Rather than to continue to derail MJines thread, I figured I would start a new discussion about the photograph issue here.

Here's my premise;

We as International Sport Hunters have been getting our collective asses handed to us on all fronts since the Cecil goat rope.

I believe we can render it down to one simple event in just a couple of questions.

How did it happen? Did the photograph of the good Dr. Palmer post itself? had that photograph not been posted, where would we be right now?

Would we have airlines refusing trophy shipments?

Would the German guy whom killed the big Jumbo in Zim been able to get his Ivory home with little to no trouble?

These are rhetorical questions we can't answer but if you just be intellectually honest with yourself and answer these questions, it comes down to a photograph.

I will admit, had it not been the Dentist photograph, it would have been something else. However it wasn't something else, it was a photograph.

One last thing to ponder, do you wish to post pictures, or go hunting?

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

How did it happen? Did the photograph of the good Dr. Palmer post itself? had that photograph not been posted, where would we be right now?

I don't believe the actual photograph of Cecil was ever posted, anywhere, but I could be wrong. I also don't believe the photo was the issue, at least originally. The photo of him with a lion was not cecil, but rather a photo taken years ago that somehow surfaced after the fact. I know this with 100% certainty. It's pretty apparent by the equipment in the photograph that the photo is very dated. The issue came down to the GPS tracking collar and what the PH allegedly did with it after the cat was dead. Rather than turn it in and give the researchers a data point, he allegedly tried to destroy it. This was what started the social media fire, people believing he'd broken the law. I saw it building on Facebook from about 4 or 5 days after he shot the cat, and we all saw where it went from there. There was no photo of Dr. Palmer with the lion (remember, people originally thought it was a Spanish hunter). They just found out who was there, put two and two together, named him to shame him and found a photo of him with a lion posted on an outfitters actual web page and ran with it.

Would we have airlines refusing trophy shipments?
Likely not.
Would the German guy whom killed the big Jumbo in Zim been able to get his Ivory home with little to no trouble?

Don't know the answer to that, but the US had made the decision to stop importation of elephant prior to Cecil (April of last year). It's very possible the EU may have followed suit. Obviously that's debatable, but so is saying a photo of an elephant caused the EU to cease importation.

My thoughts, for whatever they're worth, are above.

Good point Steve
I've been little better about posting pics/very few and just here
I definitely will not put anymore on FB

I think it can be refined a bit further.


One name.


Johnny Rodriguez!

It wasn't the photo.

It was the deceitful way the antis behave, including a large number of scientists.

It also probably has to do with the political situation in Zimbabwe, where the current government has been falling down on the job and looking for outside spectacles to detract notice from their own issues.

Now, I am still unsure if the whole issue is quota sharing or not. I still feel that there were some issues that rightly are more the PH than anything else, it still some warning flags were there.

The fact that so many actions were done to cover up also is condemning in the Cecil incident (destroying the collar and the trophy, etc.)

In short, while it may have been fine, the fact that he went into full cover up afterwards made his photos that much more condemning. They would have used some stock photos from somewhere if he had not had his own to be used. The only good defend in a case like this is to know you are on the right side and counter attack, sue the groups saying you did illegal acts, etc.

If Palmer was defamed, it would seem he has plenty of folks he could be going after at this point.

I think it is naive to believe that a photograph caused the Cecil debacle. Even with no photo you have individuals and groups in Zim and elsewhere that would be aware that a collared park lion had been shot. Folks with a vested interest to get the word out. No, the Cecil debacle was caused by the overwhelmingly negative factual context of what happened, a collared lion from a National Park had been shot at night by a hunter and outfitter that tried to destroy the evidence. It was a gift handed to the anti-hunting community and a set of facts they could not believe fell into their lap. There are plenty of photographs of hunters with lions on the Internet. They did not cause a stir. It was the facts that caused the Cecil debacle and not a photograph.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
I think it can be refined a bit further.


One name.


Johnny Rodriguez!

I am honestly surprised that the Zim government hasn't jailed him, killed him or caused him to mysteriously disappear.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I think it is naive to believe that a photograph caused the Cecil debacle. Even with no photo you have individuals and groups in Zim and elsewhere that would be aware that a collared park lion had been shot. Folks with a vested interest to get the word out. No, the Cecil debacle was caused by the overwhelmingly negative factual context of what happened, a collared lion from a National Park had been shot at night by a hunter and outfitter that tried to destroy the evidence. It was a gift handed to the anti-hunting community and a set of facts they could not believe fell into their lap. There are plenty of photographs of hunters with lions on the Internet. They did not cause a stir. It was the facts that caused the Cecil debacle and not a photograph.

