Right or Wrong? Idaho Game Commissioner hunts Africa

[CorbLand]

Thanks Robby. Both threads are written by folks who admit to illegal acts while hunting (definition two in your link seems to fit the story you read to a T). I never said anything about taking them down. I referenced them because it is very odd that on a hunting forum a person can do something legal but be looked down upon by a comment and action afterward, but two separate people can do illegal things but be viewed in good light because of actions afterward. Yes, there were people telling him how great of a dad he was, I would call that applauding (show approval). An illegal act is still an illegal act at the end of the day?

Edit to add: I just realized that the story of the illegally killed goat is authored by the same person in this thread who referenced my lack of critical thinking and asked if he should smash moose skulls on video because it isn't illegal. That irony has made my night.

I read both threads you posted and you are right that both involved illegal acts. Their actions after the illegal acts took place are what people are commending, not the illegal act itself. Everyone makes mistakes and things happen, but if you are honest and man up to those mistakes it makes it a whole lot different than if you try and hide them. So yes, your actions can change the perception of things. Just like this whole incident, no one, not a single person, on this forum, has denied that what he did was not perfectly legal. However, his actions afterwords are what are being condemned.

Actions, they speak louder than words.

 

[Kevin Dill]

I tend to find myself thinking: I hunt more and more for the internal memories and satisfaction....less and less for the sharing of what I accomplished.

 

[sndmn11]

Dont want to speak for sndmn but my perception of what he is saying is that is that he agrees with your stance to morally or ethically disagree with with how another hunter legally kills an animal and then shares that kill via email or social media. But if in fact that kill was legal and said hunter comes under attack we should feel a responsibility to come to the defense of the hunter.

It is the act of killing that is at issue for anti's, period. It is the understanding of why for the non-hunters. As hunters we take these things for granted because they are part of the process of providing food for our families or soundly managing a species so they stay at sustainable levels. Where we are failing in my opinion is the multitude of layers we put on the subject due to personal standards or the individual methods of hunting we believe to be the most "right". I am not a fan of rifle hunting because I dont see it as much of a challenge, I certainly dont care for dogs being used to run deer and there are other methods that I dont care for but I will absolutely defend the hunter who legally kills under those circumstances. We have got to find a way to unify our defense around the act of killing and educate clearly the why if wish to maintain or garner support from the non-hunting public. The semantics of our individual morals maybe the largest hurdle and if we collectively cant recognize the times when we have to set them aside for the greater benefit, we will ultimately lose.

You can speak for me, you conveyed my point very well. Hunters need to stick together because anti-hunters are against hunting and not small ethical points.

You are comparing apples to oranges to make your argument. The "illegal acts of poaching" you reference are people who made mistakes. A mistake is doing something without intending to do it, the actual act. The commissioner did not make a mistake, he intended on taking a picture and sharing it. He did not correctly weigh the outcome of his actions, but he did what he intended to do. I'll also point out that no one commended those people for making their offenses, they were commended for taking responsibility for them, something that people do not do enough of in todays world.

This whole thing is not black and white, here are my feelings on this:
1. I think it's awesome that he hunted baboons, legally. Wouldn't be my bag, but I'm glad people step up to take care of the management of certain species where called for.
2. I think the staging of the photo was disturbing, and I've got a pretty strong stomach for "trophy" photos.
3. I think sharing the photo was idiotic, and referring to them as a "family" was even more idiotic, and disturbing.
4. No way in hell would I have resigned if I were him, I would however own up to my stupidity and apologize for taking a stupid photo and making a stupid comment.
5. News cycles faster and faster these days, give it a few days or weeks and no one will even remember this...

I would disagree with your idea of a mistake because in both of the referenced threads they didn't mistakenly shoot their prey. Your argument could be used to say that the commissioner did not intend for the outcome of his actions, and it was just a mistake. So it seems we can agree that mistakes were made although what the mistakes actually were might not be in agreement but is probably irrelevant. Hunters made mistakes, I don't think fellow hunters should throw them under the bus and turn their backs on them.

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".

The Cave and the Heartbrake: a 10 yr old boys first goat hunt
Following this logic, and the above idea of mistakes, can anyone imagine a headline or news lead in, "B.C. Father takes 10 Year Old Son on Trip To Poach a Mountain Goat"? Does anyone genuinely think that a fair portrayal of the situation and "mistake" would be presented, especially if an anti-hunting writer was involved? What if quotes like this were used in the story to bolster the presentation against hunting?

#23

What an epic hunt that many full grown men wouldn’t be able to complete!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#26

Oh man. What a great story. Thanks for sharing.

#30

Outstanding !!!! Congrats guys, that's a memory for a lifetime

#40

Wow! you're a great dad!!!

#49

Way to go boys! Congrats to you both!

#52

What great experience for you two...well done and thanks for the great write up and pics!

