If we try to step away from the substance of the recent incident and focus more on the actions and response to the incident, what are the key takeaways at this point? Stated another way, as the firestorm over the lion incident in Zimbabwe continues to rage (or wane depending on your perspective), perhaps it is useful to reflect on what we have learned so far. Unfortunately, from my perspective, admittedly in the heat of the moment, I see little to be sanguine about in terms of the long term prospects of trophy hunting.

As I see the situation, so far we have learned:

• The anti-hunters own social media. They are able to mobilize within hours and generate a tsunami of negative sentiment. It is basically a situation where the antis control the playing field and hunting organizations seem to have conceded that field to them.
• Hunters have no effective voice. SCI and DSC issued tepid statements but failed to engage on the merits. Contrast this situation to how the NRA reacts when there is an incident involving a misuse of firearms. The NRA proactively engages, e.g., suggesting that the problem at Sandy Hook was the lack of armed protection for the children at the school and calling for armed security guards at schools.
• Hunters themselves do not even appreciate the rationale behind trophy hunting and the conservation benefits of trophy hunting. I just listened to several callers to the Shawn Hannity show that were “hunters”. Neither could or would make the case for trophy hunting and how trophy hunting preserves dwindling habitat, provides dollars to combat poaching, generates revenue for community medical care and schools, etc.
• Hunters have highly differing views of matters relating to hunting ethics. For some, hunting ethics and hunting laws are synonymous . . . if it is legal, it is ethical. For others, what is legal simply describes what can be done not necessarily what should be done. Depending on one’s ethical views, some believe it is “all for one and one for all” and that everyone should stand together, others belief that calling out acts they view as hunting indiscretions is the only way to move the sport to a higher plane.

Overall, this incident really highlights, in my view, the failures of the traditional organizations that represent hunters. It also highlights to me how the funding of those organizations is being misdirected. SCI and DSC like to tout all the examples of funding they are pumping into this conservation initiative and that conservation initiative. And they are all generally wonderful initiatives. However, I would make the case that virtually all the dollars raised by both organizations ought to be directed to developing (i) a viable social media platform to be used to proactively educate members and the members of the public that are more neutral on hunting issues, and (ii) a viable political infrastructure to proactively address hunting related issues. Supporting conservation initiatives is wonderful but the concerns above are much more immediate. Candidly, I think the best solution hunters could hope for would be for the NRA to simply subsume the efforts of SCI and DSC.

I really am not trying to start a pissing contest but am more interested in starting a conversation. Something needs to change going forward to ensure the long term viability of sport hunting it seems to me. Others disagree I know and feel this will all blow over in a day or two. I am sure folks have a variety of views and ideas. Perhaps we can even have a civil conversation about those views and ideas agreeing where we can and constructively disagreeing if that is the case.

Killing lions and elephants is just not socially acceptable behavior - perfectly legal, ethical if done correctly and if done properly good for aggregate animal population.

But it's not socially acceptable. Why you can get it hundreds of thousands - actually millions of social media references. Why the german Un ambassador references cecil the lion. Outside of a narrow hunting group most people will find a dead lion taxidermy mount weired at best.

DSC and SCI should focus on the economics of sport hunting - put everything in cost benefit financial framework. Take the emotion out to a certain degree . Most likely will not happen as most hunting organization focused on running an annual hunting show.

Mike

I agree with much of what you say. The organizations that supposedly are looking out for the interests of hunters, especially international hunters, are either unwilling or unable to counteract the efforts of all the well-funded anti groups and the celebrities who support them.

However, I really do NOT want the NRA to become the "voice" of the hunter. To the vast majority of the public who don't own guns (and are almost certainly not hunters) and even to an awful lot of gun-owners and hunters, the NRA is plutonium-untouchable toxic. Whether that sentiment is deserved or not is irrelevant. The NRA is very good at the PR game, and we need to be as well, but I would really not like to see them handle PR for us. It would do far more harm than good.

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

Outside of a narrow hunting group most people will find a dead lion taxidermy mount weired at best.


Mike

Must be why everyone that enters my house seems to have to have a picture taken with mine. I doubt they think it's weird. I would say uncommon is more likely. One on one after conversation the mount is accepted as a "3D picture" of a memorable experience that they now know was beneficial to the people of Kiandu and the local lion population.

Cheers
Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

Outside of a narrow hunting group most people will find a dead lion taxidermy mount weired at best.


