quote:

That is their own fault.Some idiots jump into a lion cage at a zoo. Nothing to do with lions.

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by Lizzy:


OK you dumb bastard, how come that when I went down the Zambezi river in a canoe,sleeping on the riverbanks in a sleeping bag with no tent and no weapons, hearing lions roar quite near,? .

Define "US". How many people made up "US"? Was it an organized trip and was the guide armed?.

Also curious why you listed your location as Portugal when you started posting on here yet now it is Zimbabwe?

I live in Alaska but I've been to Zimbabwe and have been on the shores of the Zambezi without a firearm. Should I now act like I'm from there?

Cheers whatever your real name is,
Jim

We were with 4 canoes, 8 people including a guide but he was unarmed. It took 6 days, from Chirundu to Kayemba. In Chekenwa camp, near Mana Pools, the 4 Belguims wanted to go again on the river to watch Carbine Bee-eaters but I wanted to watch the Vlei were Buffaloes were staying. The Game Ranger told me that I was his responsibility but I could sit under a tree without danger. Only told me that what ever happened "don't run, stay put". A group of baboons came close, just curious. Really enjoyed myself alone with my camera and binos.

I already wrote in an other post, that I lived in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe for 6 years and my late husband was a 4th generation Rhodesian. I am staying for a while with friends but will return to Portugal.

Wow, so I see how that makes you a perfectly qualified lion behavioral expert.

My apologies.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardAustin:
Lizzy, are us poor dumb bastards to assume your singular experience is now the definitive law of nature?

Of course not my dear. I lived there many years and every time I saved enough money, I went to the bush. I had many friends who were game rangers. Animals behave different in a non hunting area. One friend was killed in 1978 but that was on an elephant cull. But how many people get shot and killed in the U.S. Even in schools? Unsafe to go to school? Unarmed!

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Wow, so I see how that makes you a perfectly qualified lion behavioral expert.

My apologies.

Where did I say that? Dereck and Beverly Joubert are, after 25 years filming big cats.

quote:

Originally posted by Lizzy:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Wow, so I see how that makes you a perfectly qualified lion behavioral expert.

My apologies.

Where did I say that? Dereck and Beverly Joubert are, after 25 years filming big cats.

They most assuredly ARE not. They are slant eyed preservationists who only have the goal of manipulating weak minded African leaders to abolish all hunting regardless of the risk/benefit to the species survival. Their scientific methodology is nonexistent. Why don't you whip out a little "Born Free" science next?

Jeff

I would not be surprised if this person was responsible for this whole Cecil thing now that I see Zim on the bottom of her posts.Best to ban someone who is searching to do us harm.

quote:

Originally posted by Lizzy:

quote:

Originally posted by RichardAustin:
Lizzy, are us poor dumb bastards to assume your singular experience is now the definitive law of nature?

Of course not my dear. I lived there many years and every time I saved enough money, I went to the bush. I had many friends who were game rangers. Animals behave different in a non hunting area. One friend was killed in 1978 but that was on an elephant cull. But how many people get shot and killed in the U.S. Even in schools? Unsafe to go to school? Unarmed!

Are you implying that animals in game reserves such as Hwange are not dangerous?

I am sure the woman and her daughter that were killed in Hwange back in 2007 should have realized that animals in Parks must not attack humans. The husband of some designer that was killed the year before in a park should known these animals are tame. The guide bringing tourists to view elephants at the Safari Lodge in 2012 that was killed by an elephant should be alive also.

Animals with lots of pressure from poaching will act differently and animals without the same pressure. There is not danger around every corner and people live and survive in the bush everyday; however, when you begin to believe these animals will empathize with you, it could be your last mistake.

Personally I do not have a problem with dissenting views, its just the abject ignorance of them that I find offensive.

To suggest that old male lions do not roam and are not responsible for cattle/human conflicts is offensively ignorant and untrue. There is plenty of collared lion data to prove it and there are hundreds of cattle/human conflicts each year that prove it.

Shame that armchair experts don't avail themselves to all the facts rather than becoming myopic to "experts" with an agenda.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Lizzy:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Wow, so I see how that makes you a perfectly qualified lion behavioral expert.

My apologies.

Where did I say that? Dereck and Beverly Joubert are, after 25 years filming big cats.

They most assuredly ARE not. They are slant eyed preservationists who only have the goal of manipulating weak minded African leaders to abolish all hunting regardless of the risk/benefit to the species survival. Their scientific methodology is nonexistent. Why don't you whip out a little "Born Free" science next?



