You have serious perception issues.
I'm curious about your current medications. Could you share that with us?
OT: Killing Cecil the Lion
- Thread starter RUSK97
- Start date
You have serious perception issues.
I'm curious about your current medications. Could you share that with us?
Generic Allegra
My perception is that we don't know the whole story. That what this guy did may or may not have been legal. That everyone is jumping to conclusions. If is was legal than who cares. If he broke a law then he need to face the music.
I'm not emotionally attached to wild animals as much as I am people or my pets. They are nice but eventually they will die/be eaten.
Do you have a different perception?
Do you think the scenarios I described are different? Both are exploiting animals nature.
My perception is that you're taking this thread very personally for some reason. The level of anger and hostility seems uncalled for.
I don't think anyone is here to debate The Circle of Life. The overall takeaway seems to be that there was no compelling reason to have killed this particular animal.
I get what you're saying - I, myself, am not a fan of all the popular Sarah MacLaughlin-esque whining about polar bears. The reality is that they're nothing but brown bears that have adapted different coloration to conform to a habitat that is historically impermanent. But lions have an appeal that resonates pretty strongly with a lot of people. They evoke strong emotion. The outcry, then, isn't surprising - especially in the Twitter age.
You know what, 4Real, you are right. Thanks for calling me out on it. Just gets under my skin. Lots of crazy stuff going on in the world and this is what gets people going? Well have a good evening.
Does that mean we won't hear any more about your outrage at the outrage? That's too bad; I found it quite entertaining.
The so called man who murdered a lion is a coward and he is scared to answer for his crimes. He is owed a trial in the country he committed his crime. For those who think this is overblown I laugh. Your argument is a red herring.
A
anon_ivydyf0amkzay
Guest
I wonder if this lion didn't have a name that "humanized" him...kinda like tropical cyclones, would this have even made it past a local event...we humans are pretty peculiar creatures especially in our ability to anthropomorphize. I don't think that late night person would have been choking back manufactured tears. Fascinating psychology!
Actually I was one of the few people who did not hunt, and I took a lot of kidding about it.
Sorry if I am exposing your supposed expertise on hunting as being something else.There are many topics where I defer to those who are more knowledgeable, but one thing I do know is the hunting culture. If throwing more disparaging remarks my way makes you feel better, have at it.
Ask any deer hunter that froze his butt off on a stand. That is the way deer hunting typically works. And hunting is just like everything else. there is not a clear demarcation line between the "slob-hunter" and the "honorable" hunter. According to my religious beliefs, we are all imperfect, but to different degrees and in different ways. But some people are clearly doing their best to be ethical, and some are clearly doing their best to ignore ethics.
Hunters are no different. There are few pure idealists who go out alone and stalk the animals for the challenge of the chase. There are few that will do anything to get the deer. Most fall in the great gray middle. If you are part of this culture, the talk is mainly about whether you got "your deer" or not - not about how ethical you were. There is a tendency though for the "slob-hunters" to brag about how they cheated. That is just the way it is. So the real slob-hunters are usually pretty easy to identify.
As an aside, polar bears are not the same species as brown bears, and they have completely different habits. Maybe the poster who said that was talking evolutionarily, but I want to make sure readers don't misinterpret it.
Polar bears and brown bears are classified as different species, however polar bears evolved from brown bears approximately 100,000 years ago during the last ice age.
On the evolutionary time scale, 100,000 years is an eye blink.
Brown bears and polar bears can (and do) mate and produce fertile hybrid offspring. Their mitochondrial DNA is extremely similar. Specifically, it is believed that polar bears evolved from Alaskan brown bears and gained their existing coloration and habituation as a means of adapting to their environment.
Never knew this. With all the stuff you learn here, there should be college credit for being a member of the boards.
It happen further back in time:
Brown bears—some of which are called grizzlies—and polar bears are closely related and are even able to interbreed. In the past few years, researchers have used genetic information to sort out this relationship and to understand how polar bears thrive in the frigid Arctic, feeding primarily on seals and other marine life captured from holes in the ice. This work has included sequencing the animals’ genomes, which has indicated that polar bears are truly a distinct species that at times lived apart from brown bears and at times intermingled and interbred with them.
In the latest sequencing effort, Willerslev and researchers from Denmark, China, and the United States analyzed the genomes of 80 polar bears from Greenland and 10 brown bears from North America and Europe. “[It’s] the most comprehensive genomic data set to date, as far as bears are concerned,” says Frank Hailer, an evolutionary biologist from Goethe University Frankfurt in Germany.
Drawing on that data, Willerslev and his colleagues conclude that polar bears split off from brown bears between 343,000 and 479,000 years ago. Although little more than a blink in time from an evolutionary perspective, that was long enough for key genetic differences to evolve, they note in a report today in Cell.
SOURCE: http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/05/polar-bear-evolution-was-fast-and-furious
That's a genetic conclusion that could be flawed or misinterpreted given the fact that there was an almost total Arctic ice melt between 175,000 and 200,000 years ago. During that time any "polar bears" that may have existed probably died off.
If nothing else, it demonstrates the point that the species is truly an example of adaptive evolution. They're here, they're gone, maybe they come back - all dependent upon the supporting climatological conditions.
The takeaway seems to be that if a brown bear population has an opportunity to thrive in Arctic ice conditions, they take on adaptive coloration and predation habits. When the ice disappears, the polar bears seek out, and mate with, the existing brown bear population - as has been demonstrated recently.
