Post: #1

I get that lions are endangered. I get that killing them hurts both the remaining lions and tourism in an area supported mostly by tourism.

But this is the third time Kimmel has cried on air this year - so far! I want to slap him Godfather-style and scream, "You can act like a MAN!" Also, notice how Kimmel attacks the guy like a woman, even suggesting he can't get an erection.

Gets choked up at around 4:10









Here's the Dr. with a rhino he killed...with a bow.





Here are some protesters outside the Dr.'s house...so brave.

Post: #2

........

Post: #3

Ja, there's no reason for a grown man to cry about this, but canned hunting is pretty disgusting.

The usual modus operandi is to get some poor old lion near the end of his natural life and get some (sorry, usually American, but no slur on America in general) rich wanker into the same fenced area in return for a very big cash payment from the wanker. It certainly isn't any sort of sport, and my impression is that most serious hunters find canned hunting just as disgusting as anyone else. Had a discussion about this many years ago with a man who was president of some sort of American overseas hunting organisation. Trophy's plastered all over his Park Avenue penthouse, and he didn't have any time for canned hunting or hunters.

But it is very lucrative business. The logic is that the lion will die in the next year or so anyway, so if some idiot is prepared to pay $50,000 to shoot it, have it stuffed and fly it home it's $50,000 you didn't have before... It brings up a much deeper question of why we feel we can put a $ figure on almost anything.

Post: #4

What a faggot.

And I'm tired of the moral signaling over hunting. We get it, you think he's a bad guy. No one cares.

There is something very degenerate about the way lunatics in the West anthropomorphize animals. They're beasts, that's all.
Meanwhile human babies are chopped up and sold for parts.

Post: #5

There once was a time where U.S. Presidents went on hunting expeditions.

There once was a time where humans killing animals was expected in order to survive.

There once was a time when people realized that a human killing an animal is essentially the same as an animal killing another animal (I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and assume that Cecil wasn't a vegetarian).

But I digress...

Post: #6

I'm with wastelander on this one. What a faggot.
Crying over a lion that had its day and would have probably mauled him to death with no provocation.

Post: #7

I don't for a second believe Kimmel actually cares about the lion. His slight crack and continued on as if nothing happened is more a ploy to get the media talking about him which is good for his ratings.

I'm glad his shite show is not aired in the UK.

Post: #8

There are shitlibs on my facebook who literally want that guy thrown to lions. A couple months ago they were the same faggots jumping for joy when that elephant hunter got stomped out by a young male elephant gone rogue. Serves him right, they said.

It seems like it all started from watching Bambi and doing stupid shit like feeding stray dogs and cats.

Post: #9

(07-29-2015 12:47 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  There once was a time where U.S. Presidents went on hunting expeditions.

There once was a time where humans killing animals was expected in order to survive.

There once was a time when people realized that a human killing an animal is essentially the same as an animal killing another animal (I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and assume that Cecil wasn't a vegetarian).

But I digress...

This is not the same kind of hunting that Teddy Rooseveld experienced. The objection isn't to hunting in general, but to what is called "canned" hunting, which basically means hunting with most of the uncertainty, danger and unpleasantness of hunting removed in exchange for a (large) fee. Canned hunting is the beta version of hunting. It usually means that the animal is confined to an extremely small fenced area, or is specifically lured into place by others (as in this case) so there is very little sport or skill exercised by the person taking the shot.

To explain why it is reasonable to object to canned hunting consider what you would think if the next report you hear is of another hunter who has paid the Bronx Zoo $100,000 to come in after closing hours, stand by the bars caging its oldest lion, shoot it and then pose for a picture pretending to be a big game hunter. Obviously an exaggeration, but canned hunting sets things up so comfortably that any reference to Teddy Roosevelt and other from the past just make no sense.

PS: I'm not opposed to hunting and have been hunting myself (Springbok, Kudu). The problem is where hunting is turned into something more like you'd see at an abattoir. No sport.

Post: #10

(07-29-2015 01:03 PM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 12:47 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  There once was a time where U.S. Presidents went on hunting expeditions.

There once was a time where humans killing animals was expected in order to survive.

