Nat Geo

Death of Zimbabwe’s Best-Loved Lion Ignites Debate on Sport Hunting

http://voices.nationalgeograph...te-on-sport-hunting/

Ok.. So besides the anti spin on the whole thing about chopped off heads and poor lion cubs with no daddy it looks like it was illegal for a number of reasons. Now back to policing our own... What exactly could of been done to prevent it? If a PH decides to break the law and do something like this what besides complaining non stop all over AR should of been done?

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:
Ok.. So besides the anti spin on the whole thing about chopped off heads and poor lion cubs with no daddy it looks like it was illegal for a number of reasons. Now back to policing our own... What exactly could of been done to prevent it? If a PH decides to break the law and do something like this what besides complaining non stop all over AR should of been done?

How about the hunter checking his own personal pathetic greed? Let's start there.

Jeff

As usual, Mike Jines spoke well and I agree with his every post. And YES, legal and RIGHT are two different things in this case. This act will club hunters over the head and will become the centerpiece of the anti lion hunting movement, which trust me, is rolling along like a tidal wave and needed no further help fro idiot outfitters and selfish hunters. The old " we are all in this together bullshit is just that. Do not lump me in with these idiots. The shooting of this cat was wrong on every level in my eyes.

I have news for you... SCI is full of those types. Until the culture is changed from top to bottom of "trophy" hunters and record book awards the wealthy will pay ridiculous money to make sure they recieve their next pinnacle of achievement

Also.. I never stood up for poaching, which this appears to be. I simply said if the hunt was legal then I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt. The doubt is gone for the most part. So hang em I could care less

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Fulson:
As usual, Mike Jines spoke well and I agree with his every post. And YES, legal and RIGHT are two different things in this case. This act will club hunters over the head and will become the centerpiece of the anti lion hunting movement, which trust me, is rolling along like a tidal wave and needed no further help fro idiot outfitters and selfish hunters. The old " we are all in this together bullshit is just that. Do not lump me in with these idiots. The shooting of this cat was wrong on every level in my eyes.

Same here, Dave.

And this in USA Today:


(NEWSER) – Months after Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe came under fire for exporting 23 elephant calves to China (National Geographic has published undercover photos), the park is again mired in controversy—this time after a hunter skinned and beheaded Africa's most famous lion, 13-year-old Cecil. The lion was wearing a GPS tracker, and authorities say he was tricked into leaving the park, shot with a bow and arrow, tracked for 40 hours, and killed with a rifle outside the park on private land. Some hunters claim this means the kill was legal, while his brutal beheading has caused outrage in Zimbabwe and beyond. Authorities are now on the hunt for a Spaniard who allegedly paid a park guide $55,000 to kill the beloved lion, reports the Guardian; two people who accompanied him have been detained.

The Zimbabwe Professional Hunters and Guides Association has confirmed on Facebook that the professional hunter on the hunting permit was one of its members, and the group has deemed the act unethical and suspended the hunter's membership "indefinitely." Meanwhile, conservationists worry that as many as a dozen cubs are now vulnerable to infanticide as other males close in on the two prides led by Cecil and Jericho, a male with whom he was in coalition. There are six lionesses in the prides, and "Jericho as a single male will be unable to defend the two prides and cubs from new males that invade the territory," a principal researcher from Oxford who studies these lions tells National Geographic. A conservationist in Spain says "we're ashamed" that "in Spain there are rich madmen who pay for the pleasure of killing wild animals such as lions." (A Game of Thrones editor, recently killed by a lioness in South Africa, was raising money to combat poaching.)


We're killin' ourselves..

quote:

Originally posted by K Evans:
And this in USA Today:




We're killin' ourselves..

Yup

Agree with Dave Fulson.

http://www.theguardian.com/env...orting-lion-trophies



Killing of Cecil the lion prompts calls for EU ban on importing lion trophies

Zimbabwe’s famous lion was lured out of a national park, killed, beheaded and skinned. Over 200 lions are legally killed and turned into trophies and sent to Europe every year


Adam Vaughan
@adamvaughan_uk
Monday 27 July 2015 10.49 EDT Last modified on Monday 27 July 2015 11.04 EDT



Conservationists and politicians have called on the EU to ban the import of lion heads, paws and skins as hunters’ trophies from African countries that cannot prove their lion populations are sustainable, following the killing of Zimbabwe’s most famous lion by a European hunter with a bow and arrow.

