Trump still living in your head. The only question is, in which of your heads does he reside? Or is it both?J.B.Katz said:
Perhaps symbolic of what Trump and gun nuts have done to the Republican party?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/27/nra-wayne-lapierre-elephant-video/
Wayne LaPierre and his wife Susan kill elephants badly
6,299 Views |
91 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by drahthaar
While I would never kill an elephant, the elephants that are "hunted" are selected due to being poor specimens, or too old to breed, for the most part. The money goes to conservation, which is criminally unfunded. Only another 2 or 3 generations will know a world with elephants.
This is all common knowledge, but apparently needs to be stated often.
There are a lot of people who complain about big game hunting, and apparently don't care at all about the animals, because if they did, these beautiful animals wouldn't be going extinct due to no financial support.
This is all common knowledge, but apparently needs to be stated often.
There are a lot of people who complain about big game hunting, and apparently don't care at all about the animals, because if they did, these beautiful animals wouldn't be going extinct due to no financial support.
Yep. Hunting is an effective tool for necessary stewardship.
If it can be done for the benefit of hunters, the community and the species, which it can and in recent history has, then hunting should be promoted.
Regarding shot placement that instantly kills an animal, there's only one and that's a head shot. But that's almost always unethical due to the risk of unnecessary injury due to the relative size of the target.
If the hunter plants the animal on the first shot, the hunter has made an effective, clean and ethical shot. Those who actually hunt understand this not to mention the fact that a good kill shot can still result in a game animal running some distance before it drops. I've seen this with heart shots on deer.
JBK's analogy exposes his/her ignorance. The "problem" ( in this case an animal) was solved effectively and almost immediately. That's what good leaders/problem solvers do.
Compare that to Democrat leadership that so often allows and even promotes problems such as rioting, destruction of property, lawlessness and ruined cities, and it's obvious that Democrats and liberals need to examine their own failed cities and states. These are FAR bigger issues than Trump supporters and gun nuts - you know, those people who prefer to be able protect themselves from thugs, especially when there are few if any police to call, due, again, to Democrat "leadership".
If it can be done for the benefit of hunters, the community and the species, which it can and in recent history has, then hunting should be promoted.
Regarding shot placement that instantly kills an animal, there's only one and that's a head shot. But that's almost always unethical due to the risk of unnecessary injury due to the relative size of the target.
If the hunter plants the animal on the first shot, the hunter has made an effective, clean and ethical shot. Those who actually hunt understand this not to mention the fact that a good kill shot can still result in a game animal running some distance before it drops. I've seen this with heart shots on deer.
JBK's analogy exposes his/her ignorance. The "problem" ( in this case an animal) was solved effectively and almost immediately. That's what good leaders/problem solvers do.
Compare that to Democrat leadership that so often allows and even promotes problems such as rioting, destruction of property, lawlessness and ruined cities, and it's obvious that Democrats and liberals need to examine their own failed cities and states. These are FAR bigger issues than Trump supporters and gun nuts - you know, those people who prefer to be able protect themselves from thugs, especially when there are few if any police to call, due, again, to Democrat "leadership".
LaPierre still leads the NRA.SSadler said:
Back to the video of elephant-killing (I don't even use "hunting" for what that video is about).
I am a gun owner and hunter, but that video turns my stomach, and I hope it would regardless of the size and species of the kill.
NRA members should be chagrined that their elected president was so incapable of kill shots on a non-moving target--(he fired three? four? shots at short distance even with the guides there to stalk and direct the shooter to a short-distance shot with scoped rifle.
Pretty sure THAT video is not what NRA is all about.
So if the video of him peppering a trapped elephant with bullets isn't what the NRA is all about, it's what a key leader is all about: using guns to kill wild animals trapped by a guide you paid to make an animal available to you to kill so you could ship the body parts home. And Susan LaPierre knew that if the boxes were addressed to him people might be too disgusted about what they had done to handle them so she made sure their names were removed from the shipping crates filled with elephant feet that have been made into stools for the LaPierres' home.
Head of BLM just bought a house in a white neighborhood...where are you on that? Oh wait, Trump wasn't involvedJ.B.Katz said:LaPierre still leads the NRA.SSadler said:
Back to the video of elephant-killing (I don't even use "hunting" for what that video is about).
I am a gun owner and hunter, but that video turns my stomach, and I hope it would regardless of the size and species of the kill.
NRA members should be chagrined that their elected president was so incapable of kill shots on a non-moving target--(he fired three? four? shots at short distance even with the guides there to stalk and direct the shooter to a short-distance shot with scoped rifle.
Pretty sure THAT video is not what NRA is all about.
So if the video of him peppering a trapped elephant with bullets isn't what the NRA is all about, it's what a key leader is all about: using guns to kill wild animals trapped by a guide you paid to make an animal available to you to kill so you could ship the body parts home. And Susan LaPierre knew that if the boxes were addressed to him people might be too disgusted about what they had done to handle them so she made sure their names were removed from the shipping crates filled with elephant feet that have been made into stools for the LaPierres' home.
No doubt about it. Complete lack of empathy.bear2be2 said:Mothra said:We are in agreement on this. Trophy hunting is bull*****Shippou said:
I'm not a fan of trophy hunting endangered animals. I don't care about people hunting for sustenance or taking care of animals that have destroyed their property(wild pigs, coyotes, etc.)
But there's something about going across the globe and shooting animals that may not be around in 20-50 years that irks me.
