quote:

Originally posted by editor-ant:
Good Evening All.

I am posting this on all the relevant links on this subject, as I believe we have been able to gather information and fact, hopefully devoid of emotion circulating at present, and which I think will answer many of the questions being posed. Please visit www.africanhunteronline.com to see “Lion Conservation Under Threat - Cecil the Lion, the Facts”.

quote:

Originally posted by editor-ant:
Good Evening All.

I am posting this on all the relevant links on this subject, as I believe we have been able to gather information and fact, hopefully devoid of emotion circulating at present, and which I think will answer many of the questions being posed. Please visit www.africanhunteronline.com to see “Lion Conservation Under Threat - Cecil the Lion, the Facts”.

quote:

I believe we have been able to gather information and fact, hopefully devoid of emotion circulating at present

quote:

Let's assume that the situation did not involve a lion but involved an elephant. And not just any elephant but it was Duke (who is dead now), one of the magnificent elephants in Kruger National Park. Duke lives in Kruger, is collared and is well known to anyone that is familiar with Kruger. Duke has been in Kruger since he was born decades ago. He is accustomed to seeing vehicles and people virtually everyday that are touring the park. One day Duke wanders out of Kruger on to an adjacent property . . . or perhaps Duke is lured out of Kruger to an artificial waterhole dug to take advantage of a drought in the Kruger area. * Do you believe it would be responsible for a hunter to shoot Duke?* Do you believe that a hunter shooting Duke is contributing to the long-term sustainability of elephant hunting?

quote:

Originally posted by Zimbabwe Wildlife Conservation:
We have been following these threads with great interest. we emphasize we are advocates of "sustainable utilization " as a conservation tool , some Basic facts that have been verified by several reliable and credible sources :-

The operator / professional hunters in question had a valid TR2 form stamped by the Zimbabwe parks & wildlife authority. This form once stamped allows a hunt to take place."authority to hunt"

Each and every property or hunting concession to be hunted by the registered operator/client / professional hunter during the course of conducting the hunt must be recorded on this TR2 form

All hunting Quota's are issued by Zimbabwe parks Authority, and ARE AREA SPECIFIC!!! The property in question where the lion was hunted is "Antonette", which incidentally was legally owned by Peter Johnston /Rosslyn Safaris, and was taken without compensation during the land grab. This could get

Any off take of animals be it for cropping,management or trophy hunting purposes has to be applied for and approved. The land owner is then issued with a "quota" which is valid from 01/01 -31/12 of each year. Few clients fully understand the different land classifications Zimbabwe has for its hunting industry.

1.government hunting concessions
2.communal areas - campfire or tribal areas generally with human settlement within these areas
3.private land - farms,ranches, conservancies

All these areas have different regulations and rules. There is no one standard set of laws that govern safari hunting across these land classifications. Naturally this is where the foreign client assumes his hunt should or will be legal and be compliant in local laws etc. His link being the professional hunter for everything that happens on the ground during the hunt, and in most cases the "operator" or company he has contracted to hunt through would have done all the paper work for his hunt, TR2 / hunt registration etc

99% of clients will never have had sight of the areas quota, again here he is generally relying on/be guided accordingly by his professional hunter.So client arrives in camp, he has probably not had sight of this TR2, as these are acquired ahead of time, usually before the clients even arrive in Zimbabwe, all necessary information is usually taken from the safari contract form or is forwarded by client / booking agent to operator / professional hunter. He would have his basic list of main species he would be hunting.off they go hunting.as soon as you leave camp and have rifles prepared,tracker etc on your vehicle you are deemed to be hunting,have the intent to hunt,look for,track stalk etc

Here is where the problem starts... Even if this client/hunter had shot a bushbuck,hyena, or whatever other animal/bird etc for that matter, that was not on the approved hunting quota for the said property for that current hunting year. They are technically hunting legally in terms of the authority to hunt , the valid TR2 form,but he has just killed an animal without the relevant approved and allocated quota / tag for that specific property. You have just poached that species . The onus is on the professional hunter conducting the safari, and the buck stops with him period!!


1.there is no law gazetted in Zimbabwe that specifically forbids the shooting of collard animals. It's the unwritten rule amongst "professional hunters" should the collar be visible that these animals are off limits.

