No charges brought against Dr. Palmer in the Zim Lion debacle.....

[petrusg]

Bet you the media wont apologise for anything...

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

The lesson learned is: How do you pick an Outfitter?

Especially if the hunt is for a cat or ele.

 

[browningbbr]

The damage has been done already.......we as hunters will be paying for this event for a LONG TIME.

Yes, we will be paying for this. However, I will NOT be paying anything to SCI. They have forgotten who they are supposed to represent.

 

[BRICKBURN]

Just saw a news bite about Palmer being "off the hook" for killing "Cecil, Zimbabwe's most beloved lion".
Zimbabwe is no longer seeking extradition. (Like that was about to happen)

Surprising it even made the news.

 

[enysse]

I know everyone is down on SCI. I read the reason why they did what they did. Looking at the overall picture I can understand why they did what they did...it was a business decision plain and simple. Was it right? NO, NO, NO it was not the best decision. But they stated as I have stated many time they do not have the resources available to fight the anti-hunters out there. The organization would have been wiped out financially in seconds. They did what they had to save the organization.

I feel they were not prepared for this case. They should have been for sure. If every one here wants to throw SCI away, go ahead.....but please find another organization that is fighting for hunter's rights and wildlife conservation. I know SCI has been slipping, but I have also told you my observations that the anti's have been gaining MAJOR GROUND in the last 10 years, they are starting to outnumber us by quite a bit. Yet nobody or organization has done anything about it.

I defend SCI, because I meet a lot of great people through them, I consider myself a good person. I admit there are flaws in the organization but I'm not willing to throw all the good things away either.....

 

[Hogpatrol]

Agree BUT they should apologize to Palmer for jumping the gun and make the apology public.

 

[Hank2211]

I know everyone is down on SCI. I read the reason why they did what they did. Looking at the overall picture I can understand why they did what they did...it was a business decision plain and simple. Was it right? NO, NO, NO it was not the best decision. But they stated as I have stated many time they do not have the resources available to fight the anti-hunters out there. The organization would have been wiped out financially in seconds. They did what they had to save the organization.

I feel they were not prepared for this case. They should have been for sure. If every one here wants to throw SCI away, go ahead.....but please find another organization that is fighting for hunter's rights and wildlife conservation. I know SCI has been slipping, but I have also told you my observations that the anti's have been gaining MAJOR GROUND in the last 10 years, they are starting to outnumber us by quite a bit. Yet nobody or organization has done anything about it.

I defend SCI, because I meet a lot of great people through them, I consider myself a good person. I admit there are flaws in the organization but I'm not willing to throw all the good things away either.....

Enysse, I agree we shouldn't throw SCI away, as I believe I've said.

Having said that, though, when an organization with the budget of SCI is as ill-prepared for reasonably predictable events as they were, then there should be some real internal self-examination, and perhaps a head or two should roll. I can tell you that's the way it would be in business. And I'm not talking about volunteer heads, although the board may want to consider their own culpability.

But the bigger problem is the one you have pointed out - though I'm not sure this was where you were going.

"They do not have the resources available to fight the anti-hunters out there."

I get that.

What I don't get is why they don't take the advice of so many people - from Peter Flack to those on this forum - who suggest getting together with other hunters' rights organizations, gun and ammunition manufacturers, governments of hunting countries, safari operators, hunting clothing manufacturers, outfitters etc., etc., etc. all of which benefit from hunting in one way or another.

Put all of those people in a room and determine a vision, devise a strategy, formulate a budget, and get after it. It's not rocket science! Together we are far, far, stronger than we are apart. There's no excuse to be reactive - we know the anti's are planning ahead, and we never seem to. We just react. We just rely on the silent (and dwindling) majority who are not anti-hunting but would never do it themselves. We just hope.

Hope is not a strategy.

And SCI needs a strategy or they will continue being kicked to the curb until no one will be around to defend them any more.

 

[Wheels]

Some general thoughts regarding Dr. Palmer and our hunting organizations. This is offhand from my memory. If I am wrong on a fact, feel free to correct me.


Dr. Palmer was a member of SCI.

SCI should not have allowed him to be a member due to the prior illegal hunting of a black bear in Wisconsin or Minnesota.

SCI suspended Dr. Palmer when the Cecil incident broke. Why couldn't they have shown respect to a member and said. "Yes, Dr. Palmer is a member in good standing and we will evaluate his membership when we have all the facts." SCI made a statement to members a couple of weeks after the furor died down and said we did a great job. "SCI was only mentioned in less than 1/2 of 1% of the news articles. " Is this what members want? An organization that cowers away from confrontation and abandons a member in their hour of need.

Why didn't SCI have talking points of all the money they and hunters spend on conservation ready to give to the media? Why wasn't SCI front and center defending hunting? Why didn't they have people and information ready to handle this in a proactive manner? The cost of doing this would have been minimal.

Was SCI caught off guard? I am sure. Was there response acceptable? Not in my opinion. The way SCI handled the Cecil event could be a case study in how not to handle a PR nightmare. SCI was sorely lacking in leadership regarding Cecil.



Dr. Palmer was not a member of DSC.

