For The Thrill, Or For Food?

[Solitary]

In a disgusting interview, NRA lobbyist Tony Makris defended shooting an elephant in the face and derided critics who called for the cancellation of the NRA sponsored Under Wild Skies.


While on a hunting trip in Botswana, South Africa, Makris shot an elephant in the face for the cameras and then celebrated the act by drinking Champagne.

During an interview on Thursday with NRA talk show host Cam Edwards, Makris branded animal rights activists as the lunatic fringe and explained his reasons for killing the beast. "The short answer is because hungry people eat them and because I'm a hunter. You know, I'm not an elephant hunter. I'm a hunter. I hunt all things. And they go, 'They're so big and kind and gentle and smart.' And I say, 'Okay, let me ask you a question. Should I be able to shoot birds? Well, I guess that's okay. Ducks? Yeah. Pigeons? Oh, they're flying rats, okay. Rabbits? Well, rabbits are cute. But yeah. Squirrels? That's nothing but rat with a tail – a fuzzy tail. And I said 'Well deer eat all my mother's roses in Long Island, so I can shoot all of those but not an elephant?"

He went on to proclaim that activists defending elephant rights were espousing "a very unique form of animal racism."

Responding to the argument (that I believe he only came up with to illustrate just how stupid he considers those activists to be) "But they're so big and special and they're smarter," he couldn't resist saying "You know, Hitler would have said the same thing."

Well, how about this argument, you trigger happy bonehead. You didn't kill that animal for food and you didn't kill it because it was a pest. You killed it just to kill it, and there is something intrinsically wrong with someone who would do such a thing and then toast the act with a glass of bubbly.

I couldn't agree more! I used to hunt and realized it was the thrill of the kill I had been taught because the first time I did I was told to hate the thing I killed, because it was beautiful I couldn't do it. I just wish hunters would admit that is the reason they like it. My brother-in-law argued with me that he only hunts for food, when I was leaving his house I noticed a feather sticking out of his garbage can---there were five dead ducks in the garbage---I brought him outside and asked him if he was going to eat them.  :shock:    Solitary

[Eric1958]

I shot a squirrel once, but have never hunted. Kind of an oddity up here, but my father never hunted either. I'd rather watch the moose eat my garden than go out and cut him up for the freezer.

[Plu]

I wonder how many people he got together to cut the elephant up, preserve the meat, cure the hide, and otherwise make use of it.

I'm guessing the answer is a very round "0" and he's just full of shit.

[billhilly]

You'd be surprised.  They more than likely cut the elephant up and didn't waste anything.  The dude that shot it just took whatever 'trophy' he wanted but the native folks orchestrating the hunt got the rest of the animal not to mention the huge money involved in a hunt like that.  

I don't really hunt anymore either but it's not all down side.  A lot of the money for maintaining these animals in the wild comes from hunters.  It costs a fortune to hunt elephant and other exotic animals.  A lot of hunters are conservationists and hate poachers with a passion.

[Plu]

If they completely scavenged the animal and it isn't endangered, I don't really see the problem either.

It just leaves the personal distaste for people who revel in the fact that they've murdered something in a totally unfair fight, but that's just a personal dislike, nothing more.

[Solitary]

:-k It can be rationalized all one wants, but the fact is that hunters love to kill. Trophy---take a picture, like to hunt--- take a camera---want to cull the herd use the money for guns, license to hunt (kill), and safaris--- to feed people buy food for them and to create wildlife habitats. That leaves two reasons left to hunt---the thrill of taking a life or protect from man eating animals.    Solitary

[billhilly]

There's a game management reason as well.  I'm sure it doesn't come into play much with elephants and such but in the US, there would be some problems managing deer in a lot of places without hunting.  Getting run over on the highway or diseased from over population is preferable to being shot by a hunter?  There aren't many predators left and a lot of scientists spend a lot of time figuring out how to manage these populations.  Hunting is an important part of the management in some areas.  There are even hunters paid by the government to help manage game populations.  You're not against science are ya?

[Solitary]

There's a game management reason as well.  I'm sure it doesn't come into play much with elephants and such but in the US, there would be some problems managing deer in a lot of places without hunting.  Getting run over on the highway or diseased from over population is preferable to being shot by a hunter?  There aren't many predators left and a lot of scientists spend a lot of time figuring out how to manage these populations.  Hunting is an important part of the management in some areas.  There are even hunters paid by the government to help manage game populations.  You're not against science are ya?

