^^ Bay is right. This nasty business is big business for many African nations whose politicians are notoriously corrupt and who often participate in the illegal killing of rare animals – or at least look the other way at a significant personal profit.
Tackling this issue – and ending this horrible pastime – will take a lot more than vilifying this twit from Minneapolis. (Though don’t get me wrong: it gives me great pleasure to see him vilified!) And even if a miracle happens and he’s imprisoned or has to pay some colossal fine, we’ll be no closer to protecting wild animals from the worst animal of all: us.
Does anyone know what percentage of people engaging in “this horrible pastime” (very apt description, @katliamom) are Americans? When I say “engaging” I’m specifically referring to the ones paying big bucks to slaughter these animals. Yes, I know there is collusion with some of the locals, but I’m interested in knowing who is financing these excursions.
^ Thanks, sabaray (post #290), I appreciate that. As you can probably guess, these issues are something I really care about, but I agree, they’re complicated and emotionally charged. As I see it, there are a number of different possible positions here, many of which are floating around in this thread:
Some people oppose all killing of animals on moral grounds. (This is where my vegetarian daughter comes out).
Some oppose all hunting of wild animals on moral grounds. (This is probably about where my non-vegetarian daughter comes out; she’ll eat the meat of domesticated animals but not of game animals, wild-caught fish excepted).
Some oppose all hunting except subsistence hunting, i.e., where necessary for human nutrition and survival, and/or where such subsistence hunting is an important part of an ongoing cultural identity, as with some indigenous peoples. (This is probably where my DW comes out).
Some oppose hunting purely for sport, but are OK with hunting to “put meat on the table,” even if not strictly necessary for subsistence, and even though hunting to put meat on the table is also often motivated at least in part by the sport/recreational aspect of the activity–i.e., don’t kill it unless you’re going to eat it. (This is where my mother came out).
Some oppose hunting of charismatic big game species, but are OK with the rest of it.
Some oppose hunting of species in decline even if not presently listed as endangered or threatened (like African lions), but are OK with the rest of it. (This is where many mainstream environmental and conservation organizations officially come out, though many of their individual members may take harder-line positions).
Some find hunting of any of the above kinds morally objectionable and/or aesthetically repulsive, but would not prohibit some or all categories of it IF the hunting is sustainably managed
Some are OK with hunting generally, including hunting of species in decline, IF the hunting is sustainably managed, and IF the hunting of the species in decline is done in such a way as to create incentives to protect populations of the declining species in the wild and to generate revenue that allows for their more effective protection. (This is where a number of African nations and some conservation organizations come out, though putting that idea into practice is often more difficult than it appears in concept).
Some are OK with hunting generally but think it should be more strictly regulated than it is as present so as to better protect game and/or non-game species and to minimize animal pain and suffering. (This is about where my dad, a casual recreational hunter who occasionally “put meat on the table” with his hunting, came out, but my guess is it’s a minority view among hunters)
Some are OK with hunting generally and think the present kinds and levels of regulation are about right. (This is where some hunters come out).
Some are OK with hunting generally and see the need for some regulation but are fearful of and zealous to oppose what they see as over-regulation. (This is where many, probably most hunters I know come out, and some non-hunters).
Some are OK with hunting generally and think it is over-regulated but will grudgingly follow the rules because they’re the rules. (I hear about these types of hunters but don’t actually know any).
Some are OK with hunting generally and will not abide by the rules, either because they think the rules are unnecessary or too strict and shouldn’t apply to anyone, or because they’re happy to free-ride on others’ observance of the rules by not observing them, which gives them as non-observers a competitive advantage. (Some of Palmer’s past actions, like fishing without a license and killing a bear where not permitted, suggest he’s at least sometimes in this camp, as are all poachers).
I’m sure there are other variations I’ve missed. I’m probably a combination of 6) and 7): no hunting of species in decline, but for the rest of it, although I find hunting both morally objectionable and aesthetically repugnant (how could anyone actually derive pleasure out of putting a bullet or an arrow into a living creature and watching it die?), I wouldn’t prohibit it. But in my view it should be strictly regulated, not just for the convenience of hunters, and not just to ensure sustainable populations of game species, but to ensure sustainable populations of all species and sustainable, healthy, functioning ecosystems. I understand that “charismatic megafauna” especially tug at the heartstrings, but I think non-charismatic species should be entitled to equal consideration. And as appealing as the “hunt it to conserve it” idea (#8) is in concept, I think it’s so difficult to pull off in practice that I really question its viability, especially in poor countries without a tradition of a strong administrative state or a strong enforcement capacity, where poaching, bribery, and other corrupt practices tend to be pretty commonplace. But I think reasonable arguments can be made in favor of any of these positions, except #13. The question to me is whether Walter Palmer knowingly crossed that line, as he had on at least two occasions in the past.
Having been out all afternoon I probably can’t keep up either, but bay, did you ever share what activities you participated in when you were in South Africa sometime this past year? How does it compare to ML’s recent , (and 4th, I believe) safari?
The big difference is that while probably everyone has the ability to break the law (surely many of us have exceeded the speed limits or not come to a complete stop at a stop sign), Palmer has actually pled guilty to, and paid a fine (and was given probation) for breaking the law-- not a misdemeanor but a FELONY. I am guessing that there are not a lot of cc’ers who can make that claim. And Palmer gets bonus points for having negotiated a settlement of the sexual harassment claims levied against him by his patient/receptionist (and there too is a potential boundary violation as well, if dental ethics are like some other healthcare professional ethics).
