If it turns out that the Dentist's actions were undertaken in good faith, even if the people he was dealing with were operating illegally and tricked him, then I think that the opprobrium he is receiving is totally over the top.
Much of the attitude towards him appears to be more about who he is than what he has actually done in this case.
I don't really see how the legality of his actions make all that much difference to be honest. Whether he killed the lion legally or not is kinda irrelevant to the main issue which is killing the lion in the first place.
Hunting out of necessity or for food is one thing, taking pleasure in hurting and killing living beings is quite another.
I can totally understand the outrage and I don't think most of the comments about it are out of proportion.
Hunting out of necessity or for food is one thing, taking pleasure in hurting and killing living beings is quite another.
Hunting for food IS getting pleasure from killing an animal. It's just that while a hunter gets the pleasure from the hunt itself, meat eaters get the pleasure from the actual taste of the animal. Eating meat isn't necessary at all we can manage fine without it as vegans and vegetarians prove.
Hunting for food IS getting pleasure from killing an animal. It's just that while a hunter gets the pleasure from the hunt itself, meat eaters get the pleasure from the actual taste of the animal. Eating meat isn't necessary at all we can manage fine without it as vegans and vegetarians prove.
Disagree entirely and I can wholly differentiate between an animal killed for food in a slaughter house and one killed purely for he 'fun' of it.
Sure you can make the argument that you get pleasure from eating but that of course totally misses the point being made.
I understand that but my point was that even if they aren't killed in a hunt, animals killed for food are still being killed for pleasure rather than for necessity. Because meat isn't essential, we can manage fine without it but people make the choice to kill animals because they enjoy the taste.
What's that got to do with anything? I hope a lot of the people who are angry over this are angry because of him killing the four-legged animals simply for fun.
56 billion animals killed a year for their taste?
Why does anybody eat beef, lamb, pork, Chicken, duck, turkey etc. Because they like the taste. They enjoy eating meat.
Or is it a case that Lions and otters are cuter than Cows and pigs and deserve not to be killed by humans?
Why? Both are being unnecessarily killed so that a human being can get pleasure. The means of killing is different sure but that's about it.
I don't really know how I can make it much clearer- there's a massive difference between eating meat and taking personal pleasure in killing a living being.
The argument that eating meat is pleasurable is by and large an irrelevance to the point being made above.
I don't see that much of a difference can be drawn between killing animals for food, and killing them for the sake of a hunt. You don't NEED to eat meat, you can get by fine without it as many vegetarians and vegans prove. So killing animals for food isn't a necessity, you're killing them for pleasure, in this case the pleasure you get from tasting the meat. A hunter gets his pleasure from the actual hunt. A little bit different but hardly some great divide.
Would you have said the same about ancient humans when they were eating meat, and when plant food might have been around as well?
Lions die every day in Africa - and in much worse conditions than old Cecil met his fate. Old Cecil would likely have suffered fatal injuries in a fight with a much younger male lion before long, and limped off to die a painful death, alone on the veldt. Probably tormented and finally killed and eaten by hyenas. Old lions like this are identified by park wardens in advance of this, and chosen as hunting targets for paying customers.
As others have said, hunting like this puts a shed load of money into wildlife conservation & management every year. It is distasteful to see, and personally it would not appeal to me at all, but at the moment it's necessary.
Lions die every day in Africa - and in much worse conditions than old Cecil met his fate. Old Cecil would likely have suffered fatal injuries a fight with a much younger male lion before long, and limped off to die a painful death, alone on the veldt. Probably tormented and finally killed and eaten by hyenas.
As others have said, hunting like this puts a shed load of money into wildlife conservation & management every year. It is distasteful to see, and personally it would not appeal to me at all, but at the moment it's necessary.
Lions die every day in Africa - and in much worse conditions than old Cecil met his fate. Old Cecil would likely have been torn apartin a fight with a much younger male lion before long, and limped off to die a painful death, alone on the velt. Probably tormented and finally killed and eaten by hyenas.
As others have said, hunting like this puts a shed load of money into wildlife conservation & management every year. It is distasteful to see, and personally it would not appeal to me at all, but at the moment it's necessary.
Yes, but that's nature. Someone shooting an arrow at a lion isn't natural.
Lions die every day in Africa - and in much worse conditions than old Cecil met his fate. Old Cecil would likely have been torn apartin a fight with a much younger male lion before long, and limped off to die a painful death, alone on the velt. Probably tormented and finally killed and eaten by hyenas.
y.
Again, not sure the relevance of this. We all know that nature can be cruel but it's a natural way of life.
If the supposed 'argument' here is that he possibly died in less pain than if he'd been left to his own devices (which is probably true but imo irrelevant), then you could apply that to any number of animals including humans.
I don't understand why people can't eat less meat or dairy products, anyway. Even if they don't want to become vegan it really wouldn't kill them to have two or three meat/dairy free days each week. This is one of the best times in our history for plentiful alternatives.
Easy to understand, they're not you and have different opinions.
I don't really know how I can make it much clearer- there's a massive difference between eating meat and taking personal pleasure in killing a living being.