2.of the 65 or so lions that have been collard in matabeleland north ( hwange, gwaai,Victoria falls,etc) in the past decade or so, 35 have died, with 24 of these being shot by either sport hunters, on problem animal control - cattle killers, man eaters etc . In the event one is killed, it's professional to return the collard to the research organization with date,location etc the animal was killed etc

3.the professional hunter/land owner did themselves no favors by trying to destroy the lions collar. No lion tag/quota , there was mention of "quota transfer ".. This is absolutely diabolical , but unfortunately is has and still happens. That's a lengthy topic which we will go in depth about in a separate post.

4. Did the client actually know the operator / land owner had no lion on quota? We very much doubt it.

5. Did the operator / professional hunter probably take a chance, hell yes!! If the lion had been cleanly killed, would we be in the PR storm we find ourselves in... Most probably not.

6.the operator and the land owner appeared in court today in hwange, and were granted bail.

Unfortunately some operators and professional hunters continue to "manipulate the system", quota transfers between areas, unsustainable quotas,with the blessing of government offices and / or use of influential political partners,moral and/or scientific conservation ethics are sacrificed for financial gain. Until there is a complete and thorough restructuring in the relevant ministry, government departments,and even our local hunting associations to a lesser degre our wildlife heritage will remain at risk.

quote:

Originally posted by Zimbabwe Wildlife Conservation:
We have been following these threads with great interest. we emphasize we are advocates of "sustainable utilization " as a conservation tool , some Basic facts that have been verified by several reliable and credible sources :-

The operator / professional hunters in question had a valid TR2 form stamped by the Zimbabwe parks & wildlife authority. This form once stamped allows a hunt to take place."authority to hunt"

Each and every property or hunting concession to be hunted by the registered operator/client / professional hunter during the course of conducting the hunt must be recorded on this TR2 form

All hunting Quota's are issued by Zimbabwe parks Authority, and ARE AREA SPECIFIC!!! The property in question where the lion was hunted is "Antonette", which incidentally was legally owned by Peter Johnston /Rosslyn Safaris, and was taken without compensation during the land grab. This could get

Any off take of animals be it for cropping,management or trophy hunting purposes has to be applied for and approved. The land owner is then issued with a "quota" which is valid from 01/01 -31/12 of each year. Few clients fully understand the different land classifications Zimbabwe has for its hunting industry.

1.government hunting concessions
2.communal areas - campfire or tribal areas generally with human settlement within these areas
3.private land - farms,ranches, conservancies

All these areas have different regulations and rules. There is no one standard set of laws that govern safari hunting across these land classifications. Naturally this is where the foreign client assumes his hunt should or will be legal and be compliant in local laws etc. His link being the professional hunter for everything that happens on the ground during the hunt, and in most cases the "operator" or company he has contracted to hunt through would have done all the paper work for his hunt, TR2 / hunt registration etc

99% of clients will never have had sight of the areas quota, again here he is generally relying on/be guided accordingly by his professional hunter.So client arrives in camp, he has probably not had sight of this TR2, as these are acquired ahead of time, usually before the clients even arrive in Zimbabwe, all necessary information is usually taken from the safari contract form or is forwarded by client / booking agent to operator / professional hunter. He would have his basic list of main species he would be hunting.off they go hunting.as soon as you leave camp and have rifles prepared,tracker etc on your vehicle you are deemed to be hunting,have the intent to hunt,look for,track stalk etc

Here is where the problem starts... Even if this client/hunter had shot a bushbuck,hyena, or whatever other animal/bird etc for that matter, that was not on the approved hunting quota for the said property for that current hunting year. They are technically hunting legally in terms of the authority to hunt , the valid TR2 form,but he has just killed an animal without the relevant approved and allocated quota / tag for that specific property. You have just poached that species . The onus is on the professional hunter conducting the safari, and the buck stops with him period!!


1.there is no law gazetted in Zimbabwe that specifically forbids the shooting of collard animals. It's the unwritten rule amongst "professional hunters" should the collar be visible that these animals are off limits.

2.of the 65 or so lions that have been collard in matabeleland north ( hwange, gwaai,Victoria falls,etc) in the past decade or so, 35 have died, with 24 of these being shot by either sport hunters, on problem animal control - cattle killers, man eaters etc . In the event one is killed, it's professional to return the collard to the research organization with date,location etc the animal was killed etc

3.the professional hunter/land owner did themselves no favors by trying to destroy the lions collar. No lion tag/quota , there was mention of "quota transfer ".. This is absolutely diabolical , but unfortunately is has and still happens. That's a lengthy topic which we will go in depth about in a separate post.