I agree with that.

They Zim gov probably get plenty of money from so called conservation groups and western nations so theyve most likely been stradling fence for long time
They play us all for a buck like a yoyo

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
I think it can be refined a bit further.


One name.


Johnny Rodriguez!

Whenever I see this idiot's name anywhere, I KNOW he is lying to get some attention to himself!

He claims of being a conservationist, I am certain he does not know what it means!

I don't respect anyone who likes to look at others hunting pics and videos but refuses to post his own.

I agree that Johnny Rodrigues of Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force was the driver of all this. Ultimately, the Oxford folk released a report that in the 90 days preceding the killing, "Cecil", was outside the park boundary on several occasions, and that he was not "lured" outside the park boundary as had been reported. The area he was killed in was part of his core area. This, of course, was not widely distributed by the media. As others have said, a photo was not the reason things blew up on social media. Most people on social media have no clue that African National Parks are mostly unfenced. Rodrigues is a self-serving professional liar, and I am also puzzled why he has not been made to disappear. As for the posting of photos, I agree that we are often our own worst enemies when we do so.

Too many anti hunters that is why nothing happened to Rodrigues.So many that they even made their way on to the African hunting forum.Lizzy and Beretta come to mind.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
I think it can be refined a bit further.


One name.


Johnny Rodriguez!

I am honestly surprised that the Zim government hasn't jailed him, killed him or caused him to mysteriously disappear.

+1

Does anyone know of anything that Zimbabwe Conservation Taskforce has contributed to or done for conservation?

Does all the money Rodriguez raises go into maintaining his and his kids lifestyle?

The alleged (not really alleged but the case is still before the courts) tampering with the collar was AN issue, and one it was easy for the antis to seize on, but the REAL issue was that there was no quota, hence the criminal charge of "failing to prevent an illegal hunt".

For what it's worth, Bronkhorst has been found guilty on both charges dealing with the attempt to smuggle sable into South Africa. His combined sentence is $2,300 or 36 months. But the court document reflects that the case was a first offence, which means there could be far less leniency if he is convicted in the Cecil case (which he will be).

quote:

Originally posted by Greg Brownlee:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

How did it happen? Did the photograph of the good Dr. Palmer post itself? had that photograph not been posted, where would we be right now?

I don't believe the actual photograph of Cecil was ever posted, anywhere, but I could be wrong. I also don't believe the photo was the issue, at least originally. The photo of him with a lion was not cecil, but rather a photo taken years ago that somehow surfaced after the fact. I know this with 100% certainty. It's pretty apparent by the equipment in the photograph that the photo is very dated. The issue came down to the GPS tracking collar and what the PH allegedly did with it after the cat was dead. Rather than turn it in and give the researchers a data point, he allegedly tried to destroy it. This was what started the social media fire, people believing he'd broken the law. I saw it building on Facebook from about 4 or 5 days after he shot the cat, and we all saw where it went from there. There was no photo of Dr. Palmer with the lion (remember, people originally thought it was a Spanish hunter). They just found out who was there, put two and two together, named him to shame him and found a photo of him with a lion posted on an outfitters actual web page and ran with it.

Would we have airlines refusing trophy shipments?
Likely not.
Would the German guy whom killed the big Jumbo in Zim been able to get his Ivory home with little to no trouble?

Don't know the answer to that, but the US had made the decision to stop importation of elephant prior to Cecil (April of last year). It's very possible the EU may have followed suit. Obviously that's debatable, but so is saying a photo of an elephant caused the EU to cease importation.

My thoughts, for whatever they're worth, are above.

quote:

Originally posted by Barry Groulx:
The alleged (not really alleged but the case is still before the courts) tampering with the collar was AN issue, and one it was easy for the antis to seize on, but the REAL issue was that there was no quota, hence the criminal charge of "failing to prevent an illegal hunt".

For what it's worth, Bronkhorst has been found guilty on both charges dealing with the attempt to smuggle sable into South Africa. His combined sentence is $2,300 or 36 months. But the court document reflects that the case was a first offence, which means there could be far less leniency if he is convicted in the Cecil case (which he will be).

No doubt that was the issue, and that's presumably why he tried to destroy the collar in the first place (The subject of quota transfer has come up repeatedly on this site). I simply stated "allegedly" because as you posted, the case was before the courts.

My view is simple - no compromise. Never.