There once was a time when people realized that a human killing an animal is essentially the same as an animal killing another animal (I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and assume that Cecil wasn't a vegetarian).

But I digress...

This is not the same kind of hunting that Teddy Rooseveld experienced. The objection isn't to hunting in general, but to what is called "canned" hunting, which basically means hunting with most of the uncertainty, danger and unpleasantness of hunting removed in exchange for a (large) fee. Canned hunting is the beta version of hunting. It usually means that the animal is confined to an extremely small fenced area, or is specifically lured into place by others (as in this case) so there is very little sport or skill exercised by the person taking the shot.

To explain why it is reasonable to object to canned hunting consider what you would think if the next report you hear is of another hunter who has paid the Bronx Zoo $100,000 to come in after closing hours, stand by the bars caging its oldest lion, shoot it and then pose for a picture pretending to be a big game hunter. Obviously an exaggeration, but canned hunting sets things up so comfortably that any reference to Teddy Roosevelt and other from the past just make no sense.

PS: I'm not opposed to hunting and have been hunting myself (Springbok, Kudu). The problem is where hunting is turned into something more like you'd see at an abattoir. No sport.

This lion was probably so old and feeble one could've walked up on him and killed him with a pistol. That's hardly a challenge and not very sporting. I feel bad for the lion but still am not going to bawl over this old lion like a little schoolgirl. If this doctor wanted to waste $50K on the safari equivalent of stocking a lake full of hatchery-raised trout, that's his business.

Don't forget, Zimbabwe's economy is in a shambles and somebody accepted $50K from this dentist. This is the country that prints those $100 trillion banknotes one would be lucky to exchange for a loaf of bread. Fifty thousand American in Zimbabwe is probably the equivalent of $50 million in the U.S.

Post: #11

(07-29-2015 01:03 PM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 12:47 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  There once was a time where U.S. Presidents went on hunting expeditions.

There once was a time where humans killing animals was expected in order to survive.

There once was a time when people realized that a human killing an animal is essentially the same as an animal killing another animal (I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and assume that Cecil wasn't a vegetarian).

But I digress...

This is not the same kind of hunting that Teddy Rooseveld experienced. The objection isn't to hunting in general, but to what is called "canned" hunting, which basically means hunting with most of the uncertainty, danger and unpleasantness of hunting removed in exchange for a (large) fee. Canned hunting is the beta version of hunting. It usually means that the animal is confined to an extremely small fenced area, or is specifically lured into place by others (as in this case) so there is very little sport or skill exercised by the person taking the shot.

To explain why it is reasonable to object to canned hunting consider what you would think if the next report you hear is of another hunter who has paid the Bronx Zoo $100,000 to come in after closing hours, stand by the bars caging its oldest lion, shoot it and then pose for a picture pretending to be a big game hunter. Obviously an exaggeration, but canned hunting sets things up so comfortably that any reference to Teddy Roosevelt and other from the past just make no sense.

PS: I'm not opposed to hunting and have been hunting myself (Springbok, Kudu). The problem is where hunting is turned into something more like you'd see at an abattoir. No sport.

That's not reasonable. It's just your opinion based on what you consider sporting and what's sporting or unsporting when it comes to hunting is highly subjective. For example, if this was any other forum you'd be one-upped by some keyboard warrior who never even goes outside. They'd say something stupid along the lines of: 'OH YEAH? Well if he was a real man and actually sporting he'd take the lion on with a knife!'

Why do you care whether what he's doing is sporting or not, anyway? Trophy hunting is as old as time and if you don't like it that's cool but the dick-measuring shaming and moral signaling is sad. Do you want the approval of anti-hunting activists or do you actually believe this?

Furthermore, how much uncertainty do you realistically think Teddy experienced walking around on the Savannah in the middle of the day hunting lions with a rifle and occasionally having native guides rustle them out of the bushes for him?

About the same, I imagine.

EDIT: You were just one-upped. You're no longer a "real hunter" according to Soothesayer, Bad Hussar.

Post: #12

This wasn't anything a real hunter would do. When I think of 'real hunter', I think of that scene in Jurassic Park when Muldoon takes his gun (a combat shotgun from the look of it) and safari hat and goes out to hunt the escaped velociraptors with Tarzan's Jane right beside him. THAT'S real hunting. Hunting that puts your neck on the line and not just the beast's. It's eyeball to eyeball, do or die time. I don't see any of that here.