Jeff

Why are they not experts?
Can you give me an example!
Further are people who study animal behaviour more reliable then someone who comes in for 10 days, gets taken to their prey and leave again. Have you ever watched their documentaries?
If hunters are reacting like you do, you will never build up a sympathy from non hunters.
So Dian Fossey was wrong as well! Through her these gentle giants are protected instead of hunted. She was killed by poachers, not by gorillas.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeBurke:

quote:

Originally posted by Lizzy:

quote:

Originally posted by RichardAustin:
Lizzy, are us poor dumb bastards to assume your singular experience is now the definitive law of nature?

Of course not my dear. I lived there many years and every time I saved enough money, I went to the bush. I had many friends who were game rangers. Animals behave different in a non hunting area. One friend was killed in 1978 but that was on an elephant cull. But how many people get shot and killed in the U.S. Even in schools? Unsafe to go to school? Unarmed!

Are you implying that animals in game reserves such as Hwange are not dangerous?

I am sure the woman and her daughter that were killed in Hwange back in 2007 should have realized that animals in Parks must not attack humans. The husband of some designer that was killed the year before in a park should known these animals are tame. The guide bringing tourists to view elephants at the Safari Lodge in 2012 that was killed by an elephant should be alive also.

Animals with lots of pressure from poaching will act differently and animals without the same pressure. There is not danger around every corner and people live and survive in the bush everyday; however, when you begin to believe these animals will empathize with you, it could be your last mistake.

Where did I say that animals in parks are not dangerous?
And why do animals act different under pressure of poaching and not of hunting.?
For them the outcome is the same.
More people get killed by other people or by cars then by wild animals.
But the first example doesn't get into the world press.
But if an animal kills a human it is world news.
Some people get hysterical if they see a rat or a spider...
If an animal kills a human, they signed their own death sentence.

quote:

Originally posted by Lizzy: Where did I say that animals in parks are not dangerous?
And why do animals act different under pressure of poaching and not of hunting.?
For them the outcome is the same.
More people get killed by other people or by cars then by wild animals.
But the first example doesn't get into the world press.
But if an animal kills a human it is world news.
Some people get hysterical if they see a rat or a spider...
If an animal kills a human, they signed their own death sentence.

So, what, exactly is your point?

What do you suggest should be done differently re lion management?

Please be specific.

<> <> <>

quote:

Originally posted by Lizzy:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Lizzy:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Wow, so I see how that makes you a perfectly qualified lion behavioral expert.

My apologies.

Where did I say that? Dereck and Beverly Joubert are, after 25 years filming big cats.

They most assuredly ARE not. They are slant eyed preservationists who only have the goal of manipulating weak minded African leaders to abolish all hunting regardless of the risk/benefit to the species survival. Their scientific methodology is nonexistent. Why don't you whip out a little "Born Free" science next?



Jeff

Why are they not experts?
Can you give me an example!
Further are people who study animal behaviour more reliable then someone who comes in for 10 days, gets taken to their prey and leave again. Have you ever watched their documentaries?
If hunters are reacting like you do, you will never build up a sympathy from non hunters.
So Dian Fossey was wrong as well! Through her these gentle giants are protected instead of hunted. She was killed by poachers, not by gorillas.

You are so well read you don't even know what "Born Free" refers to.

Done here. Ignorance exposed.

Are those 30M1 carbines the Bee-eaters carry?

Some people need a really big S for sarcasm because they can not see when it bites them in the butt.

Why are they not experts?
Can you give me an example!
Further are people who study animal behaviour more reliable then someone who comes in for 10 days, gets taken to their prey and leave again. Have you ever watched their documentaries?
If hunters are reacting like you do, you will never build up a sympathy from non hunters.
So Dian Fossey was wrong as well! Through her these gentle giants are protected instead of hunted. She was killed by poachers, not by gorillas.[/QUOTE]

You are so well read you don't even know what "Born Free" refers to.

Done here. Ignorance exposed.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean Born Free! The Jouberts have nothing to do with Born Free.
That is Virginia McKenna.
Talking about ignorance.....

The Jouberts have been following for years generations of the big cats, lions, leopards and cheetah's.
I think they know a bit more about these animals then any foreign hunter coming to Africa.

You might know more about Disney World,coming from Orlando but a little bit less then these dedicated people who live for months on end in the bush for 25 years. May be you should watch their work and learn something.

