Killing wild animals for fun

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:57 am

Kathy Ellen;1483519 wrote: Hey there yzgi,

Jaysus, haven't chatted in years. How are ya?

Well hello back, life sure keeps us busy

Post by **spot** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 9:05 am

YZGI;1483558 wrote: Well hello back, life sure keeps us busy

Yo dude LTNS. Pimp my shizzle.

That ought to boost my street cred round these parts immensely.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 9:43 am

spot;1483551 wrote: Fortunately it would be entirely illegal for any company acquiring beagles from the newly-licensed Hull breeding facility to test cosmetics on them. I have no idea why the claim was made to begin with, it was propagandist rather than informational.

As to using "David Cameron" as an abbreviation for the entire Westminster government, again I don't see the purpose. It just dissolves the meaning of words. Why bother having a vocabulary at all.

Bad/contentious news is nectar to tabloid editors. "Gut-grabbing" headlines sell papers, regardless of the content being libelous or damaging, and until the libel/damages fine(s) equal or exceed the extra profit obtained from sales due to factually untrue stories, this will continue. I don't agree with "muzzling" the press but the fines/punishments for this need to be made large enough to deter this practice.

As for Cameron, though I detest the "stuffed shirt", he's only one man, not the whole Government, though he is probably the most influential individual in the house.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:32 am

spot;1483559 wrote: Yo dude LTNS. Pimp my shizzle.

That ought to boost my street cred round these parts immensely.

LOL, I had to look up "LTNS" I reckon i aint got much shizzle..

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:45 am

YZGI;1483569 wrote: LOL, I had to look up "LTNS" I reckon i aint got much shizzle..

I take it spot has a shizzle he wishes you to pimp. I didn't even know he could drive.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Jul 31, 2015 12:01 pm

Snowfire;1483570 wrote: I take it spot has a shizzle he wishes you to pimp. I didn't even know he could drive.

I suppose there will be a handle to use..

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 3:48 am

spot;1483525 wrote: No no no - if you're going to make a claim like that, back it up from an unbiased source. Do you seriously think animal testing still happens anywhere at all in mainstream cosmetics safety testing? It was dropped decades ago, the buying public refused buy any product that was animal tested so the manufacturers stopped, the bad publicity was ruining their business. Of course the "Beagle Freedom Project" will be putting out a claim like that but I'll eat my hat if it's true.

OK. How about this:

Ethical reasons why beagles have to die | UK news | The Guardian

or

Fury as Tories approve dog breeding centre for medical tests - days after cancelling fox hunting vote - Mirror Online

or

Animal Testing Beagle Puppy Farm Approved In Yorkshire

Or this. Yes, PETA are bound to be biased, but surely video evidence should be evidence enough?

Professional Laboratory and Research Services Undercover Investigation | Features | PETA

Post by **spot** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 4:42 am

FourPart;1483608 wrote: OK. How about this:

Ethical reasons why beagles have to die | UK news | The Guardian

or

Fury as Tories approve dog breeding centre for medical tests - days after cancelling fox hunting vote - Mirror Online

or

Animal Testing Beagle Puppy Farm Approved In Yorkshire

Or this. Yes, PETA are bound to be biased, but surely video evidence should be evidence enough?

Professional Laboratory and Research Services Undercover Investigation | Features | PETA

Well what about them? Not one of those pages mentions cosmetics testing. Why are you showing them to me?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 4:47 am

spot;1483614 wrote: Well what about them? Not one of those pages mentions cosmetics testing. Why are you showing them to me?

Because as I had previously accepted that I had been getting confused with a different story that was one of the Related Links on the same page, your later post came across as if you were challenging the fact that these cruel, torturous experiments continue to be made on Beagles & that the story about the Government giving an American Puppy Farm for the purposes of vivisection wasn't genuine.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 5:35 am

Having just read the link "Animal Testing Beagle Puppy Farm Approved In Yorkshire", it refers to animal testing in relation to chemicals and drugs, all of which I find utterly reprehensible, sick and unnecessary. If we want to use these drugs and chemicals, we should do so AT OUR OWN RISK (as it is for OUR benefit), or use laboratory-grown human tissue instead, as the results gained using human tissue will doubtless be more accurate, as the material being tested belongs to "us".

Second-rate research rarely yields first-class results, as animal bodily reactions often differ from our own quite considerably; I.E. chemicals dangerous to us may not be as dangerous to animals, and vice-versa.

A cruel, flawed process that needs stopping NOW!!

Post by **spot** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 6:17 am

FourPart;1483615 wrote: Because as I had previously accepted that I had been getting confused with a different story that was one of the Related Links on the same page, your later post came across as if you were challenging the fact that these cruel, torturous experiments continue to be made on Beagles & that the story about the Government giving an American Puppy Farm for the purposes of vivisection wasn't genuine.

What I wrote wasNo no no - if you're going to make a claim like that, back it up from an unbiased source. Do you seriously think animal testing still happens anywhere at all in mainstream cosmetics safety testing? It was dropped decades ago, the buying public refused buy any product that was animal tested so the manufacturers stopped, the bad publicity was ruining their business. Of course the "Beagle Freedom Project" will be putting out a claim like that but I'll eat my hat if it's true.