4. Did the client actually know the operator / land owner had no lion on quota? We very much doubt it.

5. Did the operator / professional hunter probably take a chance, hell yes!! If the lion had been cleanly killed, would we be in the PR storm we find ourselves in... Most probably not.

6.the operator and the land owner appeared in court today in hwange, and were granted bail.

Unfortunately some operators and professional hunters continue to "manipulate the system", quota transfers between areas, unsustainable quotas,with the blessing of government offices and / or use of influential political partners,moral and/or scientific conservation ethics are sacrificed for financial gain. Until there is a complete and thorough restructuring in the relevant ministry, government departments,and even our local hunting associations to a lesser degre our wildlife heritage will remain at risk.

quote:

Originally posted by Zimbabwe Wildlife Conservation:
having lived through two phases of governments changing from Rhodesia , to Zimbabwe... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

quote:

Originally posted by SteveGl:

quote:

Originally posted by Zimbabwe Wildlife Conservation:
having lived through two phases of governments changing from Rhodesia , to Zimbabwe... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Any post by a representative of any reputable governmental, non-governmental or other organization should be signed by the Rep. himself and include his or her title and position, contact information, website link and so on.

For one thing, it establishes their credibility and the fact that they do, in fact, represent said organization ... (this IS the internet, after all) ...

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
It will be interesting to see the email correspondence between the outfitter and Palmer if and when that comes out. I would give good odds that Palmer was far more complicit in this than some want to believe. Once (the bear) may be a mistake; twice (the bear and the lion) is a pattern. This notion that he was a poor, misguided soul is damage control. He and the PH were executing a plan. My guess is that Palmer and the PH are deleting emails faster than Hillary Clinton and destroying hard disks and cell phones faster than Tom Brady.

quote:

Originally posted by Zimbabwe Wildlife Conservation:
We have been following these threads with great interest. we emphasize we are advocates of "sustainable utilization " as a conservation tool , some Basic facts that have been verified by several reliable and credible sources :-

The operator / professional hunters in question had a valid TR2 form stamped by the Zimbabwe parks & wildlife authority. This form once stamped allows a hunt to take place."authority to hunt"

Each and every property or hunting concession to be hunted by the registered operator/client / professional hunter during the course of conducting the hunt must be recorded on this TR2 form

All hunting Quota's are issued by Zimbabwe parks Authority, and ARE AREA SPECIFIC!!! The property in question where the lion was hunted is "Antonette", which incidentally was legally owned by Peter Johnston /Rosslyn Safaris, and was taken without compensation during the land grab. This could get

Any off take of animals be it for cropping,management or trophy hunting purposes has to be applied for and approved. The land owner is then issued with a "quota" which is valid from 01/01 -31/12 of each year. Few clients fully understand the different land classifications Zimbabwe has for its hunting industry.

1.government hunting concessions
2.communal areas - campfire or tribal areas generally with human settlement within these areas
3.private land - farms,ranches, conservancies

All these areas have different regulations and rules. There is no one standard set of laws that govern safari hunting across these land classifications. Naturally this is where the foreign client assumes his hunt should or will be legal and be compliant in local laws etc. His link being the professional hunter for everything that happens on the ground during the hunt, and in most cases the "operator" or company he has contracted to hunt through would have done all the paper work for his hunt, TR2 / hunt registration etc

99% of clients will never have had sight of the areas quota, again here he is generally relying on/be guided accordingly by his professional hunter.So client arrives in camp, he has probably not had sight of this TR2, as these are acquired ahead of time, usually before the clients even arrive in Zimbabwe, all necessary information is usually taken from the safari contract form or is forwarded by client / booking agent to operator / professional hunter. He would have his basic list of main species he would be hunting.off they go hunting.as soon as you leave camp and have rifles prepared,tracker etc on your vehicle you are deemed to be hunting,have the intent to hunt,look for,track stalk etc

Here is where the problem starts... Even if this client/hunter had shot a bushbuck,hyena, or whatever other animal/bird etc for that matter, that was not on the approved hunting quota for the said property for that current hunting year. They are technically hunting legally in terms of the authority to hunt , the valid TR2 form,but he has just killed an animal without the relevant approved and allocated quota / tag for that specific property. You have just poached that species . The onus is on the professional hunter conducting the safari, and the buck stops with him period!!


