Right or Wrong? Idaho Game Commissioner hunts Africa

[Nomad]

Assuming they can even comprehend this whole ordeal, I wonder how hard the locals are laughing at us right now. I wonder.

 

[Hoot]

I guess you could close the thread then? I will stand up for legal methods of hunting because I believe strongly that hunting should not be attacked and I believe strongly that people following the law should not be turned into villains. I am quite alright with you guys looking down on me for sticking up for those things and I will never agree with the slippery slope of censorship.

That’s ridiculous, no one is suggesting censorship, just discretion...

No one here is taking a stand against the legal hunting, just the releasing of the photo with poor commentary.

I agree with you on the stand up for each other front, against antis especially, but we also have to police our own ranks, just because what the guy did was legal does not give him a free pass, and if you can’t see that, I don’t know what to say...

 

[lif]

Why,Why,Why do people find it necessary to post pictures like this on the internet?
Play stupid games,win stupid prizes.

No shit

 

[sndmn11]

That’s ridiculous, no one is suggesting censorship, just discretion...

No one here is taking a stand against the legal hunting, just the releasing of the photo with poor commentary.

I agree with you on the stand up for each other front, against antis especially, but we also have to police our own ranks, just because what the guy did was legal does not give him a free pass, and if you can’t see that, I don’t know what to say...

I understand what you are saying, and I appreciate you making points objectively. I think that self policing can be effective in instances where the potentially harmed/offended group is rational. I don't think that anti-hunters are rational and I have not come across an instance where the gesture and good will of self policing was acknowledged or appreciated by an anti-hunter.

I have seen a video circulating on Facebook where a (presumably) father and son were hunting deer from a ground blind and the son shoots a deer. The video for some time was flagged as child abuse and comments from anti-hunters about the father and son were/are abhorrent. There was no blood, no personification of the animal; just a father and son hunting and having a very emotional bonding moment together. The child abuse tag and negative comments are exemplary of the irrational extreme actions that anti-hunters will take. Actions like what took place in that video, or the prior article I referred to about the beauty queen hunter, are efforts of censorship. The primary reason for those efforts is not what is in the photo, it is due to the photos/video depicting a hunter.

Demanding punitive actions for legal acts simply because they violate individual ethics is not what I believe this country is about. I think giving into demands such as this empowers further and graver ones...escalation if you will. I would imagine that we have all read the Give a Mouse a Cookie book. I do not believe that anti-hunters will draw the line at that picture or similar, and leave all other pictures alone. I think a more likely scenario is the mindset of "Remember last week when we forced that guy in Idaho to resign, well, let's try this..." I see trying to appease anti-hunters by self policing as similar to feeding a bear; it will keep coming back inching the boundaries a little bit each time until it decides to eat you up.

 

[Hoot]

You’re absolutely right, there is a faction of radicalized irrationality, we are never going to change their mind...

No one is saying we need to appease those people, we are not imploring discretion in media to stop those people from being offended, it’s actualy not about those people at all. Just like politics normally, it’s the indifferent people that we don’t want to tip over into the anti column. That’s why these photos and comments are so damaging. That’s why we must police our ranks. Legal hunt or not, we would better serve ourselves if we curb the photos, videos, and commentary like what we saw here or the bear spearing video or....

 

[Hoot]

And I couldn’t agree more with you on your last paragraph, it is super sad that our culture has embraced the desire to ruin someone’s life or career whenever they make any mistake, or even do something legal that someone else disagrees with. We shouldn’t stand for that or cower to those people, which is why I said earlier no way in hell would I have resigned. That being said, discretion, class, and taste will still serve us well...

 

[Murdy]

I think that self policing can be effective in instances where the potentially harmed/offended group is rational. I don't think that anti-hunters are rational and I have not come across an instance where the gesture and good will of self policing was acknowledged or appreciated by an anti-hunter.

I think the indented audience of self-policing efforts isn't ant-hunters. Those folks will always be against us. It is people in the middle who are not opposed to hunting, even if they do not participate themselves. No need to push them to the other side.

 

[sndmn11]

And I couldn’t agree more with you on your last paragraph, it is super sad that our culture has embraced the desire to ruin someone’s life or career whenever they make any mistake, or even do something legal that someone else disagrees with. We shouldn’t stand for that or cower to those people, which is why I said earlier no way in hell would I have resigned. That being said, discretion, class, and taste will still serve us well...

Thank you for reading what I wrote with an open mind, and taking the time to have a discussion.

