quote:

Originally posted by Nganga:
Brett,

We can agree to disagree as gentlemen on the Wrldhunter thing.

I think I did a poor job explaining why the forum see's it as different. The physical size difference between a mature lion and a two year old is not as great as the physical size difference between a full grown Jumbo and that merry-go-round ride ele. AG shot.

That, and what Mjines states, he was perfectly happy with his hunt, trophy, experience, PH, camp, soup to nuts as would be the norm for a outfit like the duPlooy's.

AG was pissed from the word go it seems. Also the jury is still out on the thing even being a bull for gods sake!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:
The PH condoning the killing of the elephant is damning of his professionalism, abilities, and sense. That said I don't see it as any less damning of a PH's profesionalism when he knows an animal is too immature to take, tells his client that, and then idelly stands by while the client takes it. PHs are suppose to be in charge not us!

quote:

Originally posted by Mike70560:
I agree with Mjines and Nganga to a great degree. I also agree the lion should have not been shot and hope I would have passed on it. However a lion at 2-3 years is sexually mature and could have at least possibly have passed on his genes. That elephant AG shot was probably 5 years if not more from being sexually mature. IMO the elephant was more like shooting a 1 year old lion cub.

Does not make either one right but the lion was way closer in age and size to being proper than that elephant, hence more outrage.

quote:

Originally posted by Nganga:
One of the fondest memories in my lifetime is finally walking up to that brute of a lion a shot in Zambia in 2005. This forum took that from Worldhunter. Too Bad, and shame on "us", all of us

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
The big difference in my mind is that All Gone is the hunter criticizing his own experience. In the case of Worldhunter, the hunter seemed to be perfectly fine with his experience, it was others who chose to be judgmental. To me that makes all the difference in the world. If All Gone had been pleased with his trophy and his trophy was legally taken, that is his call to make whether I agree with that decision or not.

quote:

Originally posted by Nganga:
I also think the very first initial post from Aaron so turned everything negative that the rest was soiled and sides were drawn.

I think that's the problem. I think most reasonable people among us would agree that lions like that should never be taken. The problem is they mix their disgust for Aaron's first post and sadness with the outcome with their feelings on the lion itself. It's almost like even though I agree with you I refuse to agree with you because the manor you went about bringing this up.

I'm sorry guys' I won't differ the right animal and the wrong animal to shoot to an internet forum. That said, I have been 100000% consistent on the Worldhunter lion, It should not have been shot. It was legal....CHANGE THE DAMN LAWS don't change the past.

People change laws by fighting the problem. If public sentiment is not with you it's going to be hard to change those laws. If people aren't educated on what's the "right lion" and why it isn't going to happen. And I think you of all people will agree with me that "legal" doesn't equal "right". I don't think I need to belabor that point with any of a number of examples that come to mind. If you know that taking a 2 year old lion is bad for lions and you do it anyway even if legal that says something (very negative in my oppinion) about you. I'm sure Worldhunter had no idea, but I'm equally sure his PH DID! I know that was my big problem with that saga and I'm sure that was similarly Aaron and Lane's problem as well. Not with Worldhunter, but with the PH.

What did ruining a memory for Worldhunter accomplish other than turning hunter against hunter? Not a damn thing.

Hopefully it educated a bunch of people about lion conservation, management, and what the "right lion" is and is not. I will agree that it had negative consiquences that were unfortunate. Hopefully we all learned something from that one even if it was how not to bring up a topic.

This forum took that from Worldhunter. Too Bad, and shame on "us", all of us

I agree, but I'd equally agree that the PH's apathy and unprofessionalism had a heavy hand in ruining his memmory.

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike70560:
I agree with Mjines and Nganga to a great degree. I also agree the lion should have not been shot and hope I would have passed on it. However a lion at 2-3 years is sexually mature and could have at least possibly have passed on his genes. That elephant AG shot was probably 5 years if not more from being sexually mature. IMO the elephant was more like shooting a 1 year old lion cub.

Does not make either one right but the lion was way closer in age and size to being proper than that elephant, hence more outrage.