Yeah, but the Jouberts want to end hunting and everyone involved with wildlife management in Africa, (which the Jouberts are not) knows that that would be a disaster - and that goes for the governments of Africa, the Indigenous Peoples of Africa, the IUCN, CITES, USAID, FAO, the SADC, UNEP and even the WWF.

<> <> <>

quote:

Originally posted by Trophic-Hunter:
Yeah, but the Jouberts want to end hunting and everyone involved with wildlife management in Africa, (which the Jouberts are not) knows that that would be a disaster - and that goes for the governments of Africa, the Indigenous Peoples of Africa, the IUCN, CITES, USAID, FAO, the SADC, UNEP and even the WWF.

<> <> <>

I don't understand you.....can you please be more specific.What has the USAID to do with hunting or conservation of wildlife??? The same for FAO, IUNC all UN organisations, who I mistrust. The WWF is setup by prince Bernard of the Netherlands and he was a hunter....
I worked as a volunteer for the WWF and supported them for 20 years with my meager income as a nurse, till I found out what they stood for and that is NOT saving animals....stupid me.

The Jouberts have studied the big cats and they were very upset when a female leopard with young gets killed by hunters, who don't know about her cubs, who will no survive. They are the ones who are most of the year in the bush and they know the animals living there. US or European or Saudi hunters don't know the animals as they are there between 10 to 23 days......Wildlife Management???? Why not people management....or is that not PC?

quote:

Originally posted by Lizzy:

quote:

Originally posted by Trophic-Hunter:
Yeah, but the Jouberts want to end hunting and everyone involved with wildlife management in Africa, (which the Jouberts are not) knows that that would be a disaster - and that goes for the governments of Africa, the Indigenous Peoples of Africa, the IUCN, CITES, USAID, FAO, the SADC, UNEP and even the WWF.

<> <> <>

I don't understand you.....can you please be more specific.What has the USAID to do with hunting or conservation of wildlife??? The same for FAO, IUNC all UN organisations, who I mistrust. The WWF is setup by prince Bernard of the Netherlands and he was a hunter....
I worked as a volunteer for the WWF and supported them for 20 years with my meager income as a nurse, till I found out what they stood for and that is NOT saving animals....stupid me.

The Jouberts have studied the big cats and they were very upset when a female leopard with young gets killed by hunters, who don't know about her cubs, who will no survive. They are the ones who are most of the year in the bush and they know the animals living there. US or European or Saudi hunters don't know the animals as they are there between 10 to 23 days......Wildlife Management???? Why not people management....or is that not PC?

Listen, Lizzy … it’s clear that you have an emotional connection to the wildlife, which is why you volunteered with the WWF for so long, and why the Jouberts message appeals to you so much. They also (as you describe) have an emotional connection to the wildlife.

But all of that is irrelevant, and doesn’t justify taking a stand against the Peoples of Africa, the Governments of Africa, or against the science behind the support of all of those governmental and non-governmental organizations I listed.

In fact, it is astonishingly selfish of you and the Jouberts, whose efforts have led to more wildlife being slaughtered (via mismanagement and poaching) and more people suffering from the loss of revenues which hunting provides – as is the case in Botswana right now.

It’s really criminal what the Jouberts are doing – a crime against nature and a crime against humanity – and you are complicit in their actions.

And I would add, in response to your last question (Why not people management?) – the success of Sustainable-Use, (which is the prevailing model for wildlife management now in southern Africa), is based upon the devolution of wildlife ownership rights into the hands of the people. That’s what it’s all about. Protectionism, (the Jouberts approach) proved to be a dismal failure for more than half-a-century. It’s Eco-Imperialism, plain and simple, a holdover from the days of colonialism – and no one who understands wildlife management and sustainable-development believes in it any more - other than those who make their living by appealing to the emotions of the uninformed … like the Jouberts.

<> <> <>

... and, by the way, we also (believe it or not) have an emotional connection to the wildlife. Just check out this discussion about another lion lost: http://forums.accuratereloadin...1411043/m/3711003312

<> <> <>

Is anyone here seriously trying to argue LOGIC with a female???

quote:

Originally posted by jorge: Is anyone here seriously trying to argue LOGIC with a female???

Yeah, me. Butt out.

<> <> <>

quote:

Originally posted by DTala:
I am offended by your stupidity....