Steve

The boat has passed - hunters (SCI and even DSC) were much more focused on trophy, size, awards and other irrelevant bullshit and left the secondary benefits of $$$ spent on hunting and economic value of conservation out of the equation. Also hunter dollars (especially with focus on triphy, size, awards) attracted some very third rate people to the hunting industry that crowded out a lot of quality guys.

Hunters have lost the agenda in the general public. Hunting, shooting and killing Big 5 - maybe leave buff out - is not socially acceptable activity - may be perfectly legal just is not socially acceptable.

Maybe it should be like fight club - first rule dont talk about it.

Mike

I posted this in the Socal Media thread but copied it here as it is on topic.

"Tips…" from the same organization that offers rewards for killing as many animals as possible?

It would be interesting to graph the growth of the anti movement and the SCI message. I mean, in the 1950s and 1960's it was cool to hunt big game. Movie and singing personalities did it. The well off and royalty did it. Then came the inner circles and diamond awards and hunting turned into what it is today--guaranteed hunts, high fences, social awards for killing the most and biggest, game farming allowing the middle class to get in the coveted "book."

We are all in a jam we can't (and won't) be able to get out of.
Cal

To Both Mike and Cal,

Agreed, this has been festering a long time. The floodgates seemed to open and the velocity of the diatribe against trophy hunting seemed to peak with Cecil.

We have been our own worst enemy for a long time.

I've been of the mind, and even used the term "don't talk about fight club" for a long time.

Personally I don't see going underground and having private forum to share pictures as compromising, I see it as a strategic manner in which to be able to continue to use Social Media and to Internationally Hunt. What possible good does being "in your face" do?

Why not to take 100 photos each trip and one "trophy photo" Show the travel, adventure, people and culture photos first - show the whole picture for the peoples that you want share with. Show the benefit with hunting.

I show the photos from my trips and I have not heard one single complaint and actually interested quite a few people with hunting from just looking at my photos.

quote:

Originally posted by A.Dahlgren:
Why not to take 100 photos each trip and one "trophy photo" Show the travel, adventure, people and culture photos first - show the whole picture for the peoples that you want share with. Show the benefit with hunting.

I show the photos from my trips and I have not heard one single complaint and actually interested quite a few people with hunting from just looking at my photos.

I'm clearly in the minority on this issue. We shall see how my feelings relate to the future of hunting.

Let me ask you this, If we didn't supply youtube videos and pictures, where else would the anti-hunting movement get them?

I'll refrain from bringing this issue up anymore. My feeling are known and recorded on the internet, just like all the pictures we've put up.

As to putting up all the cultural stuff and one trophy shot, which one do you think Lion-aid is interested in?

BTW, your pictures specifically are more art than photographs, Kudos.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by A.Dahlgren:
Why not to take 100 photos each trip and one "trophy photo" Show the travel, adventure, people and culture photos first - show the whole picture for the peoples that you want share with. Show the benefit with hunting.

I show the photos from my trips and I have not heard one single complaint and actually interested quite a few people with hunting from just looking at my photos.

I'm clearly in the minority on this issue. We shall see how my feelings relate to the future of hunting.

Let me ask you this, If we didn't supply youtube videos and pictures, where else would the anti-hunting movement get them?

I'll refrain from bringing this issue up anymore. My feeling are known and recorded on the internet, just like all the pictures we've put up.

As to putting up all the cultural stuff and one trophy shot, which one do you think Lion-aid is interested in?

BTW, your pictures specifically are more art than photographs, Kudos.

Steve,
You make good points and I believe you are correct. Just for the record.

Truth be told, I don't think our photos are much of an issue now.

Historically, there are a bunch out there.

There is the "paid media" like Boddington, Shockey, and Carter who generally do a good job, then there are others not so good.

Finally, the antis are not above Photoshopping/creating out of whole cloth something if it will further their goals.

Hiding who and what we are will hurt hunter recruitment and states we are ashamed of ourselves. Remember, "fight club" is illegal...

Doesn't mean we shouldn't be tasteful and avoid disrespectful photos/commentary.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Truth be told, I don't think our photos are much of an issue now.

Historically, there are a bunch out there.

There is the "paid media" like Boddington, Shockey, and Carter who generally do a good job, then there are others not so good.

Finally, the antis are not above Photoshopping/creating out of whole cloth something if it will further their goals.

Hiding who and what we are will hurt hunter recruitment and states we are ashamed of ourselves. Remember, "fight club" is illegal...

