Cecil The Lion

No. What does that have to do with anything? I'm not talking about hunting and hunters and the culture as a whole, I'm talking about the next dentist that wants to go kill Mufasa.

Certain people will always hunt and have their mounts on proud display, but a lot of people will stop - at least with rare animals - and that was my point.

Here's my little secret, I killed mufasa!
 
I'm guessing it's something you have done. And as it's something I admittedly don't understand, please feel free to explain why you do choose to take more of a chance at just injuring a beer by bow hunting rather than increasing your odds of a clean kill by using a rifle.

Hunters injure lots of beers
 
Everyone, big game hunter or not, should read Peter Hathaway Capsticks books. I own them all.... Death in the long grass is an awesome read. It is stories of hunting the big 5 in Africa.

DITLG is a really good read but the one that I couldn't put down was Death in the Silent Places. That people actually lived the stories told in the book is just amazing.
 
I haven't bow hunted, but I have looked into as for as deer hunting goes. The only reason why I haven't is cost and I don't have the space or time to properly practice.

I'm guessing it's something you have done. And as it's something I admittedly don't understand, please feel free to explain why you do choose to take more of a chance at just injuring a bear by bow hunting rather than increasing your odds of a clean kill by using a rifle.

Good thing you looked in to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
My question is why would someone take a markedly decreased chance at a clean kill shot when hunting a predatory animal like a bear?

I'm sure someone has . I can assure it is not done with any amount on regularity.
 
Last edited:
I'm a English major, I still don't understand what you are trying to say....

I'll try to rephrase it so you can understand. Why would someone decrease their chance of getting a clean, instant kill shot by using a bow to hunt a bear? Why take the extra risk at injuring and only wounding and torturing the animal? To me it seems a very unessciary risk when much better methods of cleanly and relatively painlessly killing the animal exist.
 
Last edited:
The US government will investigate the dentist but not Planned Parenthood. That's all you need to say about this nation and its idiot leaders as well as the morons who continually vote them into power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
The US government will investigate the dentist but not Planned Parenthood. That's all you need to say about this nation and its idiot leaders as well as the morons who continually vote them into power.

Poaching =/= abortion, draw all the fantasy lines you want, the cases and situations aren't related in any way (to a sane person, mind you)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Poaching =/= abortion, draw all the fantasy lines you want, the cases and situations aren't related in any way (to a sane person, mind you)

That's exactly right. Killing another innocent human is the most despicable crime and sin. It's crazy to hold an animal in the same regard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
Why do people post on message boards when they can instead devote all of that time campaigning to save fetuses? Why do people buy a Starbucks when they can donate that $4 to the anti-abortion movement? Why do people spend money on a fancy pair of new Nike shoes when they can donate that money to adoption advocacy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Poaching =/= abortion, draw all the fantasy lines you want, the cases and situations aren't related in any way (to a sane person, mind you)

I understand what you're saying, but it is sad a lion gets more attention. jmo.
 
Why do people post on message boards when they can instead devote all of that time campaigning to save fetuses? Why do people buy a Starbucks when they can donate that $4 to the anti-abortion movement? Why do people spend money on a fancy pair of new Nike shoes when they can donate that money to adoption advocacy?

And, why do posters get so mad when someone has a different opinion. That's the big question around these parts!
 
Why do 100,000 people go to Neyland Stadium 6 or 7 times per year. Don't they understand that they could be helping deliver Mobile Meals to shut ins? Selfish ***holes!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
I'll try to rephrase it so you can understand. Why would someone decrease their chance of getting a clean, instant kill shot by using a bow to hunt a bear? Why take the extra risk at injuring and only wounding and torturing the animal? To me it seems a very unessciary risk when much better methods of cleanly and relatively painlessly killing the animal exist.

I understand exactly what you are saying. It makes perfect sense. For example, I like to duck hunt. I will not shoot at birds that are outside the range of the specific load I am shooting because I dont want to cripple them and have them swim away to eventually die.

Having said that....if you hunt with any regularity you will know that eventually you will make a bad shot that will end up not being a clean kill. It just happens. Its definitely not the intention of the hunter.

People hunt with bows for various reasons. I can assure you they dont go into it with the intention of only wounding the animal.
 
Some idiot on CNN said the dentist shot a Bighorn Ram with an AK 47 one time --- not sure if I believe that story
 
Some idiot on CNN said the dentist shot a Bighorn Ram with an AK 47 one time --- not sure if I believe that story

Legal round and if he was under the mag capacity limit then it would easily drop a sheep. I hunted through my teenage years with a Mac 90 which is a civilian AK. Made a lot of jerky too. Just because you hear AK does not mean he went on a 30 round sheep slaughtering spree.
 
I understand missed shots happen, but to me I don't understand hunting something that could easily kill you with anything less than a gun.
Besides that, hunting lions should be illegal, at least in my opinion.

Don't let Disney/ PETA/ animal planet fool you. Lions are not as endangered as they would have you believe. It is just like grizzlys and wolves here in North America. Some area do have very low/endangered populations (most of the lower 48), but some areas (Canada, Alaska, and a few northern states) have huntable populations some even to the point they have to be hunted to be controlled. Lions are the same in Africa, for the most part the areas that allow lion hunts are at or near carrying capacity. Add to that most reputable oufitters there only go after old past thier prime/no longer breeding males. You see a male lion typically only has a pride till he's about 7 y/o after that they are pushed out by younger stronger lions. After that they no longer are part of a pride, no longer part of the breeding population, and due to being alone and with out help of the pride are more likely to turn to livestock depredidaton. By allowing hunts for these lone males it serves 3 purposes, 1: keeps them from suffering/starvation/ in old age, 2: reduces the chance they will be poached buy a farmer just to protect his livestock, & 3: brings in much need money to the local poor economy. A typical safari hunt targeting lions is a minimum 14 day safari at about $10,000 into the local economy + a $12,000 trophy fee if you do harvest one. Not all do. As with all African hunts, nothing goes to waste on the animals. The hunters typically only get the trophy (due to restrictions/ customs not allowing import of meats), but all the meat and usable parts go to the local villages.


None of this is defending this fool. To intentionally pull a lion or any animal off a reserve, and to not follow up on the kill in a timely manner is inexcusable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Advertisement



Back
Top