Lets just remember the kind of people who chair the court of public opinion on these matters...
Lets just remember the kind of people who chair the court of public opinion on these matters...
Originally posted by Thales of Miletus
If you think I have been trying to present myself as intellectually superior, then you truly are a dimwit.
Originally posted by Toma
fact.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
People who grew up with:Originally posted by killramos
Lets just remember the kind of people who chair the court of public opinion on these matters...
Still, I'm not against hunting as long as it's not endangered or protected.
Originally posted by Thales of Miletus
If you think I have been trying to present myself as intellectually superior, then you truly are a dimwit.
Originally posted by Toma
fact.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Has it been confirmed that the dentist was the one that dealt with the lion's body after it was killed? From the sounds of the story (which, let's be honest, we don't have much details for) this was a hunt that went very badly. The initial bowshot didn't kill it, so they ended up tracking it for 40 hours to finish it off by gun (which to be fair, is considered the ethical thing to do rather than just let it bleed out). On guided hunts, especially the exotic "dangerous game" kind, the hunter doesn't usually have any real interest in the body - they're there for the thrill of the hunt and a few photos afterwards. After all, what's a dentist going to do with a couple hundred pounds of lion carcass? There's no guarantee he would have even seen a tracking collar hidden in the lion's mane, and any skinning would likely have been done by the guides afterwards so they could make a few extra bucks by selling the pelt afterwards.Originally posted by Xtrema
So you shot a lion, see it has a collar and decided to cut off head, skin it anyway instead of nope out of this asking for a refund?
To reiterate, I don't like trophy hunting and especially that of protected and endangered species, but I'm not going to demonize a guy who was playing by the rules. IMO it's the outfitters who were the guilty parties and need to have their asses handed to them on a platter.
You do realize that this guy has had previous run-ins with the law in the USA due to illegal hunting activities (and I believe he was charged and convicted for them)?
Normally, I may have given the guy a pass, but past behavior predicts future behavior.
Why not demonize him? Trohpy hunting is an incredibly selfish and deplorable thing to do. This happened purely to satisfy his mental condition.
Didn't he have a single run-in where he misreported where he'd taken a bear? He got one year of probation because it was a pretty minor transgression, that's hardly a history of poaching.Originally posted by HiTempguy1
You do realize that this guy has had previous run-ins with the law in the USA due to illegal hunting activities (and I believe he was charged and convicted for them)?
Normally, I may have given the guy a pass, but past behavior predicts future behavior.
I'll frown upon it and fully believe it should be made illegal for endangered or protected species, but I refuse to demonize someone for doing something deemed legal that I don't happen to personally like. In many cases (albeit not this one) these hunts are organized by the people in charge of protecting the animals as they bring in huge dollars that aid in the conservation efforts. Paradoxical, I know, but if you want to fleece hundreds of thousands of dollars from trophy hunters to fund conservation, I'm all for it.Originally posted by SmAcKpOo
Why not demonize him? Trohpy hunting is an incredibly selfish and deplorable thing to do. This happened purely to satisfy his mental condition.
I don't think people should go on a witch-hunt for this guy, but definitely shame his actions. I'm glad trophy hunting is being ridiculed in the press, such a ridiculous 'sport'.Originally posted by SmAcKpOo
Why not demonize him? Trohpy hunting is an incredibly selfish and deplorable thing to do. This happened purely to satisfy his mental condition.
Fleecing money from trophy hunters is an interesting point, BSK. I didn't know this existed. Kind of a sad/mental way to raise money for conservation unfortunately.
Last edited by Canmorite; 07-29-2015 at 10:05 AM.
Legal vs ethical debate. Much like the whole shark fin and whaling discussion.Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
I'll frown upon it and fully believe it should be made illegal for endangered or protected species, but I refuse to demonize someone for doing something deemed legal that I don't happen to personally like. In many cases (albeit not this one) these hunts are organized by the people in charge of protecting the animals as they bring in huge dollars that aid in the conservation efforts. Paradoxical, I know, but if you want to fleece hundreds of thousands of dollars from trophy hunters to fund conservation, I'm all for it.
