It may be that the particular animal he was hunting was an elder animal, no longer capable of reproducing or one that threatened the offspring of others. Generally, when they're talking about ethical hunts, they're referring to these specific animals. Allowing rich foreigners to come in and play Safari and pay to remove those animals is a great source of funding for conservation efforts.

It's also possible he just fucking lied. Or he was lied to. Or he knew he was lied to and didn't care.

Regardless of the actual truth, getting trampled by elephants is fitting.

I think ethical conservation hunting is great, and I think trampling stupid rich people to death is even better. How great would it be if both things happened?!

While an argument could be made for "horde" because it's a lot of individual animals who would rise as an army against him if they could, the correct word for this kind of evil dragon collection is "hoard."

Just in case you need to use either word in a serious context

There is no contention. We are completely agreed and I don't believe I've said anything to the contrary.

Eh, there are times for it. Consider hunting invasive species harming the local ecosystem. I'm not saying that was what this guy was doing but if someone wants to go down to the Everglades and hunt Burmese pythons and argintine tegus I'm all for it.

It sucks that the hunted invasive animals have to die through no fault of their own, but it would be even worse for the native animals to go extinct by not hunting the invasives.

I only ethically murder babies who have a chance of crawling away from me.

Oh i love this conversation.

So do I asses right that you think all hunting is unethical?

So lets imagine situation:

You own a animal sactuary in Africa. There is population of lions living in there is lets say one lion pride and few solidary males roaming the area. Great job! Lions are listed as vulnerable species. They are not quite endangered, but very close. Everything is fine and dandy.

Then one day you notice that the dominant male of the pride has grown old and infertile, but he is still strong enough to ward off the younger males of so they cant copulate with the lionesses and there is very real change the pride will go few years without cubs. Is it ethical to let the male lion live, even when there is chance it will effect the prides abilibity to grow and survive?

Or what if one of the males outside of the pride starts to show excessive agression towards cubs and other adults? Would it be ethical to let it kill or maim other animals?

Or if one of the lions start to kill other animals more than it can eat. Would it be ethical to just let it keep doing that and leave tens of carcasses behind?

Go into an indigenous community like a First Nations reserve, or rural Africa where the people still practice subsistance hunting and tell them this.

Let me know how it goes. They'll see it as bigotry. Deservedly so.

The sustainable hunter gatherers left on earth look poorly upon your high-and mighty opinions perched on top of the privilege afforded by a fossil fuel powered agricultural-industrial complex that has eliminated most wilderness and biodiversity for monoculture farms. Humans are about 36% of earth mamalian biomass. Livestock is about 60%. Wild mammals are down to 4%.

It's a similar case for vegans. Their moral superiority is founded on an agricultural-industrial reality that while one of the superior options, practices an unsustainable method.

Your righteous indignation is an error. Your perspective is flawed because it's anchored in a tiny worldview's normalcy bias and personal privilege.

Don't be that person. Something something, stones and glass houses.

Be that as it may, there is a need for such things, since our species has wiped out so many natural predators.

The argument against that is that bow hunting rarely kills on first shot, causing pain and suffering as the animal bleeds out or is permanently injured. So some people who dislike hunting dislike bow hunting even more.

A fair point, but I believe a mistaken one. Humans' evolutionary niche is it's intelligence. Our tools are an integral part of that.

From this perspective, would you say the lion hiding in the grass to ambush its prey is just cheating? For a fair fight it has to be in open terrain? We all use the gifts at our disposal.

To your point "OP" tools can easily scale to beyond fair chase. There is no line that separates what is and is not acceptable. Its up to the hunter to decide for themselves, and the public who regulates them. Within the hunting community, there are constant battles between bows vs rifles and even spear and atlatl "purists".

Edit: I swear I've met more than one "barefister" too, but it was online, so I couldn't tell if they were serious, or playing devil's advocat.