Disclaimer:

Disclaimer: If you are easily offended by sheer honesty, or you think me having my own opinions is "being negative", then this is not the place for you, and I suggest you leave and head elsewhere. I call a spade a spade, and I don't sugarcoat anything.

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

King of Beasts!

Well, when someone mentions something about the "king of beasts", what is it most people think about? You guessed it. They think of lions. Personally, every time I hear someone calling lions "the king of beasts", it makes me laugh hysterically. Why? Because lions are no more the king of beasts than I am! And I am a woman. I cannot be the king of anything. LOL! Lions are not even the "queen of beasts" though. Lions have done absolutely NOTHING to deserve that title. You know who calls lions the "king of beasts"? I'll tell you who; very biased cat-people, that's who. But when you get right down to it, what have lions done to earn them that title? All they do is lay around all day long. The lions you see in documentaries, hunting prey, that constitutes about 10-20 minutes in a 2-3 day period. The rest of their time is spent sleeping and lazing around. Lions are not the best hunters in Africa, they're not the largest animals in Africa, they're not even the largest carnivores at all. And worst of all, lions kill for fun. In all realness, instead of being called "the king of beasts", lions should have the title "the coercer of beasts". They deserve that title more. Kings are usually fair with all in their domain, unless they are sociopaths. A coercer is nothing but a bully, and I hate bullies!


Well hell, King James was said to have been a sociopath. King James liked lions. He glorified them in the Bible. No doubt as undeservingly as he was to be king. He was why the pilgrims ran away from England. I just don't see how lions have come to earn the title of the "king of beasts". I know animals better than the average person, and I can tell you, lions have nothing in their history, or even present day, that would inaugurate that title to them. Lions have only been around for 2 to 3 million years, and they are becoming extinct already. If they were truly king, they would be able to survive. So, what animal does deserve the title of the true king of beasts? Well, here are some great runners up that probably deserve the title more than lions do.


African elephants are the largest of all land animals. That alone would designate them to have the title of "king of beasts". Before lions went psycho, elephants ruled their domain. Even lions would not touch them. I read once in an old book a story of a matriarch whose calf was killed by a female lion troup, and the matriarch took revenge on the lions by killing their cubs. I believe it! Elephants are not only big, they are intelligent too! And that old cliche about elephants never forgetting is not a myth! Elephants have an excellent memory.


African leopards are larger and more aggressive than the Asian leopards. Just to show, though I do hate leopards as much as I hate lions, I will not be biased in this. They probably deserve the title of being the king more than lions do. Leopards generally do not scavenge, only occasionally if they have to. They sometimes kill for fun, though not as often as we see in lions. Plus, they are more powerful, pound for pound, than lions are. Though sometimes even leopards meet their match. I've seen incidents of fully grown adult leopards being killed by crocodiles, rock pythons, and occasionally even cape hunting dogs. Even lions will kill a leopard if they can capture it. Though the leopard fanatics refuse to believe leopards do have enemies that will prey on them, it does actually happen.


The cape hunting dog is a medium-sized dog, but they are Africa's most skilled hunters that I truly believe deserve the title of being "king of beasts". Dogs are never as muscle-bound as felines. Dogs sacrificed strength for speed. They may not be able to bring down a giraffe alone, but they can chase one down to exhaustion without tiring themselves out. The success rate of hunting dogs is a phenominal 85%. Whereas lions only have a 35% hunting success rate. Leopards have slightly more, about 55% success in hunting rate. But neither one is as skillful a hunter as the cape hunting dog. Cape hunting dogs have been hunting the African plains for more than 30 million years, far longer than there have been lions! And yes, George Schaller, who spent his entire life studying animals in the wild, witnessed a group of cape hunting dogs bring down and kill an adult male leopard in 1966. And again yes, the leopard was a healthy animal.


The nile crocodile is the largest of all reptiles. They can grow to 21 feet long, and there are sightings out there of even larger individuals. I think if any creature deserves the title of the "king of beasts", it's this one. They are larger than lions, and in fact, lions often fall prey to crocodiles. I have seen lions bring down crocs before, but they are usually the puny 5-to-10-footers that are still quite young and have not developed the power we see in 14-to-21-foot crocs. Crocs actually can go for up to a year without eating, which I guess would also give a lion an advantage over them. But given how hungry they would get, one-on-one, the croc would win in a fight against a lion, without question! Crocs have also been around for about 350 million years, before there were dinosaurs or lions! And it is apparent as a collective group, crocodiles are not going anywhere! This alone I think earns crocodiles the title of the true king of beasts!


Crocs are not discriminatory either. They even take on elephants single-handedly, like this 20-foot monster!


Bears are the largest of all carnivores, and this polar bear is the largest of all, and also the most carnivorous. Though bears are not very old as a family, they have achieved a great size and hunting skill that would put lions to shame! I've even heard of polar bears that bury their dark noses in the snow so they won't be seen by seals, which is their favorite prey. An adult polar bear stands 12-feet tall. Lions only stand about 6 feet tall on their hind legs. This makes polar bears an excellent runner-up in the title for the true king of beasts.


The kodiak is second in size to polar bears, and are not quite as carnivorous. They have enough food around them to give them a good variety of things to feed on. But they are still larger than the largest lions. There is a video of 2 siberian tigers that have brought down a russian brown bear, but it took 2 tigers to bring it down, and I would have been willing to bet the bear was old and worn out already when the tigers encountered it. Never in history has a tiger or a lion ever been able to bring down a brown bear. In fact, up to the 1300s, there was a sport known as "bear-baiting", where bears were brought into the ring to face off against a tiger or a lion. It was always one-on-one. Sometimes the tiger or lion would win, but most of the time, the bear would clobber and kill the felines. Truly, no feline ever has the power the bear has! Earning bears the title of the true king of beasts.


Killer whales, or orcas, are the final runners-up for the title of the king of beasts. They are the largest flesh-eating mammals on earth. Adult killer whales measure up to 30 feet long, and they hunt in packs. They are known as the "wolves of the sea". Like wolves, killer whales have strength in numbers. Though they don't need it. Surely a single killer whale could easily hunt and kill it's own food. But as a group, killer whales have the ability to bring down larger whales, seals, porpoises, and even large great white sharks. But killer whales are not limited to a fixed menu. They are opportunistic, and I have even heard of deer crossing the strait here falling prey to killer whales. Killer whales are very intelligent animals as well. They usually do not harm humans, though some captive animals have become aggressive in the past, probably due to stress. But in my opinion, killer whales are the perfect candidates for the title of the king of beasts.

Well that's my point of view. I will NEVER refer to lions as the king of beasts. I don't even call female lions "lioness", because to me, that is like giving in to this idea that lions are the kings of beasts. I just call them "female lions". I will also continue to laugh at people who do give in to this ridiculous propaganda that lions are in any way connected to royalty. When I personally feel lions have indeed earned the title of "king of beasts", then, and only THEN, will I follow through with believing they are. But so far, they have done NOTHING to earn that title, and there are other animals out there that I feel have earned that title more than lions have.
Post a Comment