Just my two sense, I don't give a damn about the nra or anything, I just like animals.
I'm with you guys. I've never seen a trophy hunter whose company I've thought I would enjoy. You have to be a defective being IMO to want to kill a majestic creature for no other reason than to kill it and let others know you did.
I don't see the travesty that some are seeing, but I don't see a clean kill either. It appears to me that he missed the kill shot and managed to paralyze the animal through blind luck, requiring many more shots, which is far from ideal. Just my $.02 from someone who's never shot anything bigger than a deer.Herron2 said:
Yep. Hunting is an effective tool for necessary stewardship.
If it can be done for the benefit of hunters, the community and the species, which it can and in recent history has, then hunting should be promoted.
Regarding shot placement that instantly kills an animal, there's only one and that's a head shot. But that's almost always unethical due to the risk of unnecessary injury due to the relative size of the target.
If the hunter plants the animal on the first shot, the hunter has made an effective, clean and ethical shot. Those who actually hunt understand this not to mention the fact that a good kill shot can still result in a game animal running some distance before it drops. I've seen this with heart shots on deer.
JBK's analogy exposes his/her ignorance. The "problem" ( in this case an animal) was solved effectively and almost immediately. That's what good leaders/problem solvers do.
Compare that to Democrat leadership that so often allows and even promotes problems such as rioting, destruction of property, lawlessness and ruined cities, and it's obvious that Democrats and liberals need to examine their own failed cities and states. These are FAR bigger issues than Trump supporters and gun nuts - you know, those people who prefer to be able protect themselves from thugs, especially when there are few if any police to call, due, again, to Democrat "leadership".
David killed a lion and a bear but, the trophy head we hear about was Goliath's.
I'm not going to pretend to know where the Bible stands on trophy hunting. Much smarter than me can do that. However, just because it isn't your cup of tea doesn't mean it is wrong. The proceeds from trophy hunting does a great deal of good for both people and animals.
I'm not going to pretend to know where the Bible stands on trophy hunting. Much smarter than me can do that. However, just because it isn't your cup of tea doesn't mean it is wrong. The proceeds from trophy hunting does a great deal of good for both people and animals.
In the footage I've seen, Lapierre shoots and the elephant drops. This allows for a quick finish. The PH should have taken care of that with his open sighted rifle which occurred pretty quickly after the initial shot. The first shot effectively killed the animal and it was going to expire far more quickly than death by most natural causes.
If it was a fair chase hunt, then I see no problem with it. I'm not a big fan of put and take hunting, personally.
If it was a fair chase hunt, then I see no problem with it. I'm not a big fan of put and take hunting, personally.
bear2be2 said:Mothra said:We are in agreement on this. Trophy hunting is bull*****Shippou said:
I'm not a fan of trophy hunting endangered animals. I don't care about people hunting for sustenance or taking care of animals that have destroyed their property(wild pigs, coyotes, etc.)
But there's something about going across the globe and shooting animals that may not be around in 20-50 years that irks me.
Just my two sense, I don't give a damn about the nra or anything, I just like animals.
I'm with you guys. I've never seen a trophy hunter whose company I've thought I would enjoy. You have to be a defective being IMO to want to kill a majestic creature for no other reason than to kill it and let others know you did.
So you must agree that the destruction of innocent human life made in Gods image, unlike other animals, and the support of such through one's vote is pure evil or psycopathy, right? I hope you're not so hypocritical or ignorant of a person's inherent value to suggest otherwise.
Again, regarding the effectiveness of the shot, the African elephant has long been considered by hunters as one of the five most dangerous game animals in Africa. The others are the lion, the leopard, the rhinoceros and the cape buffalo. These are so characterized by their durability and disposition after being shot, if not before. I think if you ask any African professional hunter (i.e. local guide who does this for a living), they'll tell you that a shot that drops an elephant in its tracks is a good shot. I'd bet money on it.
It's a feature, not a bug. For a lion $50k goes to the locals.bear2be2 said:
I support conservation efforts that don't actively deplete the population one is pretending to care about preserving. Is it good that the money hunters spend on these sick trips have had the unintended consequence of helping conservation efforts in these populations? Yes. Would these "hunters" stop killing these animals if they hadn't? No. This is just a fortuitous bounce that allows these sick ****ers to feel good about murdering exotic animals. But it's their money, not trophy hunting that has allowed these populations to rebound.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
So are you a fan of, or opposed to:bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:Then you should be pro trophy hunting in Africa. That's the only reason the big species have made a comeback.bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:
People like to act like there is some clean line between killing for meat and killing for sport. There's not. Real hunters know that.
I'm a pragmatist. The motivations don't particularly matter to me. The results and impact do.
I support conservation efforts that don't actively deplete the population one is pretending to care about preserving. Is it good that the money hunters spend on these sick trips have had the unintended consequence of helping conservation efforts in these populations? Yes. Would these "hunters" stop killing these animals if they hadn't? No. This is just a fortuitous bounce that allows these sick ****ers to feel good about murdering exotic animals. But it's their money, not trophy hunting that has allowed these populations to rebound.
Ducks Unlimited
Quality Deer Management Association
Pheasants Forever
National Wild Turkey Federation
Costal Conservation Association
Bonefish and Tarpon Trust
Warm fuzzy feelings about wildlife does nothing to help wildlife. The majority of help wildlife gets comes from the sportsmen that harvest these animals by way of licensing fees, stamps, permits and membership fees in organizations that support their habitat and populations.
Dang facts just get in the way.