Everyone drew the line at different level.
But yeah, I'll support it if it's organized by conservation effort. Hunting can be a tool for conservation.
Last edited by Xtrema; 07-29-2015 at 10:12 AM.
Anyone who thinks this wasn't done on "purpose" and puts the blame SOLELY on the guides is delusional. This piece of shit has been caught before for "luring" an animal. He knows what he did, he just didn't give shit.
http://www.startribune.com/zimbabwe-...ion/318828251/
In 2008, Palmer pleaded guilty in federal court in Wisconsin to misleading a federal agent in connection with the hunting of a black bear. Two years earlier, Palmer killed a bear near Phillips, in Price County. That location was 40 miles outside where bear hunting was allowed at the time. Palmer and others transported the bear carcass to a registration station inside the allowed hunting zone. At the station, he falsely certified that the bear had been killed in the legal zone. He then brought the bear to Minnesota. Twice, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agent interviewed Palmer, who said he believed he killed the bear legally. Palmer, who faced a maximum penalty of five years in prison, was sentenced to one year’s probation and fined nearly $3,000.
1) Palmer didn't lure the lion. That would have been set up well in advance by the guides, he's not paying thousands of dollars to drag lion food into the brush himself. The hunter pays for the hunt, the guides drive him out to where they figure they've got a lion, and he goes hunting.Originally posted by Royle9
Anyone who thinks this wasn't done on "purpose" and puts the blame SOLELY on the guides is delusional. This piece of shit has been caught before for "luring" an animal. He knows what he did, he just didn't give shit.
http://www.startribune.com/zimbabwe-...ion/318828251/
In 2008, Palmer pleaded guilty in federal court in Wisconsin to misleading a federal agent in connection with the hunting of a black bear. Two years earlier, Palmer killed a bear near Phillips, in Price County. That location was 40 miles outside where bear hunting was allowed at the time. Palmer and others transported the bear carcass to a registration station inside the allowed hunting zone. At the station, he falsely certified that the bear had been killed in the legal zone. He then brought the bear to Minnesota. Twice, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agent interviewed Palmer, who said he believed he killed the bear legally. Palmer, who faced a maximum penalty of five years in prison, was sentenced to one year’s probation and fined nearly $3,000.
2) Palmer didn't lure the bear, he killed it out-of-bounds and then misrepresented it to the authorities. (Think about it - why would you lure a bear away from the legally allowed hunting area during bear season?) Deplorable (and actionable, as the federal authorities proved) but certainly not any proof that he's a long-time poacher with a penchant for luring as you suggest. All evidence points to him being a fucking colossal douche, but not necessarily a poacher.
If you plan to make a donation to the Oxford research team that was tracking Cecil and studying him:
https://www.campaign.ox.ac.uk/make-a...d-21f282cc2ef2
The site is being bombarded, took me a while to get through.
Originally posted by 89coupe
I do get great service there, especially when I mention my name, haha.
1) How do you know he wasn't involved? Did he tell you this? Do you believe him? The lion was collared, that's usually a pretty good sign somethings not right. He's been doing big game hunts for years, he knows how they work. Have you been on one yourself, is that how you know the exact details of "who does what"?Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
1) Palmer didn't lure the lion. That would have been set up well in advance by the guides, he's not paying thousands of dollars to drag lion food into the brush himself. The hunter pays for the hunt, the guides drive him out to where they figure they've got a lion, and he goes hunting.
2) Palmer didn't lure the bear, he killed it out-of-bounds and then misrepresented it to the authorities. Deplorable (and actionable, as the federal authorities proved) but certainly not any proof that he's a long-time poacher with a penchant for luring as you suggest.
For all we know they spotted the lion, realized it was still on the protected land, took some bait and lured it off of the land to shoot it. Don't forget not only did they remove the head & the hide but they tried to destroy the collar. Sure Palmer may not have been involved in that, but why not report it himself then if he felt it was wrong...