1.there is no law gazetted in Zimbabwe that specifically forbids the shooting of collard animals. It's the unwritten rule amongst "professional hunters" should the collar be visible that these animals are off limits.

2.of the 65 or so lions that have been collard in matabeleland north ( hwange, gwaai,Victoria falls,etc) in the past decade or so, 35 have died, with 24 of these being shot by either sport hunters, on problem animal control - cattle killers, man eaters etc . In the event one is killed, it's professional to return the collard to the research organization with date,location etc the animal was killed etc

3.the professional hunter/land owner did themselves no favors by trying to destroy the lions collar. No lion tag/quota , there was mention of "quota transfer ".. This is absolutely diabolical , but unfortunately is has and still happens. That's a lengthy topic which we will go in depth about in a separate post.

4. Did the client actually know the operator / land owner had no lion on quota? We very much doubt it.

5. Did the operator / professional hunter probably take a chance, hell yes!! If the lion had been cleanly killed, would we be in the PR storm we find ourselves in... Most probably not.

6.the operator and the land owner appeared in court today in hwange, and were granted bail.

Unfortunately some operators and professional hunters continue to "manipulate the system", quota transfers between areas, unsustainable quotas,with the blessing of government offices and / or use of influential political partners,moral and/or scientific conservation ethics are sacrificed for financial gain. Until there is a complete and thorough restructuring in the relevant ministry, government departments,and even our local hunting associations to a lesser degre our wildlife heritage will remain at risk.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Sport hunting is under attack certainly you can appreciate that fact. What this hunter did was wrong. Was wrong legally and in my view was wrong ethically. The longer we attempt to defend such conduct the less credible all of us are as hunters. If you choose to ignore his involvement in a similar instance in the not so distance past, have at it. In terms of arming the anti-hunters, I am quite confident that hunters defending and standing by Palmer do far more to undermine sport hunting than hunters condemning him and his actions.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardAustin:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Sport hunting is under attack certainly you can appreciate that fact. What this hunter did was wrong. Was wrong legally and in my view was wrong ethically. The longer we attempt to defend such conduct the less credible all of us are as hunters. If you choose to ignore his involvement in a similar instance in the not so distance past, have at it. In terms of arming the anti-hunters, I am quite confident that hunters defending and standing by Palmer do far more to undermine sport hunting than hunters condemning him and his actions.

May I suggest that awaiting judgment until all facts are presented is more of an allegiance to common sense than a particular person.
Just wondering, are you completely familiar with current Zim laws?

quote:

Originally posted by Zimbabwe Wildlife Conservation:


Unsustainably high quota's handed out to concession holders because of political partners or connections... Just look at once pristine areas like chirisa , chete, sapi Safari areas to name a few, reduced to wide open spaces devoid of the once teeming wildlife.

It's an absolute disgrace, even more so the fact that some of our so called Operators / professional hunters who are members of the local hunting associations were directly responsible for these areas demise.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by RichardAustin:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Sport hunting is under attack certainly you can appreciate that fact. What this hunter did was wrong. Was wrong legally and in my view was wrong ethically. The longer we attempt to defend such conduct the less credible all of us are as hunters. If you choose to ignore his involvement in a similar instance in the not so distance past, have at it. In terms of arming the anti-hunters, I am quite confident that hunters defending and standing by Palmer do far more to undermine sport hunting than hunters condemning him and his actions.

May I suggest that awaiting judgment until all facts are presented is more of an allegiance to common sense than a particular person.
Just wondering, are you completely familiar with current Zim laws?

I have maintained all along this is an ethical failure in my view . . . I am not aware that hunting ethics should vary in Zim from elsewhere. If you see the ethics differently, I would suggest you consider whether you are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

quote:

Originally posted by The Artistry of Wildlife:
I liked this...I will say tho' If anything was illegal pay the price. It's all 'rumors has it for now'.

https://ideas.aeon.co/question...someone-hunts-a-lion



Brigid Hains Society
Editorial Director, Aeon
The meaning of an individual animal

Among the reasons not to feel outraged about the killing of Cecil the lion are these two: he had a human name and he was a well-known tourist attraction. I say ‘tourist attraction’ instead of 'beloved lion’ because that hackneyed phrase seems to me a concept empty of meaning. How can a lion be wild and be 'beloved’ by people who saw him once from a safari jeep? You don’t earn the right to 'love’ a lion that way. Cecil was a wild lion who was habituated to humans, collared for a biology study, long-lived and good looking. All those factors have been offered as intensifiers of emotion in the reaction to his killing, but not one of them seems a good reason to care more about this individual lion than any other.

