That's mostly what hunting was, in the days before accurate firearms.

you're confusing subsistence hunting with rich people wankery.

What Old Peole said. Plus, hunting with trained cheetahs is a venerable tradition that's been around for thousands of years; the Egyptians did it, so did the Persians and Mughals, I think. They didn't drive tucks, obviously, but the basic idea is the same.

How would YOU hunt with a cheetah, SolRo?

Unless you're in an Amazon tribe, all hunting on earth is wankery. Yes, we all know that wanker that says "I give tha meats to tha orphanageriumage" but they don't have to, they're wankers too looking for a way out to not be called wankers. No one starves to death from NOT hunting in the civilized world.

I guess that would kind of depend on your definition of hunting. Sport hunting is definitely wankery, but I'd question the moral justification for keeping livestock or supporting the commercial livestock industry over hunting.

I'm aware it's putting words into your mouth meme, but are you really saying the way we treat commercial livestock is superior to hunting?

Could you ladies read the comment first? This doesn't even look like hunting in any form, this is playing fetch with a live animal for a ball.

Yes, I know I'm taking trollbait, classic me. Yes, I know it's an intentionally dishonest loaded question designed to make me look like an ass, well, too late, poeTV.

I would rather know that mass starvation isn't going to happen due to farming animals than having to watch ten or twenty million people die every year while hunters try and fill the nation's food quota. It is logistically superior. If you're trying to make life eating life a moral issue, the whole earth is damned for all eternity for being a billions year old self devouring biomass, so it's begging the question. People have the option of not eating animals, if they don't like devouring things with faces and emotions they can relate to. I call this the "mammal supremacist bigot diet" as if plants weren't living things that fight and die to survive daily for billions of years.

Ultimately, no edible life form is sacred next to a starving human. Nature would kill us otherwise.

I am all about cloning meat though, something that was never organized around a nervous system. I'd do a 100% nonliving matter synth diet if it was available and wouldn't kill me suddenly with Monsantocancer. Not because I feel bad about eating plants and animals, but because being humane to life when life is good is pleasing to the intelligent mind, though completely unnecessary to the universe.

SolRo, an animal tracking, chasing, and attacking another is hunting, man, catch up, watch some 80's revenge movies.

Makes me wonder why "keeping a purebred rabbit specifically for your labradoodle to chase at a private dog park" hasn't already caught on here in the states.

It honestly wasn't an intentionally loaded question. It's just that your previous comment didn't make a lot of sense to me, as I assumed you eat meat.

Anyway, none of what we're discussing actually pertains to the clip, so...

I use Junior to hunt down the local rodent population. It's not as dramatic as this, but damned if he doesn't every once in a while pop up with something exciting, like a snake.

But yes this is rich guy wankery of the highest order. Looking forward to Sanest's suggestion.

Was wondering that myself - what would the gazelle eat in such a barren desert? What's the point of "hunting" an already captive animal? Maybe it was for training purposes...

If 10 or 20 million more people died every year it would solve some problems, just sayin.

Just to finish up this pointless thing;

Using a live animal for training is not just cruel, it's idiotic and ineffective. Mechanical/manual methods are what's used by actual hunters that use animals or for exhibition purposes. A live training animal gets exhausted or can be injured.

Using a cheetah as a hunting animal is idiotic too. They have terrible endurance, aren't very strong, and are delicate in comparison to other predators. Even a wild cheetah has a terrible success rate.

Again, just a rich fuck showing off his exotic pet, nothing more.

The cheetahs in your neighborhood might be slackers, but the average cheetah's hunting success rate is around 50%. That's very good, especially when you consider that lions and tigers are about 10-15%.

A hunting animal's only got to have as much endurance as the hunter he's working with, and as for frailty, I don't where you're getting the data that suggests cheetahs are delicate, but his natural toughness (or lack thereof) is moot when he's got a group of heavily armed humans riding up behind him.

No one will dispute that this is a rich fuck showing off his pet. You're certainly right, in so far as that goes. But you're mistaken if you think being rich and showing off invalidates the act of hunting.

mdjkfhsaehlidfg!!1!

I have reverse engineered poeTV code...

reply = true;
oddsofreplyworking = sausage;
magicimpossiblenumber = garbage day;

if(reply)
oddsofreplyworking = Random.Range(0,0);
if(oddsofreplyworking != magicimpossiblenumber)
reply = falsetrueyes;

return of the jedi;


Also, it doesn't, your thread got hijacked. Please run SuperAntiTrollWare or contact your network administrator.

Have you ever seen a fox hunt, Sols?

If I think this is rich guy wankery, do you really expect that I think any differently about a bunch of inbred Englishmen in fancy hunting tights and vests riding around on horseback while 60 dogs chase one fox?

Well, what do you call it? Surely a fox HUNT qualifies as HUNTing.

Or is that another one of those stupid 'but if the race of the participant is different I bet you're ok with it' questions?

No, but that's a good angle, we can use that if you want. Why are you a racist?

Look, I just don't see why you think having an animal chase down another animal disqualifies something as "hunting". People have been using animals - dogs, mostly, but also cheetahs - to hunt prey for tens thousands of years without any complaints. Is using a hunting animal not macho enough anymore? Should hunting consist only of naked men, sprinting after gazelles and beating the fuckers to death with their own bare hands?

To answer your last question - Yes.

Those Gazelle should develop technology and industry and civilized society if they don't want to get run down by our lapdog predator "friends".

Hipsters are ruining hunting. :(

EvilHomer, a fox hunt qualifies as hunting in the same way that burning ants with a magnifying glass does.

No, the proper analogy would be using an herd of underfed anteaters to gobble up the ants for you, surely?

"Burning ants with a magnifying glass" would be more like hunting foxes from helicopter, using high powered laser rifles. Which would be AWESOME.

I think the point is, it's not really "hunting" if you originally had the quarry already in your possession. At least, if you go by the definition that means "to seek".

If it's *currently* in your possession, maybe. But if you *release* it, then you're back to seeking.

For instance, when I kidnap college students, I can't very well hunt them while they're chained up in my basement. But when I dump them deep in the woods of my island estate, and tell them I'm giving them an eight hour headstart before The League of Hunstmen begins our sport, well, I'd say that regardless of where they spent the last three weeks, *at that point* it was a right proper hunt. Wouldn't you?

No they're domesticated at that point

It depends on how well you feed them.

the guy has a tame cheetah. stop posting.