SCI offers reward for information

cmnhunt · Mar 10, 2018

First off I'm having a good night.
1. Actually, I don't really care about fish and game departments as I have no need to break the law. The modern hunting system was re-established by hunting clubs and real men who actually did real work like releasing deer from Wisconsin (that they bought) into places like the panhandle of Florida. Fish and Game just lives off the accomplishments of my grandfathers generation.
2. I actually don't have any feelings for the laws as I have no need yet to break them and I like bears. Not so much wolves but wolves rarely break into homes or break apart orchard trees and I own no livestock.
3. I already told you I don't care what the public thinks. How would you be able to tell what emotion I am having as this is a forum and I am not yelling. I am typing. To display type yelling you use all caps. Like "WAKE UP".
4. SCI I already told you how I feel about them. They work hard to convince others that they should be liked. No I don't read it(the magazine) anymore nor care about who is getting patted on the back, or which guy bought himself the biggest award from the catalogue they offer.
5. Actually, when the majority of the people say it is ok to drink the Kool-Aid, I'm not ok with that. That's called thinking for yourself.
Now, nowhere did I ever call anyone any names. And I don't recall saying I supported this killing or not. I made one comment (speculation, and that's all it is) about what could of happened and what does happen and I basically have equated myself to pulling the trigger for certainly some readers. As far as I know, the reward is unclaimed so the mystery of why Goldilocks went postal on 2 of the 3 is unsolved. Why people continue to feel the need to mind read on a forum is beyond me.

Mike70560 · Mar 10, 2018

cmnhunt said:
And besides, what has SCI done except lose elephant hunting, lion hunting

Why do you feel SCI caused us to lose elephant and lion hunting?

cmnhunt · Mar 11, 2018

Mike70560 said:
Why do you feel SCI caused us to lose elephant and lion hunting?

SCI claims to be the LEADER in protecting the freedom to hunt. If you are going to make a bold statement like that than you dropped the ball when this legislation went down.(As far as I know, DSC does not make that statement.) Not only that, but Botswana, could have been saved (and may one day). Nor have we ever gotten cheetah, polar bear, seal, or walrus. Nor can we import Lion or elephant from Central Africa. Why don't they try suing the US for unjust racism as Native Americans can hunt Marine Mammals and keep the animal parts but Whites can not. Now as far as I know, SCI was too busy during the Walter Palmer thing to do anything except try to point fingers. I don't recall, but did they sue any of the TV networks for defamation of character, due stress for loss of income, or slander towards Dr. Palmer? I know you are allowed to do these things and they could have targeted the individual writers who said these things after the fact and that would have been a plus for them. You can like them or not. I don't hate them, I just don't see them as being effective.

Hank2211 · Mar 11, 2018

cmnhunt said:
SCI claims to be the LEADER in protecting the freedom to hunt. If you are going to make a bold statement like that than you dropped the ball when this legislation went down.(As far as I know, DSC does not make that statement.) Not only that, but Botswana, could have been saved (and may one day). Nor have we ever gotten cheetah, polar bear, seal, or walrus. Nor can we import Lion or elephant from Central Africa. Why don't they try suing the US for unjust racism as Native Americans can hunt Marine Mammals and keep the animal parts but Whites can not. Now as far as I know, SCI was too busy during the Walter Palmer thing to do anything except try to point fingers. I don't recall, but did they sue any of the TV networks for defamation of character, due stress for loss of income, or slander towards Dr. Palmer? I know you are allowed to do these things and they could have targeted the individual writers who said these things after the fact and that would have been a plus for them. You can like them or not. I don't hate them, I just don't see them as being effective.

No where in the word "leader" is there a requirement that you be successful all the time, in every fight. In fact, leading and winning may just mean slowing down an advance, rather than turning it, even though that's what we might prefer.

And as for SCI suing networks for defamation, distress, slander, etc., there are two problems. The first, which is pretty close to universal, is that SCI would have had zero standing to bring such actions, since all of them are personal to Dr. Palmer. The suits would have been thrown out without so much as a blink. Why waste time, money and credibility doing something that the law does not allow?