If you can tell me why you thought that came across as if you were challenging the fact that these cruel, torturous experiments continue to be made on Beagles & that the story about the Government giving an American Puppy Farm for the purposes of vivisection wasn't genuine I'll be interested to know how I confused you. I try to write clearly.

Your own link explains exactly why there are animal breeding units in the UK to supply animal testing companies and universities. Around half of the research at HLS involves animals and is designed to meet the Animal Scientific Procedures Act (1986) which demands that a wide range of drugs, food additives, industrial chemicals and domestic products is tested before being released on to the market.

[...] It takes, on average, eight years and Â£330m to bring a new medicine from the laboratory to the pharmacist.

In the early stages, substances are screened for known toxins.

The second phase, which can last up to two years, involves animals. Legislation requires that drugs are tested on two mammals, one of them a large non-rodent.

Following the animal stage, which can last up to two years, clinical trials on humans begin. There are three stages of clinical trials, usually beginning with the most seriously ill sufferers of a particular ailment. Only when these tests are satisfactory is the drug put on to the market.

Ethical reasons why beagles have to die | UK news | The Guardian

It's a legal requirement to test. If you don't like the legal requirement, get the law changed. Given the current law, breeding units have to exist in order to comply.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 9:46 am

spot;1483628 wrote: What I wrote wasNo no no - if you're going to make a claim like that, back it up from an unbiased source. Do you seriously think animal testing still happens anywhere at all in mainstream cosmetics safety testing? It was dropped decades ago, the buying public refused buy any product that was animal tested so the manufacturers stopped, the bad publicity was ruining their business. Of course the "Beagle Freedom Project" will be putting out a claim like that but I'll eat my hat if it's true.

If you can tell me why you thought that came across as if you were challenging the fact that these cruel, torturous experiments continue to be made on Beagles & that the story about the Government giving an American Puppy Farm for the purposes of vivisection wasn't genuine I'll be interested to know how I confused you. I try to write clearly.

Your own link explains exactly why there are animal breeding units in the UK to supply animal testing companies and universities. Around half of the research at HLS involves animals and is designed to meet the Animal Scientific Procedures Act (1986) which demands that a wide range of drugs, food additives, industrial chemicals and domestic products is tested before being released on to the market.

[...] It takes, on average, eight years and Â£330m to bring a new medicine from the laboratory to the pharmacist.

In the early stages, substances are screened for known toxins.

The second phase, which can last up to two years, involves animals. Legislation requires that drugs are tested on two mammals, one of them a large non-rodent.

Following the animal stage, which can last up to two years, clinical trials on humans begin. There are three stages of clinical trials, usually beginning with the most seriously ill sufferers of a particular ailment. Only when these tests are satisfactory is the drug put on to the market.

Ethical reasons why beagles have to die | UK news | The Guardian

It's a legal requirement to test. If you don't like the legal requirement, get the law changed. Given the current law, breeding units have to exist in order to comply.

Once again, thanks for the research, Spot. I think that getting the law changed is the ONLY way to stop this cruel practice. Getting up a large petition is probably the first step, by forcing a debate on the issue in Parliament. Of course, if Parliament doesn't like it they'll "kick it into the long grass", or make some plausible excuse as to why it's not "in our interest" to change the law at this time. Still, I think we have to try!

The more people that object, the more chance we have to change this "Frankenstein" law.

Post by **spot** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 9:56 am

Smaug;1483635 wrote: Once again, thanks for the research, Spot. I think that getting the law changed is the ONLY way to stop this cruel practice. Getting up a large petition is probably the first step, by forcing a debate on the issue in Parliament. Of course, if Parliament doesn't like it they'll "kick it into the long grass", or make some plausible excuse as to why it's not "in our interest" to change the law at this time. Still, I think we have to try!

The more people that object, the more chance we have to change this "Frankenstein" law.The consequence of banning animal testing in the UK is that drugs companies will close their research labs in the UK and move them to countries which allow animal testing, our UK-educated researchers will go with them and we'll have what's called a brain drain in that area of expertise.

The reason the law exists is to keep that economic benefit. And, incidentally, to release fewer harmful medicines and set healthy exposure limits for industrial raw materials and pesticides.

When testing without animals is as effective as testing with animals, I'm sure animal testing will be banned. At the moment testing without animals is not as effective according to those who have actually studied the topic. It's not an area I pretend to be well-informed about.

You're not one of these "test them on convicts" chaps, are you?

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 10:24 am

spot;1483637 wrote: The consequence of banning animal testing in the UK is that drugs companies will close their research labs in the UK and move them to countries which allow animal testing, our UK-educated researchers will go with them and we'll have what's called a brain drain in that area of expertise.

The reason the law exists is to keep that economic benefit. And, incidentally, to release fewer harmful medicines and set healthy exposure limits for industrial raw materials and pesticides.

When testing without animals is as effective as testing with animals, I'm sure animal testing will be banned. At the moment testing without animals is not as effective according to those who have actually studied the topic. It's not an area I pretend to be well-informed about.

You're not one of these "test them on convicts" chaps, are you?

