Cecil The Lion, and America's Most Hated Dentist

[duke09hms]

Except of course that he has admitted to killing Cecil the lion. There's that.

Yes but at least how I understand it, he had a legal license obtained through legitimate means to hunt and kill a lion. It is the manner of how he killed the lion and his role in it that are up for question. So taken in isolation, that he killed the lion doesn't add anything.

[weezie]

Generally, it seems that some events are beyond the limited scope of this board. There's probably a way to have a constructive, PPB-behaved discussion of these otherwise hot-button issues, but it's asking a lot of all of us to keep our emotions constantly in check just to make that happen. It's easier to choose any other online venue and share our grievances there.

brev is right. In the past, as soon as things grew too heated, the mods locked it up. The PPB room shut down years ago after too many arguments.

[cspan37421]

The University of New Hampshire is way ahead of us.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddav...new-hampshire/

That's so interesting that you brought up UNH. My Duke UWC professor - then, a PhD candidate at Duke - ended up teaching at UNH.

[ncexnyc]

I have a peeve to throw out here.

I find "yadda yadda yadda this is silly people should drop this and talk about (insert more important subject here)" comments tedious and patronizing-- and it feels like the people that like to pontificate in that vein are rarely the folks that start threads about these missing oh-so-important topics they are whining about in the first place.

I mean, by this logic we should drop the whole EK Board, right?

As the beginning parenting books say, don't LECTURE that something matters, SHOW that it matters. The world is full of painful, good, bad, interesting, dull, profane, and sublime and there's no limit on how much we can talk about. Electrons are cheap. If something isn't worthy to you, don't talk about it. If something is worthy, do. If you're annoyed that something that's oh-so-important hasn't been brought up yet, bring it up.

So much better than saying "ain't it awful" when the same amount of typing could fix the problem.

I'll bite and ask the question, why is this something worthy of being discussed?

Is it because you're against hunting in general or is it important to you because the lion happened to have a name?

You mentioned in your original post that Cecil brought in a lot of tourism dollars. Do a quick Bing search and you'll see that these hunting trips bring in quite a lot of money as well. Dumbo can be had for approximately $11K, if you're so inclined.

I see where you were also critical of Dr. Palmer's skill with a bow. Have you ever used a compound bow before? Maybe, just maybe it's not as easy as you think it is to shoot a live target at night.

If the good doctor has broken any laws, then he should absolutely pay for his crimes, but somehow I get the feeling that you are pushing your own agenda here.

[snowdenscold]

I'd never know the etymology of bulldoze. Interesting. That said, I think you're undermining your point by highlighting a term like "rule of thumb", the meaning of which has been largely unchanged for 3 or 4 centuries. There is a false etymology floating around that it refers to wife beating, but it does not.

Fair enough, I believed a false etymology on one of them, but I could have easily swapped it out for a dozen different words and the point still stands.

[gus]

It is the manner of how he killed the lion and his role in it that are up for question.

I thought it was established that he first shot the lion with an arrow, then ~40 hours later shot, beheaded and skinned him, leaving his corpse to rot.

So taken in isolation, that he killed the lion doesn't add anything.

To you perhaps. the majority of reactions I've seen have been to the fact that he killed this lion, not whether or not he had obtained a legal permit to do it. On the contrary, the possibility that the killing might have been legal does nothing to mollify the many who think that kind of killing is wrong.

[BD80]

http://www.vidivodo.com/video/cute-b...-birds/1317282

May have to get his "guides" to chain a leg of the beast to a post, as deadly as Cecil, but far quicker.

[BD80]

FWIW: It is more likely than not that Kedsy has never kicked lion cubs. Or baby elephants.

[JBDuke]

As several have noted, posts in this thread are trending very close to the line of discussing public policy, which is prohibited here. I've had to delete two posts already from this thread and issued a warning, because it clearly crossed over into advocating public policy positions.