Was DSC caught off guard? I am sure they were. Was there response acceptable? Initially no but they did rally apx. one week later.

Ben Carter was out of the country hunting in Africa when the event broke. This probably led to a lag in response. After he got back stateside, DSC had a press release(s) and a video response by Carter.



I have hoped for years that SCI would get their act together. I still hope they do. The way they are structured and the way they are led, I am not sure if that is possible. About ten years ago I cleaned out a closet and threw away Safari Magazine's dating back into the 70's. I allowed my membership to lapse two years ago. I certainly was not an important member, but I was a long term and loyal one. SCI will have to make significant changes for me to return.



If I was moving to Eden Prairie, I know what dentist I would give a chance to earn my business.

 

[Wheels]

Enysse, I agree we shouldn't throw SCI away, as I believe I've said.

Having said that, though, when an organization with the budget of SCI is as ill-prepared for reasonably predictable events as they were, then there should be some real internal self-examination, and perhaps a head or two should roll. I can tell you that's the way it would be in business. And I'm not talking about volunteer heads, although the board may want to consider their own culpability.

But the bigger problem is the one you have pointed out - though I'm not sure this was where you were going.

"They do not have the resources available to fight the anti-hunters out there."

I get that.

What I don't get is why they don't take the advice of so many people - from Peter Flack to those on this forum - who suggest getting together with other hunters' rights organizations, gun and ammunition manufacturers, governments of hunting countries, safari operators, hunting clothing manufacturers, outfitters etc., etc., etc. all of which benefit from hunting in one way or another.

Put all of those people in a room and determine a vision, devise a strategy, formulate a budget, and get after it. It's not rocket science! Together we are far, far, stronger than we are apart. There's no excuse to be reactive - we know the anti's are planning ahead, and we never seem to. We just react. We just rely on the silent (and dwindling) majority who are not anti-hunting but would never do it themselves. We just hope.

Hope is not a strategy.

And SCI needs a strategy or they will continue being kicked to the curb until no one will be around to defend them any more.

Well said Hank!

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

I know everyone is down on SCI. I read the reason why they did what they did. Looking at the overall picture I can understand why they did what they did...it was a business decision plain and simple. Was it right? NO, NO, NO it was not the best decision. But they stated as I have stated many time they do not have the resources available to fight the anti-hunters out there. The organization would have been wiped out financially in seconds. They did what they had to save the organization.

I feel they were not prepared for this case. They should have been for sure. If every one here wants to throw SCI away, go ahead.....but please find another organization that is fighting for hunter's rights and wildlife conservation. I know SCI has been slipping, but I have also told you my observations that the anti's have been gaining MAJOR GROUND in the last 10 years, they are starting to outnumber us by quite a bit. Yet nobody or organization has done anything about it.

I defend SCI, because I meet a lot of great people through them, I consider myself a good person. I admit there are flaws in the organization but I'm not willing to throw all the good things away either.....

I think overall that the members of SCI are not in reality that much different than the members of DSC. We're all hunters and we should be all united even if we at times disagree on matters related to hunting. I've met plenty of great people at both conventions and look forward to being at both this year.

I'm not advocating throwing SCI away either, but SCI has done a marvelous job of throwing it's own members away. These are the ones who fuel the organization through it's dollars. SCI has made an incredibly stupid decision by first not being prepared in advance for a "Cecil event" and then making a reactionary decision in suspending Dr. Palmer's membership. @Wheels makes an excellent point that SCI could have made a decision and publicly announced that they weren't going to leap to conclusions based of sketchy information coming from the notoriously corrupt Zim gov't.

That decision also comes on the heels that SCI flirted with opening up its own booking agency. It would have competed against many others who are members of SCI as well as taking away outfitter dollars in the form of commissions paid. Just how much money do they want from the agents and outfitters?

Unfortunately SCI may have kicked the goose that lays the golden egg one too many times presuming the goose had no other choice. With the recent announcement that DSC will be going to a chapter model like SCI, the geese may now have an alternative and one which they'll be happy to take.

 

[Wheels]

I'm not advocating throwing SCI away either, but SCI has done a marvelous job of throwing it's own members away. . .

+1

At some point you get tired of standing at the bottom of the long drop.

Unfortunately SCI may have kicked the goose that lays the golden egg one too many times presuming the goose had no other choice. With the recent announcement that DSC will be going to a chapter model like SCI, the geese may now have an alternative and one which they'll be happy to take.

+1

If a local chapter starts, I will join and participate, as long as they don't start going down the road of their predecessor.

 

[lcq]

"The environment minister's comments immediately drew the ire of the animal conservation group Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force, which maintained that Palmer had committed a crime and said it planned to pursue legal action against him in the U.S.

"The fact is the law was broken. We are going to get our advocates in America to actually see what they can do to bring justice to him," said Johnny Rodrigues, the head of the task force, which first reported news of Cecil's killing."


The announcement doesn't stop Johnny from being a media whore.

no just a Whore

 

[lcq]

Not that I'm going to side with Johnny crap for brains, but I don't think Zim has said the hunt was legal. They only said Dr. Palmer had the appropriate paperwork and as such they "could not" charge him. I think in fact they could have charged him, but that would be a very unwise move as that would for sure be killing off one more source of desperately needed cash. Too many foreign hunters would cross off Zim for a hunting destination.

