continuing proofs America is wacko [3]

This is guy who makes me ashamed to be American
I'm not against responsible, ethical hunting. I even can buy the argument for some trophy hunting when a population is being carefully managed and culled, and when the fees for the trophy hunt are high enough to help fund conservation of the rest of the population. But there is NOTHING justifiable here, starting with bow hunting which is needlessly cruel.

removal of the collar is what they'll get him on, which is likely a minor infraction compared to the other things he skirted by being outside the park boundaries and notifying authorities immediately that he had made a mistake.

The most dangerous game.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/africa/zimbabwe-lion-killed/index.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3177303/PICTURED-American-dentist-passion-hunting-killed-Cecil-Lion-bow-arrow-Zimbabwe.html

Extradite him. He should spend the rest of his life in Africa, in a prison.

bungobaggins wrote:
Extradite him. He should spend the rest of his life in Africa, in a prison.

Or alternatively, for $50,000 we could let somebody bow-hunt him.

Look, though I don't like what the guy does, everything he did was legal, even if scummy. Setting up bait outside a game reserve is pretty scummy, but he knew and respected the law well enough to immediately report he had shot a collared animal. The worst he's gonna suffer is the online pummelling, and possible drop-off in patients. What really needs to change is the circumstances that allows this to be legal.

The only person claiming that everything was legal seems to be the hunter himself, and given that he has a previously committed an almost identical crime, I'm more inclined to believe the Zimbabwean authorities.

Now I see the later article says not that he reported the collar, but that he tried to hide it. Hard to tell from here what really happened. But his life will be miserable for quite a while now.

Every article I read said that he tried to destroy the collar.

Animals cannot be killed within the confines of the park. The hunters then removed his collar – further contravening park rules.

The professional hunter, Theo Bronkhorst, said he reported the "mistake" to the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority the following day, and it is now being investigated. The landowner bordering the national park has been charged - along with Mr Bronkhorst.

It was the Hunter guide, not the bow-hunter. First article.

That article says hunters, plural, so we really can't point the finger at any specific individual for the removal of the collar.

More on the legal situation, which I admit is not something I really know about:

http://www.lionaid.org/news/2015/07/the-cecil-factor.htm

So they can prosecute the land owner and professional hunter, but not the dentist. But the two on trial will bribe the jury and get off easy. Justice in action inaction.

"This pattern has also been seen by researchers in Zambia, Cameroon, Burkina Faso and Tanzania. Why are lions lured out of nationally protected areas? Most likely because the hunting concessions are now completely devoid of trophy male lions after years of unsustainable trophy hunting. The only way to satisfy a lion trophy hunting client is to resort to gaining trophies from the supposedly protected populations?"

"The professional hunter then allegedly attempted to destroy the radiocollar to hide the evidence. Allegedly the client was “furious” when he found that the lion was radiocollared."

"There seems now to be a desire to find the “client” who shot Cecil. Some say he is Spanish, some say he is American. Whatever his nationality, this man cannot really be prosecuted. A client does what his professional hunter tells him. A client usually has no idea about the laws and regulations of the country he is hunting in – he just buys a safari and then places himself in the hands of his professional hunter guide. Finding the client could be interesting to let him tell his side of the story, but in terms of legal prosecution this person is hardly important."

Pretty much how I read it from the beginning. It's the system that has to be changed to stop this kind of stuff from happening.

Aside from the legalities, there's the ethics. In the USA it's generally recognized that baiting and spotlighting are unethical hunting practices. It takes all the sportsmanship out of the hunt. Using them to lure protected animals out of a preserve crosses another line.

Personally I'd put a hunter who goes abroad to do things that are considered unethical at home into the same category with a pedophile who takes vacations to countries with no laws against child prostitution.

I don't have the words...

this has made me boiling mad angry. I hope people boycott his dental surgery, I actually hope people tar and feather the turkey and then go after him with bows and arrows.

I think he's pretty well ruined. He may be able to scrimp by, but I doubt he'll ever be able to afford a big game fee anymore. Not that such things should exist for pure entertainment in the first place....

agreed.

I've been watching coverage of the ongoing debate in the US over the Iran deal- but one thing I dont get- everyone, from politicians to pundits seem to be under the weird impression that if America says no to it that's it off.
But this deal has already got the UN vote, its effectively been passed by everyone else. All America saying no to it means that American sanctions remain in place- everyone else lifts there and deals with Iran- the only people who lose are US commercial interests. Iran still gets itself in a ton better position in terms of international trade and banking than they currently are and its the US who is isolated.
It seems to me the US is largely irrelevant in deciding the direction of this- but oddly it doesn't seem to have noticed this fact.

You have overlooked the subtle fact that the world obviously revolves around the U.S. We never forget it, it puzzles us how can anyone else overlook it.

Television advertising is now full of ads encouraging us to contact our congressmen and tell them to vote "no" on the Iran deal.  There's some big money behind this.

It's a perfect strawman for the Tea Party strategists.  As you say, it doesn't really change anything if the US backs out or not, but either way the Tea Partiers will be able to claim it shows weakness of the current administration going into the next election.

If so that seems a very dangerous and short-sighted tactic to me- they are giving up real political power and influence to two of their biggest rivals- China and Russia who will lift sanctions and deal with Iran. Plus Iran will get richer and stronger, and they will do so knowing that the only country hich still tries to punish them and has refused to stop is America, that's not going to help stop folk chanting 'death to America' in the streets of Iran - and all for what? Cheap political point scoring that's means nothing outside the US to anyone, and probably little to anyone outside the game playing in the bubble of Washington.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:If so that seems a very dangerous and short-sighted tactic to me-

Yep. Both of those. That Tea Party branch of the Republican Party is not too much different than your UKIP I think. They both specialize is nationalistic shortsightedness.

Unfortunately the Republicans know they need to be able to rally these extremists if they want to maintain their majorities in the Congress and have any shot at the Presidency next year. And so they play the game...

Just by the way, about an hour from here there's a giant billboard by the freeway that says "GET US OUT OF THE UN". It's not hard to guess where those folks stand on the Iran deal.

I'm pretty sure the tea-partiers think this is exactly the same as the build up to WWII.

Obama is literally Neville Chamberlain.

There's a reason Trump is so far ahead in the Republican polls. Hot air and nationalistic bluster. I find it encouraging that most career Republicans are distancing themselves from him even though he at present seems to have a winning formula.

I'm pretty sure the tea-partiers think this is exactly the same as the build up to WWII.- Bungo

Problem there is that it looks very much like if it does lead to WWIII then it was always a lose/lose scenario- refusing to deal would only have get us there sooner. I dont see what alternative is being offered by Repulicans to the deal- there's a lot about what they don't like but precious little about what they propose in its place.

That's the typical partisan tactic for both sides. Tear down rather than offer an alternative. If Republicans had struck the deal they'd be all for it; Democrats carping about bowing down to an oil state.