Nature Lovers, Sign the Petition

[robbins.photo]

With respect to the matter of extradition, if it's demonstrated that he was aware that he was acting illegally, then absolutely he should be extradited. Just because another country's justice system is a little less pleasant than one's own does not give a person the right to violate that country's laws and get away with it. This is not unlike the caning incident in Singapore some years ago where the US government interceded on behalf of the student vandal... if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Going to have to agree to disagree on this one I guess. If the extradition request were coming from a real government, I'd see your point and agree wholeheartedly. As it is this is more akin to honoring an extradition request coming from a drug cartel or perhaps the mafia.

 

[Designer]

Once the African mammals are extinct (rhinos and tigers will go first)

Sorry to have to be the one to break the bad news; African tigers are ALREADY extinct.

 

[EIngerson]

My only question if he was going to take the shot at night how was he going to determine whether it did or didn't have a collar?

Everything I've read implies he knew he shouldn't of shot a collared lion. So how was he going to determine that it was or wasn't then. Surely that's his responsibility, he knew it had been baited out, so guessing not identified.

Great question. It's my understanding that the guides were trying to hide the collar from him once they realized it was there.

 

[table1349]

Once the African mammals are extinct (rhinos and tigers will go first)

Sorry to have to be the one to break the bad news; African tigers are ALREADY extinct.

Kind of like the Lemurs of North America? But at least the Unicorns are still safe.

 

[limr]

My only question if he was going to take the shot at night how was he going to determine whether it did or didn't have a collar?

Everything I've read implies he knew he shouldn't of shot a collared lion. So how was he going to determine that it was or wasn't then. Surely that's his responsibility, he knew it had been baited out, so guessing not identified.

Great question. It's my understanding that the guides were trying to hide the collar from him once they realized it was there.

But he wasn't supposed to shoot a lion at all. The permit was to hunt on a section of private land that did NOT have a lion quota. So he shouldn't have shot the lion because it was a lion, not just because it was collared. Are you telling me he doesn't know what a lion looks like? As for why they tried to destroy the collar, it wasn't because the collar made the hunt illegal. It was because the collar would lead authorities to the carcass, who would then discover that it was an illegal hunt.

 

[pixmedic]

out here in Central Florida the Cecil story is getting 10 times the media coverage as the 4 marines and one sailor killed in Chattanooga did.

Not a pissing contest is it?

isn't it?
each tragedy vying for its own little piece of recognition, desperately seeking any and every little scrap of attention in the hopes of getting enough people to demand justice that it will be so, and praying the media distorts as few facts as possible.
The media is more interested in whipping up viewer and online click frenzy's than actually reporting facts or helping to maintain public order and decency, and the public just eats it up like sugar glazed bacon. mmmmmmmmm bacon.

Perhaps the greater tragedy here is that the dentist has absolutely zero chance of getting any sort of fair treatment.
He has already been tried and condemned by the media, and I think at this point, it will be completely irrelevant even if he is completely exonerated by official fact finding methods. He is doomed.

Ive never hunted, so maybe I do not have as broad a perspective on the subject as those that have, but whatever peoples personal feelings are on the matter, there is absolutely no semblance of "innocent until proven guilty" in this case.
I don't care much for the thought of killing for sport, or for a trophy. I think the living animal is worth far more than a head or pelt on my wall, but just because I don't like something doesn't mean that those that do should be crucified for engaging in those activities in a legal manner.

 

[robbins.photo]

My only question if he was going to take the shot at night how was he going to determine whether it did or didn't have a collar?

Everything I've read implies he knew he shouldn't of shot a collared lion. So how was he going to determine that it was or wasn't then. Surely that's his responsibility, he knew it had been baited out, so guessing not identified.

Great question. It's my understanding that the guides were trying to hide the collar from him once they realized it was there.

But he wasn't supposed to shoot a lion at all. The permit was to hunt on a section of private land that did NOT have a lion quota. So he shouldn't have shot the lion because it was a lion, not just because it was collared. Are you telling me he doesn't know what a lion looks like? As for why they tried to destroy the collar, it wasn't because the collar made the hunt illegal. It was because the collar would lead authorities to the carcass, who would then discover that it was an illegal hunt.

My best guess? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The guy probably relied too much on his guides, when they lured the lion out he probably knew he wasn't supposed to shoot it but since everybody else was making it seem like no big deal he went and did it anyway.

Later on he realizes how badly he screwed the pooch after seeing the collar and putting 2 and 2 together, but after that it's too late. So he hightails it back to the states. I doubt the guy is as pure as the driven snow, and I'm not even certain he wouldn't have taken the shot knowing that the lion was protected if he thought he could get away with it. His track record here is pretty iffy.

But I doubt that he intentionally set out to hunt a protected lion. Either way it's kind of hard to feel much sympathy for this guy.

