PETA is after a guy in CA - article mentions AH

[Tanks]

I watched the video that was linked in the LA Times article.

The video was poorly done by the hunter. No reason to publish multiple shots to finish the elephant. That was stupid. The video should have ended with the original first shot and maybe tack on the trophy "money shot" with him posing with the animal.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

The problem with the silent majority is they are silent. Although the majority of the population are not hunters, they are ok with it. What the anti's are excellent at is projection, like a drop of ink into a whole glass of water and it turns blue, pale to be sure, but they can say it is blue. So the general population is used In number without their consent. The only counter you have to this is to put a drop of our hunting colour in too, so that the same general population at least has that balance. We need to project some positive energy about hunting ourselves, unapologetically beat our hunting drum hard, and as enthusiastically as the anti's beat theirs. Radical liberals are fanatical, we need to be a bit more so ourselves.

 

[pamtnman]

Whether it’s right or wrong to post hunting pictures on Fakebook, I do not do it. The risks are huge and the benefits are very low. Better are the subsequent photos of the food bank donation, the family pot roast, etc. Whether right or wrong, many Americans have become intolerant, soft, shallow weenies. Don’t make it easy for them. Don’t bait them.

 

[Wheels]

This will Never survive a Federal court challenge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and ICE already regulate all trophy imports. The U.S.A. is a CITES international Treaty Member...This would violate the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution...Similar legislation passed both the Assembly and Senate two years ago but was ultimately vetoed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown, who called the trophy ban “unenforceable.”

In this case, Raby would certainly have standing. The California law sure seems like it would trigger the "taking clause" in the Fifth Amendment. I would agree with Jerry Brown. The law sure seems unenforceable.

On the bright side, if the government confiscated our trophies but had to compensate us for them, we could all hunt for free.

 

[Gemsbok45]

Hunting has always been my religion,my peace and privacy.I love showing my closest friends pics of a big bull elephant or Tom leopard but to blather it to the world.No thanks

 

[norfolk shooter]

Hunting has always been my religion,my peace and privacy.I love showing my closest friends pics of a big bull elephant or Tom leopard but to blather it to the world.No thanks

I think you have come up with a solution. If enough of us become hunters by religion it will then class as a hate crime. Kind of like how enough people became Jedi it was recognized as ab official religion.

I for one will be happy to be a minister. The rifles and bows shall be God's and the range a place of worship. We shall go on pilgrimage to hunting grounds and Africa shall be our Vatican/Mecca

 

[samu]

This hits quite close to what I've been thinking about photography. Photography used to be quite serious hobby for me while ago and I think I got some quite decent shots out once or twice. Anyways, being sort of good at photography requires practice just like shooting and pretty much anything really. My problem was that 99.9% of pictures I would take ended up quite meaningless and eventually that lead me to dropping off the camera most of the time when I went somewhere.

Picture is made for looking at, and it's purpose depends on the audience. When shooting and developing even single frame cost at least 50c and having it on paper to show anyone cost even more, people used to think what they shoot and who they'll show it to. These days taking a picture bears no cost and pushing it to everyones face even less, so people pay no attention to what they shoot and who sees it. Relatives won't visit because person does not shut up about their holiday photos so put them on facetagram and assume everyone who cliks thumbs up even looked at it. That like button is modern day equivalent of politely smiling and complementing when the host forces you to look through their latest holiday album.

So, what is the purpose of a shot where hunter poses with a trophy? Some very few hunters might actually get taken back to their hunt or have them feel closer to their own dream hunt. For most of the hunters relatives it falls back to holiday album category, compliment because it would be rude not to. Seeing someone I do not know with game I know little about is quite meaningless to me no matter how big rack it has and I dare say that is the reaction of most people. So the most important purpose of a trophy shot would be to the hunter themselves. To save and return to and let it take them back in the memories of the hunt.

In that sense, those trophy shots don't really belong to social media. There's very little to be gained by sharing them with world and sometimes they can do more harm than good. Keep them to yourselves, show them to your hunter friends who you know appreciate them and save the others from your self centered spam.

