American Dentist paid $55,000 to kill lion

[baseline bum]

Or maybe someone who's an expert in the matter like the guy in Joe Rogan's podcast? ing idiot

I'm not watching a 2 and a half hour video posted by you, just like I don't watch Cosmored's crap either.

[redzero]

What I don't like is that the guy apologized for killing that lion instead of a lion. He's an asshole.

[Pauly D]

What's inherently wrong with killing a lion again?

[SpursforSix]

What's inherently wrong with killing a lion again?

nothing inherently wrong but depends greatly on the cir stances

[Pauly D]

Right, and although this one may have been lured illegally it's usually done for conservation

[SpursforSix]

Right, and although this one may have been lured illegally it's usually done for conservation

Ok. I really don't know why this is front page worthy anyway. I quit following yesterday but it's hard to imagine this doesn't fall squarely on the guide. Seems like media is looking for another reason to hate a successful white person.

[baseline bum]

Ok. I really don't know why this is front page worthy anyway. I quit following yesterday but it's hard to imagine this doesn't fall squarely on the guide. Seems like media is looking for another reason to hate a successful white person.

Nah man, it's the second time he has been involved with poaching. I don't buy the "ooops" defense twice.

[SpursforSix]

Nah man, it's the second time he has been involved with poaching. I don't buy the "ooops" defense twice.

I haven't see the details on everything but seemed like he lied once before. He's been on lots of hunts I'm assuming. I don't know that the one known violation condemns him on this one.

[baseline bum]

I haven't see the details on everything but seemed like he lied once before. He's been on lots of hunts I'm assuming. I don't know that the one known violation condemns him on this one.

I wonder how many more times he has poached when he has been caught doing it twice now.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Since that got Splits created a thread about this and then ran away after getting a beat down from me I'll repost this article here. The legal big game hunts help conservation efforts more than any other factor. Big game populations are actually on the rise because of the private land opened up for hunting. You don't have to agree with the hunts but it's hard to argue the benefits.


