quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Who cares?

Exactly.

I have no issues defending the efficacy and ethics of hunting does, hinds, cows, lionesses, etc. Zip, nada. I have no issues defending the efficacy and ethics of hunting elephant, bulls or cows. Zip, nada. I have no issues defending the efficacy and ethics of shooting a wild lioness dozing a bait, or an elephant bull napping under a tree or a buffalo bull chewing its chud. Zip, nada. However, I have no intention of defending a hunt conducted by a person with a felony conviction involving game law violations who was hunting a collared lion, at night on a national park boundary. And yes, I agree that despite your rather tepid efforts to obfuscate the distinctions, the distinctions are in fact very real and well understood by most.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I have no issues defending the efficacy and ethics of hunting does, hinds, cows, lionesses, etc. Zip, nada. I have no issues defending the efficacy and ethics of hunting elephant, bulls or cows. Zip, nada. I have no issues defending the efficacy and ethics of shooting a wild lioness dozing a bait, or an elephant bull napping under a tree or a buffalo bull chewing its chud. Zip, nada. However, I have no intention of defending a hunt conducted by a person with a felony conviction involving game law violations who was hunting a collared lion, at night on a national park boundary . And yes, I agree that despite your rather tepid efforts to obfuscate the distinctions, the distinctions are in fact very real and well understood by most.

Mike for sake of clarity forget Dr. Palmer and Cecil for a second. You mention three criteria here,


1) A collared Lion

2) Night hunting

3) Hunting Park borders


Is it the combination of all three that bothers you or are you against each individual item?

So would you or have you ever done 1, 2, or 3?

I have said all along, it is the totality of the circumstances. I have hunted leopard at night. I have hunted buffalo in a concession adjacent to Ruaha National Park. I have never shot a collared animal. And I would certainly not engage in the ethically questionable practice of hunting a collared animal at night on a national park boundary.

But I also think you cannot ignore the fact that this hunt involved a person convicted of game law violations . . . and a person that has a history that indicates an aggressive pursuit of record book entries. So I have a hard time accepting that this poor fellow was just an unwitting victim of circumstances and had no complicity in what was going on. If folks want to believe that he was simply taken advantage of by the outfitter, did not invite this on himself in some substantial way and deserves the support of the hunting community, that is their prerogative. I disagree.

I pretty much don't like him just because he is a dentist.

Isn't just that enough for most folks?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I have no issues defending the efficacy and ethics of hunting does, hinds, cows, lionesses, etc. Zip, nada. I have no issues defending the efficacy and ethics of hunting elephant, bulls or cows. Zip, nada. I have no issues defending the efficacy and ethics of shooting a wild lioness dozing a bait, or an elephant bull napping under a tree or a buffalo bull chewing its chud. Zip, nada. However, I have no intention of defending a hunt conducted by a person with a felony conviction involving game law violations who was hunting a collared lion, at night on a national park boundary. And yes, I agree that despite your rather tepid efforts to obfuscate the distinctions, the distinctions are in fact very real and well understood by most.

Mike, I don't think anyone expects or requests that you defend the guy, just don't try to bury him further. You are welcome to your opinion however.

And in my opinion, certainly not substantiated with any clear information, Dr. Palmer was hunting any full grown lion, not just a collared one. And according to the information at hand, he was not hunting on a national park, he was hunting an area outside a national park. Communal land in Zimbabwe allows for hunting at night, so that is not an infraction either. And as stated previously, prior (minor imo) infractions does not make one automatically guilty.

I do believe the whole thing was handled badly from start to finish by the PH who I am sure was doing what he thought best for damage control. Obviously his best intentions were met with unified outrage from the bunny huggers, miss-informed as it was. I think our efforts would best be used at informing those that don't understand sustainable offtake and the benefit that offtake has to the communities involved and conservation in general. Cecil was not going to live forever, and probably in reality not much longer. His death was a benefit, not the detriment that the antis are trying to make it out to be

Rory

And much of the outrage would not have occurred had the good doctor shown a modicum of common sense and NOT plastered his kill all over social media.

You want to take pictures and video of yourself? Wonderful, KEEP THEM TO YOURSELF. No one is really impressed anyhow.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Ever seen an elephant cull?

And with that response friends, the shark has been jumped!!

Funny post Todd.

