There are few areas of human endeavour more disturbing than so called Sports Hunting - the euphemistic misnomer for the expanding business of Killing for Fun. The destruction of wild and caged animals perpetrated deceitfully as sports by one class of people and allowed for reward by another represents a prodigality and wastefulness which even the lowest savages would find inexcusable.
It is as wrong for a minority of sociopaths to be allowed to openly pursue this deviant blood lust as it is for those agencies rewarded for licensing the kill for fun business. It has no more to do with conservation than licensing pedophiles expensive opportunities in an orphanage would benefit children.
On the surface, at the heart of any ethical and moral consideration governing human conduct, those who kill defenceless animals for no higher purpose than their own amusement, trophy's for vanity and thrill of the kill, are wrong and in the absence of any conscientious epiphany connecting them to humanity, should be stopped in their killing tracks by law.
The most confusing part of this arrangement between man, appetite, ethics, conscience and dominion over the animals is that there is any debate at all.
Consider the photos. The ubiquitous Internet spread photos of Kill-for-fun glorious triumph arising from the need to show off the trophy. Anyone looking at one of these pictures of a fashionably dressed killer, rifle in hand, sporting a broad grin while they lean over the bloodied carcass of a 500 pound Black Mane Lion they have just shot in a cage, cannot fail to be drawn into the ethical position of what is going on.
These pictures offend on two levels. The morality of the subjects - proudly displaying something that is to the reasoned eye akin to watching a rapist show a video of his proud moment - and as they have become so very widely seen by so many, they serve an important role in glamorizing killing. Many who see these pictures without awareness of what is going on - see a proud winner - a beaming, victorious, triumphant mans-man - killing for glory. And the thought that killing is a splendid idea, the behaviour of champions and something worth emulating - takes hold.
The real name for Trophy Hunting is Killing-for-fun and it is a walk of shame for its participants. There is no possible avenue of debate that diminishes the value of life sufficiently to outweigh this reality. It is deviant behaviour giving rise to consequences.
Killing-for-fun is a terminology that leaves no room for confusion in the business of how we consider the moral and ethical issues arising from killing animals. Abattoirs feeding beef into the food chain, farmers killing animals for the community pot, conservationists needing to cull for balance, or survivalists needing to protect the home tent from Grizzly bear attack, all present a case for the killing of animals and all exclude the element of fun. Where there is a trophy involved - where there is no motivation greater than the entertainment element, the thrill of killing - it becomes Killing-For-Fun and it is this practice and this conduct that must be identified in law.
Killing-For-Fun is legal in those Countries where it is most prevalent, and especially in America, not only is killing for fun celebrated as a legitimate sporting activity, it is actively encouraged and promoted to many young people in a manner that reinforces the practice as a traditional right. Almost 5% of Americans kill animals for fun. All Americans who hunt, killing-for-fun, are by definition, ignorant malevolent human turds - like big time hunters Dick Cheney, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin and Ted Nugent. (Turd Nugent?).
After 4 years of legal wrangling over canned hunting of lions in South Africa, on Monday, 29 November, 2010 the Supreme Court of Appeal in South Africa ruled in favour of the lion breeders. Canned hunting continues to be legal in South Africa. I can find no record of any legal challenge to the ANC over any Kill-for-Fun issue.
It is open season in South Africa a country with a long established tradition in legalizing Kill-for-Fun hunting going back to the period shortly after the arrival of the British in 1820. The San peoples, subsistence hunter gatherers known today as the Khomani San, were indigenous to the area. Unaware of the concept of property and theft they found the British farmers produce irresistible and helped themselves. The solution was to reclassify the San as vermin and undertake Kill-for-Fun hunting parties. And so a tradition was born.
Killing-For-Fun is a multi-billion dollar per year industry and like any sinister commercially motivated social arrangement based on the obviously wrong; like the Slave trade, like the Tobacco industry, Killing-For-Fun relies on a propaganda drive to sustain it for as long as possible after the critical mass of popular awareness reaches its tipping point. It starts with the name 'Sport Hunting.' Could anything be less sporting than a high powered telescopically sighted distant bullet felling a sedentary caged animal whose sporting participation is to do no more than die.