The argument that eating meat is pleasurable is by and large an irrelevance to the point being made above.
I already accept that the pleasure is derived in a slightly different way but it doesn't diminish the overall fact that meat eaters and hunters both needlessly kill animals for pleasure although they get that pleasure in slightly different ways.
That might make me sound like a veggie but I'm actually a meat eater. The thing is that I don't judge those who do hunt even though I wouldn't do it myself. I think it would make me a hypocrite. It would be like I was saying "It's ok for animals to needlessly die to provide me the pleasure of a tasty meal but it's not ok for animals to needlessly die to provide you with the pleasure of the thrill of the chase"
While the 'you can't complain if you eat meat argument' has some merit, these lions are really endangered, which makes hunting them for a lark particularly abhorrent.
But hey, the guy paid 50 grand so he must really enjoy it.
I already accept that the pleasure is derived in a slightly different way but it doesn't diminish the overall fact that meat eaters and hunters both needlessly kill animals for pleasure although they get that pleasure in slightly different ways.
That might make me sound like a veggie but I'm actually a meat eater. The thing is that I don't judge those who do hunt even though I wouldn't do it myself. I think it would make me a hypocrite. It would be like I was saying "It's ok for animals to needlessly die to provide me the pleasure of a tasty meal but it's not ok for animals to needlessly die to provide you with the pleasure of the thrill of the chase"
I don't buy into this hypocrite argument, I really don't. For me it's flawed logic, although I do understand why some people say it. .
I can easily make the differentiation between eating meat, and those who take pleasure in trying to hurt and kill an animal for fun.
Taking pleasure in killing living things is different to taking pleasure in eating meat.
I can easily make the differentiation between eating meat, and those who take pleasure in trying to hurt and kill an animal for fun.
Taking pleasure in killing living things is different to taking pleasure in eating meat.
Out of interest how are you able to make a distinction between them? The only difference I can see is that a meat eater gets their pleasure afterwards e.g your only reason for killing the animal is so that you can get pleasure from the taste of eating it. A hunter simply gets his during the actual hunt. But both are completely unnecessary as we do not need to eat meat, we make a choice to.
Again, not sure the relevance of this. We all know that nature can be cruel but it's a natural way of life.
If the supposed 'argument' here is that he possibly died in less pain than if he'd been left to his own devices (which is probably true but imo irrelevant), then you could apply that to any number of animals including humans.
It's not any kind of defence/ justification.
The justification is purely financial.
I made the point about old lions being identified as hunting targets, because that's what the game wardens do. The old lion is going to die soon anyway, so if it has to happen, then it's better for older ones to be selected.
If the wildlife conservation programmes need the cash, then hunting old lions like Cecil shortly before they will die anyway, is justified.
I find some of the responses on here and other sites totally out of proportion.
I don't have any desire to hunt, and can't see the attraction. Obviously some do. In some areas it is legal and managed, and the money received from rich visitors can be put to good use, as well as providing a method of controlling numbers of each type of animal. If the area is having to control some animals by culling, then why not do it in a way that creates an income for the country, area, or park area.
In this case, the hunter claims that he believed he was taking part in a legal hunt. We may or may not learn more about whether or not this was the case, but either way, the legal system will run its course and determine whether or not any crime was committed.
If it turns out that the Dentist's actions were undertaken in good faith, even if the people he was dealing with were operating illegally and tricked him, then I think that the opprobrium he is receiving is totally over the top.
Much of the attitude towards him appears to be more about who he is than what he has actually done in this case.
He killed a polar bear also according to his safari log- that alone makes him him a total c u n t. >:(
Out of interest how are you able to make a distinction between them? The only difference I can see is that a meat eater gets their pleasure afterwards e.g your only reason for killing the animal is so that you can get pleasure from the taste of eating it. A hunter simply gets his during the actual hunt. But both are completely unnecessary as we do not need to eat meat, we make a choice to.
It's really as simple as answering the question- do you take pleasure from killing living things.
I'm not trying to be patronising here I promise, but for me it's a pretty straight forward concept.
He killed a polar bear also according to his safari log- that alone makes him him a total c u n t. >:(
He's already been fined for illegally killing a bear in US. and tried to lie his way out of that http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/18015589.html "The members of the group, including Palmer, agreed that if any authorities were to ask where the bear had been killed, they would say it had been killed off Taylor Lake Road south of Minong, a location in Subzone A1.
Palmer and others transported the bear carcass to a registration station in Subzone A1. At the registration station, Palmer filed a Bear Registration Stub, falsely certifying that the bear had been killed in Subzone A1. Palmer later caused the bear carcass to be transported from Wisconsin to Minnesota."
Comments
I don't really see how the legality of his actions make all that much difference to be honest. Whether he killed the lion legally or not is kinda irrelevant to the main issue which is killing the lion in the first place.
Hunting out of necessity or for food is one thing, taking pleasure in hurting and killing living beings is quite another.
I can totally understand the outrage and I don't think most of the comments about it are out of proportion.