Real hunters are a dying breed thanks to the nanny state with it's million-and-one enviro-nut laws.

Post: #13

I grew up in a part of America where hunting is a religion. School was always cancelled on the first day of deer season, and showing up to class muddied, camoflauged, and with animal blood on your clothes from skinning/cleaning was a typical occurrence. Shooting a 10-point buck at 7 years old (the first day you're allowed to legally hunt with parental supervision) was a right of passage for every young man.

Our fathers taught us one thing: If you kill an animal, you eat it. Period. It doesn't matter if it's a black bear or the neighbors dog, if you shoot an animal for sport, you clean it and you eat it.

There's no honor or sport in baiting a carcass to a tree and shooting a lion with a spotlight on it, and then discarding whatever couldn't be used as a trophy. He gives real hunters a bad name.

Post: #14

This is just the continuing pussification and retreat of hunters in the face of anti-hunting pressure and psycho cat lady animal lovers. It will lead to hunting bans, mark my words. That is what happened in the UK.

I noticed this trend when I first took my hunter's safety class many years ago. They changed most instances of "killing" and "hunting" to "harvesting" like what you're actually doing in the woods with a rifle is picking berries. They also added a bunch of quasi-spiritual Native American-esque animal worship into it to try to make it appeal to people who would likely never go hunting anyway.

Post: #15

(07-29-2015 01:14 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  ...

That's not reasonable. It's just your opinion based on what you consider sporting and what's sporting or unsporting when it comes to hunting is highly subjective. For example, if this was any other forum you'd be one-upped by some keyboard warrior who never even goes outside. They'd say something stupid along the lines of: 'OH YEAH? Well if he was a real man and actually sporting he'd take the lion on with a knife!'

Why do you care whether what he's doing is sporting or not, anyway? Trophy hunting is as old as time and if you don't like it that's cool but the dick-measuring shaming and moral signaling is sad. Do you want the approval of anti-hunting activists or do you actually believe this?

Furthermore, how much uncertainty do you realistically think Teddy experienced walking around on the Savannah in the middle of the day hunting lions with a rifle and occasionally having native guides rustle them out of the bushes for him?

About the same, I imagine.

Difficult to say why I care. Who knows what motivates us. Maybe it's because of the difference between the picture (posing next to Lion), and the reality. But of course nearly every posed picture is "hypocritical"...

In reality nothing is really going to change. Canned hunting will continue simply because of the huge $'s involved when it comes to animals like Lion and Rhino. I find it difficult to see why people are prepared to pay such large amounts for an experience they must surely recognise doesn't actually confirm that they are the type of person they pose as next to the Lion. But it's their money and many in Southern Africa are very happy to profit by providing this experience.

Can't agree that trophy hunting and canned hunting are inevitably the same thing. A trophy hunter could well operate under trying conditions.

PS: Are you a hunter? Was thinking of a business opportunity the other day based on a chat I had with someone about a recent game auction. Turns out that prices of "disease free" Cape Buffalo's reached more than US$100,000 a pop. Which I found just astonishing. Apparently it is very difficult to raise disease free buffalo's in Southern Africa. I think foot and mouth disease is endemic. My thought was that "someone" should buy a breeding pair or two, ship them to Texas where presumably it would be easier to raise them disease free and ship them back to auction later. No idea whether this would be feasible, but there is an astonishing amount of money that is generated at game auctions here. Animals with rare colouring (e.g. Albino's) also fetch very high prices and are bred specifically for this purpose. White Lion:

Post: #16

(07-29-2015 01:40 PM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  PS: Are you a hunter? Was thinking of a business opportunity the other day based on a chat I had with someone about a recent game auction. Turns out that prices of "disease free" Cape Buffalo's reached more than US$100,000 a pop. Which I found just astonishing. Apparently it is very difficult to raise disease free buffalo's in Southern Africa. I think foot and mouth disease is endemic. My thought was that "someone" should buy a breeding pair or two, ship them to Texas where presumably it would be easier to raise them disease free and ship them back to auction later. No idea whether this would be feasible, but there is an astonishing amount of money that is generated at game auctions here. Animals with rare colouring (e.g. Albino's) also fetch very high prices and are bred specifically for this purpose. White Lion:

Yes, but I don't go as much as I used to. And that's not a bad idea but I'm sure importing and exporting those animals for civilians is incredibly expensive. There is also probably a lot of bureaucracy involved and a myriad of international, federal, state, and maybe even local hurdles to overcome.

