Lion vs Man (guess who won?) Vid

[VRJoe]

WOW that was fast plainswolf !!!!!

 

I thought about my first post for over a day. I hate getting into these discussions. As a hunter I found the video disconcerting, but I understand why the hunt is allowed and felt that needed to be pointed out. Just because somebody can afford to hunt a Lion, doesn't mean they should be allowed. I blame the PH (guide) for poor judgment.

 

- Joe

[jasonfen]

As far as using a scope goes...It is not much of a hunt if the other guy doesn't even know he is being attacked.

 

If you are hunting for population control or other non sport reasons, I agree it should be quick and painless. If you are hunting for the thrill of it, at least tell the other guy you are gunning for him. That is what amazes me. Guys getting hard ons when they kill an animal that never saw it coming. Those same guys probably follow the same patter in everyday life. They attack only when the opportunity suits them and in numbers.

[JMortensen]

As far as using a scope goes...It is not much of a hunt if the other guy doesn't even know he is being attacked.

 

That makes for an excellent hunt. Just not an excellent battle.

[240Z2NV]

I've enjoyed reading the many perspectives in this thread, while the subject matter still makes me ill. I have enjoyed some of the insights, and regret the personal attacks I made in some small way (though it was a sugar-coated edit of my first draft). To label me as a pony tailed liberal, is a fair response since I called you 'macho guys' names, though 180 degrees off (the description of me). I'm actually closer to a conservative, white-collar stereotype.

Some of you have addressed my point about a "fair fight", and whether the use of engineered tools is 'acceptable'. But, in many instances my point was lost. If a lion is bigger and stronger, and has teeth and claws as it was created, then I think it should prevail, all other things presumed equal (Darwinian?). When I see animals use their environment to their advantage for a "Sustinence Kill", I find very little objectionable, even if they have an advantage it is still only what they came equipped with, not what they made. I merely felt it more justifiable if we are armed only with what was given us (OE ), and not adding our cerebral development and ability to make 'stuff for killing'. If it means that I would have never existed had it not been for our predecessor's brain development, then I guess indirectly I'm guilty of being the indirect benefactor of you 'thrill seeking hunters'. And the debate on that topic alone could go on forever, evolution and all; but, I just wanted to try to clarify my perspective is all.

Plainswolf brought up the Native Americans and how they kill and revere(d) the Buffalo. Being of enough NA descent to qualify me in the Census Bureau, I do know my ancestry fairly well, and don't disagree with him; HOWEVER, the NAs didn't kill for 'thrills' or 'sport' that I heard of in my upbringing. They did revere the Buffalo, and yes they did use weapons (however disagreeable that is to me), and they often hearded them off of small cliffs to kill them en masse without using weapons; but, as far as I know, they always used that kill for sustinence, NOT 'thrills'.

I, too, realize that this topic is as old as the ages, and has no end; but, have enjoyed the sense of community in that I can express my thoughts as have the 'opposing' viewpoint holders.

[strotter]

All of your guys arguing doesn't matter one way or another. It's just a matter of time until they're all gone - if you think otherwise, you're not paying attention. I guarantee you, anybody a little bit younger than me will see all those animals go extinct in their lifetime. The predator cats, the rhinos (which are already almost there) and the other "mega herbavores" (elephants, giraffs, so on), the great apes. Much like what happened in North America. If people don't raise it, it won't make it. There is no way that the economies of those African countries will ever improve to the point that just animals can compete with people growing crops. More people = more farming = less animals. No one really *needs* wild animals, do they?

[Guest plainswolf]

Yes 24072nv, I agree in that this has been a very interesting debate. And I agree that I merely meant to present an opposing view against certain ways of thinking and nothing at all personal. And if have offended anyone in a personal way I do indeed apologize as that was not my intention nor do I believe it was anyone elses.

 

I see what you're driving at, however I hold to reason that seems to conflict:

Some of you have addressed my point about a "fair fight", and whether the use of engineered tools is 'acceptable'. But, in many instances my point was lost. If a lion is bigger and stronger, and has teeth and claws as it was created, then I think it should prevail, all other things presumed equal (Darwinian?). When I see animals use their environment to their advantage for a "Sustinence Kill", I find very little objectionable, even if they have an advantage it is still only what they came equipped with, not what they made. I merely felt it more justifiable if we are armed only with what was given us (OE ), and not adding our cerebral development and ability to make 'stuff for killing'.

 

One cannot seperate a lions superior strength, speed, claws nor teeth from the lion as it was created anymore than one can seperate man's superior intelligence and opposable thumbs from him as he was created. Both of these are advantages as we are created.

 

It is a contradiction of reason to allow the lion the full exploitation of it's advantages(using it's teeth and claws to kill with) yet deny man the full exploitation of his(using his cerebral developement and opposable thumb to create a firearm to kill with). Both abilities--the lions and the man's-- were given as we are created, and culminate in the same result, death.

 

To allow the lion full use of it's advantages to achieve a desired result, yet deny man the same thing is a completely unfair fight.

 

well.. on to other things.. I did enjoy this though guys.. and I do agree 24072nv there is a wonderful sense of community.

[Guest BigWhyteDude]

Hey guys, I figured i might as well throw my hat into the ring on this one. I was raised in the rural south. Hunting down here is a part of life for many people. Some of those people are like the idiots in the video, they dont care about the kill or what happens to the meat from the animal, they only care about the pelts and antlers they can get. But most of the hunters here are generaly good people. They understand that hunting is a nessisary part of keeping the animal population in check. It may be unpleasent to see, but the world we live in is not all sugar coated either. Buying pre-cut meat saves time yes, but it also makes us overly sentamental. Most of us dont see store bought meat as an animal, we see it as just what it is, food. When you kill the animal yourself, it gives you a compleatly different perspective on life. My grandfather took me hunting the first time when i was about 12. I was 13 or 14 when i killed my first deer. I cried that first time. It has not gotten any easier to kill a deer since then. I do look at life in a diferent way now. This topic just got me going so i had to get it out of my system. I can se the logic behind most of the views expressedin the topic, a few are kinda out there but hey, A-holes and elbows right

 

Andrew

 

By the way i can't help but post this picture (just the link, all i get when trying to post it is a red X) http://hybridz.org/nuke/modules.php?op=modload&name=coppermine&file=displayimagepopup&pid=1010&fullsize=1