I think many of the comments on AR come from looking at this through the prism of being sport hunters, which we are. The problem is, the public at large, see it differently.

They see it as, elitist, cruel, and un-necessary. Our political leadership is interested in one thing and one thing only, re-election. For one minute, do you think any politician is going to risk his or her office, defending an activity that probably no more than 2500 Americans, nationwide, participate in?

The only (in my opinion) for this sport to have had any real longevity is to keep it under the radar. That ship has sailed, now we are where we are.

These arguments, which equate to picking the pepper out of fly shit are nothing but interesting reading at this point.

I look back at my Lion and Elephant hunting past, there was usually a park boundary close. My Botswana elephant hunt in NG41, I was actually on the Chobe Park cutline road when we went after the bull I eventually shot. He was no more than 250 yards outside the park.

I already described my Lion hunt as very similar to the dentist's. If we are to hold to a standard of "everything checks out" go ahead and shoot, screw it, I'm staying home. Hunting is raw, it's wild. We are forced to make decisions in seconds. We may not always make the correct one, but we must stand by our decisions and not apologize to "the standard bearers" in the game.

WE have allowed for these minor distinctions to define us, WE have allowed the anti hunting crowd to build an in-accurate narrative. Our infighting is childish and un-called for.

Facebook and social media is the real tool that has been used against us. For if WE don't populate these sites with hunting photo's, where would they come from? Youtube? are you kidding me? posting kill shots for all the world to see? no wonder, we are now where we are.

Carry on.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

We are forced to make decisions in seconds. We may not always make the correct one, but we must stand by our decisions and not apologize to "the standard bearers" in the game.

. . . and folks are accountable for their decisions too. So if you want to make poor decisions (like lying to game agents or shooting a collared lion at night on a national park boundary) or engage in questionable activities (like canned lion hunting), do not be surprised or offended when people call that out. If we did a better job of owning up to our decisions, perhaps we would invite less scrutiny.

Mike,
YOu make a good point. We are accountable for our decisions, even if they are "legal". We still have to own them.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
Mike,
YOu make a good point. We are accountable for our decisions, even if they are "legal". We still have to own them.

But thats where this whole goat rope goes off the rails.

Was it before legal light by 5 minutes? or perhaps after legal light by 5 minutes? was the bull too large or perhaps too small, was the Lion 5 or 6 years old or too close to the border of a National Park or collard or baited or quota traded.

There are far too many small, minuscule variables in safari hunting to draw moral or ethical lines when the lines themselves are barley distinguishable from a perfectly legal, moral kill (by someone's definition)

Your Lioness, I have no issues, If I did I would keep them to myself anyway. See, it's that easy.

Again Mike, you seem to consistently bring up the standard of National Park borders. Did I have a moral lapse in judgement killing the Lion that Alister Norton, artfully got on bait, a mere 50 yards from South Luangwa National Park? Or maybe shooting a 14' croc on a sand bar in the middle of that very same river? If that's the standard, every croc shot in Chanjuzi, Nyaminga, Chifunda or Nyampala would be morally and ethically wrong.

Here's a moral dilemma for you. You're hunting, you find a Buffalo, not unlike this one. He's stuck in a hole. The back of his neck is chaffed terribly from his efforts to free himself.

The Buffalo has zero chance to make it through the night. There are lions close, as we've just seen them.

Do you shoot the Buffalo? If you do choose to shoot him, Should you count that one as your trophy bull? Should you perhaps shoot, remove, then decide? Does what the game scout say's, other than kill it, matter?

Gentlemen,

You are down to splitting hairs with Mr. Jines points. He describes the totality of Palmer's hunts which happens to include hunting next to a national park at night on seized lands.

The point is we are under ever greater scrutiny. Everything we do going forward will be examined and cross examined. So we have the choice, elevate our game and police/educate ourselves or lose it all together.

Splitting hairs with microcosmic what ifs in an attempt to discredit Mr. Jines is an exercise in missing the BIG point.

Jeff

I think it hits the point right on the head.... Many of us simply don't agree with what he has been saying. I don't need you, him or anyone else telling me what my ethics should be. If I lose my hunting rights or part of them, it won't be because a group of self righteous hunters decided what I can and cannot do.

And the term "police ourselves" is nothing more than words... What's your plan? Go around and have a chaperone everytime we hunt. Maybe the Gestapo can follow us around while we are at it...wait!!! Maybe a MJines drone... He can watch everything we do like the NSA and report how unethical the hunt was in his eyes.