2) Read more into the evidence/cases, that's just 1 example. Oops shot it out of bounds (I knew it was out of bounds but SHOT IT ANYWAY) better try and drag if 40 miles back INTO bounds and then when I get caught LIE about it. This happened on 2 separate bear hunts and the lion makes 3. Hunter is just as much at fault as the guide, you're responsible to know the rules and regulations. Heck I go salmon fishing on the coast every year, yes its the guides responsibility to make sure where we are is legal and what we're keeping is legal but I also need to know because if I drive back with illegal items its MY FAULT by law.
But no, he's a responsible hunter with the greatest of moral's clearly, my mistake.
Hard to say what really happened other than this guy is fucked for awhile. The only thing I do know is the one person I am familiar with who has the cash to do these hunts and who has a room full of "trophy" heads is that his attitude, if he didn't have a particular one yet, would be along the lines of "I don't care where you get it, I'm paying 50K for a head so get me my fucking lion (or whatever animal)."
I highly doubt this guy is any more ethical but, you never know.
Last edited by JRSC00LUDE; 07-29-2015 at 11:16 AM.
Originally posted by SJW
Once again another useless post by JRSCOOLDUDE.
Originally posted by snowcat
Don't let the e-thugs and faggots get to you when they quote your posts and write stupid shit.^^ Fact CheckedOriginally posted by JRSC00LUDE
I say stupid shit all the time.
I agree with the tentativeness that BerserkerCatSplat is approaching this with, but it still smells fishy.
Hunters like to pose with their trophy after a kill. I'm assuming that it's normally immediately too. I don't see the client shooting it, and waiting around until the guides give him the all clear and wave him to come down to check out the carcass.
This guy sounds like a seasoned hunter so I doubt he is as ignorant as some of you are making him out to be and is trying to weasel his way out of any liability.
Last edited by rx7boi; 07-29-2015 at 11:23 AM.
I could ask all those same questions of you, of course. How do you know he was?Originally posted by Royle9
1) How do you know he wasn't involved? Did he tell you this? Do you believe him?
Considering that I can't spot the collar on Cecil in any of the dozens of pictures available via Google, I'd say it's safe to assume the hunter couldn't, either. It's completely hidden in his mane - you could be standing beside the lion and not know it was there. I'm not sure why tagged lions aren't identified better to prevent incidents like this.The lion was collared, that's usually a pretty good sign somethings not right.
Big game hunts are not shrouded in mysticism, they're pretty straightforward and run pretty much the same way. It's not rocket surgery.He's been doing big game hunts for years, he knows how they work. Have you been on one yourself, is that how you know the exact details of "who does what"?
That's a whole lot of speculation. I'm quite comfortable assuming that the hunt was conducted like most others, and the guides didn't discover it was a collared lion until they went to retrieve the pelt, realized they'd fucked up, and then tried to destroy the evidence. That's certainly the simplest answer. Why would he report it if he had no idea anything was out of the ordinary?For all we know they spotted the lion, realized it was still on the protected land, took some bait and lured it off of the land to shoot it. Don't forget not only did they remove the head & the hide but they tried to destroy the collar. Sure Palmer may not have been involved in that, but why not report it himself then if he felt it was wrong...
So you agree that in no way was Palmer "luring" bears. There's also no mention of a second bear incident in your quote or link, so I'm not sure where you got that information from. He also didn't "drag it back 40 miles into bounds", his hunting party loaded it up and drove it to the nearest processing station like you'd do for any other bear. Out-of-bounds kills happen more frequently than you might think, but they're tough to prove and I'm happy the feds nailed him on it.2) Read more into the evidence/cases, that's just 1 example. Oops shot it out of bounds (I knew it was out of bounds but SHOT IT ANYWAY) better try and drag if 40 miles back INTO bounds and then when I get caught LIE about it. This happened on 2 separate bear hunts and the lion makes 3.
I agree there's a lot of trust involved in foreign guided hunts, but the Zimbabwean courts don't seem to think he acted illegally and are only going after the guides. Seems reasonable to me, tough to justify forcing a guy to learn the local language just to read the laws that pertain to the hunt. Hiring a local professional to conduct the hunt legally is doing his due diligence.Hunter is just as much at fault as the guide, you're responsible to know the rules and regulations. Heck I go salmon fishing on the coast every year, yes its the guides responsibility to make sure where we are is legal and what we're keeping is legal but I also need to know because if I drive back with illegal items its MY FAULT by law.
Yes, that's precisely what I've been saying all along! I think the guy's a huge twat, but I don't like witch hunts or trophy hunts.But no, he's a responsible hunter with the greatest of moral's clearly, my mistake.
This guy knew what he was doing. When you typically hear of legal, paid trophy hunting where the profits go to conservation you are usually talking about "canned hunts". Where lions etc are bred to be hunted and kept in a fenced off preserve (usually a small one to increase the likelihood of bagging a kill). While this idea is also ethically debatable it does ensure that hunters can hunt their trophy without killing a breeding lion.
This guy was way "off the reservation" so to speak. Plus, he killed a breeding lion and his cubs will likely be killed by another male to get the mother in heat again. If the copulation fails for whatever reason this guy killed one adult and 6 cubs.
*edit* plus, the guy was with the guides when they lured him out of the park. WTF did he think they were doing?
Last edited by frizzlefry; 07-29-2015 at 11:42 AM.
It's my understanding that "canned hunting" is almost never a conservation effort as the animals bred for hunting cannot be returned to the wild. Canned hunts are looked down upon by almost all conservation groups that I know of and are outright banned in a lot of areas. (Paradoxical again, seeing as it's not much different than what we do to, say, cows.)Originally posted by frizzlefry
This guy knew what he was doing. When you typically hear of legal, paid trophy hunting where the profits go to conservation you are usually talking about "canned hunts". Where lions etc are bred to be hunted and kept in a fenced off preserve (usually a small one to increase the likelihood of bagging a kill). While this idea is also ethically debatable it does ensure that hunters can hunt their trophy without killing a breeding lion.
Conservationists prefer the "normal" hunts as they give economic incentive to restore naturally-ranging populations rather than just breed animals for slaughter.
I don't disagree, but conservation is part of the marketing for canned hunts. Most groups also frown upon "normal" trophy hunting as hunters seek out the most viable members of a population for their trophy. The death of a strong, healthy trophy worthy male harms the gene pool.Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
It's my understanding that "canned hunting" is almost never a conservation effort as the animals bred for hunting cannot be returned to the wild. Canned hunts are looked down upon by almost all conservation groups that I know of and are outright banned in a lot of areas. (Paradoxical again, seeing as it's not much different than what we do to, say, cows.)
Conservationists prefer the "normal" hunts as they give economic incentive to restore naturally-ranging populations rather than just breed animals for slaughter.
A 2011 study (pdf) published by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature states that in 11 sub-Saharan countries, 272 million acres (roughly 14.9% of the land) is open to trophy hunting. Though hunters abscond with thousands of trophies each year, they invest only an average of 44 cents per acre. In some countries, like Tanzania—home to some of the continent’s lushest game reserves—they invest as little as two cents per acre. “The average contribution of hunting to GDP is 0.06%. This means they are the least economically productive lands in the country,” researchers found. “Trophy hunting does therefore not represent economically valuable land use, especially in the context of the need to abate poverty and hunger.” These reserves are essentially blood-soaked playgrounds for the rich.
The sheep he hunted was legal. Just because an animal in endangered doesn't mean you can't hunt it.Originally posted by Xtrema
The fact that he has a history of illegal hunts and going after endangered animals, he is not totally innocent either.
But people who are incredibly dead set against hunting are some of the biggest hypocrites around. It's fine to raise an animal in deplorable conditions in order to eat it, but as soon as you take the life of an animal not raised on a farm as food, you're an evil person.
Last edited by FraserB; 07-29-2015 at 12:28 PM.
See Crank. See Crank Walk. Walk Crank Walk.