Mike

Must be why everyone that enters my house seems to have to have a picture taken with mine. I doubt they think it's weird. I would say uncommon is more likely. One on one after conversation the mount is accepted as a "3D picture" of a memorable experience that they now know was beneficial to the people of Kiandu and the local lion population.

Cheers
Jim

In alaska - I think in nyc or San fan it might be different. Might work in tx as I see taxidermy in houses for sale in ft worth areas. Only one couple has ever asked to see my trophy display which I keep in a locked room. Too many friends with kids come over and after visiting Disney animal kingdom not too sure how they would react to taxidermy. Also my dog had a fondness for destroying hides as a pup.

Besides Jim most coming up the stair case at your place probably are terrified when the get face to face with the lion if they have not been warned

Mike

Your summary is concise and to the point. I would differ to say that it is important to bear in mind that neither the DSC nor SCI were originally conceived as primarily political organizations, although there's been some political activity in recent years.

Many, most, the vast majority of hunters have no desire to enter the strife filled political arena and to engage the vast ignorant urban (in the original, non-racial, sense) hordes of anti-hunters in forceful debate. Hunting is, first and foremost, a recreational activity. Although the grumpy old men of Accurate Reloading seem to have an undue love of strife, most recreational hunters do not.

You want a political organization dedicated to the preservation of hunting. I certainly agree that such an organization is desperately needed, but what you describe is essentially a single-issue organization very similar in structure to the NRA. In other words, it's a money raising and lobbying machine, with all other efforts subordinate to that purpose.

I'll give you a concrete example. I'm local to Dallas, and I regularly attend the DSC monthly events. Evenings that feature popular hunting topics like a first safari to Africa or the best way to hunt mountain game are always well attended. Evenings that feature serious conservation or political topics are much less so. None of this is an indictment of the DSC membership. Quite the opposite, as it shows the vast majority of the membership joined a recreational hunting organization in order to enhance their enjoyment of their hobby: it's supposed to be **fun**.

The organization that you describe must run a no-holds barred military campaign. To be certain, it's a just fight and right is on our side, but that doesn't diminish the effort nor the nature of the task. We will always be outnumbered. Hunting is essentially a rural activity and 85% of the US population lives in cities. Where rural inhabitants view firearms as sporting gear, the urbanite views them as **weapons**. Event 2nd Amendment supporters in the cities view firearms primarily as weapons. Hunting is perceived as "not nice" by little old ladies in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Austin. As subsistence hunting is no longer necessary in the world of Obama phones and infinite welfare, all hunting is sport hunting, and the message put out by the antis is that hunting is just the pandering to the most vicious portions of our nature: killing the sake of killing and inflicting pain. Hunters are sadists.

As power in our society is generated by the gathering of the largest herd, the organization must be inclusive and accept anyone who agrees on the single issue. It must create simplified messages, formulaic responses to counter arguments, catchy slogans, evocative sound bites, and essentially become a propaganda generating machine. In short, it must undertake actions repugnant to the vast majority of thinking, reflective hunters who hunt to be a part of nature, not something above nature, and who take part of the eternal dance between hunter and prey every fall. The hunter becomes a part of nature and touches an innate, inborn aspect of **his** nature during the hunt. We recognize this **natural** hunting behaviour in wolves, leopards, coyotes and lions, including Cecil, but we widely deny it in ourselves.

Unfortunately, the ethereal doesn't sound well in sound bites, so we simplify and create an economic message. I agree the public messages of economic benefit and ecological preservation are good, but we also need to project a **moral** message about the **moral** value of hunting and how it educates and improves individuals.

Anyway, I have to be somewhere in half an hour. My only observation is that you should be careful what you wish for: you might get it.

If this guy had booked a lion hunt with a reputable outfitter/PH to enjoy a hunt and hopefully bag the best lion (in all respects) they could find, he would still be an obscure dentist in the Midwest.

Instead, he took his "size is all that matters" ethic to get an "MGM" lion and did so despite it being clearly illegal (no quota, no shooting), possibly illegal (and damned sure unethical) under American law by being on seized land, sloppily took a pride lion and brought a shitstorm down on hunters everywhere.

I hope his taxes for the last decade are spotless.

If you book with a PH who is known for operating within the rules/laws this won't happen to you.

The whole thing just makes me wonder if his bighorn was tied to a rock when he shot it.

To me the US Second Amendment keeps firearm owners and activists on topic. Hunting is too diverse to be able to focus in such a way. As has been said so many hunters don't agree with trophy hunting or are willing to 'stick together' for the benefit of all.

My primary concerns are: (i) the allegations that the parties involved did not have a valid permit/quota and ; (ii) the allegations that the hunt was conducted on stolen land.

I believe the NRA does a wonderful job of representing gun owners and making sure we have our rights intact. I don't agree with everything they do but at the end of the day we can basically own what we like. I have thought for a long time that hunters need an organization that functions like the NRA and more importantly has there power to make sure our rights here and abroad are intact.

1) stay away from social media with pictures of dead animals

2) hunt only with known trustworthy individuals with a good word of mouth reference from a person you trust

3) recognize that we share the wildlife with non-hunters, anti-hunters, and researchers...be willing to NOT pull the trigger if a known park pet/attraction or research animal comes into play. This may not always be obvious...but usually common sense can tell you if it is a good idea or not. But...from what I know about this lion now...had he come into a legit area with lion on quota and if the proper license is held...he could be fairgame.

Anyone that knows Nigel Theisen can ask him as I have declined to shoot good trophies in certain areas (non-fenced areas) just because I could sense that the game was habitualized to humans like pets. That is just not hunting to me.

Again, the purpose is not to discuss the specifics of the lion incident, there are several other threads to beat that issue into submission. Here I would like to focus more on what we have learned that might inform what we do in the future.

Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Our efforts and approach to date have given us an elephant trophy importation ban, multiple airline trophy shipment bans, lion hunting on the cusp of being suspended, off and on restrictions relative to the "export" of firearms for hunting trips, polar bear hunting bans . . . and the beat goes on. To continue approaching issues the same way day-after-day, year-after-year, seems like all we are doing is delaying the inevitable.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Again, the purpose is not to discuss the specifics of the lion incident, there are several other threads to beat that issue into submission. Here I would like to focus more on what we have learned that might inform what we do in the future.

Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Our efforts and approach to date have given us an elephant trophy importation ban, multiple airline trophy shipment bans, lion hunting on the cusp of being suspended, off and on restrictions relative to the "export" of firearms for hunting trips, polar bear hunting bans . . . and the beat goes on. To continue approaching issues the same way day-after-day, year-after-year, seems like all we are doing is delaying the inevitable.

Stay away from social media.

I appreciate Mikes efforts here to find a solution to a problem.
I personally see us as diminishing numbers.
25 years ago when my boys were young they hunted with me all the time. Our deer camp had swing sets and children were always there having fun.
The camp I am in now is very welcoming to children, but few come there.
Even my 2 sons no longer hunt, 1 moved to Hawaii & spends all of his free time in the Pacific ocean. The other married a bunny hugger (exceptionally sweet girl) & to keep her from tears refrains from it.
My 9yr old grandson from Hi. thought it was illegal to kill a bunny!
Not much chance I'll get to introduce my grandchildren from the bunny hugger to hunting even though she has said she would.
I don't have a clue what we can do, but am willing to help if someone will lead the way.

I watched guys try to eat each other alive about this over on a Texas hunting forum I frequent. I'm certainly not defending the players in the Cecil incident, but one thing became immediately clear in the exchanges on the other forum - class envy. Reminded me of some guys I've run into on hunting leases over the years. If you don't hunt exactly like I do, and certainly if you can afford a more expensive hunt than I can, then you're not a "real" hunter.

Let's be frank, hunting as a whole doesn't always attract the most sophisticated of participants. There's a lot of jealous, dumb rednecks out there.

I will return to hunt Africa for as long as I can. The African people have different priorities and bigger problems than to worry about what a bunch of tweeting, Facebooking, "Lion King is reality", liberal fascists think in America.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Stay away from social media.

With respect, I disagree. If we continue to fight a defensive battle, then we will ultimately lose. If we hide from the public, the antis will chase us. I completely agree that going full on Nugent is unlikely to win us any friends, but it's important to remember that we really are in the right on this.

To win, we must go on the offensive and put our truthful message out to the public.

I actually thought Lane was referring to posting trophy pictures and videos, not using social media as a tool to take the fight to the other side. But I could be wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
If this guy had booked a lion hunt with a reputable outfitter/PH to enjoy a hunt and hopefully bag the best lion (in all respects) they could find, he would still be an obscure dentist in the Midwest.

Instead, he took his "size is all that matters" ethic to get an "MGM" lion and did so despite it being clearly illegal (no quota, no shooting), possibly illegal (and damned sure unethical) under American law by being on seized land, sloppily took a pride lion and brought a shitstorm down on hunters everywhere.

I hope his taxes for the last decade are spotless.

If you book with a PH who is known for operating within the rules/laws this won't happen to you.

The whole thing just makes me wonder if his bighorn was tied to a rock when he shot it.

Exactly!

If we look back, and see how many negative reports about hunters have surfaced, "mine is bigger than yours" is the main reason things went south - and all of us as hunters are paying for it.

SCI has suspended his membership of their organization - completely forgetting the fact that this very same area in Zimbabwe was used by one of the most obnoxious safari operators in business - Out of Africa.

But, Out of Africa knew what to do, they employed SCI's own big shot to be their lawyers, and managed to get protection for a number of years.

I have said it before, and I will repeat it again.

SCI's holy grail of MINE IS BIGGER THAN YOURS is doing us hunters no good at all.

And this dentists seems not to care what he does as long as he gets what he wants.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I actually thought Lane was referring to posting trophy pictures and videos, not using social media as a tool to take the fight to the other side. But I could be wrong.

You are correct Mike.

The last few nights...I have been Twitter constantly trying to correct all the errors even the Fox News people are stating.

It is fine to use social media for education and facts...but posting pics and videos only kills us.

Agree with Lane on this one.

My initial reaction is that some poor Schmuck had been taken advantage of by South African and Zimbabwe con artists. But could he really be that dense? I doubt it. His other transgressions raise an issue. Have an open mind, though.

The stuff in the media is completely over the top. The US will never extradite him, nor should they.

The real problem is that USF&W and the Obama Administration will use any excuse, and this is a great one, to elevate lion to a CITIES one animal.

The Democrats don't want you to hunt, or own firearms.

SCI totally bailed. Wouldn't it be better if they issued a meaningful statement?

Totally unfortunate, illegal hunt, not something any ethical hunter would willingly, knowingly participate in. What did Dr. Palmer know?

From what I can gather...Zim does not even want Palmer.

quote:

Originally posted by bwana cecil:
I appreciate Mikes efforts here to find a solution to a problem.
I personally see us as diminishing numbers.
25 years ago when my boys were young they hunted with me all the time. Our deer camp had swing sets and children were always there having fun.
The camp I am in now is very welcoming to children, but few come there.
Even my 2 sons no longer hunt, 1 moved to Hawaii & spends all of his free time in the Pacific ocean. The other married a bunny hugger (exceptionally sweet girl) & to keep her from tears refrains from it.
My 9yr old grandson from Hi. thought it was illegal to kill a bunny!
Not much chance I'll get to introduce my grandchildren from the bunny hugger to hunting even though she has said she would.
I don't have a clue what we can do, but am willing to help if someone will lead the way.

Don't take them hunting. Take them into the outdoors where you would normally hunt and teach them about the habits of wild animals. Then as time passes challenge them to sneak as close as possible to that animal teaching them about wind and stealth.

You can always add a gun later.

quote:

Originally posted by Cazador humilde:
but one thing became immediately clear in the exchanges on the other forum - class envy.

You mean the fact we are all rich, fat, elitist, bastards? Certainly saw recent examples of that sentiment from some visitors from another forum.

I have relatives that do hunt deer but little else. I don't get flack about my hunting Africa but I also have no clue what is said when I'm not present.

I will tell you that I have learned quite a few things:

1. I have been on almost 20 African safaris and have never questioned the license requirements and quota numbers as I have always trusted my outfitter and PH. Going forward..this will be something that I will require documentation on.

2. I have spent a lot of time on social media lately looking into this issue. I am amazed at the sensationalism, ignorance and lack of facts and outright LIES being abdicated. Most people in that spectrum are absolute childish, mean and hateful. Like children who do not get what they want. Social media is stacked against us to the point that our minority can not and will not EVER turn them on international trophy hunting.

3. We need to spend our time and money educating the average deer and duck hunter to the value of trophy hunting and conservation. The best way to sell our message is to increase our surrogates and what better than the guy who hunts a few weeks a year, wants to put some horns on the wall and loves to BBQ his prize. Start at these guys, and they will influence more people than any PR campaign. Right now, we have no support from these guys and if we start with them, it will be a step in the right direction. Right now, based on the interviews and callings to media from hunters, we do not have their support.

4. Even most trophy hunters bale at the first hint of a controversy. Instead of waiting on the news, we freak out, buy all the catch phrases of our enemies; lured, decapitated, beloved, crossbow, etc. Chill out and wait for more information. An uniformed, emotional and childish anxiety does not serve us well. Opinions that lack proof, accuracy and facts by our brethren keep us undivided.
5. Anyone who can blame SCI for this has some sort of psychological and mental deficiency that needs to be treated immediately.

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by bwana cecil:
I appreciate Mikes efforts here to find a solution to a problem.
I personally see us as diminishing numbers.
25 years ago when my boys were young they hunted with me all the time. Our deer camp had swing sets and children were always there having fun.
The camp I am in now is very welcoming to children, but few come there.
Even my 2 sons no longer hunt, 1 moved to Hawaii & spends all of his free time in the Pacific ocean. The other married a bunny hugger (exceptionally sweet girl) & to keep her from tears refrains from it.
My 9yr old grandson from Hi. thought it was illegal to kill a bunny!
Not much chance I'll get to introduce my grandchildren from the bunny hugger to hunting even though she has said she would.
I don't have a clue what we can do, but am willing to help if someone will lead the way.

Don't take them hunting. Take them into the outdoors where you would normally hunt and teach them about the habits of wild animals. Then as time passes challenge them to sneak as close as possible to that animal teaching them about wind and stealth. And then praise them for their achievements - no matter how small initially. Give them reason to want to, and actually do so, boast at school to their bunny-hugging friends how close they could get to an animal. Teach them that the fun in hunting lies not in the killing, but in getting closer, and so being a better hunter.

You can always add a gun later.

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew McLaren:

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by bwana cecil:
I appreciate Mikes efforts here to find a solution to a problem.
I personally see us as diminishing numbers.
25 years ago when my boys were young they hunted with me all the time. Our deer camp had swing sets and children were always there having fun.
The camp I am in now is very welcoming to children, but few come there.
Even my 2 sons no longer hunt, 1 moved to Hawaii & spends all of his free time in the Pacific ocean. The other married a bunny hugger (exceptionally sweet girl) & to keep her from tears refrains from it.
My 9yr old grandson from Hi. thought it was illegal to kill a bunny!
Not much chance I'll get to introduce my grandchildren from the bunny hugger to hunting even though she has said she would.
I don't have a clue what we can do, but am willing to help if someone will lead the way.

Don't take them hunting. Take them into the outdoors where you would normally hunt and teach them about the habits of wild animals. Then as time passes challenge them to sneak as close as possible to that animal teaching them about wind and stealth. And then praise them for their achievements - no matter how small initially. Give them reason to want to, and actually do so, boast at school to their bunny-hugging friends how close they could get to an animal. Teach them that the fun in hunting lies not in the killing, but in getting closer, and so being a better hunter.

You can always add a gun later.

Well done on the red addition Mate.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Collector:
I will tell you that I have learned quite a few things:

1. I have been on almost 20 African safaris and have never questioned the license requirements and quota numbers as I have always trusted my outfitter and PH. Going forward..this will be something that I will require documentation on.

2. I have spent a lot of time on social media lately looking into this issue. I am amazed at the sensationalism, ignorance and lack of facts and outright LIES being abdicated. Most people in that spectrum are absolute childish, mean and hateful. Like children who do not get what they want. Social media is stacked against us to the point that our minority can not and will not EVER turn them on international trophy hunting.

3. We need to spend our time and money educating the average deer and duck hunter to the value of trophy hunting and conservation. The best way to sell our message is to increase our surrogates and what better than the guy who hunts a few weeks a year, wants to put some horns on the wall and loves to BBQ his prize. Start at these guys, and they will influence more people than any PR campaign. Right now, we have no support from these guys and if we start with them, it will be a step in the right direction. Right now, based on the interviews and callings to media from hunters, we do not have their support.

4. Even most trophy hunters bale at the first hint of a controversy. Instead of waiting on the news, we freak out, buy all the catch phrases of our enemies; lured, decapitated, beloved, crossbow, etc. Chill out and wait for more information. An uniformed, emotional and childish anxiety does not serve us well. Opinions that lack proof, accuracy and facts by our brethren keep us undivided.
5. Anyone who can blame SCI for this has some sort of psychological and mental deficiency that needs to be treated immediately.

Agreed!

We especially need to do #3!!!

I am amazed at how much mis-information and plain ole stupid statements were even perpetuated by our "friends" like Sean Hannity.

Reminds me of the shock I got the first time I was in the US many years ago.

To see killed deer tied on top of the hood of a truck, and parked in a mall car park!!

Why would anyone do that is beyond me!

Mike,

Does SCI have a dedicated communication office, like the NRA does? I'm assuming they do but I also don't think it would be as large or on the same scale as the NRA's.

Maybe hunters will begin to ask their outfitter/PH how many permits do you have for your area and how many have been taken so far and what constraints are there on the hunt. And if you book early, you might want to call your outfitter/PH before you arrive to make sure that all the permits have not already been filled. Otherwise you walk in circles for 14 days and get the "we'll get um next year I promise" promise.

That might cut down on the overselling of dangerous game when the outfitter/PH sells far more hunts to clients they have permits to fill.

Clients who blindly depend on their outfitter/PH to play by the rules may be in for a nasty surprise.

quote:

Originally posted by Cazador humilde:
I watched guys try to eat each other alive about this over on a Texas hunting forum I frequent. I'm certainly not defending the players in the Cecil incident, but one thing became immediately clear in the exchanges on the other forum - class envy. Reminded me of some guys I've run into on hunting leases over the years. If you don't hunt exactly like I do, and certainly if you can afford a more expensive hunt than I can, then you're not a "real" hunter.

Let's be frank, hunting as a whole doesn't always attract the most sophisticated of participants. There's a lot of jealous, dumb rednecks out there.

I will return to hunt Africa for as long as I can. The African people have different priorities and bigger problems than to worry about what a bunch of tweeting, Facebooking, "Lion King is reality", liberal fascists think in America.

So, because I am a common working man and can afford to hunt only on my own, I am a jealous redneck? C'mon Buddy. Maybe, if I had the resources, I would view the world differently but I would hope not. Maybe, if I could afford to do so, I would eschew my independent, individual, approach to hunting and outdoor recreation but I don't think so. I don't envy any class except the young and even them, not too much.
I find it interesting that practices which are illegal in many locales (baiting etc.) are considered to be unethical but are perfectly ethical if sufficient funds are paid to buy legality in a third world country. Regards, Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Collector:
5. Anyone who can blame SCI for this has some sort of psychological and mental deficiency that needs to be treated immediately.

I don't dispute that I have a mental deficiency that needs to be treated immediately, my wife certain believes that, but I would like to pick up on this point. Certainly SCI is not to blame for this; however, I do feel that SCI has completely dropped the ball in responding to this. I also believe that SCI has completely failed to see this sort of issue coming and prepare for it by doing things like building a social media infrastructure, educating the average deer and duck hunter (how about just be inclusive of such hunters as a start) as you alluded to and having an ability to respond proactively to incidents like this with the facts. Why is SCI not out making the case for trophy hunting in the face of so much misinformation? Why is it that the only thing they have said is that they have suspended all involved? Is that what is expected from an organization that is First for Hunters when hunting is being attacked in every media quarter? Go look at SCI's Facebook page . . . the top item, insect defense for hunters. Really? While the lion issue was raging, SCI sends out an email looking for trophy hunter award nominations. Really? I will agree that SCI and DSC do not deserve the blame for this . . . only the principals do. But they have certainly not acquitted themselves well in preparing for this day or responding to this mess. I gotta run, the fellows in the white lab coats are here.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Reminds me of the shock I got the first time I was in the US many years ago.

To see killed deer tied on top of the hood of a truck, and parked in a mall car park!!

Why would anyone do that is beyond me!

Saeed,
At one time , hunting was so commonplace and so universally accepted in many areas in the US and Canada that to display your success was also commonplace. While such displays are no longer common, it is also not usual to hide the activity if one lives in a rural area.
Having lived in rural settings most of my life, I have always been quite accustomed to seeing deer or elk hanging from a pole but this is not so common in an urban setting. I discovered this during a period when I lived in a city. I had gone out and shot a pretty good mule deer and, when I got home, I set up a tripod upom which I hung the deer to skin it and cut it up. It wasn't long before I got a complaint because a neighbour was offended by the sight of a dead deer hanging in my yard. It had honestly never occured to me that this might be offensive. In this case, I suggested that people just shouldn't look over my fence but, in later years, I moved operation into the garage! Regards, Bill.

I'm not sure how this happened but I agree with Mr. Jines above... SCI has failed big time on this one. It's not their fault that this happened but at the same time they missed an opertunity to do something..anything. A moment they could of spoke up and educated the general public on the value of trophy hunting and conservation. Even if you change just a few minds here and there it makes a difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

Outside of a narrow hunting group most people will find a dead lion taxidermy mount weired at best.


Mike

Must be why everyone that enters my house seems to have to have a picture taken with mine. I doubt they think it's weird. I would say uncommon is more likely. One on one after conversation the mount is accepted as a "3D picture" of a memorable experience that they now know was beneficial to the people of Kiandu and the local lion population.

Cheers
Jim

In alaska - I think in nyc or San fan it might be different. Might work in tx as I see taxidermy in houses for sale in ft worth areas. Only one couple has ever asked to see my trophy display which I keep in a locked room. Too many friends with kids come over and after visiting Disney animal kingdom not too sure how they would react to taxidermy. Also my dog had a fondness for destroying hides as a pup.

Besides Jim most coming up the stair case at your place probably are terrified when the get face to face with the lion if they have not been warned

Mike

Don't disagree with your perception, but my just under 9' brown bear rug is in my office. Everyone even the anti-hunters come to visit. I wish I had done a standing mount (could I still do it?). I'm sure it's not compatible with my company's aesthetic policy (it's a relatively large FFRDC), but they cut me a lot of slack. The military folks (men and women) universally love it.

quote:

We argue endlessly on what a trophy is or isn't, how we should hunt, what we should hunt and we are quick to castigate those who don't agree and align with our viewpoint.

I have seen this very thing here on AR over that last few years and it has appeared to get worse rather than better. We have had some exceptional posters in attendance over the years. Gentlemen and ladies with vast amounts of hunting experience who have eventually picked up and moved on because of folks with little to no experience hassled and criticized. Craig Boddington, Marc Watts just to name a few.

Are these folks above reproach? Absolutely not. Can anyone criticize regardless of experience, sure. But it seems to have become an acceptable pastime lately to tear people off their pedestals. I was taught there is a civil way to disagree and hold discourse without burning the house down.

Sadly, it seems we have forgotten how in these uncivil and partisan times.Why should SCI or DSC act any different if "WE" make up the corpus of those organizations? We are DSC and SCI...How about we show solidarity and support for all hunters who hunt legally and within the guidelines of the state or country they hunt in?

Do we have to make fun of what they look like or what their weapon of choice? Do we have to get caught up in the 24 hour news mindset of only fixating on the debase and worst of who we are and what we do?

Will we join together and force those who do cheat and poach out of our ranks?Folks, until we stop competing with each other on who writes the best hunt report and who has shot how many of this or that and what we shot them with, we are part of the problem not the solution.

I am afraid we are kindred spirits who share the love of a sport whose best days may be behind it because of our divisions.

Just an observation, nothing more, but from what I have observed over my hunting career, the above quoted statements are as accurate as it gets.

I consider myself an average deer and duck hunter and I have no problem with anyone that wants to hunt for trophies only. I spend my money to hunt the way I want and know that some of it trickles down to game management in the areas I hunt, I know that the folks hunting lion and elephant enjoy what they are doing and know that some of the money they spend trickles down to game management in those countries they hunt in.

I have never had a problem with what or how anyone else wants to hunt, as long as it is legal.

However, on this site and others and in real life I have met hunters who do have "Problems" with how others hunt, even though what they are doing is perfectly legal and accepted.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Collector:
5. Anyone who can blame SCI for this has some sort of psychological and mental deficiency that needs to be treated immediately.

I don't dispute that I have a mental deficiency that needs to be treated immediately, my wife certain believes that, but I would like to pick up on this point. Certainly SCI is not to blame for this; however, I do feel that SCI has completely dropped the ball in responding to this. I also believe that SCI has completely failed to see this sort of issue coming and prepare for it by doing things like building a social media infrastructure, educating the average deer and duck hunter (how about just be inclusive of such hunters as a start) as you alluded to and having an ability to respond proactively to incidents like this with the facts. Why is SCI not out making the case for trophy hunting in the face of so much misinformation? Why is it that the only thing they have said is that they have suspended all involved? Is that what is expected from an organization that is First for Hunters when hunting is being attacked in every media quarter? Go look at SCI's Facebook page . . . the top item, insect defense for hunters. Really? While the lion issue was raging, SCI sends out an email looking for trophy hunter award nominations. Really? I will agree that SCI and DSC do not deserve the blame for this . . . only the principals do. But they have certainly not acquitted themselves well in preparing for this day or responding to this mess. I gotta run, the fellows in the white lab coats are here.

Mike, the SCI comment was meant for Saeed. Every time he brings up SCI, it reminds me of, "it's George Bush's fault". In regards to mental deficiency...I have the same problem with my wife...why the heck are you going to Iceland? Poland?

Anyway, I am a big supporter of SCI. Basically, they are the only organization that does anything to support hunters other than maybe Conservation force and a few others.

SCI SHOULD be the organization that acts like the NRA in regards to hunter rights, conservation, and positive AR. However, they have never had the type of leadership necessary to make this happen in a big way. The NRA mantra is basically, if you do not let me have a gun to protect myself and family, then you put all of this at risk, which is a risk, that most people can relate to.

Maybe it is time for the Formation of a new organization who focus is only on hunter rights?

Wait a minute! My dog Mugs thinks dog shit is pretty important!

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Mugs likes a good crap about as much as he likes pointing birds, at least I think so.

Just a comment on this and other threads on this board. I did expect the commentary to be on a bit higher plane here than I have found on other boards. I was not disappointed. By and large, those who post here have been there, done that, and have a collection of tee shirts or hats to prove it, and they know of what they speak. Several other hunting message boards on which people who have never gone farther from their home than a few miles to hunt are less discerning. What amazes me is how some people rushed to judgement. While it might turn out when all the facts are known that this particular event was totally unethical and illegal, the number of people who actually KNOW that is pretty slim. Until all of the facts are known, I will adhere to my philosophy of not casting stones, since I am not totally without any sin myself. And of course I will respect Mugs' philosophy. He thinks if you can't eat it or breed it, you shoud urinate on it. Sound advice for life.

A few points for your consideration.

If your hunting in Zimbabwe on Communal or national parks lands, the out fitter will have a book with the number of animals of each species on quota. It will also have an entry for each animal of the quota taken along with the date taken and the clients name. I found this out on my third or fourth safari and after that I always asked to see the quota book before I started hunting. That has allowed me to avoid some potentially embarrassing situations. The book is needed so your PH knows what is available for you to hunt. You can be sure that he is well aware of it.

The question has come up as to where the game scout was. A game scout is not required on private lands and if the land owner provides one it is primarily to know where the property borders are located.

The shooting of a collared animal whether in the US or Africa is normally allowed. Although there may be some specific instances when it isn't allowed. If the study of the lions in Hwange was to determine the mortality rates and causes then NP would not want the collar to keep an animal from being harvested. That would be counter productive to getting accurate estimates of mortality factors. If the study was to determine home ranges or habitat use areas, then the reduction in numbers of collared animals would reduce the sample size. Knowing how much it costs to catch and equip an animal with a radio collar, I try to avoid shooting a radio collared animal. But that is just me. If it is legal to shoot a radio collared animal, I have no problem with someone else doing it.

I also wonder if the Zimbabwe land owner was on the US banned list.

465H&H

Here is what I think:

1. We need to remind everyone, all the time, on social media, etc. that humans don't have to eat meat to live and anyone who does eat meat and then criticizes any other use of wildlife is nothing but a hypocrite. Most people wouldn't trade a single steak in return for bringing back Cecil.

2. We need to remind everyone that we all do things that others find morally abhorrent. Many people find gay marriage or abortion to be disgusting.

There is a testy string going on in a LinkedIn group about the policy of letting transgender people serve in the military. One such person started the thread, and she was attacked by a religious guy saying he found her action repugnant. Here is my reply to him; her name is Willow:

"We all do things that others find distasteful. Allow me to go off on a tangent. I like to hunt, and have done so many times in Africa. Frankly, I am getting a little tired of self righteous celebrities like Jimmy Kimmel telling me I have a short dick because I have hunted lions (not poached, but hunted). I have a lot more in common with gays and lesbians who like to hunt and who support my right to do so than those who want to squat on America's moral high ground.

Frankly, I get tired of people telling me how I should live my life. I have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars hunting in Africa. If it were not for hunters, there would be no Selous, no Kigosi, or any number of vast tracts of game reserves in Tanzania, most of which are so remote and so expensive that they get no photo tourists (and if they did, whoever goes back more than once after they get their photos?). Without the jobs hunting provides in Africa, all we would have left are the parks which are basically open air zoos.

People are basically hypocritical. They say we shouldn't wear fur or "trophy hunt" but they somehow justify eating meat when in reality they can lead perfectly normal lives being vegetarians. But somehow they justify their actions while criticizing mine.

The whole Cecil thing makes me ill as it has brought out a firestorm of people who say guys like me are the scum of the earth. Sounds a lot like being gay or lesbian from where I sit. So you know what? I can relate to Willow.