Humaniacs at it again.

[TFX]

Check out this story. The guy goes to Idaho and does a legal cougar hunt, but since he resides in California where hunting mountain lions is illegal, the socialists in Sacramento are castigating the guy for his legal, leisure time activities, and calling for his removal from his job. This is akin to saying, "gambling is illegal in California, so because you went to Las Vegas and legally gambled, we are going to oust you from your job because here at home it is illegal". Crazy times!

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/...d_game_chi.php

[redmistkennel]

These people are out of control. We need a hunting season on them.

[Officially Retired]

First of all, that is a big damn cat he killed

To be completely candid, I have mixed feelings on the issue, because I am personally against "trophy hunting" myself. I absolutely believe in game hunting, and in varmint hunting, but killing large predators (that are pretty much disappearing everywhere) is not something I personally subscribe to, and if it were up to me I would personally abolish it everywhere.

To try to give a balanced viewpoint, your own view TFX (that it's like the guy going to Las Vegas to gamble) is right on the money. The irony is the guy is the head of Fish & Game in CA, but hey, if the guy is following the laws in CA ... and takes up his hobby in another state, where it's legal, then technically he has violated no law and cannot be outed. Fish & Game controls hunting, so if the guy is a hunter he has the right to hunt where it's legal.

I just personally think hunting big cats should be illegal everywhere.

Jack

[Nash]

I'm with Jack on this one.

I just personally think hunting big cats should be illegal everywhere.

He should loose his job. How can you sit in one state and represent preservation of something and go to another and hunt the same thing ?
Wouldnt it be different if he was with some anti gambling function ( if such a thing does excist ) and goes to vegas to gamble ?
Hope i understand the subject right.

[Officially Retired]

I do see your point Nash. As the saying goes, "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

This is not just an ordinary man, this is the man who is supposed to be protecting endangered wildlife. He doesn't just have to "obey" the law ... he has to believe in it. And it's pretty hard to say he believes in protecting these endangered cats out of the same mouth he said, "I am just glad it's legal (to kill them) in Idaho."

Like you said, Nash, that is like the head of an anti-gambling function going to Vegas to gamble big. It's not just an ordinary guy doing it, it is a public figure who is supposed to be opposed to this doing it. (Or, as another detractor put it, that is like the leader of an anti-drug department going to Amsterdam and posting photos of himself snorting coke or smoking a joint.) These are leaders of something acting in stark contrast to that which they are supposed to be Championing against.

In short, this is called a conflict of interest or being duplicitous. Big difference here IMO.

Jack

[TFX]

I'm with Jack on this one.

He should loose his job. How can you sit in one state and represent preservation of something and go to another and hunt the same thing ?
Wouldnt it be different if he was with some anti gambling function ( if such a thing does excist ) and goes to vegas to gamble ?
Hope i understand the subject right.

Whoa! Just a minute here. Just because the guy works for Fish & Game does not mean he has to believe the laws are good or right, or uphold the current laws of his home state when he is elsewhere. That is like saying if I worked for the state that I have to believe the laws against dogfighting are good and correct. I don't believe that, I don't have to believe that, and the government has no right to tell me what to believe, even if they are my employer. Furthermore, if I want to go somewhere like the Balkans and match a dog and its is completely legal there, I am in no way obligated to uphold California state law unless I choose to.
In fact, because this fellow is an expert in the field of wildlife conservation, he likely realizes the insanity of the illegality of hunting mountain lions in California. They continue to endanger the well being of other wildlife, the livestock of those of us who live rural, and because of an exploding population of these cats due to the lack of a legal hunt, they are now turning up all over in populated areas too and have even attacked people.

I personally don't give a damn what the law is. I have had them come out of my creek and up into my pastures, luckily for them it when I was not home both times. If I see one on my place; which threatens my dogs, other livestock, and my kids, it is shoot-shovel-and shutup around here. A legal hunt of cats would keep the population in check. And hunting cats is not necessarily for trophy only. Lots of people swear the backstrap and other meat is delicious eating.

[scratchin dog]

Whoa! Just a minute here. Just because the guy works for Fish & Game does not mean he has to believe the laws are good or right, or uphold the current laws of his home state when he is elsewhere. That is like saying if I worked for the state that I have to believe the laws against dogfighting are good and correct. I don't believe that, I don't have to believe that, and the government has no right to tell me what to believe, even if they are my employer. Furthermore, if I want to go somewhere like the Balkans and match a dog and its is completely legal there, I am in no way obligated to uphold California state law unless I choose to.
In fact, because this fellow is an expert in the field of wildlife conservation, he likely realizes the insanity of the illegality of hunting mountain lions in California. They continue to endanger the well being of other wildlife, the livestock of those of us who live rural, and because of an exploding population of these cats due to the lack of a legal hunt, they are now turning up all over in populated areas too and have even attacked people.

I personally don't give a damn what the law is. I have had them come out of my creek and up into my pastures, luckily for them it when I was not home both times. If I see one on my place; which threatens my dogs, other livestock, and my kids, it is shoot-shovel-and shutup around here. A legal hunt of cats would keep the population in check. And hunting cats is not necessarily for trophy only. Lots of people swear the backstrap and other meat is delicious eating.

I agree with this. Those that work for the Fish and Game dept. are not necessarily anti hunting. They are for the legal/controlled taking of game. But this doesn't mean they have to be tree huggers. I dont like to see the big cats or other large predators hunted as trophy's but in cases where human lives are at stake I don't think its unreasonable to control the population.
I have tried lion meat though but I wouldn't call it delicious. lol.

[Officially Retired]

Whoa! Just a minute here. Just because the guy works for Fish & Game does not mean he has to believe the laws are good or right, or uphold the current laws of his home state when he is elsewhere. That is like saying if I worked for the state that I have to believe the laws against dogfighting are good and correct. I don't believe that, I don't have to believe that, and the government has no right to tell me what to believe, even if they are my employer.

Invalid argument sir. Public official have to be held to a higher standard than the common man. For example, both you and I may be "pro dogfighting," but if that is the case we have no business being at the forefront of upholding "anti-dogfighting laws" in any state, do we? The government may not have the right to tell us what to think or believe in general, but the government (and, more importantly, the people you serve) have the right to know what you're thinking as it pertains to the very leadership position you hold.

For example, I promise you, if either you or I were ever in a leadership position at HSUS or PETA ... and it ever leaked that we were "pro dogfighting" inside ... and went to other countries (where it's legal) to watch and participate in dogfights ... we would lose our leadership position as flagships "against" dogfighting so fast it would make our heads swim. I mean, if in our hearts it was discovered by the people we were, in fact, pro-dogfighting do you honestly think we could retain our jobs?

Again, it would just be a false-front on our parts. No one will ever follow any leader who doesn't even believe in what he's at the head of ... nor should they have to. And further, in a democracy (rule by the people), if the public consensus is that he's got to go ... then he's got to go.

In fact, because this fellow is an expert in the field of wildlife conservation, he likely realizes the insanity of the illegality of hunting mountain lions in California. They continue to endanger the well being of other wildlife, the livestock of those of us who live rural, and because of an exploding population of these cats due to the lack of a legal hunt, they are now turning up all over in populated areas too and have even attacked people.

Well, with all due respect, my opinion is exactly the opposite. The most "exploding" population of the world is the human population, which is what has wreaked havok on every other animal on the planet, and our never-ending spreading across the earth like a pestilence has ransacked (if not destroyed) the natural ecosystems in so many places globally, that there aren't many places left for these creatures to live anymore.

I personally don't give a damn what the law is. I have had them come out of my creek and up into my pastures, luckily for them it when I was not home both times. If I see one on my place; which threatens my dogs, other livestock, and my kids, it is shoot-shovel-and shutup around here. A legal hunt of cats would keep the population in check. And hunting cats is not necessarily for trophy only. Lots of people swear the backstrap and other meat is delicious eating.

Well, this is a whole other subject and digression unto itself. I can't say that I wouldn't defend my own property from the encroachment of a big cat that was threatening it ... because I would. But I damned sure wouldn't go out of my way to go into their territory (where they're minding their own business trying to survive) ... just to kill them ... especially if I were in a leadership position trying to protect them in another state. And I further wouldn't be posting photos of my doing so online.

I mean, really, this guy doing what he did would be like Wayne Pacelle of HSUS going to a dog fight in Mexico ... and taking a bunch of photos with chopped up dogs giving two-thumbs-up and posting them on the internet ... and then wondering why he didn't have a job as head of HSUS when he came back. We both know damned well that the, "Yeah but it was legal there," argument wouldn't fly.

So, like I said in the beginning, "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." This guy likes to kill big cats, so he really isn't going to be a convincing as a leader in the community trying to protect them. You may have the right to believe in dogfighting, and it may be within your legal right to go to Mexico or Japan to watch them, but for you to think you can be in a leadership position against dogfighting ... and that the public and your peers will sit still if they find out that's what you really believe inside ... is absolutely unrealistic.

Jack

[QCKLime]

Personally, the government should be more concerned about controlling the population of the PEOPLE, not that of the animals that are native to an area. Not that I'm opposed to hunting, and I don't think this man can be faulted for anything, legally or ethically, I just think when it comes to animals like bears and large cats, the "over population" argument doesn't hold much water, ESPECIALLY when looking at the rate at which WE are reproducing and encroaching upon their habitats.

ETA: If I had read Jack's post above mine, I could've just agreed with most of it instead of posting. whoops

[Officially Retired]

It's okay to simultaneously express ourselves