http://conservationmagazine.org/2014...-conservation/

Can trophy hunting ever be a useful tool in the conservationist’s toolbox? On the surface, the answer would appear obvious. It seems as if the killing of an animal – especially an endangered one – for sport is directly contradictory to the goal of ensuring the survival of a species. The question has been asked again following the auction last Saturday night of the right to hunt an endangered black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) in Namibia. And the answer, as usual, is more complicated.
The permit was sold for $350,000, well above the previous high bid for a permit in that country, $223,000. While the Dallas Safari Club had the dubious distinction of being the first organization to hold such an auction outside of Namibia itself, it’s fairly unremarkable and actually quite common for an African nation to sell permits for trophy hunting, even for endangered species. Indeed, both Namibia and South Africa are legally permitted by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) to sell five permits for the hunting of adult male black rhinos each year.
And it’s not just rhinos. For example, a 2000 report from TRAFFIC, an organization that works with the WWF, IUCN, and CITES to track the international trade of wildlife, describes how Namibia alone was the site of almost 16,000 trophy hunts that year. Those 16,000 animals represent a wide variety of species – birds, reptiles, mammals, and even primates – both endangered and not. They include four of the so-called “big five” popular African game: lion, Cape buffalo, leopard, and rhinoceros. (Only the elephant was missing.) The hunters brought eleven million US dollars with them to spend in the Namibian economy. And that doesn’t include revenue from non-trophy recreational hunting activities, which are limited to four species classified as of “least concern” by the IUCN: Greater Kudu, Gemsbok, Springbok and Warthog.
The issues here are complex and highly politicized. There are several questions that science can’t help address, primary of which is whether or not the money raised from the sale of hunting permits is used for conservation, something often promised by hunting tour operators. But empirical research can help to elucidate several other questions, such as whether hunting can ever help drive conservation efforts.
In 2006, researcher Peter A. Lindsey of Kenya’s Mpala Research Centre and colleagues interviewed 150 people who either had already hunted in Africa, or who planned to do so within the following three years. Their findings were published in the journal Animal Conservation. A majority of hunters – eighty-six percent! – told the researchers they preferred hunting in an area where they knew that a portion of the proceeds went back into local communities. Nearly half of the hunters they interviewed also indicated that they’d be willing to pay an equivalent price for a poorer trophy if it was a problem animal that would have had to be killed anyway.
Lindsey’s team also discovered that hunters were more sensitive to conservation concerns than was perhaps expected. For example, they were less willing to hunt in areas where wild dogs or cheetahs are illegally shot, in countries that intentionally surpass their quotas, or with operators who practice “put-and-take hunting,” which is where trophy animals are released onto a fenced-in property just before a hunt. Together this suggests that hunters were willing to place economic pressure on countries and tour companies to operate in as ethical a manner as possible. Approximately nine out of every ten hunters said they’d be willing to hunt in places that were poor for wildlife viewing or which lacked attractive scenery. That is, they said that they were willing to hunt in areas that would not have otherwise been able to reap an economic benefit from ecotourism.
It’s encouraging that trophy hunters seem willing to take conservation-related issues into consideration when choosing a tour operator, but it is possible that they were simply providing the researchers with the answers that would cast them in the best light. That’s a typical concern for assessments that rely on self-report. Better evidence would come from proof that hunting can be consistent with actual, measurable conservation-related benefits for a species.
Is there such evidence? According to a 2005 paper by Nigel Leader-Williams and colleagues in the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy the answer is yes. Leader-Williams describes how the legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies.
In a 2011 letter to Science magazine, Leader-Williams also pointed out that the implementation of controlled, legalized hunting was also beneficial for Zimbabwe’s elephants. “Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,” thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. “As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe’s already large elephant population.” It is important to note, however, that the removal of mature elephant males can have other, detrimental consequences on the psychological development of younger males. And rhinos and elephants are very different animals, with different needs and behaviors.
Still, the elephants of Zimbabwe and the white rhinos of South Africa seem to suggest that it is possible for conservation and trophy hunting to coexist, at least in principle. It is indeed a tricky, but not impossible, balance to strike.
It is noteworthy that the Leader-Williams’ 2005 paper recommended that legal trophy hunting for black rhinos be focused mainly on older, non-breeding males, or on younger males who have already contributed sufficient genetic material to their breeding groups. They further suggested that revenues from the sale of permits be reinvested into conservation efforts, and that revenues could be maximized by selling permits through international auctions. Namibia’s own hunting policy, it turns out, is remarkably consistent with scientific recommendations.
Even so, some have expressed concern regarding what the larger message of sanctioned trophy hunts might be. Could the possible negative consequences from a PR perspective outweigh the possible benefits from hunting? Can the message that an auction for the hunting of an endangered species like the black rhino brings possibly be reconciled with the competing message that the species requires saving? This question is probably not one that science can adequately address.
However, it might just be worth having a quick look at some numbers. 745 rhinos were killed due to illegal poaching in 2012 in Africa, which amounts to approximately two rhinos each day, mostly for their horns. In South Africa alone, 461 rhinos were killed in just the first half of 2013. Rhino horns are valued for their medicinal uses and for their supposed cancer-curing powers. Of course, rhino horns have no pharmacological value at all, making their harvest even more tragic. The five non-breeding rhinos that Namibia allows to be hunted each year seem paltry in comparison, especially since they are older males who can no longer contribute to population growth.
I don’t understand the desire to kill a magnificent animal for sport, even if the individual is an older non-breeding male. The sale of the right to kill an animal for a trophy surely reflects the value that animal lives hold in at least some corners of our society: that killing an animal for fun isn’t wrong, as long as you can afford it. It is right to worry about the sort of message that sends.
But if an endangered species as charismatic as the black rhinoceros is under such extreme threat from poaching, then perhaps the message that the species needs saving has a larger problem to address than the relatively limited loss of animals to wealthy hunters. The real tragedy here is that the one rhino that will be killed as a result of Saturday’s auction has received a disproportionate amount of media attention compared to the hundreds of rhinos lost to poaching each year, which remain largely invisible. And while there remains at least a possibility that sanctioned trophy hunts can benefit the black rhino as they have for the white rhino, there is only one possible consequence of continued poaching. It’s one that conservationists and hunters alike will lament. – Jason G. Goldman | 15 January 2014

