Another Mt. Lion Is Murdered

[Justin Spencer]

If MDC really wants to stop this from happening they need to follow the advice of my favorite deputy and "nip it in the bud"

They should come out with a press release, go on local news stations all over the state and try to educate the public while outlining what constitutes being in danger. This problem won't go away on it's own as it looks as if we get more cats "passing through" every day.

If coyote runners out west tree one and shoot it illegally what happens to them? I assume it's bad enough that they just back away and leave the cat alone. Nip it boys, Nip it.

[eric1978]

The last 2 cases were killed in self defense

TF brings up a good point. Both of these cats were killed with clean head shots. That's a pretty clear indication that the shots fired were calmly and carefully aimed with the intention of killing the animals BEFORE they became a threat. If the cats had made aggressive moves toward either of these shooters, the carcasses would have been turned over to MDC with holes all over them, or at best a bullet-wound or two in the animal's chest, since the hunters would have more than likely emptied their rifles in a state of panic.

The head shots, to me, are enough evidence that these animals were killed in a methodical and premeditated way, not in a frenzied spasm of terror. They need to make an example out of someone, or the people who have no respect for nature will continue to behave as if it is their right to kill whatever they want wherever they want.

[snagged in outlet 3]

I predict this thread will go 8 pages easily.

Good thing to because I'm home with nothing else to do.

Carry on. And I mean carry on.

SIO3

[Justin Spencer]

Found this from the Wichita paper's outdoor writer, kind of interesting another states take on what's happening here.

Many have wondered if the last two trail cam photos of mountain lions in northern Kansas were the same animal. The photos were about six weeks and 100 miles apart and went from west to east.

That would be the assumed travel route of a mountain lion wandering in from the Black Hills or Rockies.

They don’t have to worry about such things in Missouri because their last two confirmations have been shot and killed.

Quite the month or so in the Show-Me State. A cat was photographed in a tree mid-winter and then within a few weeks two more were shot and killed.

I guess the thing to wonder about now is if the mountain lions photographed on trail cameras in Kansas are still alive or if they died in Missouri.

Read more: http://blogs.kansas.com/outdoors/2011/01/24/2nd-missouri-mountain-lion-shot-this-year/#ixzz1By6Q4I3B

[GloryDaze]

I like to try and make a comparison of the MDC's actions to what I think many major corporations or non-profits would most likely do in a public situation- first and foremost they have to be sure they have ALL the facts...... of course this can be dicey at best. Once those are gathered, there is usually a very long and drawn out process on how to proceed (typically conversations involve attorneys, board of directors, etc...) then of course a plan of action is discussed. Most times, decision are made based off simple formula: "how can we address this situation and still retain the most amount of support from our customers and still look good in the public's eye"

In some situations, that's by divulging all of the information up front. In some cases it's by slowly divulging the information in phases, and certainly in some cases that's by withholding more infomation than divulging. With that being said, in my observation and experience, the best answer almost always directly relates back to funding and image. The corporation typically makes the decision that will have the least financial impact to their bottom line while keeping them looking good to the public.

Now, if the MDC makes a bunch of quick knee jerk decisions to satisfy a few concerned citizens, will those decisions ultimately hurt their image and long term sustainabiity? Maybe, maybe not...... but I would be willing to bet they will put many, many hours of collaboration and planning to ensure whatever they decide will satisfy the mass audience. So I guess in the long run, maybe give them the benefit of the doubt for now, but if they do not come out with a plan of action to address the issues in the near future I would say all of this is falling on deaf ears.

Of course, I am making many assumptions here, but it's just my 2 cents worth

[troutfiend1985]

This is not poaching, poaching is someone killing something against the law. The last 2 cases were killed in self defense, the animal was turned in and the shooting was reported, no laws were broken. Poachers would have sold the hide, stashed the carcass, and would have kept quiet about it.

And that is what I'm saying, against the law. As it currently stands, the excuse is if you feel "threatened" which is an ambiguous standard at best. But let me put it this way, 12 hunters and only one shot? Really? If this cat was threatening them then I would expect to see that carcass loaded with bullets and half falling apart. But no, there is one clean shot to the head, and that indicates either a super human shooter or a guy who really wasn't that scared of this animal.