The death of a radio-tagged lion called Cecil in Hwange national park was described as a tragedy by wildlife groups and has led Zimbabwean authorities to attempt to track down the big cat’s hunter, who is believed to be Spanish.

But the lion, whose head and skin were removed, is only one of about 200 such lion ‘trophies’ that hunters legally import to the EU each year. Germany, France and Spain are the biggest importers.

In February, scientific advisers to the EU banned imports from Benin, Burkina Faso and Cameroon for the first time, on the grounds that their wild lion populations were not sustainable.

Lions were classed as vulnerable on the latest update to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s red list of endangered species, and critically endangered in western Africa due to over-hunting and a scarcity of prey.

MEPs said the Cecil incident showed that if hunters were desperate enough to lure lions out of national parks with bait rather than killing them in areas with a hunting quota, lion populations in Zimbabwe were clearly not sustainable.

They said the EU’s import ban should be extended to any African countries without independent, scientific data to show that lion hunting is sustainable.

Catherine Bearder, a Liberal Democrat MEP who on Monday submitted a written question to the European Commission on the issue, said: “The shooting of Cecil the lion was tragic and cruel, but it has at least shone a spotlight on the absurdity of the current situation. Despite the number of lions across Africa plummeting in recent years, hunters are still allowed to import lion hunting trophies into the EU from several African countries.”

Keith Taylor, Green party MEP for south-east England, said he supported Bearder’s call for action.

“It’s outrageous that lions are being killed just so someone in Europe can decorate their home with the body parts. The European commission must immediately impose an EU ban on all imports of lion body parts,” he said.

A group of experts known as the Scientific Review Group (SRG) makes decisions on whether countries should be blacklisted or not. Zimbabwe – along with Namibia, Tanzania and South Africa – is listed as ‘positive’, ie with a sustainable enough population of lions to accommodate hunting.


Dr Peter Kat, a trustee at the UK-based charity Lionaid, said without the SRG having access to more data, there should be a temporary ban.



“What we need is independent lion counts in various countries where we are now allowing imports. Until and unless those counts are produced, then there is a moratorium. At the moment, it’s ‘show us that it is unsustainable’ [a country’s lion population for hunting]. Now we need the reverse: show us that it is sustainable.”

Both Bearder and Kat said that when the SRG meets in September, it should ban imports from Zimbabwe.

The Zimbabwe Professional Hunters and Guides Association confirmed on its Facebook page that it had suspended the membership of one of the professional guides who had assisted the hunter.

Cecil was a 13-year-old lion with a distinctive black mane, and was reportedly lured out of the national park with bait earlier this month, before being killed with a bow and arrow and rifle, before being skinned and beheaded. Kat said that such baiting was legal in Zimbabwe, even on the edge of a national park, but it appeared the hunter had broken the law by killing the lion in an area without a hunting quota.

CNN reported that the lion’s head and skin have subsequently been found and would be used as evidence.

Stupid Hurts.

I agree that this is a shitty deal, but I can't help but note the repeated and vituperative use of the word "beheading".

One wonders if these folks get this wound up with ISIS beheading antics?

It's on the Fox News homepage at this time. Lot's of comments as you can imagine.

www.foxnews.com

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
I just for the life of me under stand how anyone can attempt to defend this action.

It is truly beyond me and really a sad statement.

Spare me the "perfect" comments.

Jeff

I was not defending what happened but sure do like when all the facts come out first. I know the PERFECT people dont need all the facts. If he was not legal doing the hunt I hope they throw him in jail but I doubt that will happen. As the facts come out and the issue gets worked out then we can all be the great internet jury we all like to be.
If it was not legal then I dont see him as a hunter because of that reason. Dont need some of you blow hards telling me what is right or wrong and sure as hell dont give a shit what you think on my kind of hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
I just for the life of me under stand how anyone can attempt to defend this action.

It is truly beyond me and really a sad statement.

Spare me the "perfect" comments.

Jeff

I was not defending what happened but sure do like when all the facts come out first. I know the PERFECT people dont need all the facts. If he was not legal doing the hunt I hope they throw him in jail but I doubt that will happen. As the facts come out and the issue gets worked out then we can all be the great internet jury we all like to be.
If it was not legal then I dont see him as a hunter because of that reason. Dont need some of you blow hards telling me what is right or wrong and sure as hell dont give a shit what you think on my kind of hunting.

