|
|
Post by Marshall on Jul 28, 2015 14:48:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Jul 28, 2015 14:51:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jul 28, 2015 17:03:36 GMT -5
I reading the article seems the hunter(dentist)was on the up &up &the guide &land owner were defrauding him as well as breaking the game laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jul 28, 2015 18:44:39 GMT -5
That guy is so fucked! Not saying that he should or shouldn't be, he just is.
He has prior hunting "issues", including a year's probation for illegally shooting a bear.
Zimbabwe is talking about bringing poaching charges and seeking extradition.
Legislators are getting into the act asking Fish and Wildlife to investigate possible violations of U.S. game laws.
Social Media will roast the guy over the coals and organize boycuts of his dental office (memorials to Cecil are already in place on his doorstep).
Hackers will take over his webpage/Facebook account.
It is very unlikely his practice will survive in Mpls. He will have to move to non- mountain Montana. No more $10,000 "dazzling white smile" packages. He will be pulling rotten teeth for peanuts on sheep farmers.
Should or Should Not will have nothing to do with it. Pitchfork Nation will roast this guy up good regardless of the law, and the law may take its pound of flesh as well. And a rich dentist that made his money with how many sets of braces and bleach jobs on perfectly good teeth will not garner much sympathy.
He's cooked.
|
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Jul 28, 2015 18:48:04 GMT -5
Check out his Yelp site. 1000+ posts in the last few hrs not to mention the deleted ones. He is in trouble for a while.
He also settled a sexual harassment suite by one of his employees recently.
Has not been a good year for him
I ran into a doc I trained with a few years ago. He travels all over the world paying huge amounts of $$$ to hunt.
Waterfowl in Russia and South America, big game in Africa,.
Had to build an addition to his house for his trophies.
It seems a very nutty subculture to me. Not much to brag about when you bait an animal and then shoot it.
Guys like that should just contract with packing houses to shoot cows. They could have a little boutique hunting club next to the plant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jul 28, 2015 19:10:55 GMT -5
I would guess he hasa goo fraud case. And while it wont cure his problem it will deflect some of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jul 28, 2015 19:22:26 GMT -5
No one wants a dentist to shoot a lion until it's in their own back yard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Jul 28, 2015 20:28:47 GMT -5
No one wants a dentist to shoot a lion until it's in their own back yard. No one wants a lion to eat a dentist until he is in their own backyard. |
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jul 28, 2015 20:37:25 GMT -5
I once knew a denist thatshould be lion food. Hell if the lion asked nice i,d evencook the denist for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Jul 28, 2015 21:21:46 GMT -5
Bad decisions are apparently not limited to meth addicts.
If he hunted elk, in season, with the proper tags, he would have a freezer full of good food. If he hunted elk and deer, and gave the meat to local halfway houses, he'd be a freakin hero. But nope, he decides he needs to kill an endangered species that Disney movies have turned into a cultural icon. He is so fucked.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jul 28, 2015 21:38:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Jul 28, 2015 21:41:37 GMT -5
What an ass. The choice these days is simply not to hunt any sort of large predator, as they are all facing endangerment. Any stupid F&#k knows that. It's my understanding that any sort of trophy from an animal like that couldn't be brought into the US anyway, so in the end he'll have no trophy to show for it in the end. Which is fine, because he is a complete ass.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jul 28, 2015 22:11:10 GMT -5
The good doc is getting slaughtered in social media, but I suspect there's more bad press to come. I understand he shot the lion with an arrow - a broadhead, I presume, from a compound bow. Broadheads are cunningly designed with multiple razor-sharp blades to inflict as much damage and thus cause as much bleeding as possible. Some are even designed with a twist so they will start spinning when they enter flesh, making the arrow into a little meat-grinder. Theoretically the idea is to make the animal bleed out as quickly as possible and thus shorten the suffering. But I remember when I was involved in archery (target only) hearing arguments that no matter how "humane" they try to make it, if you're going to hunt at all, a quick kill from the shock of a well-placed high-power round is preferable to the almost inevitably slower death that comes from an arrow, which may involve tracking the animal for long distances, and even losing it, with the likelihood it will survive for hours more or even days, only to finally die in agony from an infection.
Of course, though, hunting with an archery set is so much more, you know, macho. From what I've seen about the doc, that probably appealed to him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jul 28, 2015 22:13:36 GMT -5
I just read a NYT piece that says the first shot, which came from a crossbow, didn't kill Cecil. They had to track him two days before they could finish him off with a bullet.
