OK, this post will be completely different from my usual blogs and could get some angry feedback.
Was there a slow news day somewhere? Some reporter decided to tell a story about a dentist (who by all accounts is a good guy and respected) who goes big-game hunting. The result of his hunting was to shoot a “famous” lion.
Why is the media stirring up such a frenzy? When I see quotes from people in Zimbabwe like: “What lion?” acting information minister Prisca Mupfumira asked in response to a request for comment about Cecil.”
“Why are the Americans more concerned than us?” said Joseph Mabuwa, a 33-year-old father-of-two cleaning his car in the center of the capital. “We never hear them speak out when villagers are killed by lions and elephants in Hwange.”
Or this one…
“Are you saying that all this noise is about a dead lion? Lions are killed all the time in this country,” said Tryphina Kaseke, a used-clothes hawker on the streets of Harare. “What is so special about this one?”
So, why are so many people out to destroy this man? I’m just curious. How is a dentist, no one outside his home city/state has even heard of getting all this bad treatment? Why are people out to ruin his life?
There have been famous big game hunters over the years:
Hemingway is one of the country’s greatest writers, but he was also an experienced big-game hunter. As an adult, he hunted the American West, and most famously Africa. In 1933 he went to Africa for three months to hunt and gather writing material. Hemingway was viewed as a man’s man and sometimes even a bit of a brute. But no one ever questioned his love for Africa or big-game hunting.
Are you going to say that if he was around now and had the same life style, NO ONE would read his books?
Roosevelt is celebrated as one of driving forces behind the establishment of the country’s national park system. He was a lover of wildlife and an avid hunter. In 1909 he set out with his son Kermit on an African safari to collect specimens for the Smithsonian Institution.
It turned into one of the largest African Safaris ever and gained world-wide recognition. With a crew of 250 porters and guides they trekked across British East Africa into the Belgian Congo and then back to the Nile ending in Kharoum. The group took 1,100 specimens including 500 big-game species.
So, this man should not have been president because he was a big-game hunter? The Smithsonian should never have asked him and his son to collect specimens?
England’s most famous Prime Minister had two great loves: hunting and polo. While many people know about Teddy Roosevelt’s great African safari, Churchill actually hunted the Dark Continent first. Guided by his friend Jack Riddell, Churchill hunted through East Africa and then down the Nile taking big-game animals as they went.
Are all these people saying these men (and others like them) should be vilified for this – never mind what their accomplishments were?
Personally I do not understand the attraction to big-game hunting. However, I do understand the need for hunting. When properly managed wildlife (who’s habitat we destroy by buying property and building) population doesn’t get so out of control that they starve and/or cause harm to domestic life.
I do wonder about some of these folks raising the biggest ruckus. Did they move to an area that was forested and had to be cleared so their house could be built? Or, did they buy open land next to a farm, then complain to the township about the farm smell and force the area to be re-zoned so the farmer had to move? How is mass civilization building and destroying animal habitat (en masse) better than a few big-game hunters?
Just curious. Oh, how long do you think people will even remember the name of the lion?
One other thing, does anyone know what happened to the two teenage boys lost on their fishing trip?