My problem is exclusively with international big game/trophy hunting. But don't let assumptions get in your way.LIB,MR BEARS said:So are you a fan of, or opposed to:bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:Then you should be pro trophy hunting in Africa. That's the only reason the big species have made a comeback.bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:
People like to act like there is some clean line between killing for meat and killing for sport. There's not. Real hunters know that.
I'm a pragmatist. The motivations don't particularly matter to me. The results and impact do.
I support conservation efforts that don't actively deplete the population one is pretending to care about preserving. Is it good that the money hunters spend on these sick trips have had the unintended consequence of helping conservation efforts in these populations? Yes. Would these "hunters" stop killing these animals if they hadn't? No. This is just a fortuitous bounce that allows these sick ****ers to feel good about murdering exotic animals. But it's their money, not trophy hunting that has allowed these populations to rebound.
Ducks Unlimited
Quality Deer Management Association
Pheasants Forever
National Wild Turkey Federation
Costal Conservation Association
Bonefish and Tarpon Trust
Warm fuzzy feelings about wildlife does nothing to help wildlife. The majority of help wildlife gets comes from the sportsmen that harvest these animals by way of licensing fees, stamps, permits and membership fees in organizations that support their habitat and populations.
Dang facts just get in the way.
Why don't you like wealthy Asians hunting elk In Montana? Is it the elk, the wealth or the Asian?bear2be2 said:My problem is exclusively with international big game/trophy hunting. But don't let assumptions get in your way.LIB,MR BEARS said:So are you a fan of, or opposed to:bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:Then you should be pro trophy hunting in Africa. That's the only reason the big species have made a comeback.bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:
People like to act like there is some clean line between killing for meat and killing for sport. There's not. Real hunters know that.
I'm a pragmatist. The motivations don't particularly matter to me. The results and impact do.
I support conservation efforts that don't actively deplete the population one is pretending to care about preserving. Is it good that the money hunters spend on these sick trips have had the unintended consequence of helping conservation efforts in these populations? Yes. Would these "hunters" stop killing these animals if they hadn't? No. This is just a fortuitous bounce that allows these sick ****ers to feel good about murdering exotic animals. But it's their money, not trophy hunting that has allowed these populations to rebound.
Ducks Unlimited
Quality Deer Management Association
Pheasants Forever
National Wild Turkey Federation
Costal Conservation Association
Bonefish and Tarpon Trust
Warm fuzzy feelings about wildlife does nothing to help wildlife. The majority of help wildlife gets comes from the sportsmen that harvest these animals by way of licensing fees, stamps, permits and membership fees in organizations that support their habitat and populations.
Dang facts just get in the way.
Here's an idea, why don't you join the NRA and see for yourself what they are about instead of listening to the parrot heads on CNN.J.B.Katz said:LaPierre still leads the NRA.SSadler said:
Back to the video of elephant-killing (I don't even use "hunting" for what that video is about).
I am a gun owner and hunter, but that video turns my stomach, and I hope it would regardless of the size and species of the kill.
NRA members should be chagrined that their elected president was so incapable of kill shots on a non-moving target--(he fired three? four? shots at short distance even with the guides there to stalk and direct the shooter to a short-distance shot with scoped rifle.
Pretty sure THAT video is not what NRA is all about.
So if the video of him peppering a trapped elephant with bullets isn't what the NRA is all about, it's what a key leader is all about: using guns to kill wild animals trapped by a guide you paid to make an animal available to you to kill so you could ship the body parts home. And Susan LaPierre knew that if the boxes were addressed to him people might be too disgusted about what they had done to handle them so she made sure their names were removed from the shipping crates filled with elephant feet that have been made into stools for the LaPierres' home.
Might do you some good to be informed for a change.
Whaaaaat? I though white people were all racist. How the hell did they allow that to happen!?!?!?fadskier said:Head of BLM just bought a house in a white neighborhood...where are you on that? Oh wait, Trump wasn't involvedJ.B.Katz said:LaPierre still leads the NRA.SSadler said:
Back to the video of elephant-killing (I don't even use "hunting" for what that video is about).
I am a gun owner and hunter, but that video turns my stomach, and I hope it would regardless of the size and species of the kill.
NRA members should be chagrined that their elected president was so incapable of kill shots on a non-moving target--(he fired three? four? shots at short distance even with the guides there to stalk and direct the shooter to a short-distance shot with scoped rifle.
Pretty sure THAT video is not what NRA is all about.
So if the video of him peppering a trapped elephant with bullets isn't what the NRA is all about, it's what a key leader is all about: using guns to kill wild animals trapped by a guide you paid to make an animal available to you to kill so you could ship the body parts home. And Susan LaPierre knew that if the boxes were addressed to him people might be too disgusted about what they had done to handle them so she made sure their names were removed from the shipping crates filled with elephant feet that have been made into stools for the LaPierres' home.
bear2be2 said:My problem is exclusively with international big game/trophy hunting. But don't let assumptions get in your way.LIB,MR BEARS said:So are you a fan of, or opposed to:bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:Then you should be pro trophy hunting in Africa. That's the only reason the big species have made a comeback.bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:
People like to act like there is some clean line between killing for meat and killing for sport. There's not. Real hunters know that.
I'm a pragmatist. The motivations don't particularly matter to me. The results and impact do.