Doesn't mean we shouldn't be tasteful and avoid disrespectful photos/commentary.

I'm surely not recommending we start a "Fight Club." the point was, Brad Pitt in that movie stated, "The first rule of fight club, is don't talk about fight club"

You're seemingly drawing a moral equivalent to my feelings as being somehow ashamed of myself or my activity.(I Think?)

They clearly don't know what they don't know, they only know what we let them know through our social media. Obviously they get more information than that but they get most of their stuff, directly from us.

Do you think Aaron, Larry Shores and others were receiving death and business threats because someone else put pictures somewhere? No, it was because of their FB pages. I remember Aaron's girlfriend got harassed as well?

I have over 150 employees. I owe them and their families a steady and reliable source of income. I can't have a bunch of douchebag anti's out in front of my business disrupting anything.

You guys will obviously carry on and do as you will. I will continue to do as I do. My NOT posting pictures doesn't have any effect on YOUR hunting.

And Lane, Thank You sir.

Steve,

I understand what you are saying, and each of us should make our own decision.

My point is not that you should not, if you don't want to; rather it is the idea that the antis will dislike us only because we post this stuff on facebook, or AR, or for that matter do a TV show.

We need to keep the average person not just seeing one side of the issue.

It seems to me that you are telling others to not to post, as you think it will bring the rage of the antis down on us to see hunting pictures; my point is they will bring their rage at us regardless.

Aaron will get anti crackpots after him regardless. He's on a hunting TV show, and he runs/works for a hunting company. As I recall, he put his GF in the public eye. In his case, that horse left the barn a long time ago.

Larry, well I don't recall that issue, but if he got death threats from FB posting, that's an issue.

Yes, I know that it was a line from a movie, but the point of what I am saying is what we are doing is legal; we don't have to hide it- but we do need to realize what kind of reaction one's videos or pictures will have on a neutral observer. Some, like Ivan's work, try and explain what is really going on... that needs to be encouraged, and pointed out to the mainstream.

Your last point was different than what I have been taking your prior points as- I don't think anyone is obligated to post (although I do enjoy reading the reports) but conversely I disagree with you that it harms us collectively to do so. If I agreed with you, I would not post what I do.

From what you have said, you get people to pay you for your writings and pictures. I wish I could get that...maybe I could afford more hunts that way; but I don't so I put them up here to share.

You are absolutely right that your not putting them up here hurts no one, the question before us is does posting hurt us collectively? IMO, no.

I'm really not asking or telling you to do anything. You put up Rhino pics. I gave you a very positive post, how is that consistent with your statement?

My articles that get published, I give them away, the only one I ever sold was my first that SCI took. I think I got 25.00 for it. I still have the check someplace. I'm actually trying to get a fishing one in OL or FS, they don't understand why I don't want paid.

I simply wish to share my passion and leave a permanent footprint behind for my son. Writings are forever.

I think you're putting way more thought in this than I am. Its really just as simple as my original statement. I believe pictures are a bad idea, most others don't. My opinion isn't going to change anyones mind, its just another opinion.

Today's mindset is totally different to what it was 30+ years ago; we are now having to deal with a generation of wimps and "do-gooders" who were brought up in a semi sterile environment, believers of Father Xmas and the Tooth Fairy and worshippers of Hollywood's Lion King cartoon.

Unfortunately this is fact and what hunters are doing and have been doing for generations is unacceptable to their way of thinking.

Posting gory photos; some hunters fail to understand that blood, guts, tongue hanging out are, other than the act of killing still being unacceptable simply because this poor animal was killed by an assassin of a hunter (their view) is augmented by the fact it was also photographed after death.

Sadly, and to make matters worse, are the film clips of laughing, back-slapping, high fiving hunters that are being floated around on the internet, all of which stokes the fire of dissent.

All this evidence will be used against us, whether it was taken yesterday or yesteryear, it remains as cannon-fodder to the antis and WILL be used to push their case which is gaining momentum as we have seen but generally ignored (by some).

The terms "my rights", "its legal", "hunt to conserve" are piss-holes in the snow - the ban on importing legally hunted ivory, legally because it is backed by CITES (but the antis don't give a flying fuck about CITES), the recent ban on Lion, airlines and hotels boycotting hunters; but wait, this is only the beginning of what's to come.

quote:

Hunters have lost the agenda in the general public. Hunting, shooting and killing Big 5 - maybe leave buff out - is not socially acceptable activity - may be perfectly legal just is not socially acceptable.

