Exactly Mike.

We need and org that acts like a medical or legal professional organization.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Remarkably you missed the whole point. The point was that SCI should have been regularly and aggressively communicating, educating and discussing hunting and conservation issues publicly, with the media, on social media and the like long before Cecil. The battle was already lost as soon as the Cecil story broke.

YES!!!!...Long before the cecil incident.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Remarkably you missed the whole point. The point was that SCI should have been regularly and aggressively communicating, educating and discussing hunting and conservation issues publicly, with the media, on social media and the like long before Cecil. The battle was already lost as soon as the Cecil story broke.

I said it was a good point on the regular PR!!

When we where discussing what SCI does with our money and what conservation work they are doing,long before the Cecil story I posted my opinion that SCI should use social media even television commercials to get the hunters conservation message out to all hunters and non hunters.
I can't remember anyone else suggesting they use social media in the past-only after the famous incident.All the talk on SCI was on the subject of corruption within and no one wanted to discuss anything else.Today we hear that SCI should have done that or this but when it was time to act no one here gave a shit.

It wouldn't take much of an effort with the search function here on AR to dig up post after post of some respected folks advising to remain silent about African hunting activities over on the social media sites such as FaceBook, prior to the Cecil debacle.

I never subscribed to that theory, but it is interesting that the hindsight plan now is just the opposite.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Good point on the PR - but often the PR from the 'good side' is actually ignored by the mainstream media.

Also - Why would SCI (or any other organisation) wish to discuss the case with the media - once Theo Bronkhorst was charged? Would they do it if one of their members were charged with a similar crime in the USA? I doubt it.

I agree that often the "good side" gets ignored in the media. In a situation like this I disagree. Not sure how it works in Australia but most of the leading news organizations in the world will look for an opposing view in a situation like this. No matter if it is print, audio or video.

As to why SCI would want to discuss this case with the media. IT IS THERE JOB as the hunting organization that is "First for Hunters".

Let's look at some of the lies that I can remember off hand in the Cecil debacle:

1. Cecil was a national treasure. False. Most people in Zimbabwe didn't know who he was. Even some people stationed in Parks in Hwange had to ask who he was.

2. Hunting at night is illegal. False. Not on private land.

3. Hunting with a bow is illegal. False. It is legal on private land.

4. Hunter used a bow so the noise wouldn't alert the authorities. Implying he was poaching. False. Palmer is primarily a bow hunter.

5. Hunters lured Cecil out of national park by dragging bait. Still up in the air. Supposedly a dead elephant was 1k into Antoinette. Even if bait was dragged it isn't illegal. Also was Antoinette part of Cecil's territory along with other farms across the tracks from Hwange. SCI calling the Oxford research team could verify territory pretty easily.

6. Cecil suffered for 40 hours. Probably false. Probably followed up the next day. Not sure if this is verified yet.

7. Implied it is illegal to shoot a collared lion. False. Also it is extremely difficult to tell if Cecil was collared in daylight photos.

8. Cecil was beheaded and skinned. Probably true but this can be spun in a friendlier light.

9. Jericho, Cecil's running mate was shot a couple of days later. False.

There are other points that I am not recalling right now and don't feel like looking up. Most of these lies could have been verified in the Tucson offices fairly easily just by talking to staff or directors. Most of us that have hunted Zim could verify most of these things off hand. Worse case scenario, someone from Tucson calls Louis Muller or one of dozens of Zim PH's and you could get Article, Sub point and paragraph of each law within 2 hours.

Regarding Dr. Palmer a statement saying, "Dr. Palmer is a member in good standing. We will wait until we know all the facts before making a decision regarding his membership. If he is found to have broken laws his membership will be revoked."

Also statements stating that SCI condemns any hunting that breaks laws.

If a lot of the lies were headed off before they became the story, don't you think the mainstream public would be more sympathetic? If there was a polished professional PR person, he would have been welcomed on every type of media in the world to give answers. What a great way to turn a nightmare into a meaningful topic of conversation for the 60% of the population that sits in the middle.

SCI could have had stories to feed the media relating how hunting preserves animals and released all types of conservation stories. Is that what they did? No they hide then tell their members how successful they were because only 1/2 of 1% of the media mentioned SCI.

Possibly they were too busy helping their oil sponsor solicit SCI members to buy oil and gas investments! (This weeks email)

SCI displayed a complete lack of leadership! SCI is in need of a massive cultural change if it is to remain relevant.

I wonder if Palmer will ever attend the convention again?

