Right or Wrong? Idaho Game Commissioner hunts Africa

[bowtech840]

I have a picture a lot like that on my IG page. Troop of baboons came in one morning, I shot 3 with my bow before they spooked out. Took a picture just like any critter.
The biggest problem here is that hunters, and all citizens, treat their government (and by proxy the opinion of the democratic mob) as a benevolent god. Democracy is an abomination. This country (the US) is technically supposed to be a republic, in which certain rights can't be taken away. The defense of our rights shouldn't be negotiable with a mob of morons. Rights should be defended politely when possible, and violently when necessary.
Do you really all just plan to roll over and show your bellies if hunting is banned? Government isn't a god, it's a collection of sociopaths and morons hell bent on enforcing their opinions at gunpoint. They need to know that certain rules/laws will not be obeyed, because they're wrong. Rather than being on the defensive all of the time, we should be pushing legislation to block any proposed hunting bans by vote. Utah and some other states already have. I get sick of people thinking we have something to hide. We don't. We're right, they're wrong, and nothing is going away.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

I'm in line with this. Hunting has been here since the beginning of time, it's not going anywhere. And like I said in an earlier post if stuff like this is going to end hunting then it's doomed. This stuff is going to continue to happen as long as there is hunting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimbob]

What part are you not tracking?

The thing hurting hunting is hunters not standing up for hunting. The guy was legally hunting, shared photos of the hunt, and people in this thread are throwing him under the bus. How about standing up for someone who legally hunts just like you legally hunt? How about standing up for a person who exercises this country's first amendment? So, in my eyes, a person throwing this guy under the bus is either anti-hunting, or anti-first amendment, or conceding both to demands because they are afraid to offend. Where is the "us" when hunters won't stand up for other hunters?

I can think of at least two threads in recent months where people admitted to poaching, and they were applauded....that is something that a person should have trouble tracking.

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.

 

[cnelk]

I absolutely agree that his only mistake, free speech and all, was resigning.

You dont know the 'back story'. His so-called resigning could easily have been a choice of resign or be fired.

As a police officer, you should know the difference.

 

[robby denning]

Of course they are true. Maybe I should be offended that you didn't seem to take my word and start making demands! haha
A cautionary tale / dealing with game wardens
The Cave and the Heartbrake: a 10 yr old boys first goat hunt

Ok sndmn11. I took the time to read the goat “poaching” story on the goat you held up to support your point.

Weak, very weak.

While the act of forgetting to buy a tag might fit Webster’s definition of poaching Poacher | Definition of Poacher by Merriam-Webster
The fact that the man voluntarily called the warden negates the stealing part. I’m not convinced that story supported your statement that Roksliders applaud poaching (paraphrase as TT won’t let me see your post while typing).

I’m not even going to read the other link you sent unless someone convinces me there’s something there that rises to the level of Roksliders applauding poaching.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cuerro viejo]

By not standing up for someone who is participating in an activity that you participate in comes across as conceding.

Can you imagine if a person walked into the place of employment of a homosexual person and demanded that they be fired because the demander saw that person expressing their relationship with a public kiss?

Or if someone demanded the resignation of a person who was Muslim because they saw them praying?

Neither thing is illegal. Would you expect Muslims or homosexuals to turn on the person in either scenario and say they should have used discretion? I doubt it, the demander would be metaphorically lynched because both groups would stick together. "I'm offended" has become a tool used by groups of absolutism to divide groups who are courteous enough to be considerate. "I'm offended" has a great ally in those who concede and are apathetic and I think there was a quote by a famous person about evil and men doing nothing that might be a good reference.

The guy was hunting and shared pictures of that with people. I do not think that is wrong and it sounds a lot like the first amendment. You could play a fill in the blank game all day long, and I would feel the same...."The guy was (_____insert legal act_____) and shared pictures of that with people".

I get 100% what you are saying, nothing offends me about his picture or pictures. Even his wording doesn’t offend me. Personally he’ll of an accomplishment with a long bow, my only negativity would of been weapon choice to greater reduce the population. Gun may have been more efficient , With that said, it’s the context in which he explained it that hurt him and us.