Lizzy is not stupid, she is simply misinformed on several levels. Ignorance is not an indictment on a person's intelligence! It simply means a person has not been made aware of the facts. They have been given wrong information. Lizzy is simply working with wrong information given to her by people who gained their opinion with tame lions. Truly wild lions act intirely different than tame lions or lions that are used to being around people.

She is also under the misconception that taking of the oldest specimen of a particular species is denying his genes to the species community. The oldest have already spread their genes for many years, and at a advanced age they stop breading altogether or are driven out by younger stronger males. This is why the oldest of any species is the target of a true hunter. The taking of the younger satellite males or the females is extremely detrimental to the long time viability of species. The anti hunting people simply do not understand the conservation methods that are best for the continued balance and longevity of any species.

The ethical hunter is the salvation of the long term viability of any game animal. This places a value to the wildlife to the local people, that insures their protection by the locals.

Nothing is wasted from legally taken game in Africa. The local people not only get employment in the camps but get the meat in most cases that is not used in the hunting camps or it is sold to the locals. This stops most poaching in the hunting areas. People only poach to get the meat but organized poaching armies are usually out of the larger cities and kill anything that has meat, or ivory. These people do not care if they kill everything then move on to other places. Hunting takes only the legal surplus indicated by government surveys.

.................................................................

quote:

Originally posted by Trophic-Hunter:

quote:

Originally posted by jorge: Is anyone here seriously trying to argue LOGIC with a female???

Yeah, me. Butt out.

<> <> <>

That explains a lot...

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

quote:

Originally posted by DTala:
I am offended by your stupidity....

Lizzy is not stupid, she is simply misinformed on several levels. Ignorance is not an indictment on a person's intelligence! It simply means a person has not been made aware of the facts. They have been given wrong information. Lizzy is simply working with wrong information given to her by people who gained their opinion with tame lions. Truly wild lions act intirely different than tame lions or lions that are used to being around people.

She is also under the misconception that taking of the oldest specimen of a particular species is denying his genes to the species community. The oldest have already spread their genes for many years, and at a advanced age they stop breading altogether or are driven out by younger stronger males. This is why the oldest of any species is the target of a true hunter. The taking of the younger satellite males or the females is extremely detrimental to the long time viability of species. The anti hunting people simply do not understand the conservation methods that are best for the continued balance and longevity of any species.

The ethical hunter is the salvation of the long term viability of any game animal. This places a value to the wildlife to the local people, that insures their protection by the locals.

Nothing is wasted from legally taken game in Africa. The local people not only get employment in the camps but get the meat in most cases that is not used in the hunting camps or it is sold to the locals. This stops most poaching in the hunting areas. People only poach to get the meat but organized poaching armies are usually out of the larger cities and kill anything that has meat, or ivory. These people do not care if they kill everything then move on to other places. Hunting takes only the legal surplus indicated by government surveys.

.................................................................

Wrong people?
Just watch this.......

TED talk

Wrong Audience for their Bullshit.

Sorry. Of course if all animal behavior especially large cats was studied off of HABITUATED animals then this is what you get.

Mac, no wiser words have ever been spoken on AR !!!

Everyone please go back and read what MacD37 wrote... it needs to be the message carried forward.

quote:

Originally posted by Lizzy:

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

quote:

Originally posted by DTala:
I am offended by your stupidity....

Lizzy is not stupid, she is simply misinformed on several levels. Ignorance is not an indictment on a person's intelligence! It simply means a person has not been made aware of the facts. They have been given wrong information. Lizzy is simply working with wrong information given to her by people who gained their opinion with tame lions. Truly wild lions act intirely different than tame lions or lions that are used to being around people.

She is also under the misconception that taking of the oldest specimen of a particular species is denying his genes to the species community. The oldest have already spread their genes for many years, and at a advanced age they stop breading altogether or are driven out by younger stronger males. This is why the oldest of any species is the target of a true hunter. The taking of the younger satellite males or the females is extremely detrimental to the long time viability of species. The anti hunting people simply do not understand the conservation methods that are best for the continued balance and longevity of any species.

The ethical hunter is the salvation of the long term viability of any game animal. This places a value to the wildlife to the local people, that insures their protection by the locals.

Nothing is wasted from legally taken game in Africa. The local people not only get employment in the camps but get the meat in most cases that is not used in the hunting camps or it is sold to the locals. This stops most poaching in the hunting areas. People only poach to get the meat but organized poaching armies are usually out of the larger cities and kill anything that has meat, or ivory. These people do not care if they kill everything then move on to other places. Hunting takes only the legal surplus indicated by government surveys.