Secondly, and more importantly, the US has certain free speech guarantees, which make it virtually impossible for anyone, including Dr. Palmer here, to sue media for any of the claims you suggest, unless he could show that the media outlets knew either that the information was completely and obviously false or that it was published with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. That bar is so high, that it is virtually impossible to sustain such claims against the media in matters of public interest (which this clearly was) in the absence of a 'smoking gun' (pun intended) demonstrating actual knowledge (and likely intent to injure, although this is generally unspoken).

Is SCI doing enough? No, they are not. There is a lot more than can and should be doing, and some of what they are doing, I think they should do differently. Are they doing more than anyone else? As far as I can see, they are. Makes them the leader, I guess, by virtually any definition.

Mike70560 · Mar 11, 2018

cmnhunt said:
SCI claims to be the LEADER in protecting the freedom to hunt. If you are going to make a bold statement like that than you dropped the ball when this legislation went down.(As far as I know, DSC does not make that statement.)

There was no legislation required to ban elephant. It was done by the Obama administration to appease the anti-hunting groups. SCI along with the NRA filed a lawsuit challenging this action. The only reason we even have a chance now on elephant is due to the recent court ruling on the lawsuit in our favor and we have a more hunter friendly Department of the Interior. Elections have consequences some good, some bad.

A decent recap of events:

https://www.nationofchange.org/2018...eversal-obama-era-elephant-trophy-import-ban/

Lion is pretty much the same as above fueled by a purely emotional response to Cecil. When you cause the non hunters to become anti-hunters this is what you get.

In regards to Palmer he received terrible treatment at the hands of the media over a lion, a damn wild animal, that nobody heard of before he killed it. But I truly believe he was not lily white clean on this hunt. One thing I can say is there is no way I would have done the hunt he did in the area he was in.

cmnhunt said:
Not only that, but Botswana, could have been saved (and may one day).

The President of Bots with a stroke of a pen ended most (not all) hunting. They do not need the money, not sure what anybody could have done to stop it. Hopefully it does come back, but I doubt it.

cmnhunt said:
Why don't they try suing the US for unjust racism as Native Americans can hunt Marine Mammals and keep the animal parts but Whites can not.

Because it would be a definition of a frivolous lawsuit. While we are at it let’s sue them over the cansinos. There are many laws giving Native Americans certain benefits. I worked for an Alaskan Native Corporation in Alaska and was glad to see them to continue their traditional whale hunts.

cmnhunt · Mar 11, 2018

Mike70560 said:
Why do you feel SCI caused us to lose elephant and lion hunting?

Hank2211 said:
No where in the word "leader" is there a requirement that you be successful all the time, in every fight. In fact, leading and winning may just mean slowing down an advance, rather than turning it, even though that's what we might prefer.

And as for SCI suing networks for defamation, distress, slander, etc., there are two problems. The first, which is pretty close to universal, is that SCI would have had zero standing to bring such actions, since all of them are personal to Dr. Palmer. The suits would have been thrown out without so much as a blink. Why waste time, money and credibility doing something that the law does not allow?

Secondly, and more importantly, the US has certain free speech guarantees, which make it virtually impossible for anyone, including Dr. Palmer here, to sue media for any of the claims you suggest, unless he could show that the media outlets knew either that the information was completely and obviously false or that it was published with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. That bar is so high, that it is virtually impossible to sustain such claims against the media in matters of public interest (which this clearly was) in the absence of a 'smoking gun' (pun intended) demonstrating actual knowledge (and likely intent to injure, although this is generally unspoken).

Is SCI doing enough? No, they are not. There is a lot more than can and should be doing, and some of what they are doing, I think they should do differently. Are they doing more than anyone else? As far as I can see, they are. Makes them the leader, I guess, by virtually any definition.

Successful all the time. I just would like a handful of the time. They actually don't have to sue on behalf, but can offer consultation and a loan or better yet, I would imagine there is one lawyer in SCI that could have helped him. Why would you have not hunted in the area he was in. He went for lion and that area has lion obviously. Seems like a very good area. They offer legal hunts in that area.

cmnhunt · Mar 11, 2018

Mike70560 said:
There was no legislation required to ban elephant. It was done by the Obama administration to appease the anti-hunting groups. SCI along with the NRA filed a lawsuit challenging this action. The only reason we even have a chance now on elephant is due to the recent court ruling on the lawsuit in our favor and we have a more hunter friendly Department of the Interior. Elections have consequences some good, some bad.