I support conservation efforts that don't actively deplete the population one is pretending to care about preserving. Is it good that the money hunters spend on these sick trips have had the unintended consequence of helping conservation efforts in these populations? Yes. Would these "hunters" stop killing these animals if they hadn't? No. This is just a fortuitous bounce that allows these sick ****ers to feel good about murdering exotic animals. But it's their money, not trophy hunting that has allowed these populations to rebound.
Ducks Unlimited
Quality Deer Management Association
Pheasants Forever
National Wild Turkey Federation
Costal Conservation Association
Bonefish and Tarpon Trust
Warm fuzzy feelings about wildlife does nothing to help wildlife. The majority of help wildlife gets comes from the sportsmen that harvest these animals by way of licensing fees, stamps, permits and membership fees in organizations that support their habitat and populations.
Dang facts just get in the way.
So how do you feel about killing unborn humans?
Not a fan. What does that have to do with this discussion?Herron2 said:bear2be2 said:My problem is exclusively with international big game/trophy hunting. But don't let assumptions get in your way.LIB,MR BEARS said:So are you a fan of, or opposed to:bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:Then you should be pro trophy hunting in Africa. That's the only reason the big species have made a comeback.bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:
People like to act like there is some clean line between killing for meat and killing for sport. There's not. Real hunters know that.
I'm a pragmatist. The motivations don't particularly matter to me. The results and impact do.
I support conservation efforts that don't actively deplete the population one is pretending to care about preserving. Is it good that the money hunters spend on these sick trips have had the unintended consequence of helping conservation efforts in these populations? Yes. Would these "hunters" stop killing these animals if they hadn't? No. This is just a fortuitous bounce that allows these sick ****ers to feel good about murdering exotic animals. But it's their money, not trophy hunting that has allowed these populations to rebound.
Ducks Unlimited
Quality Deer Management Association
Pheasants Forever
National Wild Turkey Federation
Costal Conservation Association
Bonefish and Tarpon Trust
Warm fuzzy feelings about wildlife does nothing to help wildlife. The majority of help wildlife gets comes from the sportsmen that harvest these animals by way of licensing fees, stamps, permits and membership fees in organizations that support their habitat and populations.
Dang facts just get in the way.
So how do you feel about killing unborn humans?
Had you pegged as a Democrat voter. If so, your actions would say otherwise since that party has openly embraced abortion on demand. If not, then sincere apologies for the confusion.bear2be2 said:Not a fan. What does that have to do with this discussion?Herron2 said:bear2be2 said:My problem is exclusively with international big game/trophy hunting. But don't let assumptions get in your way.LIB,MR BEARS said:So are you a fan of, or opposed to:bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:Then you should be pro trophy hunting in Africa. That's the only reason the big species have made a comeback.bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:
People like to act like there is some clean line between killing for meat and killing for sport. There's not. Real hunters know that.
I'm a pragmatist. The motivations don't particularly matter to me. The results and impact do.
I support conservation efforts that don't actively deplete the population one is pretending to care about preserving. Is it good that the money hunters spend on these sick trips have had the unintended consequence of helping conservation efforts in these populations? Yes. Would these "hunters" stop killing these animals if they hadn't? No. This is just a fortuitous bounce that allows these sick ****ers to feel good about murdering exotic animals. But it's their money, not trophy hunting that has allowed these populations to rebound.
Ducks Unlimited
Quality Deer Management Association
Pheasants Forever
National Wild Turkey Federation
Costal Conservation Association
Bonefish and Tarpon Trust
Warm fuzzy feelings about wildlife does nothing to help wildlife. The majority of help wildlife gets comes from the sportsmen that harvest these animals by way of licensing fees, stamps, permits and membership fees in organizations that support their habitat and populations.
Dang facts just get in the way.
So how do you feel about killing unborn humans?
Regarding the thread, I find it highly hypocritical (arguably psychopathic/pure evil) for those posters (again, not necessarily you) who would condemn hunting of any sort yet write off innocent human life by voting for Democrats who align with their party's platform.
Herron2 said:Had you pegged as a Democrat voter. If so, your actions would say otherwise since that party has openly embraced abortion on demand. If not, then sincere apologies for the confusion.bear2be2 said:Not a fan. What does that have to do with this discussion?Herron2 said:bear2be2 said:My problem is exclusively with international big game/trophy hunting. But don't let assumptions get in your way.LIB,MR BEARS said:So are you a fan of, or opposed to:bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:Then you should be pro trophy hunting in Africa. That's the only reason the big species have made a comeback.bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:
People like to act like there is some clean line between killing for meat and killing for sport. There's not. Real hunters know that.
I'm a pragmatist. The motivations don't particularly matter to me. The results and impact do.
I support conservation efforts that don't actively deplete the population one is pretending to care about preserving. Is it good that the money hunters spend on these sick trips have had the unintended consequence of helping conservation efforts in these populations? Yes. Would these "hunters" stop killing these animals if they hadn't? No. This is just a fortuitous bounce that allows these sick ****ers to feel good about murdering exotic animals. But it's their money, not trophy hunting that has allowed these populations to rebound.
Ducks Unlimited
Quality Deer Management Association
Pheasants Forever
National Wild Turkey Federation
Costal Conservation Association
Bonefish and Tarpon Trust
Warm fuzzy feelings about wildlife does nothing to help wildlife. The majority of help wildlife gets comes from the sportsmen that harvest these animals by way of licensing fees, stamps, permits and membership fees in organizations that support their habitat and populations.
Dang facts just get in the way.
So how do you feel about killing unborn humans?