.................................................................

Wrong people?
Just watch this.......

TED talk

I know someone who grew up with Derrick. He said that Derrick was never anti-hunting until he got the contract with Nat Geo. Basically he sold his soul to deliver their agenda concerning animals and anthropomorphizing them while blaming hunting for any of their problems.

I would rather get my information from real scientists, not filmmakers, such as Dr. Colleen and Keith Begg in Mozambique.

Niassa Lion Project

They understand and support the role that hunting plays in habitat protection.

Cheers
Jim

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

She is also under the misconception that taking of the oldest specimen of a particular species is denying his genes to the species community. The oldest have already spread their genes for many years, and at a advanced age they stop breading altogether or are driven out by younger stronger males.

Only the lion in question had cubs, apparently was still breeding and hadn't been driven off by younger rivals.

So the end result is that the strongest and fittest specimen was killed, the offspring of the strongest and fittest were put in jeopardy of survival and passing on those genes and an inferior male unable to currently, if ever achieve that position was given the opportunity.

guys,
the best lion experts concluded that on average, male lion become pride males around 4 years old and have an average pride tenure of 2 years (exceptions exist) and in that 2 year period, on average, they are able to raise 2 sets of litters to independence and that thereafter they naturally get replaced/ousted by other younger males. Hence why a 6+ year old male lion is the best individual to be hunted. Any resulting death of existing litter at the time a 6 year old male is killed - either naturally or through hunting - or ousted from the pride is not a long term threat to the overall local lion population numbers!

Read the above carefully, as science is rarely wrong!

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:
guys,
the best lion experts concluded that on average, male lion become pride males around 4 years old and have an average pride tenure of 2 years (exceptions exist) and in that 2 year period, on average, they are able to raise 2 sets of litters to independence and that thereafter they naturally get replaced/ousted by other younger males. Hence why a 6+ year old male lion is the best individual to be hunted. Any resulting death of existing litter at the time a 6 year old male is killed - either naturally or through hunting - or ousted from the pride is not a long term threat to the overall local lion population numbers!

Read the above carefully, as science is rarely wrong!

I find it hard to believe that is accurate given that the lion was still the alpha 7 years or 3.5 times beyond the average rein.

That is one heck of a deviation!

quote:

Originally posted by Lizzy:
[
Wrong people?
Just watch this.......

TED talk

So very "Disney." I find these emotional arguments to be unrealistic and juvenile.

quote:

Originally posted by Lizzy:

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

quote:

Originally posted by DTala:
I am offended by your stupidity....

Lizzy is not stupid, she is simply misinformed on several levels. Ignorance is not an indictment on a person's intelligence! It simply means a person has not been made aware of the facts. They have been given wrong information. Lizzy is simply working with wrong information given to her by people who gained their opinion with tame lions. Truly wild lions act intirely different than tame lions or lions that are used to being around people.

She is also under the misconception that taking of the oldest specimen of a particular species is denying his genes to the species community. The oldest have already spread their genes for many years, and at a advanced age they stop breading altogether or are driven out by younger stronger males. This is why the oldest of any species is the target of a true hunter. The taking of the younger satellite males or the females is extremely detrimental to the long time viability of species. The anti hunting people simply do not understand the conservation methods that are best for the continued balance and longevity of any species.

The ethical hunter is the salvation of the long term viability of any game animal. This places a value to the wildlife to the local people, that insures their protection by the locals.

Nothing is wasted from legally taken game in Africa. The local people not only get employment in the camps but get the meat in most cases that is not used in the hunting camps or it is sold to the locals. This stops most poaching in the hunting areas. People only poach to get the meat but organized poaching armies are usually out of the larger cities and kill anything that has meat, or ivory. These people do not care if they kill everything then move on to other places. Hunting takes only the legal surplus indicated by government surveys.

.................................................................

Wrong people?
Just watch this.......

TED talk

The Jouberts are film makers--NOT scientists. Its the same as getting your scientific facts from the Disney Corp.

Mac-

I must respectfully disagree with you on one point-lizzy is stupid because she refuses to acknowledge facts---she Has been informed, but refuses to look at the facts, and that is stupidity.

quote:

Originally posted by maxenergy:

quote:

Originally posted by Lizzy:
[
Wrong people?
Just watch this.......

