|
Post by jdd2 on Jul 31, 2015 21:20:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Aug 1, 2015 7:43:34 GMT -5
I saw this picture of a Dallas oilman and trophy hunter in his trophy room in National Geographic. My big question is whether the woman is his current trophy wife or a previous one.Now that is funny. And after taking a closer look at the picture, that picture is obscene.
|
|
|
Post by xyrn on Aug 1, 2015 23:30:07 GMT -5
Just an editorial point, the picture in the first post is not of Captain Douchenozzle with Cecil, that lion is a different one that he killed in 2008.
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Aug 2, 2015 16:15:28 GMT -5
The guy is a complete dickhead, but I wouldn't have him extradited to Zimbabwe, at the risk of spending time in one of it's prisons. I wouldn't put anybody through that.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Aug 2, 2015 22:35:06 GMT -5
Right now, the guy is a pretty lonely dickhead. The reactions to his shoot from quarters you might think he would find some support, hunters in general and big game hunters in particular, are, generally, quite damning. A cynic might suspect that this guy has become such an unsalvageable social pariah that hunters, and big game hunters in particular, are putting as much public distance between their activities and his as possible out of self interest, not disgust. And as a cynic, I have entertained just such a suspicion, but, for the most part, I have dropped it. From my contact with hunters I know and with local hunters speaking freely in "safe" venues, (like local talk radio), the disgust I hear expressed rings true and genuine.
I don't know any big game hunters, and I suspect they do have motivation to throw this guy under the bus in order to preserve their hobby, but even within that relatively small community, I am getting a clear sense that they suspect this guy knowingly (and arrogantly) broke or bent the rules of the game.
I live in a generally conservative, "PETA Free" area that is filled with hunters and farmers and is guided by a rural sensibility that hasn't strayed too far from an animal's place is in the pot mentality (dogs, cats, horses and songbirds granted dispensation and a cherished place at hearth, stable, and farm grove), but the reactions to the Cecil shoot I hear in the commons (and local talk radio) are marked by disgust and bafflement.
There is, to be sure, a fairly strong reaction against those who are perceived as over-reacting too broadly and vehemently (like Peta's desire to execute the guy and calls from anti-hunting groups to ban all hunting). But, this is a reaction against other reactors, not a measure of support for the Cecil shooter. Near as anyone can tell, to most folks, hunters included, this Cecil shoot reeks.
A lonely dickhead. And another step away from the former glamour of the big game hunt towards a new ethos. Perhaps a big step.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Aug 2, 2015 23:11:26 GMT -5
One thing that does bug me about this...
In a very real sense, in a emotionally charged controversial event like this, the public becomes a jury. And too often, especially in the early stages, some reporters act as prosecutors, not presenters. Eventually, a pretty good picture does get presented, but if those early prosecutional blows are strong enough, they are difficult to recover from.
Up until today, I had assumed the timeline of the hunt as presented to be a given; a fact: the lion was shot at night and wandered off to die slowly over a period that lasted forty hours before it was dispatched with a rifle shot. Today, I read in the Tribune in an article by their outdoors writer (who has fairly broad connections in the hunting and fishing community) that this early timeline presented repeatedly by the media is in dispute (by sources this writer knows and trusts), that the lion was shot at night, died that night, and was recovered the next morning.
A difference without a distinction? To some, no doubt. But, if we are the jury, it is a difference in the facts of the case, if facts matter. And they should.
Maybe, perhaps even likely, the initial timeline as presented repeatedly by the media is the correct one. Or maybe the media just ran off with the first report some reporter heard... and from that point forward, the media became its own source quoting itself as the authority; an unchecked and unverified source given credence by repeatabilty and muscle.
Time will likely tell. Eventually, the story emerges as clearly as it can emerge (as the media isn't a singular entity but a collection of sifters and sniffers digging into all corners). But, early blows are telling ones. I hope they got the timeline right. (Unlike those two Washington Post wags who veered into recreational slander rather than honest reporting.)
And judging by some of the intemperate and unprofessional quotes offered up by Fish and Wildlife authorities that should know better, this guy clearly can not be blamed for not wishing to go anywhere near those bastards without a lawyer in tow. He is in deep shit and he knows it.
(Fish and Wildlife are the guys who will rip your car apart and leave it in dysfunctional pieces on a whim of a suspicion, leaving you (as they left Carl, Tommy, and me) stranded on the road overnight without so much as a "sorry about that, wrong vehicle". Fish and Wildlife can make the border patrol seem like the neighborhood welcome wagon.)
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Aug 3, 2015 10:40:12 GMT -5
It's hard not to muster a bit of a vurp when you see a photo of some smiling, rich douchbag standing over his kill or posing with his overly-enhanced wife in his trophy room.
But so what? Those guys are offensive? I suppose. But I'd put them at about 0.001% as offensive as PETA calling for those same guys to be executed. I'm also offended by Justin Bieber. And Kim Kardashian. And baseball players wearing full beards.
Haters gonna hate. Hunters gonna hunt. Biebers gonna Bieber.
"Celebrate Diversity!" (as long as it's the right kind of diversity, you know).