Regarding the thread, I find it highly hypocritical (arguably psychopathic/pure evil) for those posters (again, not necessarily you) who would condemn hunting of any sort yet write off innocent human life by voting for Democrats who align with their party's platform.
I condemn kick and shoot.
I want government out of the abortion equation. It's an individual choice.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
The truth is , none of us know what preceded the shot on the elephant. We are just making assumptions. However, "kick and shoot" I'm guessing is a bit more of a challenge with a large bull elephant than it is with pen raised birds.quash said:Herron2 said:Had you pegged as a Democrat voter. If so, your actions would say otherwise since that party has openly embraced abortion on demand. If not, then sincere apologies for the confusion.bear2be2 said:Not a fan. What does that have to do with this discussion?Herron2 said:bear2be2 said:My problem is exclusively with international big game/trophy hunting. But don't let assumptions get in your way.LIB,MR BEARS said:So are you a fan of, or opposed to:bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:Then you should be pro trophy hunting in Africa. That's the only reason the big species have made a comeback.bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:
People like to act like there is some clean line between killing for meat and killing for sport. There's not. Real hunters know that.
I'm a pragmatist. The motivations don't particularly matter to me. The results and impact do.
I support conservation efforts that don't actively deplete the population one is pretending to care about preserving. Is it good that the money hunters spend on these sick trips have had the unintended consequence of helping conservation efforts in these populations? Yes. Would these "hunters" stop killing these animals if they hadn't? No. This is just a fortuitous bounce that allows these sick ****ers to feel good about murdering exotic animals. But it's their money, not trophy hunting that has allowed these populations to rebound.
Ducks Unlimited
Quality Deer Management Association
Pheasants Forever
National Wild Turkey Federation
Costal Conservation Association
Bonefish and Tarpon Trust
Warm fuzzy feelings about wildlife does nothing to help wildlife. The majority of help wildlife gets comes from the sportsmen that harvest these animals by way of licensing fees, stamps, permits and membership fees in organizations that support their habitat and populations.
Dang facts just get in the way.
So how do you feel about killing unborn humans?
Regarding the thread, I find it highly hypocritical (arguably psychopathic/pure evil) for those posters (again, not necessarily you) who would condemn hunting of any sort yet write off innocent human life by voting for Democrats who align with their party's platform.
I condemn kick and shoot.
I want government out of the abortion equation. It's an individual choice.
ShooterTX said:
This is fun...
Now post the story about how the founders & leaders of BLM have become multi-millionaires by taking money from woke idiots.
.... like JB Katz
The difference is the foreigners pay six digits to shoot an elephant which will be fully exploited for tusks, skin, and meat.....while locals will poach for the tusks and let the whole animal rot.bear2be2 said:Canon said:
You gentlemen must despise the Maasai. The Maasai people have traditionally viewed the killing of lions as a rite of passage, to prove their bravery and personal achievement. They continue this tradition today. They don't eat lion meat. They kill it and parse out the parts as trophies.
Do you hold our African neighbors to the same standards as you hold white dentists and lobbyists or no?
Yes. Next question.
Killing beautiful, often endangered animals for no other reason than to prove you can is stupid and inhumane regardless of the race/culture of the "hunter."
That said, I do think there's a distinction to be made between locals killing animals native to their land and rich foreigners taking joy trips across the globe to murder endangered animals for fun.
Commercial wild game hunting is the only thing standing between endangered species and extinction. Without the dollar value of the game, the game has no value beyond zimkuyu (boiled & dried game meat) sold in a local market. It is the potential revenue to commercial farms and tribal trust lands that incentivizes owners, chiefs, and elders to protect the game as a valuable resource rather than dinner. Indeed, without commercial hunting, it is politically untenable for chiefs & elders to protect game, because doing so puts them between the poor and the next meal.
Wild game for its intrinsic beauty? That's something only the rich can appreciate.
So many strawmen.J.B.Katz said:LaPierre still leads the NRA.SSadler said:
Back to the video of elephant-killing (I don't even use "hunting" for what that video is about).
I am a gun owner and hunter, but that video turns my stomach, and I hope it would regardless of the size and species of the kill.
NRA members should be chagrined that their elected president was so incapable of kill shots on a non-moving target--(he fired three? four? shots at short distance even with the guides there to stalk and direct the shooter to a short-distance shot with scoped rifle.
Pretty sure THAT video is not what NRA is all about.
So if the video of him peppering a trapped elephant with bullets isn't what the NRA is all about, it's what a key leader is all about: using guns to kill wild animals trapped by a guide you paid to make an animal available to you to kill so you could ship the body parts home. And Susan LaPierre knew that if the boxes were addressed to him people might be too disgusted about what they had done to handle them so she made sure their names were removed from the shipping crates filled with elephant feet that have been made into stools for the LaPierres' home.
It wasn't a trapped elephant. It was a mortally wounded elephant.
The guide didn't trap the elephant. He outfitted the hunt which tracked a wild elephant, on foot.
Ever tracked a wild elephant on foot?
Do you have any idea how hard that is? how many miles of walking are invovled?
I*'m no fan of LaPierre, but the guide should be faulted for what happened. It's hard to describe the crescendo of adrenalin, fear, and excitement that blares in your mind when you're squeezing the trigger on dangerous game, compounded by the reality that if you fail to execute, people can (and do) get killed. And executing a brain shot on a moving elephant is...well....LaPierre made an excellent shot, with a single shot rifle (Blaser) in a minimum caliber (looks like .375H&H) necessary for the job. He dropped a moving elephant with a brain shot. Impressive.