Hunting for food IS getting pleasure from killing an animal. It's just that while a hunter gets the pleasure from the hunt itself, meat eaters get the pleasure from the actual taste of the animal. Eating meat isn't necessary at all we can manage fine without it as vegans and vegetarians prove.
Disagree entirely and I can wholly differentiate between an animal killed for food in a slaughter house and one killed purely for he 'fun' of it.
Sure you can make the argument that you get pleasure from eating but that of course totally misses the point being made.
I agree and why I am a veggie.:)
Why? Both are being unnecessarily killed so that a human being can get pleasure. The means of killing is different sure but that's about it.
56 billion animals killed a year for their taste?
Why does anybody eat beef, lamb, pork, Chicken, duck, turkey etc. Because they like the taste. They enjoy eating meat.
Or is it a case that Lions and otters are cuter than Cows and pigs and deserve not to be killed by humans?
"In 2008, Mr Palmer plead guilty to making false statements to the US Fish and Wildlife Service after he illegally shot and killed a black bear in Wisconsin, the Associated Press reported. He initially faced five years in prison and was sentenced to one year’s probation with a $3,000 fine." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/dentist-who-illegally-killed-cecil-the-lion-blames-local-guides-for-scandal-10422803.html
Twice now he has illegally shot an animal.
I don't really know how I can make it much clearer- there's a massive difference between eating meat and taking personal pleasure in killing a living being.
The argument that eating meat is pleasurable is by and large an irrelevance to the point being made above.
http://www.yelp.com/biz/river-bluff-dental-bloomington
http://heavy.com/news/2015/07/walter-palmer-yelp-dds-minnesota-dentist-cecil-lion-killer-river-bluff-dental-page-posts-outrage-deleted-policy-photos/
Would you have said the same about ancient humans when they were eating meat, and when plant food might have been around as well?
Lions die every day in Africa - and in much worse conditions than old Cecil met his fate. Old Cecil would likely have suffered fatal injuries in a fight with a much younger male lion before long, and limped off to die a painful death, alone on the veldt. Probably tormented and finally killed and eaten by hyenas. Old lions like this are identified by park wardens in advance of this, and chosen as hunting targets for paying customers.
As others have said, hunting like this puts a shed load of money into wildlife conservation & management every year. It is distasteful to see, and personally it would not appeal to me at all, but at the moment it's necessary.
Nature's way.
Yes, but that's nature. Someone shooting an arrow at a lion isn't natural.
Again, not sure the relevance of this. We all know that nature can be cruel but it's a natural way of life.
If the supposed 'argument' here is that he possibly died in less pain than if he'd been left to his own devices (which is probably true but imo irrelevant), then you could apply that to any number of animals including humans.
It's not any kind of defence/ justification.
Easy to understand, they're not you and have different opinions.
I already accept that the pleasure is derived in a slightly different way but it doesn't diminish the overall fact that meat eaters and hunters both needlessly kill animals for pleasure although they get that pleasure in slightly different ways.
That might make me sound like a veggie but I'm actually a meat eater. The thing is that I don't judge those who do hunt even though I wouldn't do it myself. I think it would make me a hypocrite. It would be like I was saying "It's ok for animals to needlessly die to provide me the pleasure of a tasty meal but it's not ok for animals to needlessly die to provide you with the pleasure of the thrill of the chase"
But hey, the guy paid 50 grand so he must really enjoy it.
I don't buy into this hypocrite argument, I really don't. For me it's flawed logic, although I do understand why some people say it. .
I can easily make the differentiation between eating meat, and those who take pleasure in trying to hurt and kill an animal for fun.
Taking pleasure in killing living things is different to taking pleasure in eating meat.
Out of interest how are you able to make a distinction between them? The only difference I can see is that a meat eater gets their pleasure afterwards e.g your only reason for killing the animal is so that you can get pleasure from the taste of eating it. A hunter simply gets his during the actual hunt. But both are completely unnecessary as we do not need to eat meat, we make a choice to.
The justification is purely financial.
I made the point about old lions being identified as hunting targets, because that's what the game wardens do. The old lion is going to die soon anyway, so if it has to happen, then it's better for older ones to be selected.
If the wildlife conservation programmes need the cash, then hunting old lions like Cecil shortly before they will die anyway, is justified.
He killed a polar bear also according to his safari log- that alone makes him him a total c u n t. >:(
Wow...
It's really as simple as answering the question- do you take pleasure from killing living things.
I'm not trying to be patronising here I promise, but for me it's a pretty straight forward concept.
He's already been fined for illegally killing a bear in US. and tried to lie his way out of that http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/18015589.html "The members of the group, including Palmer, agreed that if any authorities were to ask where the bear had been killed, they would say it had been killed off Taylor Lake Road south of Minong, a location in Subzone A1.
Palmer and others transported the bear carcass to a registration station in Subzone A1. At the registration station, Palmer filed a Bear Registration Stub, falsely certifying that the bear had been killed in Subzone A1. Palmer later caused the bear carcass to be transported from Wisconsin to Minnesota."
Sounds familiar?