“Dude, you fucking shot my dog, what the hell!!?”
“Your dog? Well, it wasn’t in your yard.”
“That’s because you lured her into the street with a steak you bastard.”
“Well, you should have a way to keep your dog in your yard then.”
“I have a fucking fence, you opened the damn gate and waved a steak around yelling ‘here girl, come get the nice steak’ then you shot her when she started to eat the steak.”
“Well, I didn’t know it was your dog.”
Yeah, I know. Sounds unlikely, doesn’t it? To make it realistic I guess it would have to be a friendly lion named Cecil and instead of a yard a national park, and instead of the shooter luring the animal outside of the safe zone, it would be a hunting guide.
There. Sounds more realistic now, but just as disgusting. From ThinkProgress:
Palmer took an unsporting and incompetent approach to Cecil, according to reports. The dentist and his guides reportedly used bait to lure the animal out of the park land where it would have been illegal to shoot him and used a spotlight to illuminate Palmer’s shot.
So, in case you haven’t heard this story yet, this American dentist by the name of Walter Palmer*, who seems to make a habit out of paying large sums of money to kill beautiful animals to make up for his micropenis**, once again paid a large sum of cash in order to kill a lion in the vain hope that the lion’s death would cause his micropenis** to pass the 2cm benchmark. Wait, wait, hold on there! There are two details that set this apart from your average, everyday story about a micropenised** American paying large amounts of money to kill exotic and/or endangered animals in order to get a real, live, non-Real Doll woman to swoon over his manliness and just maybe touch him**. First off, the exceedingly ethical guides he paid lured a well-loved celebrity lion out of a national park to his death. And secondly, as if this can get more disgusting, apparently Walter Palmer’s micropenis is so damn small** that, like Ted Nugent, using a gun is not manly enough for him.
Hunting ethics revolve around swift killshots that do not cause suffering. Cecil was still alive more than a day and a half after Palmer’s initial, well-lit bow-and-arrow shot failed to kill. (Bolding is mine.)
Some justice will hopefully be served in this case:
Two men will face charges in a Zimbabwe courtroom on Wednesday that they took bribes from an American dentist to guide him on an illegal hunt of a beloved local lion.
Walter Palmer and his micropenis** however, will seemingly get off with nothing but a trashed Yelp page and immense internet backlash.
While Cecil the lion spent a day and a half in agony before his death, all so the dentist Walter Palmer could feel a bit better about his micropenis**, that unfortunately is not the end to the lion death caused by his bow. From the Telegraph:
Dr Andrew Loveridge, one of the principal researchers on the project, told the publication that Cecil and another male lion named Jericho led two prides with six lionesses and a dozen young cubs, and he feared for the safety of the cubs now Cecil had been killed.
“Jericho as a single male will be unable to defend the two prides and cubs from new males that invade the territory. This is what we most often see happening in these cases. Infanticide is the most likely outcome,” he said.
Walter Palmer of course claims complete innocence in the matter. After all, he’s just a real American dentist who only gets to feel like a man when he uses a bow and arrow to kill magnificent animals due to his world record micropenis**. However, since this is not the first time he’s run afoul of the law, I would take his pleas with a few grains of salt.
Mr Palmer has also run into legal woes. In 2008, court records show, he pleaded guilty to making a false statement to federal wildlife officials concerning the exact location of the slaying of a black bear during a guided hunt in Wisconsin. He was sentenced to a year probation.
