual basis.

This is where I'm at. While I've a hunter all my life, I'm also a animal lover. I lived and worked on a farm for years where we raised and butchered animals not only for ourselves but for market. Over the years I have raised chickens, ducks, geese and turkeys for their eggs and meat. I have raised pheasants and quail for meat and dog training. Still, I see every animal as having value that consists of more than my selfish needs. Still, I desire that every animal I shoot/butcher suffers as little as possible and for those domestic animals I raise/raised, their time in captivity was as pleasant as possible. This pertains to the dozen or so rabbits in hutches in the back yard right now. Over the years some of the most vivid anti-hunting scenarios presented to me have not been by antis, but by fellow hunters. Much of it because of no respect for their quarry, the pressure by peers to make a kill or just a type of lust for killing something, anything. In all honesty, I doubt that there are significantly more antis then there are career poachers and dirtball hunters. The majority of folks in the world, while they may not be active hunters, realize that hunting does more than help the local economy, done properly, it helps the local wildlife.

A few years back, I had a neighbor who while accepting that hunting had legitimate reasons, did not believe in the killing of those animals she considered "cute". Like the local population of cottontails. Having blueberries, I was always on the prowl with the pellet rifle as rabbits love new growth on blueberry bushes. Unfortunately that is what produces the berries. She fed and gave shelter(boxes,brush piles) for the rabbits to try and keep them on her property so they would be safe. Till one day she came over and asked me what happened to her expensive foundation plantings...........
 
Last edited:
Over the years some of the most vivid anti-hunting scenarios presented to me have not been by antis, but by fellow hunters. Much of it because of no respect for their quarry, the pressure by peers to make a kill or just a type of lust for killing something, anything. In all honesty, I doubt that there are significantly more antis then there are career poachers and dirtball hunters.
I honestly don't think the anti's take the time to make the distinction. I don't think they look past the act of killing an animal, which seems to be all they focus on. You're either inhumane because you use a bow or you're a coward because you take a shot at distance with a rifle. There is no logic being applied at all, it's purely emotional.
 
You guys don't get it... If a human does it, even if the prey dies as quickly and painlessly as possible, it's cruelty and the perpetrator is an evil lowlife coward with a low IQ and a tiny penis, whose entire family deserves to die of cancer. ;)

Hey now, back the truck up a minute. My IQ's not that low... :D

I honestly don't think the anti's take the time to make the distinction. I don't think they look past the act of killing an animal, which seems to be all they focus on. You're either inhumane because you use a bow or you're a coward because you take a shot at distance with a rifle. There is no logic being applied at all, it's purely emotional.

I agree. The true antis, the ones who confront you at a social gathering and call for the deaths of hunters, for the heads of humans, cannot even begin to contemplate a distinction. The emotion overcomes them and completely rules their thought. It stems from a deep ignorance of how things work in the world outside of their artificial daily environments. They seem to view the animals as humans and don't readily differentiate a wholesome hunt from a common Sunday street murder in Chicago. Let alone poaching from hunting, hunting from wholesale commercial slaughter, their dogs from your children. It's certainly illogical and I regard it as an extremely weak trait in a person.







"From observation I would say that people may possibly be divided into two general groups; those who, to use one of the terms of the jargon of psychology, identify themselves with, that is, place themselves in the position of, animals, and those who identify themselves with human beings. I believe, after experience and observation, that those people who identify themselves with animals, that is, the almost professional lovers of dogs, and other beasts, are capable of greater cruelty to human beings than those who do not identify themselves readily with animals."
-Ernest Hemingway

I completely agree with this assertion.
 
While there may be some groups that are cult-like in the misplaced or excessive admiration of Animals, most of the time a cult is defined as a small group. Folks that believe in Animal Rights is not a small group. As a matter of fact, I am one that believes in animal rights and I'm a active hunter. Animal Rights is the belief that Animals surely deserve to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation......and they have a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. Anyone here not believe this? Problem is, sometimes animals suffer and die naturally. Many times man putting them down before they suffer too long is better than how nature would do it, especially in the case of old, sick and starvation. Because man and his lifestyle has upset the fragile balance of prey and predators, sometimes man needs to be the apex predator and control prey populations......and sometime there is also a need to control predator populations. Man and his interaction with wildlife is not that much different than hundreds of thousands of years ago, other than the way he hunts, and the reason he hunts. While there are folks that are extreme in the way they define Animal Rights, and do more harm than good overall to wildlife.....there are also hunters that do the same........we call them poachers and slob hunters.



^^^This. Exploitation of animals and their rights is not just the act of directly killing them with a bow, trap or gun. It is also the pushing them out of their natural environment and forcing them to either adapt or die off. Many times when they adapt(like city dwelling coyotes and urban deer) they go from being just another animal in nature, to a pest. Like I said before, folks need to look at the big picture and how a multitude of little things add up to a big thing. This goes not only for Animal Rights folks, but hunters as well. Much has been argued about the reintroduction of Wolves into Yellowstone and it's effects on the environment there and the elk population. Supporters on either side are not only passionate about their stand, but also correct in their claims. Things is, both sides of the fence make the fenceline and the whole truth.

