UKC

It seems Walter Palmer is aiming to be unpopular even for an american dentist. Apart from poaching Cedric the Lion from Hwange, apparenly he has previous for shooting leopard, white rhino and a conviction for illegally shooting a bear and then attempting to conceal where it was shot and lying to the police.

His Facebook page has been lively, "utter, utter scum" being one of the milder comments I imagine.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he finds that many of his patients 'accidentally' bite him, as he furtles about in their gobs, in the future...

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I did find the BBC headline amusing "US Dentist kills Lion". I thought it was going to be a lidocaine overdose during an unfortunate restorative technique.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

There must be thousands of people who would happily put a price on this selfish fool's head if it were legal to do so.If it were I would consider being one of them. An alternative would be to raise a fund to extradite him back to Zimbabwe for him to be convicted of illegally shooting a lion.
Bas**rd

In reply to Dave Garnett:

White Hunter. Black Heart.

Not novel in origin. Well trodden rocky road.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I was going to post a jokey 'he needs filling in' type response, but .... this is just gut wrenchingly dreadful.
I abhor the w@nkstain of a human being.

In reply to sbc_10:

He's really into it apparently.

I wonder what the majority of God-fearing, law- abiding good old boys think about our scorn. I suspect they are up in arms.

Any offers to pay for his ticket back to the National Park, where he can be hunted by the local (animal) inhabitants.

Joking aside, what sort of asshole must you be to think you belong in some obsolete 1920's game hunter club?

And we thought the world had grown up?

In reply to nick ingram:

"Again, I deeply regret that my pursuit of an activity I love and practice responsibly and legally resulted in the taking of this lion," he added.

Plus the 6 cubs are going to get eaten by the next big male in line.

I'd start pulling his teeth out without anesthetic one by one until he tears his own goolies off and gums them to a pulp then swallows them.



You might gather that I like cats!

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Words fail me. How can this pursuit be allowed in a modern world?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

It sounds as though those who were organising the hunt must carry a large part of the blame here. Big game hunting is legal in many African countries on a strictly controlled basis. It's unlikely that a wealthy overseas punter will know whether or not they are within a Park, or will have any personal knowledge of the animal the are shooting. This is the Ranger's/ professional hunter's responsibility.

I do question the use of a bow though. It's unlikely to have anything like the power to achieve a clean kill that a hunting rifle has.

Personally I would have no desire to hunt a wild animal at home or abroad, be it a lion or a pheasant, but there are those that do. Is it morally right to vilify them any more than someone who goes out rough shooting with a shotgun on a British farm?

In African countries it's a major source of income on game reserves which goes towards managed conservation and the war against illegal poaching which is wiping out some species. Without it many poorer countries like Zimbabwe will see their precious and dwindling animal resources wiped out.

I was in the Kruger national park in January this year where I talked to some of the Rangers and an anti poaching patrol. They were saying that the elephant population has grown too large and a major cull is due.

Yes the Rangers can and do cull, but as this is essential management it makes econometric sense to get revenue from wealthy overseas hunters still hunting under the guidance of professional hunters/guides who will identify the targets to be shot. These will include aging and sick animals.

These professional hunter/guides carry a heavy responsibility, and in the dentist's case that certainly appears to have gone badly wrong.

In reply to Trangia:

A nice balanced reply.
I do find it interesting that people get agitated about the show stopper creatures, Panda, Polar Bear, Lion, Tiger but are quite happy to buy or at the very least, not enquire too deeply about cheap Pork and Chicken.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:

I'm no vet but on one video of the lion I saw on TV it seemed to have a sight impairment as it was blinking constantly as if it had dry eyes. So even less sporting then.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I only really know what's been reported, but it sounds like he's done real damage to the whole leonine social system and long term stability of the animals in that area. Perhaps more relevantly for such a competent bowman, it took over 40 hours to finish the poor bastard off after the incompetent arsehole bodged his first arrow.

In reply to Trangia:
Apparently, using a bow is common to avoid detection by park authorities, i.e. all of them knew that they were not acting legally. According to reports, they had baited the animal out of the National Park jurisdiction, so again, not the actions of someone who pursues their hobby "responsibly and legally".