Why is a brain shot on a moving elephant at 50 yards so hard? Put a refrigerator in the back of a pickup truck. Put a loaf of bread in that refrigerator. Close the door. turn around and take 50 paces. Turn right. Take 10 paces. Then stop and turn around and shoot the loaf of bread.....while the truck is driving past you. You have to know exactly where that loaf is inside that refrigerator, calculate the angle of the shot presentation, give it a little lead.....and if you don't hit that loaf of bread, that truck is going to turn and run you over. Then back up & run you over. And then run you over some more. for maybe 30 minutes or so. You have to KNOW anatomy and angles & presentation to shoot large game. You cannot overwhelm large game with caliber like you can with "center of chest" shot on whitetail and elk. You have to poke a hole thru one or more vitals and ideally 1) have an exit wound (two holes to bleed from) and 2) break weight bearing bones.
So LaPierre executed an excellent shot. A shot his pro was advising him not to take...wanting to wait to let the elephant stand, which would have been a safer shot. The pro should have either made the insurance shot himself, or handed LaPierre his open-sighted double rifle. If you listen to the dialogue....you can hear LaPierre and an interlocutor discussing "aim an inch low...." That's to allow for the problem created by using a scope at point blank range. Bullets do not come out the barrel "right on the X." It comes out a little over 1" below the line of sight. It doesn't reach line of sight again until about 25yds. Then it goes above line of sight before gravity starts taking over...and wham....it hits the paper 2" above the X at 100yds so that it will hit paper dead on at 200yds. That's why pros carry open-sighted rifles (usually doubles). You need a quick shot and you need to make it immediately (on a charge). No time to calculate and estimate & such for range & where the scope is sighted.
I carried a Westley Richards double in 465 Nitro Express when hunting dangerous game, and let the tracker carry my Sako Safari 375 H&H bolt gun. The Sako was for any plains game we happened upon, or a longer shot on dangerous game. I carried the double because I was my own pro. I had to handle my own lgoistics and sort out my own problems. Put down an unprovoked buffalo charge one day. If I'd been carrying that bolt gun, I probably wouldn't be typing this. But my first buff was a little bit of a rodeo like LaPierre's elephant. Buff was laying down and approaching sundown didn't give us time to wait for him to stand. Problem is, laying down changes the anatomy in ways that are impossible to precisely ascertain. So my friend (a pro, who had his 470) and I discussed the shot angles. I actually aimed the Sako 2" below the top of the grass...shooting thru several feet grass to try to get low enough to hit the heart. It worked. Sorta. All I could see in the Zeiss after the shot was 4 buffalo feet up in the air thrashing about. So I raced forward to about 25 feet and just as I stopped, the buff stood. I popped him in the neck. Neck shots always work on deer, right? Wrong. He spun 180. I popped him on the shoulder again and he dropped. Spine shot. The first shot actually was to high. Hit spinal process. Stunned him. For a few seconds.
LaPierre is an experienced shot, but not an experienced dangerous game hunter. He had too much adrenalin & stress to be able to think & reason quickly in that situation. THAT'S WHAT PROS ARE FOR.
Dangerous game is not easy quarry. It fights back. Sometimes, it actually wins. LaPierre's critics are making asses of themselves, but then, virtue posturing often does that to the person involved.
oh you evil, evil person. (end sarcasm)whiterock said:So many strawmen.J.B.Katz said:LaPierre still leads the NRA.SSadler said:
Back to the video of elephant-killing (I don't even use "hunting" for what that video is about).
I am a gun owner and hunter, but that video turns my stomach, and I hope it would regardless of the size and species of the kill.
NRA members should be chagrined that their elected president was so incapable of kill shots on a non-moving target--(he fired three? four? shots at short distance even with the guides there to stalk and direct the shooter to a short-distance shot with scoped rifle.
Pretty sure THAT video is not what NRA is all about.
So if the video of him peppering a trapped elephant with bullets isn't what the NRA is all about, it's what a key leader is all about: using guns to kill wild animals trapped by a guide you paid to make an animal available to you to kill so you could ship the body parts home. And Susan LaPierre knew that if the boxes were addressed to him people might be too disgusted about what they had done to handle them so she made sure their names were removed from the shipping crates filled with elephant feet that have been made into stools for the LaPierres' home.
It wasn't a trapped elephant. It was a mortally wounded elephant.
The guide didn't trap the elephant. He outfitted the hunt which tracked a wild elephant, on foot.
Ever tracked a wild elephant on foot?
Do you have any idea how hard that is? how many miles of walking are invovled?
I*'m no fan of LaPierre, but the guide should be faulted for what happened. It's hard to describe the crescendo of adrenalin, fear, and excitement that blares in your mind when you're squeezing the trigger on dangerous game, compounded by the reality that if you fail to execute, people can (and do) get killed. And executing a brain shot on a moving elephant is...well....LaPierre made an excellent shot, with a single shot rifle (Blaser) in a minimum caliber (looks like .375H&H) necessary for the job. He dropped a moving elephant with a brain shot. Impressive.
