Death of Zimbabwe’s Best-Loved Lion Ignites Debate on Sport Hunting

@Dane Quale , the freebie anti hunts are all used up....

Dane Quale said:

If you'd like my perspective i'll share. I didnt come here to spam or "flame" anyone or cause trouble. I completely disagree with the idea of killing an animal for fun. I dislike killing an animal for any reason other than self defense and I'm sure someone can likely come up with another valid reason or two. I used to eat meat, not often, but I came to terms with the hypocrisy and have weaned myself off meat 99%+. I think factory farming is abhorrent and if you are going to eat meat I think hunting is a much better alternative. I don't often speak about this because its my own decision and unless its being discussed I don't see the relevance, for the most part. I agree that eating meat and being against hunting is a hypocritical position.

Now when you say a hunter does not "enjoy" killing, you have my a bit puzzled. Is this not a forum dedicated to discussion and glorification of trophy hunting - hunting for the joy of it? Trophy hunting is by definition vain and for the purpose of the trophy!

I've heard trophy hunters claim that they love the animals they hunt and boast that they contribute largely to conservation, even imply they are solely or the most responsible for the conservation of the animals ("if you take a photo of one of these animals, thank a hunter because we are the reason they are there." thats a quote, not word for word, but a quote from trophy hunter Corey Kowlton regarding endangered or threatened animals.) To claim that you love and then shoot it, skin it, decapitate it, and mount it on a wall is insane. Nobody does that to a thing that they love. Imagine putting your dog down at the end of its life and posing next to the dead carcass with a huge smile of satisfaction and then mounting its head on the wall. You'd be labelled a nutcase. So in my opinion and the opinion of many others, any claim to want to preserve an animal (which trophy hunters are required to contribute to indirectly by law when buying a tag/license) for any reason other than the ability to kill its offspring is just illogical and fraudulent.

If you disagree with the statement about a dog dont let it affect my point which is you don't kill something you love and respect. How can anyone argue that fact with logic? Any money gone toward conservation can go directly to conservation without killing an animal. Trophy hunters willingly *choose* to take a life. I do not believe that using the carcass to feed people exonerates anyone from the the fact that the animal was killed for a trophy or that there is a lot of joy in killing an animal. These photos aren't of hunters smiling next to a carcass because of the pride one feels by feeding an impoverished village.

So that's why people are disgusted with trophy hunting, its killing not for necessity but for the joy of taking a life.





youd

Click to expand...

Dan thanks for your viewpoint. Here is one of mine. Eating meat does not make you a killer by default,just like hunting animals does not make me a killer either.

Here is a better scenario for you to understand that no matter what you eat,you are killing animals. This is a factual example:

Company that builds cages to trap animals puts out a photo of a veggie farmer that used one of its traps. 18 yes 18 Wildboar piglets (all still stripped) caught and killed in one yes 1 night! First people to jump on the company and farmers back are hunters,not vegetarians not animal activists,hunters. Why? Cause we do not condone killing,we freely admit that to hunt is to kill in the end,maybe more animals get killed every year to feed vegetarians than hunters kill,I sure as hell have yet to kill 18 pigs in one night and I hunt them almost every night.

Hunters are not the only ones with blood on their hands,we are just the only ones to admit it.

Rockjockey said:

So now it is a Minnesota Dentist and not a rich evil Spaniard that harvested an over the hill lion (average age of wild male lions is 10 -14ys) that was alone outside the park and potentially going to starve to death while taking beatings from every other dominate male lion he encountered.


http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/29649636/minnesota-dentist-pays-to-kill-beloved-african-lion

Click to expand...

I've read that this animal had 6 cubs who will now most likely be killed by competition due to the lack of protection. I've also read that "Cecil" was a very well loved lion and friendly toward people, even trusting them, and brought in a lot of tourist money and more money would have been brought in if he had lived out his life naturally than from the hunt had it been legal. From a conservationist's point of view, I don't see how anyone can argue in favor of not keeping this lion alive. Killing this lion effectively resulted in a loss of income and the death of 6 other lions.

Potentially starving to death is a far cry from certainty, he was able to feed him self and his pride and the only reason he was outside the park is because he was illegally lured out of bounds according to reports.

Why is it that that non/anti hunters presume that when someone calls themself a trophy hunter, they presume the meat is left to waste?