Don't know what "your hunting" is. Don't care. I don't find anyone on here to be a blow hard.

This as I stated early on is a PR disaster. Legal or not it never should have happened. Just because something is legal does not make it ethical. But I believe Mr. Jines already covered that.

Jeff

If I recall correctly, the following facts have come out:

1- The hunt was on seized property
2- There was no lion quota on said property

Those are both pretty severe.

I would be a lot more sympathetic if this was total chance with proper quota. It doesn't sound like that was the case.

Bad move all the way around.

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
I just for the life of me under stand how anyone can attempt to defend this action.

It is truly beyond me and really a sad statement.

Spare me the "perfect" comments.

Jeff

I was not defending what happened but sure do like when all the facts come out first. I know the PERFECT people dont need all the facts. If he was not legal doing the hunt I hope they throw him in jail but I doubt that will happen. As the facts come out and the issue gets worked out then we can all be the great internet jury we all like to be.
If it was not legal then I dont see him as a hunter because of that reason. Dont need some of you blow hards telling me what is right or wrong and sure as hell dont give a shit what you think on my kind of hunting.

Assume this hunt was legal . . . if it comports with your sense of hunting ethics, then you need to seriously reexamine those ethics. That said, not sure I should expect much else, however, from someone that has spent the better part of their 100+ posts on AR trying to convince folks that dangerous game hunting and canned lion hunting are synonymous phrases.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
I just for the life of me under stand how anyone can attempt to defend this action.

It is truly beyond me and really a sad statement.

Spare me the "perfect" comments.

Jeff

I was not defending what happened but sure do like when all the facts come out first. I know the PERFECT people dont need all the facts. If he was not legal doing the hunt I hope they throw him in jail but I doubt that will happen. As the facts come out and the issue gets worked out then we can all be the great internet jury we all like to be.
If it was not legal then I dont see him as a hunter because of that reason. Dont need some of you blow hards telling me what is right or wrong and sure as hell dont give a shit what you think on my kind of hunting.

Assume this hunt was legal . . . if it comports with your sense of hunting ethics, then you need to seriously reexamine those ethics. That said, not sure I should expect much else, however, from someone that has spent the better part of their 100+ posts on AR trying to convince folks that dangerous game hunting and canned lion hunting are synonymous phrases.

Or spent must of those post speaking what I see as ok you mean. You dont like raised SA animals dont hunt them just dont tell me it is not hunting. Maybe you should read my words and not read what you want to see. I support hunting and peoples right to do so without all the perfect people telling me I am not hunting. Like I said before I am sure you follow your ph in what ever country you hunted way better then I did my ph in SA

I support hunters period not just the ones I pick. The post we are on was not a legal hunt or the client a hunter at all. Not because the lion had a collar more because there was no tag to harvest the lion. Because they named the lion and he was special to some does mot mean it was not fair game if he went into a hunting area were tags were there to hunt a lion. Your ethics you would not shot a tagged lion others would not my call to say who is right or wrong.

I am just in shock how this happen in zim after all this stuff only happen in SA with SA ph. I guess this one stings for some people because of were it happened after all the trash talking about SA ph lately.

And what did ZPHGA do in response . . . they promptly sanctioned the PH in question. What has PHASA done in response to the situation of South African PH's hunting trophy elephants as ration elephants in Zim National Parks? Nada.

I think the issue of the legality of this hunt is interesting but irrelevant. It comes down to hunters needing to accept the notion that they have to act responsibly. What is troubling is the number of hunters that seem to struggle with that concept and believe that whether something is "legal" is dispositive of how they are entitled to act.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
And what did ZPHGA do in response . . . they promptly sanctioned the PH in question. What has PHASA done in response to the situation of South African PH's hunting trophy elephants as ration elephants in Zim National Parks? Nada.

I think the issue of the legality of this hunt is interesting but irrelevant. It comes down to hunters needing to accept the notion that they have to act responsibly. What is troubling is the number of hunters that seem to struggle with that concept and believe that whether something is "legal" is dispositive of how they are entitled to act.

well show me were I said that was ok for anyone to take any animals if not legal to do so. I guess you were there though when this all happened and no crook zim guys were around either.

zphga did not have much choice on if they did anything on this one and dont act like they have always been so upfront as zim is as crooked as anywhere.

