Cecil the lion. The truth.

[buck460XVR]

We are beginning to drift miles from the topic of this thread. Folks claiming that other folks don't have a grip on reality while giving prime examples that they have little grip themselves. Humans mate for life? Really? 50% or more of the "mate for life" contracts(marriage) are torn up long before one of the spouses die. Studies show that even in marriages that last, 40% have experienced infidelity. That tells me that only 25-30% of humans in our type of culture(and that is what mating for life for humans is) truly, "mate for life". Tons of species in the animal kingdom that mate for life, and have a higher success rate than humans. Around here we have beaver, otters, wolves coyotes, eagles, swans, red-tailed hawks, cranes, and pigeons just to name a few. Do we give them more animal rights(or animal welfare) 'cause they mate for life? Love is biological in other animal species and not in humans? Good grief. Mating for life is a evolutionary thing based on the difficulty in raising the young. Animals don't have long term attachments? How many have seen or read about pets that were lost hundreds/thousands of mile from home and found their way back to their owners, by themselves, or seen the videos of pets reunited with previous owners after many years of separation? Wolf packs and dolphin pods are just two examples of family/community structures and many(other than some competitive, breeding age males)stay within them their whole life. For every person that relates to animals as in the "Bambi" movie, there's one that thinks humans are something that have been mystically created to command the rest of the animal kingdom, even tho we all evolved from the same slime at the bottom of the ocean. Had something happened in the environment to even slightly change that process, we may very well be those considered "lesser animals".

No one here(at least me) is saying hunting or eating animals is wrong. I for one think it's part of the evolutionary process. I just think we need to do it in a humane and respectful way. We also need to get real and hunt in a way that does not overtly offend others. While there are a small number of folks that are offended by any hunting/eating of meat, there is a majority of folks that are neutral to hunting, who's neutrality can be changed by experiencing negative type images of hunting, either in person or in social media content. While I'm proud of my hunting heritage, I also try not to piss off other folks, either non-hunters or fellow hunters, by being a slob hunter or exhibiting slob hunting techniques. Odds are, I am just as offended by slob hunters/violators/poachers, as non-hunters. The truth is..... there is and was many false and half truths about Cecil and the way he was taken. Folks on both sides got upset before knowing what really happened. Like many things in life, no one knows the whole/real story but those that were there. But like many things in life we need to learn from the mistakes made on both sides of the fence and move on. It's what all animals do.

 

[CraigC]

The problem with that is the loudmouthed minority that thinks ALL hunting is offensive to their delicate sensibilities and should be banned. They will take any single example and make it as negative as possible, whether you're a slob or not. We can't placate them. We can't negotiate or reason with them. We have to defeat them. This whole Cecil debacle was the result of the actions of a dim-witted moron with an agenda appealing to the emotions of other dim-witted morons who are entirely ignorant of the subject. People whom, if they get their way, the only game we ever see will be at a national park and they will actually blame us for it.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

I, for one, am not a descendant of slime and do not feel the need to hunt in a kinder gentler way in order to appease those that disagree with me.

 

[cooch]

The clear contradiction in the claim that animals "deserve" one form of treatment or another, is that it implies that they have somehow earned it. How on earth has an animal that has never made a moral choice in its life, and never given the slightest heed to the welfare of other animals, actually EARNED this kind of consideration, itself.?

Rational answer, is that it has not.

We are not casual about inflicting suffering because we owe humanity to ourselves and to God. Not to the animals themselves. WE value animals for what they mean to US. Not what they mean to themselves. Not because they have "rights".

The reason why we have to be careful about the language that we use, is because poor arguments play into the hands of those who like to think that animals are in some way, "human". Not just human as in having analogous feelings, but in having rights, responsibility and some form of moral agency.
That is the argument that we are facing.

 

[BigBore44]

While I disagree in the "slime theory", there's a lot of truth in what buck460XVR said. Why is love or maternal instinct biological to animals but not ourselves? I'm reminded of Hachi the Akita. Yes they made a movie about it. If you haven't read about him though, it's worth looking into. An amazing story. I think 9 years surpasses maternal instinct, and dedication. I think the real truth is we don't know. I've never lived a day as a dog, lion, or any other animal. But there are examples of animals that exhibit extraordinarily similar traits (emotion, love, fear) that we do.

 

[Robert]

I think we all knew this was coming. This has gone too far off the rails to stay open. H&H or Art, feel free to prune and reopen if you so desire.