Hunter poses with dead giraffe

a reply to: smirkley
I am no fan of hunting to be honest, but all the giraffe (an other big game animal) hunting pictures I've come across since seeing this thread seem to be old, large, bulls. A herd only needs one bull, the females and the young are the important ones to propagate the species. The people who go there pay upwards of $20,000 dollars for a license to hunt an elderly male animal that does minimal damage to the population, and who was going to end up being food for predators shortly anyway. The food is then given to charity, and the income helps the local economy. What is ultimately the greater good, that it dies of old age in the next year or two, and goes to waste by rotting in the sun, or it dies a a year or two early, and goes to feed people? Also allowing people to legally hunt a small portion of these animals helps curb poaching of the more important population they want to protect.

Anyone who kills for sport..is a complete and utter moron.

Why take life if it is unnecessary?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: newWorldSamurai

Is it endangered? No. What business is it of anyone else's?

Some would think the giraffe should have been EQUALLY ARMED (same weapon; also obtained a legal 'tag' license for hunting the human). In the least; these animals need to start ARMING THEMSELVES.

a reply to: defcon5

You know defcon5 I dont disagree to a point. My hunting years are no more so I do understand you.

It used to be that nature fed her own. The lion and other carnivorous would feed on these animals when they were this way. But now those animals too are getting scarce for the same reasons.

I used my sarcasm to make a point. The point being is these wealthy hunters didnt go out there but for the only reason to kill something. The feed the villager deal is just for social impact. It is those governments that sell those licenses to kill months in advance for the money. Of course there are old aging bulls that have no more use.

But it is all kill trafficing to rich americans.

It doesnt have to be that way.

There have been many instance with deer hunters that go out and regularly kill deer just so they can mount the horns on a plaque for the wall in the man cave or den. They have so much deer meat its given away most of the time. Deer meat contains parasites and if not cooked correctly, the parasites can transfer to the eater of the meat. Why don't hunters eat what they kill, themselves. Many times hunters just cut horns off and leave or bury the carcass so it won't be found.

Hunting goes back along time and people could not survive without doing it. Today, hunting is done to cull herds or groups of animals that are getting to large.

When people can get there food from the grocer, what is the point in hunting other than to satiate ones thrill of killing an animal. I am sure Ricky Gervais would make a good employee for a slaughterhouse.

a reply to: defcon5

Yeah. I get that. But at the same time it may just be better to let nature take it's course than to introduce Britney Spears/Dr. Kevorkian hybrid into the mix. She seems to enjoy it in the pictures. If somehow the responsibility was put on me to dispatch such a majestic creature I wouldn't have a smile on my face. Also, see Link2 in the OP. There more to it than just this one incident.

originally posted by: eManym
There have been many instance with deer hunters that go out and regularly kill deer just so they can mount the horns on a plaque for the wall in the man cave or den. They have so much deer meat its given away most of the time.

Deer are tasty. If they come with something decorative, great! I do regularly kill deer, but so far, the deer equivalent of the Hartford Elk hasn't come along. If it did, though, I'd definitely put his head on the wall. The wife has said I cannot, however, do what I wanted, which is have the butt end coming out of the wall on the other side. We'll see.

Deer meat contains parasites and if not cooked correctly, the parasites can transfer to the eater of the meat. Why don't hunters eat what they kill, themselves. Many times hunters just cut horns off and leave or bury the carcass so it won't be found.

No, no it doesn't. You may be thinking about wild boar and bears, which being carnivorous, may carry trichinosis. Deer do not, with a possible exception of "mad deer disease" which isn't parasitic and can't be fixed by cooking. I don't know of a lot of hunters who just cut off the head, because the meat is too tasty to chuck. I do, however, field dress the meat if I have to pack it out, and that entails burying the skin and entrails on the spot.

When people can get there food from the grocer, what is the point in hunting other than to satiate ones thrill of killing an animal. I am sure Ricky Gervais would make a good employee for a slaughterhouse.

Buying meat at the store just transfers the onus to a third party. You are as responsible for the animal dying as if you did it yourself, you just don't have the courage of your convictions.

originally posted by: eManym


Deer meat contains parasites and if not cooked correctly, the parasites can transfer to the eater of the meat. Why don't hunters eat what they kill, themselves. Many times hunters just cut horns off and leave or bury the carcass so it won't be found.

originally posted by: Bedlam

No, no it doesn't. You may be thinking about wild boar and bears, which being carnivorous, may carry trichinosis. Deer do not, with a possible exception of "mad deer disease" which isn't parasitic and can't be fixed by cooking. I don't know of a lot of hunters who just cut off the head, because the meat is too tasty to chuck. I do, however, field dress the meat if I have to pack it out, and that entails burying the skin and entrails on the spot.

Wild venison does contain parasites, tapeworm and e-coli.

