quote:

Had SCI signed onto the Definition of a Huntable Male Lion...they could have set the positive tone for hunting politically and I will pose that the whole Cecil thing would have never happened had they...Hunter's would be seen as the true conservators that 90% really are.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
The Cecil debacle wouldn't have happened if SCI had signed the lion-thing??? Now I have heard it all....

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
The Cecil debacle wouldn't have happened if SCI had signed the lion-thing??? Now I have heard it all....

As far as SCI is concerned, I bet you have not heard it all!

Those idiots will continue with their totally useless policy!

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Dr. Easter

No issue with the comment regarding corruption, and that should be exposed.

No denying that elephant have been slaughtered.

However, Dr. Packer seems to be saying what he thinks the people who are paying him want to hear with regards to the whole lion hunting thing. When he is trying to work with antis, then he acts anti and makes a bunch of quotable quotes that play in to their world view, rather than stating what he tells you, and makes the best use for the countries involved.

Somehow, I haven't heard any public condemnation from the scientific crowd of what has happened in Botswana?

As someone said above, it sure sounds like "love for sale" and it should very adversely affect his scientific reputation. If he is a friend of yours, maybe you can get him to publically address why he changes his statements to various groups based on what they want to hear?

I am not trying to defend Tanzania's behavior, although it would seem to me they are doing a better job than Botswana or Kenya. At least there are still free ranging lion in numbers there. Could there be improvements? Absolutely. Are there bad actors in the hunting industry, yes. Does that excuse a putative finder of fact to be a political activist? No.

What do you call someone who bends truths (laws) for financial gain? Pot meet kettle.

If I was in charge of a game department and I saw the two faced responses he prints, I would have some serious reservations about his work. It seems that he wants to get access to hunting data, tell hunters how to hunt, and then say he had nothing to do with it. That biography on Askins' name feels somehow pertenent here... "Unrepentant Sinner."

Put it another way, what do you think your business would do if you started publishing articles on the evils of rodeo and horse racing? Packer's business was researching lion behavior and populations, not telling USFW that he was the one to decide lion hunting and whether Tanzania was politically corrupt and if they didn't live up to his expectations, he would yank it.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Dr. Easter

No issue with the comment regarding corruption, and that should be exposed.

No denying that elephant have been slaughtered.

However, Dr. Packer seems to be saying what he thinks the people who are paying him want to hear with regards to the whole lion hunting thing. When he is trying to work with antis, then he acts anti and makes a bunch of quotable quotes that play in to their world view, rather than stating what he tells you, and makes the best use for the countries involved.

Somehow, I haven't heard any public condemnation from the scientific crowd of what has happened in Botswana?

As someone said above, it sure sounds like "love for sale" and it should very adversely affect his scientific reputation. If he is a friend of yours, maybe you can get him to publically address why he changes his statements to various groups based on what they want to hear?

I am not trying to defend Tanzania's behavior, although it would seem to me they are doing a better job than Botswana or Kenya. At least there are still free ranging lion in numbers there. Could there be improvements? Absolutely. Are there bad actors in the hunting industry, yes. Does that excuse a putative finder of fact to be a political activist? No.

What do you call someone who bends truths (laws) for financial gain? Pot meet kettle.

If I was in charge of a game department and I saw the two faced responses he prints, I would have some serious reservations about his work. It seems that he wants to get access to hunting data, tell hunters how to hunt, and then say he had nothing to do with it. That biography on Askins' name feels somehow pertenent here... "Unrepentant Sinner."

Put it another way, what do you think your business would do if you started publishing articles on the evils of rodeo and horse racing? Packer's business was researching lion behavior and populations, not telling USFW that he was the one to decide lion hunting and whether Tanzania was politically corrupt and if they didn't live up to his expectations, he would yank it.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
fish in a barrel? really? REALLY? Packer is most certainly no friend of hunters!

quote:

Originally posted by Hunting the Box H:

quote:

Had SCI signed onto the Definition of a Huntable Male Lion...they could have set the positive tone for hunting politically and I will pose that the whole Cecil thing would have never happened had they...Hunter's would be seen as the true conservators that 90% really are.

Sorry Lane, but they dont care what or how we hunt. They just dont like hunting.

Trying to appease them was the wrong approach. Nothing other than sustainable conservation models should be supported. They should be eco system based and not based on a species because someone feels emotionally connected to it.

This was approached the wrong way. Packer was never on our side, we were simply a means to an end. If this was not the case he would not be backstabbing "hunters" over the actions of one organisation.

Sorry, but the man is a snake with two tongues and supporting him was the wrong thing to do. This is probably why SCI never got involved with him in the first place. Perhaps this can go down as SCI's best decision yet. Not thier worst and it most certainly had no effect on anything to do with Cecil

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Fulson:
Three Words sum it up..."LOVE FOR SALE"

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
The Cecil debacle wouldn't have happened if SCI had signed the lion-thing??? Now I have heard it all....