SIX YEARS? My, what an upstanding individual. Surely there are many similar role models on cc. :>
Absolutely. He is filled with regret because the magnificent animal he shot for fun had an unexpected way to get back at him — the collar that meant authorities would investigate the death and the sleazy way they went about it.
The mention by the hired hunter that Palmer wanted to take down a particularly large elephant indicates to me that he is seeking out rarity and probably was looking specifically for a black-maned lion because it would be a rarer and more striking trophy. His regret is not in killing such an animal, its in being outed as the killer of this one. Vilifying people like this is the right thing to do, imo.
The Dallas Safari Club auctions off permits to kill these animals. Proceeds from the auctions (supposedly) go towards conservation of the species. They also say that the animals are specially chosen… only older animals which are unable to reproduce are selected for the bidding.
I’m curious what people think about this practice? Personally, I think it’s a tough call on whether or not it’s in poor taste or a worthwhile endeavor. If it is true that the DSC raises money for conservation and preservation of the species, then it could be a good thing. If it’s just a smoke and mirrors tactic to hunt illegal animals then I think they should be shut down…
This is like any other issue that has been simmering for a long time. It takes the involvement of powerful and influential people to really effectuate change. They can raise awareness on a global level and solicit funds to protect these animals. In the UK it is the royal family leading the charge and they have teamed up with David Beckham to launch a new charity United for Wildlife.
Here in the U.S. it seems that it is Hollywood celebrities that are putting the spotlight on this issue. People do feel strongly about this case, but I believe the unprecedented outrage can be attributed to the extremely cruel and cowardly manner in which this lion was hunted. Personally, I would like to see an end to all big game hunting for sport, but if that is not possible then at least it should be controlled in a way that does not make these animals suffer.
If Walter Palmer’s plight makes a few of these guys think twice before killing these animals then we are on the right track. Certainly the message from this debacle is that you better hope that the spotlight does not find you when you engage in one of these hunts. Whether they are legal or not doesn’t seem to matter when the court of public opinion comes down on you.
I hope people read the article katliamom posted in #303. It puts the death of this one animal and the insignificance of Dr Palmer’s character in perspective.
“bus, religion or politics are not “hobbies” - they are affiliations”
Bunsen, I’d have to disagree with that. For some people, these are way more than merely affiliations. For some they are all encompassing obsessions. I’d definitely call politics a hobby for some people on here, they like to argue for sport (as do I). Some people do volunteer work, meetup groups, have positions or unpaid jobs at their church, or for political causes. Really, though, all of this can be categorized as “interests” and it’s really just a matter of semantics, what you call it.
However, I do note that you state things that I never said were stupid, but you called them stupid. Interesting that you know the specifics of what I think are stupid without ever asking me, given I never mentioned 80% of them. So, clearly you can read minds. Cool, can you teach me to do that?
Anyway most of the rules that you apply to you and others on various topics do not apply to me in the least. Simply, as an American, I refuse to have a lifestyle lower than the pontificating people who beg me for money.
Therefore, as long as people such as Gates for his charities, Romney, Bush, Clintons for their campaigns and charities, and Robert Kennedy for his charities and every similar Joe keep flying around in private jets, vacationing in wonderful waterfront homes, and traveling to the top places in the world regardless of the energy costs and until they put low income housing in their neighborhoods, then I will continue to do the same as they.
My operating premise is until they dutifully follow the rules they say others should follow then I will happily follow their example and live like they do because, as an American, they do not get to live a better life than I do by fiat. And that lifestyle is great to boot.
Plus, they beg me for money all the time, and no darn way is a beggar is going to have a better life than I do ON MY DIME. If you so desire, you can take the hit and limit / lower your standards and lifestyle, just like they like they tell you. Thanks for taking the hit. However, I choose to go along for the ride with those guys and not you. They are having a lot more fun, and food and travel cannot be beat.
They reduce, then I reduce. But, I am not reducing or following any rule of which they are not a party to openly and verifiably do the exact same.
“The writer was speaking in reference to his “enjoyable gas-guzzling hobbies on the ground at 200+ mph and in the air at 510 knots.” I have a hunch that all the information in the world about the well-documented harm caused by the burning of fossil fuels will not make one bit a difference when it comes to the enjoyment of his hobby. Just as Dr. Palmer didn’t let anything so “stupid” as the protection of wildlife interfere with his enjoyment of hunting.”
I would say that awcntdb would be smart to not discuss those things if he had a clientele that he thought might be stupid sensitive. Stupid enough to be critical of his aviation and sports car hobbies, while putting their own too large carbon footprint on the earth. Most are not believers enough to practice what they preach, they are hypocrites. Because that conservation stuff, well, that’s really for other people, not themselves.
No trouble, bus. Just trying to keep up. Still waiting for the clarification as to the travels and experiences in South Africa as compared to MaineLonghorn’s …
@Bay, I actually don’t think Palmer is “insignificant.” He’s brought to light a practice many people find repellent. Unwittingly Palmer set in motion a world-wide education campaign – of what NOT to do. For this, we should be grateful, though of course a spectacular animal had to be slaughtered first. The article I cited shows that the problem is more complex than rich-American-with-a-gun-and-a-micropenile-problem. Though if we stop said pea-brained hunters, that will be a good start.
So back the this model citizen who for years made inappropriate sexual comments about his receptionists anatomy. Hope he is ready for the same, in spades.