I don’t fault him for it though. With that said unfortunately he became a martyr to further give us notice that we are going to be attacked and persecuted to the full extent, if we offend the uneducated and naive people of this world(including other hunters)

Look at Cecil the feline and the BS on that poor guy, who to come out after all when the smoke cleared hunted and legally took an old past prime excumminicated lion, the ideal biologically confirmed representation to take.

Moral of the story is to hope that the context of your speech(written and spoken) that explains your photo can weary the tide of critizism that’s for sure coming, if it can’t be ready for the storm, its proven they will stalk and haunt you, and try to destroy your life and livelyhood

Welcome to animals live for ever and have same feelings as humans

 

[Steve O]

I’m not against his legal hunt.

I’m not against exercising 1st amendment, but I’m not going to use it to empower my enemy

And send me those links to poaching threads so I can delete (if true).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The First Amendment protects you from the Government killing you for speaking out against it. It does not give you Carte Blanche to say or do whatever you want without consequences.

Yes, it was all legal. Yes, the farmers and PH’s would like all the baboons exterminated but you cannot make death a joking matter. It is in poor taste and no good can come of it but a few Neanderthal’s getting a chuckle. Not worth it! I cannot count the number of times I have told my son to think before he speaks. The same goes for the enter button; you can’t get that stuff back.

AND if one had conviction what they did was 100% in the right, one should FIGHT for their position, paid or unpaid.


The whole thing is unfortunate and could have been avoided.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

This isn't about hunting baboons. It doesn't matter what species he's got there. You could stack a buck, doe and a couple of fawns like that, comment about killing the whole family and you'd still look like a whack job.

He was sending the email to his friends. He didn't gloat all over the internet about it. His hunter friends sold his butt out. To put it simple, hunters have had more then a fair share of dumbing down the non hunting public with constant appeasement to the anti's stink over hunting ANYTHING. NO wander hunting is losing support. Hunters have simply chosen to stop SUPPORTING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. It now has indeed become an issue because we let it become an issue. I'm not advocating to send the thing out for purposes of gloating on facebook. But, I understood him to have sent it in private EMAILS. And, I am pissed that his fellow hunters are condemning his actions of sharing his hunt with email friends.


We could stack anything in a proposed family pile and stereotype his actions out of line. But, the fact remains it isn't a "family" of deer, bears, wart hogs, or anything else. It was a troop of baboons that has likely robbed crops and everything else it could, at the expense of the people that lived around them. So, instead of his peers coming out and setting the record straight, he was doomed the first time one of them aligned with the anti's views he had acted inappropriately.

I simply believe that if You take a non hunter, give them the facts, tell them why he did it, tell them why it wasn't wrong, and explain his actions were those of a person happy to fulfill their role as manager, in the scheme of hunting, the only people pissed are the Anti's. Here is a news flash, the Anti's ain't going away. And, we had better get a plan to fight these reactions before we dig one more shovel full of our own grave.



Please do not misunderstand my thoughts. Had he posted the video for public viewing, I'd agree that he needed to be more discreet. I wouldn't openly do it. I'd instead do as I stated and address that privately. I'm just simple minded enough to believe that people who do not hunt and have no issue with it, simply have no predetermined notion to choose animals over people. However, when we hunters agree with the Looney Toon Anti's on such subjects, we are doing nothing but simply enforcing the actions they propose.

 

[Kevin Dill]

The war is an ideological one between hunters and those against us. It’s not a war of bullets and bravado. The battlefield is tv, computer and mobile device. The front lines are social media and that’s where the war is being fought so effectively against us. How effectively is maybe debatable, but there’s no denying we’ve lost ground. Think about decisions and policy changes made against hunters and shooters by businesses, corporations and various entities. Airlines came down on the side against us after the Cecil episode. Sporting retailers taking a negative view of gun sales to young citizens. Loss of hunting opportunities as states or provinces shut down seasons after public outcry and pressure via social media. Try to remember any time there have been broad policies instituted against people for their anti-gun or anti-hunting beliefs. Can you?