When a hunter in Africa pursues that large mature animal, they are leaving the younger immature animals to grow into mature animal with a chance to breed and thus add there genes to the overall pool. The larger mature animal has had that opportunity and when it has been harvested that meat goes to feed people. It's not left on the ground and wasted.

In some case the meat is made into biltong and sold at a discount to beef. In other cases it is donated to the local people who are quite happy to receive it.

@Dane Quale it has been shown time and time again, but for some reason it keeps being ignored. In the mid 70's South Africa started to promote the hunting safari business. At that time it was estimated that the wildlife population stood at about 600K. Some 40 years later that population now stands at approximately 18 million. By my math that's a 30 fold increase.

At roughly the same time, Kenya outlawed hunting, relying on photo tourism as it's tool of conservation. And now Kenya's "wildlife" is relegated to it's national parks and it's population of wildlife has decreased by 40%.

With these numbers please tell me how legal regulated hunting has not been good for wildlife? And please tell me how making hunting illegal in Kenya has contributed to the conservation of wildlife.

So are you saying that people won't want to visit the park now the lion is dead?
Sorry, I don't buy that. People want to see lions no matter what their names are and will still pay to see them. Seeing the above named lion was not guaranteed to anyone because it is an animal that doesn't appear by appointment.

I would also point out that a lion that is used to people is a far more dangerous animal than a 'wild' one. I don't need to explain it, it's obvious.

As for the "death of six other lions", well, that is subjective to say the least.
Have these lions been killed, can someone look into the future and predict these killings? Or is this more media driven hype that further sensationalises a wonderful story to the avid anti hunter masses.

True, the possibility is there that some or all MAY be killed but it is far from a given and until it has happened, you are perpetuating the ridiculous media frenzy that you have believed without question and I can assure you that not everything in the media is Gospel.

hunthardsafaris said:

Dan thanks for your viewpoint. Here is one of mine. Eating meat does not make you a killer by default,just like hunting animals does not make me a killer either.

Here is a better scenario for you to understand that no matter what you eat,you are killing animals. This is a factual example:

Company that builds cages to trap animals puts out a photo of a veggie farmer that used one of its traps. 18 yes 18 Wildboar piglets (all still stripped) caught and killed in one yes 1 night! First people to jump on the company and farmers back are hunters,not vegetarians not animal activists,hunters. Why? Cause we do not condone killing,we freely admit that to hunt is to kill in the end,maybe more animals get killed every year to feed vegetarians than hunters kill,I sure as hell have yet to kill 18 pigs in one night and I hunt them almost every night.

Hunters are not the only ones with blood on their hands,we are just the only ones to admit it.

Click to expand...

As I said before, anyone eating meat is guilty of having blood on their hands. I know and have come across plenty of people who will freely admit it and many will boast about how much they enjoy eating meat. I do not believe all or most hunters are ruthless killing machines to be clear. It is factually incorrect to say that no matter what you eat you kill though. I also believe that if you are a hunter who kills quickly and as painlessly and responsibly as possible to eat the animal you are still by definition a sort of killer, albeit in another class and not the same, by any means, as someone who kills a deer, puppy, anything, for no reason other than boredom, fun, etc. By definition you are killing the animal, that's an indisputable fact unless you argue the semantics. That's not what I want to focus on though.

I understand people who enjoy meat but the reality is humans can live and flourish without eating meat. There are extremely fit vegan athletes that are more athletic than most people. Its possible. Eating meat is a lifestyle choice and not a necessity for life.

You have selected a specific case which promotes your point, which is valid - eating vegetables doesn't absolve you of having death on your hands. Let me even help make your point - even large corporate farms are guilty of using what is near modern day slavery when employing workers to tend the fields. Large tractor often catch animals in their path when plowing or picking wheat, etc. These are two ways large corporate farming is detrimental to its environment and animal and human life. But where does a lot of this food go? To feed animals. The billions of animals farmed yearly are herbivores. An 8 lb chicken eats much more than 8 lbs of grain in a lifetime.

Now to say vegetarians didn't jump on this guy for doing what he did and the hunters did is disingenuous and self serving. Most vegetarians don't eat meat for ethical reasons and plenty of vegetarians and non vegetarian non hunters dedicate their lives to fighting animal abuse. If this particular story didn't catch wind of a group of activist vegetarians that's hardly a representation.

