I thought it was a well written article and I hope it was published this way, even though it's so long that many people probably won't read it. One important detail that was omitted {as was pointed out} was the lack of definition of the word "Farmer" which doesn't necessarily carry the same meaning across the ocean.

While the knee-jerk reaction of the masses will continue to ignore realities of the debate (like Kenya's performance since it banned hunting) the hunters and sportsmen's community must not be drawn in to the same tunnel vision basis of thought.

We as outdoorsmen don't need to convince each other of very much as regards this argument. What we need is to be able to present a rational approach to thought process when it comes to conservation, hunting and fishing, and the ability to self-police as regards choices that might fall within the boundaries of legality while remaining questionable as regards ethics.

Anyone who has been hunting in [wild] Africa and who has also visited a game park will probably attest to the fact that the animals do not behave the same. That being said, park animals are by no means tame, but are well conditioned to the presence of vehicles and humans. It is highly doubtful that between the landowner, the guide, the client, and even the farmhands, that no one was possibly aware of the possibility that they were going to shoot a tourist favorite parks lion.

Was it legal? Maybe.

Was it a good idea? Obviously not.

As regards the question of legality - anytime you have to repeatedly defend an action by pointing out that it was legal usually indicates a last line of defense to an argument.

As for Zimbabwe wanting to extradite the hunter, that of course is a joke.

Whatever the truth of the whole story, severe damage has been done to the safari community.