doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com A Very Close Call

Certainly the plan was not for the client to wound a lion and put everyone's life at risk. Once the risk had been created they tried to minimize it by bringing in six shooters.

And yes, in this world all it takes to go hunt lions in Africa is money, no IQ test required.

I have never been and can't afford to go but it certainly looks like a thrill to me and I would love to go. And the camera safari has no appeal to me either, just the hunting kind.

But to each is own.

Best,

Mike

This is just some "Lion" food for thought. Here in Louisiana, in New Orleans in particular, there is a restaurant, Tipitina's, that sells all types of exotic animal steaks, including "Lion Steaks", very expensive. So, it is not a given that the meat would go to waste. There must be some that like it, or they would not still be selling it, after at least, 20 years of offering it on their menu.

binko

Yeah, why?

Best,

Mike

Killing is killing, whether is it a Partridge flushing from an old overgrown apple orchard or its a lion on the charge. Humans tend to rationalize their behavior as morally superior to something similar that they don’t agree with.

Fair chase is fair chase. I don’t hear any protests about the driven game shooting that we talk about. Where beaters drive game into the guns. What sport is that one might ask. Is it fair chase? What chance does a pheasant have under those conditions? What about the use of dogs to find you more game? Is that fair? What about decoys or calls?

Do we consider the hunter who uses a gun other than a double less a sportsman? The fly fishing community has gotten to this point. I work with a guy who is a devout fly fisher. Ask him if he eats fish? He shudders and lectures you that you shouldn’t eat them, catch and release. Bait fisherman are rated just above lawyers and used car salesmen.

We could debate preserve bird hunts all day long. There are those that see no issue with this but once an animal has 4 legs, fur and or wet dark eyes, we collectively abhor preserve hunting.

Lest we forget, it is the hunter who is more of a conservationist that the armchair conservationists and environmentalists. Our tax dollars through the 11% excise tax, hunting license fees etc. support far more initiatives and activities that the antis. And not just for game birds and animals.


If it weren’t for hunters in the field, there would be a whole lot less lions to look at for the non hunters. I know those who don’t believe in shooting lions will agree but I only ask you to look at the elephant population in Kenya prior to their hunting ban and 5 years after the ban. Look at the Rhino situation. It has been proven time and again, when hunters are not present, poaching and human depredation skyrockets. No one other than a criminal element benefits and surely it is extremely counterproductive to the survivability of any species.

While hunters may shoot some animals, their presence deters poachers who kill far more, for purely monetary reasons, usually snaring or poisoning. Besides wanton slaughter for ivory, horn, hide , spleens, etc. or stealing resources, there is no economic benefit going to the locals as is when they are employed by the PH's.

You are either for legal sport hunting or against it. What means you use and what game you hunt is your choice. Again, another slippery slope. Whether you big game hunt, bird hunt or shoot, bow hunt, whatever, your intent is the same ,; kill an animal or bird.

I bird hunt and I big game hunt. I will tell you that I have no compelling desire to kill al lion or an elephant. Not because I somehow conjure up images of Dumbo and The Lion King. Just don’t have the desire. Now a Cape Buffalo at close range, that’s a different story. But I don’t condemn those who choose this. Is money a big deal in this? You bet. Look at the Whitetail craze that has been sweeping the country for the last 15 years. If you have the cash you can afford to go to those places and under fair chase rules, kill a 160-180 B&C Whitetail. Can I ? No. Do I condemn those who do? No. I may laugh at them a little when I hear their stories. But I can tell you the Spike buck I killed at 430 in the afternoon on the backside of a ridge and took the next 6 hours dragging him, freezing my butt off, soaked to the bone, sore and tired, to get him to my truck meant more to me than just about any other animal I ever killed.

The bottom line is that game animals are a renewable resource. Hunters pay for conservation and are the true stewards of the land. Hunters licensing fees, hunt expenses , presence in the field is far more beneficial to the animal kingdom and to humans than not allowing hunters in the field. Choose carefully who you condemn when they are engaged in lawful fair chase hunting .

Brian...I wish I'd have said that as well as you did...kudos Major.

It's not the first time it's happened, but you find yourself nude and unconscious in the Rocky Mountains. After you are aroused and fully erect (You know, awake and standing) you stumble around a bit and find an emergency cabin fully stocked with all sorts of wonderful food and drink, and a bunch of .375 H&H rifles with plenty of ammo. Outside, a big brown bear is just standing there. You know that while food and water is no issue, you'll freeze to death if you don't borrow that bear's fur coat for a few weeks. You have no need or intention of eating any part of the bear. Do you kill it or abide by your principles and freeze?

Meanwhile, a few thousand miles away, your identical twin brother is fully clothed, Filson, and leaning against the hood of his 4x4 Jimmy. He has a juicy deer in the sights of his new .300 Win Mag he bought at Cabela's last week. Twelve minutes away is a WalMart SuperCenter with rows of (reputedly) fresh fruit, vegetables, and meats. Hell, there's even a McDonald's built into the front of the store. It would be easier and far less costly to eat a Big Mac. Is it ethical for him to shoot the deer when his survival in no way depends on doing so?

I have some questions for those who only shoot that which they will eat. First, do you to eat only portions other than heart, liver, sweetbreads, etc? If you waste these fully nutritious portions how is that rationalized with your ethic? Second, does that mean you won't shoot vermin like rats, pigeons, coyotes? If you will shoot these but not other animals thought in our society to be not edible how is that consistent with your ethic? Further if you are in another country shouldn't their society's rules of edibilty apply?

I just waded through 3 pages of posts on this subject since I initially took exception to lion hunting early on in this thread. Birds and other small game renew easily and many species can be harvested at the 80% rate and we'll still have a viable population to hunt the following year. Deer,Elk, Moose also fall into the easily renewable category. I may also add that these species are usually consumed as food and nothing really goes to waste. For those who have sampled "Lion Steaks" and I'm in the category all I can say is I'm glad we have regular resturants close by after a "tasting".
I am adverse to condemn any legitimate form of hunting and I recognise that "Big Game" hunting falls into this category but I still personally feel the taking of species at the top of the food chain that don't renew easily is wrong.
We just had our first confirmed sighting of a Jaguar in Southern Arizona after years of speculation and I suspect we'll have a clamor for an open Jaguar season before too long. I say this with tongue in cheek as one who edited many Mountain Lion hunts with dogs which are about as "fair chase" as shooting fish in a barrel. This is NOT hunting it's just plain killing.

Update for Jerrys post:
Our cats and dogs will gladly take care of any of the internal organs we don't eat.
Don't know the regs where you live but the dischage of firearms within the City limits where I live in Arizona would result in some seroius jail time so I don't shoot any vermin.
Jim

Good questions Jerry. You won't get many good answers.

Just what is the 'Top of the Food Chain?'

I think it's pretty easy to opine that humans are generally jackasses in the grand scheme of things. For example, we think it's OK to kill a rat for no purpose, because they are not cuddly or magnificent, but we frown on killing a Panda Bear because it is cute, a jaguar because it is sleek, a gorilla because it reminds us of our high school football coach. In effect, if an animal appeals to our sense then it lives, if it doesn't it dies.

You could argue pretty easily that a rat is a far superior animal than a koala bear or jaguar. After all, the rat has thrived over history whereas the koala and jag are foundering as species. And don't tell me it's because humans have encroached on the habitats of the jaguar.....I think rats have it worse in that regard as well.

Look at the pigeon versus the Bald Eagle - one poops all over 5th Avenue by the thousands, and one is barely able to survive as a species.

Top of the Food Chain? Huh?