Live by the sword, they say.

Anyhow...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"unprovoked"

Right? If you're stalking something with a gun, that's provocation.

I had the same thought.

Hard to feel sorry

Culling the human herd for once.

Anonymous wrote:"unprovoked"

Right? If you're stalking something with a gun, that's provocation.

Good. The animal was defending itself. Wouldn’t it be great if the human hunter had to face their prey without a gun? Love to see how brave and bold those hunters actually are.

I think big game hunters are in it for the ego boost and use all those other arguments as cover. If they actually want to benefit anyone, they can donate the money they spend to conservation efforts staffed by locals.

Serves his right. He wasn’t hunting to cull the herd and assist the population. He was hunting for the thrill and paying big money for it. No sympathy.

I don’t have an issue with commercializing the need if there really is a need to cull herds. (Like selling the licenses for deer hunting around here.). It seems to me that these big game hunters want the thrill of danger so they got want they wanted here. If it’s true the herds need to be culled, this seems like an all around win and future hunters can have an enhanced thrill of danger since they will be reminded the stakes are real.

"unprovoked"

FAAFO

I thought the article was amusing.

Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

Oh well.

This situation brings up interesting questions about the morality of game hunting, the utility of it, as well as the motivations behind it.

I know that big game hunters like this guy and their defenders claim that their hunting safaris create jobs and help cull herds that need to be culled. All of this in the name of 'conservation'. It is an interesting twist in logic even if somewhat true.

I am not going to argue about the need to keep certain breeds in check because I really do not know the science behind that or the truth about it. For example I know there is a huge deer overpopulation in parts of the US. I do wonder though how much of that justification is used to allay the consciences of these hunters (by both the guides and the hunters) in order to get them to come over to Africa to kill these animals/help their economy. If the animals really need to be 'culled', I would assume there are safer and more humane ways to do it - but a lot less money would change hands. These hunters say they care very much about 'conservation' and the animals but I doubt they would donate the same amount of money for those specific purposes. They are paying for the thrill and trophy and to satisfy something really primal, I think.

Anyway, thoughts?

A wealthy big-game hunter from Texas was killed on Sunday when a Cape buffalo that he had been eying for his next trophy attacked him during a safari in South Africa, according to the company that arranged the expedition.

The victim, Asher Watkins, 52, a Dallas real estate executive who sold ranches, was pursuing one of the horned buffaloes in Limpopo Province, the northernmost province in South Africa, when the attack happened, Coenraad Vermaak Safaris said in an email on Thursday.

A mature Cape buffalo bull can weigh nearly 2,000 pounds, the company’s website says, cautioning that it is not unusual for buffaloes to charge hunters without provocation and that “no species on the planet has a more fearsome reputation.”

The aggressive temperament of the Cape buffalo has earned it a nickname: black death.

“Asher was fatally injured in a sudden and unprovoked attack by an unwounded buffalo he was tracking together with one of our professional hunters and one of our trackers,” Hans Vermaak, whose family runs the safari company, said in a statement.

Link to full NYT story: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/07/world/africa/big-game-hunter-killed-buffalo-safari-south-africa.html?