Perhaps he could be made to apologise to the lion's relatives, face-to-face.

In reply to Lusk:

Well, that's all crap isn't it? Aside from the whole business being morally repellent anyway, he would had to have been completely stupid not to realise that there was something dodgy about luring a lion out of a national park and using a crossbow (after dark, apparently). He couldn't have had a clear shot and not noticed the tracking collar surely? The other people involved how are equally culpable, obviously, but he was the rich bastard paying the money.

Also, he hasn't been so scrupulous about practising the activity he loves responsibly in the past, considering his conviction for shooting the bear illegally.

In reply to Trangia:




Yes, all this is fair comment but even in southern Africa and within the parks authorities this is controversial (at least it used to be when I was out there). Elephant culling probably is necessary in confined reserves like Kruger and Chobe but I think responsible practice is to take out whole family groups. There was a lot of debate whether commercial use of the ivory could be justified or whether it simply fed the trade and encouraged more poaching. I think all the ivory is destroyed. I have eaten elephant biltong though (oryx is nicer).

Shooting lions, given their increasingly endangered status, seems very difficult to justify in any circumstances and allowing inept tossers like this guy to do it just because they have money is disgusting.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:



True, to a degree, but Pandas, Lions, Polar Bears and the likes are generally endangered species. They really should be in a category of their own.

Slowly the conditions of the animals used for our food is changing for the better. Though we have a long way to go. But the two groups of animals are not really comparable imo.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:



I'm a vegetarian so can appreciate what you're saying, but also think you're being deliberately provocative by ignoring the difference here.

Pigs/chickens/cows/other are farmed (regardless of whether you or I personally think that's ethical) specifically for food and if demand went up for some reason then more of them would be bred. They are killed for 'necessary food' and also are not going to go extinct from it.

Hunting for sport is different, and I expect most would agree there is no place for it. Also these animals are going extinct along with a large number of others because of hunting for sport.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

It'll be interesting to see how this guys Dental Practice fares. A lot of Minnesota rednecks will no doubt seek him out to support him, but others may well not be so keen. More so given his evident habit of using inadequate tools for the job leaving the object of his attention in pain for 40 hours.

In reply to Lusk:

Most insincere apology of all time right there.

In reply to Scarab9:





I know a lot of people are worried about endangered animals and the risk of extinction, and if that gives them cause to treat at least some animals better then that's fantastic, but surely the number of an animal left shouldn't come into the ethics of whether it is right or wrong to kill it? If you say it's okay to kill animals that can be replaced, then your definition of 'okay' has nothing to do with the animal or ethics and everything to do with your own self-interest (i.e. continued availability of that animal to look at/shoot/eat and avoidance of guilty feelings at having made it extinct)?

(This isn't targeted at you personally by the way, I'm just referring to people in general)

In reply to Oujmik:


I'd say there's a fairly strong ethical argument to be made that it is more wrong to kill an endangered species than one which isn't. Say for example the lion was the last surviving male of it's species, and someone killed it, then they've just destroyed an animal which evolution can't (or is highly unlikely) to produce again. The uniqueness of something seems a good reason to place a higher value on it (you'd need a philosopher to put that argument across better).

Then there's also the ethics of killing for sport versus killing for sustenance.

In reply to Trangia:
Yet again I agree with Trangia.

Those who organised the hunt were at fault here. Though it does surprise me that the dentist didn't notice a tag on an animal that large and close enough to drop with a bow. He is clearly an exceptionally keen hunter and this world is correctly (in my view) increasingly unsympathetic to hobby choice. He is not the only one however, and he doesn't deserve his life ruined over this. Though it does have the added benefit that it may discourage others. But then on the other hand charities will have to work far harder to raise the funds to conserve big game populations. It's a difficult issue.

THAT SAID. My main issue came with the fact he didn't achieve a clean kill. He wasn't even carrying a more potent secondary because he was a 'purist'. This is not forgivable for me. By all means go and do it if it's absolutely necessary for the remaining local population. But why allow use of a bow, and why not a high velocity telescopic rifle.

In reply to Oujmik:
It comes down to the fact that we know that it's not ethically justifiable to kill animals for food or sport in 2015 in the Western world. Whether you are a vegetarian or not (as I'm not) if you analyse the arguments and think objectively... you cannot justify it.

However, sadly lack of justification does not mean it does not happen (I am a clear example, I eat meat and this makes me a hypocrite). So in this case we examine the arguments and find that shooting one of thousands of deer in the highlands is less of an ethical problem than shooting the last white male/female tiger. Of course, the value of life is the same, so the value of that animal to wider systems must also be assessed.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


How is it unjustifiable to eat meat? If you're arguing about the ethical standards of the food production industry then I'll agree with you (and call myself a hypocrite in that regard too), but if you're referring to eating meat full stop, it's far from obvious that it's ethically wrong?

Also, I struggle to see an argument that says that the value of all life is the same.

(Not a personal attack, just interested in your reasoning)

In reply to Dave Garnett:

For me the key issue is motive. I cannot bring myself to defend, respect or like anyone who kills animals for pleasure and those who do deserve all the flack that this guy is reputedly getting. I don't have any issues with hunting per se although it's not something that I would do. I own a gun but it's just for target shooting. I can't even bring myself to shoot the feral pigeons that shit on my car and house windows and generally make a nuisance of themselves.

Al

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


Probably the same reason why some people think trad climbing is morally superior to sport (wonder how many dislikes I'll get for that)

For me, hunting for sport is morally abhorrent. I can accept hunting/fishing for food, and one of the many reasons I'm veggie is that I think it's hypocritical to eat meat or fish unless you could kill it yourself, and I couldn't

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


Depends on how he chose them and what instructions he gave. Given his past relaxed approach to wildlife crime I am not sure I would mark him innocent yet.
My main objection though is it does seem a rather canned approach with professionals to help him out. If he went out on his own to play with a lion I would have a bit more respect.


The papers implies it was night or early morning. A modern compound bow (although the papers mention a crossbow given that all the pictures of him have him with a compound I reckon thats what he used) has a reasonable range as well and the tag might well be hidden by the mane.


I would be very surprised if he was out on his own and that the guides with him werent carrying rifles. More likely is it went into cover immediately.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

I'm not sure that the value of all life is the same. Philosophically, I guess you could take the hyper-vegan approach of avoiding eating anything more sentient than windfall fruit and sprouts that have died of natural causes but, although I don't enjoy doing it, I'm pretty comfortable shooting rabbits during a population explosion (and eating at least some of them).

At any rate, I think we'd agree that there's a world of difference between competently killing one rabbit from a healthy and growing population for the pot and for pest control, and incompetently killing an alpha male lion from a declining, indeed, endangered population and doing it for fun.

In reply to GridNorth:



This is the nub of it for me. You look at the beautiful photos and videos of that Lion and then think of someone standing in front of it wanting to kill it for pleasure.
I'd put this guy on the same level as psycho killers and paedophiles.

Boggy

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Given your name, how you have handled the threat from lions?!

In reply to GridNorth:


I completely agree. In this case, it seems to go beyond just enjoyment. To go to such extraordinary lengths and expense just to kill something to no practical purpose strikes me as more like a perversion.

In reply to KevinD:

This ignores that the park authority are saying that the party attempted (but failed) to destroy the transmitter. Not the actions of those who thought they were acting legitimately.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


I do not understand your argument. You say that killing animals is not justifiable and yet you admit to eating meat. Yes, as you imply, it is hypocritical in the same way that people are happy to buy fish or plastic wrapped, sanitised meat products but squeamishly complain if they happen to witness the killing of an animal.

Apropos the OP I have no problem with shooting or fishing for food but the behaviour of this knob is beneath contempt. Apart from satisfying his warped ego what else has he achieved?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


I was just addressing whether or not he would have spotted the transmitter prior to attempting to kill the lion.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

My theory is this. If you want a hunting license you register by animal type. At the end of the hunting season, they decide how many animals of that type were killed (say 1%). That percentage (e.g. 1%) of hunters, by lottery, are also killed. Fair's fair.

You don't need this for fishing, since enough fisher people die from waves and from falling in the water drunk.

In reply to KevinD:


I've heard clients refuse to pay if they did not 'finish' the animal. The guides want the cash, they're not about to risk that to save some suffering.

But agreed. Going to cover is likely. Though this should never have been possible.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


I tend to offer them free dentistry in return for safe passage...

In reply to Scarab9:
No not being provocative. As your a Veggie which I think all of us should consider for animal welfare and environmental reasons I can give your words more respect. But people who can chow down on factory chicken or fail to ask the relevant questions, then get all upset because an animal with a name is killed, and the fact it has a name is important, should reflect on how the value they give things is so Anthropegenic. It would be interesting to know how many Lions are legally hunted each year with little fuss.

I am sad the Lion is dead.

In reply to Oujmik:


Wanting to keep an animal from becoming endangered or extinct could come from an environmental perspective too, in maintaining biodiversity, in America reintroducing wolves has led to huge increases in the other flora and fauna around the woods and rivers etc that the wolves live, and it could be done with a mind for future generations, as we keep discovering new and useful things in the natural world.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


You see I agree. I am also comfortable with the latter and I do indeed shoot rabbits on the farm myself. But I don't think from a ground up philosophical point of view it's morally justifiable. Those rabbits have exactly the same right to the land as you do as I do- it's very hard to argue against that. I really have tried!

In reply to Trangia:


>[...]

According to the Graun, the poor bugger took 40 hours to die.
That dentist is a proper oxygen thief.

In reply to mypyrex:


I think it's morally unjustifiable to kill animals in the Western world in 2015 for food or for sport. I eat meat, call a beef farm home and am going deer stalking in November (though I'd argue this conservation culling is justifiable and I'll just be walking next to my brother who will be shooting). Yes, I'm a hypocrite. And one day I will change that. But right now in the interest of diplomacy in the family and through sheer lack of willpower I remain a meat eater. Nevertheless, it doesn't change the philosophy.


You see, I'd love this to be the case because I enjoy shooting and fishing and eating what I catch. But given it's not necessary any more I struggle to justify it. But yep, the lion guy is a cock.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

That depends on the estate doesnt it? The argument that some keep stocks artificially high to make shooting easier does seem pretty compelling.

In reply to KevinD:
I agree completely. We go specifically to an estate where this isn't the case through a fortunate connection. In fact I went last year and the only shot we fired was from the top of a mountain in to a lake 1.5 miles away. Didn't shoot at a single beast but romping around the hills trying to find them was wonderful. If anything- it was the perfect outcome for me.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


I don't think it's about 'right' per se. Let's take humans out of the equation. Ecosystems exist in a balance and if one part of it (e.g rabbits) comes out of balance that affects the whole system. In nature things will tend to rebalance themselves. If in your example you step in with a gun, I don't think there's anything immoral about that, so long as you take no pleasure from the act and seek to diminish the rabbit's suffering.

In some sense you could see humans today as a natural evolution of hunter gatherer humans from 10,000 years ago (note: evolution doesn't necessarily mean better). Therefore our manmade ecosystems could in some sense be regarded as natural and you could argue we have a moral imperative to manage them responsibly and humanely (again, I'm not saying that's always what happens). Within that framework, shooting rabbits is morally justifiable.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


I've heard an argument from some that eating meet that grew wild and was cleanly hunted with a suitable device (be it rifle or fishing rod) is much more ethically sound to them than eating farmed meat, as their animal welfare concerns are not with the fact we eat meat but the way we farm it.

Food for thought.

In reply to Trevers:

I appreciate your point of view. Honestly I do. However I always thought if we apply the population control to minimise suffering argument then why don't we do the same in starving overpopulated parts of the world where humans are concerned? Control the population, minimise damage to the environment, make it sustainable. It doesn't sound anything like as appealing when we change the species. People will argue that a human life is more valuable than a rabbit life. And I will ask fundamentally... why? I just don't see what that's true. I am yet to be convinced either way that there is any more value in life of any mammalian subspecies over another.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
I can't say that I've read this now very long thread but from what I've picked up on the radio today a couple of things stand out:

'Cecil' was going to die very soon anyway being 13 years old- and all his cubs were doomed anyhow.

