quote:

Your young males, 2-4 y.o. are the "replacement stock" for when a pride male is ousted or killed. Shooting 1 or 2 "stock" males will not have an impact, but how do you then control that transparently and fairly? So, they need to be "off limits". Lion in this age group also tend to have a low survival rate in the wild so allowing them to also be hunted indiscriminatly will have a negative impact.

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:

quote:

Your young males, 2-4 y.o. are the "replacement stock" for when a pride male is ousted or killed. Shooting 1 or 2 "stock" males will not have an impact, but how do you then control that transparently and fairly? So, they need to be "off limits". Lion in this age group also tend to have a low survival rate in the wild so allowing them to also be hunted indiscriminatly will have a negative impact.

From what I hear you (and others) saying, the key to protecting lion populations is protection of the pride males, the death of a pride male upsets the social structure of the pride and typically does not end with the death of 1 lion, rather the death of the pride male is followed my multiple cases of infanticide by whatever male comes in and takes his place? Do any of our lion experts agree with this statement?

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
The only difference I see here is the fact that the client/hunter is rightfully upset about his "trophy" elephant, thus so is everyone else. I think AG deserves a 100% refund from his OUTFITTER. I also think the scrutiny given to the shooting of this juvenile elephant, should be equally applied to the shooting of the juvenile lions over the past 12 months, and the PH's who have allowed them to be shot.

I just don't understand the hypocrisy here, to be frank with you. Plenty of folks here think ZPHA should penalize the PH (Tim I believe is his name) he should lose his license, the outfitter should be fined, etc, etc. All of which has been stated by others, and all of which I happen to agree with. However, when I suggested the very same thing be done to the offending PH/outfitting company of the original 2 yr old baby lion, I was crucified?????

quote:

For the purpose of this particular thread, what's the damn difference?

quote:

Brad - How many times do we need to go over the same stuff?

quote:

The question of this thread is as Lane has posted it. Why has everyone railed so hard against the shooting of the young/juvenile elephant, and the PH who allowed it (don't tell me cause its illegal/possibly a cow, folks were railing against it long before that was even mentioned, nor has it been confirmed) but have just as aggressively supported the shooting of young lions, and the PH's who have conducted the hunts?

The only difference I see here is the fact that the client/hunter is rightfully upset about his "trophy" elephant, thus so is everyone else. I think AG deserves a 100% refund from his OUTFITTER. I also think the scrutiny given to the shooting of this juvenile elephant, should be equally applied to the shooting of the juvenile lions over the past 12 months, and the PH's who have allowed them to be shot.

I just don't understand the hypocrisy here, to be frank with you. Plenty of folks here think ZPHA should penalize the PH (Tim I believe is his name) he should lose his license, the outfitter should be fined, etc, etc. All of which has been stated by others, and all of which I happen to agree with. However, when I suggested the very same thing be done to the offending PH/outfitting company of the original 2 yr old baby lion, I was crucified?????

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:

quote:

For the purpose of this particular thread, what's the damn difference?

quote:

Brad - How many times do we need to go over the same stuff?

Please forgive me Aaron, for being so obtuse, perhaps we were not all blessed with your level of intelligence.

quote:

The question of this thread is as Lane has posted it. Why has everyone railed so hard against the shooting of the young/juvenile elephant, and the PH who allowed it (don't tell me cause its illegal/possibly a cow, folks were railing against it long before that was even mentioned, nor has it been confirmed) but have just as aggressively supported the shooting of young lions, and the PH's who have conducted the hunts?

The only difference I see here is the fact that the client/hunter is rightfully upset about his "trophy" elephant, thus so is everyone else. I think AG deserves a 100% refund from his OUTFITTER. I also think the scrutiny given to the shooting of this juvenile elephant, should be equally applied to the shooting of the juvenile lions over the past 12 months, and the PH's who have allowed them to be shot.

I just don't understand the hypocrisy here, to be frank with you. Plenty of folks here think ZPHA should penalize the PH (Tim I believe is his name) he should lose his license, the outfitter should be fined, etc, etc. All of which has been stated by others, and all of which I happen to agree with. However, when I suggested the very same thing be done to the offending PH/outfitting company of the original 2 yr old baby lion, I was crucified?????

It would appear to me that the dynamics of these 2 situations were different. Now, before you go off, let me qualify by saying that I already realize that the end result is the same, 2 immature animals were shot and killed which is reprehensible to most from both an ethical and conservation standpoint. With that already stated and accepted, let's look at how the 2 situations are different. Wrldhunter shot a lion that he had already been discouraged from shooting by his PH, that lion had been watched on the bait and let go previously under the advice of his PH. When the lion was seen again, he (the client) made the decision to shoot it contrary to the advice of his PH, he was informed and made a decision that he considered the animal a trophy. Should the PH have ordered him, the paying client, not to? How far should he have taken that? Should he have stopped him from shooting that lion by force? I am sure he had a gun. Now, All Gone has presented the story that he was put on the sticks by his PH and told to shoot an elephant. There was no discussion as to quality, age, size, etc., the PH knew the hunter was on a "trophy bull" hunt and made the decision to tell the client to shoot that juvenile elephant. Can you see the difference in these 2 situations?