We won’t save our hunting by being hard nosed and intolerant of the views or preferences of those we share the outdoors with. The more we act like unsavory in-your-face killers of animals the more we help our enemies build public sentiment and policies against our interests. It’s not 1960 anymore. Everything we do is scrutinized and publicized. We can help control the narrative by avoiding inflammatory images which evoke immediate emotion, or we can insist on ignoring what others say and think....until we lose the next thing.

 

[sndmn11]

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.

I am happy to be helped a long in my critical thinking skills, while helping you a long in your critical reading comprehension skills, we can make a great pair.

I agree that it seems nobody HERE is saying that hunting is bad. I am taking the position that not supporting another hunter who is under attack is damaging to hunting. People against hunting have not solely focused on the baboon photo and the comment, they focused on the act of hunting and have used commentary from pro-hunters about that photo to bolster their anti-hunting position. Someone on here said hunters have never really united; this is a great example of that.

Step back outside of this situation and think about any adversarial based organization. If there is in-fighting, that organization is far more vulnerable to losing. I assume you have some knowledge of US politics, so maybe the "breaking news" fiasco of a legislator breaking party ranks on a vote might be a good analogy.

A large part of people here seem to believe there is an entity that is actively against hunting. How much easier would it be for that group to end hunting because hunters are fragmented due to slight differences in what they believe is PC, or ethically presentable?
My position again is that it is a victory to anti-hunting when they can accomplish getting hunters to criticize other hunters, and when they can make demands and have them granted. The former is 100% in the control of hunters. I would imagine there are lots of instances where one hunter disagrees with another's ethics, morals, style, nomenclature, etc., does it really matter so long as no laws are broken? Isn't the important part just simply that both are hunting? Would any of those things matter if hunting were lost because the two couldn't unite to keep hunting legal?

Referencing your beef farmers, I can't seem to find any instance of an ostracized farmer every or any time a video or picture like you describe is released. I seem to find a united front of beef farmers, just google "beef council" and you will find oodles of organizations. "Hunter council" seems to be a big fail.

If you want to make a video going bonkers on a moose skull i have no problem with that, if I didn't like it I would ignore it. In fact, I would stand up for you if you wanted to share them just like I am for this hunter because you are not committing a crime and (let's pretend you are in the USA) you have the right to expression. A neat thing about some Americans is that we have stood up for the rights of others even when we absolutely disagree with what they are using those rights to stand up for.

To shortly sum up my argument in this thread; I am advocating that hunters make a better effort to unite and leave tiny differences in ethics aside so as to provide a better opposition against those who wish to eliminate hunting rather than present a fragmented front.

You dont know the 'back story'. His so-called resigning could easily have been a choice of resign or be fired.

As a police officer, you should know the difference.

I am no longer a Police Officer, and have never claimed to still be. Being an unpaid position he clearly is not reliant on that time (commissioner time) generating revenue, and sticking to his guns could have resulted in favorable legal rulings regarding discrimination against hunters. That would have been neat to see played out.

 

[sndmn11]

Ok sndmn11. I took the time to read the goat “poaching” story on the goat you held up to support your point.

Weak, very weak.

While the act of forgetting to buy a tag might fit Webster’s definition of poaching Poacher | Definition of Poacher by Merriam-Webster
The fact that the man voluntarily called the warden negates the stealing part. I’m not convinced that story supported your statement that Roksliders applaud poaching (paraphrase as TT won’t let me see your post while typing).

I’m not even going to read the other link you sent unless someone convinces me there’s something there that rises to the level of Roksliders applauding poaching.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

The war is an ideological one between hunters and those against us. It’s not a war of bullets and baravado. The battlefield is tv, computer and mobile device. The front lines are social media and that’s where the war is being fought so effectively against us. How effectively is maybe debatable, but there’s no denying we’ve lost ground. Think about decisions and policy changes made against hunters and shooters by businesses, corporations and various entities. Airlines came down on the side against us after the Cecil episode. Sporting retailers taking a negative view of gun sales to young citizens. Loss of hunting opportunities as states or provinces shut down seasons after public outcry and pressure via social media. Try to remember any time there have been broad policies instituted against people for their anti-gun or anti-hunting beliefs. Can you?