Lions are routinely farmed in Africa for shooting- not all shot lions therefore affect the survival of the species. Not dissimilar to a deer estate keeping numbers artificially high.

Still repugnant in terms of what it says about the brave hunter though...

Edit- and the 'farming' ain't so nice either: http://www.vier-pfoten.org/en/campaigns/wild-animals/canned-hunting/bred-fo...

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


I completely agree with you that the philosophy I put forward can lead into very dubious moral territory. I feel that human population control is necessary although obviously not in the form of culling or just allowing people to die. I also don't think it would be remotely right or fair to target population 'control' at just at poorer parts of the world, since it's the richer nations where natural population growth rates are slower that tend to cause the bulk of the environmental damage. And in case you're wondering, I feel pretty horrible typing these things.

As for reasons why some life might have more value than others... I'd say biological complexity for one (i.e the more complex a life form, the less it's chance of evolution coming up with it, and therefore the greater it's inherent worth). Second, it's evolutionary chances of survival. You'll get a lot of people arguing that we should allow the giant panda to die out since it's clearly not that interested in surviving, whereas in the case of countless other species which are endangered because we've screwed up their habitats or hunted them near extinction, we ought to make every effort to conserve them. Finally there's that of creative and intellectual ability. As far as we know humans are unique in our ability to perceive and understand the universe and ourselves, shape the world around us and argue on UKC and by that criteria we're top of the hierarchy of 'worth'. Obviously that position comes with responsibilities.

As you can tell, I'm not a philosopher.

In reply to Trevers:


You make a lot of good points. Thanks for engaging in discussion. I will certainly be musing over this on my 6 hour drive to Paris tomorrow... assuming I make it past the mayhem that is currently Calais!

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I think hunting lions should be legal!! But only if you are naked, barefoot and the only weapons you are allowed to use is your fingernails, toenails and teeth just like the lion.

Seems a fair fight to me!! Any takers?

In reply to mgco3:

Would one be allowed a teensy weensy Spyderco and any sharpened stakes one might make with it?

In reply to stonemaster:


Only if you are willing to allow the Lion a head mounted laser and agree to paint you testes with marmite! (do lions like marmite??)

In reply to Siward:







You sound dangerously close to justifying his actions. Please clarify your position.

If Cecil was about to die then why not let this magnificent beast live out his life as nature would have it. I am in no way sugar coating this such that he retires in clover, not at all, as the natural way would probably be a fight with a younger, stronger lion with the potential of mortal wounds and/or a solitary life scavenging from smaller predators. This is the way it should be. A 40 hour death at the hands of a coward from a distance is by no means the appropriate end to his life.

The farming of lions for game hunting makes me feel quite queasy. These are apex predators, the top of the food chain, and should be left alone to bring balance to the rest of the plains.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Facing a lion in the African savanna is an experience of a life time. From this day your life will change forever. Hunting a lion is traditional, fun, and dangerous.

Thoughts on the above quote please?

In reply to Moley:

True if you're walking around as a member of the Massai carrying a spear. Less true if you're rocking around in a Discovery with a composite crossbow and two guides.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Absolutely, a quote from the Maasai.

But reading all the above posts, I do get the impression (from the majority of posters) that anyone killing a lion is considered wrong and "Hunting a lion is traditional, fun and dangerous" sounds to me very much like the reasons the dentist may have given for his hunting trip.

I'm not going to argue any points here, but if anyone can justify the Maasai position for killing an endangered species (as has been mentioned above), but for nobody else to do it then let's hear it.

I'm stepping back from this - just playing devils advocate so don't take it to heart.

In reply to Moley:
Im no expert so my views might not hold water under academic scrutiny.

1. US dentist pays $50k to travel across the globe to take part in a fun hunt which involved driving in a 4 wheel drive to kill a lion which has been lured out of a protected area to be wounded by using a longbow and then to be tracked and killed 40 hours later after which the lion is skinned, beheaded and a facebook picture taken to show how 'impressive' he is. He has no respect for the beast nor the environment (0000s mile travelled).

2. Local tribespeople kill lion both for meat (no basis for this as I suspect that they dont taste good) and for the pelt for clothing and traditional headwear and/or ceremonial dress. They respect the creature, its surroundings and its spirit and do this out of proper tradition other than vanity and dont know what a 'faced book' is. I suspect that they use spears and more latterly modern firearms and whilst many are now involved in poaching or supporting poachers due to abject poverty, the aim is far from vanity. They also probably kill some lions to protect their livestock and themselves from attack. I dont like this as this is akin to the UK farmers excuse for killing foxes due to their 'pest' value and ultimately they were here before we were and that we are encroaching on their land and not the other way.

Personally, i dont like the thought of any animal suffering pain or death unnecessarily at the hands of humans and would prefer that they go about their business unhindered however my novice viewpoint on this matter is one of motive and not the act in and of itself, since you asked.

In reply to wintertree:


On the other hand, a lamb living on the hills around Edale before being killed for food wouldn't have a (short) life if people didn't eat meat, and they seem pretty happy I think, as far as one can tell as a human, between running about in groups and going back to their mums.

I wonder if there's an argument for eating meat which is reared on land which wouldn't sustain food crops.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I think it an interesting situation, I'm not justifying a "right or wrong" position go what happened, i took the quote off the Maasai website, but I wonder if the world would castigate the Maasai warrior for chasing about and killing a lion with a spear (I can't imagine that is an instantaneous death)?

Could the Maasai justification for lion hunting be used in the UK to justify fox hunting - has strong similarities.
Thanks for your reply, I'm just sitting here musing on stuff not aiming to start a verbal war with everyone.

In reply to Moley:


As it happens, I have a Maasai lion spear leaning against the wall of my office. I've often imagined how exciting it would be to face a lion armed only with this; certainly a world away from the way Walter Palmer hunts.

In the indigenous setting in which Maasai culture developed, where lion were plentiful and an obvious hazard to both cattle and people, it seems natural and justified to have a rituals and traditions related to killing lions. The numbers were small and the risk large. maybe hunting boar in medieval Europe had similar calculations of risk, skill and conservation impact, not to mention the food value. Whether current Maasai culture and lion populations still justify the tradition, I'm not really qualified to judge.

Personally, I found camping in a small tent on the Serengeti with lions wandering close by, their almost subsonic contact calls rumbling through the ground, an experience of a lifetime and quite exciting enough for me.

In reply to Moley:



Nope, in no way are there parallels.

In reply to Dave Garnett:
Have a look at this, I found on YouTube, I can't understand a word but I'm not incredibly impressed with the Maasai bravery - though 1 seemed to cop it!

Note the dead lioness, with tracking collar around its neck?
▶ 2:00
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX4Bw5RVDTU

Hope link works.

No it doesn't, put up Maasai lion hunt.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

My last line says it all, but it's called being devil's advocate. I was repeating, so far as Cecil is concerned, the views of a Zimbabwean hunting operator who was on R4 yesterday.

But ignoring Cecil for the moment, who is less of an issue than the more routine hunting of lions, there ar parallels like it or not between farming lions for the rifle and breeding stags for the rifle. Not a matter of justification, both IMHO are morally bankrupt policies, but the point is that it's hard to call a farmed lion endangered (OK, it's more complex than that if you read the link, but far less clear cut),

Now Pangolins, there's a worse problem... http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/the-plight-of-the-pangolin-...

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Obviously it's a crowded field, but I think the observation which most defines Mr P as a total arsehole is this phrase 'the activity I love'. The underlying argument being that 'as long as I really, really get off on inflicting pain upon animals, that makes it OK'.

It's nice too that his concern about the event is not his victim taking 40 hours to die in pain, but the fact he might get prosecuted.

If I lived in Minnesota I would be seriously considering burning down his surgery. I hope someone does.

You always forget when we haven't had the Tories in power for a while how very, very important it is to nasty people to be able to inflict any cruelty or slaughter they see fit on wild animals. This fellow seems like a pyschopath to me, but he's not so uncommon as one would like to think.

jcm

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Someone's already posted this, I imagine.

>http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/572028/Giraffe-hunter-row-continues-as-...

