On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 14:27:42 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/1/2015 1:54 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 12:41:27 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/1/2015 12:32 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 12:11:14 -0500, Muggles wrote:

The only grounds to legitimately judge him on are whether or not he knew
it was a protected lion (if he could see the tracking collar or not),
and if it was a legal or illegal hunt. If it was an illegal hunt, then
he should pay that penalty for an illegal hunt, not be judged because he
used the same methods to hunt that other hunters have used for years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_%28lion%29#Criminal_investigations


Interesting situation. Who is responsible for the outcome in a situation
where guides were hired and the expectation was that they have
everything in order? Palmer isn't from Africa and probably had that
expectation seeing that he paid $50k for the hunt.

It is Palmer's responsibility to vet the guide, hunting zones,
validate permits and local laws. Just as you would vet his dental
credentials and reputation before you visit his office. Same as if
you hire a contractor to work on your property. He cannot claim to be
the victim here. He didn't do his due diligence. Period.


Maybe he tried, maybe he didn't. Either way he hired someone else to do
a job for him with the expectation that person new the ins and outs
where he didn't know those things. Sometimes things just suck.

Regardless, it is still Palmer's responsibility to validate the facts.