wow ..take chill pill mate ..comments like yours only serve to have these threads closed ..More than happy to hear your side/interpretation/beliefs on the matter and it is equally as valid as mine but maybe the delivery needs to be adjusted.. just a bit
I will look past the tone and respond to the content, as I am sure it is the content that is more important to the discussion,
you may well be spot on in regards to countries managing their animal levels and doing it well etc, However this issue is not about the management practices or legality of the issue..its centred squarely against public perception, and perception weather right or wrong can equal fact.
If the picture was of him smoking pot in Amsterdam..equally as legal ..it would bring with it a level of criticism
He is a public figure who has courted the media through his very profitable career so he must know that even though it may be legal the consensus of many people may be that it is unacceptable from a high profile Australian.
In relation to putting more value on one animal over another , I guess that just comes down to individual perceptions and beliefs, I value the lives of some animals over some humans and would happily see plenty of people be traded for the lives of some our endangered species. But that's just me..
This is not a debate about about legality ..because the facts support the case that he was entitled and lawfully authorised to do what he did. So no hiding that fact.
Its debate about public perception and expectation.. and I am sure as his agent is advising him right now, he will try and play both sides of the coin ..as is evident by his very wishy washy statement.
You think his actions were fine ..then all good thats your right , I think he is weak as , 1 for doing it ..but 2 not for either backing his decision or making a full retarction and apology..you cant have it both ways...
Your response was prob a better starting point for his statement than his was ..If all the things you have mentioned are the facts of the situation, then he should just be transparent about the company he hunted with, their practices, what the meat was used for , how the animal was selected , why this particular animal was selected etc etc, coming out with a "hard time in my life " comment is just weak.
I for one would be happy to reconsider my point of view on the action undertaken if evidence to support the case is provided.. until then its just weak as.
The response will always remain very weak but the actions may be better explained with some of your evidence.
Jet
Sorry also add that dingoes comments on prev page are also very valid points that could be used to give clarity around the actions.. you guys should offer to help his agent as they are doing a pretty poor job of managing the public's perception of the issue right now.
Jet
I thought it worth pointing out that you can indeed pose 2 sides of the story
you can have "enjoyed" shooting an elephant (for want of a better word) 8 years ago.
an now have regret for the same.
surely a person can have a change in heart over time.
Ok he may appear to be having a bet each ways- but he did the act- no denying that
BUT
maybe mates getting together and organising something as mates should/ would in Australia and instead of going out on the boat for a fish, went to Africa.
Now to put that into perspective for a coastal dweller
Maybe 20 years ago you went out and caught a Marlin- weighted it and hung it on a wall
Now days that would be considered not done- but it was and still is legal as far as I know
At the time you were proud- the great white hunter
things in society change
we now see things way different to 8 years ago- I hate to say it but mostly media driven
I'm going to leave shooting elephants alone, and also sea kittens, couldn't hurt one of those.
http://features.peta.org/PETASeaKittens/look out you don't have any pics of a sea kitten being tortured, because you just never know whether that is acceptable in 8 years time