For what it's worth, the 150,000 year estimate - which seems to correlate better with the overall paleogeology - was drawn from this Texas Tech paper.
Zimbabwe has officially requested his extradition, I hope our gov shows the gonads to send him back for trial. Punishment, how about hunting other humans w bows and arrows.
Oh come on. That's just stupid.
Someone want to point me to the 4 page thread about the 16 and 18 year olds who killed their parents and 3 of 5 siblings the other day? Where's the outrage? Are people really more touched by a lion in Africa than what's going on in your own back yard?
Nope. If convicted of their crimes, I wouldn't have an issue with the 18yo getting the death penalty and 16yo never getting out of prison.
However, now that Zimbabwe has requestied extradition of Palmer got the lion-killing, the U.S. should absolutely send him back there to face chargers.
The last Ice Age ended 10,000 years ago. don't know if the extra zero was an accident. As I said, I do not want posters to think they are the same species now, as their ecology is very different.
Seeing other posters providing more relevant information, I will bow to their knowledge. Thank you all for the interesting details.
The end of the last ice age wasn't discussed.
And, point of fact, the last ice age isn't actually over - there's still ice. Most people don't realize that polar glaciation is the historical exception, rather than the rule.
Most popular discussion on the topic pinpoints the "end of the last ice age" at about 10k years ago because that marks the retreat of the ice sheet from most of continental North America.
It's interesting to think that the ancestors of the Native American tribes who lived in this part of what is now the United States actually lived along the margins of the glaciers and watched them retreat. It's just as interesting to ponder the fact that 10,000 years ago the Delaware Valley region looked more like Northern Canada than what we know today - those Native Americans lived on the tundra, as opposed to among dense forests.
No of course that horrible killing is outrageous, but people are beaten down with killlings and murders in the news every day now, you get numb after a while.
This was something new that really hadn't got much attention, and it sparked outrage in people. Its not a matter of whats more outrageous, human killings are, but this involved the killing of what most people consider a beautiful and majestic animal, was a local landmark, and he had a name!
There is no way this wasn't going to be national news. I agree though, the degree of outrage is over the top.
"Suggest" might be an appropriate term. However the species definition relates to animals that are able to reproduce and produce fertile offspring under natural conditions. With the loss of polar ice, a case could be made for the loss of natural conditions for the polar bear. It is also likely that the offspring of brown and polar bears will be at a competitive disadvantage.
Genomics is not my field, but I think evolutionary biologists might be moving more toward a species definition based on the similarities of the entire genome. I am not sure what the latest trends are in this field.
IMO 100,000 to 400,000 years is a decent amount of time for divergence of polar bears and polar bears to occur, so I would expect their genomes to show distinct differences by now.
IMO the idea that we are still in the last ice age is a little far fetched, maybe a semantic distinction. From my reading most climatologists refer to the last 12000 years distinctly as an warm interglacial period. We have been fortunate that the climate has stayed so stable for so long. I would think the Ice Age would be considered to be over when the Ice Sheets begin to retreat significantly rather than advance or remain relatively stable.
As an aside, I hadn't realized that the last Ice Age started so long ago, about 110,000 years ago. It appears that Ice Ages were trending in the direction of being more persistent as each new one developed. Looking at previous trends in climate, it is easy to see why some scientists were looking for signs of a new one developing during the 1970's.
IMO also I don't think people being upset by the "Cecil" thing in any way suggests the degree of concern they had for human tragedies such as mass killings in the past. They are not mutually exclusive concerns. From my experience people who are sensitive to the welfare of animals are often individuals who are even more sensitive to the needs of their fellow human beings. There are clearly exceptions though.
The subject of northern bear genetics is pretty interesting, because nobody seems to have a definitive handle on it. I found this graphic in a Discover Magazine blog that seems to represent the best of the current thinking:
I believe Palmer should be punished for his actions, but wonder if he'll be treated fairly by Zimbabwe or used to make a point.
Now another lion is supposed to have been illegally killed ( in April of this year) and Zimbabwed claims Dr. Jan Casmir Seski of Pennsylvania was the one who did it and have arrested a local guide for helping him.
I wonder if Zimbabwe is looking for justice or a possible payday in the name of justice.
This is a country that took the rights away from those who had profitable farms and gave that farm land to others,
just to see the agriculture output that once was considered ( economically )the best in the African continent become a dismal failure.
The same leadership is in charge of Zimbabwe and should not be trusted to treat Palmer or Seski fairly if they are sent to that country for trial.
I believe if someone commits a crime in another country and extradition is requested so that person will stand trial in that country ,in most cases that person should be extradited .
But not to countries that the USA doesn't have an Extradition Treaty with or a Country that the ability of the accused getting a fair trial might be questionable ( even though the accused will be able to fight extradition in court) ii the extradition request is granted.
In both cases I believe the trial should be held in the USA , so the accused could reasonably expect to have his case treated fairly by the Court
That's funny.
Since you're an expert on these things, why is it that liberals care more about whether or not I legally own an AR-15 than the fact that 35 people get shot by hood rats in Chicago on any given weekend?
Oh, and incidentally... why is it that you don't care about the white people who get killed by cops?
Hey, hey, hey, let's leave the one line jokes out of this!
Oh, crap, I just made the thread longer, didn't I?