Tests on convicts? A thousand times NO to that! Yes, it's a complicated issue, and what you say may well be true, but testing on animals won't make these products any safer for the environment, and results may be inaccurate in terms of their effects on us.

If we want to use these drugs and chemicals, we should do so AT OUR OWN RISK (as it is for OUR benefit), or use laboratory-grown human tissue instead, as the results gained using human tissue will doubtless be more accurate, as the material being tested belongs to "us".

With a little more development, the cost of growing our own "testable" tissue samples will be less than the cost of breeding, feeding, vivisecting and then disposing of actual living animals, who no doubt were terrified and in trauma before they died. If this causes economic hardship or problems with big business pulling out, a "brain-drain", or drug shortage, then so be it IMO!!

I would't say I was particularly well-informed either, but the ethics of animal vivisection stink!

Post by **spot** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 10:34 am

Smaug;1483639 wrote: testing on animals won't make these products any safer for the environment, and results may be inaccurate in terms of their effects on us.Ah. I hadn't grasped I was chatting with an expert. My apologies.

Is "laboratory-grown human tissue" currently available for drug testing? Or even for sale to drug testers? I have visions of pulsing brains in jars being used to test potential dementia treatments, with controls being wired up to Radio 4 and the drug recipients absorbing constant reruns of Coronation Street to most closely mimic real life onset conditions.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 3:07 pm

spot;1483640 wrote: Ah. I hadn't grasped I was chatting with an expert. My apologies.

Is "laboratory-grown human tissue" currently available for drug testing? Or even for sale to drug testers? I have visions of pulsing brains in jars being used to test potential dementia treatments, with controls being wired up to Radio 4 and the drug recipients absorbing constant reruns of Coronation Street to most closely mimic real life onset conditions.

Thank you for the courtesy, absolutely no apology required Spot, I'm no expert either though I am very keen on animal rights. I know what you mean about pulsing brains in jars, and bl**dy 'Coro; not sure I could stand watching it for any length of time greater than 10 seconds, partly due to the danger of uber-fast brain-rot (I would lose the will to live) !!

I'm going to have a trawl and see what I can dig up on lab-grown human tissue ( I've seen various things on this somewhere, and I'm going to look now, or tomorrow latest)

Like the wit, BTW! (Probably a suitable use for Coro, or Dead-Enders!)

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 4:41 pm

Overview of human lab-grown tissue below. More links/pastes to follow here; watch this space!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tissue_engineering

Here's a paste extract from this thread; post#49. (PETA)

Unfortunately, things are different in the United States. As hard as it is to believe, animal experiments for cosmetics continue even though non-animal tests are widely available. Instead of measuring how long it takes a chemical to burn away the cornea of a rabbitâ€™s eye, manufacturers can now drop that chemical onto cornea-like 3-D tissue structures produced from human cells. Likewise, human skin cultures can be grown and purchased for skin irritation testing. These and dozens more tests now in use today are faster and more accurate at predicting human reactions to a product than the old animal tests ever were. However, huge multiproduct manufacturers, such as Johnson & Johnsonâ€”driven by a fear of lawsuits (although animal tests have not proved effective in a companyâ€™s defense when a consumer sues) and, inexplicably, frozen by inertiaâ€”continue to poison, burn, and blind animals in tests.

This reluctance to change is especially unforgivable considering the current wide availability of superior non-animal tests. Instead of measuring how long it takes a chemical to burn away the cornea of a rabbitâ€™s eye, manufacturers can now drop that chemical onto donated human corneas. Human skin cultures can be grown and ordered for irritancy testing. These and dozens more tests now in use today are cheaper, faster, and more accurate at predicting human reactions to a product than the old animal tests ever were.

Even more incomprehensible is the continued demand by some U.S. environmental organizations for more and more animal testing of cosmetics products even as the rest of the world moves away from these crude, cruel methods and toward modern, more effective non-animal methods. Recently, a scientist from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), while acknowledging that there â€œare non-animal tests that are really valuable, informative, cheaper, and quickerâ€ than animal tests, publicly disagreed with the EU ban on cosmetics testing on animals, claiming that â€œwe need to test these products on live thingsâ€ instead of using the widely accepted, validated non-animal alternatives to test cosmetics.

It would appear that the current scientists at the NRDC have never even bothered to read the National Academy of Sciences report Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century and are ignoring the sea change that has occurred in the last quarter-century regarding our understanding of how biological processes work. These advances in our understanding have led to the development of test methods that can look directly at cellular mechanisms rather than at the crude â€œblack boxâ€ results that come from using animals. If it were up to the NRDC, however, which does not believe that we can â€œlive in a world without animal testing,â€ and regards animals suffering in laboratory experiments as mere â€œthings,â€ millions of animals would continue to die in cosmetics testing even while other countries and continents are taking concrete steps to ban the use of animals in these tests.

The best way to stop companies from using animals is to refuse to purchase their products and to write and tell them why you wonâ€™t be applying their eye shadow, cleaning your clothes with their detergent, or washing your childâ€™s hair with their shampoo.