See the difference between me and must people is i dont think ever place I hunt is better or perfect over the places others hunt. I dont need to make myself feel like my hunters are better then anyone else. I dont feel the need to tell people how to hunt and support hunting period.

CNN had a short report about this a few minutes ago. Right or wrong, legal or not, I believe this one is going to hurt us.

MJines

You imply that if the hunt were legal it would still have been unethical. So let's go off that assumption for a minute and tell us what part of parts of the hunt were unethical assuming it was legal to do so. Just trying to get your take on it.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
And what did ZPHGA do in response . . . they promptly sanctioned the PH in question. What has PHASA done in response to the situation of South African PH's hunting trophy elephants as ration elephants in Zim National Parks? Nada.

I think the issue of the legality of this hunt is interesting but irrelevant. It comes down to hunters needing to accept the notion that they have to act responsibly. What is troubling is the number of hunters that seem to struggle with that concept and believe that whether something is "legal" is dispositive of how they are entitled to act.

How many times did Aaron and I (when managing thr LCTF) make this very statement all the way back into 2010 and some the very people agreeing now were against it then. It at least warms my heart that we may have done some good...al beit too little too late.

But...I fully agree with Mike.

quote:

Originally posted by K Evans:
CNN had a short report about this a few minutes ago. Right or wrong, legal or not, I believe this one is going to hurt us.

With all respect, Karl, what in the media doesn't hurt us?
Cal

So Mike, you have been dead on through this entire thread so I'd be interested in your thoughts. Dragging and hanging bait on the boundary of Parks has been an accepted and highly marketed strategy by a number of operators in Zim and other countries for as long as I can remember. This episode was an almost lock bet to happen eventually. Is it time for the various professional hunting organizations to be proactive and identify those practices in and around the parks that are high risk and come up with a "directive" for PH's and hunters alike to follow? It seems that a real weakness in our arguments is that we always wait until the kaka hits the fan before we are forced to say, oh yeah that was bad. At least some who are skeptical of hunting seem to believe that our MO is anything goes until it goes wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
And what did ZPHGA do in response . . . they promptly sanctioned the PH in question. What has PHASA done in response to the situation of South African PH's hunting trophy elephants as ration elephants in Zim National Parks? Nada.

I think the issue of the legality of this hunt is interesting but irrelevant. It comes down to hunters needing to accept the notion that they have to act responsibly. What is troubling is the number of hunters that seem to struggle with that concept and believe that whether something is "legal" is dispositive of how they are entitled to act.

Mr. Jines,

I find your logic train easy to follow and agree completely.

Let me try.

Whether something is legal or not should not always be your basis for participation. Your internal ethics or moral compass should guide your choices.

Somehow you are tying the fact that you market chattle hunting into an ethical conversation and using bent logic to attempt to defend the indefensible assuming that it that was legal at the time and it was just ill fortune for poor old Cecil. Turns out laws may have been broken but that is besides the point. If no law were broken it is a low rent, stupid thing to have shot essentially a pet kitty.

I don't recall anyone on this thread condemning SA chattel hunts. What has grown tiresome is your calling those that choose not to hunt in that fashion "perfect" or otherwise denigrate them. No one is lording over you. You said yourself "you don't give a shit".

Let it go Man.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
And what did ZPHGA do in response . . . they promptly sanctioned the PH in question. What has PHASA done in response to the situation of South African PH's hunting trophy elephants as ration elephants in Zim National Parks? Nada.

I think the issue of the legality of this hunt is interesting but irrelevant. It comes down to hunters needing to accept the notion that they have to act responsibly. What is troubling is the number of hunters that seem to struggle with that concept and believe that whether something is "legal" is dispositive of how they are entitled to act.

Mr. Jines,

I find your logic train easy to follow and agree completely.

Let me try.

Whether something is legal or not should not always be your basis for participation. Your internal ethics or moral compass should guide your choices.

Somehow you are tying the fact that you market chattle hunting into an ethical conversation and using bent logic to attempt to defend the indefensible assuming that it that was legal at the time and it was just ill fortune for poor old Cecil. Turns out laws may have been broken but that is besides the point. If no law were broken it is a low rent, stupid thing to have shot essentially a pet kitty.