Now, with the above said, it would appear by your last statement that a large part of your issue with this subject is the way you and others were castigated for coming down on Wrldhunter for shooting his lion and that it is inconsistant with how the same forum has reacted to AllGone killing his elephant.

Perhaps those inconsistancies could be attributed to the fact that the vast majority of the responders on this forum are clients and not PH's, and they saw someone they could relate to being condemned for choosing to "complete" their safari, even if it meant taking a legal yet less desireable (in some eyes) trophy. Contrary to the All Gone fiasco, where it was presented to the same forum, a PH told a neophyte hunter to blast a juvenile elephant. I am not saying this makes it right or fair for you, rather just stating that perhaps you should consider the dynamics before you allow yourself to be surprised.

Or, perhaps the backlash you saw on the Wrldhunter post could be attributed to the fairly voluminous undercurrent of PM's and alternate communications that were circulating perpetuating the case that Wrldhunter had been coerced, if not outright pushed into posting his hunt report by some of the very people who came down on him. Once that level of treachery is assumed, the natural progression from there is to find a reason for such a heinous deed. Some thought it was as simple as making an example of someone, using the way they were treated to put "the fear of God" into others that would dare shoot too young of a lion. Some thought it was to make an example of the DuPlooys, and perhaps bring retribution against them for issues not approved of by the hunting community in Zambia. Some thought that it was done to give some the opportunity to rail against the shooting of a young lion and prove that we would "police our own", I believe some of your statements fed this theory. Many were offended that some of the very people that were suspected of this coercion, had railed against posting pics of younger lions due to who used them, then had pushed a hunter to post those very pics to further their own agenda. Regardless of why it was done, the fact remains that it was all done at the expense of one of our fellow clients (perception), most posters could see themselves potentially being in the same position some day and were appaled at the thought of being victimized by the professionals in this business we pay to take part in.

Wether you or anyone else likes it or not, on this and other forums, the level of responsibility put on clients and ph's is always going to be different, it is the cross you must bear. We (clients) pay you (outfitters, ph's, booking agents) to participate in this sport. I am not talking about actual responsibility here, I am talking about perceptions and the reactions they initiate on mediums such as these.

quote:

Brad - You gotta be kidding me!!! Talk about splitting hairs, man, why don't you just come right out and say you have the right to be a hypocrite anytime you feel like it. At least that's just telling it straight.

please explain where I have stated or insinuated that anyone has the "right to be a hypocrite"?

Wrldhunter was told, but made the decision himself, really?? Well hell, I guess that makes it alright then. You've done enough guided hunts Brad, you know that's total If the PH cannot or does not control the hunt, he has no business being there! There's not one bit of difference in these two scenarios. The PH was present, a juvenile was shoot with PH's approval. Exact same outcome! Brad, I've guided as many clients over the years as one could imagine. Numerous times I've had clients WANT to shoot something I tell them they cannot shoot. NEVER did I have to result to physically restraining them from doing so, nor have I ever conceeded, period! First of all, its totally against my management beliefs, and second, I know the hunter will come to regret shooting the animal, and in the end, I will be responsible.

Yes, from the hunters lips, he had been advised to pass that lion and made a decision that he was happy with the lion when he had the opportunity again. Are you stating that you know better what happened than the man who actually made the decision? As far as never having had a client that was satisfied with an animal (deer, elk or whatever) that you thought was too young, well, I guess we will have to take your word for it. I assure you, you are in the minority and possibly standing by yourself.

Second, I thought the question was clear. It has nothing to do with me!! Its all about the hypocrisy. I'm not sensitive, I don't feel "victimized" For heaven sakes man, victimized?? I thought we were all wearing Big Boy pants here, maybe not!

Really? The below quote kind of sounded like this was about you and how you were handled...

quote:

Plenty of folks here think ZPHA should penalize the PH (Tim I believe is his name) he should lose his license, the outfitter should be fined, etc, etc. All of which has been stated by others, and all of which I happen to agree with. However, when I suggested the very same thing be done to the offending PH/outfitting company of the original 2 yr old baby lion, I was crucified?????Aaron Neilson
Global Hunting Resources

Third, I'm sure I've said it 30 times over the past 9 months. PLEASE quote me, where I condemned the "hunter", good luck!!!

For the 10th time, none of us knew about or encouraged the hunt report, prior to seeing it on AR - GEEZ how many times must we repeat the facts, before some will listen/read em??

Let me get this right. wrldhunter was victimized, really?

1. So as long as the PH/Outfitter/Agent are getting railed (victimized as you put it), then its ok, since we are the PROS? If you RE-READ my posts, I made it clear numerous times that I had no beef with the hunter, just the PH/Outfitter, I wan ONLY "victimizing" them, so now what?

2. The amateurs "hunters" should not be held to the same level of wildlife conservation responsibility, as the pros in the biz? Man, that's really pathetic!!