The good news is that today a multitude of cruelty-free cosmetics and household products are not tested on animals. With companies such as Urban Decay able to meet all of your cosmetics needs and Method able to provide for all of your household needs (just to name a couple), you can find cruelty-free products just about anywhere. Check out PETAâ€™s database of companies that donâ€™t test on animals and request a free copy of PETAâ€™s global Cruelty-Free Shopping Guide to find cruelty-free versions of all the products you could ever need.

I hope this sheds a little light on this contentious subject.

Post by **spot** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 4:54 pm

Smaug;1483652 wrote: Overview of human lab-grown tissue below. More links to follow here; watch this space!
Nobody would doubt human lab-grown tissue exists for therapeutic use in the treatment of patients - the examples list makes that quite clear.

I asked "Is "laboratory-grown human tissue" currently available for drug testing? Or even for sale to drug testers?". I would be astonished if its use in drugs testing were at all legal - there are ethics committees consulted for every research step where human cell growth outside of the body is concerned.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 5:29 pm

spot;1483653 wrote: Nobody would doubt human lab-grown tissue exists for therapeutic use in the treatment of patients - the examples list makes that quite clear.

I asked "Is "laboratory-grown human tissue" currently available for drug testing? Or even for sale to drug testers?". I would be astonished if its use in drugs testing were at all legal - there are ethics committees consulted for every research step where human cell growth outside of the body is concerned.

By the look of it, HUMAN lab-grown skin isn't available at this time, but this is...

StrataTest® - Products | Stratatech Corporation

Post by **spot** » Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:17 am

Smaug;1483654 wrote: By the look of it, HUMAN lab-grown skin isn't available at this time, but this is...

StrataTestï¿½ - Products | Stratatech Corporation

If you read the page, what it says is that StrataTestÂ® is in fact human skin. It has "Normal human dermal fibroblasts", for example. Wikipedia will tell you that "Fibroblasts are the most common cells of connective tissue in animals". The difference between StrataTestÂ® and skin planed off your thigh is that every batch is identical, every batch is healthy and reproducible - a bit like the beagles out of the breeding unit, in fact. Two posts back I said "I would be astonished if its use in drugs testing were at all legal" but here it is, on your page, legal. I am, indeed, astonished.

There's an ethics committee that's approved StrataTestÂ® for use in the areas discussed by the page. Someone, some time ago, took a real human skin cell and created from it a "human progenitor keratinocyte cell line". I think that's fine. I'm sure StrataTestÂ® and other products like it will be used in place of some proportion of the animals currently used in testing.

I would hope that the ability to grow human skin from a cell, which is what StrataTestÂ® is, will be extended to being able to grow a human heart or a human lung or a human arm from anyone's cell. I'd like to have a cell taken from my body, grown into a replacement heart or a replacement eyeball, which would have no rejection issues because it matches my own cells and could be used as an organ replacement.

Your living beagle is a coordinated collection of such organs. I'd draw the line at growing a StrataTestÂ® equivalent of a working collection of organs from a beagle cell, because what you'd then have would be best described as a beagle. I'd also draw the line at growing a StrataTestÂ® equivalent of a working collection of organs from a human cell, because what you'd then have would be best described as a human.

StrataTestÂ® was started originally for use in hospitals to treat patients but replacing animals in those areas where it is capable of giving results is wonderful. Growing an artificial beagle or an artificial human isn't going to happen. Somewhere between a centimetre-square of living skin and a full-sized living animal you lose the point. Whether you breed it or you create it in a laboratory from a cell-line, a good-enough human or animal model is still going to qualify as living. If you prick it does it not bleed? If you tickle it does it not laugh? If you poison it does it not die?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:42 am

Don't forget that many of these drugs have no real medical benefit whatsoever, but are released for a multitude of other reasons, such as weight loss drugs, hair restoration drugs, skin toning drugs, sexual potency drugs, etc. Then one has to ask just how reliable are these tests? Remember Thalidomide, for instance? That was thoroughly tested on animals & had absolutely no side effects whatsoever.

As for animal testing for cosmetics - although many countries do have testing on animals banned for such things, many others, such as China, for instance don't, but that doesn't stop us from importing them. Furthermore, considering the way that other industries operate, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if major cosmetic companies over here import their base materials from other countries, where animal testing IS used, and then repackage it under their own label, saying that THEY do not use animal testing on their products (which would, technically, be true).

As for passing laws to stop it. That is the whole point about how this argument got started in the first place. A law had been passed under the previous Government to ban Fox Hunting. David Cameron is now seeking to abolish that law as he is pro-hunting. When laws can be changed to suit the Government in power at the time, there doesn't seem to be much point in having the laws in the first place.

Post by **spot** » Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:25 am

FourPart;1483683 wrote: Remember Thalidomide, for instance? That was thoroughly tested on animals & had absolutely no side effects whatsoever.I suggest that anyone who has to go back sixty years for an example has very little case to offer. There was no teratogenicity test known when Thalidomide was developed.

Three years after it was taken off the market, animal experiment testing procedures were developed to test for the risk of malformations. Since then tests for teratogenicity - malformation inducing effects on embryos and fetuses - have been part of the pre-clinical testing program for proposed new drugs, and no such tragedy has recurred.