I think it is a huge victory for anti-hunters that they were able to demand this commissioner lose his job while other hunters did nothing. If folks in BC (where I think can be presumed there me some anti-hunting movement due to an end to Grizzly hunts) were to demand that the father in the story lose his job, would we stand by or even support that notion? Bringing up the fact that the commissioner did nothing illegal, but yet those two examples were clearly illegal acts was intended as a way to prompt examination of an answer to that question. It would make sense in my eyes that the legal act and mistake would see more support and leniency from fellow hunters than and illegal act and mistake.

For everyone's knowledge, I think the story referenced above is an awesome story and think nothing negative about Jimbob or his son. Hopefully it can be read that there is a distinction in using something as an example, and actually disagreeing with what is in that example. In fact, I am envious of the story and hope that my little one year old son and I can have some similar adventures in the future, just without the illegal mistake. It seems that in some states and apparently provinces a tag and a license are separate documents (as opposed to Colorado) so I can see how one is mistakenly forgotten. I would gladly stick up for him and his son, just as I am sticking up for this commissioner because I see them all as fellow hunters, and understand that mistakes do happen. Hanging a fellow hunter out to dry over a mistake is what I am arguing against with the goal of an honest examination by fellow hunters as to how that can be damaging.

Thanks for reading with an open mind if you did so.

 

[Hoot]

I didn't take your examples as criticism of the individuals at all, I know you are using them as examples.

I still think your logic is flawed. Corbland's post above articulates better what I was trying to convey in my message...

 

[CorbLand]

You can speak for me, you conveyed my point very well. Hunters need to stick together because anti-hunters are against hunting and not small ethical points.




I would disagree with your idea of a mistake because in both of the referenced threads they didn't mistakenly shoot their prey. Your argument could be used to say that the commissioner did not intend for the outcome of his actions, and it was just a mistake. So it seems we can agree that mistakes were made although what the mistakes actually were might not be in agreement but is probably irrelevant. Hunters made mistakes, I don't think fellow hunters should throw them under the bus and turn their backs on them.


The Cave and the Heartbrake: a 10 yr old boys first goat hunt
Following this logic, and the above idea of mistakes, can anyone imagine a headline or news lead in, "B.C. Father takes 10 Year Old Son on Trip To Poach a Mountain Goat"? Does anyone genuinely think that a fair portrayal of the situation and "mistake" would be presented, especially if an anti-hunting writer was involved? What if quotes like this were used in the story to bolster the presentation against hunting?

#23

#26

#30

#40

#49

#52


I think it is a huge victory for anti-hunters that they were able to demand this commissioner lose his job while other hunters did nothing. If folks in BC (where I think can be presumed there me some anti-hunting movement due to an end to Grizzly hunts) were to demand that the father in the story lose his job, would we stand by or even support that notion? Bringing up the fact that the commissioner did nothing illegal, but yet those two examples were clearly illegal acts was intended as a way to prompt examination of an answer to that question. It would make sense in my eyes that the legal act and mistake would see more support and leniency from fellow hunters than and illegal act and mistake.

For everyone's knowledge, I think the story referenced above is an awesome story and think nothing negative about Jimbob or his son. Hopefully it can be read that there is a distinction in using something as an example, and actually disagreeing with what is in that example. In fact, I am envious of the story and hope that my little one year old son and I can have some similar adventures in the future, just without the illegal mistake. It seems that in some states and apparently provinces a tag and a license are separate documents (as opposed to Colorado) so I can see how one is mistakenly forgotten. I would gladly stick up for him and his son, just as I am sticking up for this commissioner because I see them all as fellow hunters, and understand that mistakes do happen. Hanging a fellow hunter out to dry over a mistake is what I am arguing against with the goal of an honest examination by fellow hunters as to how that can be damaging.

Thanks for reading with an open mind if you did so.

I would say the major difference between the two is that one works in a public service job and the other, well I would imagine is in the private sector. The moment you decide to work in the public sector you open yourself up to be criticized for your actions. I dont agree with his resignation but in the end that was his choice.

 

[seldomseensmith]

Can someone explain this to me?
Am I correct in saying that a man went to Africa, legally hunted and killed baboons and after sending the pic of the harvest was forced to resign because it was deemed tasteless?
My question is not tongue in cheek, just want to see if I understand what is being discussed here.

 

[CorbLand]

Can someone explain this to me?
Am I correct in saying that a man went to Africa, legally hunted and killed baboons and after sending the pic of the harvest was forced to resign because it was deemed tasteless?
My question is not tongue in cheek, just want to see if I understand what is being discussed here.

Thats the jist of it.

Mostly what is being talked about in this thread is whether the hunting community should have stood behind him.

 

[seldomseensmith]

Thats the jist of it.

Mostly what is being talked about in this thread is whether the hunting community should have stood behind him.

Sadly the term "hunting community" is laughable.

 

[Murdy]

I think those actually calling for his resignation had a problem with killing baboons -- i.e., antis. This discussion has been more about how best to present hunting and/or how to respond.

And just because people disagree doesn't mean they are not part of the hunting community. That's half the problem with the country today, if you don't agree with someone, they're not just wrong, they're evil, malicious, the enemy.

 

[seldomseensmith]

And just because people disagree doesn't mean they are not part of the hunting community. That's half the problem with the country today, if you don't agree with someone, they're not just wrong, they're evil, malicious, the enemy.