'Cecil’ isn’t the first lion to die when he ventured outside the Hwange National Park. In fact you could argue that a lion of his age has done extremely well to stay alive this long. In a study conducted between 1996 and 2004, 24 out of 62 tagged lions in the Hwange study area were shot dead by sport hunters. Each year around 250 lions are killed - legally - across Africa by trophy-hunters, most of them foreigners who pay staggering amounts of money for the privilege of flying home with a lion head for their wall. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? That’s a very complex question and the only simple answer is that twitter isn’t the best place to decide it. So here’s a start: there are two very different moral issues here which are being confused: the ugly death of a lion at the hands of a sports hunter on the one hand, and the conservation of charismatic predators in Africa on the other.

How do I feel, at a visceral level, about a hunter with a bow and arrow shooting a magnificent big cat; that intelligent, powerful, fierce animal then taking many hours to die, only to be decapitated and shipped to America as a trophy? Well, I don’t feel good. I can’t imagine doing it myself. It is a sad and grotesque end for such a magnificent animal. Still, wild animals come to sad and grotesque ends all the time, especially apex predators. Not many go gently. Canine distemper virus periodically kills many of the lions in Serengeti National Park - a horrible lingering death including grand mal seizures and encephalitis. Many lions die of starvation. When the male lions of a pride die or are killed by rivals, their place is taken by other males who routinely kill all the cubs in order to free up the reproductive potential of 'their’ lionesses. The general estimate is that half of all lion cubs die before the age of two, many from starvation, and only 1 in 8 males makes it to adulthood, as they are forcibly ejected from their maternal pride. Wild lions live with porcupine quills in their faces, intractable bacterial infections, and the constant threat of violence from their own kind. Not many nature documentaries are brave enough to follow a 12 year old lion like Cecil to his slow and painful natural grave. So while it’s an important question whether it is right for a hunter to kill, deliberately, a healthy, adult male lion in a fashion that ensures a painful and lingering death, let us not be blinded to what kind of end awaits such an animal otherwise.

More importantly I’m not sure that one can feel disgusted at the death of this one lion while not protesting the killing of bears in the United States. In California alone there is a hunting quota of 1500 black bears per year. That’s 6 times as many lions as are killed in the whole of Africa each year. The black bear population of California is exactly the same size as the African lion population, yet is deemed to be sustainably harvested at 6 times the rate of African lions. Bears are routinely hunted with dogs in the US (yes that is the origin of the term 'hounding’) although some states, including CA in 2012, have banned this practice. 1 in 10 black bears killed by hunters in California are killed with bows and arrows - in 2013 that was around 100 individuals. None of those bears were 'beloved’; had human names, or were tourist attractions. None of their deaths sparked outrage. Black bears are intelligent, magnificent, fierce animals. Bear hunters skin and behead their catch (why else would they hunt?) and thus they furnish the lounges and dens, just as a lion hunter does. A bear killed with an arrow is unlikely to die a clean and polished death. A bear wounded with an arrow even less so. So why are there over 300,000 tweets about Cecil the Lion and none about Californian black bears? The answer is obvious - it’s a viral moral outrage storm, and it obscures the second moral question at stake here: the conservation management of African lions.

The African lion population has declined steeply in recent decades to its present level of somewhere between 23000 and 39000 individuals. The terrible reality is that charismatic apex predators do not flourish anywhere in the world where they co-exist with large, dense human populations. Tigers in India, grizzlies in the US, wolves in Europe, sharks off the coast of eastern Australia, cougars in Florida, none of them will find it easy to survive without vigorous management and protection. Complete quarantining of predators from people is possible only in protected areas (national parks and the like) but such areas will never provide enough habitat for large wild populations to be sustained. Large predators need territory to follow their prey through the seasons and they cannot be contained, short of fencing national parks. Nor can they be domesticated enough to be guaranteed never to kill livestock and even humans. So there must be compromises reached in how these predators live in proximity to human populations outside of national parks, because conflicts with humans are the most important causes of mortality for lions in edge zones.