Post by **spot** » Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:34 am

FourPart;1483683 wrote: As for animal testing for cosmetics - although many countries do have testing on animals banned for such things, many others, such as China, for instance don't, but that doesn't stop us from importing them. Furthermore, considering the way that other industries operate, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if major cosmetic companies over here import their base materials from other countries, where animal testing IS used, and then repackage it under their own label, saying that THEY do not use animal testing on their products (which would, technically, be true).It does, though. There's a Europe-wide ban on the sale of cosmetics which have been animal-tested, or had any ingredient animal tested, regardless of where in the world the testing occurred.

The Directive puts an end to animal testing by imposing bans on:

testing finished cosmetic products and ingredients on animals (testing ban);

marketing finished cosmetic products which have been tested on animals or which contain ingredients that have been tested on animals (marketing ban).

With regard to repeated-dose toxicity tests, reproductive toxicity tests, and toxicokinetics, the marketing prohibition applies from 11 March 2013. This prohibition is applicable regardless of the availability of alternative test methods.

Of course, if the UK leaves Europe this sort of protection would no longer apply.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:08 pm

spot;1483679 wrote: If you read the page, what it says is that StrataTestÂ® is in fact human skin. It has "Normal human dermal fibroblasts", for example. Wikipedia will tell you that "Fibroblasts are the most common cells of connective tissue in animals". The difference between StrataTestÂ® and skin planed off your thigh is that every batch is identical, every batch is healthy and reproducible - a bit like the beagles out of the breeding unit, in fact. Two posts back I said "I would be astonished if its use in drugs testing were at all legal" but here it is, on your page, legal. I am, indeed, astonished.

There's an ethics committee that's approved StrataTestÂ® for use in the areas discussed by the page. Someone, some time ago, took a real human skin cell and created from it a "human progenitor keratinocyte cell line". I think that's fine. I'm sure StrataTestÂ® and other products like it will be used in place of some proportion of the animals currently used in testing.

I would hope that the ability to grow human skin from a cell, which is what StrataTestÂ® is, will be extended to being able to grow a human heart or a human lung or a human arm from anyone's cell. I'd like to have a cell taken from my body, grown into a replacement heart or a replacement eyeball, which would have no rejection issues because it matches my own cells and could be used as an organ replacement.

Your living beagle is a coordinated collection of such organs. I'd draw the line at growing a StrataTestÂ® equivalent of a working collection of organs from a beagle cell, because what you'd then have would be best described as a beagle. I'd also draw the line at growing a StrataTestÂ® equivalent of a working collection of organs from a human cell, because what you'd then have would be best described as a human.

StrataTestÂ® was started originally for use in hospitals to treat patients but replacing animals in those areas where it is capable of giving results is wonderful. Growing an artificial beagle or an artificial human isn't going to happen. Somewhere between a centimetre-square of living skin and a full-sized living animal you lose the point. Whether you breed it or you create it in a laboratory from a cell-line, a good-enough human or animal model is still going to qualify as living. If you prick it does it not bleed? If you tickle it does it not laugh? If you poison it does it not die?

Yes, we must be wary of going too far down the path of creating an independent, sentient life-form for experimentation that will suffer as much as, say, an actual Beagle, or indeed a human; advances in this field are moving apace. It's all too easy to jump out of the pan, into the fire, so-to-speak. Boundaries can become blurred quite easily. Very valid points, Spot.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Wed Aug 05, 2015 1:08 am

The Daily Mail says:

"Mr Palmer is said to have paid a professional hunter Â£32,000 to help him track and kill the lion ... "

... and kill THE lion? What are they saying? That he specifically sought to shoot this "Cecil"? I don't believe that.

Oxford University research team studying Cecil the lion was funded by pro-hunting groups | Daily Mail Online

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:00 pm

This guy has a few things to say I thought of interest.

It reminds me of how ignorant people are when it comes to wild animals. It is all to common for somebody to bring such animals into their home thinking they could tame them like a domestic dog or cat.

In Zimbabwe, We Donâ€™t Cry for Lions

So sorry about Cecil.

Did Cecil live near your place in Zimbabwe?

Cecil who? I wondered. When I turned on the news and discovered that the messages were about a lion killed by an American dentist, the village boy inside me instinctively cheered: One lion fewer to menace families like mine.

My excitement was doused when I realized that the lion killer was being painted as the villain. I faced the starkest cultural contradiction Iâ€™d experienced during my five years studying in the United States.

Did all those Americans signing petitions understand that lions actually kill people? That all the talk about Cecil being â€œbelovedâ€ or a â€œlocal favoriteâ€ was media hype? Did Jimmy Kimmel choke up because Cecil was murdered or because he confused him with Simba from â€œThe Lion Kingâ€?

When I was 9 years old, a solitary lion prowled villages near my home. After it killed a few chickens, some goats and finally a cow, we were warned to walk to school in groups and stop playing outside. My sisters no longer went alone to the river to collect water or wash dishes; my mother waited for my father and older brothers, armed with machetes, axes and spears, to escort her into the bush to collect firewood.

Recently, a 14-year-old boy in a village not far from mine wasnâ€™t so lucky. Sleeping in his familyâ€™s fields, as villagers do to protect crops from the hippos, buffalo and elephants that trample them, he was mauled by a lion and died.

NY TIMES

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:07 pm

tude dog;1483880 wrote: This guy has a few things to say I thought of interest.

It reminds me of how ignorant people are when it comes to wild animals. It is all to common for somebody to bring such animals into their home thinking they could tame them like a domestic dog or cat.

In Zimbabwe, We Donâ€™t Cry for Lions

NY TIMES

We are not talking about a predatory lion, stalking a village. It was in a National Wildlife Park. Anyway you want to look at it, its not a fair fight. They are a protected species and this particular one probably more so 'till some d!ckwad wanted to show us how brave he was and how much effort and money he was prepared to doll out.

Secondly, animals kill when humans invade their territory, their space. Theirs room for us all if supposed "men" can resist the temptation to nail a prize head to their wall and smile for the camera in the process.

It's as pathetic trying to justify it as it is to carry it out

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:14 pm

tude dog;1483880 wrote: This guy has a few things to say I thought of interest.

It reminds me of how ignorant people are when it comes to wild animals. It is all to common for somebody to bring such animals into their home thinking they could tame them like a domestic dog or cat.

In Zimbabwe, We Donâ€™t Cry for Lions
How often is it that I agree with you? Hippos, elephant, giraffe? I had a testy episode with a hippo cow on the Rhodesian bank of the Zambesi when I got too close to her young. But they don't bother you if you don't bother them. Lions, on the other hand? They scare the crap out of me.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:24 pm

Snowfire;1483881 wrote: We are not talking about a predatory lion, stalking a village. It was in a National Wildlife Park. Anyway you want to look at it, its not a fair fight. They are a protected species and this particular one probably more so 'till some d!ckwad wanted to show us how brave he was and how much effort and money he was prepared to doll out.

Secondly, animals kill when humans invade their territory, their space. Theirs room for us all if supposed "men" can resist the temptation to nail a prize head to their wall and smile for the camera in the process.

It's as pathetic trying to justify it as it is to carry it out
You're walking a thin line. How much did this American really know? Both the Shona and Ndebele have been living on that piece of land for a gazillion years â€¦.. before the white man came. Maybe even before lions migrated? I'm sure this guy is the â€œd!ckwadâ€ you say he is but the only reason this incident came to light is because â€œCecilâ€ was a celebrity of sorts. And trophy hunters in general? Of course I agree with you but they were looked upon with respect in the last century. Who knew any better?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:47 pm

High Threshold;1483883 wrote: You're walking a thin line. How much did this American really know? Both the Shona and Ndebele have been living on that piece of land for a gazillion years â€¦.. before the white man came. Maybe even before lions migrated? I'm sure this guy is the â€œd!ckwadâ€ you say he is but the only reason this incident came to light is because â€œCecilâ€ was a celebrity of sorts. And trophy hunters in general? Of course I agree with you but they were looked upon with respect in the last century. Who knew any better?

Given his apparent history, he knew only too well. Not the first time he broke the law/bent the rules - tick as appropriate.

The animals have been living on the land for a gazillion more years than man has or if not, as little a difference as makes no difference

I lived in Zimbabwe myself for a year and I too had a similar fright with a Hippo. Hwange National Park, as you know, plays its part in the protection of wildlife. It's not some small zoo. Its their specifically for the welfare of the wildlife. The local people, dont live in fear of Cecil and his family. Encroachment of wildlife territory CAN be a problem in Africa and one that needs careful and appropriate action. This isnt part of that picture and I would have hoped we had dragged ourselves out of last century's attitudes. That respect, surely, has long gone or at the very least disappearing rapidly

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:53 pm

Snowfire;1483881 wrote: We are not talking about a predatory lion, stalking a village. It was in a National Wildlife Park. Anyway you want to look at it, its not a fair fight. They are a protected species and this particular one probably more so 'till some d!ckwad wanted to show us how brave he was and how much effort and money he was prepared to doll out.

Secondly, animals kill when humans invade their territory, their space. Theirs room for us all if supposed "men" can resist the temptation to nail a prize head to their wall and smile for the camera in the process.

It's as pathetic trying to justify it as it is to carry it out

First of all, I am not trying to justify anything. If the hunter broke the law he should be held accountable.

All I did was present the view/reality of somebody who lived in that area.

I don't know if that animal presented any threat, nonetheless I would never walk up to it as if it were not a wild animal capable of tearing me to parts and eating me.

Hell, I wouldn't walk up to pet a cow.

Forget Sharksâ€”Cows Are More Likely To Kill You

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Thu Aug 06, 2015 1:10 pm

Snowfire;1483881 wrote: Given his apparent history, he knew only too well. Not the first time he broke the law/bent the rules - tick as appropriate.

Is the guy an ass? Almost certainly. But did he actually know EXACTLY what he was doing and where? We don't know that for sure. But logic would point to him being ignorant of the true facts. Think about it. Would he really risk all of this if he knew? There's the question.

Snowfire;1483881 wrote: The animals have been living on the land for a gazillion more years than man has or if not, as little a difference as makes no difference

It might make a difference if you are pleased to say â€œanimals kill when humans invade their territory, their spaceâ€ â€¦ the weight being on WHOSE space it is.