Mike - No offense to you directly, but I'm using your post as an example, and adding to Brett & Lane's as well. First off Mike, the Lion was in no way, shape or form, remotely a mature animal, he was a big cub. Lions live for 9-12 yrs, elephants for 50-70 yrs, I would hope the lion reaches sexual maturity a little earlier in life than an elephant.

Man, the splitting of hairs and LOOKING for a reason to make one scenario OK, and the other NOT is getting crazy! So now a 1 yr old lion is unacceptable, but since a 2 yr old could be sexually capable (mature is simply innacurate) its acceptable? See Lane's post as well. This is just becoming foolish.

quote:

originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:
I agree the scenario is not quite the same, but that doesn't errase the guiding principle. The PH has......or SHOULD have control of the hunt and NOT the hunter. So the PH should not have allowed him to shoot regardless of what the hunter wanted.

I understand this train of thought, my question is, to what point. You have a man who has paid $40k-$50k to hunt a lion, there is a legal lion standing in front of him. You (PH) have already convinced him to pass it once, he makes the decision that he wants to shoot that lion, how far do you take it?

Again had ALLGONE known it was an immature animal and still wanted to shoot it would that make it ok? I would say not. It's still immature weather he knew it or not and was happy with it or not. And its still a travesty.

Brett


I have not said either of these situations are "OK", I have simply offered reasons as to why the responses were different on this forum.

quote:

Brad - Come on man, that's just word games, nothing more! The PH didn't shoot it, or make the call? Then why was he even there/needed, etc, etc? That's a seriously lame excuse.

What reason would I have to make an "excuse" for anyone? You did not ask the question if one or the other of these situations was wrong. You asked the question why did the members respond to one more vehemently than the other when they appear to be the same to you.

Regardless, re-read the question, you didn't answer it at all?

What are you talking about? I am the ONLY one answering the question:

quote:

Why is it that Aaron critisizing the PH for shooting a 2 year old lion is VIEWED as attacking the hunter and not just calling it what it was......a BS call by the PH that reflects poorly on the outfitter?

I (and Nganga) are the only ones offering reasons why the members of this forum VIEW and respond to the 2 situations differently. We are not arguing whether it is right or wrong (regardless of my ersonal feelings), as that is not what was asked.

So we have all discerned by your continued distinction of the two events that a PH is a scumbag for telling a "hunter" to shoot the juvenile elephant, but a "hunter" who chooses to shoot a juvenile lion (with a PH present, and obviously approving) is A-OK, and shouldn't be "victimized" by meanies on AR? Even though, I never said a bad word about the "hunter" in the first place!!! If that's not a double standard, I have never-ever seen one, ever!!!

Aaron Neilson
Global Hunting Resources

Once again, I have not said anyone is anything, I have not said it is the same or different, I have not said the hunters or the PH's or the commentors on these forums are right or wrong, I have simply given reasons I see the two situations were responded to differently. If the shoe fits, wear it.

quote:

Originally posted by Nganga:
You want to Blame Abie, yet you don't know all the facts. I will then agree that the PH has the final say!!!

Unless he told Worldhunter not to shoot and he shot anyway or the Du Plooys told him get him a lion any lion or you're fired I'm not buying Abbie being the victim. This was his fault and to some degree the Du Plooys for not making it abundantly clear that shooting 2 year old lions is NOT ok under any circumstances. If the Du Plooys take that stance they take the pressure off the PH. The PH can say I'll get fired if you shoot him so no way.

That said, shall a PH physically stop a client?

No, but telling the client that under no circumstances are they to shoot that lion and that if they do their hunt will stop immediately and they will be billed the trophy fee and not receive the trophy. See how many people would shoot after that.......or better yet the Du Plooys express to all potential clients that they have a minimum self imposed standard for lion trophies and that shooting immature lions will not be permitted. Then there's no pressure on the PH and the client goes in knowing the score.

I nearly got into a fist fight with a real winner on Kodiak in 1998 over shooting a bear on the last day of my second hunt.

Oh my! I need to hear this one!!!

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:
[QUOTE]originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:
I agree the scenario is not quite the same, but that doesn't errase the guiding principle. The PH has......or SHOULD have control of the hunt and NOT the hunter. So the PH should not have allowed him to shoot regardless of what the hunter wanted.