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:

If I lose my hunting rights or part of them, it won't be because a group of self righteous hunters decided what I can and cannot do.

Problem is what you do . . . or what Palmer does . . . does effect others and their right to hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:

If I lose my hunting rights or part of them, it won't be because a group of self righteous hunters decided what I can and cannot do.

Problem is what you do . . . or what Palmer does . . . does effect others and their right to hunt.

Let me know when your ethics manual will be available for purchase. I will study hard and try not to let you down. Maybe you can title it "Mein Kampf".

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:
I think it hits the point right on the head.... Many of us simply don't agree with what he has been saying. I don't need you, him or anyone else telling me what my ethics should be. If I lose my hunting rights or part of them, it won't be because a group of self righteous hunters decided what I can and cannot do.

And the term "police ourselves" is nothing more than words... What's your plan? Go around and have a chaperone everytime we hunt. Maybe the Gestapo can follow us around while we are at it...wait!!! Maybe a MJines drone... He can watch everything we do like the NSA and report how unethical the hunt was in his eyes.

I agree with this 100%. Sorry Jeff but I respectfully disagree with your statement above concerning the "totality" of events as Jines states.

First, hunting on designated hunting lands surrounding park boundaries raises no ethical dilemma for me. A couple of points here. Buzz made a FaceBook post just this week regarding his last ele hunt of the season. A hunt that took place on lands surrounding a park. In that post, he noted that the park had a total of 6 visitors over the past 15 days and it was only through hunting in the blocks surrounding those areas that enough funds are provided to pay for the pumping station within the park as well as other park expenses. Hell, even on Buzz's second video (I believe it was the second video), he stated that many of his clients prefer to hunt the forrest areas outside of Hwange (Ngamo) because there is the off chance an exceptional 100+ plus ele may enter the hunting lands. I consider Buzz to be one of the most ethical operators around and I think Jines does as well, evidenced by the fact that we both hunt with his operations.

Next, hunting at night. There are areas where daylight hunting of cats has been determined to be non-effective, therefore night hunting has been approved. Here in the US, I've spent many nights with a varmint caller attempting to take a bobcat, fox, coyote, etc. If I'm hunting Africa in one of those designated areas, I've got no ethical problem with it at all.

Regarding the collar on the Cecil lion. Even the experts say that on a fully maned lion, seeing a collar even in the best of lighting conditions would be challenging. Aaron states that he shot one in daylight and neither he nor the PH saw the collar until approaching the downed lion. In the Cecil case, no evidence has been presented, at least that I'm aware of, that the PH targeted that specific lion, but rather that they were conducting a lion hunt in the manner that all other lion hunts in that area are undertaken.

Regarding "luring" the cat onto bait. Well, that's exactly how baited hunts are conducted. I've been on several leopard and lion hunts to date over bait. In all cases, we found likely travel routes of cats in the area and drug a scent line across those travel routes. Unless the PH drug a scent line WITHIN the park boundaries, again, I don't have an ethical objection.

And here in lies my difference of opinion on the matter with Jines. Those methods outlined above are all within commonly accepted operations. Even in TOTALITY. It's only AFTER THE FACT that Mike has made an ethical violation charge in this case, citing the "totality" of events. I say BS.

Now, furthermore, I believe the reason Mike is receiving pushback is that he fails to acknowledge that just because others disagree with his ethical witch hunt, it doesn't mean others are devoid of ethics ... many even stronger than his as I know hunters who would recoil at the thought of shooting cow elephants, or even elephants at all! In fact, I'd say that my ethics more than likely very closely mirror Mike's. But unlike him, I understand that I hunt for different expectations than some others might and that the restrictions I place on my activities for my own personal reasons are not worthy of declaring myself the sole judge of others conduct and expect everyone to live and act according to my standards, especially AFTER THE FACT.

I've said it from the beginning, that this entire "Cecil" the lion hunt should have been judged on legalities, not ethics, solely because ethics are subjective and apply to each individual according to their personal experiences whereas legalities apply to all. Do I believe Dr. Palmer to be sleazy? Yep, all day long. Do I believe he was in on the fact that he was hunting seized lands with a PH that had no quota for lion on those lands where the hunt was conducted? Yeah, probably, but he has enough plausible deniability that it's hard to make a judgement. I've got my opinion on the matter and that's about as far as it goes.