Please remember our Posting Guidelines. Discussing the reaction to the killing of the lion is one thing - discussing public policy changes due to it is another. And at all times, remember to be civil. There are folks that are highly passionate about this topic, and such passions can lead to unrestrained incivility. That will not be tolerated on these boards.

[alteran]

I'll bite and ask the question, why is this something worthy of being discussed?

As far as I can tell, you missed the entire point of the post you're referring to. Namely, that just about anything within the guidelines is worthy of being discussed, and if you think otherwise, it seems obvious-- at least to me-- that it'd make for a healthier board environment to put something better out there yourself, rather than take potshots.

Is it because you're against hunting in general or is it important to you because the lion happened to have a name?

You mentioned in your original post that Cecil brought in a lot of tourism dollars. Do a quick Bing search and you'll see that these hunting trips bring in quite a lot of money as well. Dumbo can be had for approximately $11K, if you're so inclined.

I see where you were also critical of Dr. Palmer's skill with a bow. Have you ever used a compound bow before? Maybe, just maybe it's not as easy as you think it is to shoot a live target at night.

If the good doctor has broken any laws, then he should absolutely pay for his crimes, but somehow I get the feeling that you are pushing your own agenda here.

Well, your feeling is wrong. I'm not sure why my opinions matter to you or are relevant, but here goes.

• It is estimated that Cecil's unique tendency to be tolerant of humans brought millions ($) to the park.
• I am not personally against hunting, and I am on record here saying so. I do take a dim view of hunting endangered species and "spotlighting" prey, something "the good doctor" did.
• It was not my intention to be critical of his bow skills. He apparently an exceptional shot. What I am critical of is his reputation for deliberately taking difficult shots, presumably to show off his expertise. In this case, his vanity caused an animal to suffer for 40 hours.
• There's no real debate if he broke any laws. He has confessed to shooting the animal, and shooting it in these circumstances is clearly illegal. He also used an illegal weapon. He is a veteran of 40+ big game hunts, and a member of at least one international big game organization (one of the main points of such organizations is getting the relevant laws and regulations straight for members). His story that he had no idea is just not credible. Particularly since he's already been convicted once for circumventing game law.
• None of this means he shouldn't get his day in court or that his family should be harassed.
• If I have a "hidden agenda" here, I guess it's that I think this guy is a scumbag.

I get that my tendency to snark makes it a little hard to pin me down (not that pinning me down is particularly relevant), but I'm surprised that that tendency has led you to misunderstand me so completely.

I find this worthy of discussion because of two things that make it fascinating. First, it is a total train wreck. Whether you agree with the outrage or with "the good doctor", you've got to admit, the whole thing is fascinating. The second thing-- which is related to the first-- is that it is an intersection of so many things. Big game hunting, hunting ethics, endangered species, internet culture, internet mob dynamics, American culture, Zimbabwean culture (they have no idea what we're so upset about), American law as it relates to protecting endangered species in foreign countries (I had no idea we did that). Add in a healthy dollop of hubris and tragedy.

That's why I find it worthy of discussion.

[YmoBeThere]

FWIW, the other pride lion and Cecil's brother, Jericho, was shot and killed today.

[YmoBeThere]

FWIW, the other pride lion and Cecil's brother, Jericho, was shot and killed today.

Earlier reports may have been incorrect. The country has suspended all lion, elephant and leopard hunting.

[JNort]

Fine him for poaching, tresspassing, illegal trapping and whatever else and be done with it. This will be the biggest none news worthy story of the year imo. I feel bad for the guys family and employees.

[YmoBeThere]

This will be the biggest none news worthy story of the year imo.

I thought that was Tiger Woods in a major?

[BD80]

... This will be the biggest none news worthy story of the year imo. I feel bad for the guys family and employees.

As long as there are Kardashians, there will be nothing more non-newsworthy than they.

The guy is a total tool, spending 10s, no 100s, of thousands of dollars to slaughter animals for no reason other to get his jollies. Employees chose to work with him and his family stood by and let it happen.