I understand this train of thought, my question is, to what point. You have a man who has paid $40k-$50k to hunt a lion, there is a legal lion standing in front of him. You (PH) have already convinced him to pass it once, he makes the decision that he wants to shoot that lion, how far do you take it?

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:
[QUOTE]originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:
I agree the scenario is not quite the same, but that doesn't errase the guiding principle. The PH has......or SHOULD have control of the hunt and NOT the hunter. So the PH should not have allowed him to shoot regardless of what the hunter wanted.

I understand this train of thought, my question is, to what point. You have a man who has paid $40k-$50k to hunt a lion, there is a legal lion standing in front of him. You (PH) have already convinced him to pass it once, he makes the decision that he wants to shoot that lion, how far do you take it?

Again I think this comes down to the Du Plooys. If they tell hunters they do not shoot or allow the shooting of immature lions from the begining of the booking process: this is a non issues, Abbie feels comfortable not letting the client shoot, lions are better off, and we don't have this mess on AR. It means putting the animals ahead of the dollar every once in a while. I think everyone wins even if the % success goes down a couple points God forbid!!!

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by Nganga:

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:
[QUOTE]originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:
I agree the scenario is not quite the same, but that doesn't errase the guiding principle. The PH has......or SHOULD have control of the hunt and NOT the hunter. So the PH should not have allowed him to shoot regardless of what the hunter wanted.

I understand this train of thought, my question is, to what point. You have a man who has paid $40k-$50k to hunt a lion, there is a legal lion standing in front of him. You (PH) have already convinced him to pass it once, he makes the decision that he wants to shoot that lion, how far do you take it?

Again I think this comes down to the Du Plooys. If they tell hunters they do not shoot or allow the shooting of immature lions from the begining of the booking process: this is a non issues, Abbie feels comfortable not letting the client shoot, lions are better off, and we don't have this mess on AR. It means putting the animals ahead of the dollar every once in a while. I think everyone wins even if the % success goes down a couple points God forbid!!!

Brett

Brett,

Thats a remarkably easy statement to make when it's not your 50K.

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Nganga:

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:
[QUOTE]originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:
I agree the scenario is not quite the same, but that doesn't errase the guiding principle. The PH has......or SHOULD have control of the hunt and NOT the hunter. So the PH should not have allowed him to shoot regardless of what the hunter wanted.

I understand this train of thought, my question is, to what point. You have a man who has paid $40k-$50k to hunt a lion, there is a legal lion standing in front of him. You (PH) have already convinced him to pass it once, he makes the decision that he wants to shoot that lion, how far do you take it?

Again I think this comes down to the Du Plooys. If they tell hunters they do not shoot or allow the shooting of immature lions from the begining of the booking process: this is a non issues, Abbie feels comfortable not letting the client shoot, lions are better off, and we don't have this mess on AR. It means putting the animals ahead of the dollar every once in a while. I think everyone wins even if the % success goes down a couple points God forbid!!!

Brett

Brett,

Thats a remarkably easy statement to make when it's not your 50K.

Steve

Amen. I may never get the chance to hunt a male lion but if I do . . . and if it is Day 17 of an 18 day hunt . . . and if we happen upon a nice male that may not be six or seven . . . and if the PH is okay with going ahead . . . then with all due respect to my friends on AR that are not paying for my hunt and who have not spent 17 days chasing and baiting lions in the hope for the opportunity to take one, there is an excellent chance that lion will shot and hopefully in the salt. Oh yea, and I will not post pictures on AR but will insist in my hunt report that the lion was fifteen, maybe seventeen years old with just gums and no teeth . . .

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
oh, i don't know. if a lion was bald, weighed about 600lbs witha beer(buffalo??)belly and had no visible teeth, i would probably assume he was old enough and could be imported. and at least with no teeth, THERE IS NOTHING TO XRAY@!!!

quote:

Originally posted by African Hunters Quest:
If the 6 year laws go into effect, that would give the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which is very anti-hunting, the right to "verify" the age of all lions being imported into the US. Without definitive proof of age, which you've admitted cannot be determined, all lion trophies would be subject to permanent seizure as contraband and the hunter guilty of a Lacey Act violation. No American hunter in their right mind would ever hunt and import an African lion again.
So please tell me, how is this protecting lions.

quote:

Originally posted by African Hunters Quest:
Aaron

All I am doing to you is exactly what you have done to so many others. Just for the record digging up anything a person has said in the past and applying it to support your bullying does nothing for your credibility.