Post: #17

I'm tired of all the white knighting for animals in general personally.

I have little interest in hunting myself but I can't stand all the self-righteousness that comes along with all this animal rights nonsense. The concept of "rights" shouldn't even apply to animals in general and I agree that a large part of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth you see over sports hunting as well as the rising popularity of veganism is mostly due to tendency of people in the West to anthropomorphize animals. You take these human categories and concepts and transpose them into the animal kingdom where they simply have no meaning, to me it's totally incoherent.

A lot of times I wonder if the reason why so many Westerners seem so much more enamored with animals and the concept of animal rights is because of how much more common pet ownership is here. I'm a non-Westerner (though I did grow up in the US) and never really had any pets growing up and for a long time I've always found a lot of these animal rights campaign to be bizarre. I remember being in Taiwan and watching my grandmother behead chickens for dinner which I'm guessing is not a common experience for a lot of people here. I'm guessing being cut off from the "circle of life" the way a lot of 1st world Westerners are allows them to have this idealized view of what animals are supposed to be.

Post: #18

Only became aware of this when Glenn Greenwald (who reported on the Edward Snowden leaks) posted a bunch of Twitter updates doxxing the guy.

So someone who has tirelessly written about peoples' right to privacy suddenly thinks it's OK to repost his details where everyone can see. People have now signs and plush toys outside of his business, but it could just as easily have been some sick SJW hanging a bleeding pig's head from the door handle. And the hypocrites would have to live with the fact that they were responsible, but they obviously have no sense of guilt or principle.

I unfollowed him.

Post: #19

Best podcast on hunting. I actually was going to post this a couple days ago, but this is a very appropriate thread for it...

People don't understand the conservation aspect of hunting. This is the guy who paid $350k to go shoot the black rhino for conservation purposes.

I grew up hunting, and it's a really interesting podcast. I basically listened to the entire thing in one sitting.




One thing this Casey Knowlton talks about is how people try to judge intentions and how that's bull-shit. You can't judge intentions, because you never really know a person's intentions. You can only judge if killing the animal was good or bad. It's still a judgment call sometimes, but at least you aren't mixing in the presumed thoughts of another person.

He was accused of killing the rhino out of blood-thirst.

Hunters =/= poachers. That's the bottom line. The guy who killed that lion was poaching.

Post: #20

The fact that I know the guy's name, his occupation, and where he lives is already indicative of how fucked up our society has become.

Post: #21

(07-29-2015 12:29 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  Here are some protesters outside the Dr.'s house...so brave.

WBTCWMLD

Would bang the chick with my lion dick

Post: #22

Heavy beat me. Can't delete.

Post: #23

Hunting for food is very good.

Hunting lions for trophy is just very bad man and I don't see people defending this bullshit here.

if it helps the population (old lion or polar bear that disturbs young lions or polar bears for example) of course hunting them is acceptable.

this lion had 6 cubs that will now be killed by the lion Jericho.

What kind of motherfuckers here do defend lion hunting? Assholes!!!!!!!

AND DONT SHAME KIMMEL ON THIS.

Post: #24

(07-29-2015 02:35 PM)mastauser Wrote:  Hunting for food is very good.

Hunting lions for trophy is just very bad man and I don't see people defending this bullshit here.

if it helps the population (old lion or polar bear that disturbs young lions or polar bears for example) of course hunting them is acceptable.

this lion had 6 cubs that will now be killed by the lion Jericho.

What kind of motherfuckers here do defend lion hunting? Assholes!!!!!!!

AND DONT SHAME KIMMEL ON THIS.

You don't see it? Try reading the thread. I defend it.

And Kimmel's a crybaby pussy. He should be ashamed.

Post: #25

#AllSpeciesMatter