So now that I've most likely got at least someone clenching fists, let me finish first. Hunting photos definitely belong to facebook and wherever. But the pictures meant for the audience that is whole internet should be fundamentally different. If you want for complete stranger have even small chance of having a honest positive reaction to any photo they come across, it needs to tell a story that is somehow relatable. Instead of plastering dead carcass next to your ugly face, try to isolate the thing that makes these animals worth hunting for you. Or maybe rather take pictures that show the work that goes into the actual hunt and not just the result. Even animal activists can relate to you better if you show you appreaciate the magnificence of these animals. Most average people can relate to struggling to achieve long awaited goals. Maybe the picture could try and translate the atmosphere and feel of distant country to someone back home.

I do not condone to hiding the hunting to protect precious feelings of sensitive people, but trophy photo on public facebook profile is like sexist joke told in sexual harrasment seminar at work. No matter how good it is, it is the wrong audience.

About the article.. that is one biased piece of journalism.

 

[Red Leg]

I find the whole Facebook concept inexplicable.

I would suggest few of us would go downtown to the courthouse and paste pictures and intimate details of our lives on the wall for the world to see. Yet, people do that every single day on social media.

Just don't get it.

 

[Saul]

Like many hunters, I will not post any pictures related to hunting on the internet. I will also not post firearms pictures but that is about the government. I fear losing business if someone were to find out that I am a hunter. I do not bring it up unless someone else does first. That is why I so value having access to these forums. With that said, I do think that sharing hunting pictures should be relegated to dedicated hunting sites. There really is no point posting something all over social media that you know will stir up opposition and potential real world consequences for you and your family.

 

[pamtnman]

Like many hunters, I will not post any pictures related to hunting on the internet. I will also not post firearms pictures but that is about the government. I fear losing business if someone were to find out that I am a hunter. I do not bring it up unless someone else does first. That is why I so value having access to these forums. With that said, I do think that sharing hunting pictures should be relegated to dedicated hunting sites. There really is no point posting something all over social media that you know will stir up opposition and potential real world consequences for you and your family.

I hear you. Challenge for me is I am politically active. As a constitutional conservative. With the internet there is no hiding. It has cost me a lot of business from the GOPe and the left.

 

[mark-hunter]

@Red Leg
" paste pictures and intimate details of our lives on the wall "

In my previous posts I was looking for proper english words to describe exactly what you have described!

This is exactly my thought!

 

[mark-hunter]

A story, from a place where sometimes I go hunting as a guest, one of the hunting clubs.
All hunters there are blue collars, average Joe, rural people, raising crops, cattle, etc.
(so not even a public figures, and far from being any celebrities, juts ordinary country boys)

So they had wild boar driven hunt.
One boar was wounded after the hunt.
In order to take it out of misery, one of the hunters slipped its throat with a knife.
Other hunter in the group was filming and posted the video clip on face book.

From ethical stand point, nothing wrong - the domestic pigs are generally killed in similar way.
(most of those hunters have pigs, or cattle, etc on their property and in winter they make sausages, bacon and hams)
So, seemingly nothing wrong. No wrongdoing

But, cutting the thorat of live wild game is illegal, as per local law.
Domestic pig can be legally killed by butcher with knife - yes - but wild pig - no.
There is also an EU regulation, citing how each animal can be killed. Poultry one way, sheep, cattle etc. another way.
Pets, dogs, cats, etc in veterinary office only, only in case they are sick, in pain and with contest of the owner, with injection onlyetc. (they cannot be shot, for example, even for the same reasons)
In this particular case:
In case wild game is wounded, as per law, it must be dispatched with firearm, only.

When, registering a hunting firearm, a hunter needs to sign the statement that cold weapons will not be used for hunting (knives, spears, arrow, bows, swords, etc)

So,
video clip ended up on FB.
Animal protection activists, caught up with it.
Made all the mess, made all noise in local news papers, local tabloids, etc.
Finally, local hunting club, had no choice but to expel this hunter from the club.
And make it public, in order to cool down animal protection lynch mob and witch hunters.
So, he lost membership. And had a mess of his private life, for few months

Another story, from employers perspective.
I have a friend who has legal business.
When he is taking an employee or assistant, when receiving a CV, he first checks - Facebook and other socail networks.
If the FB profile is not appropriate, or not exemplary and not within ethical values of his office, he will not employ the candidate.