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
It wouldn't take much of an effort with the search function here on AR to dig up post after post of some respected folks advising to remain silent about African hunting activities over on the social media sites such as FaceBook, prior to the Cecil debacle.

I never subscribed to that theory, but it is interesting that the hindsight plan now is just the opposite.

It is one thing to show African hunting of dangerous game animals on social media-something the non hunting public has issues with and SCI using social media to get a conservation message through.These are two different things.

Since the beginning of sport hunting in Africa it was always kept unexposed,secret or just not in the publics view and this has worked well proof is we are still hunting Africa today.We will see where the other road takes us.

I noticed Todd that you have a bad habit of interpreting things in a stupid fashion and then acting on that as if it actually happened.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I wonder if Palmer will ever attend the convention again?

How many of us would want to be part of a fraternity that abandons us in our hour of need?

quote:

Originally posted by AilsaWheels:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I wonder if Palmer will ever attend the convention again?

How many of us would want to be part of a fraternity that abandons us in our hour of need?

True but he did cause problems for SCI.
Anyone who would hunt the boundaries of a park risks the same thing happening-it is that simple and if it does all hunters are going to pay the price.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
It wouldn't take much of an effort with the search function here on AR to dig up post after post of some respected folks advising to remain silent about African hunting activities over on the social media sites such as FaceBook, prior to the Cecil debacle.

I never subscribed to that theory, but it is interesting that the hindsight plan now is just the opposite.

It is one thing to show African hunting of dangerous game animals on social media-something the non hunting public has issues with and SCI using social media to get a conservation message through.These are two different things.

So you somehow believe that SCI or any other organization putting forth an active PR effort to educate the masses on the positive benefits of conservation through hunting will not be confronted and countered by the antis with images of game animals, dangerous game or not, taken by hunters in the field? They will forever be interconnected and any PR effort to educate the masses better have all bases covered. You can bet that any part of the issue that is neglected in order to "spin a more positive image" will be exposed and used against us.

Personally, I'm all for an active PR campaign and I'll continue to post any photos of animals I've taken by legal means without regard to the antis and wacos. I'm all for standing ground and not giving an inch against these loons.

Please Sir kindly name an organization which does not abandon you in your "hour of need"?

If the good Doctor were a member of the LOOM, would his fellow members have come to his aid?

For those of you from California the LOOM is the Loyal order of the Moose.

Never noted the glorious DSC or the SCI jumping up and waving their hands in support. Even after this appeared to be a frame job and seems to have been proven so.

The good Doctor sadly was not squeaky clean, I gather some summary type conviction was lurking in the background but then I should not have been speeding either on the way to the Airport. People who live in glass houses are well advised not to throw stones. Overall however it appears that the Doctor really is pretty much an average sort of guy that likes playing Robin Hood. Who very tragically picked it appears the wrong Dwarfs with which to play.

Just how many of us on any of our journeys afield all over the world have done any more due diligence in checking their PH's claims than Dr. Palmer?? We were one time arrested in Zimbabwe on the way to our hunt and fined $10.00 for having dust on our vehicle. We should I guess have known to wash our vehicle before that road block. Never thought about asking the DSC who loves all hunters for help or for that matter the SCI and/or any other Organization. Just moved on.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
It wouldn't take much of an effort with the search function here on AR to dig up post after post of some respected folks advising to remain silent about African hunting activities over on the social media sites such as FaceBook, prior to the Cecil debacle.

I never subscribed to that theory, but it is interesting that the hindsight plan now is just the opposite.

It is one thing to show African hunting of dangerous game animals on social media-something the non hunting public has issues with and SCI using social media to get a conservation message through.These are two different things.

So you somehow believe that SCI or any other organization putting forth an active PR effort to educate the masses on the positive benefits of conservation through hunting will not be confronted and countered by the antis with images of game animals, dangerous game or not, taken by hunters in the field? They will forever be interconnected and any PR effort to educate the masses better have all bases covered. You can bet that any part of the issue that is neglected in order to "spin a more positive image" will be exposed and used against us.

Personally, I'm all for an active PR campaign and I'll continue to post any photos of animals I've taken by legal means without regard to the antis and wacos. I'm all for standing ground and not giving an inch against these loons.

Todd, I do feel that a steady IV drip of the positives of hunting is necessary. That coupled with Rapid Response tactics when something like the pet kitty incident occurs. We had lost that in the first three days. The pitchfork society had burned hunting at the stake and moved on. We need to take the fight to the enemy. This lion deal was our Pearl Harbor and it wean't about like the last one.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
It wouldn't take much of an effort with the search function here on AR to dig up post after post of some respected folks advising to remain silent about African hunting activities over on the social media sites such as FaceBook, prior to the Cecil debacle.