As I recall there was no lion permit issued for the area hunted and if there was a permit in hand it was obtained through this quasi-legal wink-wink semi-official who-knows-who-gets-how-much-of-a-bribe quota transfer process.

In the end IF this is how it went, then I think the hunt should be deemed illegal as it defies the principals of scientific management of the wildlife. The landowner who I'm sure was part of it will walk with his crony connections and Bronkhorst will be the sole person left holding the big bag full of feces and will be made an example of.

I think if I were Dr. Palmer I'd avoid Zimbabwe for the rest of my life. I think if I were also him and had the resources he apparently has available to him, I'd have a lawyer send a letter to Johnny boy letting him know that if anymore public comments are made slandering him as a criminal, legal recourse against him and his crowd will be considered. Johnny is I think picking a fight with someone who can fight back.

Hell you couldn't give me a hunt to Zim. I will stick with RSA and Namibia AKA civilized countries

 

[enysse]

I agree with you Wheels and Hank2211.

It would be nice if everyone of the hunting organizations and companies got together to formulate against the enemy.....I just don't see it happening anytime soon. I just think too many people are blind or ignorant about the anti's. They think at the end of the day it won't effect them or the hunting they do will not be affected. I'm not saying you gentlemen are wrong.

I work at hospital and see people lie every day about how healthy they are, about what they eat and how much exercise they do. People have the opportunity to do the right thing.......but most of the time they don't.

 

[Hank2211]

Hell you couldn't give me a hunt to Zim. I will stick with RSA and Namibia AKA civilized countries

ICQ,, don't quit on Zim that easily. It is a wonderful country with generally very warm and welcoming people. Yes, they are led by a madman, but they can't really be blamed for that. And frankly, while corruption is endemic, like most (all?) of Africa, I've found the police to be very reasonable on my most recent visit (year ago). And while they shouldn't have gone off half-cocked on the dentist, the government did the right thing once they got the facts, which is more than we can say for some governments in the West.

Most important is that it's one of the few countries where hunting can be done as close as possible to the old days. No fences, and truly free ranging animals.

Nothing against Namibia or RSA, just like Zim as well.

 

[lcq]

ICQ,, don't quit on Zim that easily. It is a wonderful country with generally very warm and welcoming people. Yes, they are led by a madman, but they can't really be blamed for that. And frankly, while corruption is endemic, like most (all?) of Africa, I've found the police to be very reasonable on my most recent visit (year ago). And while they shouldn't have gone off half-cocked on the dentist, the government did the right thing once they got the facts, which is more than we can say for some governments in the West.

Most important is that it's one of the few countries where hunting can be done as close as possible to the old days. No fences, and truly free ranging animals.

Nothing against Namibia or RSA, just like Zim as well.

For me it is a matter of principle I don't support dictatorships. That is one reason I don't vacation in Cuba, Veneusela or Columbia no matter how nice or cheap

 

[browningbbr]

I have hoped for years that SCI would get their act together. I still hope they do. The way they are structured and the way they are led, I am not sure if that is possible. About ten years ago I cleaned out a closet and threw away Safari Magazine's dating back into the 70's. I allowed my membership to lapse two years ago. I certainly was not an important member, but I was a long term and loyal one. SCI will have to make significant changes for me to return.

At the outset of the Cecil hoopla, SCI had the option of saying "We strongly oppose unethical hunting practices, but as an organization, we will wait for ALL of the facts to be presented. In the meantime, we subscribe to the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'..." SCI would not have to make significant changes to to support members who have not been convicted or proven to be guilty. I wanted to belong to an organization that lived up to its own ethics instead of pandering PC behavior to the anti's. SCI doesn't seem to be that organization.

 

[brushmore]

At the outset of the Cecil hoopla, SCI had the option of saying "We strongly oppose unethical hunting practices, but as an organization, we will wait for ALL of the facts to be presented. In the meantime, we subscribe to the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'..." SCI would not have to make significant changes to to support members who have not been convicted or proven to be guilty. I wanted to belong to an organization that lived up to its own ethics instead of pandering PC behavior to the anti's. SCI doesn't seem to be that organization.

I agree with that. I was literally about to join the SCI when this happened. I had the membership form printed out and ready to send in. But after I saw how SCI suspended their own member I figured they knew something we all didn't. But after I looked into this it was clear they were just doing a CYA. They were just responding to the hype which is the last thing we need from a group that is supposed to advocate for our rights.

 

[Hank2211]

I agree with that. I was literally about to join the SCI when this happened. I had the membership form printed out and ready to send in. But after I saw how SCI suspended their own member I figured they knew something we all didn't. But after I looked into this it was clear they were just doing a CYA. They were just responding to the hype which is the last thing we need from a group that is supposed to advocate for our rights.

Brushmore, I understand completely. So here's a request. Join another hunting organization, instead of SCI. We need all the resources we can get.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Reading through the threads I may have missed it, what is his status with SCI? After being thrown under the bus, I suspect he doesn't want to have anything to do with them.