That tipping point for this gratuitous killing of animals for fun is now. Those involved in this odious industry will not stop pursuing the growth and expansion of their business model without a change in the law. And that change can only come from you and your voice.
Every man is guilty of the good he did not do. ~ Voltaire
Imagine that you are a human being and that you have a voice and your voice is your vote and your time to vote is now. Either you condone Killing for fun or you don’t. It couldn't be simpler. You can stop the practice of Killing-for-fun with your vote at the next election. You could write to your representative and express your concerns, but really, all you have to do is make a decision. Is it right or wrong that Killing for fun is legal. Is it acceptable that pro killing lobbyists - like role model Olympians - should be allowed to openly promote Killing for fun?
Killing-For-Fun has two main areas of supply and demand. The demand lies mostly in America where children are raised to view hunting animals as a right of passage.
“Johny killed his first bear when he was 11. Took him don clean with a throat shot and then finished him with one to the head.” Little Johny glows with pride as Dad recalls his manly moment to beaming granny, who nods knowingly.
In 2001, in the USA over thirteen million hunters averaged eighteen days hunting, and spent over $20.5 billion on their sport. Thanks to the promotional efforts by celebrity killers of big game like US Olympic athlete Corey Cogdell, this number is growing.
And the richest supply area for this demand is Africa and especially South Africa. Organisations like the sinister ‘Hunting Legends’ who offer their 'outfitting services' to hunt anything that moves and design their website to attract visitors to opportunities like ‘Come hunt the big Five’ or ‘Special offer – Male and Female Lion pair at below market value rates.’
They set a ‘Market Value’ for the life of each species. Obviously the more endangered the item, the higher the price. For the big game hunter - the more endangered the animal is, the better the fun. Imagine the thrill of killing an animal so rare, you might be the last lucky person to pop a cap in that ass.
The providers of the kill-for-fun opportunities in Africa are authorised to kill in this way by Government Authority. In South Africa, one of the leading markets for big game kill for fun opportunity, the ANC Government have taken a view on policy regarding animal conservation and decided not to interfere with the Kill-for-fun market. A business generating hundreds of millions of rands each year, enabling companies like 'Africa Hunt' to advertise - 'The Limpopo Province of South Africa is the premier destination in the World to hunt the Giraffe. Year round, we offer hunts for awesome Trophy Giraffe. There are no seasonal restrictions on hunting the Giraffe in South Africa, which makes it a suitable trophy year round.'
Should your thrill requirements extend to a whole family of Giraffe, just say. For a small surcharge, with thanks to the ANC Government making South Africa the world leader in this fun, you can elect to take the whole family in the same shoot. Mum, dad and baby Gerald, for that little extra zing.
The South African Kill-for-fun operators have been so successful in this market place that the local source of Lions for Lion kill safaris has exhausted supplies to the extent that Lions from European Zoo's are shipped in to boost local business. This includes canned hunting. Where the animals are confined to a fenced in area, making them easy to locate and kill. Essentially - it is a cage where the hunter can safely stay on the outside whilst being guaranteed of finding the prey easily. Often the prey is hand reared and semi-tame. Canned hunting is extremely popular in America, where 'Born Free' estimates more than 1,000 canned hunting operations trade, while nearly 54,000 animals were killed in 2004 in South African canned hunts. The client base of African Hunts is almost entirely from: USA, Britain, Spain, France and Germany.
At this time South Africa's government have no reviews of the kill-for-fun laws. It remains open season. Apply for a concession. Pay the tax and you too can set up a lucrative business selling kill for fun opportunities like Hippo, Crocodile, families of Giraffe, entire Lion Prides, Baboon, every form of Buck, Warthogs, Hyena, Zebra. Even donkeys. It is only a matter of time before some enterprising trader sees the value in offering big dogs to the market. Or is it.
The African Big Dog Hunting safari.
'Come hunt Africa's big five dogs - Alsatian, Doberman, Bull Mastiff, Rottweiler and Great Dane.'
