Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually several of us have been trying to clarify that all day. They said, yes, then they said no, then they said yes again. If it's no again, I'm very glad.
An activist group said he was dead.
The researcher who has been tracking these lions for years said he's not dead.
Stop listening to activists that have an agenda and the MSM sites that don't verify anything anymore.
The story says Jericho was protecting Cecils cubs, but this does not happen in nature. Jerico would have killed and eaten Cecils cubs so that their mother would be ready to mate with him.
Absolutely correct but you are throwing pearls before swine.
Trophy hunting big game has done 10,000 times more for wildlife conservation that the whole global collection of hand wringing, bed wetting animal rights activists. That's a fact.
Only if you are naive and think that is where the money is going. Which this also doesn't make it acceptable to kill a rare lion.
For the record, I don't hunt, but I live in a rural area where a lot of people do. Many local businesses, and some industrial plants, close for the first day of deer season.
And some years ago, one of the local big shots found himself in front of a magistrate for baiting deer; this is considered unethical by a lot of hunters and officially banned in a number of states for some, but not all species.
The only point I seek to raise is that the underlying story here has been heavily polarized on both sides, and most of the people who've been drawn into it, likely myself among them, don't have a complete set of facts.
Vanishing big game species in a diminishing amount of undeveloped regions is a problem. If a "solution" can be agreed upon, it's going to involve some less-than-perfect choices and won't satisfy everybody. And there are, no doubt about it, a group of participants who seek little more than to profit from fanning the flames.
I had originally planned on countering this post with a simple yes-or-no challenge as to whether only those who agreed with the poster should be allowed so sit in judgment. But upon further reflection, I have to recognize that such a point would be equally unfair. Most of us have enough ability to look beyond our own personal causes and to recognize that failure to preserve the more prominent big game species would be criminal.
But a point remains: the goal of some of the more simplistic preservationists is to completely restore an ecosystem that likely can't be sustained without confining some of the local residents to a meager subsistence. A sensible balance has to be determined, and it's going to lead to some anomalies like the one that led to the loss of a "wild" animal turned into, if not exactly a pet, at least a "mascot" of sorts. Some hard choices have to be made, and the only sensible course is to separate fact form sentiment.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 08-01-2015 at 05:04 PM..
I did not keep up with the story that much, but was the hunt legal? Did he hire guides under the impression it was legal?
Personally I would never go hunting, especially for trophy, but what is the story. Is he being used as a scapegoat?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