Now I want to be completely crystal clear on some things here. First off, I just ate a rather large, rare steak. I understand the ethical arguments for vegetarianism, have spent a year in the past as a vegetarian, and in a perfect world, would more than likely not eat meat. Its not a perfect world, I’m not perfect, and due to that, I’m not going to be a hypocrite and make the “killing any animal is always wrong” argument. Next off, as I’ve stated several times on this blog in several different posts, while I personally could never kill an animal, I am not against hunting. I come from Pennsyltucky, where the first day of deer season is literally a school holiday. If I would have been born 10 years earlier, my father probably would have taken me hunting as a kid. As it turned out, his mobility was heading downhill by the time of my birth and I avoided that father/son bonding process. As a backpacker/hiker, license fees for hunting are used to conserve quite a bit of land that I use fairly often. I understand the conservation arguments in favor of hunting, as I am aware of arguments against hunting. I’ll be honest; I do not have an informed opinion on the matter. I really do not know enough of the evidence for each side, and I already spend quite a bit of time making sure I am informed on the issues I really care about. This is exactly what I was saying earlier this week: we may have a right to them, but our ignorant opinions do not deserve respect, and I’m not about to take a strong stand on an issue I am effectively ignorant on. And if I was to quit eating meat and become an activist for animal rights, there are many issues I would place ahead of putting a stop to hunting; things like factory farms, the horrible conditions in slaughterhouses, raising cattle when the feed could be used to feed many more humans than the beef can, and the amount of methane produced by cattle farming, to name but a few. I just want to be clear where I am coming from here. I am not an anti-hunting absolutist, nor an animal rights extremist.
I am even aware that there are legitimate arguments for allowing men from America (and elsewhere, I guess) who have a large enough bankroll and small enough penis** to kill big game from Africa. Perhaps someday American billionaires will get sick of running their own personal Presidential candidate (or perhaps Citizens United will be overturned) and they will instead use their money to fund wildlife conservation. (Quit laughing. It could happen!) Until that, more than likely, imaginary day, the conservation money has to come from somewhere. (And once again, I am too ignorant on the issue to really hold an informed opinion, but in this instance I will admit that I lean on the side where no white rhinos get shot by micropenised** Americans.)
But this isn’t even hunting. This was an execution. Or, as ThinkProgress says (and all bolding is mine, as always):
Hunting ethics revolve around swift killshots that do not cause suffering. Cecil was still alive more than a day and a half after Palmer’s initial, well-lit bow-and-arrow shot failed to kill.
“I think it’s an abomination, for a number of reasons,” lifelong hunter, journalist, and author Jonny Miles told ThinkProgress. “On the specifics of the hunt, with baiting, with using lights, and also killing a lion that has a pride – all of it just adds up to an incredibly unethical, unscrupulous way of going about this.”
Hunters pride themselves on having the patience and skill to fell an animal immediately with a single shot. “An ethical hunter is one who seeks out the best possible shot that results in the quickest possible kill,” Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) public relations director Mark Holyoak told ThinkProgress. Holyoak wouldn’t discuss the reports about Palmer’s hunt, but stressed the more general importance of being swift and sure.
Attempting a shot that’s beyond your own skill level is abhorrent to many, because it puts the personal glory of a long-range kill over the imperative to honor your prey by adhering to the principles of “fair chase.” The reported details of Palmer’s hunt do not match those principles.
“This is much closer to assassination than hunting,” Miles said, adding that a bad shot is “the most traumatic thing that can happen in a hunt.” For him and many other hunters, it’s imperative to eat what you kill. Antlers make a nice trophy, but “the trophy aspect is subordinate to the experience, to the knowledge required and the knowledge gained, to the very ancient relationship that you are experiencing with an animal that you are hunting for food.”
“Hunting shouldn’t be about ego,” he said. “It should be the opposite. It should be about awe at the natural world.”
Note that these are not the words of anti-hunting activists. They are the words of active hunters.
My advice to Walter Palmer? Call or write Dan Savage. Not all women care about size, and many men with a micropenis** can have fulfilling sex lives. Tell him your fears and insecurities, and I am sure he will assure you that you do not have to slaughter these animals to prove your manhood. If you really must kill something, may I suggest harvesting deer and donating the venison to someone or someplace in need rather than executing and decapitating a magnificent animal for a trophy?
And if any other dentists practice with you, do them a favor and tell them to get their own Yelp page. Cause yours is forever screwed.
* Good luck getting this page to load. It is his introduction page from his dental practice’s web site, in case you were wondering, and no, it won’t come up for me either.
** allegedly/alleged. Well, not for Ted Nugent, his micropenis is common knowledge***.
*** Thank you, Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell