'kl2008a', a PACOVILLA follower, got it exactly right when he wrote:
I used to hunt deer, pheasants, wild boar, etc. when I was younger and if I didn’t eat what I killed I knew several needy families in my town that welcomed the meat. I’ve even done what you could term as “wildlife management” when my friends and I helped the community deal with an over infestation of squirrels many moons ago.
After teaching my son, and grandsons to hunt the first rule they are taught of the hunt (after firearms safety) is if you kill it you must eat it. I can see killing to protect your family, (or in the case of a farmer and his crops) his livelihood, or to feed yourself or your family when nothing else is available.
To hunt for the thrill of the kill or the prize isn’t what hunting is all about (IMHO). For those who seek that kind of hunt I recommend they enlist in the service.
The kind of hunting kl2008 did and taught his son and grandsons to do is the kind of hunting that I support. As for the those wealthy trophy hunters like Kendall Jones and her father, they haven't got the guts to enlist in the armed services. They are the ones that fled to Canada or Sweden during the Vietnam War to avoid the draft and the possibility of having to fight and face death in the jungles of Vietnam.
Trey, a retired state police lieutenant, said:
Your blog, Hunting Big Game for Food or Wildlife Management VS Trophy Hunting was spot on! The only thing this spoiled brat [Kendall Jones] and her father are contributing to is the extinction of several species. The photos of her holding up the heads of these beautiful animals that she killed is sickening. I hope this activity haunts her for life.
‘FXSTC1’, another PACOVILLA follower, said:
There exist an elite group of people around the world who earn rank in their social circles by big game kills. Let’s call them “elitist” for lack of a less accurate term. This from of recreational killing has been promoted by the very rich and influential i.e., presidents, industrialist and an assortment of other assholes. It was once possible to impress your peers by shooting buffalo from a moving train. No aim necessary. Just point at the herd and pull the trigger. My god that was exciting.
A similar concept developed in Africa and other money hungry and corrupt countries to set up Safari’s for the wealthy and extremely insecure. These captains of industry are easy prey themselves due to their insecurities and also anxieties regarding the length of their penises. For large sums of money they will have a five star experience complete with food, lodging, servants etc. Once again you only need to point and shoot.
These people are not to be admired. They don’t kill for food or for regulating herds. They are simply thrill killers isolated by their status as being wealthy.
Thrill killers, that’s exactly what they are!
Bob Walsh said:
I think that trophy hunting can be a legitimate part of game management, mostly by bringing in extra income to the program. I don't see trophy hunting as immoral. Shallow, but not immoral.
Jeff ‘Paco’ Doyle said:
While I would not personally kill an animal unless it was food, a varmint or direct threat, AND I understand the disdain many harbor against “trophy” hunting, it is not “immoral.” Plenty of activities we may find repugnant or wrong are not acts of immorality.
I haven’t hunted since I was a teen, however, I know the enjoyment of hunting is largely the HUNT, not the kill. Any marksman can kill, a hunter does much more.
Trophy hunting isn’t for me. At the same time, I think it is over the top to label it immoral and its practitioners “sickos.’ All I am saying is you paint with an overly broad brush. I daresay many moral folks hunt for sport, take the antlers and donate the meat. I think it’s possible to be a moral person and kill a tiger some environmentalist in the UN says is “endangered.”
No comments:
Post a Comment