Now on the other hand, is it a fact that the hunt was conducted by the PH and allowed by the "landowner" without a lion permit on the property. So far, from the evidence I've seen, the answer to that is yes. And that my friends is where this entire focus should be in my opinion. If the game laws were broken, prosecution should be forthcoming. If convicted, appropriate and severe sentencing should follow. That is something we as the hunter / conservationists we are can hang our collective hats on in terms of rejecting any illegal activities when it comes to hunting and wildlife. THAT is my disagreement with Mike on this issue.

But let's take it one step further, bringing the focus back to the title of the OP shall we. The OP was about an accusation of Dr. Palmer using "henchmen" to drive deer back onto his land, preventing their movement onto the neighbor's property. Do we understand how preposterous that assumption is? Does anyone really believe the Dr. has hired men sitting idle in their trucks on a likely observation point, looking for deer heading across fields toward the neighbors? And upon seeing these "escapees", start up the truck and drive like madmen to get in front of them and turn them back? Are they sitting in those trucks 24 hrs a day, even throughout the night hours, equipped with night vision goggles, ready to Mad Max Bambi back onto the Doc's land? Somehow, that preposterous assumption has been given credence because he shot "Cecil" and must be guilty of something nefarious because he was guilty of something nefarious in the past.

Personally, I do think we are shooting ourselves in the foot here. The Dr. wasn't convicted on the bear incident, or the fishing incident for that matter, based on ethics. He was convicted based on breaking the law. Appropriately so. I think we would be best served by sticking to the same standard on this subject as well, regardless of the fact that we posses higher ethical standards.

I already spend too much time distancing myself, and what I do when I hunt, from others and what they do.

I don't need bozos like this guy increasing that burden.

As MJines has said, in so many words, we are all judged by the actions of the lowest common denominator.

That is not fair, but it's a fact.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:

. . . we are all judged by the actions of the lowest common denominator.

That is not fair, but it's a fact.

Precisely . . . and if we all did a better job of taking responsibility for our decisions and focusing on doing the right thing versus what we have the right to do perhaps we would invite less scrutiny of our actions.

Todd,

You made my argument for me with more words. I consider the lion debacle in the "totality of events" argument. That was the situation I was referring to.

I have stated earlier that none of the other issues are of concern. I also still feel that this thread has generated a couple of hernias attempting to discredit Mr. Jines rather than to give credence to the bigger picture.

We need to be smarter at times.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Todd,

You made my argument for me with more words. I consider the lion debacle in the "totality of events" argument. That was the situation I was referring to.

I have stated earlier that none of the other issues are of concern. I also still feel that this thread has generated a couple of hernias attempting to discredit Mr. Jines rather than to give credence to the bigger picture.

We need to be smarter at times.

Jeff

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you Jeff.

IMO, the only problem with the "totality" of the "Cecil" events are that a hunt was conducted on lands without a permit (Illegal) and on Seized Lands (Possibly Illegal for an American if the "Landowner" is on the blacklist). Therefore it's an illegal hunt. I've got no "ethical" issues with the "park boundary, night, collar" aspects for reasons as outlined above. And I don't see how this entire "Cecil" issue has anything to do with the ridiculous notion of "henchmen" being hired to herd deer back onto the Dr's land, other than the fact that he's an easy target for the media at this point.

Is that your take as well.

Your "Who Cares" statement early in the thread was 100%!

I agree with Mr. Williams.

To be honest, Dr. Palmer with his experience should have known something herky was up.

That hunt was considerably less money than other comparable hunts in Zim, and if he had taken some time he should have been able to figure out it didn't quite pass the smell test... Having said that, what happened in Minnesota even with what was put in the paper shows that there is some ulterior motive going on. Minnesota is a very weak property rights state, and I do not doubt that there have been bad behavior on the part of all parties in the dispute in question.

I agree that my opinion of Dr. Palmer is not good. Past poaching (i.e. Fishing without a license) and convictions related to game laws look bad, but there is a reason we have laws and our system of jurisprudence. MN is part of the multistate agreement. I must say I find it odd to be arguing for the legal system against a lawyer, but it is what it is.