If you genuinely believe more animals are killed to feed vegetarians than hunters kill I don't know what to tell you other than you should do some real research and better educate yourself. There are plenty of very sustainable, ethical, usually organic farms run by people who oppose cruelty and unnecessary death and would probably cuddle those pigs and post pictures to their facebook and forums. I have a small garden in my that produces a decent amount of food, its new, and I can guarantee not a single animal has died as a result in the 3 months its been growing. I know someone who volunteered on a farm large enough to easily sustain all 10 people living on it with lots of food to spare and in a years time a dear was shot and eaten and thats it.

You hunt every night and you truly suspect this guy is trapping 18 pigs in less than 18 days on a consistent basis thereby causing more death than a vegetarian? I don't think so if so its probably an exception. SO even if eating vegetables doesn't absolve you, quantity is extremely relevant. A vegetarian who indirectly is involved in the death of 18 animals a year, along with every other vegetarian and meat eater who got veggies from that farm, as well as everyone who ate an animal who was fed with those veggies, isn't causing more death.


All of this is off topic of my original point which is killing animals for fun or trophies is vain, cruel, and needless. Do you have a reasoning against that?

Adrian said:

So are you saying that people won't want to visit the park now the lion is dead?
Sorry, I don't buy that. People want to see lions no matter what their names are and will still pay to see them. Seeing the above named lion was not guaranteed to anyone because it is an animal that doesn't appear by appointment.

I would also point out that a lion that is used to people is a far more dangerous animal than a 'wild' one. I don't need to explain it, it's obvious.

As for the "death of six other lions", well, that is subjective to say the least.
Have these lions been killed, can someone look into the future and predict these killings? Or is this more media driven hype that further sensationalises a wonderful story to the avid anti hunter masses.

True, the possibility is there that some or all MAY be killed but it is far from a given and until it has happened, you are perpetuating the ridiculous media frenzy that you have believed without question and I can assure you that not everything in the media is Gospel.

Click to expand...

Well according to what we know about lions, infanticide is the norm and since these lions are too young to defend themselves or leave on their own, the chances are much greater that they die than survive. Its just animal science. Time will tell though.

As far as the lion being more dangerous to people because its used to people, well, as a user in this thread has indicated the lion was "over the hill" and nearing the end of its life. It had never killed a single person or even threatened a person as far as available information is concerned so the chances that as its dying it decides to do a 360 and kill people and actually successfully kills a person in the park during what I assume would be a guided tour sounds extremely improbable.

The statement wasn't that people don't want to see other lions, its that this lion left alive was drawing crowds and was mathematically worth more alive than dead barring some sort of sudden freak accident even in its old age.

Hello Dane Quale

I cried at Old Yeller too. Loving the outdoors, the woods, and the animals is not the same a loving a particular creature.

If you have not understood how trophy hunting helps conservation then I think you just choose not to. To wit:

Hunters spend money to hunt. The animals have a value and hunters fight poachers, so the animals are now not snared or poached. Habitat is preserved and managed by hunters for the hunters. As a result, the land is not clear cut for farms to grow vegetables to feed the world's vegetarians, or to raise cattle for its omnivores.

The apex predators, such as lions, are not destroyed by fearful farmer or rural people because, again, there is value to them.

Without hunters demanding and supporting quality habitat the animals face a fate worse than death....with hunters doing their part there is money to ensure those animals are not relegated to small parks to be put on display for herds of tourists. Nature is thus preserved as a natural environment for those who love it and make the effort to enjoy it and its bounty.

Etc etc etc.

I stopped eating vegetables a long time ago due to ethical reasons. For me to have enough vegetables to make meal meant I killed approximately 8 plants. I couldn't stand the leaves on my hands anymore.

Seriously, you vegetarians chopping your lettuce and carrots to make a salad make me sick...you probably do it all with a smile. I bet you even take pictures with what you grow and post it on Facebook. How demented and sick. How would like it if a combine came after you.

I hunt the deer so I never have to hear another plant scream.

TMS said:

@Dane Quale , the freebie anti hunts are all used up....

Click to expand...

This!

PHOENIX PHIL said:

Why is it that that non/anti hunters presume that when someone calls themself a trophy hunter, they presume the meat is left to waste?

