I hesitate to even call this “hunting”… If 99% of the work is being done by third parties, and your only role in the entire affair is to pull a trigger, you’re an executioner, not a hunter. You want a trophy? Fine. Nothing I can do to stop you, but at least bloody well work for it. Otherwise your ‘trophy’ is as real as punk clothing from a department store.
6 Likes
You may already know that killing a lion is the most cowardly thing you can do
No, participating in a public shaming of a complete stranger is right up there.
Public shaming of someone who has been verified to deserve shaming is a public service. As an act, it has no more to do with “cowardice” or “bravery” than getting a cup of coffee from the kitchen.
Now, paying a small fortune to be escorted to lie in wait to shoot a lured animal with a high powered weapon from a distance, with armed men backing you up, for no other reason then your sick sociopathic need to appear “manly”…
If you don’t like cowardly, how about sadistic? Craven? Inhuman? Profoundly fucked up?
6 Likes
That handshake is becoming looser and looser. Back in the Teddy Roosevelt days, the Venn diagram for hunting and conservation was much closer to a full circle. Now, hunters have been seduced by the “conservative” arguments that conservation is – horror of horrors – liberal socialism, and so now we find them much less supportive of mainstream conservation.
I’ve certainly seen this on a personal level (lots of hunting in my families), but also within the conservation organization I’m involved with.
4 Likes
I disagree with that entirely. I know people who take pride in the fact that their org does more for nature than some of the other “hippie” clubs. Growing up around hunters and farmers and making “Conservation Posters” in elementary school, I experienced people mostly very pro-conservation and taking care of nature.
Now there is the anti-EPA and anti-Climate Change people who tend to be conservative - arguing against more government regs and schemes like a carbon tax. But I think that is a separate issue. I think many of them wouldn’t support say defunding the Nation Parks.
1 Like
My point is that what you remember from childhood is no longer true.
Conservative conservationists used to be against specific organizations. But that was it: a handful of radical organizations that conventional folk could name and have a negative opinion about, but it didn’t change their opinion about being careful stewards of Nature in the main. Now, there is such a push to label anything that is conservative (in the dictionary sense) as being liberal, socialist, evil, anti-Christian, etc. that Fox News cultists are against all of it. Anything that comes out of middle-of-the-road conservation groups now has to be carefully worded to avoid phrases like “climate change” because THOSE WORDS are enough to make long term donors close their checkbooks forever. This is the new reality.
Besides, Fox News cultists DO want to de-fund the National Parks. And sell the mineral rights. They’re not conservative, nor conservationists, no matter how much hunting or fishing they do. Armaggedon is coming, and besides, God could just wave his magic wand and fix it anyway. We no longer have a sense of human responsibility to the planet.
Even 4H Clubs now. It’s really depressing to see how quickly it has changed.
2 Likes
I grew up in an agricultural area. Many of the “rich kids” I knew in high school in the late 80s were from families that were big farmers in the area. Notably, they didn’t grow corn, or wheat, but vegetables of various sorts; I suspect that makes a difference. Anyway, they were all generally very hostile to any talk of environmentalism, or conservation.
1 Like
I don’t think anyone’s doing that here to intentionally derail anything, or lessen outrage.
I think for once, it’s so utter unanimous that trophy “hunting” is a hot frothing pile of shit among everyone, and inexcusably assholian (yes, I just made that a word), that no one feels bad for going on tangents.
I have yet to see one person truly defend the asshole in question- so I don’t think any needed outrage is lost.
So cheer up! (no microaggressions or whatever intended)
1 Like
Um, yeah. They never are intended.
Oh yeah. That reminded me. I went to the National Bison Range in Montana last year. I walked around their museum, looking at all the photos and relics, and I just couldn’t stop thinking: “how could they have thought this was endless? It’s not like dogs and cats can’t be eradicated, they must have known that they’d kill all of them eventually.”
It was very sad, stomach-turning even. But I did get to see a bunch of Bison from about a mile away down a gorge.
2 Likes
Yeah, the last part was meant sarcastic, but apparently too dry, now that I reread it. Not clear.
On another note- no sarcasm, please pm me if you have time, that whole thing confuses the hell out of me.
Well, yeah, there was a lot of that too…you are so right!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