The Wives don't have to be left out. For the ladies we provide light guage shotguns for the mini poodle shoot. They can shoot mini poodles fed in on a conveyer belt, until they have enough of the kill thrill.
The law will not change without voter pressure. Imagine if you cancelled your next South African holiday until the Government outlawed all forms of 'Kill-for Fun' animal slaughter. The ANC enable kill-for-fun. Why not tell your travel agent the reason you are not supporting tourism to South Africa. If the fall off in tourism dollars exceeded the revenues from the sale of kill-for-fun business, the law would change.
Times change and as they change so our relationship with morality shifts, sometimes towards the higher good. Only a few hundred years ago slave traders presented humans at market for good Christian buyers to negotiate their ownership. At that time many would have looked on in horror, disbelieving that conduct so obviously at odds with the notion of acceptable human behaviour existed at all, let alone be allowed to continue. But continue it did, with many voices raised in its defense, all of which had one thing in common. In some way they profited from slavery, be it through cheap cotton picking labour or through domestic help in the kitchen or through Christian Southern Daddy ordering the maid to bend over and submit sexually.
Killing-For-Fun is a lot like slavery, in both the analogy and in practice. Just as arguments were raised in defense of slavery, the pro fun-killing lobby have their various arguments by which they defend their right to continue their tradition. Appropriate in this context, as all English students of Political History will recall, are the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies in the Profumo trial when presented with his fallacious denial. ‘Well he would, wouldn’t he.’
The pro fun-killing lobby argument is based on no more than that. They will say what ever they need to say to fly in the face of what is blindingly obvious. Killing for fun is not only wrong. It is unacceptable in the same way that old men having sex with 9 year old's is unacceptable. Those who practice Killing-For-Fun are not defending some constitutional right, or as is often presented as their justification - supporting conservation. They are killing-for-fun. An offense against nature that normalizes a behavioral pattern that says ‘Killing for fun is OK.’
I wonder if there is any credible argument refuting the connection between America’s world leading position in fielding serial killers hunting humans and the popularity of Killing-For-Fun. I doubt it.
Those suppliers in the commerce in that drives this bloody business interest in Africa, the game farm operators, farmer owners of large tracts who see thrill kill licenses as lucrative revenue generators which they present as a conservation opportunity, and their accomplices in Government, both rely rely on one thing for their business model. Your silence. Or, your unawareness of what it is they are doing that keeps you from having an opinion.
The presentation of the conservation argument - Kill-for-fun benefits conservation efforts - is like the Pedophile orphanage argument. Lets charge Pedophiles to play in the orphanage because it will raise lots of money to help the poor orphans. We could set a market rate. Two years old's at a real premium.
The most successful of Africa's Kill-for-fun operators are connected to Government offices and the amounts involved reflect the popularity of their product in Americas wealthy kill-for-fun market.
Then there’s the growing crop of South African brokers of kill-for-fun opportunity. Groups like Hunting Legends, where, for a fee you can be driven to a safe spot close to where Hippos graze, sight up a hippo through your telescopic scope and blast his brains out before being led to the carcass for a photo opportunity.
Big crocodiles are another popular draw. And for those American clients looking to relive the glories of a good southern lynching, no longer available to a wealthy American gentleman, for an add on fee you can have the next best thing. The South African Rangers will hang your crocodile from a tree for your photo opp. So advanced is this practice that the post kill photo opportunity with the slaughtered animal includes a set of standard positional poses for the carcass. Consider the challenge with a giraffe. Where would you put the neck for maximum photographic effect? Its hard work being a kill-for-fun entrepreneur with the ANC program.
The organisations supposed to be defending the rights of the animals are themselves seemingly as corrupt as Interpol with is former employees relationships with fraud. Spain's WWF Honorary president, until very recently, was King Juan Carlos, a man who at 18 shot his 14 year old brother, Alfonso, in the face and still went on to become a brilliant big game Hunter. His exploits include bringing down 4 year old domestically raised Russian Zoo Bear, Mitrofan, who was fed Vodka and released from his cage into the Forest to provide keen King Carlos with a target. Only after hurting himself on a Hunting trip in Botswana where he was killing elephants did it become untenable for the WWF to pretend that they were anything more than a distraction to those interested in animal protection.