[baseline bum]

Since that got Splits created a thread about this and then ran away after getting a beat down from me I'll repost this article here. The legal big game hunts help conservation efforts more than any other factor. Big game populations are actually on the rise because of the private land opened up for hunting. You don't have to agree with the hunts but it's hard to argue the benefits.


http://conservationmagazine.org/2014...-conservation/

Can trophy hunting ever be a useful tool in the conservationist’s toolbox? On the surface, the answer would appear obvious. It seems as if the killing of an animal – especially an endangered one – for sport is directly contradictory to the goal of ensuring the survival of a species. The question has been asked again following the auction last Saturday night of the right to hunt an endangered black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) in Namibia. And the answer, as usual, is more complicated.
The permit was sold for $350,000, well above the previous high bid for a permit in that country, $223,000. While the Dallas Safari Club had the dubious distinction of being the first organization to hold such an auction outside of Namibia itself, it’s fairly unremarkable and actually quite common for an African nation to sell permits for trophy hunting, even for endangered species. Indeed, both Namibia and South Africa are legally permitted by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) to sell five permits for the hunting of adult male black rhinos each year.
And it’s not just rhinos. For example, a 2000 report from TRAFFIC, an organization that works with the WWF, IUCN, and CITES to track the international trade of wildlife, describes how Namibia alone was the site of almost 16,000 trophy hunts that year. Those 16,000 animals represent a wide variety of species – birds, reptiles, mammals, and even primates – both endangered and not. They include four of the so-called “big five” popular African game: lion, Cape buffalo, leopard, and rhinoceros. (Only the elephant was missing.) The hunters brought eleven million US dollars with them to spend in the Namibian economy. And that doesn’t include revenue from non-trophy recreational hunting activities, which are limited to four species classified as of “least concern” by the IUCN: Greater Kudu, Gemsbok, Springbok and Warthog.
The issues here are complex and highly politicized. There are several questions that science can’t help address, primary of which is whether or not the money raised from the sale of hunting permits is used for conservation, something often promised by hunting tour operators. But empirical research can help to elucidate several other questions, such as whether hunting can ever help drive conservation efforts.
In 2006, researcher Peter A. Lindsey of Kenya’s Mpala Research Centre and colleagues interviewed 150 people who either had already hunted in Africa, or who planned to do so within the following three years. Their findings were published in the journal Animal Conservation. A majority of hunters – eighty-six percent! – told the researchers they preferred hunting in an area where they knew that a portion of the proceeds went back into local communities. Nearly half of the hunters they interviewed also indicated that they’d be willing to pay an equivalent price for a poorer trophy if it was a problem animal that would have had to be killed anyway.
Lindsey’s team also discovered that hunters were more sensitive to conservation concerns than was perhaps expected. For example, they were less willing to hunt in areas where wild dogs or cheetahs are illegally shot, in countries that intentionally surpass their quotas, or with operators who practice “put-and-take hunting,” which is where trophy animals are released onto a fenced-in property just before a hunt. Together this suggests that hunters were willing to place economic pressure on countries and tour companies to operate in as ethical a manner as possible. Approximately nine out of every ten hunters said they’d be willing to hunt in places that were poor for wildlife viewing or which lacked attractive scenery. That is, they said that they were willing to hunt in areas that would not have otherwise been able to reap an economic benefit from ecotourism.