Why is a brain shot on a moving elephant at 50 yards so hard? Put a refrigerator in the back of a pickup truck. Put a loaf of bread in that refrigerator. Close the door. turn around and take 50 paces. Turn right. Take 10 paces. Then stop and turn around and shoot the loaf of bread.....while the truck is driving past you. You have to know exactly where that loaf is inside that refrigerator, calculate the angle of the shot presentation, give it a little lead.....and if you don't hit that loaf of bread, that truck is going to turn and run you over. Then back up & run you over. And then run you over some more. for maybe 30 minutes or so. You have to KNOW anatomy and angles & presentation to shoot large game. You cannot overwhelm large game with caliber like you can with "center of chest" shot on whitetail and elk. You have to poke a hole thru one or more vitals and ideally 1) have an exit wound (two holes to bleed from) and 2) break weight bearing bones.
So LaPierre executed an excellent shot. A shot his pro was advising him not to take...wanting to wait to let the elephant stand, which would have been a safer shot. The pro should have either made the insurance shot himself, or handed LaPierre his open-sighted double rifle. If you listen to the dialogue....you can hear LaPierre and an interlocutor discussing "aim an inch low...." That's to allow for the problem created by using a scope at point blank range. Bullets do not come out the barrel "right on the X." It comes out a little over 1" below the line of sight. It doesn't reach line of sight again until about 25yds. Then it goes above line of sight before gravity starts taking over...and wham....it hits the paper 2" above the X at 100yds so that it will hit paper dead on at 200yds. That's why pros carry open-sighted rifles (usually doubles). You need a quick shot and you need to make it immediately (on a charge). No time to calculate and estimate & such for range & where the scope is sighted.
I carried a Westley Richards double in 465 Nitro Express when hunting dangerous game, and let the tracker carry my Sako Safari 375 H&H bolt gun. The Sako was for any plains game we happened upon, or a longer shot on dangerous game. I carried the double because I was my own pro. I had to handle my own lgoistics and sort out my own problems. Put down an unprovoked buffalo charge one day. If I'd been carrying that bolt gun, I probably wouldn't be typing this. But my first buff was a little bit of a rodeo like LaPierre's elephant. Buff was laying down and approaching sundown didn't give us time to wait for him to stand. Problem is, laying down changes the anatomy in ways that are impossible to precisely ascertain. So my friend (a pro, who had his 470) and I discussed the shot angles. I actually aimed the Sako 2" below the top of the grass...shooting thru several feet grass to try to get low enough to hit the heart. It worked. Sorta. All I could see in the Zeiss after the shot was 4 buffalo feet up in the air thrashing about. So I raced forward to about 25 feet and just as I stopped, the buff stood. I popped him in the neck. Neck shots always work on deer, right? Wrong. He spun 180. I popped him on the shoulder again and he dropped. Spine shot. The first shot actually was to high. Hit spinal process. Stunned him. For a few seconds.
LaPierre is an experienced shot, but not an experienced dangerous game hunter. He had too much adrenalin & stress to be able to think & reason quickly in that situation. THAT'S WHAT PROS ARE FOR.
Dangerous game is not easy quarry. It fights back. Sometimes, it actually wins. LaPierre's critics are making asses of themselves, but then, virtue posturing often does that to the person involved.
This is not international so, it should pass muster
The NPS, in cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, seeks skilled volunteers to assist with the removal of bison on the North Rim of Grand Canyon National Park in the fall of 2021. Interested parties should carefully read this announcement: https://t.co/26i4M4pGOH pic.twitter.com/LV0PucINfy
— Grand Canyon NPS (@GrandCanyonNPS) April 28, 2021
LIB,MR BEARS said:
This is not international so, it should pass musterThe NPS, in cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, seeks skilled volunteers to assist with the removal of bison on the North Rim of Grand Canyon National Park in the fall of 2021. Interested parties should carefully read this announcement: https://t.co/26i4M4pGOH pic.twitter.com/LV0PucINfy
— Grand Canyon NPS (@GrandCanyonNPS) April 28, 2021
Hey Katz
I was accepted for this FYI
Going in June! They have room for 3 more but better apply now, going fast!
LIB,MR BEARS said:
This is not international so, it should pass musterThe NPS, in cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, seeks skilled volunteers to assist with the removal of bison on the North Rim of Grand Canyon National Park in the fall of 2021. Interested parties should carefully read this announcement: https://t.co/26i4M4pGOH pic.twitter.com/LV0PucINfy
— Grand Canyon NPS (@GrandCanyonNPS) April 28, 2021
I think it's a Disney test for folks like B2B. If there was ever a Disney cartoon character (Dumbo, Simba, Winnie the Pooh) then you can't kill it. That would be evil. It's very much a feels sort of thing. Opposition to hunting is generally not a rational thing.
Taking the life of another human being is never merely an "individual choice." That stance is an intellectual and moral cop-out.quash said:Herron2 said:Had you pegged as a Democrat voter. If so, your actions would say otherwise since that party has openly embraced abortion on demand. If not, then sincere apologies for the confusion.bear2be2 said:Not a fan. What does that have to do with this discussion?Herron2 said:bear2be2 said:My problem is exclusively with international big game/trophy hunting. But don't let assumptions get in your way.LIB,MR BEARS said:So are you a fan of, or opposed to:bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:Then you should be pro trophy hunting in Africa. That's the only reason the big species have made a comeback.bear2be2 said:Robert Wilson said:
People like to act like there is some clean line between killing for meat and killing for sport. There's not. Real hunters know that.
I'm a pragmatist. The motivations don't particularly matter to me. The results and impact do.
I support conservation efforts that don't actively deplete the population one is pretending to care about preserving. Is it good that the money hunters spend on these sick trips have had the unintended consequence of helping conservation efforts in these populations? Yes. Would these "hunters" stop killing these animals if they hadn't? No. This is just a fortuitous bounce that allows these sick ****ers to feel good about murdering exotic animals. But it's their money, not trophy hunting that has allowed these populations to rebound.