 

[rookhawk]

I saw them photos of Palmer in the UK press. Slight problem was you cant see his head! How do we/they/anybody know for sure it was him?? If you ask me it just some shit the antis made up as it coincided with 5 years since Cecil. In the UK the antis have even written a song about Cecil. The lion was named after Cecil Rhodes FFS. Do the same liberal cockwombles know this??

Im getting sick of all the pro choice rhetoric they put out. Because if your choice dosnt sit in there agenda its the wrong choice. What happened to mutual respect? Thats right it died with the advent of of the liberal softness and pussyfication of men. I genuinely wonder if one of the anti hunting chaps would be willing to go toe to toe with a hunter? Hold on they probably would and then say how nasty we all are and he got hurt.

The thing I find amusing is the antis say hunting in Africa is colonial. What the antis do by telling the African nations how to manage there nature is the embodiment of colonialism. "We have long gone but you WILL do as we tell you!!!" Its all rather hypocritical

no, he’s dumber than that. several different photos surfaced. His. Outfitter. His hunting buddy. Leaks from multiple cameras.

Dentist Walter Palmer who killed Cecil the Lion 'is back hunting'

Walter Palmer, 60, from Minnesota, is believed to have made his return to trophy hunting after an image of him next to a slaughtered wild sheep in Mongolia appeared on social media.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[375Fox]

Just to be fair on the social media discussion, yes a lot of photos have been pulled from Facebook by anti-hunters, but this site is also a form of social media that is visible by anyone. A photo ending up in anti-hunter’s hands from Facebook is a bit of luck. I suspect anti-hunters patrol this site as actively as we do for the opposite reasons. They get photos, opinions, lots of material to use directly. This hunter actually posted his hunt report here with his real name, which I would suspect gave them a good starting point if they hadn’t already decided to go after him. https://www.africahunting.com/threa...phant-hunt-with-umziki-hunting-safaris.54326/
My point with this is to be careful what we put out there anywhere.

 

[Beretta391]

The wife and I go on a morning walk everyday where we try to understand the “new” world. We also try to fix the worlds problems. We’re both in our 60’s. We have seen a lot of change in our time. We both agreed the worst thing we have seen for our society is social media. It just plain sucks!! Where else can u make death threats on some ones family-kids and nothing happens!!! There that’s my rant on social media!!!

 

[mark-hunter]

My point with this is to be careful what we put out there anywhere.

You are right.

I gave two examples in my first posts of this thread (previous page), photos used were from outfitters website, in order to demonize the hunters.

 

[edward]

its all been said,many,many times.

 

[rookhawk]

Here's the danger in all of this:

1.) Some people do indeed have sociopathic tendencies and relish in posting game killed online in the least respectful manner as a thrill or a trip. Not the majority of course, but a minority of hunters can ruin it for everyone. (e.g. the lunatic in the movie "Trophy" that was filmed...not the honorable Phil Glass...rather the sociopathic guy and his girlfriend)

2.) Organizations like SCI encourage such behavior by having "awards" that you buy for very significant amount of money recognizing your kills. This mindset coddles this behavior and really gives fodder to the antis. Rather, we could get back to the point by honoring the animal by entering it into the record books for purposes of studying the data to know more about the resources. Put another way, I like animals in record books but I don't like the name of the hunter in the record book. Unfortunately, recognizing the animal doesn't make money but people paying for awards does fund SCI. That's the conundrum, the primary source of funding to defend hunting is also a means to encourage the widespread dissemination of kill shots.

