A millionaire US big game hunter was ambushed and killed by FIVE angry elephants whilst hunting a small forest antelope in Central Africa armed with a shotgun.
Ethical hunters have a core principle referred to as “fair chase”. The animals have to have a reasonable chance to escape, or it’s an unethical slaughter, not a hunt.
For example, a dude with a bow or rifle in the forest, where the prey can run away is fair chase. It’s a battle of skill, and stealth. You have to outsmart the prey.
A dude with his buddies, drones or helicopters or fenced in “wildlife” preserve are not hunters. They are slaughterers. There is no fair chase.
If this person was a hunter, then he should be pleased his prey exercised its rights to fair chase, and give kudos for making the escape through him. A bold move worthy of recognition. In a battle of wits, skill and instinct, the winner was worthy.
If this person was a slaughterer, then fuck him, he got what he deserved.
Hunting for sport isn’t ethical in any form. There’s no way to say that killing for fun is an ethical activity. Which is not to say that hunting is unethical, even if you have other sources of food available, as long as you (or somebody) are eating what you kill.
If you’re going to kill for food, it’s most ethical to do it in the most painless way possible. I would argue that this assertion makes hunting more ethical than most modern forms of farming. But making things more “sporting” isn’t ethical if you start using tools or methods that you’re not skilled with (and likely to wound or maim instead of cleanly killing). If you’re killing something to eat it, don’t torture and play with it, just kill it.
A fair point, but I believe a mistaken one. Humans’ evolutionary niche is it’s intelligence. Our tools are an integral part of that.
From this perspective, would you say the lion hiding in the grass to ambush its prey is just cheating? For a fair fight it has to be in open terrain? We all use the gifts at our disposal.
To your point “OP” tools can easily scale to beyond fair chase. There is no line that separates what is and is not acceptable. Its up to the hunter to decide for themselves, and the public who regulates them. Within the hunting community, there are constant battles between bows vs rifles and even spear purists.
The argument against that is that bow hunting rarely kills on first shot, causing pain and suffering as the animal bleeds out or is permanently injured. So some people who dislike hunting dislike bow hunting even more.
So do I asses right that you think all hunting is unethical?
So lets imagine situation:
You own a animal sactuary in Africa. There is population of lions living in there is lets say one lion pride and few solidary males roaming the area. Great job! Lions are listed as vulnerable species. They are not quite endangered, but very close. Everything is fine and dandy.
Then one day you notice that the dominant male of the pride has grown old and infertile, but he is still strong enough to ward off the younger males of so they cant copulate with the lionesses and there is very real change the pride will go few years without cubs. Is it ethical to let the male lion live, even when there is chance it will effect the prides abilibity to grow and survive?
Or what if one of the males outside of the pride starts to show excessive agression towards cubs and other adults? Would it be ethical to let it kill or maim other animals?
Or if one of the lions start to kill other animals more than it can eat. Would it be ethical to just let it keep doing that and leave tens of carcasses behind?
Go into an indigenous community like a First Nations reserve, or rural Africa where the people still practice subsistance hunting and tell them this.
Let me know how it goes. They’ll see it as bigotry. Deservedly so.
The sustainable hunter gatherers left on earth look poorly upon your high-and mighty opinions perched on top of a fossil fuel powered agricultural-industrial complex that has eliminated most wilderness and biodiversity for monoculture farms. Humans are about 36% of earth mamalian biomass. Livestock is about 60%. Wild mammals are down to 4%.
It’s a similar case for vegans. Their moral superiority is founded on an agricultural-industrial reality that while one of the superior options, practices an unsustainable method.
Your righteous indignation is an error. Your perspective is wrong because it’s anchored in your tiny worldview’s normalcy bias.
Eh, there are times for it. Consider hunting invasive species harming the local ecosystem. I’m not saying that was what this guy was doing but if someone wants to go down to the Everglades and hunt Burmese pythons and argintine tegus I’m all for it.
It sucks that the hunted invasive animals have to die through no fault of their own, but it would be even worse for the native animals to go extinct by not hunting the invasives.
The article is confusing because it paints him as a “highly respected” ethical hunter and conservationist that hunts under culling licenses, but goes on to say the duiker he was hunting is rare and elusive. Wikipedia lists it as near threatened.
Man had a horde of animal trophies too, so it seems like he just found a loophole to killing and collecting animals in a ‘respectable’ way
It may be that the particular animal he was hunting was an elder animal, no longer capable of reproducing or one that threatened the offspring of others. Generally, when they’re talking about ethical hunts, they’re referring to these specific animals. Allowing rich foreigners to come in and play Safari and pay to remove those animals is a great source of funding for conservation efforts.
It’s also possible he just fucking lied. Or he was lied to. Or he knew he was lied to and didn’t care.
Regardless of the actual truth, getting trampled by elephants is fitting.
I think ethical conservation hunting is great, and I think trampling stupid rich people to death is even better. How great would it be if both things happened?!
While an argument could be made for “horde” because it’s a lot of individual animals who would rise as an army against him if they could, the correct word for this kind of evil dragon collection is “hoard.”