EDIT: I just blew up the photo Marshall posted and the weapon propped up against the lion sure looks like a compound bow to me - not a crossbow - but it's at a tricky angle and I could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jul 28, 2015 22:18:10 GMT -5
Btw, I don't have anything against hunting, even with a bow, when eating the prey is involved. I don't care for trophy hunting.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 29, 2015 7:10:39 GMT -5
Never kill the animal.
Last night I watched "A Time To Kill". I was pretty sure I'd seen the movie or listened to the book before, but having just finished "Sycamore Row" (a sequel of sorts), I was pretty fuzzy on the details. So I rented the movie. It sure was good, though Jake Brigance's winning argument (in the trial) just didn't have the 'zing' with me that it was supposed to have ("...now imagine the girl is white." simply didn't make a bit of emotional difference to me).
Anyway, I noticed a glaring difference between the book and the movie. The book kills the dog. The movie doesn't. Movie makers know that we can stomach any amount of violence toward humans. We can't stand the same violence toward animals.
And that seemingly unusual sensitivity sort of plays into my understanding of the Old Testament sacrificial system. It's pretty common for folks to look at that system of blood sacrifice and conclude a level of barbarism we humans have long since outgrown. But some time in my twenties it dawned on me that exactly the opposite was actually (probably) closer to the truth.
That is, it dawned on me that the sacrificial system isn't predicated on a cavalier, emotionless lack of attachment to animals. In reality, a sacrificial system that presumed such a lack of feeling wouldn't be "sacrificial". It wouldn't work. On any level. Sacrifice is only sacrifice when it costs the sacrificer in some meaningful way. Whomever (God) set up that system of sacrifice knew that man had this innate attachment to, and empathy for animals (He is built that way. Maybe part of that "image of God" thing?).
Therefore, and only because such sacrifice hurts so much both emotionally and physically, such sacrifice illustrates the cost of our fallen nature -- even if we only understand it on the material level of living in a dog-eat-dog world wherein something else has to die so we can go on living.
What? You mean meat doesn't come plastic-wrapped on styrofoam trays?
|
|
|
|
Post by drlj on Jul 29, 2015 8:01:18 GMT -5
Therefore, and only because such sacrifice hurts so much both emotionally and physically, such sacrifice illustrates the cost of our fallen nature -- even if we only understand it on the material level of living in a dog-eat-dog world wherein something else has to die so we can go on living. What? You mean meat doesn't come plastic-wrapped on styrofoam trays? True, but no one needed to eat that lion to survive. That is the major difference to me. I have no problem with hunters who eat what they kill. I have eaten some of it with them. I don't feel the same way about trophy hunters. Shooting something so you can put its head on the wall is different to me. Shooting a lion so you can thump your chest and say you are a great hunter is different to me. A member of some C&W group a few years back, a duo who promotes the image of macho, chest thumping while they sing about beer and dirt bikes, did the same thing a couple of years back only he shot a bear that had been tied to a tree so he could brag on his web site about huntin' a b'ar just like ol' Dan'l Boone did. It was not quite the same and I have to wonder what it is that makes a person feel that is an ok thing to do. I know cows must die so we can eat burgers and wear fancy leather and we don't spend much time thinking about how they die. Still, it seems different to me when a guy goes out and kills something like a lion or elephant just for the thrill of killing it and the bragging rights. Especially when there are a limited number of those animals on the planet. There seem to be a lot of cows. |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 29, 2015 8:11:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jul 29, 2015 8:26:03 GMT -5
Never kill the animal. . . , Anyway, I noticed a glaring difference between the book and the movie. The book kills the dog. The movie doesn't. Movie makers know that we can stomach any amount of violence toward humans. We can't stand the same violence toward animals. . . , Interesting. And sad. |
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jul 29, 2015 8:34:56 GMT -5
The good doc is getting slaughtered in social media, but I suspect there's more bad press to come. . . . , It's gone mainstream. I saw it on morning TV news. Reportedly there was a reporter at his office, which is now closed. The guy is going to take the wrath for a lot of people. This thing has been building. There are weekly posts on fb (my pinko-commie-tree-hugger-friends) showing pictures of white suburban-looking families with big grins holding up the head of some giraffe or elephant they've killed on faux-safari. These are vacation pictures people have put up on social media that get turned against them. Names are given and, according to the title of the post, you're supposed to send some condemnation back at these evil people. The good (tongue-in-cheek) doctor's timing was tragically bad as he posted his trophy photos right as the wave of public attention crested. Surf's up ! (I'll be he's even a Republican!  ) |
|