Like the slaves, who had no voice for themselves, and who suffered and died only because a dumbed down majority said nothing, animals die for exactly the same reason today. Kill-for-fun industry can only continue with your approval. If you say no - to the practice and to the people practicing it you will become the voice of those animals. They do not want to be gunned down for fun. And they are not in any way a part of some conservation drive. They are simply victims of an ignorant vanity, into which successive generations are groomed to support the industry arising from the fun to be found in killing. The kill thrill.All you need to do to play your part is to demand an end to Killing-for-Fun. It is not a legitimate sport any more than whipping slaves or raping maidens ever was.
Killing for fun is wrong. It is indefensible on any level and it should be outlawed.
Facebook pics are here. And my song KILL FOR FUN is HERE
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMr Brunotte talks about communing with nature. How can exercising blood lust power over a subject equate with communing with nature?
DeleteI had an unforgettable experience on a solo hike in the Drakensberg. I was descending along a pass. As I rounded a corner and found myself in the middle of a troupe of baboons. They can attack and kill people. I am convinced they let me pass very close by without any incident because I clearly posed no threat. THAT, Mr Brunotte, is communing with nature.
People should see hunting, for what it is: It’s a psychologically perverse activity, even if socially acceptable.
A comparison with slavery is valid. Coming from South Africa I can compare it to apartheid. Good citizens were indoctrinated to think that apartheid was right. Only in 1973 (before the demise of apartheid in the late 1980s) did I see the light.
Any act will appear acceptable or desirable if so painted by people from someone’s social frame of reference. It takes huge courage to disagree. I think hunting amongst good people who practise this barbarity is a case in point.
From a psychological point of view the picture is much darker. Hunting is no different to murder, torture and violent abuse. I know of an elephant of a great age. It was found with several bullets embedded in its skull, including some of old muzzle loaders. The point is that hunters are more than likely not to take down an animal with one shot.
One can describe the psychodynamics this way: Displacement is a psychological defence mechanism in which an unacceptable emotion, like anger, hatred of a person or frustration, is taken out on an object other than the original cause. Kill the animal instead of the wife, or parent or powerful significant person who really caused the problem. Hunting is an extreme case of kicking the dog because the wife yelled at you.
Hunting is a legitimised escapist way of leaving behind a frustrating situation in which a person is powerless, and taking out this violent tendency on a defenceless animal. There are also strong tendencies to rationalise unacceptable behaviour amongst hunters. Doing it because this is the way nature intended is one way of rationalisation.
There are many correspondences between hunting and murder and rape. Both serial killers and modern day hunters need to exercise violent and extreme power over a victim. Both have to stalk their victim. Both keep trophies. Both often offer up some lame reasoning that this is how it should be.
Mr Brunotte, the fact that you effectively equate murder and rape with communing with nature is false logic. Death may be a fact of life. The murderous practice of killing for fun is against any evolved moral code of human value.
Humanity needs food. People don’t eat lion or bear meat.
As for feeding a bear vodka and letting it loose for someone to shoot in a forest – we here in Africa are familiar with this. They do to lions by darting them with tranquilisers before a hunt. It’s called canned lion hunting.
The example of the Kaibab Plateau is also false logic. No doubt hunters had fun killing off the predators of the herbivores. Any idiot would tell you that this would disturb the balance of nature. Conservation is not about preserving one specie at the cost of another. Nature is in continuous flux. Man must butt out.
This brings me to poaching. In South Africa this year, more rhinos have been killed than any year to date. What makes professional hunting different from poaching? In my opinion the only difference is socially defined. Professional hunting is legal. Poaching is not. The end result is the same. They are both as immoral as unprotected sex with a syphilitic whore.
Perhaps a solution lies in the possibility of matching hunters against poachers. I’m sure they will be able to muster enough mutual hatred. At least it’s human against human. I wouldn’t give the hunters much of a chance since they’re not used to animals shooting back. Law enforcement agencies should take care of this.