Snowfire;1483881 wrote: I lived in Zimbabwe myself for a year and I too had a similar fright with a Hippo. Hwange National Park, as you know, plays its part in the protection of wildlife. It's not some small zoo. Its their specifically for the welfare of the wildlife. The local people, dont live in fear of Cecil and his family. Encroachment of wildlife territory CAN be a problem in Africa and one that needs careful and appropriate action. This isnt part of that picture and I would have hoped we had dragged ourselves out of last century's attitudes. That respect, surely, has long gone or at the very least disappearing rapidly

I agree with all of that but you might be drifting in and out of the boundaries of debate. Poaching, particularly dismemberment of animals to get at the â€œgood bitsâ€, isn't part of this discussion. In addition, trophy hunting and culling (hand in hand) is part of most sustainable wildlife parks so shooting animals isn't ALWAYS the devil's work. So what did this American do that was so bad? Merely shooting a lion isn't it.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Aug 07, 2015 12:30 pm

Also, bear in mind that he was a Lion, and not a Lioness. Lions rarely do any hunting at all. That job's left to the Lioness's of the pride.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Fri Aug 07, 2015 10:47 pm

FourPart;1483914 wrote: Also, bear in mind that he was a Lion, and not a Lioness. Lions rarely do any hunting at all. That job's left to the Lioness's of the pride.

Try standing near one when HE roars! Then we'll talk about HIS "laid back" demeanor.

Post by **spot** » Sat Aug 08, 2015 3:26 am

High Threshold;1483830 wrote: The Daily Mail says:

"Mr Palmer is said to have paid a professional hunter Â£32,000 to help him track and kill the lion ... "

... and kill THE lion? What are they saying? That he specifically sought to shoot this "Cecil"? I don't believe that.

I think you missed the fact that Walter Palmer specialized in breaking size records for hunting with a bow. Cecil was unusually large. I suspect Cecil was explicitly selected because Walter Palmer wanted another bow record. I recall that he holds every size record bar one at the hunting bow club he was a member of.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Aug 14, 2015 6:44 am

High Threshold;1483883 wrote: You're walking a thin line. How much did this American really know? Both the Shona and Ndebele have been living on that piece of land for a gazillion years â€¦.. before the white man came. Maybe even before lions migrated? I'm sure this guy is the â€œd!ckwadâ€ you say he is but the only reason this incident came to light is because â€œCecilâ€ was a celebrity of sorts. And trophy hunters in general? Of course I agree with you but they were looked upon with respect in the last century. Who knew any better?

He knew that lions are a protected, endangered, species and that he was not allowed to shoot one - where's the thin line in that?

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Fri Aug 14, 2015 7:08 am

Smaug;1483428 wrote: If someone were hunting a member of your family for pleasure or money, would you still feel the same? Hunting for pleasure alone is a particularly pathetic human pastime, and it's past-time it stopped!!

Yeah, I have a relative who is a big game hunter. To say that it is stressful to be around him is an exaggeration. I see him as a bloodthirsty savage neanderthal without empathy. A twisted man compensating for a lack of self-confidence and an obese, wasting body by slaughtering beautiful wild animals with high powered weapons.

I think a good solution for hunters would be to let them go to Syria and Iraq and tell them, shoot any terrorist you want, but beware, they are equally armed.

But of course, they are too cowardly for that. For bullies, it's only fun to pick on defenseless prey.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Aug 15, 2015 10:43 am

Bryn Mawr;1484148 wrote: He knew that lions are a protected, endangered, species and that he was not allowed to shoot one - where's the thin line in that?

First of all one is allowed to hunt lions there.

To me the question is did he know he was mislead by his guides?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Aug 15, 2015 10:45 am

Saint_;1484151 wrote: Yeah, I have a relative who is a big game hunter. To say that it is stressful to be around him is an exaggeration. I see him as a bloodthirsty savage neanderthal without empathy. A twisted man compensating for a lack of self-confidence and an obese, wasting body by slaughtering beautiful wild animals with high powered weapons.

I think a good solution for hunters would be to let them go to Syria and Iraq and tell them, shoot any terrorist you want, but beware, they are equally armed.

But of course, they are too cowardly for that. For bullies, it's only fun to pick on defenseless prey.

Didn't know you were a vegan.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:20 am

tude dog;1484168 wrote: First of all one is allowed to hunt lions there.

To me the question is did he know he was mislead by his guides?

You are clearly not as outraged as most, at the killing, legal or not.

Clearly you are not outraged by the skinning and beheading of this beautiful beast.

Clearly you are not outraged that Cecil took two days to die.

Not for food but for fun and for trophy

Your only concern is that this poor, misguided man might have been misled

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Aug 15, 2015 12:05 pm

Saint_;1484151 wrote: Yeah, I have a relative who is a big game hunter. To say that it is stressful to be around him is an exaggeration. I see him as a bloodthirsty savage neanderthal without empathy. A twisted man compensating for a lack of self-confidence and an obese, wasting body by slaughtering beautiful wild animals with high powered weapons.