We are talking about a country where they have reality TV shows involving 'Extreme Hunting' of harmless herbivores, after all.

Sort of like Strictly only with deershooting, I imagine - just think of it. Only Way is Essex stars running off with ghillies and talking about they'd Found Love in the Sun.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



How the hell do you manage to bring the Tories into a thread about an American dentist killing a lion in Africa?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The Mash is spot on, as usual...

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/i-didnt-know-the-lion-had-...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


I hadn't seen this - unbelievable.

Ricky Gervais has gone up in my estimation.

In reply to Moley:


LOL! Brilliant!

In reply to Trangia:

Only connect...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Are you serious? Surely it would be more effective to organise lynch mob?

In reply to Trangia:

Organising a manhunt would seem to be the most appropriate response...

So what's happening then? Is he going to be shipped off to Africa to a court? Or will the US protect him? He seems like a good person to make an example of, to try to dissuade others from doing what he's done.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
>


Judging by the delight of some segments of the left at the death of Baroness Thatcher and the singing of "ding dong the witch is dead" I would conjecture that your talking ideological bigoted bollocks, and that a persons political leanings have little or no relationship to how nasty they are.

In reply to NottsRich:


Not sure whether there would be any chance of proving anything against him?

It looks like he paid some professional guides for the trip and presumably they arranged the licence (or whatever paperwork is required) so that was in order to shoot a lion?

I'm guessing the guides were greedy (for $s) incompetents - one is named "Honest" - who tried to rig the hunt and take the $$s the easy way. Then it all went totally t**s up with disastrous consequences.

Whether the dentist was a complete bozo and honestly didn't know what was going on, very possibly, or knew exactly the situation and simply wanted his lion trophy at any cost, who knows? But I doubt he will return to Africa for a while.

I'm sure the guides will end up in court, be interesting to hear their background and experience in the field - it points to very little other than parting dumb Americans from their money.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Why don't these people who pay to shoot game, just buy a penis enlarger instead?

In reply to Moley:

The Maasai also engage in FGM - let's not get all morally relative here.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

He's lucky it's just a lion.

He'd be in a world of hurt and turmoil if he'd bow and arrowed a tapir.

Tapirs, as everybody knows, rrrrrrock.

In reply to Trangia:


That's not the Minnesota way. It's simpler just to wait - on a long enough time line, the odds of ending up frozen to death in a snow-drift become quite high.


Or you hire two mis-matched hitmen and buy a wood chipper.

In reply to Removed UserBwox:

yah?

In reply to Dave Garnett: After looking at this mornings papers of grown men and woman paying all that cash to kill a wild animal, then have theyre photo taken with it, one word springs to mind(wierdos).I wonder how many hours sleep palmer has had in the last forty eight hours

In reply to Removed UserBwox:


Didn't the Romans throw people into the Colosseum to eaten by lions?

Just saying innit. I would never, ever, suggest that for our dear dentist friend. Oh no. Not me.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Lets be honest here this all about money. What people hate is that somebody was able to pay $50,00 or whatever to go and shoot a lion. Just the same as people dislike fox hunting not because they like foxes but because they don't like monied toffs charging around the place on horses. Wheres the outrage at fishing another bloodsport pursued for the enjoyment of it.

In reply to Moley: one is named "Honest"

Thats a very African name..... isn't there an African president called "Goodluck Johnathan"?

In reply to Indy:

Goodluck Jonathan ran out of luck, he is now an ex-President

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I rather hope that Palmer is similarly an ex-dentist.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

In reply to Indy:


No. Not at all actually. I don't get angry about anyone who can spend many times that on a car/2nd house/boat/whatever. If he'd won a competition to wound an iconic apex predator with a bow free-of-charge, I'd still reckon him an odious prick of the highest order. Nice try though.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:



The pangolins need a mysterious ponchoed tapir to ride into town and teach them some backbone.

In reply to Moley:


Well, this might serve as a useful bridge.

>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3179224/Lion-killer-director-Bank-E...

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Daily Mail to the rescue. Mail publishes a story that was in the Sun and Daily Mash 4 years ago.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



What a stupid thing to say. Posting with heart before head?