I don't recall anyone on this thread condemning SA chattel hunts. What has grown tiresome is your calling those that choose not to hunt in that fashion "perfect" or otherwise denigrate them. No one is lording over you. You said yourself "you don't give a shit".

Let it go Man.

Jeff

Yup it is as tiresome as when guys tell me a raised lion is not a hunt. Now even this wild lion is a pet cat. I recall just not to long ago someone sadly lost there life because of that kind of thinking. This lion was ok with people being around but would have made dinner out of anyone dumb enough to get to close to him.

I only bring in the other point because just as this lion the raised lions get brought in to the ethics police coming out to judge. You say your piece I will say mine. Dont like it dont read it. Plus I thought perfect was better to say then ass clown which is what I think must of those guy who only push there belief on others are. I dont tell people to hunt anything or judge people for what they hunt but there sure is alot who like to do that. I dont tell people to hunt raise lions or any other animal.So you hunt your wild lion I will hunt the raised one I just wont judge you on your hunt like some will me.

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
And what did ZPHGA do in response . . . they promptly sanctioned the PH in question. What has PHASA done in response to the situation of South African PH's hunting trophy elephants as ration elephants in Zim National Parks? Nada.

I think the issue of the legality of this hunt is interesting but irrelevant. It comes down to hunters needing to accept the notion that they have to act responsibly. What is troubling is the number of hunters that seem to struggle with that concept and believe that whether something is "legal" is dispositive of how they are entitled to act.

Mr. Jines,

I find your logic train easy to follow and agree completely.

Let me try.

Whether something is legal or not should not always be your basis for participation. Your internal ethics or moral compass should guide your choices.

Somehow you are tying the fact that you market chattle hunting into an ethical conversation and using bent logic to attempt to defend the indefensible assuming that it that was legal at the time and it was just ill fortune for poor old Cecil. Turns out laws may have been broken but that is besides the point. If no law were broken it is a low rent, stupid thing to have shot essentially a pet kitty.

I don't recall anyone on this thread condemning SA chattel hunts. What has grown tiresome is your calling those that choose not to hunt in that fashion "perfect" or otherwise denigrate them. No one is lording over you. You said yourself "you don't give a shit".

Let it go Man.

Jeff

Yup it is as tiresome as when guys tell me a raised lion is not a hunt. Now even this wild lion is a pet cat. I recall just not to long ago someone sadly lost there life because of that kind of thinking. This lion was ok with people being around but would have made dinner out of anyone dumb enough to get to close to him.

I only bring in the other point because just as this lion the raised lions get brought in to the ethics police coming out to judge. You say your piece I will say mine. Dont like it dont read it. Plus I thought perfect was better to say then ass clown which is what I think must of those guy who only push there belief on others are. I dont tell people to hunt anything or judge people for what they hunt but there sure is alot who like to do that. I dont tell people to hunt raise lions or any other animal.So you hunt your wild lion I will hunt the raised one I just wont judge you on your hunt like some will me.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. With bcap rationality and facts are in the eye of the beholder too.

Now AR don't judge anyone on anything and remember we are all A+ students, look as good as Robert Redford/Biebs and everyone gets a certificate from Saeed for participating on this forum that they can frame.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:
MJines

You imply that if the hunt were legal it would still have been unethical. So let's go off that assumption for a minute and tell us what part of parts of the hunt were unethical assuming it was legal to do so. Just trying to get your take on it.

I think you have to evaluate that based on the totality of the circumstances which are in this instance, this was a hunt on land adjacent to a National Park where an exceptional collared lion that apparently was very well known to local guides and outfitters and conditioned to being about photographic safari vehicles was shot at a bait in an environment internationally where lion hunting in Africa generally is under serious attack. How could that be viewed as anything other than a selfish and ill-conceived decision?

Let's assume that rather than a lion this was an elephant. Not just any elephant but it was Duke (who is dead now), one of the magnificent elephants in Kruger. Duke lives in Kruger, is collared and is well known to anyone that is familiar with Kruger. One day Duke wanders out of Kruger on to an adjacent property . . . or worse Duke it lured out of Kruger to an artificial waterhole dug to take advance of a drought in Kruger. Help me, how would anyone argue that a PH and client shooting Duke would be appropriate . . . and wouldn't that just fan the flames given the current battles over ivory restictions, etc.? Surely we as hunters are not that stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
And what did ZPHGA do in response . . . they promptly sanctioned the PH in question. What has PHASA done in response to the situation of South African PH's hunting trophy elephants as ration elephants in Zim National Parks? Nada.