3.) SCI will turn on you in a second. I've written SCI several times requesting an answer from them in light of Walter Palmer. If I'm accused by antis of unethical behavior, will they revoke my membership based on an allegation PRIOR to it being ruled upon in a court of law? It only hurt Walt Palmer's case further when SCI suspended him before the facts were known. That means that when you post a picture online and the anti's can demand an investigation, public outrage could lead to you being charged of a crime, then kicked out of SCI, only for years to go by before the charges are dropped as meritless. In the meantime, your advocacy groups have already convicted your name and reputation without bonafide facts. <- Let that sink in. SCI has refused to answer my emails where I've asked them "What will you do if I'm accused of any wildlife violation prior to me being convicted of any crime?". They won't answer of course, because they want to reserve the right to throw people under the bus, whereas the only acceptable answer would be a press release saying "We take the allegations seriously that were raised against member X and we believe in conservation and the rule of law. X will immediately be suspended from our organization if he/she is found guilty of the allegations. Until that time, we reserve judgment and the person remains a member in good standing, innocent until proven guilty.

The photos create the articles, the articles create the outrage, the outrage creates the guilt in public opinion, the guilt in public opinion gets you fired, you getting fired limits your ability to defend yourself in court, the limits of means gets you to plea. Circle of death.

 

[Rum Runner]

This is really bad.

But, if I may add from my personal perspective:
All these anti hunting organisations are getting their arguments based on public posts with photos from hunters themselves. We give them the food.

Photo of hunter with trophy - is the only argument they continuously (and successfully) use against us, and it gets back to us in hard way, influencing the legislative system and public opinions.

This is another example, when sponsor of this forum was targeted by one of UK tabloids:

Brit trophy hunters pay to shoot zebras for fun and post gloating photos on Facebook

BRITISH trophy hunters are targeting “at risk” zebras and then posting sick photos of their kills on Facebook, it has been revealed. Many pose with their “trophy” grinning a…

www.thesun.co.uk

(photos again?)

Then we can all remember all other cases, notable one being - Cecil the lion saga, etc.

In my country, one of our prominent politicians was accused and charged for corruption and missuse of funds, and guess, what - media found his photos on web site of his African outfitter - sponsor of this web site, and blasted the photos all over local media - with dead elephant, etc.
I am not mentioning the names, the court proceedings are still in progress, but it was 100k plus, hunt - including DG, and 10 - 12 various species of other game.

etc,

My way of thinking is this:
Problem mitigation measures can be reactive or proactive.

1. Reactive means, after SHTF situation, and generally too late.
What remains after public attack is possible suing, or legal actions, but if photo is posted on public media, I dont think much can be done. Damage is done, as per above illustrations, and it cannot be undone.

2. Proactive means, mitigating negative factors and risks in advance, before the problem happens, which means in some way to control what we download on facebook, and other platforms.

Based on all above, in my simple mind, the only real risk and negative factor, is public photo of hunter and trophy.
(Am I right?)

What we need to reconsider, is public posting of hunters with trophies in public media, and make some (restrictive) rules integrated in each hunting organisation code of ethics about posting or not posting public pictures with trophies.

In closing, this problem is more present in highly developed countries, like USA, or UK, and at this moment less present in other countries, but it is growing on daily basis.

Scientific and economic arguments, facts and statistics - are all on legally regulated hunting side and game management programs, but the influence of ignorant, and emotional anti hunting organisation is at least 90% powered by our own photos posted on public media.
And problem is growing on daily basis. And thats the fact.

You want to post picture with your trophy?
Think again.

facebook?
Think again.
Your choice.
I dont.

The outfitters perspective:
Commercial hunting outfitters the perspective is a bit different.
Posting pictures of hunters with trophies is part of advertising campaign - this brings the clients in. (or at least we think so)

So in this respect, they will have to develop their own strategy of how they will proceed, but my way of thinking is that posting photos of rich game herds, game populations on grasslands, open savanah, or waterholes is good enough.
For example, if I see on outfitters web site, a rich, dense, numerous, self sustaining herd of buffalo - in their natural range - nobody needs to tell me, what I might be doing there, and why I should go there!

Woah, I respectfully disagree. Check out this photo:

Yep, I killed those fish. No apologies. Really, please, don't we all "kill"?

 

[rookhawk]

Woah, I respectfully disagree. Check out this photo:

Yep, I killed those fish. No apologies. Really, please, don't we all "kill"?

You're exercising your rights and you're using logic in your response. The point of the thread is the consequences of public emotion. Sadly, logic and exercising your legal rights won't win this battle. Nice fish btw.