When a hunter in Africa pursues that large mature animal, they are leaving the younger immature animals to grow into mature animal with a chance to breed and thus add there genes to the overall pool. The larger mature animal has had that opportunity and when it has been harvested that meat goes to feed people. It's not left on the ground and wasted.

In some case the meat is made into biltong and sold at a discount to beef. In other cases it is donated to the local people who are quite happy to receive it.

@Dane Quale it has been shown time and time again, but for some reason it keeps being ignored. In the mid 70's South Africa started to promote the hunting safari business. At that time it was estimated that the wildlife population stood at about 600K. Some 40 years later that population now stands at approximately 18 million. By my math that's a 30 fold increase.

At roughly the same time, Kenya outlawed hunting, relying on photo tourism as it's tool of conservation. And now Kenya's "wildlife" is relegated to it's national parks and it's population of wildlife has decreased by 40%.

With these numbers please tell me how legal regulated hunting has not been good for wildlife? And please tell me how making hunting illegal in Kenya has contributed to the conservation of wildlife.

Click to expand...

I did not state that trophy meat wasn't eaten. I'm away the meat is sometimes, I do not know the actual frequency but I'm lead to believe often, eaten. That doesn't speak to the fact that the animal is killed for the trophy and for the joy of the kill. I do not believe trophy hunters are driven by an altruistic desire to feed poor locals. I don't believe any trophy hunter would list that reason at the top of the list. It would be very detrimental and nonsensical to let the meat rot though. It probably costs little to nothing to let someone know the meat is available for the taking. Just as I do not believe a prime motive is for conservation other than for the ability to hunt offspring. People who's prime motive is to let the animal reproduce would refrain from killing it. People with that sort of attachment to the animal would feel wrong killing it just as most people would feel wrong killing and eating a pet. You don't kill something you genuinely care about when other options exist. When a species is threatened and you can donate money and allow the animal to live or donate for the opportunity to kill it, such as an elephant or rhino or lion, why would you choose to kill it? For the meat? Why not kill a buffalo? Why not put the money toward relocating it if it is genuinely threatening local members of its species? How did the species deal with these threats when the numbers were higher and humans hadn't culled members to allow the species to grow and population naturally grew? IN the case of the black rhino that was killed for $350k why not pay to move it far enough away thats its not a threat or to an enclosure where it could live out the rest of its days in relative peace or bring in tourist money as one of the last of its kind?

As for the numbers I haven't studied that aspect yet although I plan to. I don't know what outside factors exist (how the regions differ, how much poaching went on, natural challenges such as water or lack of prey). Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Regulated hunting could have been beneficial but that doesn't mean other strategies wouldn't have been more beneficial, especially if all hunters supported in the same way out of caring for the animal rather than the desire to hunt. Why haven't all these hunter given all this money to hunt without the privilege of hunting. The answer is because hunters, first and foremost want to kill the animals, they want the trophy, they the feeling of dominating an animal and if they didn't history would show that the same money and effort would have been donated regardless of the the ability desire to hunt the animal.

So let me ask you, first and foremost, why do you trophy hunt?

This thread has touched on numerous issues regarding hunting in Africa illustrating a lack of understanding of the contribution of hunting to conservation and anti poachimg in Africa. I can assure you there are some key areas where anti poaching activities are solely funded by hunting and if hunting income was stopped the poaching damage would be irreversible and catastrophic.

Hunting quotas are not randomly chosen numbers, but numbers that are worked out by independent third parties based on game counts land and carrying capacity. Some plains game species grow by up to 22% a year and even in large open free range areas require culling so as to preserve the food source for the dry season. Obviously linked to this are the number of predators and the offtake of predators are determined accordingly. This is not exact science hence history of offtake and population are constantly reviewed to ensure the entire environment is preserved. A large portion of the need for hunting is based on the fact that man has blocked the original migration routes.

For lions in most areas there is a protocol and lions in excess of a certain age are hunted, lions of a certain age no longer contribute to lion population and have either been evicted from the pride or close to that point. A lion that has been defeated and evicted from a pride has a limited life span. The damage to the pride is inevitable and the shooting of the lion will not change the inevitable. In the case of Cecil he may have already been the victim of a hostile takeover and had left the reserve to find a new territory or was very close to that point.

If one simply looks at revenue returned to anti poaching and conservation compared to environmental impact hunting is by far the winner with eco tourism coming a distant second. The value and contribution hunting brings to conservation through sustainable utilization must never be underestimated.