We won’t save our hunting by being hard nosed and intolerant of the views or preferences of those we share the outdoors with. The more we act like unsavory in-your-face killers of animals the more we help our enemies build public sentiment and policies against our interests. It’s not 1960 anymore. Everything we do is scrutinized and publicized. We can help control the narrative by avoiding inflammatory images which evoke immediate emotion, or we can insist on ignoring what others say and think....until we lose the next thing.

I'm assuming that some of that was directed towards me. So, let me explain a little further to be clear. I'm not advocating a like it or lump it approach. Just the opposite actually. I also believe we must be discreet about certain things due to perception. But, I also fully believe what I have stated earlier. We have the science, the proof of it, and the support of hunting as we stand. And, every time we cave and try to deflect the Anti's demands, we are simply reinforcing their claims with the non hunting public.



I'm convinced the total opposite needs to be the standard reaction. I'm not suggesting the guys reaction and photo's was in the taste that should have been consumed internet wide. But, if was a "hunting" friend who sold him out. However, had his hunting friends come to his defense and educated the unknowing, I do believe that matters greatly.

 

[robby denning]

I never said anything about taking them down.

Correct, I was the one who said that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimbob]

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 stand by my remarks 100% and the more you write the more it proves them. No one is applauding the illegal acts. How you came to that conclusion from reading those two threads is beyond me. It shows that there is no longer a point in discussing this issue with you because you refuse to logically assess a situation/event.

I'll state my opinion and walk away. Morality and ethics go way beyond the law. My support towards another hunter's actions will not live and die based on law alone but on a whole host of factors. Discussing these factors and respecting each other's voices and opinions is what we should be doing as a group of hunters. We all also need to have the humility to understand that we might have to change a few practices if we want to keep our way of life.

 

[Kevin Dill]

I'm assuming that some of that was directed towards me.

In complete honesty my last post wasn't directed toward you or anyone here. I would have referenced you (or them) in some way if that had been my intent. Thanks.

 

[Btaylor]

I stand by my remarks 100% and the more you write the more it proves them. No one is applauding the illegal acts. How you came to that conclusion from reading those two threads is beyond me. It shows that there is no longer a point in discussing this issue with you because you refuse to logically assess a situation/event.

I'll state my opinion and walk away. Morality and ethics go way beyond the law. My support towards another hunter's actions will not live and die based on law alone but on a whole host of factors. Discussing these factors and respecting each other's voices and opinions is what we should be doing as a group of hunters. We all also need to have the humility to understand that we might have to change a few practices if we want to keep our way of life.

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.

 

[Hoot]

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.

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...

 

[Trial153]

He probably didn't have choice to resign, it was either that or get shit canned. I am sure both options har their pros and cons. Hopefully he made a better decision for that then he did with his picture and comments.
The fact of the matter is people make mistakes and poor decisions everyday and pay for them in many forms. This is just the lastest example and its home because it paints all hunters in poor light.

 

[bivouaclarry]

He was sending the email to his friends.

EXACTLY!!! Why is no one looking at this? Someone on that thread hated Mr. Fischer enough to throw hunting and hunters under the bus all to oust a current commissioner. For god's sake, be a man and go talk to him! Instead, this person used it to oust a young commissioner they didn't see eye to eye with and could have given a damn about hunting and hunters. The mere thought that a supposed hunter sent this to the press makes me throw up in my mouth. My bet is one of the former commissioners saw an opportunity to take out a political rival and didn't blink an eye to sacrifice hunting to do so.

 

[Murdy]

I don't care if they outnumber us 1000 to 1, we need to fight back.....period.

Maybe we can work at not getting to 1000 to 1 first?

Like most issues, you have a minority of people for it, another minority against it, and a whole lot of people in the middle. There are tons of people out there who are not hunters, but are sympathetic--they know hunters, grew up around it, have hunters in their families, etc. It is those people--the middle--that we need to keep on our sides to ensure the future of hunting.

"Fighting back" targets the antis; using some discretion in how hunting is presented targets the middle. They both can be viable strategies, under appropriate circumstances.

Here, there was nothing to fight back against when he first released the photos, some discretion in the first place would have been a good idea. Once he was attacked for doing so, maybe he should have done some fighting back and not resigned.

 

[Coach529]

I know for me it has changed my opinion on sharing pictures via email and on social media.