This Cecil thing has been beat to death from both sides of the fence and I doubt if there ever will be a definitive resolution on what was right and what was wrong in the incident. Folks just need to make sure that they understand the big picture and not just the little 3X5 they have in their head.

What you describe is animal welfare, the welfare of animals which is a completely different thing than animal rights.
 
"From observation I would say that people may possibly be divided into two general groups; those who, to use one of the terms of the jargon of psychology, identify themselves with, that is, place themselves in the position of, animals, and those who identify themselves with human beings. I believe, after experience and observation, that those people who identify themselves with animals, that is, the almost professional lovers of dogs, and other beasts, are capable of greater cruelty to human beings than those who do not identify themselves readily with animals." -Ernest Hemingway
Wow! Truer words were never spoken.
 
While there may be some groups that are cult-like in the misplaced or excessive admiration of Animals, most of the time a cult is defined as a small group. Folks that believe in Animal Rights is not a small group. As a matter of fact, I am one that believes in animal rights and I'm a active hunter. Animal Rights is the belief that Animals surely deserve to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation......and they have a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. Anyone here not believe this?

That, my friend, is a religious ideology..... just as it took a religious ideology to assert that humans had an inherent value, and that needlessly causing suffering is wrong.

It doesn't matter whether we argue over how many accept that idea, if there is one observable fact about nature, it is that nature - either as individuals or en-masse - does not adhere to this idea that animals have "rights".

So no..... I don't believe that animals have Rights, either.
What I DO believe, is that humans have a responsibility as stewards, both to our fellow humans, and to nature's Creator. Disagree all you like, but I'm not demanding you follow my religion, why should you be able to make the same demand of me?
 
Last edited:
Belief that animals are more than animals - that they are somehow deformed "people" - is one of the older superstitions. Apparently it is still popular.... especially among those who are separated from nature and only experience it through sterile glass windows, lenses and flat-screen tv.

But there is another phenomena that is at least as old as the Pharisees.
There are those who want to see themselves as "better". The easiest way to do this is to declare what you like "moral" and what you don't like, "evil". You then get to sneer at the sinners (and call for them to be stoned) for your heights of righteousness, while not having to make any effort at unpleasant self-control.

It is no coincidence that this is most prevalent amongst those who reject "traditional" morality...
 
if we were not meant to eat meat, why do we have canine teeth? to eat grass and vegitables they are useless. eastbank.
 
What you describe is animal welfare, the welfare of animals which is a completely different thing than animal rights.

Maybe by your definition H&H. Growing up on a farm, animal welfare was a part of life. To us it meant the state of an individual animal or the herd. It was giving an animal proper housing, food, disease prevention and treatment. It was handling them and slaughtering them in a humane way, without undue cruelty. Local vet would come out and regularly give us "Animal Welfare" checks to evaluate our performance as such. Back in High School in the 60s, I gave a speech on Animal Rights. The definition given to me by the dictionary at that time was the same one I hold today. That animals the right to be treated humanely and not be abused, this whether they are domestic or wild, and that they have more value than just food or beast of burden. Seems that the phrase "Animal Rights" has gotten defined differently as the years have gone by basically due to the stance of staunce Animal Rights proponents and their outlandish claims. My definition does not hold with theirs.

That, my friend, is a religious ideology..... just as it took a religious ideology to assert that humans had an inherent value, and that needlessly causing suffering is wrong.

You say that like it's a bad thing. My country and the basis of our American culture was founded on those same ideals. We humans are nuttin' but another animal.......Do you not believe that humans have inherent value and that needlessly causing suffering your fellow man is wrong? .

It doesn't matter whether we argue over how many accept that idea, if there is one observable fact about nature, it is that nature - either as individuals or en-masse - does not adhere to this idea that animals have "rights".

So no..... I don't believe that animals have Rights, either.
Not arguing, we are all entitled to our opinion. I agree, Nature does not argue for animal rights no more than nature recognizes any of our human rights. Nature makes humans suffer and agonize just like it does any other animal in it's kingdom.. Regardless, we are not talking nature in this discussion, but humans vs wildlife.

What I DO believe, is that humans have a responsibility as stewards, both to our fellow humans, and to nature's Creator.

Very much all I'm trying to say.

Disagree all you like, but I'm not demanding you follow my religion, why should you be able to make the same demand of me?

Don't know where I or anyone else ever demanded you follow my religion or my ideals. Only stated mine and asked who felt differently. You apparently feel differently and I give you that right. Kinda how it goes on social media.