I hunt, so I don't have people like you near me, Dane.

Pheroze said:

Hello Dane Quale

I cried at Old Yeller too. Loving the outdoors, the woods, and the animals is not the same a loving a particular creature.

If you have not understood how trophy hunting helps conservation then I think you just choose not to. To wit:

Hunters spend money to hunt. The animals have a value and hunters fight poachers, so the animals are now not snared or poached. Habitat is preserved and managed by hunters for the hunters. As a result, the land is not clear cut for farms to grow vegetables to feed the world's vegetarians, or to raise cattle for its omnivores.

The apex predators, such as lions, are not destroyed by fearful farmer or rural people because, again, there is value to them.

Without hunters demanding and supporting quality habitat the animals face a fate worse than death....with hunters doing their part there is money to ensure those animals are not relegated to small parks to be put on display for herds of tourists. Nature is thus preserved as a natural environment for those who love it and make the effort to enjoy it and its bounty.

Etc etc etc.

Click to expand...

I understand that, objectively, hunting has benefited conserving the animals versus letting farmers kill them off because of value, etc. I recognize that and I don't deny it.

What I take objection to is the claim that trophy hunters care about these animals in a way other than that they get to kill them and enjoy killing them too. And I argue that killing an animal to satisfy an ego is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated. If the animal can be saved for a hunt because of their value, they can be saved because of their value without a hunt having to take place. They aren't killed for their meat, their meat is a by-product of their death.

There is support that comes from non hunters. Every hunter could support the conservation to the same extent if they chose, the hunt itself is voluntary. The desire to kill these animals to show off a trophy for the sake of showing off a trophy is therefore purely unnecessary. This is how the outside community sees it and when trophy hunters ask why there's so much hatred and disagreement from outsiders here's your answer.

Dane,

I provided over 300lbs of deer meat to a food bank and gave another 3 deer totally butchered to a few low income families where I live. I am not sure what you did to help those that are less fortunate.

But enjoy your make believe moral high ground. Next time I go to a food bank I will bring plenty of pictures. I'm sure it will make a tasty soup.

Dane Quale said:

I did not state that trophy meat wasn't eaten. I'm away the meat is sometimes, I do not know the actual frequency but I'm lead to believe often, eaten. That doesn't speak to the fact that the animal is killed for the trophy and for the joy of the kill. I do not believe trophy hunters are driven by an altruistic desire to feed poor locals. I don't believe any trophy hunter would list that reason at the top of the list. It would be very detrimental and nonsensical to let the meat rot though. It probably costs little to nothing to let someone know the meat is available for the taking. Just as I do not believe a prime motive is for conservation other than for the ability to hunt offspring. People who's prime motive is to let the animal reproduce would refrain from killing it. People with that sort of attachment to the animal would feel wrong killing it just as most people would feel wrong killing and eating a pet. You don't kill something you genuinely care about when other options exist. When a species is threatened and you can donate money and allow the animal to live or donate for the opportunity to kill it, such as an elephant or rhino or lion, why would you choose to kill it? For the meat? Why not kill a buffalo? Why not put the money toward relocating it if it is genuinely threatening local members of its species? How did the species deal with these threats when the numbers were higher and humans hadn't culled members to allow the species to grow and population naturally grew? IN the case of the black rhino that was killed for $350k why not pay to move it far enough away thats its not a threat or to an enclosure where it could live out the rest of its days in relative peace or bring in tourist money as one of the last of its kind?

As for the numbers I haven't studied that aspect yet although I plan to. I don't know what outside factors exist (how the regions differ, how much poaching went on, natural challenges such as water or lack of prey). Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Regulated hunting could have been beneficial but that doesn't mean other strategies wouldn't have been more beneficial, especially if all hunters supported in the same way out of caring for the animal rather than the desire to hunt. Why haven't all these hunter given all this money to hunt without the privilege of hunting. The answer is because hunters, first and foremost want to kill the animals, they want the trophy, they the feeling of dominating an animal and if they didn't history would show that the same money and effort would have been donated regardless of the the ability desire to hunt the animal.

So let me ask you, first and foremost, why do you trophy hunt?

Click to expand...

