Posted on 09/07/2015 12:18:25 AM PDT by Daffynition
The US dentist whose killing of Cecil the lion fuelled a global backlash has emerged for an interview and says he will return to work on Tuesday.
Walter Palmer has disputed some accounts of the hunt, expressed agitation at the animosity directed at those close to him and says he will be back at work within days.
Palmer, who has spent more than a month out of sight after becoming the target of protests and threats, intends to return to his suburban Minneapolis dental practice on Tuesday.
In an interview on Sunday conducted jointly by The Associated Press and the Minneapolis Star Tribune that advisers said would be the only one granted, Palmer said again that he believes he acted legally and that he was stunned to find out his hunting party had killed one of Zimbabwe's treasured animals.
"If I had known this lion had a name and was important to the country or a study obviously I wouldn't have taken it," Palmer said.
(Excerpt) Read more at sbs.com.au ...
Would you would favor no hunting of the ‘big five’ in Africa?
Well, if his actions lead to a net good, are you against it? Why would you call for his suffering. How do yoo know the critter suffered?
How do you know he saw the collar? Take a look at post #9. Is it possible that he didn’t notice because of the mane, tall grass and the fear/excitement of stalking this animal as close as he had too for a shot?
Baiting is not selective. If the lion left the preserve, do you suppose their intent was to kill this particular lion?
You know this man personally? That’s a mighty broad statement . . .
IIRC, it was no big deal until the Western Media got a hold of the story.
As for who said to take the shot, who baited which lion (what did the bait have an address on it? Meat is meat, bait is bait, and you can't bait a particular lion any more than you can bait a particular fish.) et cetera.
The story is a smokescreen in a teapot for other issues which were transpiring elsewhere.
He himself said the lion wasn’t killed until the day after he initially hit it with an arrow.
And he clearly didn’t assure the legality of his hunt despite the operation of illegal poachers such as the guy he hired.
Also, he had previously been caught and let off lightly for having killed a bear in an illegal area, then taken it in to a legal one to claim that he had bagged it there.
From what I’ve read, allowing legal hunts in Africa is helping to preserve these animals at this point, so yes, I suppose I am for that. Doesn’t mean I have to be for this dude, however. Yet, I think he has suffered sufficiently.
First point: No shot is certain. Hunting involves some risk of injuring an animal. I doubt very much whether Cecil thought much about all the animals he has mauled and lost over the course of a lifetime. Not to mention those he ate alive.
Second point: He pays to have the guides (licensed guides) take care of legal issues. That’s why the fees are given. If you want to have a legitimate point, consider the mess of case law here - now imagine it in another country (and a third world country at that).
Third point: What are the facts of his ‘conviction?’ This man is a hunter. Have you ever hunted in heavy cover? Finding the line between legal and illegal terrain is not always as easy as you might think walking city streets. Did he actually carry a 300, 400, 500 . . . 1,000 pound bear elsewhere to claim legality or is this internet say-so? Finally, if he was let off lightly, it weighs heavily in favor of his offense being minor or unintentional. Actual and intentional violators are not let off easily, at least not where I come from.
Forth point: His past game violation in this country has no bearing on the legality, guilt or motives in the pop culture case at hand - except in the court of public opinion. You’ve cast your vote.
Ponder the outrage over one aging, pampered dead lion to the millions of aborted babies who were not allowed to draw one breath of life.
Please forgive our insanity dear Lord.
Obviously, nothing is going to persuade you from your conclusion. And yes, he was found to have driven the bear onto the legal site and then declared to have killed it there when taking it to be weighed. He was, I believe, fined.
B&A hunting leads to lots such day-long suffering, and no, I don’t begrudge a lion its kill. Jeesh!
The man is not a hunter for food or for need. He is a hunter paying obscene amounts to get perverse jollies.
I have not seen to the document regarding his previous violations and I doubt that you have either. This is critical to make Internet facts, facts.
Any hunting may lead to suffering. Bow hunters, in my experience, tend to be better hunters and more certain of their shots and follow up because they have to be if dealing with dangerous game. The fact that he followed up the next day says volumes a non-hunter would never understand. Read Hemingway.
Finally, the practice of trophy hunting escapes me, too. However, these are the people who actually pay the freight for all the other ‘save the animals’ types, This man actually pays to preserve animals which is something 99.9% of all the whiners do not. Add to that the expense, risk and skill needed to take the big five and I would not find “jollies” a fitting word. He takes the challenge of killing his animals upfront which is far more than most do. Most people meekly go to the grocer and pay for the portion of the animal they want to be assassinated for them in distant and horrible (for the animal) abattoirs.
If you are a vegetarian or don't hunt you own meat, you stand on very shaky ground. Watch out for whose oxen you kill . . .
I have found multiple deer on my property that were killed by bow hunters. They were well within my property. Obviously they had to travel, maybe at least a mile, before they dropped.
He’s not eating the lion—you’ve passed into ridiculous territory here.
He didn’t know because it was under the cover of darkness. According to the guide it was only when they returned the next day that the hunters saw it was wearing a GPS collar and was protected as part of an Oxford University research project.
“I was devastated,” said Bronkhorst. “I could not have seen the collar at night. We would never shoot a collared animal. I was devastated, and so was the client, we were both upset, and I panicked and took it [the collar] off and put it in a tree.”
Despite their error, the hunters then skinned and beheaded the lion – “as the client had paid for the trophy” – and returned to Bronkhorst’s base at Hwange.
It was then that the Minnesota dentist asked if Bronkhorst could find him an elephant.
Anti hunting fluffy bunny lovers annoy the sh!t out of me...they have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about and are utterly incapable of considering that their narrow little supermarket viewpoint might not be reality in the woods and wilds of this earth.
Most are as bad as the Gaystapo and are also utterly unable to see that correlation as well
Why is he a scumbag?
“How do you know he saw the collar? Take a look at post #9. Is it possible that he didn’t notice because of the mane, tall grass and the fear/excitement of stalking this animal as close as he had too for a shot?”
I’d like to see the collar by itself to help answer that question.
Do we knew *when* he found out the lion was collared?
Oh, and by the way, here are the court docs—and he was 40 miles out the legal area when he shot the bear, before he and his buddies moved it:
“Finding the line between legal and illegal terrain is not always as easy as you might think walking city streets. Did he actually carry a 300, 400, 500 . . . 1,000 pound bear elsewhere to claim legality or is this internet say-so?”
Several news outlets reported (based in part on FOIA requests) that Palmer killed the bear in an unauthorized area, and then offered to bribe the guides that the bear was killed in an another area.
He then made false statements to USF&W concerning the hunt and ended up pleading guilty grading that, and was sentenced to one year of probation and a $3,000 fine.
Nice!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.