I also think that some of the laws in any country come down to "if we want to get you, we will" and we all would like to be given our fair shake in court.

Remember that when the whole debacle started, they had magnified what Palmer did much more so than it turns out we hear now regarding the lion issue. We are all being conditioned more by the new 24 hour news cycle, and the loss of true journalism.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Todd,

You made my argument for me with more words. I consider the lion debacle in the "totality of events" argument. That was the situation I was referring to.

I have stated earlier that none of the other issues are of concern. I also still feel that this thread has generated a couple of hernias attempting to discredit Mr. Jines rather than to give credence to the bigger picture.

We need to be smarter at times.

Jeff

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you Jeff.

IMO, the only problem with the "totality" of the "Cecil" events are that a hunt was conducted on lands without a permit (Illegal) and on Seized Lands (Possibly Illegal for an American if the "Landowner" is on the blacklist). Therefore it's an illegal hunt. I've got no "ethical" issues with the "park boundary, night, collar" aspects for reasons as outlined above. And I don't see how this entire "Cecil" issue has anything to do with the ridiculous notion of "henchmen" being hired to herd deer back onto the Dr's land, other than the fact that he's an easy target for the media at this point.

Is that your take as well.

Your "Who Cares" statement early in the thread was 100%!

Correct

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Todd,

You made my argument for me with more words. I consider the lion debacle in the "totality of events" argument. That was the situation I was referring to.

I have stated earlier that none of the other issues are of concern. I also still feel that this thread has generated a couple of hernias attempting to discredit Mr. Jines rather than to give credence to the bigger picture.

We need to be smarter at times.

Jeff

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you Jeff.

IMO, the only problem with the "totality" of the "Cecil" events are that a hunt was conducted on lands without a permit (Illegal) and on Seized Lands (Possibly Illegal for an American if the "Landowner" is on the blacklist). Therefore it's an illegal hunt. I've got no "ethical" issues with the "park boundary, night, collar" aspects for reasons as outlined above. And I don't see how this entire "Cecil" issue has anything to do with the ridiculous notion of "henchmen" being hired to herd deer back onto the Dr's land, other than the fact that he's an easy target for the media at this point.

Is that your take as well.

Your "Who Cares" statement early in the thread was 100%!

Correct

The problem with that arguement is we don't know if that is actually correct or not. The PH in this case claims that all of the paper work was in order and he will prove it in court. So all we actually have in this case is an accusation of wrong doing. So the only thing we really have is an ethics arguement at this point.... And for some reason a hope by some to have a scapegoat to distance themselves from the world wide outrage...

You and I are in agreement on that issue Jeff.


Here is something we haven't focused on nearly enough IMO. This all started with Johnny Rodriguez spinning a story mixed with truths and partial truths in an inflammatory manner to a willing mainstream media type that pushed it into becoming a viral phenomenon. Even the government of Zim recognized as much stating Rodriguez would be "sanctioned", whatever that means.

And this is the crux of my aversion to singling out the Dr. based on ethics rather than taking him and his hunting party to task on laws being broken. I've asked Mike a couple of times in response to his statement that "If we continue doing things the general public objects to, we'll loose our rights to hunt at all", if that includes shooting elephants or especially cow elephants that may have a calf or be pregnant, as it will be one or the other, if not both.

Assume for a second, you are on a legal hunt, adhering to all the ethical considerations you hold dear. You are hunting cow elphants ... tuskless. Many of us have done so. It's a valid management tool to help remove the tuskless gene from the population in areas where there are an abundance of elephant.

On this hunt, you find a suitable tuskless ele cow that has no dependent calf and shoot it. During the butchering process, whereby all the meat will be distributed to the local village, you discover the cow has a fetus that is almost to term. Somehow, Johnny Boy Rodriguez gets wind of this and through whatever channels, he gets his hands on a photo of this near term fetus. Now he takes it to the same media contact he used for the "Cecil" story. It goes viral worldwide.

At this point, you can waste all the breath you want to in regards to educating the people you come into contact with regarding the conservation benefits, meat to the locals, blah, blah, blah, .... Basically, you are fucked if you're the hunter in question. Your ethics at this point will mean exactly dick with the world at large. God help you if you have any skeletons in the closet when the media goes digging into your background!!