I agree. As I dig into this mentally I can wrap my head around people thinking that hunting baboons is a bad choice but how that can then turn into a fireable offense baffles me.

 

[CorbLand]

I agree. As I dig into this mentally I can wrap my head around people thinking that hunting baboons is a bad choice but how that can then turn into a fireable offense baffles me.

The problem wasnt that he went hunting and killed a bunch of baboons. Its that he took a picture of an entire "family" of baboons and bragged about killing all of them.

 

[sndmn11]

I would say the major difference between the two is that one works in a public service job and the other, well I would imagine is in the private sector. The moment you decide to work in the public sector you open yourself up to be criticized for your actions. I dont agree with his resignation but in the end that was his choice.

I understand that is a belief held onto by some. I think that applying irrelevant beliefs or actions that do not affect the public service job, to the position is a very dangerous thing to adhere to. We would end up with a revolving door of public servants and officials caused by changes in the demand of the week. I support job performance and could care less about legal acts on someone's own time.

The problem wasnt that he went hunting and killed a bunch of baboons. Its that he took a picture of an entire "family" of baboons and bragged about killing all of them.

This reminds of taking a child fishing and catching a big, medium, and small trout. They always seem to end up named Baby, Mommy, Daddy.

 

[seldomseensmith]

The problem wasnt that he went hunting and killed a bunch of baboons. Its that he took a picture of an entire "family" of baboons and bragged about killing all of them.

I still don't see how that's fireable. Was it because he used his work email address for non work related activity? What policy was broken?

 

[Kootenay Hunter]

The problem wasnt that he went hunting and killed a bunch of baboons. Its that he took a picture of an entire "family" of baboons and bragged about killing all of them.

Exactly, the same information could have been portrayed in a much more respectful and informative manner, you know, what you would expect from a fish and game commissioner....

explain the plight of local Namibians and baboons and management solutions
the process of obtaining a licence to assist with the cull, and where these funds go afterwards
Where does the meat go afterwards (I'm assuming somebody ate the giraffe, etc.)
not arranging the baboons in a 'family photo'
making comments regarding the actual hunt opposed to the trophy kill

he would have had a leg to stand on if the above was done, and could have fought for his job, but little thought was put into it and the consequences followed.

 

[CorbLand]

I still don't see how that's fireable. Was it because he used his work email address for non work related activity? What policy was broken?

He wasnt fired, he resigned.

 

[Kootenay Hunter]

I still don't see how that's fireable. Was it because he used his work email address for non work related activity? What policy was broken?

None of us have that answer here, you'll have to contact Governor Otter's office for details.

He wasn't fired, he was asked to resign, there's a difference.

Blake Fischer tendered his resignation to staff members of Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter at about 3:30 p.m., apologizing for deciding to share photos that do not show “an appropriate level of sportsmanship and respect for the animals I harvested.”

“While these actions were out of character for me, I fully accept responsibility and feel it is best for the citizens of Idaho and sportsmen and women that I resign my post,” Fischer wrote in an email addressed to Otter. “I apologize to the hunters and anglers of Idaho who I was appointed to represent and I hope that my actions will not harm the integrity and ethic of the Idaho Fish and Game department moving forward.”

If you follow sports, there's usually a penalty in most of them called "nn-sportsman like conduct" it doesn't state specifics like roughing, etc, it's a blanket statement for things that don't fit the respectful behavior of the sport.

To me, Blake resigned for un-sportsman-like conduct, and I would expect a F&G commissioner to exude the utmost respect for harvested animals, which is really integral to his position.

 

[seldomseensmith]

He wasnt fired, he resigned.

I would say that was his biggest mistake. I don't see a case for firing him. You can't fire someone for poorly representing a legal activity.

 

[Kootenay Hunter]

I would say that was his biggest mistake. I don't see a case for firing him. You can't fire someone for poorly representing a legal activity.

You can fire someone for not being ethical, which does not mean there's a hard and fast, black and white rule. Ex. A conflict of interest is not illegal, but it breaches ethical standards. I take it you don't work in the corporate/public sector world.

 

[Trial153]

If he didnt resign he should have been fired. He poorly represented the legal activity that is primarily responsible for paying his salary. In case anyone is watching that's not something we can afford to do anymore in todays society.

 

[CorbLand]

I understand that is a belief held onto by some. I think that applying irrelevant beliefs or actions that do not affect the public service job, to the position is a very dangerous thing to adhere to. We would end up with a revolving door of public servants and officials caused by changes in the demand of the week. I support job performance and could care less about legal acts on someone's own time.



This reminds of taking a child fishing and catching a big, medium, and small trout. They always seem to end up named Baby, Mommy, Daddy.

I dont agree with his resignation, I am going to start with that and that I agree with you on the revolving door idea. But, he is there to represent hunters and the pictures where not a good representation of hunters, nor was the comment of shooting the whole "family". I think in this case, his actions would have negatively affected the legitimacy of the position and the representation.

I keep putting family in quotations because its the term that was used, not the term I would use.