Well said! Shared.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately the previous post with its ad hominem undertone and its cut and paste pro hunting agenda was removed.
ReplyDeleteThe pro hunting lobby, like Israel, use google alert to search keywords - and then reply with 'cut and paste' bollocks arguments whose purpose is no more than to 'baffle with bullshit.
This particular writer didn't even read my blog, his cut and paste arguments having no connection to my piece. One good thing to come out if it though is Henri's wonderful insight, which the pro-killing for fun author would do well to consider.
"Professional hunting is legal. Poaching is not. The end result is the same. They are both as immoral as unprotected sex with a syphilitic whore."
And that is really an entirely appropriate metaphor for his sorry argument - being as sensible as deliberate penile visitation to certain syphilis. An analogy which works equally well in considering his ethical and moral position.
I think deleting his comment was correct. There is no upside to engaging with lovers and spreaders of this ethical syphilis.
Andrew, in the past I have hunted as sport. ALL the game that I killed was eaten by me, including bear which you wrongly asserted wasn't eaten. I hunted deer, elk, moose, bear and various game birds. It's true that I didn't need to hunt to eat, but I also don't need to eat at restaurants that list venison that is domestic on the menu. That is no different than eating any meat, and I'm not quite ready to become a vegan just yet. I don't however condemn people who "Trophy hunt" as immoral when it is done for conservation purposes. That is determined by the game keepers and conservationists though, not by the hunter who takes advantage of the opportunity nor by animal rights activists. The determination is governed by sustainable habitat for the species to be hunted. It's just a fact of life that we humans are continually encroaching on that habitat and that's not going to change. If direly deficient funds for the management of wildlife can be augmented by selling permits/licenses, then I'm not against it nor will I make a moral judgement of the hunter who buys the licenses and does the hunting. I'm not "anonymous", I'm Robert Plymale on Facebook... just not a category other than anonymous to post under.
DeleteRobert, where did I 'assert that Bear meat wasn't eaten.' I think you are as wrong there as in your cheerful view of trophy hunting. My interest in killing animals is very different to yours, but then are are from two very different cultures.
DeleteAndrew. Thanks for your Blog. - Bear meat wasn’t eaten here.
Deletehttp://hunting.nolitz.com/brown-bear-bow-hunt/
Martin Baillie
You got the annalogy wrong. poaching is like raping a 6 year old while trophy hintiong is like making love to your wife - legal and fun and very personal!
DeleteLegal sex withing marriage is no one else's business. You have no business telling consenting adult what they can an cannot do with their sex life.
Similarly you have no moral right to spread hate messages aginst people who hunt legally and help conservationists in maintaining a balance between the habitat and the sustainable wildlife population.
When you spead hate speach you are as guilty of the poachers.
Dear anonymous - who I shall call Horse Manure for obvious reasons. Your spelling is your signature and your reply to this idiotic comment is incorporated in the reply to your similarly idiotic comment further down the page. Spelling school is more urgent now than ever. Do not put off till tomorrow what so clearly needs doing today.
DeleteHear, hear. Splendidly reasoned theses, both.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant blog and some great responses. Nothing to add.
ReplyDeleteNice post Andrew!
ReplyDeletethank you so much for writing this article. Trophy hunting should be stopped worldwide, and the people like Corey Cordell who so shamelesly promote it should be brought to justice for their awfull deeds.
ReplyDeleteAgree. There should be immediate legislation worldwide to end this practice. The deceit that they are 'conservationist' is about as plausible as the Virgin birth. They are molesters of nature and killers for profit and allowing them to carry on unchallenged diminishes us all.
DeleteKilling for fun, there is a word for that: sadism. Plain and simple. Those people are sociopaths.
ReplyDeleteWhether I like it or not, I have absolutely no argument with any subsistence/sustenance hunters whose hunting approach is akin to the native American Red Indians, in which as a race and creed of people, I have always had great respect and admiration for with the way they integrated themselves with nature.