Ducks Unlimited
Quality Deer Management Association
Pheasants Forever
National Wild Turkey Federation
Costal Conservation Association
Bonefish and Tarpon Trust
Warm fuzzy feelings about wildlife does nothing to help wildlife. The majority of help wildlife gets comes from the sportsmen that harvest these animals by way of licensing fees, stamps, permits and membership fees in organizations that support their habitat and populations.
Dang facts just get in the way.
So how do you feel about killing unborn humans?
Regarding the thread, I find it highly hypocritical (arguably psychopathic/pure evil) for those posters (again, not necessarily you) who would condemn hunting of any sort yet write off innocent human life by voting for Democrats who align with their party's platform.
I condemn kick and shoot.
I want government out of the abortion equation. It's an individual choice.
cms186 said:I feel the same, if you're going to kill an animal for food or its causing damage to your property in some way then fine, but trophy killing, especially for harmless animals (relatively) like Elephants (which are endangered) then i dont really get the point, i mean, Mrs LaPierre shouted "Victory" after sawing off an elephants tail, Victory? over what? a large, slow, defenceless target?Shippou said:
I'm not a fan of trophy hunting endangered animals. I don't care about people hunting for sustenance or taking care of animals that have destroyed their property(wild pigs, coyotes, etc.)
But there's something about going across the globe and shooting animals that may not be around in 20-50 years that irks me.
Just my two sense, I don't give a damn about the nra or anything, I just like animals.
Endangered?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/25/africa/zimbabwe-elephants-for-sale-intl/index.html
Shippou said:
I'm not a fan of trophy hunting endangered animals. I don't care about people hunting for sustenance or taking care of animals that have destroyed their property(wild pigs, coyotes, etc.)
But there's something about going across the globe and shooting animals that may not be around in 20-50 years that irks me.
Just my two cents, I don't give a damn about the nra or anything, I just like animals.
Are you a fan of African villages being able to eat? Watch this video and get back to me.
The video is clearly an indirect hit piece against the NRA.
A.. Never trophy hunted....either ate what I shot or was removing pests. ( especially prairie dogs )
B. Have zero issue with those who do trophy hunt as (1) i hunter's sporting fees support far more wildlife habitat, than non hunters ( 2 ) some animal populations require culling ( ex. buffalo herds roaming the North Rim of the Grand Canyon ) and (3) continued human population growth contributes far more to wildlife extinctions than a relative handful of trophy hunters.
Congratulations Jinxy.....got a lot of responses spreading this particular piece of propaganda .
A.. Never trophy hunted....either ate what I shot or was removing pests. ( especially prairie dogs )
B. Have zero issue with those who do trophy hunt as (1) i hunter's sporting fees support far more wildlife habitat, than non hunters ( 2 ) some animal populations require culling ( ex. buffalo herds roaming the North Rim of the Grand Canyon ) and (3) continued human population growth contributes far more to wildlife extinctions than a relative handful of trophy hunters.
Congratulations Jinxy.....got a lot of responses spreading this particular piece of propaganda .
Jack and DP said:Shippou said:
I'm not a fan of trophy hunting endangered animals. I don't care about people hunting for sustenance or taking care of animals that have destroyed their property(wild pigs, coyotes, etc.)
But there's something about going across the globe and shooting animals that may not be around in 20-50 years that irks me.
Just my two cents, I don't give a damn about the nra or anything, I just like animals.
Are you a fan of African villages being able to eat? Watch this video and get back to me.
This is exactly what happens every time there is a big game hunter... the locals get the meat, and most of the money is used to fund anti-poaching programs.
When an ivory poacher kills an elephant, most of the meat rots before anyone finds the carcass.
Poaching is the problem. Organized & guided hunts are part of the solution. Would be poachers are turned into guides, and are later employed to hunt down and capture the poachers too.
The best way to preserve the elephants is to make them legally profitable. Take away the hunting, and they would be slaughtered for ivory, meat and pest control.
The highest population of the African scimitar horned orynx is on game ranches in Texas. Far more here than on the entire continent of Africa. Same for other African species. More Chtal in Texas, than India. Barbary sheep are almost extinct in their native Afghanistan, and very few in Morocco, but tens of thousands on Texas ranches.
All of these animals are preserved in Texas, without government assistance or regulation. There is a value to hunting them, and so there is a value in growing & maintaining a large & healthy herd of them.
Outlaw legal hunting is the fastest way to insure extinction.
ShooterTX
yes, endangered: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/181008073/181022663Jack and DP said:cms186 said:I feel the same, if you're going to kill an animal for food or its causing damage to your property in some way then fine, but trophy killing, especially for harmless animals (relatively) like Elephants (which are endangered) then i dont really get the point, i mean, Mrs LaPierre shouted "Victory" after sawing off an elephants tail, Victory? over what? a large, slow, defenceless target?Shippou said:
I'm not a fan of trophy hunting endangered animals. I don't care about people hunting for sustenance or taking care of animals that have destroyed their property(wild pigs, coyotes, etc.)
But there's something about going across the globe and shooting animals that may not be around in 20-50 years that irks me.
Just my two sense, I don't give a damn about the nra or anything, I just like animals.
Endangered?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/25/africa/zimbabwe-elephants-for-sale-intl/index.html
I'm the English Guy