I think the issue of the legality of this hunt is interesting but irrelevant. It comes down to hunters needing to accept the notion that they have to act responsibly. What is troubling is the number of hunters that seem to struggle with that concept and believe that whether something is "legal" is dispositive of how they are entitled to act.

Mr. Jines,

I find your logic train easy to follow and agree completely.

Let me try.

Whether something is legal or not should not always be your basis for participation. Your internal ethics or moral compass should guide your choices.

Somehow you are tying the fact that you market chattle hunting into an ethical conversation and using bent logic to attempt to defend the indefensible assuming that it that was legal at the time and it was just ill fortune for poor old Cecil. Turns out laws may have been broken but that is besides the point. If no law were broken it is a low rent, stupid thing to have shot essentially a pet kitty.

I don't recall anyone on this thread condemning SA chattel hunts. What has grown tiresome is your calling those that choose not to hunt in that fashion "perfect" or otherwise denigrate them. No one is lording over you. You said yourself "you don't give a shit".

Let it go Man.

Jeff

Yup it is as tiresome as when guys tell me a raised lion is not a hunt. Now even this wild lion is a pet cat. I recall just not to long ago someone sadly lost there life because of that kind of thinking. This lion was ok with people being around but would have made dinner out of anyone dumb enough to get to close to him.

I only bring in the other point because just as this lion the raised lions get brought in to the ethics police coming out to judge. You say your piece I will say mine. Dont like it dont read it. Plus I thought perfect was better to say then ass clown which is what I think must of those guy who only push there belief on others are. I dont tell people to hunt anything or judge people for what they hunt but there sure is alot who like to do that. I dont tell people to hunt raise lions or any other animal.So you hunt your wild lion I will hunt the raised one I just wont judge you on your hunt like some will me.

I thought initially maybe you were just being argumentative, but I really think you are just obtuse. The point of the discussion is that as hunters we do need to be judgmental and we do need to call out and condemn those that are acting in a manner that jeopardizes the sport for all of us. Just relying on the idea that if it is legal, "leave me alone and I will leave you alone", ignores the fact that your stupid actions, albeit legal, may impact my right to hunt.

Another thing to keep in the mix of this discussion is the "quota swapping" now going on flagrantly in Zim...which is legal (if handled ahead of time)...but really NOT ethical from a conservation standard and I challenge any Zim operator to defend it.

In this instance...there was NO lion on quota for the property so a lion hunt should not have been taking place to begin with. But quota swapping has become so prevalent and is legal if done properly...that the PH just figured he would buy quota afterwards and the client would be happy to pay whatever for it.

And...had the lion not been this lion...he would have probably gotten away with it and none of this would be going on now.

So this new era of "quota swapping" in Zim is as much to blame as anything else. Quotas are set in areas for a reason...and it makes no sense to be able to buy quota from another area...at least in regards to conservation...which is the reason that quotas are set to begin with.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:
MJines

You imply that if the hunt were legal it would still have been unethical. So let's go off that assumption for a minute and tell us what part of parts of the hunt were unethical assuming it was legal to do so. Just trying to get your take on it.

I think you have to evaluate that based on the totality of the circumstances which are in this instance, this was a hunt on land adjacent to a National Park where an exceptional collared lion that apparently was very well known to local guides and outfitters and conditioned to being about photographic safari vehicles was shot at a bait in an environment internationally where lion hunting in Africa generally is under serious attack. How could that be viewed as anything other than a selfish and ill-conceived decision?

Let's assume that rather than a lion this was an elephant. Not just any elephant but it was Duke (who is dead now), one of the magnificent elephants in Kruger. Duke lives in Kruger, is collared and is well known to anyone that is familiar with Kruger. One day Duke wanders out of Kruger on to an adjacent property . . . or worse Duke it lured out of Kruger to an artificial waterhole dug to take advance of a drought in Kruger. Help me, how would anyone argue that a PH and client shooting Duke would be appropriate . . . and wouldn't that just fan the flames given the current battles over ivory restictions, etc.? Surely we as hunters are not that stupid.