TED talk

So very "Disney." I find these emotional arguments to be unrealistic and juvenile.

Yeah, it’s a bedtime story, a fairy-tale … though not one I would recommend or read to my kids. I would recommend the Grimm brothers …

:: :: ::

The Wolf and the Man – by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm

Once upon a time the fox was talking to the wolf about the strength of man, how no animal could withstand him, and how all were obliged to employ cunning in order to protect themselves from him.

The wolf answered, "If I could see a man just once, I would attack him nonetheless."

"I can help you to do that," said the fox. "Come to me early tomorrow morning, and I will show you one."

The wolf arrived on time, and the fox took him out to the path which the huntsman used every day. First an old discharged soldier came by.

"Is that a man?" asked the wolf.

"No," answered the fox. "He has been one."

Afterwards came a little boy on his way to school.

"Is that a man?"

"No, he will yet become one."

Finally a huntsman came by with his double-barreled gun on his back, and a sword at his side.

The fox said to the wolf, "Look, there comes a man. He is the one you must attack, but I am going back to my den."

The wolf then charged at the man.

When the huntsman saw him he said, "Too bad that I have not loaded with a bullet." Then he aimed and fired a load of shot into his face.

The wolf pulled an awful face, but did not let himself be frightened, and attacked him again, on which the huntsman gave him the second barrel. The wolf swallowed his pain and charged at the huntsman again, who in turn drew out his naked sword, and gave him a few blows with it left and right, so that, bleeding all over, he ran howling back to the fox.

"Well," Brother Wolf, said the fox, "how did you get along with man?"

"Oh," replied the wolf, "I never imagined the strength of man to be what it is. First, he took a stick from his shoulder, and blew into it, and then something flew into my face which tickled me terribly. Then he breathed once more into the stick, and it flew up my nose like lightning and hail. Then when I got next to him, he drew a naked rib out of his body, and he beat me so with it that he almost killed me."

"See what a braggart you are," said the fox. "You throw your hatchet so far that you cannot get it back again."

:: :: ::



<> <> <>

................................................................. [/QUOTE]

Wrong people?
Just watch this.......

TED talk[/QUOTE]

The Jouberts are film makers--NOT scientists. Its the same as getting your scientific facts from the Disney Corp.

Mac-[/QUOTE]

Oh hunter from Texas is a scientist? Are hunters in general scientists? Something new for me.
So Jane Goodall is not a scientist with her PhD degree from Cambridge! None of you have ever spend the amount of time in the bush studying animals as the Jouberts do.
I watched a footage of a filmmaker on this forum, filming hunting. Well that is a great science. I became sick when I watched the leopard hunt. Put bait in a tree and wait and shoot.....nobody knows anything about this cat. A lion is minding his Is and Qs and without knowing there was danger he gets killed. At least give them a chance to escape or fight.

quote:

Originally posted by Lizzy:
.................................................................

Wrong people?
Just watch this.......

TED talk[/QUOTE]

The Jouberts are film makers--NOT scientists. Its the same as getting your scientific facts from the Disney Corp.

Mac-[/QUOTE]

Oh hunter from Texas is a scientist? Are hunters in general scientists? Something new for me.
So Jane Goodall is not a scientist with her PhD degree from Cambridge! None of you have ever spend the amount of time in the bush studying animals as the Jouberts do.
I watched a footage of a filmmaker on this forum, filming hunting. Well that is a great science. I became sick when I watched the leopard hunt. Put bait in a tree and wait and shoot.....nobody knows anything about this cat. A lion is minding his Is and Qs and without knowing there was danger he gets killed. At least give them a chance to escape or fight.[/QUOTE]

I have found that typically hunters have a much better grasp on the true nature of animals than emotional do-gooders who have never been to the field and embrace the concept of naming wild animals like they are pets. I know the Jouberts have spent time in the field, but there is time in the field, and there is time in the field, and their constituency is typically clueless. They just appeal to their emotions and they are hooked.

Oh so 25 years in the field is not enough but 10 days in the field is? Clueless??? How! If someone studies animals in the field they get names of course. Or do you want numbers! How can Iain Douglas Hamilton study elephants
if he didn't name them and name their offspring. Or Jane Goodall or Marc Bekoff or Frans van de Waal or Dian Fossey and so on!

