Wayne SW/MO Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Stoneroller brought up Dick Cheney, surprised he did not blame it on Bush. 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. JD self defense is nonsense, they were armed and I challenge you to come up with any reasonable number of lion attacks to support a belief that they attack humans. Many of the western states have thousands of them and attacks are very few and far between. You don't believe they called it to them? You don't believe they could have scared it in the the next county with a shot in the ground? Next thing we know it will be open season on everything, "I thought it was rabid". Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.
ColdWaterFshr Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 I agree with what Justin Spencer said. MDC needs to nip it in the bud and make some kind of statement about what the rules are and fines/punishment. This is getting out of hand.
Gary Lange Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 The animal was called in by the sound of an animal in distress which could be a meal for the cat. They were calling in Coyote's and the cat heard the sound and came to see if it could get an easy meal. It had no idea those hunters had tricked it into coming to them. They took advantage of the situation they created and shot and animal that was looking for the animal in distress for a meal. It was no threat to them because like a Coyote if it knew the hunters were there it wouldn't have come within a mile of the location. They can say all they want that they felt threatened and it will still be Bull Poop. If the cat would have gotten the smell of humans it would have been over the hill and gone. Game must be at a low point this year and that is why we are seeing more of these secretive animals. They need to spend more time hunting for a meal and therefore are out and about more. Respect your Environment and others right to use it!
Randall Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 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. Glory Daze made a good point about MDC keeping their mouths shut at least for a while about any investigation they are hopefully conducting. If the hunters think that MDC is just interviewing them for research or information gathering then they will be more cooperative and potentially implicate the shooter. Al Agnew also made a good point about people being more likely to report shootings. Maybe this group had their story straight or were (though unlikely) threatened by the animal. An individual or group in the future may not be as sharp and end up on the wrong side of criminal charge that will set the sort of precedent we want and send a clear message. Or maybe I'm grasping at straws and giving too much credit to MDC; at this point I'm blatantly speculating and just hoping that my faith will be rewarded. Cute animals taste better.
Outside Bend Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 I guess it always seemed inevitable to me- as the west becomes more urbanized, critters are going to do what they need to in order to survive. If that means using river corridors to find new territory, so be it. You'd have thought, in the 20 or so years that mountain lions have been reported in this state, that MDC would've developed a much better contingency plan than what we've seen the last month or so. It's time for the state to decide how they're going to deal with mountain lions- either they're a protected species and their are criteria which constitute "a danger to livestock and people," or they're unprotected and it's open season. Until then, every decision they make is going to be an arbitrary one. <{{{><
flytyer57 Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 If someone was out fishing and had some fish on a stringer that looked too appetizing to a bald eagle, that eagle might just swoop in for a free dinner. Should the fisherman kill the bald eagle because he felt it was a threat to him? Of course not. And if he did kill an eagle and the MDC found out about it, you can bet your sweet a$$ that he would not get away with killing a protected species. So why then are these people getting away with killing a protected species on the claim that they felt threatend? There is no excuse for the MDC letting these people off without some kind of consequnces. There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
GloryDaze Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Outside Bend- one would think they would have a better plan, but the reality is over that span there had only been 14 confirmed sightings. So, I'd be willing to bet their resources have been spent in other areas. I would guess after the first killing a few weeks ago they were thinking- "well, one killing in "x" amount of years, not need to panic" And now their probably thinking " oh "sh$%, this is something that may not go away" now we really need to get our act together." It's a tough spot, because it seems to me there is a lot of gray area in the law as it's written now.... Follow me on Twitter @DazeGlory
Randall Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 A bald eagle going after a stringer of fish is a little different than a mountain lion acting aggressively toward a person or stalking children. An eagle can't kill you, a mountain lion on the other hand is a pretty one-sided fight no matter who you are. When it comes right down to it, human life is worth more than the life of an animal, period. I thought I listed pretty good reasons for slow-playing this matter. Our system of justice favors the presumption of innocence and places a heavy burden on the state to overcome that presumption. It certainly isn't perfect, but in order to have a just society we must have in place a system that protects the innocent even if it means that sometimes the guilty walk. In this case, there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to support a conviction. I'm not justifying what they did, I'm just saying that we shouldn't be so quick to carry torches when we don't have all the facts. If it comes out that MDC didn't investigate this and took their claim at face value then I'll be happy to grab a pitchfork and join the angry mob so long as the focus is on the department. Cute animals taste better.
Chief Grey Bear Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 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. That sounds like a really good idea. The best thing I have read yet. Chief Grey Bear Living is dangerous to your health Owner Ozark Fishing Expeditions Co-Owner, Chief Executive Product Development Team Jerm Werm Executive Pro Staff Team Agnew Executive Pro Staff Paul Dallas Productions Executive Pro Staff Team Heddon, River Division Chief Primary Consultant Missouri Smallmouth Alliance Executive Vice President Ronnie Moore Outdoors
stlfisher Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 My guess is the MDC figures there are so few sightings the problem will just go away without them having to deal with it.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now