It’s encouraging that trophy hunters seem willing to take conservation-related issues into consideration when choosing a tour operator, but it is possible that they were simply providing the researchers with the answers that would cast them in the best light. That’s a typical concern for assessments that rely on self-report. Better evidence would come from proof that hunting can be consistent with actual, measurable conservation-related benefits for a species.
Is there such evidence? According to a 2005 paper by Nigel Leader-Williams and colleagues in the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy the answer is yes. Leader-Williams describes how the legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies.
In a 2011 letter to Science magazine, Leader-Williams also pointed out that the implementation of controlled, legalized hunting was also beneficial for Zimbabwe’s elephants. “Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,” thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. “As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe’s already large elephant population.” It is important to note, however, that the removal of mature elephant males can have other, detrimental consequences on the psychological development of younger males. And rhinos and elephants are very different animals, with different needs and behaviors.
Still, the elephants of Zimbabwe and the white rhinos of South Africa seem to suggest that it is possible for conservation and trophy hunting to coexist, at least in principle. It is indeed a tricky, but not impossible, balance to strike.
It is noteworthy that the Leader-Williams’ 2005 paper recommended that legal trophy hunting for black rhinos be focused mainly on older, non-breeding males, or on younger males who have already contributed sufficient genetic material to their breeding groups. They further suggested that revenues from the sale of permits be reinvested into conservation efforts, and that revenues could be maximized by selling permits through international auctions. Namibia’s own hunting policy, it turns out, is remarkably consistent with scientific recommendations.
Even so, some have expressed concern regarding what the larger message of sanctioned trophy hunts might be. Could the possible negative consequences from a PR perspective outweigh the possible benefits from hunting? Can the message that an auction for the hunting of an endangered species like the black rhino brings possibly be reconciled with the competing message that the species requires saving? This question is probably not one that science can adequately address.
However, it might just be worth having a quick look at some numbers. 745 rhinos were killed due to illegal poaching in 2012 in Africa, which amounts to approximately two rhinos each day, mostly for their horns. In South Africa alone, 461 rhinos were killed in just the first half of 2013. Rhino horns are valued for their medicinal uses and for their supposed cancer-curing powers. Of course, rhino horns have no pharmacological value at all, making their harvest even more tragic. The five non-breeding rhinos that Namibia allows to be hunted each year seem paltry in comparison, especially since they are older males who can no longer contribute to population growth.
I don’t understand the desire to kill a magnificent animal for sport, even if the individual is an older non-breeding male. The sale of the right to kill an animal for a trophy surely reflects the value that animal lives hold in at least some corners of our society: that killing an animal for fun isn’t wrong, as long as you can afford it. It is right to worry about the sort of message that sends.
But if an endangered species as charismatic as the black rhinoceros is under such extreme threat from poaching, then perhaps the message that the species needs saving has a larger problem to address than the relatively limited loss of animals to wealthy hunters. The real tragedy here is that the one rhino that will be killed as a result of Saturday’s auction has received a disproportionate amount of media attention compared to the hundreds of rhinos lost to poaching each year, which remain largely invisible. And while there remains at least a possibility that sanctioned trophy hunts can benefit the black rhino as they have for the white rhino, there is only one possible consequence of continued poaching. It’s one that conservationists and hunters alike will lament. – Jason G. Goldman | 15 January 2014

