This is a great article. However, for me, it pulls away from the original intention of the thread about the story. That being the unethical method used to take this particular lion.
The whole story, of course, includes a whole range of views about trophy hunting, hunting at all, and the views that come in from extreme positions. It really got to be a mess.
Personally, I have no interest in trophy hunting, but I have spoken to those who think there is value in it that reaches beyond the ego of the shooter. That value is mainly economic and/or a value to conservation of a region.
From my perspective, the view that all lions are bad is as extreme and ill advised as the view that all lions are good. The apex predator should be taken into consideration in it’s important place in the environment. And, a lion that terrorizes a village and eats people should be dealt with so that people can go about their lives. That’s different from the situation of people choosing to take a hike or hunt in grizzly country. They are choosing a certain risk. The people in a village where a man-eater is present were born there, so choice has little to do with it.
The writer, Goodwell Nzou, has a very intimate point of view with dangerous wildlife. His point of view is a very valid one, but not the only one to take into consideration when talking about environmental issues or ethics in hunting. His point of view is exactly the one to consider when people are terrorized by a rogue animal. We love dogs, in general, but would not allow a pack of dogs to control a playground anywhere in this country.
The danger is always in painting with too broad a brush.
Thanks for this thread. best, dwc