[mph]

Fine him for poaching, tresspassing, illegal trapping and whatever else and be done with it. This will be the biggest none news worthy story of the year imo. I feel bad for the guys family and employees.

The guy is a total tool, spending 10s, no 100s, of thousands of dollars to slaughter animals for no reason other to get his jollies. Employees chose to work with him and his family stood by and let it happen.

I'm no fan of Palmer's motive for hunting or what I know of his techniques but surely it grossly oversimplifies things to imply that his employees' "choice" to work for him makes them less worthy of sympathy. Its entirely possible that many of his employees were bothered by his hunting but didn't have the luxury of quitting to make a point. Maybe they have people depending on them to pay the mortgage and put food on the table. Or, maybe they believed the moral good they did at his practice outweighed the moral evil of Dr. Palmer's hobby. It's also possible his kids were opposed to the way he hunted and said so. What else were they supposed to do to earn our compassion? The point is, none of us on this board know that level of detail about the people around Palmer and that should cause us to at least tap the brakes before making sweeping generalizations.

If we start withholding compassion on the basis of the moral character of people's bosses, we might not find many unemployed people worth feeling sorry for.

[aimo]

If they find that the accusations are correct, I think a herd of stampeding buffalo should decide his punishment. How close is that to "bulldozing"?

If the guy wants to prove his prowess, he needs to come to my house and show me his skills against the squirrels in my yard. And the deer. And the coyotes. You know, do something useful.

[gus]

If they find that the accusations are correct, I think a herd of stampeding buffalo should decide his punishment. How close is that to "bulldozing"?

Not close at all.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Two parts to my thoughts today:

1) The poaching of Cecil is a cowardly, villainous attack. It makes the perpetrator an extremely easy target, as you can attach whatever your cause is to his motivations - racism, colonialism, animal rights, classism, etc. The guy won't win any popularity awards. Also, for those who are minimizing his act - I don't think it's possible to overstate the sport killing of a species which is teetering on the brink. It's one of the single-most entitled things you can do, and to do it just because you want to put something new on your wall is positively disgusting.

2) This is an interesting twist on the pattern noted by many people above. Lately, with many of the more controversial stories in the press (Furgeson, Cosby, Confederate flag, Sandra Bland) people seem to feel compelled to fall on the side of either the "allegations" or the "defense." Nearly every internet board seems to eventually spiral into a discussion of the burden of proof and "mob mentality." Admittedly, I don't understand what the "burden of proof" has to do with my own personal opinion about someone's misdeeds. I have the right to arrive at my own opinions with or without the benefit of the doubt or a jury trial. It is up to any individual to make their own decisions, have their own "deal breakers," and apply their own code of ethics. The burden of proof and/or "innocent until proven guilty" exist for our courts and our justice system.

It's this new-ish forum of the internet that has skewed our experiences. We can read stories, develop opinions, become outraged, and post comments all in the course of fifteen minutes. It lends itself to a lowest common denominator for communication. Those with well-articulated and balanced opinions get shouted down by name-callers on both sides. It leaves us with instant reactionary opinions, and then reactions to those opinions. It quickly turns into a screaming match. On most boards, within thirty posts, it's all about Obama, guns, oil, and the environment.

I can't help but wonder how much more we would all get done if we used the internet for good instead of evil.

But yeah, killing a national treasure is weak-sauce.

[BD80]

... people seem to feel compelled to fall on the side of either the "allegations" or the "defense." Nearly every internet board seems to eventually spiral into a discussion of the burden of proof and "mob mentality." Admittedly, I don't understand what the "burden of proof" has to do with my own personal opinion about someone's misdeeds. I have the right to arrive at my own opinions with or without the benefit of the doubt or a jury trial. It is up to any individual to make their own decisions, have their own "deal breakers," and apply their own code of ethics. The burden of proof and/or "innocent until proven guilty" exist for our courts and our justice system.

...

''The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers,''