They hunted and killed a baby elephant!

Explain the difference between animals being hunted and killed, and animals being killed in an industrial setting for mass marketing.

 

And yet it is the truth. Animals are killed by other animals every single day, be it for matters relating to hunger, perceived territorial disputes, or for mating purposes. This incident is no different.

 

Pointing out that one does not qualify as being a baby simply for not being eighteen years old, is not the same thing as blaming the victim of a perceived attack.

 

It’s the same.

 

I will have to disagree, killing animals for sport is not the same at all

 

one is being killed for sport, the other is being killed for food

 

The overwhelming majority of animals hunted are eaten by humans.

And look at it this way. You don’t need that steak. You could survive without it. It’s your selfish desire for it that led to the murder of a steer same as a selfish desire of a trophy hunter leads to the death of an elephant.

 

Why does such an arbitrary difference ultimately matter, when the end result is death regardless? Whichever course is taken, the animal is going to die and be consumed, so attempting to differentiate between the two standards is nothing more than a meaningless, useless effort at attempting to appeal to emotion and suggest there is some sort of moral high ground to take that will allow individuals to believe that they are somehow better than others.

 

The tusks grow almost immediately and start protruding at the age of between two to three years. Their rate of growth is steady and on average increase by 15 to 18 centimeters every year. Tusks are solid; a third of the tusk is immersed in the mouth with a good fraction being covered by pulp.


These animals are harvested by the local people.
The hunter saves his favorite parts.

 

The myth perpetrated by hunting companies is that hunted and killed animals are given to the local people. Just like the myth that only the old or sick animals are hunted by trophy hunters or the myth that the hunting companies give money towards conservation.

The milk teeth/tusks fall out at about one year old and new teeth/tusks start growing immediately after the milk tusks fall out.

ps your source uniquehunting.com is an unsafe web site

 

I see you never hunted, nor know anything about it.

 

If I were to travel to the deepest black jungles of Africa and hunt down an elephant, my rifle of choice would be the Winchester pre-64 Mod. 70 chambered for the big scary looking .416 Remington Mag.


.416 Remington Magnum and a .30-06 Springfield


The Winchester Model 70 Safari Express features Winchester’s field-proven pre ’64 full-length claw extractor, (Mauser action) which makes it an attractive option for advocates of the controlled round feeding for dangerous-game rifles. Photo Courtesy: Winchester

The Winchester Model 70 Safari Express. The Rifleman’s Rifle is right at home on the dark continent, especially in this configuration. Using the classic pre-’64 controlled round feed action, the Safari Express has what it takes to get the job done. As a matter of fact, there have been a couple of safaris where the only rifle I brought along was a Winchester 70 Safari Express in .416 Remington, a very flexible cartridge that can handle anything on earth. A matte finish on both the metal and stock, dual crossbolts — important to prevent stock cracks — and all-steel hinged floorplate are all nice appointments.

A recessed crown, perfect for maintaining accuracy, and two recoil lugs (both bedded), classic Winchester three-position safety and a 1-inch Pachmayr Decelerator recoil pad round out the list of very useful features. The Safari Express wears a good set of iron sights, with the single rear sight being fully adjustable for windage and elevation, yet is stocked for use with optics as well. A barrel-band sling swivel mount will prevent that front stud from slamming into your off hand under heavy recoil. My own rifle, one of the late New Haven models, uses a set of quick release mounts, so I can easily and quickly remove the scope, should I be forced a follow-up shot on a wounded dangerous animal into the thick bush. My rifle is still very accurate — printing just under 1-MOA with my hand loaded ammo. And I’d take that rifle for any hunt, including elephant. Weight, before optics, runs right around an even 9 pounds, and these rifles balance and carry very well. The Safari Express is available in .375 H&H Magnum, .416 Remington Magnum and .458 Winchester Magnum, all at an MSRP of $1,560.

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/affordable-dangerous-game-rifles-roundup/

 

Almost all wild animals avoid humans if they can, it has been bred into their basic instincts over thousands of years. They regard us with what one writer (Daniel P. Mannix) calls "superstitious dread" or what would be that feeling in a human. Animals do become less afraid of humans over time and those animals that have become commensal, like rats and deer, fear us almost not at all. Wolves, however, are not commensal or likely to become so as a species anytime soon.

A source of some confusion here comes about because Wolves, feral and timid, are the same species (though not variety) as dogs, who are very domesticated and aggressive and they often form admixtures in any areas where the two have extensive contact over time.

 

I may be chicken but I think I would go with the 458.
If I was brave I would use the 338.

 

Thank you, I now feel completely prepared to deal with Old Tembo should I ever find him in bad temper and my backyard at the same time

 

They think that the size of their "weapons" makes them tough and brave

 

The one killed for sport also uses the food.

 

NO, actually you want a clean kill, with one shot.

 

Here is the way to go if you have deep pockets.
460 Weatherby Magnum

 

Strange. I see your reply has nothing to do with my post:

The myth perpetrated by hunting companies is that hunted and killed animals are given to the local people.

Just like the myth that only the old or sick animals are hunted by trophy hunters - This thread

or the myth that the hunting companies give money towards conservation - http://www.cfuzim.org/index.php/new...er-denies-damaging-claims-of-illegal-activity

 

There is a certain fascination with big guns that has nothing to do with ammosexuality. I've read the old hunting stories based on "Nitro Express" weaponry, Holland and Holland doubles, lovingly described, and it is hard to deny the thrill of tales where the hunter drops a charging rhino only feet in front of him

The reality, however, is that the majority of animals are still poached, and poachers have this tendency to use cheap surplus weaponry, relying on several shots to kill the poor creature in pain and over time. Legitimate hunters are not poachers, no, but the cheap tawdriness of the one cannot help but taint the other

 

Sorry, The locals will fight for the salvage rights.
They do not just take the trophy parts and let the animal rot.
Wonton waste is a serious crime in most places.
They even salvage car accidents with moose and deer.

You'll get jail time in Alaska.

 

Poaching is an entirely different thing and illegal.
Poachers don't care about anything but the trophy they are after.

 

I’ve tried to facilitate thought in this thread by asking absurd and rhetorical questions. I’ve attempted to encourage people to use their heads as well as their hearts.

Now I’m going to try another way.

I’m weary of the mocking and derision of hunters by anyone who eats meat or enjoys a bowl of orange jello.

Who’s the coward? The guy who hunts, who is man (or woman) enough to do their own killing? Or the ones who want to be insulated from the ugliness of their own selfish desires?

Anyone who mocks a hunter and uses any animal products derived from the death of an animal is a raging hypocrite. They hide in their warm house, content to pay people like me to care for the animals they want to consume. They don’t want to drag that half frozen calf out of the snow and dry it’s ears so they don’t freeze off. They don’t want to be involved in the bloody veterinary procedures sometimes necessary to save an animal. They don’t want to be responsible for having to look into the eyes of an animal with a broken leg begging for help. They certainly don’t want to be the one who has to pull the trigger on that gun that “makes us tough and brave” when the poor beast is beyond help.

No. They just want to eat their steak, burger, or nuggets, oblivious to the realities of life and death. Then they want to write drivel on a forum about how morally superior they are, hiring their killing, too pathetic to do it themselves.

As much as I viscerally hate PETA at least they are intellectually honest. This garbage about hunting being unethical from meat and jello eaters isn’t. If this is an ethical or moral issue for you, man up and cut animal products from your life or leave hunters alone. You can’t have it both ways. Your selfish desires don’t trump someone else’s.

 

most of the time not, the rich just kill it for sport