"Cecil" the Lion Hunted and Killed

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Annee

He admitted that he is the one who killed it but didn't know it was protected. I find that questionable but who knows, it's possible.

However, he knew at least when they shot it and started dressing it out before they left the carcass there. He would have seen the collar. But he contacted nobody. They simply took their prize and ditched the rest. The only reason we know about it is because they tracked the collar which was thought to be broken and not working after they smashed it.

That's like a hit and run. You are still responsible for an "accident" but if you leave it's now a crime.

Is there a direct recording of him talking?

Or is it a report on what he said?

And NO, I am not defending him. I'm waiting for the facts.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: IanFleming

I'm glad you took yourself out of the gene pool. Well done!

Like I said, you should join me. Make the world a better place.

For someone who doesn't want to continue the conversation, you sure keep talking.


Nope. I like people generally and don't want to "cull" them. It sounds too Hitleresque to me. History has shown some pretty sick things coming out of that philosophy.

Nope, cull yourself and make room for another one of Gaia's lovely creatures. The rest of us will sit in the shade.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

they did not use the meat! they left the carcass after taking the head and the skin. this was sport hunting. for the thrill of the kill.

and this guy has poached before in 2008. he shot a black bear out of a hunting area and then drove the body to an authorized hunting area. this jerk knew what he was doing.

originally posted by: HumanPLC
a reply to: Annee and Dragoon01

Im not going to get into quoting everything you said, etc. From the lack of weight in your replies (relying on you mates word and trying to claim the black market isnt always bad) its pretty obvious that this is something you cant justify yet still choose to believe in yourselves regardless of logic or the facts.

You have no weight in your "source". You are not even consulting people you know you are just professing
"most big game hunts are caged animals"
Nothing to back that up!
Complete BS!

a reply to: Dragoon01

Is that a quote, because i never said that?

Is the part where you get all defensive? It still dosent make you right you know... Sorry

Anyway, i thought you would never ask... Sorces and Facts you say, Gimmee a bit and i will put together some sources for you to go on and deny.

a reply to: Annee

However, speaking to the Star Tribune on Tuesday morning, Dr. Palmer said he was unaware of Cecil's fame and expressed regret but denied any illegality and laid any blame firmly at the door of his guides.

'I hired several professional guides, and they secured all proper permits,' the statement read. 'To my knowledge, everything about this trip was legal and properly handled and conducted.

'I had no idea that the lion I took was a known, local favorite, was collared and part of a study until the end of the hunt. I relied on the expertise of my local professional guides to ensure a legal hunt.' 'Again, I deeply regret that my pursuit of an activity I love and practice responsibly and legally resulted in the taking of this lion.'

originally posted by: IanFleming

For someone who doesn't want to continue the conversation, you sure keep talking.

Nope. I like people generally and don't want to "cull" them. It sounds too Hitleresque to me. History has shown some pretty sick things coming out of that philosophy.

Nope, cull yourself and make room for another one of Gaia's lovely creatures. The rest of us will sit in the shade.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions and my challenge to you a couple pages ago. You know, where I challenged you to provide proof of your claims. Which you haven't and cannot provide thereby proving you a flat out liar and fraud.

If something is done voluntarily I'd hardly call it Hitleresque. But nice try.

originally posted by: blackthorne
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

they did not use the meat! they left the carcass after taking the head and the skin. this was sport hunting. for the thrill of the kill.

and this guy has poached before in 2008. he shot a black bear out of a hunting area and then drove the body to an authorized hunting area. this jerk knew what he was doing.

yeah poor mbtm he knee jerked

no one got fed.

A tabloid?

Yeah, they never miquote or make stuff up.

As I said, you've been here long enough to know about first reports.

originally posted by: mindseye1609
a reply to: Kram09
I was trying to point out that nature isn't a Disney movie. Remember timone and pumba? 99% of the time simba eats them butthole first lol. There's no hakuna matata to be had I promise you that.


Nature is a scary bitch, it'll leave you suffering and give zero EFFs.

So now you're citing a Disney movie?

It's all the animals know. That to them is life. Yet you think playing god and intervening is somehow acceptable. Yes it's called nature. That's the way nature works. It's the wild. How arrogant to think because it's somehow horrible (to you) humans have the right to intervene and start shooting.

An utterly bizarre argument.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: IanFleming

For someone who doesn't want to continue the conversation, you sure keep talking.

Nope. I like people generally and don't want to "cull" them. It sounds too Hitleresque to me. History has shown some pretty sick things coming out of that philosophy.

