"Lions eat a poacher" Topic

Turn about is fair play:
South African lions eat 'poacher', leaving just his head
link

I think they knew who they were chomping.
Leaving the head…

Maybe they didn't eat him. Maybe they carried off the missing body parts to sell on their own black market.

What's that song? "A spoonful of poacher helps the medicine go down…"

Something stinks, and I don't mean the remains …

They haven't identified him, but they are calling him a poacher? Are hunters (and poachers) the only people who would have weapons over there in lion country? What if he was traveling through and knew there were lions in that area and didn't want to take any chances?

Are the calling him a poacher so that the public won't be calling for the animals to be hunted down for being man-eaters? That's always such a PR headache.

Dan

Indeed, CC. Even the linked article calls the victim a suspected poacher.

Of course once it was announced it becomes the reality.

The sort of becomes nearly impossible to refute if it turns out to have been in error.

It seems that sport hunting is banned in Kruger Park:

Trip Advisor listing
link

It seems the park is broken into various privately operated sections. Some of these do offer safari hunting packages. Others do not. Other than the offered package deals, I believe hunting is otherwise prohibited within the confines of the park.

If it is prohibited, perhaps the lions have been engaged
as enforcers…?

I don't know …

What about simply carrying a rifle to protect oneself when traveling through lion country? Does that necessarily make you a poacher?

I think human life was always more important to the locals than animal life, well, until conservationists and activists found ways to impose inverted priorities on the native population.

Dan

Really, that's what you took away from this article!?! Un-flippin'-believable.

I'll bet he isn't the only poacher eaten by the local wildlife. And yeah if your carrying a rifle in non-hunting area your a poacher.

So, jdginaz, self defense isn't allowed in non-hunting areas???

Private Matter: "Really, that's what you took away from this article!?! Un-flippin'-believable."

Exactly. The entire article, as well as your celebratory "turn about is fair play" comment, is all based on that one assumption.

Dan

I would guess that the bloke had no business being where he was in the first place. So all this talk about 'self-defence' is irrelevant.

Yes, pretty much got what was coming to him.

@goragrad, Just what do you think he was doing there, out for a Sunday walk in Lion country? Unless he worked for the park there isn't anything in the park for the locals in the parks, well except to….poach.

Just wait. Someone will identify him and clear things up either way*.

Too bad no one waits for the details to come out before jumping to conclusions. Well, to jump to whatever conclusions the media wants you to reach.

So, you think the entire perimeter of the park is fully fenced and clearly marked with appropriate signage? Because it doesn't really look that way from pictures I've seen (my nephew was out there 5-6 years ago).

Perhaps driving all the way around** to visit family/friends on the other side might not be an option for everyone. It's not like everyone can afford a car in that part of the world. Even if it were fenced, some people without transportation might dare to try going across instead, perhaps if they bring along what they think might be adequate protection. This guy might have taken a similar risk and lost, and I feel bad for his family and loved ones. Still doesn't mean he was automatically a poacher.

Dan
* The retractions might just be a teeny tiny blurb hidden away deep down among other less interesting news.
** Kruger Park extends 360 kilometres (220 mi) from north to south and 65 kilometres (40 mi) from east to west.

As far as I can see visitors to Kruger National Park are required to adhere to a number of rules. These include all weapons being declared at the gate and firearms sealed, no dismounting from vehicles, no off reading, no overnight travel. So a body presumably alone and not in a vehicle and with a hunting rifle would be at least indicate, though not prove, the victim being a potential poacher.

Regards

Edward

Frankly I am still wondering at the identification of the firearm as a 'hunting' rifle.

I wouldn't expect a local or even a poacher to have what is usually considered a hunting rifle.

There are a lot of 'surplus' military rifles floating around in Africa and are far more likely to be in the hands of a local or poacher.

Of course it may just have been described in that fashion to differentiate it from an assault rifle.

Still have to wonder what a poacher was going to be taking that could be packed out on foot that would be worth the effort and risk. More than enough risk from the wildlife (as shown) without the risk of being caught with items from poached animals.

And as far as I am concerned if an individual wants to carry a firearm while walking across the country that is his right.

Goragrad

I agree with you. However, other countries have different ideas on what is considered a right of a citizen. They might rather designate him as a poacher just for carrying.

Dan

Goragrad, I suspect that the South African authorities may have a different view about a persons right to carry firearms than you.

In any event, the MO of poachers is well known to the staff and there is probably enough to indicate that he was one. It's not really the sort of place you are going to be taking a shortcut across on the way home from the pub!

Not a jaunt from the pub, but even in the US there are people who travel significant distances by shank's mare.

Might have been traveling across the park to or from Mozambique.

If authorities were that sure that he was a poacher why the probable?

As to the attitude of the SA authorities to firearms, considering the homicide and violent crime rates there, I'd be carrying.

The BBC is one of the more agenda "news" companies. There are a lot of assumtions in the article many of which have been pointed out already. Lions and hyenas, among others, will scavage dead animals/people, so there is no evidence the person was a poacher or that he was killed by an animal. That part of the world has one of the highest murder rates. Not only on racial lines but tribal as well. So what can be stated is that animals ate a human, who may have been carrying a weapon. I say "may have been" because there is no proof the weapon belonged to him. Remember the park depends on income from viisitors and it wouldn't be smart to say a visitor was killed by the animals. Plus, calling him a poacher gets the sympathy card, for the animals, into play.

StoneMtnMinis: "it wouldn't be smart to say a visitor was killed by the animals. Plus, calling him a poacher gets the sympathy card, for the animals, into play"

Sounds a lot like the way California and Nevada spin news of any threat that may affect travel to and from Las Vegas. The spice must flow.

Later on, after a real Investigation is performed, a retraction is made in very small print on the back of the paper of record. But by then time has passed and people no longer care.

Dan