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Lane,

It's not that I don't think that Dr. Packer had no point in his feelings or his scientific reasoning as documented.

I will try and find that book you are mentioning and read it.

Nevertheless, it is an issue when he makes the kind of comments he is quoted as making...did he not say lion hunting as practiced by baiting is shooting fish in a barrel?

You want to dwell on that quote which I am sure the Nat Geo editor sensationalized and I have never heard him say. But what about this quote: "You explain in your book how hunting can protect species, if older lions are killed."

I can understand your frustration with SCI. I have had such issues with many organizations professionally, but you really needed to take a long term view. Dr. Maki of SCI is someone who has reasonably good scientific credentials, and to the best of my knowledge was the person spearheading the lion issue at SCI at the time. His comment to me was that they needed time to review what had been presented by the LCTF, and look at the underlying evidence.

Sir...again with all due respect...you were not there. Dr. Maki was inundated with data...that they didn't act was ludicrous.

Unfortunately, the way things seem to be working now is that the emotional crowd get momentum on their side and the scientific method of investigation and review gets lost.

I have no doubt that Dr. Packers work contributed to what we currently know about lion and their behavior. I do think that the current best scientific evidence is being increasingly used by the game departments.

Unfortunately, you were unable to maintain the level of involvement that you had. I can understand, it is a lot of work for an unpaid position, and you have real life responsibilities, unlike most of the antis, who make their living off of political activism.

I invested countless hours and many personal dollars. I loved every minute and don't regret a minute. But I am no fool and soon became vastly aware of the hand writing on the wall.

I don't agree that Cecil would not have happened regardless of whatever position that SCI would have taken on the definition of a huntable lion. It was an incident that occurred because of greed and unscrupulous behavior on the PH's part and the desire for a cause celebre on the part of the antis... Eventually a research lion would be shot near a park, and the feathers would fly. Would the scientists step up and defend the hunter in that case? Not only no, but hell no!

You have know way of knowing (nor do I) what it would be like with the likes of Packer and Panthera (look who funds Nat Geo's lion documentaries) on our side. It could have made a huge difference on social media if some of the scientific community engaged in our behalf.

At best, you would get what we have now, some folks commenting on the need for the value hunting brings in in protecting the environments surrounding the parks and the folks who have some logic acknowledging this but no one speaking up too loudly less they be condemned by the kangaroo court that is public opinion.

Would the scientists be happier with lion hunting if SCI had jumped in then, probably so at the time, but honestly, long term, I don't know. Probably not. They did get what they were pushing for done, didn't they? The range states for wild lion all acknowledge the need to harvest older, non pride males in their regulations.

Largely due to LCTF, I, and Aaron.

You and I have gone around with this before. I respect your contributions and your knowledge on the subject. But in the best possible way, do you think you might not be a bit too loyal to your friend who is not really being as loyal to you, from reading what he said that was quoted in the link above?

I have the benefit of speaking to him personally anytime I dial his cell...you only read sensationalized words from Nat Geo. Do you have less respect for General Stanley McChrystal after Rolling Stones sensationalized his word??

Chuck

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
fish in a barrel? really? REALLY? Packer is most certainly no friend of hunters!

Jerry,
While I count you as friend sir...that comment shows how little you really know about the set of circumstances.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
fish in a barrel? really? REALLY? Packer is most certainly no friend of hunters!

Jerry,
While I count you as friend sir...that comment shows how little you really know about the set of circumstances.

is this a direct quote of his or not??
There’s not much sport in trophy hunting. Shooting a lion on the bait is not much harder than shooting fish in a barrel.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
fish in a barrel? really? REALLY? Packer is most certainly no friend of hunters!

Jerry,
While I count you as friend sir...that comment shows how little you really know about the set of circumstances.

is this a direct quote of his or not??
There’s not much sport in trophy hunting. Shooting a lion on the bait is not much harder than shooting fish in a barrel.

I never heard him say it in all the times I heard him speak!

It was written as a quote by a Nat Geo editor. In the same piece that quoted him saying: "You explain in your book how hunting can protect species, if older lions are killed." Why not dwell on that quote?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I have the book on PDF. I have sent it to Saeed to see if he would host it and paste it in the Lion Conservation Forum.

And for the record...the hunting industry was due some criticism...as Bwanamich noted above.

But I must say Matt...you must be a true rhetoric gullible LIV to be hung up so on one bolded sensationalized head-line vs. the big picture. I see now why you defend SCI...you have the exact same mentality.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
and again...

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
and again...

Matt,
You 'choose' to be the SCI spokesperson therefore you get all due SCI criticism.

If the shoe fits Matt just wear it.