[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Cows sheep pigs.etc are bred for food and should be killed humanely,lions are not food fodder and are not bred as such,farm animals are not shot and hunted for 40 hours ,then hung on someones wall or floor as a trophy,it's not rocket science to see the difference although if I had my way none would be killed,but I would be happy for a human cull,get rid of the vermin.

So if given the choice, would you rather be slaughtered and eaten or hunted and hung on someone's wall? My opinion on this dilemma being that "it doesn't really matter, either way I'd be dead, and dead things don't have preferences".

In other words, it's no worse for the lion to be hung on someone's wall than it is for the cow to be in someone's belly. So why do we make the distinction? We make it for us. Because on some level we consider a Lion to be "worth more" than a cow. When people say how awful it is that an animal species could become extinct, they don't mean that it's awful for that species or any member of that species (as for any individual animal, the extinction of their species is no more or less awful than their own death as an individual)... No... When people say that, they mean that it's awful for "us", because we will have fewer pretty / majestic / wondrous things to ogle in "our" world.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

So if given the choice, would you rather be slaughtered and eaten or hunted and hung on someone's wall? My opinion on this dilemma being that "it doesn't really matter, either way I'd be dead, and dead things don't have preferences".

In other words, it's no worse for the lion to be hung on someone's wall than it is for the cow to be in someone's belly. So why do we make the distinction? We make it for us. Because on some level we consider a Lion to be "worth more" than a cow. When people say how awful it is that an animal species could become extinct, they don't mean that it's awful for that species or any member of that species (as for any individual animal, the extinction of their species is no more or less awful than their own death as an individual)... No... When people say that, they mean that it's awful for "us", because we will have fewer pretty / majestic / wondrous things to ogle in "our" world.

I don't like that we kill anything but at least we could do it humanely we don't have to cause them so much pain and terror before they die,just to give us our jollies,the slaughter of farm animals is SUPPOSED to adhere to strict rules and we have to trust in other humans to follow that(although we know it doesn't always happen as humans cant be trusted,as for wild life ,why cant humans just keep their greedy,vile mitts to themselves and let things be instead of disguising a barbaric trade as sport,the elephant trade in ivory is abhorrent too as is most killing of animals,we are supposed to know better.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I don't like that we kill anything but at least we could do it humanely we don't have to cause them so much pain and terror before they die,just to give us our jollies,the slaughter of farm animals is SUPPOSED to adhere to strict rules and we have to trust in other humans to follow that(although we know it doesn't always happen as humans cant be trusted,as for wild life ,why cant humans just keep their greedy,vile mitts to themselves and let things be instead of disguising a barbaric trade as sport,the elephant trade in ivory is abhorrent too as is most killing of animals,we are supposed to know better.

Well said Kazanne!

[user104658]

Is killing an elephant for ivory really any different to killing a cow for leather, though?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Is killing an elephant for ivory really any different to killing a cow for leather, though?

Leather is a by product of beef, cattle are bred for beef. If they weren't bred for beef the cows that make our beef burgers and leather boots would not exist. Elephants are wild animals and hunters take only the tusk. I can't believe I've actually written that considering you really must be joking.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

Leather is a by product of beef, cattle are bred for beef. If they weren't bred for beef the cows that make our beef burgers and leather boots would not exist. Elephants are wild animals and hunters take only the tusk. I can't believe I've actually written that considering you really must be joking.

Again: do you think any of this matters to the Cow?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Is killing an elephant for ivory really any different to killing a cow for leather, though?

yes.

[user104658]

In simple terms, why is a killing bad for any individual (personal connection aside) other than the creature itself that is losing its life?

And, then, why does it matter whether the creature losing its life was bred for slaughter or living wild?

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

In simple terms, why is a killing bad for any individual (personal connection aside) other than the creature itself that is losing its life?

And, then, why does it matter whether the creature losing its life was bred for slaughter or living wild?

I am not on about an animal losing it's life I am on about the WAY an animal loses it's life,farm animals should be slaughtered humanely as they are bred for food,A cow is not shot with a crossbow and left lingering for 40 hours,then shot .Wildlife is different as it is not food,it is killed purely for men to gloat over their trophies,they pay a high price,but not as high as the animals pay.