I know real conservationists, you know the guys who make a difference. Not the poster boys who try and stamp their Mark on it and call themselves heros.

Calling yourself a lion hunting expert is like saying those people stitching Nike's in the East are part of the NBA.

Now seeing as you are a conservationist and supporting the likes of Packer, answer this.

If the 6 year laws go into effect, that would give the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which is very anti-hunting, the right to "verify" the age of all lions being imported into the US. Without definitive proof of age, which you've admitted cannot be determined, all lion trophies would be subject to permanent seizure as contraband and the hunter guilty of a Lacey Act violation. No American hunter in their right mind would ever hunt and import an African lion again.
So please tell me, how is this protecting lions.

You need to pack your ego in your hunting bag and start to use your brain. Put this energy of yours into a direction that will help lions and for a start get some proper science behind you so we can all defend the lion together.
I will happily support you as soon as you start to make sense. Right now its simply helping Packer drive the dagger home.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
There is another option you failed to mention, and that is simply to keep your mouth shut (or your fingers off the keyboard).

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
There is another option you failed to mention, and that is simply to keep your mouth shut (or your fingers off the keyboard).

I just think there are more effective ways to deal with issues like shooting soft bossed buffalo, young lions, immature elephants (or kudu, eland, or other plainsgame for that matter) than attacking hunters that made their own decision based on their own personal situation, then shared their experience only to have others tell them that they should be ashamed of themselves. Craig Boddington makes it a point to call out shooting soft bossed buffalo all the time on TAA and in his books, his position on the issue is not in doubt. But I have never seen or heard of him specifically criticizing another hunter for that hunter's personal decision to take a soft bossed buffalo. He keeps the argument focused on the issue, not any individual.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
So many times people find that if they really stop to think about it there are more points of agreement between themselves than points of difference. Unfortunately, the points of difference sometimes overshadow the points of agreement.

I think most folks would concede:

- We respect the passion that you and Lane bring to the conversation.
- We agree with you that, as a general proposition, shooting underaged, immature animals is something to be avoided.
- We understand that there will be those that choose to throw stones regardless of the message.
- We agree that the more the argument is focused on the issue and the less the argument is focused on individual situations, the more effective the argument is likely to be.

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:
[QUOTE]originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:
I agree the scenario is not quite the same, but that doesn't errase the guiding principle. The PH has......or SHOULD have control of the hunt and NOT the hunter. So the PH should not have allowed him to shoot regardless of what the hunter wanted.

I understand this train of thought, my question is, to what point. You have a man who has paid $40k-$50k to hunt a lion, there is a legal lion standing in front of him. You (PH) have already convinced him to pass it once, he makes the decision that he wants to shoot that lion, how far do you take it?

Again I think this comes down to the Du Plooys. If they tell hunters they do not shoot or allow the shooting of immature lions from the begining of the booking process: this is a non issues, Abbie feels comfortable not letting the client shoot, lions are better off, and we don't have this mess on AR. It means putting the animals ahead of the dollar every once in a while. I think everyone wins even if the % success goes down a couple points God forbid!!!

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
So many times people find that if they really stop to think about it there are more points of agreement between themselves than points of difference. Unfortunately, the points of difference sometimes overshadow the points of agreement.

I think most folks would concede:

- We respect the passion that you and Lane bring to the conversation.
- We agree with you that, as a general proposition, shooting underaged, immature animals is something to be avoided.
- We understand that there will be those that choose to throw stones regardless of the message.
- We agree that the more the argument is focused on the issue and the less the argument is focused on individual situations, the more effective the argument is likely to be.

I like the idea. So what now? Do you make an informational video to circulate using live lions to evaluate shooter or nonshooter status? Write a book? What's next? Craig Boddington on "The Propper Lion"?

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Can someone please enlighten us how they age lions?

All I hear is that it is not a 100% certain.