Just in case you need to use either word in a serious context
Ethical hunters have a core principle referred to as “fair chase”. The animals have to have a reasonable chance to escape, or it’s an unethical slaughter, not a hunt.
For example, a dude with a bow or rifle in the forest, where the prey can run away is fair chase. It’s a battle of skill, and stealth. You have to outsmart the prey.
A dude with his buddies, drones or helicopters or fenced in “wildlife” preserve are not hunters. They are slaughterers. There is no fair chase.
If this person was a hunter, then he should be pleased his prey exercised its rights to fair chase, and give kudos for making the escape through him. A bold move worthy of recognition. In a battle of wits, skill and instinct, the winner was worthy.
If this person was a slaughterer, then fuck him, he got what he deserved.
Either way, this is a 100% win.
Two points of contention:
There is no contention. We are completely agreed and I don’t believe I’ve said anything to the contrary.
A hunt with a rifle or other op weapons is in my opinion not fair at all. A fair fight would be bare hands.
A fair point, but I believe a mistaken one. Humans’ evolutionary niche is it’s intelligence. Our tools are an integral part of that.
From this perspective, would you say the lion hiding in the grass to ambush its prey is just cheating? For a fair fight it has to be in open terrain? We all use the gifts at our disposal.
To your point “OP” tools can easily scale to beyond fair chase. There is no line that separates what is and is not acceptable. Its up to the hunter to decide for themselves, and the public who regulates them. Within the hunting community, there are constant battles between bows vs rifles and even spear purists.
The argument against that is that bow hunting rarely kills on first shot, causing pain and suffering as the animal bleeds out or is permanently injured. So some people who dislike hunting dislike bow hunting even more.
Well said. He knew the risks.
Hirogen moment
An oxymoron if I ever saw one.
Oh i love this conversation.
So do I asses right that you think all hunting is unethical?
So lets imagine situation:
You own a animal sactuary in Africa. There is population of lions living in there is lets say one lion pride and few solidary males roaming the area. Great job! Lions are listed as vulnerable species. They are not quite endangered, but very close. Everything is fine and dandy.
Then one day you notice that the dominant male of the pride has grown old and infertile, but he is still strong enough to ward off the younger males of so they cant copulate with the lionesses and there is very real change the pride will go few years without cubs. Is it ethical to let the male lion live, even when there is chance it will effect the prides abilibity to grow and survive?
Or what if one of the males outside of the pride starts to show excessive agression towards cubs and other adults? Would it be ethical to let it kill or maim other animals?
Or if one of the lions start to kill other animals more than it can eat. Would it be ethical to just let it keep doing that and leave tens of carcasses behind?
Go into an indigenous community like a First Nations reserve, or rural Africa where the people still practice subsistance hunting and tell them this.
Let me know how it goes. They’ll see it as bigotry. Deservedly so.
The sustainable hunter gatherers left on earth look poorly upon your high-and mighty opinions perched on top of a fossil fuel powered agricultural-industrial complex that has eliminated most wilderness and biodiversity for monoculture farms. Humans are about 36% of earth mamalian biomass. Livestock is about 60%. Wild mammals are down to 4%.
It’s a similar case for vegans. Their moral superiority is founded on an agricultural-industrial reality that while one of the superior options, practices an unsustainable method.
Your righteous indignation is an error. Your perspective is wrong because it’s anchored in your tiny worldview’s normalcy bias.
Don’t be that person.
Eh, there are times for it. Consider hunting invasive species harming the local ecosystem. I’m not saying that was what this guy was doing but if someone wants to go down to the Everglades and hunt Burmese pythons and argintine tegus I’m all for it.
It sucks that the hunted invasive animals have to die through no fault of their own, but it would be even worse for the native animals to go extinct by not hunting the invasives.
I only ethically murder babies who have a chance of crawling away from me.
The article is confusing because it paints him as a “highly respected” ethical hunter and conservationist that hunts under culling licenses, but goes on to say the duiker he was hunting is rare and elusive. Wikipedia lists it as near threatened.
Man had a horde of animal trophies too, so it seems like he just found a loophole to killing and collecting animals in a ‘respectable’ way
It may be that the particular animal he was hunting was an elder animal, no longer capable of reproducing or one that threatened the offspring of others. Generally, when they’re talking about ethical hunts, they’re referring to these specific animals. Allowing rich foreigners to come in and play Safari and pay to remove those animals is a great source of funding for conservation efforts.
It’s also possible he just fucking lied. Or he was lied to. Or he knew he was lied to and didn’t care.
Regardless of the actual truth, getting trampled by elephants is fitting.
I think ethical conservation hunting is great, and I think trampling stupid rich people to death is even better. How great would it be if both things happened?!
While an argument could be made for “horde” because it’s a lot of individual animals who would rise as an army against him if they could, the correct word for this kind of evil dragon collection is “hoard.”
Just in case you need to use either word in a serious context
I did mean it in the dragon context, haven’t had my coffee yet xD Thank you for the correction
I mean, conservation hunts basically require the animal being hunted to be threatened.