After your post I'm 1000% certain, its hypocrisy, nothing more. Again, the real losers are unfortunately the wildlife! Not to mention, our reputations as "hunter/conservationists".

Aaron Neilson
Global Hunting Resources

Once again Aaron, my statements were not about what is right or wrong, what is fair or unfair, who is responsible or not responsible. You asked a question as to why the response was different over the death of these 2 immature animals, I offered a reason. Accept it, don't accept it, believe it, don't believe it, are you surprised that someone answered your question on an open forum? As far as your accusation of hypocrisy, THIS IS AR!!! The center of the known internet armchair warrior universe. The vast majority of people commenting on both of these threads have never even come close to actually experiencing anything like what they are commenting on. I would also respectfully submit that it would serve all of the PH's, outfitters and booking agents well to realize what their position is in reference to the other side (clients) that submit to this forum. I say that not to control, limit or censor what anyone says, rather to empower all parties concerned to find more success in navigating through these topics.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I see them as two examples that we should equally be "disturbed" by (Ann) and as Fujo stated...they are equivalent.

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:
Lane,
Do you truly believe that the difference in responses to these 2 young animals being shot is a reflection of a discrepency in the degree these 2 species are valued?

quote:

I can't speak for Lane, but I'll tell ya what I think.

I think in one case, I "in the biz-pro", called em out. In the other case, it was the client (non-pro, not in the biz guy) who called em out. According to you there's a distinction, regardless of the conservation issues at hand.

In one case, "others" were unhappy with the shooting of the juvenile lion, but said "hunter" was happy, so all was good, and the "others" were "victimizing" (I love that word Brad - really hits the heart, what liberal wacko did you hear that from?) him, thus the "others" were the bad guys, especially if they were "pros - in the biz". In other case, "hunter" was UNHAPPY (again, rightfully so) with juvenile trophy, thus its a full-fledged tragedy, and someone better pay up, get fined, get fired, and loss of a PH license is in order (I agree by the way).

Sooo.....we agree?
As far as the "victimizing" word, it's found in the dictionary under "v"

So no, I don't think the difference has anything to do with the "value" of the animal. Unfortunately for the wildlife, it obviously has nothing to do with wildlife conservation either!

some would say the same about some efforts to "save" the lion.

Aaron Neilson
Global Hunting Resources

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:

quote:

I can't speak for Lane, but I'll tell ya what I think.

I think in one case, I "in the biz-pro", called em out. In the other case, it was the client (non-pro, not in the biz guy) who called em out. According to you there's a distinction, regardless of the conservation issues at hand.

In one case, "others" were unhappy with the shooting of the juvenile lion, but said "hunter" was happy, so all was good, and the "others" were "victimizing" (I love that word Brad - really hits the heart, what liberal wacko did you hear that from?) him, thus the "others" were the bad guys, especially if they were "pros - in the biz". In other case, "hunter" was UNHAPPY (again, rightfully so) with juvenile trophy, thus its a full-fledged tragedy, and someone better pay up, get fined, get fired, and loss of a PH license is in order (I agree by the way).

Sooo.....we agree?
As far as the "victimizing" word, it's found in the dictionary under "v"

So no, I don't think the difference has anything to do with the "value" of the animal. Unfortunately for the wildlife, it obviously has nothing to do with wildlife conservation either!

some would say the same about some efforts to "save" the lion.

Aaron Neilson
Global Hunting Resources

quote:

Yep, we totally agree. Your hypocrisy has no bounds! Your rationale, which in your opinion separates the two examples, is simply amazing.

OK, maybe not. Please give an example of how I have been hypocritical. As far as my rationale, your below quote sounds like you agree with everything I said, did I misread it?

quote:

originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
I think in one case, I "in the biz-pro", called em out. In the other case, it was the client (non-pro, not in the biz guy) who called em out. According to you there's a distinction, regardless of the conservation issues at hand.

In one case, "others" were unhappy with the shooting of the juvenile lion, but said "hunter" was happy, so all was good, and the "others" were "victimizing" (I love that word Brad - really hits the heart, what liberal wacko did you hear that from?) him, thus the "others" were the bad guys, especially if they were "pros - in the biz". In other case, "hunter" was UNHAPPY (again, rightfully so) with juvenile trophy, thus its a full-fledged tragedy, and someone better pay up, get fined, get fired, and loss of a PH license is in order (I agree by the way).

You're right again Brad. I forgot, we're Zealots, looking only to "control" others and what they are/should be allowed to hunt. It really has nothing to do with lion conservation, its all about the POWER of control.

I am right about what? Where in this thread have I linked your or anyone elses responses to "zealotry"? Where have I accused you of attempting to "control" anyone or anything? I have a question for you Aaron, could the below quote (yours) be applied to anyone who has anything to do with conservation of the African Lion? If so, who?

quote:

looking only to "control" others and what they are/should be allowed to hunt. It really has nothing to do with lion conservation, its all about the POWER of control.