But the illegal hunts this bag keeps getting involved with are chicken .

[SpursforSix]

I wonder how many more times he has poached when he has been caught doing it twice now.

You're assuming he's guilty.

It would be just as easy to assume that the first one was due to extenuating cir stances and he made a mistake.
And that this one is on the guide.

He's a bow hunter so I'm assuming he isn't just out to collect trophies or do things the easy way. So I don't think he's the kind of person that would be OK with someone corralling a lion just so he can shoot it with his bow.

I think he probably just ed up and made a mistake. You really think if he knew the background of that lion, he'd have killed it?

I don't know. Personally, I don't hunt and don't think I ever could. But I get that some people like to and I get that there is also some benefit/need of it.
I'm just not going to crucify this guy yet based on the information that's out there.

[DisAsTerBot]

what does this case have to do with conservation?

[TheSanityAnnex]

what does this case have to do with conservation?

The money paid for to hunt.

[DisAsTerBot]

The money paid for to hunt.

an illegal hunt is not helping conservation efforts

[SpursforSix]

I wonder how many more times he has poached when he has been caught doing it twice now.

So I read the updated story. I think it's pretty ty if they did in fact lure the lion out of a protected area using a dead animal as bait. And so probably the doctor was involved or at least knew what the guides were doing.
He might not have know it was all illegal but seems like a sorry way to "hunt" big game.

But I still don't think this should be getting top billing when there's more egregious things to be pissed at.

[baseline bum]

You're assuming he's guilty.

It would be just as easy to assume that the first one was due to extenuating cir stances and he made a mistake.
And that this one is on the guide.

He's a bow hunter so I'm assuming he isn't just out to collect trophies or do things the easy way. So I don't think he's the kind of person that would be OK with someone corralling a lion just so he can shoot it with his bow.

I think he probably just ed up and made a mistake. You really think if he knew the background of that lion, he'd have killed it?

I don't know. Personally, I don't hunt and don't think I ever could. But I get that some people like to and I get that there is also some benefit/need of it.
I'm just not going to crucify this guy yet based on the information that's out there.

The first one was him poaching a bear 40 miles outside the legal hunting zone. No way that's an accident, if you can't peg your position to within 40 miles in the wilderness then you die there and never make it back out to civilization. And then he covered it up. This seems more a person who thinks the rules don't apply to him.

[baseline bum]

But I still don't think this should be getting top billing when there's more egregious things to be pissed at.

You can say that about pretty much any news story. It's the same argument mouse makes when he goes on a rant against anything scientific. Cure cancer, cure poverty before studying anything else he says.

[Pauly D]

So this guy may indeed be a cunț but what else is cunțy is people like Ricky Gervais getting all the reactionary morons worked up by using feelings instead of facts and logic. "Trophy" hunters have saved species and helped locals in the process

[baseline bum]

So this guy may indeed be a cunț but what else is cunțy is people like Ricky Gervais getting all the reactionary morons worked up by using feelings instead of facts and logic. "Trophy" hunters have saved species and helped locals in the process

And poachers have brought species to the brink of extinction. This guy is a poacher, and I hope he has to face trial in Zimbabwe.

[SpursforSix]

The first one was him poaching a bear 40 miles outside the legal hunting zone. No way that's an accident, if you can't peg your position to within 40 miles in the wilderness then you die there and never make it back out to civilization. And then he covered it up. This seems more a person who thinks the rules don't apply to him.

I agree.

You can say that about pretty much any news story. It's the same argument mouse makes when he goes on a rant against anything scientific. Cure cancer, cure poverty before studying anything else he says.

I agree.

Just crazy that people are talking about finding him to kick his ass or worse. And also getting into his private life and presumably his family's. I just read that Mia Farrow tweeted out his home address.
All these people spending so much energy on this one event because it's an easy target. But a majority of these same people aren't contributing any time or $ to their local SPCA.

[baseline bum]

I just read that Mia Farrow tweeted out his home address.

That's a pretty ty thing to do, I agree. Now the people trashing him on his practice's yelp page is pretty funny though, as is the memorial to the lion outside his office.

[TheSanityAnnex]

But the illegal hunts this bag keeps getting involved with are chicken .

I completely agree, Dentist is a got and should be killed with a bow. I just reposted this to get some discussion going here since I ran off Splits in the political forum with that article.

[baseline bum]

I'm all for responsible hunting though I'm not interested in it myself (except fishing, which is awesome). I love to go hiking and some of the areas I love most are inhabited by bears. So I like that they're hunted to help re-instill the fear in them that human = death. But I hate to see them poached, I don't want the species to end up like the buffalo that were almost destroyed in the 1800s.

[Pauly D]

That's a pretty ty thing to do, I agree. Now the people trashing him on his practice's yelp page is pretty funny though, as is the memorial to the lion outside his office.

See, that's exactly what he was talking about tho. It's like you're gonna get so worked up over this to do that kinda ? Get a life

I completely agree, Dentist is a got and should be killed with a bow. I just reposted this to get some discussion going here since I ran off Splits in the political forum with that article.

Wow, that's not an overreaction at all.