I never subscribed to that theory, but it is interesting that the hindsight plan now is just the opposite.

It is one thing to show African hunting of dangerous game animals on social media-something the non hunting public has issues with and SCI using social media to get a conservation message through.These are two different things.

So you somehow believe that SCI or any other organization putting forth an active PR effort to educate the masses on the positive benefits of conservation through hunting will not be confronted and countered by the antis with images of game animals, dangerous game or not, taken by hunters in the field? They will forever be interconnected and any PR effort to educate the masses better have all bases covered. You can bet that any part of the issue that is neglected in order to "spin a more positive image" will be exposed and used against us.

Personally, I'm all for an active PR campaign and I'll continue to post any photos of animals I've taken by legal means without regard to the antis and wacos. I'm all for standing ground and not giving an inch against these loons.

Todd, I do feel that a steady IV drip of the positives of hunting is necessary. That coupled with Rapid Response tactics when something like the pet kitty incident occurs. We had lost that in the first three days. The pitchfork society had burned hunting at the stake and moved on. We need to take the fight to the enemy. This lion deal was our Pearl Harbor and it wean't about like the last one.

Jeff

I agree 100% Jeff.

I'm just saying, that once we enter that battlefield, we'd better be prepared to anticipate, take on, and defend any chinks in the armor that the anitis are surely to expose and attack. And they will most assuredly bring forth photos and videos of game animal trophy shots. We can't be silent and active at the same time. We have to pick one of those strategies and defend it to the hilt though education.

I'm all in.

quote:

Originally posted by GOB:
Please Sir kindly name an organization which does not abandon you in your "hour of need"?

If the good Doctor were a member of the LOOM, would his fellow members have come to his aid?

For those of you from California the LOOM is the Loyal order of the Moose.

Never noted the glorious DSC or the SCI jumping up and waving their hands in support. Even after this appeared to be a frame job and seems to have been proven so.

The good Doctor sadly was not squeaky clean, I gather some summary type conviction was lurking in the background but then I should not have been speeding either on the way to the Airport. People who live in glass houses are well advised not to throw stones. Overall however it appears that the Doctor really is pretty much an average sort of guy that likes playing Robin Hood. Who very tragically picked it appears the wrong Dwarfs with which to play.

Just how many of us on any of our journeys afield all over the world have done any more due diligence in checking their PH's claims than Dr. Palmer?? We were one time arrested in Zimbabwe on the way to our hunt and fined $10.00 for having dust on our vehicle. We should I guess have known to wash our vehicle before that road block. Never thought about asking the DSC who loves all hunters for help or for that matter the SCI and/or any other Organization. Just moved on.

Labor Unions do a good job of standing up for their members in their hour of need.

Fraternal Orders of Police stand behind officers in shootings/beatings until the facts are in.

Professional organizations normally stand behind members until a case is adjudicated.


Should Palmer have been allowed to be a member of SCI prior to Cecil do to the bear hunt? I will leave that up to others.

If however SCI accepts Palmer as a member their response should be something along the line of: "Dr. Palmer is a member in good standing. We will wait until we have all the facts before making a decision regarding his status as a member."

Is that what SCI did? No. They suspended him and ran from the battlefield as fast as they could.

Sir,

Having belonged for many years to at least one of the organizations which you mentioned you have the wrong number there big time. As with all of those fine organizations and others it very often depends upon who you are and just how much clout you have with the organization. Much like the DSC, SCI & NRA.

Many organizations also are bound by their by-laws and must react accordingly as well.

The good Doctor appears completely vindicated and that in my opinion from the evidence decimated to the public is a good thing.

Do you have any insight as to what the DSC, SCI or any other organization has done in the way of investigating this matter or what action has been taken after the apparent conclusion of this matter? Other than a great deal of hearsay which seems to be rampant.

Have you heard from the Doctor? I noted nothing posted here by himself or any organization. He was the seemingly falsely accused in this matter not you Sir or I or the head of the Garmet Workers Union or any of the great American Unions or Fraternal Organizations you mention or any of their members.

It appears that another Anti Hunting tirade is over unless the Doctor or organizations you mention care to make a public statement (s). It is or should be about banding together to protect our Hunting Rights, not bickering about DSC, SCI or the NRA. There are bad and good to be said about all, best to concentrate on the positives and stand together in my opinion only.

For me it is Case Closed until or unless some official notification (s) are published. Which is not likely to take place. It does no good to beat a dead horse or beat up each other.