 

[floatingby]

Back to the OP, I'm a bit confused by the petition.

It says: "Please sign the petition to demand justice for Cecil! Tell Zimbabwe to stop issuing hunting permits to kill endangered animals!"

How is telling Zimbabwe to stop issuing hunting permit bringing justice to Cecil?

Wasn't Cecil killed without a valid permit to begin with?

It also says in the title "WE CAN END POACHING FOR GOOD."

And how is telling Zimbabwe to stop issuing permit, which in this case it didn't, will help to stop poaching, which is, by definition, hunting illegally, so without a permit?

This make no sense to me at all, somebody explain?

 

[limr]

Okay. For the record, I agree with those that are saying that the reaction to this crime is out of proportion with the crime. Yes, there are bigger problems, and yes attention should be paid to those problems.

But...(and you knew there would be one...)

Sometimes the media explosion over an event is the result of "slacktivism" - the idea that sharing a story and talking all big and bad about it is the same as doing something about the problem. We haven't done anything significant but it makes us feel better, morally superior.

Sometimes, however, spreading the word IS activism and DOES help effect change in a bad situation. This guy hunted the wrong lion at the wrong place and time and in the wrong way, and so he has given us a symbol to cling to, to blame. We feel like maybe we really CAN do something about this situation by bringing attention to it. This can apply to most causes-du-jour that blow up the Internet on any given day. How many police departments, for example, might be taking a second, third, or fourth look at their community outreach programs or officer training policies as a way to avoid the problems that led to any one of the recent stories about Sandra Bland, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray...

And this dentist killing this lion also becomes symbolic of a wider problem - not just poaching and animal cruelty, but also the exploitation of poor, corrupt nations by rich Americans who don't care about the mess they leave behind. They just want their trophy. Even if the hunt had been legal, the killing of this one particular lion might actually have wide-ranging and long-term negative effects on the area. For what? And what about the repercussions? The locals get the harshest punishments while the rich American gets to pay his way out of it? Again?? It doesn't sit well at all. And perhaps, that's what is really underneath all the outrage, and it's not really all about Cecil.

Now those bigger problems. What are we to do about them? Well, we do what we can, but they can be so overwhelming and the sheer size of the problem (and number of them) can make us feel powerless in a way that we don't when we can latch onto a specific, concrete goal (Get him extradited! Make him pay! Punish the people who did this! We know exactly who they are and we can do something about it!) And even when we don't feel overwhelmed, and when we DO take concrete steps to help societal issues that we care about, it doesn't always get media attention. We don't see the general, ongoing activism - we only see it when it's focused on a singular event.

 

[tirediron]

I agree with what you said to a point. In this case, I'm sure he understood the political issues. It's a fairly common occurrence for foreign hunters to go on guided hunts there. Enough to build a lucrative guide service. This company was not desperate and doing anything for money. They advertised themselves as professionals.

Which means nothing. Just look at all the professional photographers on facebook!

It's a far reach to say this man spent $50,000 for this service and didn't take the time to approach as you've described. I'm inclined to believe he did that research on many guide services and decided this one was the best. Yes, this is an assumption made on my part, but an assumption made with some logic.

He may well have done a great deal of research to determine which guide service was the best, but how much research did he do on the actual hunting? I can see only two options: (1) He did all the research and was fully aware of what he was doing, in which case the vilification he is receiving is fully deserved; or (2) he didn't do any, relying solely on the guides, in which case he is equally guilty since ignorance of the law does not relieve one of the requirement to obey it.

I'm also assuming this guide service gave him some assurance that his expectations would be met and didn't follow through on it. I'm still placing my blame on the guide service here. I'd love to see the contract/agreement they had. Might answer a lot of questions.

I would very surprised if that weren't the case, and it's entirely possible (probable more likely) that the guides pushed him to do what he did, playing down any potential concerns, HOWEVER, as the person pulling the trigger, he is ultimately responsible. It would be no different were you and I at a bar, and after several hours of hard drinking, and both being equally drunk, I convinced you to drive your car home. I may bear some culpability, but ultimately, you got behind the wheel, you started the car, and you pulled out onto the public road...

 

[Buckster]

Back to the OP, I'm a bit confused by the petition.

It says: "Please sign the petition to demand justice for Cecil! Tell Zimbabwe to stop issuing hunting permits to kill endangered animals!"

How is telling Zimbabwe to stop issuing hunting permit bringing justice to Cecil?

Wasn't Cecil killed without a valid permit to begin with?

It also says in the title "WE CAN END POACHING FOR GOOD."

And how is telling Zimbabwe to stop issuing permit, which in this case it didn't, will help to stop poaching, which is, by definition, hunting illegally, so without a permit?