[smudgie]

Hmmm, now they have killed his brother, Jericho.
Killing for food is one thing, man killing for vanity is another.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by smudgie

Hmmm, now they have killed his brother, Jericho.
Killing for food is one thing, man killing for vanity is another.

Despite reports that Cecil the lion’s “brother” Jericho had been shot dead by a poacher, a field researcher at Hwange Lion Research said on Saturday: “He looks alive and well.” Another conservation worker said the lion had been seen with a female earlier in the day, “probably mating”.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-lion-zimbabwe

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Despite reports that Cecil the lion’s “brother” Jericho had been shot dead by a poacher, a field researcher at Hwange Lion Research said on Saturday: “He looks alive and well.” Another conservation worker said the lion had been seen with a female earlier in the day, “probably mating”.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-lion-zimbabwe

Hope he used a condom. This is in Africa, after all.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Despite reports that Cecil the lion’s “brother” Jericho had been shot dead by a poacher, a field researcher at Hwange Lion Research said on Saturday: “He looks alive and well.” Another conservation worker said the lion had been seen with a female earlier in the day, “probably mating”.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-lion-zimbabwe

I hope this is right.
I signed a petition/email from friends from Zim earlier today, it stated he had been killed.

[MTVN]

Read an interesting article today about how most experts involved in conservation know that trophy hunting is not the main problem or the main threat to the lion and if you didn't have Americans willing to pay thousands of pounds to shoot them then both lions and the local areas could not be protected properly. And though everyone thinks they're cute and loveable animals but they wouldn't seem it if you were a local whose family and livelihood were under threat from them. Point remains of course that this guy acted illegally and that the hunting community are not famed for their ethics in their pursuits but a lot of the outrage is disproportionate especially given the little attention paid to a lot of human suffering around the world (as has been commented on)

This is the article for reference but its behind a paywall: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/...ard-2015_08_01

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Read an interesting article today about how most experts involved in conservation know that trophy hunting is not the main problem or the main threat to the lion and if you didn't have Americans willing to pay thousands of pounds to shoot them then both lions and the local areas could not be protected properly. And though everyone thinks they're cute and loveable animals but they wouldn't seem it if you were a local whose family and livelihood were under threat from them. Point remains of course that this guy acted illegally and that the hunting community are not famed for their ethics in their pursuits but a lot of the outrage is disproportionate especially given the little attention paid to a lot of human suffering around the world (as has been commented on)

This is the article for reference but its behind a paywall: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/...ard-2015_08_01

Hmmm the times advocating hunting.. No, I'm not surprised. The organisers of these hunts are the philanthropists of the day saving the community from the constant threat of lion attacks?
There are conservation and wildlife charities as well as organisations and universities worldwide it's a shame the onus is put on the 'entrepreneur' who thought they could sell the right to a lion.
I agree that there has been more sympathy levelled at Cecil than the average human running for their life and that is sad.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Hmmm the times advocating hunting.. No, I'm not surprised. The organisers of these hunts are the philanthropists of the day saving the community from the constant threat of lion attacks?
There are conservation and wildlife charities as well as organisations and universities worldwide it's a shame the onus is put on the 'entrepreneur' who thought they could sell the right to a lion.
I agree that there has been more sympathy levelled at Cecil than the average human running for their life and that is sad.

No that might not be their motive but it is still a product of what they do. Fact is if people didn't come to hunt then a lot of these parks would become unviable and not be able to function, they're often out in the most remote areas of African countries where hunter tourists provide the biggest source of income. If there are no efforts being made to regulate the lion population then yes they would become a big threat to local farmers and to their livestock. As long as the hunting is tightly controlled and restricted to older lions not younger ones then it can be part of efforts to protect lions and a lot of conservation experts realise that

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

No that might not be their motive but it is still a product of what they do. Fact is if people didn't come to hunt then a lot of these parks would become unviable and not be able to function, they're often out in the most remote areas of African countries where hunter tourists provide the biggest source of income. If there are no efforts being made to regulate the lion population then yes they would become a big threat to local farmers and to their livestock. As long as the hunting is tightly controlled and restricted to older lions not younger ones then it can be part of efforts to protect lions and a lot of conservation experts realise that

How much of the thousands paid to the trackers goes back into the local community?
There doesn't seem to be as much info on that, I haven't found any.