Speaking of diversity, we have lots of diversity of governments in the world. On one end of the spectrum, we have wholesome, well-run places like Nebraska, Minnesota and Norway. On the other end of the spectrum, we have places like Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan and Illinois.
Unless you're going to turn Zimbabwe into Iowa (you aren't), then the lions of Zimbabwe are stuck with the government they've got, and that government sucks. The most.
The best thing the lions of Zimbabwe have going for them is the fact that their local, corrupt officials know that there are plenty of douchbag Minnesota dentists willing to pay $50k for the fun of shooting them. That gives those officials a reason to ensure that there are lions. Take that away, and the lions are worth nothing.
It is easy to take a romantic view of lions when they aren't eating your livestock and killing your daughters. "Check your privilege", you know. Live among them, and attitudes change. The only thing keeping lions in Zimbabwe alive, besides their teeth and claws and such, are those corrupt local officials who no doubt make it known to the locals that no one kills a lion without paying them their tribute first. The locals, not having the $50k to grease the necessary palms, leave the lions to the dentists. In the most perverse way, it all works: Lions go on lioning. The locals go on localing. The officials get plenty of spreading-around cash. The guides get their piece. The comfortably safe Twitter clan gets to bask in it's moral superiority. Dallas oil man gets to pose with his plastic wife in his trophy room. Everyone wins.
It's a beautiful world.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Aug 3, 2015 11:09:19 GMT -5
The best thing the lions of Zimbabwe have going for them is the fact that their local, corrupt officials know that there are plenty of douchbag Minnesota dentists willing to pay $50k for the fun of shooting them. That gives those officials a reason to ensure that there are lions. Take that away, and the lions are worth nothing. It is easy to take a romantic view of lions when they aren't eating your livestock and killing your daughters. "Check your privilege", you know. Live among them, and attitudes change. The only thing keeping lions in Zimbabwe alive, besides their teeth and claws and such, are those corrupt local officials who no doubt make it known to the locals that no one kills a lion without paying them their tribute first. The locals, not having the $50k to grease the necessary palms, leave the lions to the dentists. In the most perverse way, it all works: Lions go on lioning. The locals go on localing. The officials get plenty of spreading-around cash. The guides get their piece. The comfortably safe Twitter clan gets to bask in it's moral superiority. Dallas oil man gets to pose with his plastic wife in his trophy room. Everyone wins. It's a beautiful world. This is absolutely false. And it illustrates why ordinary people in Zimbabwe are furious about this. Yes, big game hunting brings in millions for the host countries, but ecotourism brings in BILLIONS. For every one big game hunter making a guide and a few locals rich, there are tens of thousands of tourists who come every year, year after year, to see those lions. If you let the douchenozzles of the world kill them all, the locals have nothing. If you stop the douchenozzles, tourism can support hundreds or thousands of local jobs for years. In the US, which do you think would bring in more money for the locals, the tourists going to Redwood National Park to see trees, or cutting them all down to make decks and hot tubs? (I learned a fun new word today. It's douchenozzle. Isn't that fun? )
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 3, 2015 11:11:06 GMT -5
If you let the douchenozzles of the world kill them all, the locals have nothing. Which, if you'll re-read Jeff's post, is a point he made. The locals AND the officials who line their pockets with game hunting money. Kill all the lions and nobody wins.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Aug 3, 2015 11:19:01 GMT -5
Haters gonna hate. Hunters gonna hunt. Biebers gonna Bieber. <Haters gonna hate. Hunters gonna hunt. Biebers gonna Bieb.>
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Aug 3, 2015 13:14:48 GMT -5
To the list of verbers-gonna-verb truisms we might add "Short-term-profiteers gonna short-term profit, at least until they've strip-mined their resource base down to the bedrock, and then they'll move on and fuck the rest of you suckers who ignored an easy opportunity in favor of long-term benefits for people who ain't me." (I know it's not as snappy as the three-word formulation, but what it loses in snap it gains in precision.)
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Aug 3, 2015 13:56:34 GMT -5
To the list of verbers-gonna-verb truisms we might add "Short-term-profiteers gonna short-term profit, at least until they've strip-mined their resource base down to the bedrock, and then they'll move on and fuck the rest of you suckers who ignored an easy opportunity in favor of long-term benefits for people who ain't me." (I know it's not as snappy as the three-word formulation, but what it loses in snap it gains in precision.) This and the ones above look like a great start on Bill's kumbaiyah (sp) thread.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Aug 3, 2015 14:09:41 GMT -5
I apologize to the Bieb.
|
|
|
Post by drlj on Aug 3, 2015 14:10:11 GMT -5
I ran over an armadillo in AL once. I will never forget that sound. Makes me shudder to think about it.
Just an attempt to move this away from the verbers gonna verb trend.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 3, 2015 14:26:47 GMT -5
Guitarists gonna guitar.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 3, 2015 14:27:26 GMT -5
Puckers gonna puck.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 3, 2015 14:27:50 GMT -5
Fleas gonna flee.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 3, 2015 14:28:39 GMT -5
Livers gonna pâté.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 3, 2015 14:29:34 GMT -5
Kumbayas gonna kum.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 3, 2015 14:30:09 GMT -5
Filé gonna gumbo.
|
|