Science? There are soldiers paid by the government to invade other countries and kill too for good reasons. But that is not what my post is about. It's about hunters not willing to admit they like to kill. And why aren't there many predators left? We have game preserves, why not for deer? If hunting prevents starvation and disease why not hunt people too? Now that has got to be the ultimate hunt and thrill. Back to square one---hunters get a thrill out of killing. I've heard every excuse for hunting and I'm not impressed by the rationalizations' for they don't like to kill. Solitary

[billhilly]

Yes, science.  People get degrees and study the subject of managing animals.  Who'd have thought right?  
   
I'm not making an argument about whether or not hunters like to kill.  Feelings are irrelevant to managing deer.  There are preserves for deer but the vast majority of deer live outside game preserves.  Should they all be eradicated so you don't have to feel bad about some hunter shooting them.  I get that it's an emotional thing for you but where do you draw your line?  Is it ok to manage populations of any animals?  Mice?  Mosquitoes?

[LikelyToBreak]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is implicated in a breaking scandal, pushing for government funding of the Chinese green energy company ENN Mojave Energy LLC, which is apparently represented by his son. Earlier, Reid was involved in a land swindle that saw him make a reported $700,000. - See Las Vegas Review-Journal, August 3, 2012 and Media Matters, October 18, 2006

Harry Reid is a Democrat.  Harry Reid was caught using his position to enrich himself.  Therefore, all Democrats use their positions in government to enrich themselves.  

One hunter did something which others didn't like.  Therefore, all hunters are crazy wacko killers.  There is no need to investigate any further, one hunter did something which may be morally wrong in some people's minds, therefore it is only morally right to condemn all hunters.  After all, we know what is going through their minds better than they do.

[Jason78]

Serial killers usually start off killing and torturing small animals before working their way up to larger and more dangerous game.

[LikelyToBreak]

Jason78 wrote:

Serial killers usually start off killing and torturing small animals before working their way up to larger and more dangerous game.

I respectfully disagree.  They start off torturing and killing small animals.  Doesn't make any sense trying to do it the other way around.

[Colanth]

Makris said one thing that's correct - on Long Island, almost all over, deer are currently pests.  They're indigenous to the island, and we've paved over most of it, leaving them nowhere to go but our gardens.

And I do have to admit that venison is a good meat.

And herd management is needed in many places in the US.

But killing an animal just for killing?  Or for a trophy?  I hunted deer as a kid, but the head was considered food, not something to hang on a wall.  (If you wanted antlers you waited until the bucks shed them, then picked them up off the ground.)  We seen to have a natural urge to hunt - we come from a very long line of hunters - but our ancestors hunted for food or defense, not to decorate their caves.

[Jason78]

Jason78 wrote:

Serial killers usually start off killing and torturing small animals before working their way up to larger and more dangerous game.

I respectfully disagree.  They start off torturing and killing small animals.  Doesn't make any sense trying to do it the other way around.

I wasn't trying to suggest a specific chronological order.  If I had, I would have phrased it slightly differently.  Had I said "Serial killers usually start off killing and then torturing small animals", you might have had a point.

[LikelyToBreak]

Jason78, I'm not sure you got my point.  A good hunter strives for a clean kill.  Meaning they try to avoid making the animal suffer.  Did you ever see the movie "The Deerhunter?" One shot the deer takes one step and drops dead.  Generally, a hunter aims for the heart because if they miss a little the lungs are taken out.  Ideally they hit the heart which results in a quicker death than the lungs, but taking out the lungs results in a fairly quick death.

The other alternative, used because the animal is facing towards the hunter, is a brain shot.  Generally avoided because a slight miss can just give the animal a bad headache.  So, when someone shoots an animal "in the face" he is going for a brain shot so the animal dies as quickly as possible.

Obviously, if you want to portray the hunter as a savage want-to-be serial killer, you don't say he killed the animal quickly and cleanly with a brain shot.  You say he shot the animal in his face.  Sounds more brutal, helping to make your point that all hunters just want to torture animals.  Of course, to those who know anything about hunting, someone saying such a thing merely exposes the person's prejudice against hunters.

Had Tony Makris tortured the animal, I would be as outraged as the anti-hunter who wrote the article.  But, as he went for clean quick kill, I have no problem with it.  Elephants in Africa make the damage deer do in Long Island look like nothing.  The locals probably love it when some stupid white man pays big money to shoot the animal tearing up their fields and eating the food for their cattle.  That and you get most of the meat from the elephant too.  Sweet deal!