But, the majority of hunters will stand by your side if you acted within the boundaries of the law. Maybe not at first, but yep, this is where the education part comes in. However, if it's found that you took part in this hunt in violation of the law, how many hunters do you think will support you? Not very many is my guess. And if you think this scenario isn't plausible ....

Hunters standing up for adherence to game laws is a strong position to take.

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Todd,

You made my argument for me with more words. I consider the lion debacle in the "totality of events" argument. That was the situation I was referring to.

I have stated earlier that none of the other issues are of concern. I also still feel that this thread has generated a couple of hernias attempting to discredit Mr. Jines rather than to give credence to the bigger picture.

We need to be smarter at times.

Jeff

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you Jeff.

IMO, the only problem with the "totality" of the "Cecil" events are that a hunt was conducted on lands without a permit (Illegal) and on Seized Lands (Possibly Illegal for an American if the "Landowner" is on the blacklist). Therefore it's an illegal hunt. I've got no "ethical" issues with the "park boundary, night, collar" aspects for reasons as outlined above. And I don't see how this entire "Cecil" issue has anything to do with the ridiculous notion of "henchmen" being hired to herd deer back onto the Dr's land, other than the fact that he's an easy target for the media at this point.

Is that your take as well.

Your "Who Cares" statement early in the thread was 100%!

Correct

The problem with that arguement is we don't know if that is actually correct or not. The PH in this case claims that all of the paper work was in order and he will prove it in court. So all we actually have in this case is an accusation of wrong doing. So the only thing we really have is an ethics arguement at this point.... And for some reason a hope by some to have a scapegoat to distance themselves from the world wide outrage...

Well, if the PH proves all the paperwork was in fact legal and he did have quota for the area, and all of the other laws were observed, then this really does come down to crucifying a man on a legally undertaken hunt because it was conducted in a manner other than what a select few deem to be acceptable. There but by the grace of god go any of us.

AND THAT is the problem with the ethical argument, 100%!!

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
You and I are in agreement on that issue Jeff.


Here is something we haven't focused on nearly enough IMO. This all started with Johnny Rodriguez spinning a story mixed with truths and partial truths in an inflammatory manner to a willing mainstream media type that pushed it into becoming a viral phenomenon. Even the government of Zim recognized as much stating Rodriguez would be "sanctioned", whatever that means.

And this is the crux of my aversion to singling out the Dr. based on ethics rather than taking him and his hunting party to task on laws being broken. I've asked Mike a couple of times in response to his statement that "If we continue doing things the general public objects to, we'll loose our rights to hunt at all", if that includes shooting elephants or especially cow elephants that may have a calf or be pregnant, as it will be one or the other, if not both.

Assume for a second, you are on a legal hunt, adhering to all the ethical considerations you hold dear. You are hunting cow elphants ... tuskless. Many of us have done so. It's a valid management tool to help remove the tuskless gene from the population in areas where there are an abundance of elephant.

On this hunt, you find a suitable tuskless ele cow that has no dependent calf and shoot it. During the butchering process, whereby all the meat will be distributed to the local village, you discover the cow has a fetus that is almost to term. Somehow, Johnny Boy Rodriguez gets wind of this and through whatever channels, he gets his hands on a photo of this near term fetus. Now he takes it to the same media contact he used for the "Cecil" story. It goes viral worldwide.

At this point, you can waste all the breath you want to in regards to educating the people you come into contact with regarding the conservation benefits, meat to the locals, blah, blah, blah, .... Basically, you are fucked if you're the hunter in question. Your ethics at this point will mean exactly dick with the world at large. God help you if you have any skeletons in the closet when the media goes digging into your background!!

But, the majority of hunters will stand by your side if you acted within the boundaries of the law. Maybe not at first, but yep, this is where the education part comes in. However, if it's found that you took part in this hunt in violation of the law, how many hunters do you think will support you? Not very many is my guess. And if you think this scenario isn't plausible ....

Hunters standing up for adherence to game laws is a strong position to take.

JOHNNY R IS THE problem. No one said a word when that lying self serving jackass said Cecil brother had been shot by hunters.

Acting ethically means doing more than the law requires and less than it allows . . . and that applies to everything in life, not just hunting. Ignore ethics and eventually the laws will be changed to prohibit the conduct.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
You and I are in agreement on that issue Jeff.


Here is something we haven't focused on nearly enough IMO. This all started with Johnny Rodriguez spinning a story mixed with truths and partial truths in an inflammatory manner to a willing mainstream media type that pushed it into becoming a viral phenomenon. Even the government of Zim recognized as much stating Rodriguez would be "sanctioned", whatever that means.

And this is the crux of my aversion to singling out the Dr. based on ethics rather than taking him and his hunting party to task on laws being broken. I've asked Mike a couple of times in response to his statement that "If we continue doing things the general public objects to, we'll loose our rights to hunt at all", if that includes shooting elephants or especially cow elephants that may have a calf or be pregnant, as it will be one or the other, if not both.

Assume for a second, you are on a legal hunt, adhering to all the ethical considerations you hold dear. You are hunting cow elphants ... tuskless. Many of us have done so. It's a valid management tool to help remove the tuskless gene from the population in areas where there are an abundance of elephant.

On this hunt, you find a suitable tuskless ele cow that has no dependent calf and shoot it. During the butchering process, whereby all the meat will be distributed to the local village, you discover the cow has a fetus that is almost to term. Somehow, Johnny Boy Rodriguez gets wind of this and through whatever channels, he gets his hands on a photo of this near term fetus. Now he takes it to the same media contact he used for the "Cecil" story. It goes viral worldwide.

At this point, you can waste all the breath you want to in regards to educating the people you come into contact with regarding the conservation benefits, meat to the locals, blah, blah, blah, .... Basically, you are fucked if you're the hunter in question. Your ethics at this point will mean exactly dick with the world at large. God help you if you have any skeletons in the closet when the media goes digging into your background!!

But, the majority of hunters will stand by your side if you acted within the boundaries of the law. Maybe not at first, but yep, this is where the education part comes in. However, if it's found that you took part in this hunt in violation of the law, how many hunters do you think will support you? Not very many is my guess. And if you think this scenario isn't plausible ....

Hunters standing up for adherence to game laws is a strong position to take.

JOHNNY R IS THE problem. No one said a word when that lying self serving jackass said Cecil brother had been shot by hunters.

The above scenario regarding a tuskless I hunted happened to me. She was found to be carrying a near term fetus during the meat recovery stage. The hunt was being video taped and I specifically told the cameraman NOT to take video. I did not take any photos and made it clear that nobody else would be either and that we would not mention this to my wife who had decided to go fishing.

The blowback to images like that if they got on the internet would make Cecil look tame. We should all show some discretion.

quote:

Originally posted by GunsCore:

The above scenario regarding a tuskless I hunted happened to me. She was found to be carrying a near term fetus during the meat recovery stage. The hunt was being video taped and I specifically told the cameraman NOT to take video. I did not take any photos and made it clear that nobody else would be either and that we would not mention this to my wife who had decided to go fishing.

The blowback to images like that if they got on the internet would make Cecil look tame. We should all show some discretion.

In one of BUZZ' films on hu8nting the African elephant, he made it clear that cow elephant, almost always are either nursing a calf or carrying a baby, many time both. So that happens more often than not! Elephant cows bread for life!
....................................................................

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Acting ethically means doing more than the law requires and less than it allows . . . and that applies to everything in life, not just hunting. Ignore ethics and eventually the laws will be changed to prohibit the conduct.

Well said. But let's not forget that sometimes the laws are changed in the other direction.

Laws are not such a good guide to behavior.

As I like to point out, to the annoyance of some, the law permits, in many places, and prohibits, in others, drug use, prostitution, divorce, suicide, public execution by stoning, and gambling all the way to bankruptcy, and bankruptcy itself, too.

Oh yes, and also hunting.

Happy Thanksgiving to one and all!

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Acting ethically means doing more than the law requires and less than it allows . . . and that applies to everything in life, not just hunting. Ignore ethics and eventually the laws will be changed to prohibit the conduct.

Well said. But let's not forget that sometimes the laws are changed in the other direction.

Laws are not such a good guide to behavior.

As I like to point out, to the annoyance of some, the law permits, in many places, and prohibits, in others, drug use, prostitution, divorce, suicide, public execution by stoning, and gambling all the way to bankruptcy, and bankruptcy itself, too.

Oh yes, and also hunting.

Happy Thanksgiving to one and all!

"Well said"???



I say laughable. And the reason is as plain as the nose on your face.

If you object to a certain conduct based on your personal ethics, why would you not want the laws changed to prohibit that very conduct that you object to? Otherwise what you end up with is support for existing laws that allow said objectionable conduct to continue, but the expectation that no one will actually engage in it because they "should know better".

My Opinion:

1) Insist on adherence to existing game laws 100%!
2) Prosecute any violation of existing game laws 100%!
3) If convicted of violating existing game laws, impose severe penalties 100%!
4) If existing game laws allow for activities that are deemed "unethical", work to change the existing game laws to reflect evolving ethics!
5) As hunters / conservationists and being under constant attack in the manner that we are today, show support for our fellow sportsmen when under individual attack, IF they acted within the game laws. If they are under personal attack due to breaking game laws, throw them under the bus as they deserve. If they are under personal attack for doing something within the law but that you find objectionable due to your personal ethical stance, see No.s 1 thru 4 above!

Here's a perfect example, if the PH in question of the Cecil lion hunt, expected to conduct a quota swap in the event a lion was taken, is that illegal or just unethical? Zim PH's can correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it, quota swap is legal IF approved by Parks prior to the hunt. If that practice is deemed unethical, and I think I've seen quite a bit of support here on AR for the practice being labeled as "unethical", why not work to change the game law to prohibit quota swap completely? Doing so would eliminate any question regarding the practice. No quota, no hunt in that area. No grey area of conducting the hunt and expecting the Park Officials to do the swap for you after the fact in return for a few bucks under the table. You just know going in 100% that quota swap is illegal. No questions. No grey areas. Of course, that requires the absence of political corruption ... but that's another story.

Sure that's what we need . . . more laws to govern our conduct instead of taking personal responsibility for our conduct.

Interesting, and yet so sad to read how many palmer fans/followers showed up. The reason he needed to shoot Cecil with a compound bow instead of a firearm? Likely not because he considered it a more sporting test of wills/skills. Convicted felons are prohibited from possessing firearms.

In Idaho, felons are not allowed to possess any type of weapon that fires a projectile. The game animals of Idaho are safe from palmer.

Any of you apologists care to make an estimate of how many thousands of Americans that hunt Africa in the future will pay, in terms of millions of extra fees, to bring back legally/ethically hunted animals?

The Native Americans on the reservation near the Custer Battlefield site sell bumper stickers that read "Custer died for your sins".

When MJ gets the stickers made up; they need to read "We are paying for palmer's sins."

Wrong Rich.

A muzzle loader is not consider a firearm by the feds or Idaho.

A "felon" in Idaho can use either a bow or a muzzle loader in Idaho. Always have been able to.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
Interesting, and yet so sad to read how many palmer fans/followers showed up. The reason he needed to shoot Cecil with a compound bow instead of a firearm? Likely not because he considered it a more sporting test of wills/skills. Convicted felons are prohibited from possessing firearms.

In Idaho, felons are not allowed to possess any type of weapon that fires a projectile. The game animals of Idaho are safe from palmer.

Any of you apologists care to make an estimate of how many thousands of Americans that hunt Africa in the future will pay, in terms of millions of extra fees, to bring back legally/ethically hunted animals?

The Native Americans on the reservation near the Custer Battlefield site sell bumper stickers that read "Custer died for your sins".

When MJ gets the stickers made up; they need to read "We are paying for palmer's sins."

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Sure that's what we need . . . more laws to govern our conduct instead of taking personal responsibility for our conduct.

By that logic, we could just get by with no game laws at all and just expect everyone to live up to Mike Jines' ethical standards, eh?



Now if I could just find a photo of Napoleon jumping the shark instead of Fonzie!

You will never replace acting responsibly with laws. And for those that seem to relate better to pictures and cartoons . . .

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
You will never replace acting responsibly with laws. And for those that seem to relate better to pictures and cartoons . . .

Damn, with legal advise like that, I think I'd want another attorney!



Another anemic response Mike, but thanks for making my point exactly! Why would one not work to incorporate the curtailment of ethically objectionable conduct into game laws. Under what scenario would one want to allow a particular conduct to remain legal while at the same time condemning it on the basis of personal ethics?




Maybe it just boils down to a philosophy of leaving the game laws wide open for the purpose of assuming a position of moral superiority over fellow sportsmen here on AR!

I admire your tenacity . . . the logic, not so much. Good luck to you though in making the argument that laws should substitute for responsible behavior . . .