This make no sense to me at all, somebody explain?

My take on it is that the group's focus is the killing of endangered animals, Cecil just being the martyr for the cause. Or, as I said earlier (for which I'm already due for a dope slap!) the CATalyst.

Despite these particular circumstances, if the Zimbabwe government were to stop issuing permits to hunt endangered animals (assuming that it does that, at least for the point here), one can then assume that at least SOME endangered animals are being killed legally by that means, and the group would like to see that stop.

Obviously, that doesn't stop the problem entirely. Poachers will continue to violate the law as always, but any reduction at all would be a victory for that group, and for the animals they are trying to protect.

I can see how the petition makes sense to the group promoting it.

 

[table1349]

I agree with what you said to a point. In this case, I'm sure he understood the political issues. It's a fairly common occurrence for foreign hunters to go on guided hunts there. Enough to build a lucrative guide service. This company was not desperate and doing anything for money. They advertised themselves as professionals.

Which means nothing. Just look at all the professional photographers on facebook!

It's a far reach to say this man spent $50,000 for this service and didn't take the time to approach as you've described. I'm inclined to believe he did that research on many guide services and decided this one was the best. Yes, this is an assumption made on my part, but an assumption made with some logic.

He may well have done a great deal of research to determine which guide service was the best, but how much research did he do on the actual hunting? I can see only two options: (1) He did all the research and was fully aware of what he was doing, in which case the vilification he is receiving is fully deserved; or (2) he didn't do any, relying solely on the guides, in which case he is equally guilty since ignorance of the law does not relieve one of the requirement to obey it.

I'm also assuming this guide service gave him some assurance that his expectations would be met and didn't follow through on it. I'm still placing my blame on the guide service here. I'd love to see the contract/agreement they had. Might answer a lot of questions.

I would very surprised if that weren't the case, and it's entirely possible (probable more likely) that the guides pushed him to do what he did, playing down any potential concerns, HOWEVER, as the person pulling the trigger, he is ultimately responsible. It would be no different were you and I at a bar, and after several hours of hard drinking, and both being equally drunk, I convinced you to drive your car home. I may bear some culpability, but ultimately, you got behind the wheel, you started the car, and you pulled out onto the public road...

OH NO YOU DIDN'T just bring up Facebook and professional photographers again did you???? Here we go again.

 

[EIngerson]

I agree with what you said to a point. In this case, I'm sure he understood the political issues. It's a fairly common occurrence for foreign hunters to go on guided hunts there. Enough to build a lucrative guide service. This company was not desperate and doing anything for money. They advertised themselves as professionals.

Which means nothing. Just look at all the professional photographers on facebook!

It's a far reach to say this man spent $50,000 for this service and didn't take the time to approach as you've described. I'm inclined to believe he did that research on many guide services and decided this one was the best. Yes, this is an assumption made on my part, but an assumption made with some logic.

He may well have done a great deal of research to determine which guide service was the best, but how much research did he do on the actual hunting? I can see only two options: (1) He did all the research and was fully aware of what he was doing, in which case the vilification he is receiving is fully deserved; or (2) he didn't do any, relying solely on the guides, in which case he is equally guilty since ignorance of the law does not relieve one of the requirement to obey it.

I'm also assuming this guide service gave him some assurance that his expectations would be met and didn't follow through on it. I'm still placing my blame on the guide service here. I'd love to see the contract/agreement they had. Might answer a lot of questions.

I would very surprised if that weren't the case, and it's entirely possible (probable more likely) that the guides pushed him to do what he did, playing down any potential concerns, HOWEVER, as the person pulling the trigger, he is ultimately responsible. It would be no different were you and I at a bar, and after several hours of hard drinking, and both being equally drunk, I convinced you to drive your car home. I may bear some culpability, but ultimately, you got behind the wheel, you started the car, and you pulled out onto the public road...

I agree with what you said to a point. In this case, I'm sure he understood the political issues. It's a fairly common occurrence for foreign hunters to go on guided hunts there. Enough to build a lucrative guide service. This company was not desperate and doing anything for money. They advertised themselves as professionals.

Which means nothing. Just look at all the professional photographers on facebook!

It's a far reach to say this man spent $50,000 for this service and didn't take the time to approach as you've described. I'm inclined to believe he did that research on many guide services and decided this one was the best. Yes, this is an assumption made on my part, but an assumption made with some logic.

He may well have done a great deal of research to determine which guide service was the best, but how much research did he do on the actual hunting? I can see only two options: (1) He did all the research and was fully aware of what he was doing, in which case the vilification he is receiving is fully deserved; or (2) he didn't do any, relying solely on the guides, in which case he is equally guilty since ignorance of the law does not relieve one of the requirement to obey it.