Belief that animals are more than animals - that they are somehow deformed "people" - is one of the older superstitions. Apparently it is still popular.... especially among those who are separated from nature and only experience it through sterile glass windows, lenses and flat-screen tv.

Deformed people? Must be an Australian thing, eh? Never heard that one here, nor did I read anything like this on this thread till you came up with it.

But there is another phenomena that is at least as old as the Pharisees.
There are those who want to see themselves as "better". The easiest way to do this is to declare what you like "moral" and what you don't like, "evil". You then get to sneer at the sinners (and call for them to be stoned) for your heights of righteousness, while not having to make any effort at unpleasant self-control.

It is no coincidence that this is most prevalent amongst those who reject "traditional" morality...

We always called that "illusory superiority" or "superiority bias". Another coincidence is folks that fit into that category tend to try and elevate themselves(at least in their own eyes) by belittling and condescending others. I must be better, because you are worse kinda thingy. Guess they convince themselves anyway...........

Sorry if my values do not match those of yours. Don't make either of us right or wrong, just different. I do believe that animals have value......the bird dog laying at my feet as I type gives me more than just a staunch point on food every fall. Probably true to most dog owners. Same goes for equestrians and their steeds. Don't mean we don't eat meat or hunt. While most folks have a grudge against them, I believe that coyotes and wolves deserve to be killed just as humanely as deer when they become a pest or their numbers need to be thinned. I like to hunt, but I don't enjoy the kill. Never was one for pulling the wings off flies, but never had a problem with swattin' them.
 
My own view is that as we use the term "rights", animals don't have rights. Humans, however, have responsibilities, one of which is to avoid or possibly rectify cruelty toward animals insofar as daily treatment. Food, water, all that sort of thing.

Insofar as all these "bunny huggers", I maintain that the primary causes of irrational consideration of animals come from Felix Salter (author of "Bambi") and Walt Disney, with their inculcation of the idea that animals have human motivations for their behavior.
 
My own view is that as we use the term "rights", animals don't have rights. Humans, however, have responsibilities, one of which is to avoid or possibly rectify cruelty toward animals insofar as daily treatment. Food, water, all that sort of thing.

Insofar as all these "bunny huggers", I maintain that the primary causes of irrational consideration of animals come from Felix Salter (author of "Bambi") and Walt Disney, with their inculcation of the idea that animals have human motivations for their behavior.
Well Art, are you saying that animals are incapable of human type emotion or feelings? But I will await your answer before I give a long explanation only to have you say "No that's not what I meant".
 
The best response to anti-hunters is to remind them that animals in the wild don't die in bed surrounded by their loved ones. The either die as prey, quickly and violently, or from disease or starvation, slowly and painfully. A hunter's bullet is far more humane -- assuming, of course, that it's a clean kill.
 
I'm saying that animals don't have "love" in the sense that homo sap does. Maternal instinct, sure, e.g., but not lifelong attachment. Other aspects of behavior, as well. And, yes I know that ravens are claimed to mate for life and I have seen a male quail constantly calling for a lost mate.

There are certain instinctive behaviors throughout all species. There are learned behaviors. But animals do not show evidence of long-term rational thought nor long-term (years) of emotional attachment. The "lesser animals" don't do family reunions. :)
 
People who are detached from nature – actually – don’t want to know anything about all these realities.

If I had a dime for every time someone that doesnt understand what they are doing has made things worse trying to fix a "problem"...I'd have a lot of dimes.

I think now they should double down and fund universities across the world with billions of dollars to be put to use researching how we can not only let these displaced Lyon refugees live out there lives in comfort but to do so after we have taught them to become vegetarians.

I hope you are one to shake your head or maybe give a chuckle at that vs one that thinks that sounds reasonable.
 
My own view is that as we use the term "rights", animals don't have rights. Humans, however, have responsibilities, one of which is to avoid or possibly rectify cruelty toward animals insofar as daily treatment. Food, water, all that sort of thing.

Insofar as all these "bunny huggers", I maintain that the primary causes of irrational consideration of animals come from Felix Salter (author of "Bambi") and Walt Disney, with their inculcation of the idea that animals have human motivations for their behavior.
The rapidly growing urban population was also a factor.
 
I was raised on a working horse and cattle ranch in Prescott, AZ. No, not a big sprawling place, but we had some land, had a good string of AQH and Morgan stock and Pap and my Dad ran enough cattle to sell, trade, etc. Dad was a deputy sheriff and he and Pap partnered in a pair of Chevron service stations. We were a working family.

AND...as much as I loved seeing mountain lions when I was out on the place and would never shoot one "JUST CUZ" or just to have some fur on the floor (same with black bear)...if one of them was working on our stock as menu items, I had no problem sending them over to the other side.
 
I have the same feelings for snakes, I will not kill one just to kill it, but rattle-copperheads that get to close to the areas where we work or children play they are killed. eastbank.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top