Randall brought up the difficulties of prosecuting this case, and Randall I agree with you to a point but there are some things the MDC has done that just don't make sense. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for the moving party to convict, but here the MDC released on the same day it happened that no charges were filed. That just blows my mind, because the only standard that needs to be met in order to charge is Probable Casue that a crime occured, and here that standard has been met. Yes, the case has some weak spots, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that tends to point to idea that these people were not threatened(12 hunters, one head shot). And also, alot of these stories sound good or innocent until charges are filed. The Ray County shooting would have surely been this way, but MDC did not press charges, and personally I think that was a huge mistake.

If MDC does not take action it merely encourages people to shoot these animals and say "self defense." I have a feeling that we will hear more of these situations in the future unless MDC does something.

[Gary Lange]

Both of the Mountain Lions that have been shot in Missouri in my opinion were shot so that the Hunters could brag that they shot a Mountain Lion and for no other reason. Mountain Lions are not stupid animals and would shy away from a large group of people. There is no way that a Mountain Lion would have attacked six people and also no chance that one would have attacked the other group with the dogs. They shot the animals for bragging rights only and that is all. They were never threatened and if the Lion knew they were there it would have ran the other way. If they would have put the dogs on leashes and taken them away the Lion would have come down from the tree a short while later and left the area on the run and never would have gone near the group. Believe what you wish but the Animals never were a threat to these two groups.

[Randall]

Probable cause is the standard for going to trial on a criminal charge, and people have been convicted on crimes a lot more egregious than this on circumstantial evidence, but I really think that this incident should be investigated to determine the behavior of the animal and the circumstances under which it was shot before proceeding with a prosecution. My primary concern is that if this were prosecuted it will boil down to 12 guys saying that this cat was acting in a manner that caused them to fear for their safety. MDC needs to cross these boys up and get inconsistent stories so that they can make a showing that the animal posed no danger. The worst thing that could happen is for these guys to get the case dismissed or acquitted and set a precedent for shooting a mountain lion based on proximity to people.

Troutfriend's comment about the amiguity of the "threatened" standard is as right as they get. I think that Lilley made a good point about MDC being in a position that will require them to promulgate new regulations speaking to that standard. Another idea I liked that was alluded to to deter shootings is to administratively suspend hunting privileges pending a thorough investigation by MDC officials and/or suspension or revocation upon a finding that the shooting was unnecessary. It wouldn't be a criminal proceeding so the BRD standard wouldn't apply.

Something needs to be done, but a criminal prosecution without better evidence to support a conviction is certainly not my first choice.

[costanza]

Uphold the law or change it.

[troutfiend1985]

Probable cause is the standard for going to trial on a criminal charge, and people have been convicted on crimes a lot more egregious than this on circumstantial evidence, but I really think that this incident should be investigated to determine the behavior of the animal and the circumstances under which it was shot before proceeding with a prosecution. My primary concern is that if this were prosecuted it will boil down to 12 guys saying that this cat was acting in a manner that caused them to fear for their safety. MDC needs to cross these boys up and get inconsistent stories so that they can make a showing that the animal posed no danger. The worst thing that could happen is for these guys to get the case dismissed or acquitted and set a precedent for shooting a mountain lion based on proximity to people.

Troutfriend's comment about the amiguity of the "threatened" standard is as right as they get. I think that Lilley made a good point about MDC being in a position that will require them to promulgate new regulations speaking to that standard. Another idea I liked that was alluded to to deter shootings is to administratively suspend hunting privileges pending a thorough investigation by MDC officials and/or suspension or revocation upon a finding that the shooting was unnecessary. It wouldn't be a criminal proceeding so the BRD standard wouldn't apply.

Something needs to be done, but a criminal prosecution without better evidence to support a conviction is certainly not my first choice.

I think I'm in the same boat as you, last thing I want is precedent. The thing that bothers me is releasing to the press on the same day that the story breaks that no charges are planned on being filed. I like your idea of suspension of hunting privileges, and I think that is a fair thing.