- Here's what you had to say on Twitter and Facebook about the controversy:
- quote from the other kqed article linked in this article, that I think sums up why this is ridiculous: Most from rural backgrounds would see nothing wrong with the photo. Mountain lions are predators that kill lots of deer and other animals, including house pets and farm animals, and fewer of them means more of just about everything else. Same with coyotes. Since the hunt occurred in Idaho, where mountain lion hunting is legal, there was nothing illegal about anything Richards did... Some think that mountain lions are a threatened or endangered species. They are neither. Wildlife biologists say that lions are healthy and abundant in much of California. Mountain lions are rather a specially protected species in California by a law created by a voter’s initiative, not by wildlife biologists.
- I think he should resign because of his total tin ear and stupid behavior once the controversy hit the news. Had he just clammed up and not said anything publicly, this would have blown over by now. Instead, he publicly challenges the legislature and gov to do something about him. *That's* the behavior that's going to cost him his job.
- KQED's call-in program, Forum, held a discussion about the controversy on Feb. 29. The segment drew several comments on kqed.org/forum.
Simply because an act is legal in another country or state should not be a valid argument for retaining a high appointed position. The position should be held by a person who stands above reproach FOR the office that they are appointed. Would we want someone in charge of the State's drug enforcement office who was known for flying to Holland and "legally" using drugs while they held that office...and posted pictures on line while they did it? Would we want a person in charge of Child Protective Services who flew to a country and frequented 17 year old prostitutes. Yeah, so its legal...but shouldn't the qualifications for holding these offices require a higher ethical standard?
Was his action illegal? No. Does California have time and money to debate an issue that was not illegal? I don't agree with killing animals for sport in any state, but I do believe in the law and that it protects the innocent and punishes the wrong doers.
California should focus on the myriad of issues at hand.
If this lion had been harassing a rancher's stock animals, well, that might be a different matter. But this was killing for the sake of killing -- on a fenced-in hunting range -- for the glorification of Mr. Richards' ego, and the profit of the Flying B. Ranch.
Mr. Richards thinks he's living in the age of Ernest Hemingway. This had nothing to do with wildlife management. It was a trophy hunt, nothing less. Mr. Richards should tender his resignation immediately.
What if the head of the LAPD vice squad was a customer in a legal brothel in Nevada? What is the chief of Child Protective Service went to have intimate relations with his 15-year-old girlfriend in Costa Rica (where the legal age of consent is 15)? What if the director of the DEA went to smoke a little legal hashish in Amsterdam? Would there be any question that they would lose their jobs?