Nope, cull yourself and make room for another one of Gaia's lovely creatures. The rest of us will sit in the shade.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions and my challenge to you a couple pages ago. You know, where I challenged you to provide proof of your claims. Which you haven't and cannot provide thereby proving you a flat out liar and fraud.

If something is done voluntarily I'd hardly call it Hitleresque. But nice try.

I thought you wanted to stop talking?

I did. I pointed out that "culling humans" in the contex of this conversation was clearly in reference to Africa and it's not Swedes in Africa.

As for the other, let's look at the definition of "cull," shall we?


I see nothing "voluntary" about it. "Cull" has never referenced "voluntary." "Cull" has always referenced removing the unwanted.

You got caught in an emotional statement of hyperbole with "cull" and now you are trying to change the definition of the word. We know what you meant--we hear it all of the time from angry people and most people who say such things don't really mean it. Shall I go about calling you a liar now?

: to select or choose (someone or something) from a group

: to control the size of (a group of animals) by killing some animals
How many of these commonly
misspelled words can you spell? »
Full Definition of CULL

transitive verb
1
: to select from a group : choose

a reply to: Annee

Fine, let's assume that he didn't say any of those things. Even though they actually speak in his defense that he didn't know and the fault lays heavily on the guides instead of him. Have it your way.

That still doesn't explain why he continued to dress out the animal and take it's trophy head and leave rather than alert someone about what happened does it???

Seems to me that alerting someone and not taking his trophy head and skin with him would have been the better choice and would have been more convincing that he actually felt bad about killing it. After all, it wasn't his to take at that point was it??? It belonged to the research team who tagged him and put him on protected land.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Annee

Fine, let's assume that he didn't say any of those things. Even though they actually speak in his defense that he didn't know and the fault lays heavily on the guides instead of him. Have it your way.

That still doesn't explain why he continued to dress out the animal and take it's trophy head and leave rather than alert someone about what happened does it???

Seems to me that alerting someone and not taking his trophy head and skin with him would have been the better choice and would have been more convincing that he actually felt bad about killing it. After all, it wasn't his to take at that point was it??? It belonged to the research team who tagged him and put him on protected land.

What is my way?

Not to assume first reports are accurate?

And wait for facts?

a reply to: Kram09

An utterly bizarre argument.

That's how I feel about your argument.

Perhaps you are not aware that humans have been "intervening" with nature in that area for over 200,000 years. All oh humanity came from Africa at different points.


The natural order there is for people to slaughter the animals to improve their survival like they have done for thousands of years. Humanity has tried to put a stop to wholesale slaughter and they have regulated it.


Maybe you would like to have it go back to the way it was. If so you must really hate the wildlife there because that would doom it to extinction.

a reply to: IanFleming

But it wasn't in reference to Africa. I never once said I wanted to cull just the people of Africa. I clearly stated "Humanity" in no specific terms. That includes everyone. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that. I don't take back anything I said about culling either. If that is the wrong word you'll just have to adjust because that is the closest word for it. To me it includes not breeding and birth control too.

Voluntary by choosing not to breed. Did you go to the link I provided??? Once again, you have a brain, use it.

You play the "dumb guy" role pretty well but we know you're not as inept as you try to act.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: IanFleming

But it wasn't in reference to Africa. I never once said I wanted to cull just the people of Africa. I clearly stated "Humanity" in no specific terms. That includes everyone. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that. I don't take back anything I said about culling either. If that is the wrong word you'll just have to adjust because that is the closest word for it. To me it includes not breeding and birth control too.

Voluntary by choosing not to breed. Did you go to the link I provided??? Once again, you have a brain, use it.

You play the "dumb guy" role pretty well but we know you're not as inept as you try to act.

I'm not playing anything. I'm pointing the issues.

So...you used the incorrect word. Rather than calling you a liar I recognize that this happens--meanings do get confused when we do not use the correct words and no lying is intended.

originally posted by: Annee

What is my way?

Not to assume first reports are accurate?

Yes.

And wait for facts?

Good, then let's address the facts we have. Like him skinning and taking the head of a lion with a collar that was clearly not his to take.

a reply to: Grimpachi

This isnt about a legal hunt for conservation.

This is a about a gun (Well crossbow happy) happy dip# who lured a protected Lion out of a reservation and shot it illegally.

I hunt local deer and rabbits, but I do it LEGALLY.

Twats like him give the rest of us a bad name.

a reply to: IanFleming

Whatever man. You accused me of being a racist and I called you on it.

I don't care what you think about this topic or anything else for that matter.

IMO your a troll.

Can we just agree not to speak to each other from this point forward??? That's all I want to know. A simply yes or no will do.

double
post