I agree that those behavioral checks can be beneficial, but as we see, sometimes they do not happen or sometimes one thinks they have applied them soundly and others may not think so. The point of contention in this thread (or what has become of it) seems to be a question of what happens when there is a failure. Discussions of ethics and morals tend to be most passionate and emotional because they are discussions of mere opinion.

I agree that the middle group of folks may be the decision makers. I know a lot of people who do not hunt, but I genuinely do not know anyone who is against hunting. I went to a very liberal college here in Colorado and have carried on friendships with those people, and many of my wife's friends are super liberals. They all know I work in the hunting industry, and none have expressed anything negative to me about it at all. Many talk to her and I about hunting just like they talk about kickball league. I tend to think that a vast majority of those "in the middle" are folks who do not hunt, but are pro-hunting because dad/grandpa did it or they can process information rationally. It is fair wonder in an adversarial situation if those on the fence are swayed by concessions of one side either by viewing it as a sign of a weak crumbling position or one of compassion and honor. In this case, hunters disagreeing with what another hunter did. My fear is that intending the latter might come across as the former, and as we have seen consistently once we give up a privilege or curtail a right in this country, we don't get them back.

 

[Hoot]

Yes perhaps, or more likely (in my opinion) that those on the fence see a hunter post a picture and comment in a disrespectful manner, then see the hunting community admonish him for it and think, “maybe that guy doesn’t represent the larger community.” If all they see is a bunch of antis calling for his firing and the hunting community saying “tough shit snowflakes it was a legal hunt and you don’t understand conservation,” it may (probably will) sour more opinions of us than of the illogical radical antis...

 

[sndmn11]

“tough shit snowflakes it was a legal hunt and you don’t understand conservation,” it may (probably will) sour more opinions of us than of the illogical radical antis...

Yes, I suppose leading off with an insult wouldn't get one too far. Have a good weekend.

 

[JWP58]

Much ado about nothing. I wouldn't give two schits if people were offended. But I'm sure the granola hipster crowd is horrified, because he didnt make it some religious shaman experience. No waxing poetically about the impact on their soul or some schit. Maybe it would have been better if he were visibly weeping in the photo like a true soyboy.

At least the mustache got him a few hipster points, so he might side step the death threats

 

[Broomd]

How about you know the facts before you chastise the man. He DIDN'T post these to social media. Let's get that clear. Shared with a few friends like we all do and it apparently ended up in the wrong hands.

X3 on the Nation of Badasses to Nation of Pussies. Almost zero conservatives have a backbone in America anymore and rollover when they are faced with controversy. Sad!

I read that he shared these to more than a few--100 friends received the pics.
Just because something isn't legally wrong doesn't mean that it isn't distasteful. I thought the pictures were in poor taste, and if that's coming from a hunter, the anti's are having a meltdown over those same pics. Kootenay Hunter's post was spot on.

 

[DavePwns]

I think you lack some critical thinking skills or you simply choose to make up your own narrative to support your opinion.

No one here is arguing with the legal act of killing baboons, not one. The argument is about how you choose to publically portray or not portray the legal act.

Do you think beef farmers want a bunch of pictures or videos out from inside the slaughterhouse? It's perfectly legal to slit a cows throat or put a bolt in its head then hang it up and gut it. Should we post a bunch of pictures or put out videos of that process?

Everything we do for the public should be questioned. We should look at what we are putting out there with an extremely critical eye. Sometimes the answers should be "NO".

I am legally allowed to smash a moose head to a pulp with a sledgehammer. Should I video this or take pictures of this and send it out to the public? I bet my son would even enjoy doing it. Maybe some bones and brains would splatter all over and we could take some cool bad ass pictures. Should these be shared because you know it would be a perfectly legal part of our moose hunt? Obviously not. Just like the family photo (they were propped up like that on purpose and he himself used the term "family") of the baboons. He didn't just show a bunch of dead baboons, he purposefully set them up and made a bit of a joke about it. Just plain stupid.

Great point. We as hunters need to have wisdom with what we post, share and display. Believe it or not, but in the long run, it actually does matter what non hunters think about us as hunters.

 

[bracesbox]

I know the diversion official in this story and I can address his character. The main 'wrong' I'll address is making an outright judgment dependent on the detailing of any communicate news media...including FOX.

 

[sneaky]

I know the diversion official in this story and I can address his character. The main 'wrong' I'll address is making an outright judgment dependent on the detailing of any communicate news media...including FOX.

I think the main wrong you should address is his poor decision to circulate these to people through his contact list, and to figure out which one of his so called "friends" threw him under the bus. The antis will have an even bigger field day when they figure out he's a business owner, but them boycotting his product won't really matter much. I just think he used poor judgment in how he posed the pictures, and sending them to anyone electronically.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk