[skydancerwi]

night - and stopped at a > sight on Animal Planet- I couldn't watch it through, and yet the photographer and narrator (same person) described it with recognizably unique and awe-filled delight at having come across such a SIGHT during Instructional Safari. It was this: A lioness had killed a baby elephant who was at an unusual distance from the baby. Then the elephant mother suddenly appeared and went running toward the lioness. The cubs mother lioness was training were just there observing - mother lioness made an effort to protect her cubs- but it was too late. In retribution, the Mother Elephant trampled to death the obviously terrified cubs.
Now my question is what FRAME OF MIND would an instructional commentator have to have to photograph this carnage in order to make a point to society? Why would he seem so gleeful at having come against such an intolerable sight of killing, not just for food, but for RETRIBUTION?
What cold-bloodedness would the commentator have 2 have, and not react to disallow the KILL?
It appears to me that nature ALWAYS takes it's course. Is it part of nature taking its' course that a photographer, as MANY HAVE ALREADY SHOWN US, to capture by camera the code of realistic carnage, which animals must follow?

Were I a mother whose child is going to be pursued and killed for something I had done, OF COURSE I would do everything in my power to save my child. However I would not kill the children of the mother, whose child I had killed, I would have gone after the mother. That is why I said retribution. The lioness was in clear sight of the Elephant, yet the elephant chose to trample the cubs who were cowering, terrified.
I realize that the code of animals who MUST BE BRUTAL REALISTS TO SURVIVE is different than ours. A hungry lioness killing an antelope to feed her pride, I must understand.
It is what it is! A photographer after photographer, after another ad infinitum is not Nature taking its course. It is something which relates to the cold-blooded, even greed for>