I'm also assuming this guide service gave him some assurance that his expectations would be met and didn't follow through on it. I'm still placing my blame on the guide service here. I'd love to see the contract/agreement they had. Might answer a lot of questions.

I would very surprised if that weren't the case, and it's entirely possible (probable more likely) that the guides pushed him to do what he did, playing down any potential concerns, HOWEVER, as the person pulling the trigger, he is ultimately responsible. It would be no different were you and I at a bar, and after several hours of hard drinking, and both being equally drunk, I convinced you to drive your car home. I may bear some culpability, but ultimately, you got behind the wheel, you started the car, and you pulled out onto the public road...

OH NO YOU DIDN'T just bring up Facebook and professional photographers again did you???? Here we go again.

Oh yes he did!!! lol. Good one too. I've got nothing for that. Touche'

 

[robbins.photo]

But...(and you knew there would be one...)

The forum wouldn't be much fun without them..lol

Sometimes the media explosion over an event is the result of "slacktivism" - the idea that sharing a story and talking all big and bad about it is the same as doing something about the problem. We haven't done anything significant but it makes us feel better, morally superior.

One of the few people I know who regularly sends me diving for a dictionary. Lol

Sometimes, however, spreading the word IS activism and DOES help effect change in a bad situation. This guy hunted the wrong lion at the wrong place and time and in the wrong way, and so he has given us a symbol to cling to, to blame. We feel like maybe we really CAN do something about this situation by bringing attention to it. This can apply to most causes-du-jour that blow up the Internet on any given day. How many police departments, for example, might be taking a second, third, or fourth look at their community outreach programs or officer training policies as a way to avoid the problems that led to any one of the recent stories about Sandra Bland, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray...

Well if this gives anyone else pause and prevents even one incident of poaching then I'm ok with that. I don't think extradition is a good idea, and it would be nice if the media coverage were more factual and less prone to gin up an emotional feeding frenzy, but such is life I suppose.

And this dentist killing this lion also becomes symbolic of a wider problem - not just poaching and animal cruelty, but also the exploitation of poor, corrupt nations by rich Americans who don't care about the mess they leave behind.

Umm... ok, well I guess were in the agree to disagree column here. Zimbabwe was a train wreck long before this guy came along and paid 60 grand for a big game hunt, and the problems there are much deeper than a few well to do American's participating in this sort of thing. Don't get me wrong, I get where your coming from, but the conditions in Zimbabwe that make this sort of thing possible have very little to nothing to do with America.

Now those bigger problems. What are we to do about them? Well, we do what we can, but they can be so overwhelming and the sheer size of the problem (and number of them) can make us feel powerless in a way that we don't when we can latch onto a specific, concrete goal (Get him extradited! Make him pay! Punish the people who did this! We know exactly who they are and we can do something about it!) And even when we don't feel overwhelmed, and when we DO take concrete steps to help societal issues that we care about, it doesn't always get media attention. We don't see the general, ongoing activism - we only see it when it's focused on a singular event.

Again I don't disagree, sadly though knowing what things are like over there I doubt any of this will change much of anything, focused activism or not. The government of Zimbabwe is nothing more than a collection of thugs and gangsters of the highest order, and while they might be more than willing to put on a dog and pony show for PR purposes the truth is they could care less.

 

[floatingby]

Back to the OP, I'm a bit confused by the petition.

It says: "Please sign the petition to demand justice for Cecil! Tell Zimbabwe to stop issuing hunting permits to kill endangered animals!"

How is telling Zimbabwe to stop issuing hunting permit bringing justice to Cecil?

Wasn't Cecil killed without a valid permit to begin with?

It also says in the title "WE CAN END POACHING FOR GOOD."

And how is telling Zimbabwe to stop issuing permit, which in this case it didn't, will help to stop poaching, which is, by definition, hunting illegally, so without a permit?

This make no sense to me at all, somebody explain?

My take on it is that the group's focus is the killing of endangered animals, Cecil just being the martyr for the cause. Or, as I said earlier (for which I'm already due for a dope slap!) the CATalyst.

Despite these particular circumstances, if the Zimbabwe government were to stop issuing permits to hunt endangered animals (assuming that it does that, at least for the point here), one can then assume that at least SOME endangered animals are being killed legally by that means, and the group would like to see that stop.

Obviously, that doesn't stop the problem entirely. Poachers will continue to violate the law as always, but any reduction at all would be a victory for that group, and for the animals they are trying to protect.

I can see how the petition makes sense to the group promoting it.

I'm sure it does make sense to them, otherwise they would not have written it. All I can see is that they're trying to reel in this particular lion killing to promote their cause, but it's done in a so convoluted way that I don't know what their cause is, heck I'm not even sure what I'd be signing for; what I'm sure of is that the vast majority of those who signed didn't know either.