Ok.. If that was in fact what took place or worse then I agree it was poor judgment at best and most likely unethical. However I really do not like this whole idea of naming wild animals in parks and elevating them into some type of mythical status. But that is another discussion and not the reality of the Disney types that frequent these parks and have to name everything as if it were the Lion King movie... Anyway good discussion

FORTUNATELY it was NOT an American....but we will all be painted with the same brush!!
Sad in such precarious times....

Regretfully,

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Another thing to keep in the mix of this discussion is the "quota swapping" now going on flagrantly in Zim...which is legal (if handled ahead of time)...but really NOT ethical from a conservation standard and I challenge any Zim operator to defend it.

In this instance...there was NO lion on quota for the property so a lion hunt should not have been taking place to begin with. But quota swapping has become so prevalent and is legal if done properly...that the PH just figured he would buy quota afterwards and the client would be happy to pay whatever for it.

And...had the lion not been this lion...he would have probably gotten away with it and none of this would be going on now.

So this new era of "quota swapping" in Zim is as much to blame as anything else. Quotas are set in areas for a reason...and it makes no sense to be able to buy quota from another area...at least in regards to conservation...which is the reason that quotas are set to begin with.

So are you saying the Zimbabwe government is competent enough to set these quotas but not competent enough to allow exceptions?

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:

quote:

Originally posted by K Evans:
CNN had a short report about this a few minutes ago. Right or wrong, legal or not, I believe this one is going to hurt us.

With all respect, Karl, what in the media doesn't hurt us?
Cal

Cal: No respect needed...I'm just one of us. There have been a very few positive "hunting" or conservation stories broadcast in the past few months, most notable was the black rhino hunt reported by a CNN reporter who was allowed to tag along. Really a pretty fair report, always a few local (meaning Texas) reports around opening days of dove and deer season that are fairly unbiased. For the most part the mainstream media sees most of us (hunters) as bloodthirsty and ruthless killers...this particular incident surely does nothing to dispel that notion, if the reports are true.
The best we can hope for is for this to go away quickly, I really hope that is what happens.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Another thing to keep in the mix of this discussion is the "quota swapping" now going on flagrantly in Zim...which is legal (if handled ahead of time)...but really NOT ethical from a conservation standard and I challenge any Zim operator to defend it.

In this instance...there was NO lion on quota for the property so a lion hunt should not have been taking place to begin with. But quota swapping has become so prevalent and is legal if done properly...that the PH just figured he would buy quota afterwards and the client would be happy to pay whatever for it.

And...had the lion not been this lion...he would have probably gotten away with it and none of this would be going on now.

So this new era of "quota swapping" in Zim is as much to blame as anything else. Quotas are set in areas for a reason...and it makes no sense to be able to buy quota from another area...at least in regards to conservation...which is the reason that quotas are set to begin with.

So are you saying the Zimbabwe government is competent enough to set these quotas but not competent enough to allow exceptions?

No...they are incompetent at setting the quotas and and then remove any shadow of doubt about that fact by allowing the quota swapping to take place!

Not saying it's ok, but what's the difference of this and the "hunters" that line up along waterfowl refuge boundaries and blast the birds coming and going?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Another thing to keep in the mix of this discussion is the "quota swapping" now going on flagrantly in Zim...which is legal (if handled ahead of time)...but really NOT ethical from a conservation standard and I challenge any Zim operator to defend it.

In this instance...there was NO lion on quota for the property so a lion hunt should not have been taking place to begin with. But quota swapping has become so prevalent and is legal if done properly...that the PH just figured he would buy quota afterwards and the client would be happy to pay whatever for it.

And...had the lion not been this lion...he would have probably gotten away with it and none of this would be going on now.

So this new era of "quota swapping" in Zim is as much to blame as anything else. Quotas are set in areas for a reason...and it makes no sense to be able to buy quota from another area...at least in regards to conservation...which is the reason that quotas are set to begin with.

So are you saying the Zimbabwe government is competent enough to set these quotas but not competent enough to allow exceptions?

No...they are incompetent at setting the quotas and and then remove any shadow of doubt about that fact by allowing the quota swapping to take place!

So if the govt is incompetent in management are you are suggesting the hunting companies and lease and landowners should be responsible for the management decisions? It would seem that would include .... quota swapping....

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana1:
Not saying it's ok, but what's the difference of this and the "hunters" that line up along waterfowl refuge boundaries and blast the birds coming and going?

The difference is no one cares about anyone blasting birds. Seen any stories about it on the major media that you can point to? Choose your battles.