Posted on 07/30/2015 9:58:54 AM PDT by rktman
I found this on the popular site accuratereloading.com. It adds facts, texture and nuance to the emotion floating about out there. Remember that Zimbabwe is one of the most corrupt regimes in the world. From Zimbabwe Wildlife Conservation:
We have been following these threads with great interest. we emphasize we are advocates of "sustainable utilization " as a conservation tool , some Basic facts that have been verified by several reliable and credible sources :-
The operator / professional hunters in question had a valid TR2 form stamped by the Zimbabwe parks & wildlife authority. This form once stamped allows a hunt to take place."authority to hunt"
Each and every property or hunting concession to be hunted by the registered operator/client / professional hunter during the course of conducting the hunt must be recorded on this TR2 form
All hunting Quota's are issued by Zimbabwe parks Authority, and ARE AREA SPECIFIC!!! The property in question where the lion was hunted is "Antonette", which incidentally was legally owned by Peter Johnston /Rosslyn Safaris, and was taken without compensation during the land grab. This could get
Any off take of animals be it for cropping,management or trophy hunting purposes has to be applied for and approved. The land owner is then issued with a "quota" which is valid from 01/01 -31/12 of each year. Few clients fully understand the different land classifications Zimbabwe has for its hunting industry.
(Excerpt) Read more at gunwatch.blogspot.com ...
Sure, I’d shoot a large dangerous animal that attacked me in the woods. But I wouldn’t go out to hunt it down.
1) Why does he owe you or anyone else an explation of what he was doing?
2) Is there anything he might say ... anything at all ... that would lead you to conclude that "yeah, this guy's OK"?
No kidding. Mugabe has killed thousands of "Cecils" and "Dumbos" but liberals haven't noticed. He's stolen farms and money and lives and has bankrupted the nation. But liberals haven't protested.
But let some white guy from Ann Arbor kill a lion named Cecil and the world goes nuts.
The ignorant and uninformed MSM has just destroyed this guy’s life...........
Perhaps if he were a provider at an abortion clinic he would have gotten a pass.
2) Is there anything he might say ... anything at all ... that would lead you to conclude that "yeah, this guy's OK"?
He doesn't owe me any kind of explanation. If he likes the way things are going now, he should remain in hiding. Maybe he doesn't need to work anymore. Maybe he has other people who can bring him provisions. Maybe he can have his food delivered to his house. If he runs out of money, maybe his family can start hunting in dumpsters behind markets. It just seems to me that he might want to try a different strategy.
I think if he comes out of hiding and tries to give an honest account of why he was doing what he was doing, people might begin to see him as more human than his current image suggests. I agree with you that it probably isn't easy to satisfactorily explain any of this, but he should have the courage to try. None of us are perfect and most everyone understands that. Almost any image will be better than the "terrified and hiding in a bunker" image that he is projecting right now.
What do you think he should do?
If one has done something that has been perfectly legal and acceptable for decades, why does he have to explain and prove anything?
The above article, if read in its entirety, explains everything in detail.......Any alleged accountability is the responsibility of the outfitter he contracted with.
Hire an attorney then refer all questions from the media to Peter Johnston /Rosslyn Safaris,
The above article, if read in its entirety, explains everything in detail.......Any alleged accountability is the responsibility of the outfitter he contracted with.
He doesn't have to do anything. (See post 26.)
Maybe if he explained his reliance upon the outfitter it might help. It certainly can't hurt for him to confront the issues. I think it's the hiding that's hurting him more than anything else right now. Right now, people are talking about him as if he's not even human. They won't be able to do that if he comes out of the bunker.
What do you think he should do? Do you like his current strategy?
Isn't easy? Try "impossible". Not because there is no reasonable explanation, but because the feeding frenzy attacking him will accept no explanation. Most members of that mob come across to me as abysmally ignorant, insufferably arrogant, and completely irrational.
His best bet would be to tell the mob to fxxx off. It's all they deserve. It won't do any good, but it's better than groveling.
You didn't answer my question. Is they anything he could say that you, personally, would find a satisfactory explanation?
What about all of the women who are lured into Planned Parenthood clinics? THAT is a crime.
I honestly don't know.
Right now, it seems that he probably wanted to put a lion's head on his wall because he thought that the trophy might somehow bolster his image as a man - that it might make him seem more masculine than he thinks people are viewing him now. I think he was hoping that people who see the trophy might think that he had earned it by engaging in acts of personal courage by challenging and defeating a dangerous predator. You know, there are people who buy and wear service medals that they didn't earn. People do a lot of weird things for a lot of weird reasons. Traveling halfway around the world to kill a defenseless lion seems so pointless, so gratuitous. But, he must have had some kind of reason.
Anyway, his actual motives might be completely different. Maybe he just hates animals.
That's why I think he should come forward to explain why he was doing what he was doing. His silence is inviting other people to attach to him motives which may be unfair.
“I cannot condone killing wildlife unless for food.”
Well, that certainly is nice to know! If I ever see you getting attacked by a mountain lion, I’ll be sure to just re-holster my firearm and watch.
The guy should get out in front of it, say that he likes hunting and he loved this particular hunt. He’s done nothing illegal or immoral, near as I can tell.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Old American pioneers wrote that mountain lion was some of the best meat they ever tasted. Maybe the guy likes lion.
I plan to whack the raccoon family that has been killing my chickens tonight. I will not eat them, and I plan to practice my taxidermy on them to make trophies even of the babies that will serve as bitter warnings for the rest of their loathsome clan. Does that make me a bad person because I'm not going to eat the raccoons?
Seriously, dude, that position is ethically incoherent. You'll need to stop driving your car since you're unlikely to make paprikash out of the squirrel you mash, the wild rats, mice, and moles in your yard are dying because of your love of your lawn, not to mention the garter snake you probably cut in half with the blades. Etc.
That’s racist.
Actually I was referring to NFL referees.
Bambi & Thumper? the hot Bond girls right? . . .
oh sorry, it’s very hot today.
I wasn’t thinking right.
Heh!
Why not? Because your personal morality and your personal ethics -- which you may or may not have actually carefully considered -- create that preference within you. But I will also say that unless you can point to a natural reason or positive law forbidding Palmer from engaging in what looks from his perspective to be a bad but nonetheless ethical hunt, you have no basis to claim that the same arbitrary and probably unfounded moral judgment should apply to him as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.