I am afraid you are right Mike...I was harassed at Maun airport in feb. when I pulled out my double rifle at customs (not that I care much though..) by a french woman and her daughter..

I have stopped talking about ele hunting unless I speak to hunters whos been in Africa and dont post anything on social media..

Times have changed.

I will bet all those Hollywood movies stars who went hunting in Africa and India mainly did so because they were told by the studios that it would be good publicity. Kirk Douglas and Jimmy Stewart come to mind and both came back later and said they regretted what they did.

I will argue that overall the media does not have a negative view on hunting - it's has gotten more positive recently. But hunting is defined as meat hunting. I have seen Anthony Bordain shoot an eland (of the back of a truck that would get him crucified on AR), a stag in Scotland and the kill shots were shown on CNN.

The view on Trophy hunting is very negative. But SCI and even DSC have very little scientific or economic data backing them. How much is spent on scientific and economic research by these organizations ? Running commercials and hunting posters that hunting is conservation is a joke when the focus is on handing trophies and awards instead of generating quality peer reviewed research.

Mike

The OP's position has been shown to be based on an apparent pretense.

Just like the whole Cecil facade....

This line of reasoning and agreement with it is not well thought out.

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

The view on Trophy hunting is very negative. But SCI and even DSC have very little scientific or economic data backing them. How much is spent on scientific and economic research by these organizations? Running commercials and hunting posters that hunting is conservation is a joke when the focus is on handing trophies and awards instead of generating quality peer reviewed research.

Mike

Beretta, It is not the responsibility of either of these organizations to fund or make the rules that causes wildlife conservation. The overall method of conservation of wildlife and habitat is the responsibility of the game departments with game hunting rules for the funding with taxes on hunting equipment and boat fuel. It is true that orgs like the elk foundation and parks and wildlife departments are the stewards of game preserves and re-stocking of lakes and public hunting areas.

This is also helped by the funds spent in local businesses in hunting areas. All this accounts for millions of dollars that helps to assure that hunting of game animals (trophy hunting if that suits you) pays the way for all wildlife that depends on the habitat set aside for hunting. Regardless of what you want to call any hunting, hunting is the key to the continued existence of ALL wild life not just the so-called TROPHY.

What is needed is folks to be made aware of the fact that trophy hunting takes only the old animals of any species, and what is most detrimental to all wildlife is not trophy hunting but the paving of new roads into wild areas, and the land set aside for shopping centers, and suburb building sights in the habitat formally used by wildlife.
Billions of acres of habitat is covered every years with asphalt and concrete so the non-hunter can buy leather shoes, and Starbucks coffee.
I get so tired of folks who say THEY should do this or that, when they should be asking what have I done to make people aware of the value of hunting for the continued existence of wildlife!
.....................................................................

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
I'm really not asking or telling you to do anything. You put up Rhino pics. I gave you a very positive post, how is that consistent with your statement?

My articles that get published, I give them away, the only one I ever sold was my first that SCI took. I think I got 25.00 for it. I still have the check someplace. I'm actually trying to get a fishing one in OL or FS, they don't understand why I don't want paid.

I simply wish to share my passion and leave a permanent footprint behind for my son. Writings are forever.

I think you're putting way more thought in this than I am. Its really just as simple as my original statement. I believe pictures are a bad idea, most others don't. My opinion isn't going to change anyones mind, its just another opinion.

Steve,

I have visitors in town and have not kept up on this discussion but....

When you fish do you release the fish? If my memory serves that is the case. Most fly fisherman do the same. But there are decent studies done up here that catch and release actually kills a percentage of the fish from stress.

I saw a well written article recently, I believe in the Atlantic (but don't hold me to that), that called for a ban on catch and release fishing as being cruel and barbaric.

Obviously you and I know each other well enough that you know my Libertarian views accepts you doing as you wish within the law but I predict in your lifetime you will see the same assault on catch & release fishing as you are now seeing on "sport/trophy" hunting.

It's simply the reality of the world "it takes a village" view of rule making.

Glad I am 62 and not 18 years old once again.

Cheers
Jim

I simply do not understand the people who say hunting for food is OK but trophy hunting is not!

It seems to me those who say this think if one keeps the trophy for his wall he leaves the meat in the field to rot. The meat from any trophy quality animal is also used to feed people. Even if it wasn’t utilized the animal is no more DEAD than the animal that is killed for food alone. I have never shot a game animal that was not utilized for food for our camp , and the surplus by the locals, leather AND the mount, by me in the case of Africa, where the meat can’t be brought back to the USA.
................................................................