Parasites: A Concern With Wild Game Venison

originally posted by: eManym


When people can get there food from the grocer, what is the point in hunting other than to satiate ones thrill of killing an animal. I am sure Ricky Gervais would make a good employee for a slaughterhouse.

originally posted by: Bedlam

Buying meat at the store just transfers the onus to a third party. You are as responsible for the animal dying as if you did it yourself, you just don't have the courage of your convictions.

Does it actually take courage to sit in a deer stand and shooting a deer or any other animal except for maybe a bear or cougar? Of course a cougar wouldn't come up a tree after you while a bear probably would if there were cubs nearby.

I am not debating whether deer hunting is acceptable because it is. Hunting season is for culling the deer herds so they don't get too large.

a reply to: newWorldSamurai

I am a huge pro-gun person....I really am. I support hunting and believe eating meat is a good thing. I also have a ton of empathy for animals and anyone who can not defend themselves.



Hunting for sport is wrong.......If you do not eat the meat or are just killing for the fun of it you are messed up. Killing anything for no reason is wrong. I am a conservative gun loving animal lover.

originally posted by: eManym
Wild venison does contain parasites, tapeworm and e-coli.

You can only get tapeworm if you're eating the intestines. Deer haggis isn't a common delicacy. And E. coli isn't a parasite, it's a bacterium. Also in the intestines.

I might add, you are more likely to get tapeworms from commercial beef or pork than a properly dressed deer, as the slaughterhouses do not spend a great deal of care on keeping the intestinal contents intact.

Does it actually take courage to sit in a deer stand and shooting a deer or any other animal except for maybe a bear or cougar? Of course a cougar wouldn't come up a tree after you while a bear probably would if there were cubs nearby.

Let me explain in concrete terms for you, as metaphor has slipped past you.

By saying "I can buy meat at a grocer" you have not avoided the onus of killing an animal. You've merely distanced yourself from the act by hiring someone to do it for you. If you perceive the act of killing an animal for meat to be evil, you are still as guilty.

originally posted by: SubTruth
Hunting for sport is wrong.......If you do not eat the meat or are just killing for the fun of it you are messed up. Killing anything for no reason is wrong. I am a conservative gun loving animal lover.

You can absolutely eat giraffe. And I would imagine they did. I haven't had any personally but I hear it's very good, sort of like elk.

a reply to: Bedlam

Why couldn't that village take care of the giraffe themselves I'm sure their more than perfectly able to kill this creature with a traditional bow or other methods ?

Sure they could eat the meat,but this wicked lady didn't have to be there with her modern bow

She likes killing creatures and would travel across the world to get her satisfaction and trophy photo

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
Sure they could eat the meat,but this wicked lady didn't have to be there with her modern bow

Why not? Do you think is more or less cruel to the animal by using sub-standard weapons to kill it?

a reply to: Bedlam

She didn't have to be there she's a trophy hunter killing for fun,and I'm sure the villages there are more than capable of getting their own meat

I have no problem with hunters killing for food and I would have no problem with that village feeding themselves by whatever means are at their disposal

She is a trophy hunter if you read the 2nd link in this OP,and with her silent and easier to use modern bow with staggering draw strength she is killing just for the sake of putting a tick down on her animal list

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
a reply to: Bedlam

I have no problem with hunters killing for food and I would have no problem with that village feeding themselves by whatever means are at their disposal

She is a trophy hunter if you read the 2nd link in this OP,and with her silent and easier to use modern bow with staggering draw strength she is killing just for the sake of putting a tick down on her animal list

Dead is dead. It isn't better dead if the villagers do it and worse dead if she does, due to motivation. It's just dead.

In the case of a decent bow and some good broadheads, it's faster than, say, putting up a trip wire and stampeding the thing through it to break its legs. Or using a .22, or being shot in the gut by some crap shot.

If it's more humanely killed by the woman than the villagers, why would you care? It would seem you ought to be happier it died a faster less painful death. It doesn't understand and won't care about motivation.

a reply to: Bedlam

Or is even less humane to let nature feed its own the old fashioned run it down and eat it alive style.

One is human(e) and the other is natur(al)?

Which came first and which is the way nature intended.

a reply to: Spider879

At least there is no blood like in the incident with the Cessna at Santawani airstrip.

Maybe the old guy was just counting his potatoes when an Afrikan pygmy got him with a below dart and he fell asleep?

I agree though the lady showing up for a photo op with the expensive compound is kind of distasteful.

As long as the animal gets eaten I don't see anything wrong with hunting. I think ivory poaching and hunting for sport is wrong though.

originally posted by: robbeh

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai
I'm not against hunting, but I think this is going too far. I'm sure you can eat a giraffe but I don't think that's why she killed it. I understand our evolutionary connection to hunting. I'm glad that I can hunt and fish in the case that I would ever need to for survival, however unlikely that may be. But I just don't get this. It doesn't seem necessary.

Link

someone should hunt her and take a pic after...

Easy now, that's a "lightly veiled death threat" according to the website op linked.

a reply to: ketsuko
Your statement left me speachless due to the amount of ignorance it withheld. I mean you did semi-sorta okay there until that whole second paragraph.