I think a good solution for hunters would be to let them go to Syria and Iraq and tell them, shoot any terrorist you want, but beware, they are equally armed.

But of course, they are too cowardly for that. For bullies, it's only fun to pick on defenseless prey.

So you buy meat wrapped in plastic and all is copacetic.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Sat Aug 15, 2015 12:21 pm

Oh for heaven's sake tude dog, you seem not to have a compassionate bone in your body. I am sorry for you. Animals have the same right as humans to live on this earth and wild animals like those in Africa have so many problems to deal with concerning their environment, weather, drought, and most animals have their predators. Why is it so much 'fun' to destroy such beautiful creatures ? Why does a certain type of person enjoy senseless and cruel killing of living things ? Sport ? :-5 Those people must be sick ! One thing is certain - they make me SICK ! Also people who cannot see the wrong that is done when greedy, selfish, unfeeling people kill living creatures for fun - I despise them all !

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Sat Aug 15, 2015 12:29 pm

tude dog;1484174 wrote: So you buy meat wrapped in plastic and all is copacetic.

This meat, tude dog, is made available for food ! The human being is a omnivorous by nature, so they kill in order to eat. Most normal people, and those with compassion, are disgusted by the killing for purely pleasure purposes. The human being is supposed to be civilised, but I fear that many human beings are a million miles away from being civilised.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sun Aug 16, 2015 4:01 am

G#Gill;1484177 wrote: This meat, tude dog, is made available for food ! The human being is a omnivorous by nature, so they kill in order to eat. Most normal people, and those with compassion, are disgusted by the killing for purely pleasure purposes. The human being is supposed to be civilised, but I fear that many human beings are a million miles away from being civilised.

I agree. It's on something of a par with Romans throwing Christians to the lions; I.E. killing for pleasure. Why tude dog continues to defend the wanton, jaded actions of this obviously overpaid, ego-tripping tooth-puller is beyond me. Maybe he likes being in a minority? To most right-thinking folk, attempting to kill a lion with a bow and arrow is almost certainly not going to result in a 'clean' kill, and this was indeed the case here! The lion suffered for about 2 days before being shot. That's 2 days of agony suffered by one of natures most beautiful and imposing creatures just so this 'needle-dick' dentist can brag about his exploits in the 'Great White Hunters Club'.

I have to be honest and say that I'm glad that most Americans don't feel as you do, tude dog!

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Aug 16, 2015 7:21 am

re: posts 92 & 93

Beautiful responses Gill.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Sun Aug 16, 2015 3:39 pm

Thank you AB ! :yh_wink

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 4:34 pm

I don' mean to pick on you, but AB recommended this post, one of two.

You seem to summarize what a number of people here are trying to say.

G#Gill;1484177 wrote: This meat, tude dog, is made available for food ! The human being is a omnivorous by nature, so they kill in order to eat.

OK, That is rational as far as it goes

G#Gill;1484177 wrote: Most normal people, and those with compassion, are disgusted by the killing for purely pleasure purposes.

Me and most any other hunter would agree.

G#Gill;1484177 wrote: The human being is supposed to be civilised, but I fear that many human beings are a million miles away from being civilised.

So one is more civilized to pay somebody else to raise, slaughter and butcher the meat? Throw it into a plastic bag for profit?

I would maintain that untill one actually salughters an animal for food really has no sense of concepts like compassion.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 4:49 pm

Are you suggesting that until you've killed something, you have no sense of compassion, tude dog? Isn't that a little like killing someone 'in the name of peace'? People don't usually need to kill something in order to feel compassion for it, rather the opposite, surely! If one took your specious argument at face value, it could be argued that until a social worker has killed a vunerable person, they don't truly know the meaning of compassion?

What utter tosh!

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 5:11 pm

Smaug;1484307 wrote: Are you suggesting that until you've killed something, you have no sense of compassion,

No, not at all.

Can you take a chicken, cut its thought, butcher it, cook it and think of it as nothing other than any other you buy in the local grocery store?

Smaug;1484307 wrote: tude dog? Isn't that a little like killing someone 'in the name of peace'? People don't usually need to kill something in order to feel compassion for it, rather the opposite, surely! If one took your specious argument at face value, it could be argued that until a social worker has killed a vunerable person, they don't truly know the meaning of compassion?

What utter tosh!

No, not at all.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 5:22 pm

I would maintain that untill one actually salughters an animal for food really has no sense of concepts like compassion.

That's what you stated, tude dog. If a wasp flies into my house, and I shoo it out WITHOUT killing it, THAT''S compassion (it can't help being a wasp, in the wrong place, at the wrong time). LACK OF COMPASSION would mean just killing it!

Sorry, no swerve room there.

For the record, I have no problems with hunters that EAT WHAT THEY KILL, and avoid the creature enduring unnecessary suffering, to boot.

The OP was about a dentist attempting to kill a Lion in Africa with a bow and arrow. He was never going to eat that (the Lion), was he? What "compassion" did he show? As he transgressed in Africa, it would be appropriate if he served 'time' there.

Or will "Uncle Sam" step in and demand that he be 'punished' in the U.S.?

If they even bother to punish him.