ReplyDeleteSubsistence hunting includes the ones that refuse to eat the cruelty produced and additive laden meat of the intensive livestock farming that is still practiced in certain countries, i.e. USA. - Where it crosses the line with me personally, is when the “hunters” take these all so familiar mock-in-death gloat photos poses and/or use any part of the dead animal for display purposes. Also, taking into account of the “possible” environmental issues regarding the “discarded” lead of the bullet tips, any "subsistence" hunters that chooses to use the compound-pulley bow against a rifle, as a quick kill implement, has also crossed the line with me and then will only consider them as trophy/novelty hunters *and* not subsistence/sustenance hunters.
Likewise, “sensitivity and respectable dignified” selective subsistence hunting/culling actions, permitted only by the properly trained and licensed wildlife rangers, when deemed ‘necessary’ in connection with wildlife management, as mans role of being unelected caretakers to this world, - same as we only have now within this particular country, I can’t also be against.
Hunters of which their primary objective is to seek the thrill-killing of the animal - solely to satisfy their amusement with death, - which includes anyone of whom leaves their “backyard” i.e. USA to Africa, under the gull of conservation and/or feed the poor and/or it help the local economy, has no place on Planet Earth, as this is nothing more than sadistic and barbarous acts towards defenceless and innocent animals.
Animals have not been placed here as human playthings, - so therefore should not be treated as such…
Martin Baillie aka anonymous, as option only available to post.
ek hoop jy gaan dit eet doos
ReplyDeleteBritz Schalk.
Not sure what that means but thanks anyhow Britz.
DeleteThe idea that "animals are here to be eaten" is as immoral as "black people are here to be slaves." In the civil war, half the country went to war to defend the "right" to own slaves. It was shameless evil, and they said, "God's on our side."
ReplyDeleteAnd why not? The only mention of slavery in the 10 commandments orders,"don't covet another man's slaves," or something to that effect.
The poor animals can't plead for their lives. All decisions regrading wildlife in the USA are made by hunters with the interest of hunters. Hunters are a wretched lot.
Absolutely right. A wretched, embittered, angry and defensive lot with remarkable similarities to their slave owning forebears.
DeleteTotal agreement. Hunters are a wretched lot.
ReplyDeleteWhat a load of horse manure. This just hate speach against legal ethical hunters.
ReplyDeleteUnder aparthied the indegenous people were killed for fun! Where were you then?
All lion hunting conservancies / concessions in Zim, tanz, Zambia etc. are pattrolled by the hunting conession leasees and not by the game park depts! It is hunters who pay most of the money towards lion conservation and most conservation of hunting areas!
You ban hunting and you will lose all the top animals like kenya did. From being the best place on earth for big game, Enya is now behind Zim!
Zambia will follow now along with botswana as criminal syndicates from Asia will strengthen links with corrupt politicians and officals to rape and pillage elephants, rhino & lions!
You can then take credit for that!
Dear anonymous, who I refer to as Horse Manure for obvious reasons.
DeleteYour argument is as vacuous as your spelling skills and your ignorant assumption consistent with both. I will suggest in all certainty that where I was during apartheid is a similar to position as now, the exact opposite side of the fence to yourself and your like-minded animal fun killers. For the same reason you are probably unaware that similar killings of impoverished South Africans, Indegenous people as you call them,(Although I suspect you mean indigenous) goes on to this day and from the pictures of these killers seen on the recent Lonmin Police footage I expect there is a high likelihood that the happy Afrikaans gunman there looks a lot like you. An assumption with far greater probability of being right than the one you make of me.
That fat fun killer on the Lonmin video probably shares the same weakness in spelling, logic and ability to understand the ethical difference between someone who loves to kill for fun and someone who objects to that interest, as you do. Certainly the stereotype of people in your position follows a clear behavioral, intellectual and ethical format, to which you conform impeccably.
I suggest time spent raising your spelling literacy to the level of a ten year old would be time much better spent than trying to wrestle with complex legal arguments such as hate speech, or even, the irony that a pro-fun-killing lobbyist would use the term 'legal ethical hunters' and accuse opponents of fun-thrill-kill sports hunting of hate speech without even knowing how to spell the word.
Or to put it in terms more appropriate to your writing age:
You sir, are an idiot.