One reasonably promising model is to develop buffer zones around protected areas in which wildlife can live, if not being strictly protected, and in Africa these often take the form of hunting concessions, Wildlife Management Areas, game controlled areas and so on. These are not empty places, but are full of people as well as wildlife. Buffer zones around national parks are often intensely contested lands. In East Africa they are - at best, for wildlife - home to traditional pastoralists, whose livestock practices (mobile, seasonal grazing at low population densities) have enabled them to co-exist for centuries alongside a rich biota of wild animals. But all too often, land that abuts national parks is needed by farmers whose populations are expanding, and whose land is already poor in financial return. The great conundrum for African governments and their advisors is how to balance these competing needs for resources. In an ideal world, local peoples have both economic use of their land and economic incentives to foster healthy populations of wild animals on that same land. So far, this is extremely rare. There are only a few ways for that to work and in East Africa it’s usually some combination of pastoralism, tourism, and hunting concessions. For species like lion and elephant, who are dangerous, who kill local people, and are destructive of their livelihoods (eating, respectively, livestock and crops), the incentives need to be particularly strong to offset the costs. That is where hunting licences can play a role. As everyone now knows, the cost to an American tourist of hunting big game in Africa is stupendous. Right now, very little of that tends to flow back into local communities. I’ve seen myself the armoured vehicles and machine-gun toting guards of the Game Controlled Areas around Longido in northern Tanzania. They are leased to Arab hunting companies and in constant conflict with local Maasai pastoralists. But in other parts of Africa, notably Namibia, hunting concessions are in fact run by local communities, who benefit substantially from them. And these include those expensive, rare, lion hunting licences. Most African states only allow the off-take of adult male lions, who are after all reproductively the least valuable individuals. By contrast, in Kenya, where trophy hunting was banned in 1977, and traditional pastoralism largely dismantled by privatisation of common lands, national parks are surrounded, cheek by jowl, with farms growing vegetables and flowers for the European market. And Kenyan wildlife populations have declined by up to 70% since then.

The liberal conscience may revolt. Isn’t trophy hunting the crudest replay of imperial violence? Aren’t we thrown back to Teddy Roosevelt, killing hundreds of creatures in a rampage around southern Africa at the turn of the century? Isn’t it shameful to see an American toting a dead leopard with a big smile on his face?

Maybe. But surely the generous response is to think not only of the tourists who 'loved’ a lion; and of the lion himself; but also to think of the black bears of California, and the struggling pastoralist communities of East Africa: of all the living beings implicated in this web of global transactions, before we jump to moral outrage about this one death.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardAustin:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by RichardAustin:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Sport hunting is under attack certainly you can appreciate that fact. What this hunter did was wrong. Was wrong legally and in my view was wrong ethically. The longer we attempt to defend such conduct the less credible all of us are as hunters. If you choose to ignore his involvement in a similar instance in the not so distance past, have at it. In terms of arming the anti-hunters, I am quite confident that hunters defending and standing by Palmer do far more to undermine sport hunting than hunters condemning him and his actions.

May I suggest that awaiting judgment until all facts are presented is more of an allegiance to common sense than a particular person.
Just wondering, are you completely familiar with current Zim laws?

I have maintained all along this is an ethical failure in my view . . . I am not aware that hunting ethics should vary in Zim from elsewhere. If you see the ethics differently, I would suggest you consider whether you are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

So now your opinion is the ethical standard. Interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:
So go back to hiding and making sure hunters fly under the radar so the general public tolerates you. What a way to live. Begging for their approval

W
That coming from someone that posts using a pseudonym. Is anyone holding you back from starting a website, opening a Facebook page or otherwise publicly taking up the defense of hunting?

As long as everything is nice and quiet so you don't have to worry about whether you can trophy hunt or not. Everything will be just fine. I do my conservation by donating and letting the experts fight and represent me. Much like the NRA. But I definitely don't give a shit if antis like what I do or not. And as far as the general public they go back and forth with a flip of a channel. They will have long forgot about Cecil the lion as soon as the next Cosby story breaks

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:
and no..your just being an ass