holy crap

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
LRM;4359972; said:
The photo is legit and that is nearly the max recorded size for a male salty. The sad part is that he was probably only one of a dozen or so saltwater crocs left in Australia that big. There is big debate over if it was killed in Queensland or the Northern Territory because both states want to claim it.

The worst thing of all is to be at that size that animal probably hatched back around WW1. You have these aborigines talking about how they respect and are in tune with nature but they lose a few cattle and that's it. Doesn't matter that this animal is older than their father's fathers, they kill it and drag it out to rot in the sun. Where is the respect there?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Two states trying to claim their rights on being the cause of death for such a majestic creature. Humans should be shooting each other for killing 'cattle' then. Morons.
 
Although I would have preferred it to be kept alive, I don't blame the people that killed it. It was eating their cattle which is probably the only source of income for these villagers and since it was so big, I am sure that it was quite old and lived a good, full life.
 
snakeguy101;4361988; said:
Although I would have preferred it to be kept alive, I don't blame the people that killed it. It was eating their cattle which is probably the only source of income for these villagers and since it was so big, I am sure that it was quite old and lived a good, full life.
Click to expand...

x2, losing a few cattle might not seem like a big deal to most of us, but to those people it could've been a matter of life and death.

snakefin;4360924; said:
Exactly. Two states trying to claim their rights on being the cause of death for such a majestic creature. Humans should be shooting each other for killing 'cattle' then. Morons.
Click to expand...

And that majestic creature was killing their cattle. Who's to say their children wouldn't be next? They did what they had to do to stay alive, and there is nothing wrong with that.
 
but there is something wrong with it they needed the cattle for food right. but the croc ate the cattle. So The wright way to justify killing the croc would have been food driven but they didn't eat the croc they paraded it around and took pic's of it and just let it rot in the sun atleast that is what I took out of this article and it's picture.
If they were in need of the food source and the cattle were taken by the croc then they should have eaten the croc .
 
Delhezi222;4362687; said:
x2, losing a few cattle might not seem like a big deal to most of us, but to those people it could've been a matter of life and death.



And that majestic creature was killing their cattle. Who's to say their children wouldn't be next? They did what they had to do to stay alive, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't say life and death to such an extreme, the cattle would have been important to them but not exactly life and death. They wouldn't be bothered to go killing the croc when worrying about how to get cattle to eat for their next meal. This implies that they simply wanted to prevent the croc from chomping on future cattle, which also means that...the reason for why they killed the croc can be considered invalid.

And for the second part, what makes a human life more significant than an ancient croc's? Nothing.
 
Is it bloated from rotting? Looks inflated. Still, big croc for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom