I have a strong suspicion from who has contacted me in recent weeks, that the CBS program 60 Minutes is working on a story about canned lion hunting in RSA.

This is an alert to the entire hunting community to be wary and act prudent. It's a sexy story that will sell well Sunday evening, especially given all the developments within the past year.

The correspondent is believed to be Lara Logan, a native South African, who has actually been fair (considering) to the animal community in the past.

It's a story that will start in RSA, but will be flushed out to describe the impact of lion hunting continent wide. And we all know that story, because rarely have I seen anything stir the passions of this board, as lion hunting has. The video footage will be shocking to a mainstream Sunday evening audience, and yes we all should have seen this day coming. Now I'm not 100% certain the story is going to air. It seems to be in the early stages of the investigative and news gathering process. Once the program commits to the story, however, it goes full bore. Rarely does anyone come out looking good on 60 Minutes.

That said, the hunting community must have some solid spokesperson type representation in the piece. It's better that we speak up and make ourselves available for interviews, instead of looking like a bunch of doofs, as some of those lion "hunters" in You Tube videos have portrayed us to be.

Is there anyone on this board, who feels they are qualified to address this issue in an intelligent manner who's comfortable under the hot lights in front of a TV camera? There is a stereotypical looking hunter that broadcast viewers are used to seeing on these pieces and I would like to offer CBS something different. No doubt they're going to find the "other types." I'm trying very hard not to offend here. I'm just telling you these are the realities of the broadcast news media. You wanna come out looking good? Then you put your best people forward.

There are a lot of great looking lion hunters, men and women, and we need to portray that, instead of looking like Elmer Fudd.

FINALLY: Be mindful that they might be monitoring this website. Blogs and content relevant websites are crucial components of network news, thanks to people named Drudge and Huffington. Let's avoid any vitriolic canned lion threads for awhile and moderators I have suggestions on what could be done with the archives. Let's go forward with a sense of purpose with our best representatives on lion hunting.

As always anyone can contact me privately at sabletp@aol.com.

quote:

Is there anyone on this board, who feels they are qualified to address this issue in an intelligent manner who's comfortable under the hot lights in front of a TV camera?

I think that would be you Moja

I totally agree!

quote:

Originally posted by A.Dahlgren:

quote:

Is there anyone on this board, who feels they are qualified to address this issue in an intelligent manner who's comfortable under the hot lights in front of a TV camera?

I think that would be you Moja

Attorney I think, John J. Jackson www.conservationforce.org

Although she does not post on AR, I would suggest Abigail Day. I believe she is an attorney and would give an excellent perspective on lion hunting.


From here Diana Award profile:

Abigail is the founding president of the SCI London Chapter, which in just two years has become the second largest chapter in Europe, and has raised over $60,000 for conservation. She regularly assists SCI’s Washington team and the European hunting body in conservation and lobbying issues, including representing SCI and its members at the 14th CITES Conference of the parties in the Netherlands.

Abigail loves to travel to remote places to hunt, and has hunted in 36 countries on six continents. She has taken the African Big 5 and has been on 16 mountain hunts. Highlights of her hunting career include tracking a lion to his kill in Cameroon, spotting and stalking an old Dagestan (Eastern) Tur on foot in the difficult and dangerous mountains of Azerbaijan, and hunting the sheep of Iran. She has obtained some very high ranking trophies, including a No1 European whitetail deer in Finland which she hunted without a guide, and an 83lb elephant from Zimbabwe. When at home in England, she enjoys hunting roe deer.

The award was conferred upon Day during SCI’s 36th Annual Hunters Convention, in Reno, Nevada. “All of us in SCI leadership offer our congratulations to Abigail Day on this prestigious accomplishment,” said SCI President Dennis Anderson.

My two cents are that the candidate not come from the obvious pool. Jackson, and others, and anyone associated with SCI will automatically be working uphill. ( Involving SCI will generate a side-bar on it's awards system. CBS will already have that. Putting on an SCI type will highlight the obvious.)

I know I will be called sexist for this but a woman would be great. If not an actual hunter, then perhaps the spouse of a hunter, who, in support of her husband's passion has done some credible research and can offer both informed and personal input.

And, yes, you all can bet that CBS has probably already surfed this page.

Why not Boddington? He has a fairly practical view of the whole thing, and he's comfortable on camera.

Keep SCI well out of it, IMHO. That outfit is seriously tainted and represents a much smaller part of the hunting world than they would like to imagine.

A no nonsense field man with respected credentials would be useful. Ganyana and his ilk?

How about Aaron Neilson? He has taken his fair share of lions and is well versed on lion hunting in Africa?

quote:

Originally posted by TWL:
My two cents are that the candidate not come from the obvious pool. Jackson, and others, and anyone associated with SCI will automatically be working uphill. ( Involving SCI will generate a side-bar on it's awards system. CBS will already have that. Putting on an SCI type will highlight the obvious.)

I know I will be called sexist for this but a woman would be great. If not an actual hunter, then perhaps the spouse of a hunter, who, in support of her husband's passion has done some credible research and can offer both informed and personal input.

And, yes, you all can bet that CBS has probably already surfed this page.

Thanks Graybird! I would love to do it, and would be more than willing as well.

But, if I can make a suggestion, I would highly recommend Dr. Paula White. She has a PHD in wildlife biology from Cal State Berkley, is female, NON-HUNTER, but pro-hunting, has studied lions specifically in Africa for years, has been featured in a Discovery Channel documentary on her studies of Lions and Hyenas in Kenya, and has for the past 3 - 4 years been the leader of the Zambian Lion Project. Ironic this has come up, because this is the exact thing her and I talked about while she was with me on my lion hunt last year in Zambia. I think her credentials, carnivore expertise, and positive assessment of the necessity of conservative, legal, lion hunting, as a POSITIVE conservation tool for the longevity of the wild lion, would be un-surpassed. And, she's NOT A HUNTER!!!!! She will carry more weight with the non-hunting community!!

I'm telling you guys, she's the one!!!!

Maybe you should give her the heads up and see how she feels.

You guys actually think the network who brought us the gem "The Guns of Autumn" are going to give a fair and balanced piece on hunting????????? Don't hold your breath.

They can't be any more against canned lion hunting than many on this forum.

Of course it won't be fair. But if we have ANY manner of input, it should be our best. Dispassionate, professional, academic. The last ones we need are the ones with financial interests of any kind, including hunting writers and the like, nor do we need SCI with it's inner, outer, under, over, whatever circles.....

I have met Dr. White as well, and she would be an excellent choice.

If it needs to be a hunter, well, someone like Mr. Watts or Col. Boddington would be good choices as well. I have never met Mr. Jackson, so I have no idea if he has any camera presence or not.

However, expecting a reasonable hearing out of 60 minutes seems somewhat unlikely. Anything we would say would be edited out for the "sexy" film work and the high fiving bubbas who tend to populate U-tube lion videos.

But lets face it, how many McDonalds customers would toss their cookies at a 60 Minutes style expose on how Beef is made; coincidentally, a more apt comparison with SA lion shooting than hunting. That's 60 minute's goal, for ratings, not any real journalistic piece. Sensationalism, gotta love it.

Gordon Cundhill would be my vote with Craig Boddington a close second.

So what's this spokesperson supposed to say?

That they're in favor of canned hunting?

From what I've read here - y'all should be looking for someone to speak in support of the piece. You can't have it both ways, constantly complaining about canned hunting here and then worrying that 60 minutes won't get it right - when they'll probably say the same things about canned hunts that have been said here a thousand times.

Maybe they will put a negative spin on hunting in general, but maybe not. It's a story about canned lion hunting, not hunting.

the last time "60 minutes" did an unbiased report on anything was shortly after the last Ice Age. they always start with a premise, then set out to prove it, often through careful and creative editing. their reporting of anything is only marginally more unbiased than MSNBC. oops, i forgot i wasn't supposed to write anything that might antagonize them- as if it matters. expect a hatchet job and i doubt you will be disappointed.

quote:

Originally posted by SteveGl:
So what's this spokesperson supposed to say?

That they're in favor of canned hunting?

From what I've read here - y'all should be looking for someone to speak in support of the piece. You can't have it both ways, constantly complaining about canned hunting here and then worrying that 60 minutes won't get it right - when they'll probably say the same things about canned hunts that have been said here a thousand times.

Maybe they will put a negative spin on hunting in general, but maybe not. It's a story about canned lion hunting, not hunting.

If they are out to hammer just canned "hunting" I could not, in good conscience, complain as I despise it. However, I agree we should have a respected figure to support the cause of hunting in general and the good it does for conservation.

Engrave these words on your soul.

NEVER, EVER, TRUST THE MEDIA.

My advice would be to have nothing whatsoever to do with it because no matter who represents you, what they say or what they do, they and the general hunting public WILL always be portrayed as the baddies simply because that's what sells the story.

Any investigative story about hunting is going to be biased and if its about SA lions its going to be ultra biased........... As you all know I have no love whatsoever of SA lion breeders or SA lion shooting but you can bet your life they want to portray all hunters in the same bad light.

Much better to point out that SA lion shooting has bugger all to do with hunting and as we are hunters we have nothing to do with the issue and know nothing whatsoever about it and they need to go to the breeders association.

Jdollar has it dead right with his comment about a hatchet job.

I like Paula White, John Jackson and you Aaron. It can't be me. They might use trophy pics of me with my lions for B-roll, but me being interviewed by a 60 Minutes reporter would be like a lawyer under cross examination by a trial attorney. I'd end up asking more questions than I'd answer and they'd never use the footage. I know every trick and tactic they'd try to pull. I'm not as well versed on lions as you three either.

Think a woman is a fine idea David, and they'd jump at the opportunity to interview a Diana Award winner because it's different and would further enlighten viewers. Kathi, I'll do some more reading on Abigail. Good suggestion.

quote:

Originally posted by SableTrail:
I like Paula White, John Jackson and you Aaron.

Gordon Cundhill is also another great choice as someone else mentioned. Very erudite, well spoke, and a true master of lion hunting.

Brett

Aaron - why dont you email them and say you heard on the grapevine they were researching a lion story and suggest the good doctor as an expert?? No need to be specific about SA or fence hunts etc. We all know there is a story to be told - just have to make sure it is a good one.

You can stick your head in the sand (not talking about you Aaron!!) and hope it doesnt happen ... but better to attack rather than defend I say!!!

Wouldnt be hard for them to get a lead on an SA lion story by reading these very pages.

I totally agree with SteveGI, jdollar and Shakari. In the mid 1990’s 60 minutes Australia contacted us about doing a program about elephant hunting and of course they said they wanted to show both sides of the story. I naively believed them. They wanted me to film an Australian hunter who was hunting in Zimbabwe but they wanted to see some of our work beforehand. So I sent them a sample of one of our clients shooting an elephant with the strict understanding that they were not to use that footage under any circumstances. As it turned out the Australian hunter ended up not hunting an elephant.

Wanting to be sure that the hunter’s point of view was aired, I arranged for an American hunter to be interviewed by the 60 minute team so that they would have something for their program. The hunter was excellent, defending the rights of the hunter, the role of hunting in conservation etc etc. I thought that I had done my bit for hunting and was quite pleased with myself.

60 minutes went back to Australia and produced their program promising to send me a copy of it, which they never did. My (ex) client was sitting at home one evening with a couple of friends when suddenly from the TV came the sound of rifle shots. He looked up to see himself shooting his elephant in slow motion at the same time being labeled a poacher and murderer by the narrator. He was furious as you can well imagine. He thought that I had sold his footage to 60 minutes, which I had not. I tried to explain what had happened but he was not in the slightest bit interested. We obviously lost him as a client and he still wont talk to me today.

60 minutes edited the interview with the American hunter in such a way that he looked a complete bloodthirsty fool.

About 10 years later I had a call from someone who said that 60 minutes USA was in the country and that they wanted to do a program about the role of hunting in conservation. I was sorely tempted to string them along and make them spend a lot of money and time before telling them to piss off. I just didn’t have the time so I politely declined their request for help.

In another instance a Special Assignment (the South African equivalent of 60 minutes) film crew came to Bulawayo to do a program on leopard hunting. I really did not want anything to do with them but again we thought it was better to try and put the hunters point of view across. I was wrong again.

Mainstream media is anti-hunting chiefly, I think, because it sells. Whilst I am not saying we should give up, no matter whom we put in front of the camera (especially with the clowns from 60 minutes) they will edit the program in such a way to suit their agenda, which is anti-hunting.

Bloody Australians!!!!

The media are the same all over the world. I also got burned many years ago and although the story was the same as as any other media story, in that it didn't last long, the antis picked it up and targeted me.

As a result, I spent the best part of a year looking under the family cars for bombs before they were driven, having my post redirected to the police to be screened for letter bombs and having all my calls recorded and traced......... all on the advice of the UK Special Branch.

Like I said, NEVER, EVER, TRUST THE MEDIA!!!!!

I'd also point out this is a matter for a hunting organisation with professional expertise to deal with not for private individuals who can only speak for themselves and no-one else.

Zig,

Thanks for the story. I'd like to say I'm supprised, but same old....different day.

Brett

Moja is spot-on in his analysis.

However, the fact is that the objectivity of any Sixty Minutes segment is wholly dependent upon the particular producer that is assigned to the project. Theirs is the conscience that will guide the development of the storyline, the interviews, and the all important editing. I was lucky.

Be that as it may, we would do well to dampen the paranoia and hostility to the press and instead offer up someone like Marc - despite his reservations - to serve as our representative (to the degree anyone can represent the wildly disparate views of this community).

My view of the bottom line is that any effort to stand behind canned hunting is going to backfire and ally undecideds against hunting. It's a losing cause - and for good reason. And in the alternative, were we to shrink from the opportunity to address the issue head on, we will cede the debate to our detractors.

The stakes are high, and if a program like the one Moja described is going to air, we had best be part of it - or keep our mouths shut when we see the predictable results.

Brett,

Thanks. One of the reasons that we face such an uphill battle defending the rights of hunters is because of programs such as 60 minutes. When it comes to hunting they do not put across a balanced argument. I wish that this was paranoia but its not, its a fact.

Kim,

When you were featured on 60 minutes, was the program about hunting? If it was then I agree, you were extremely lucky that they were objective.

Gentlemen,

A new comer here, and have never been on a lion hunt (but hopefully my first safari next year). This is more to do with Shakari's comment regarding the media. Lived in the US for over 25 years and now back in India. Media?? PUHLEEZE....whatever you say will be "spun", "edited" to suit the objectives already laid out. In short, unless a miracle happens, your point of view is NOT going to come across the way you wanted it to!!

Most of the non-hunting public is ignorant of what trophy hunting is they see the Serengeti teeming with game on TV and for them this is the whole of Africa and how can hunting be such a challenge. The same applies when they see the canned lion hunting to them this is how all lions are hunted.

IMHO, I think maybe we need to stand up and express our disapproval of “canned lion hunting” then what story will they sell that hunters also condemn canned lion hunting??? I know there is more to it than that.

Many thanks for the heads up!

If it's about RSA lions, I don't think any hunter should be involved in the programme simply because it will have nothing to do with hunting at all and you can bet your life the hunters/shooters are going to be protrayed in a bad light whatever they say or do...... but if someone is determined to be involved, I think it needs to be someone who speaks for one of the official hunting or Professional Hunting organisations and who has been properly trained in media presentation rather than an individual who can only speak for him or her self and will probably make a fool of themselves and others anyway.

The problem with these things is human nature means we feel flattered to be consulted rather than see the approach for what it really is which is nothing more than a simple stitch up.

NEVER, EVER, TRUST THE MEDIA!

quote:

NEVER, EVER, TRUST THE MEDIA!

I have been asked, on a number of occasions, to give an interview on hunting.

I have lways said I will be more than happy to do so, after they sign my agreement.

It simply says that EVERY THING I say, EVERY WORD, has to be aired or published.

No selective editing whatsoever without my agreement.

They would not accept my conditions, saying that editing is at their discretion.

Everyones opinions aired above are valid and well thought out. I would however like to see the Hunting community in general come out in total and complete opposition to CANNED hunting of any species. The stronger and more vociferous the opposition to canned hunting , especially when it comes from the true, committed, passionate men and women that are true sportsman, the more likely it is that main stream audiences will differentiate between Canned Hunting and real hunting. I have seen many expose features on canned hunting where well known hunters have been limited to short non commital comments .
If anyone is going to participate in any form of media on this subject I would suggest that the stronger the reaction is against Canned Hunting the better.

quote:

Originally posted by SableTrail:
It's a story that will start in RSA, but will be flushed out to describe the impact of lion hunting continent wide. sabletp@aol.com.

Guys - See Mark's comment above. Obviously defending RSA lion hunting would be difficult, but I think more importantly is the view of Lion hunting throughout the African Continent.

SableTrail, thanks for the heads-up. Good words of warning. Adding to your thought, it is quite easy to extend this topic to all hunting of all species behind high fences. You can see where that would lead in South Africa, New Zealand, the U.S., etc.

Whoever is chosen, that person has to start his/her interview with a strong delineation of the difference between free range sport hunting: licensed, regulated, done by reputable outfitters, done with govt. game scouts on board, and all that, and the shooting of lions, or kudu, or gemsbok, or whatever, in relatively small enclosures. The threshold problem is that the news media and the printed press do not make such distinctions and may not be smart enough to make such distinctions; or may be smart enough to know that not making the distinction allows them to paint with a very broad brush.

It is in defending free range sport hunting that a prominent hunter, or outfitter, would be at a disadvantage. That person would be very knowledgeable, but would be perceived by many viewers as, and be colored by the press as, having a conflict of interests and thus not objective and truthful. Again, back to the premise that most do not understand the differences.

That is, it would not be a level playing field and the most effective spokesperson for the hunting community might best be a biologist or other expert who is not a hunter.

Whoever said that 20-20 would interview a knowledgeable representative of the hunting community anyway? Not their style!

quote:

Originally posted by blanco county:
Whoever is chosen, that person has to start his/her interview with a strong delineation of the difference between free range sport hunting: licensed, regulated, done by reputable outfitters, done with govt. game scouts on board, and all that, and the shooting of lions, or kudu, or gemsbok, or whatever, in relatively small enclosures. The threshold problem is that the news media and the printed press do not make such distinctions and may not be smart enough to make such distinctions; or may be smart enough to know that not making the distinction allows them to paint with a very broad brush.

This +1

All anti-hunters make no distinction between properly managed hunnting, canned hunting, and poaching.

To them all forms of "hunting" are just different ways of killing animals. And they believe that killing animals is wrong, period.

It's not that they lack the ability to make distinctions, they purposefully refuse to.

If the producer for CBS is anti-hunting, then no matter what anyone does they will make an anti-hunting segment.

That being said, if you refuse to engage then you automatically cede the debate. Yes things will probably be edited six ways from Sunday, but an effort should be made to get an alternate view across.


.

quote:

Originally posted by TwoZero:
but an effort should be made to get an alternate view across..

It doesn't work. Their aim is always to make hunting and hunters look bad because that's what sells the story and no matter what the hunting representative says or does, it will be edited to cast hunters in a bad light.

Better by far not to have any involvement whatsoever.

60 minutes ain't what it used to be anyway. It's a dinosaur.

If you want the next generation, get Shakari on Jon Stewart.