A decent recap of events:

https://www.nationofchange.org/2018...eversal-obama-era-elephant-trophy-import-ban/

Lion is pretty much the same as above fueled by a purely emotional response to Cecil. When you cause the non hunters to become anti-hunters this is what you get.

In regards to Palmer he received terrible treatment at the hands of the media over a lion, a damn wild animal, that nobody heard of before he killed it. But I truly believe he was not lily white clean on this hunt. One thing I can say is there is no way I would have done the hunt he did in the area he was in.

The President of Bots with a stroke of a pen ended most (not all) hunting. They do not need the money, not sure what anybody could have done to stop it. Hopefully it does come back, but I doubt it.

Because it would be a definition of a frivolous lawsuit. While we are at it let’s sue them over the casinos. There are many laws giving Native Americans certain benefits. I worked for an Alaskan Native Corporation in Alaska and was glad to see them to continue their traditional whale hunts.

Frivolous, it's pure racism to exclude a group of people based on skin color. What do casinos have to do with owning walrus ivory or hunting marine mammals? Dianne Feinstein puts a bill forth each year to ban assault weapons? I don't like her, but she is persistent(all though unsuccessful) and that is what SCI needs to do. Every year push to actually try to gain hunting opportunities. Like cheetah, or marine mammals. I am glad Native Alaskans can hunt whale also.

cmnhunt · Mar 11, 2018

Mike70560 said:
There was no legislation required to ban elephant. It was done by the Obama administration to appease the anti-hunting groups. SCI along with the NRA filed a lawsuit challenging this action. The only reason we even have a chance now on elephant is due to the recent court ruling on the lawsuit in our favor and we have a more hunter friendly Department of the Interior. Elections have consequences some good, some bad.

A decent recap of events:

https://www.nationofchange.org/2018...eversal-obama-era-elephant-trophy-import-ban/

Lion is pretty much the same as above fueled by a purely emotional response to Cecil. When you cause the non hunters to become anti-hunters this is what you get.

In regards to Palmer he received terrible treatment at the hands of the media over a lion, a damn wild animal, that nobody heard of before he killed it. But I truly believe he was not lily white clean on this hunt. One thing I can say is there is no way I would have done the hunt he did in the area he was in.

The President of Bots with a stroke of a pen ended most (not all) hunting. They do not need the money, not sure what anybody could have done to stop it. Hopefully it does come back, but I doubt it.

Because it would be a definition of a frivolous lawsuit. While we are at it let’s sue them over the cansinos. There are many laws giving Native Americans certain benefits. I worked for an Alaskan Native Corporation in Alaska and was glad to see them to continue their traditional whale hunts.[/QUOTE
Does the president of Bots every meet with SCI representatives to come up with a plan to open up elephant hunting or just with WWF(not the wrestling group). SCI is an international organization.

cmnhunt · Mar 11, 2018

Anyways Fellas,
Hope you catch your bear Killer and your SCI dreams all come true. I'll have to leave this conversation now due to redundancy. Here is a link to a Botswana article. Maybe we can hunt there one day again. As a Chinaman I suppose.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/world/a-hunting-ban-saps-a-villages-livelihood.html

Mike70560 · Mar 11, 2018

I was thinking the same thing since you cannot explain why SCI caused us to lose elephant nor can you explain why they caused hunting in Bots to end.

While I think Palmer got more harassment than he deserved, next time don’t hunt on a 4500 acre farm (Antoinette) that was taken in the land takeovers, and did not have any lion quota. (All allegedly of course).

ScottG · Mar 11, 2018

Really sad to hear. This is how hunters get a bad reputation,. Hope they catch them.

SCI offers reward for information

cmnhunt

Mike70560

cmnhunt

Hank2211

Mike70560

cmnhunt

cmnhunt

cmnhunt

cmnhunt

Mike70560

ScottG

Members online

Forum statistics

Proudly sponsored by

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Share this page