You said this: Regulated hunting could have been beneficial but that doesn't mean other strategies wouldn't have been more beneficial, especially if all hunters supported in the same way out of caring for the animal rather than the desire to hunt.

My correction to the first part: Regulated hunting IS AND HAS been EXTREMELY SUCESSFUL

There is no mays, maybes or could have's about it. The numbers don't lie whereas emotions do. Yours is yet another broken heart story. As I told another the local indigenous African doesn't give a rat's rear about your broken heart or the tears you may shed over the death of an animal. That's the reality of the situation, sorry it's not your utopian pipe dream world you desire. The wildlife is either a benefit to him and he'll work to conserve it, or it is a detrement to him and he'll therefore kill it.

You use mighty strong language to try and define hunters who literally number in the millions of individuals in this world. It's a mighty big paint brush your using there. When you bring to the table a proven, logical sound plan that conserve's wildlife that doesn't include hunting as part of that plan, I'll answer your question as to why I hunt. I actually just consider myself to be a hunter, no adjective in front of that. And if you think meat for my family isn't a part of that, then you've obviously never had the bratwurst and sausage made by my butcher out of the elk meat I bring him.

So until you bring me that dream conservation plan of yours, I'll stick with hunting and do so with a clear conscience. I don't ask you to justify your way of life to me, I need not justify mine to you.

Dane Quale said:

If the animal can be saved for a hunt because of their value, they can be saved because of their value without a hunt having to take place.

Click to expand...

Can you explain that please?

I'm struggling here because the facts are that in countries where hunting takes place, there has been an increase in wildlife numbers and habitat because hunting has put a value on the animals.

In countries where hunting is banned, wildlife populations have decreased because there is no value placed on the animals.

Michael J. Harrison said:

As a former prosecutor, I never make accusations until all of the evidence is known. Neither will I defend something without that information. The media doesn't, as a rule, share my philosophy.

Click to expand...

+1

and I might add, it seems the evidence or "facts" in this case change color quicker than a Zimbabwean chameleon.

Hello again DanenQuale

I think I see where you are misunderstanding something quite critical. A trophy hunt is primarliy a hunt not a trophy purchase. You have to understand that first.

There are few places left on this planet where you can go and completely immerse yourself in the natural environment that still has an abundance of game. If you can successfully hunt in that environment you get the trophy. If not, you get to post a long report about how you went and didn't get what you went for. That happens too. So, we do not go because we are guaranteed our trophy. We are not paying to kill. We go to enjoy the hunt and work our asses off to get the trophy.

If you look around you will see scorn heaped on those who hunt from cars and planes. Get out into the bush and go find the animal on its terms in its environment. Practically alone as you try to get close to it in the virgin wilderness, and not in a convoy of a dozen vehicles. Africa is one of the last places you can do that. You may want to get out there before your colleagues shut it down. Before they clear the bush and put the animals is preserves and zoos. Go as an observer and understand how special that is.

Dane Quale said:

I understand that, objectively, hunting has benefited conserving the animals versus letting farmers kill them off because of value, etc. I recognize that and I don't deny it.

What I take objection to is the claim that trophy hunters care about these animals in a way other than that they get to kill them and enjoy killing them too. And I argue that killing an animal to satisfy an ego is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated. If the animal can be saved for a hunt because of their value, they can be saved because of their value without a hunt having to take place. They aren't killed for their meat, their meat is a by-product of their death.

There is support that comes from non hunters. Every hunter could support the conservation to the same extent if they chose, the hunt itself is voluntary. The desire to kill these animals to show off a trophy for the sake of showing off a trophy is therefore purely unnecessary. This is how the outside community sees it and when trophy hunters ask why there's so much hatred and disagreement from outsiders here's your answer.

Click to expand...

Here's an idea, all the anti-hunters should get together and start buying up all the hunting slots...and just not go. Think about it, if you buy the $50,000 lion hunt and never show up you save a lion. But if they aren't willing to put up the cash than I guess they don't really care about the animals. Until the day photo safari-goers are willing to spend that kind of money to snap pictures of their favorite lion there will be a need for hunting to provide much needed value for these animals.

I find the level of vitriol from the anti-hunting crowd to be unreal. People who had no idea who Cecil the freaking lion was a week ago are now making death threats against a fellow human being. I find it disgusting and illogical for people who claim to want to preserve life (I guess human life doesn't matter) to do this.