Emotions.....yes if you have a dog you know he/she has emotions and you will discover this if you observe your dog or cat. All mammals have the same emotions as the homo sapiens because we are related. Animals know love empathy, hate, compassion, caring, they can lie as well. They understand death and they grieve, they feel joy and sadness just like us.They do not torture nor enjoy killing like humans do. That is the difference. Why should wild animals,who are studied not be given names? They are beings not things.

When my husband died I insisted to take our dog to the moratorium, which was first refused. After threatening that I would not pay the bill it was allowed. The reaction of our dog was amazing and emotional. She smelled him, whacked her tail and ran up the the coffin. She jumped up, ran around and jumped again and then looked at me with very sad ayes. She never looked for him, never ran into the living room after a walk to greet him as she knew. If I hadn't done this, she would have been looking for him for months on end. They understand death, not desertion. I took photos of that moment and anyone who has a heart could see her grief.

I discovered this with my cats. I left one cat at the Vet after him had to be put to sleep. His mate was looking for weeks and started to get depressed. After this experience I always left the cat that died in a bedroom and one by one they all came in to say goodbye. One cat didn't accepted this and was screaming.....how human are they!

Give your prey a name or are they named after they hang on your wall?

Read this, written by a PROFESSOR zoologist, environmentalist and animal Psychologist. So a scientist....

ANIMAL EMOTIONS

quote:

Originally posted by Doug W:
Only the lion in question had cubs, apparently was still breeding and hadn't been driven off by younger rivals.

So the end result is that the strongest and fittest specimen was killed, the offspring of the strongest and fittest were put in jeopardy of survival and passing on those genes and an inferior male unable to currently, if ever achieve that position was given the opportunity.

All true but at the age he is said to be, his present cubs are most likely only a fraction of the offspring he has fathered. Many of those offspring are still spreading Cecil's genes about the countryside, and will for many years to come. The old are still the one to take because that is the way nature takes them out to make room for the next generation. There is no difference between a satellite male taking him out and a hunter taking him out the result is the same. If that were not the case then it would be true that what the animal rights folks argue that the oldest should be left, and younger ones taken, but it certainly is not true!

.....................................................................................

quote:

Originally posted by Lizzy:
Oh so 25 years in the field is not enough but 10 days in the field is? Clueless??? How! If someone studies animals in the field they get names of course. Or do you want numbers! How can Iain Douglas Hamilton study elephants
if he didn't name them and name their offspring. Or Jane Goodall or Marc Bekoff or Frans van de Waal or Dian Fossey and so on!

Emotions.....yes if you have a dog you know he/she has emotions and you will discover this if you observe your dog or cat. All mammals have the same emotions as the homo sapiens because we are related. Animals know love empathy, hate, compassion, caring, they can lie as well. They understand death and they grieve, they feel joy and sadness just like us.They do not torture nor enjoy killing like humans do. That is the difference. Why should wild animals,who are studied not be given names? They are beings not things.

When my husband died I insisted to take our dog to the moratorium, which was first refused. After threatening that I would not pay the bill it was allowed. The reaction of our dog was amazing and emotional. She smelled him, whacked her tail and ran up the the coffin. She jumped up, ran around and jumped again and then looked at me with very sad ayes. She never looked for him, never ran into the living room after a walk to greet him as she knew. If I hadn't done this, she would have been looking for him for months on end. They understand death, not desertion. I took photos of that moment and anyone who has a heart could see her grief.

I discovered this with my cats. I left one cat at the Vet after him had to be put to sleep. His mate was looking for weeks and started to get depressed. After this experience I always left the cat that died in a bedroom and one by one they all came in to say goodbye. One cat didn't accepted this and was screaming.....how human are they!

Give your prey a name or are they named after they hang on your wall?

Read this, written by a PROFESSOR zoologist, environmentalist and animal Psychologist. So a scientist....

ANIMAL EMOTIONS

It's the emotions of the animal rights loons that I am referring to. Look at the tenor of your post as it is fraught with emotion. You and your ilk make decisions based on your emotions. There is nothing rational about it. And no, I don't name animals that reside on my wall. Y'all remind me of Timothy "bear scat" Threadwell who tried befriending wild and dangerous animals.

I just find it sad that your ilk somehow finds human life to be cheaper than animal life. Very sad.

lizzie

Bless your big heart and little bitty pea picking brain-

Saying the Jouberts are wildlife scientists is the same as calling Steven Spielberg a rocket scientist because he made the Star wars movies.

Taking pictures is not scientific research.