Just When You Thought It Was Safe to Say, “Monster Pig”
I hesitate to even bring this story back into the daylight, but I do so now mainly in the interest of fairness. Here’s the deal…
Most of you probably remember the fiasco around the Monster Pig, or Pigzilla… which I also referred to in previous posts as “Jamison’s Folly”. In those earlier write-ups, I referenced a website called “Stinky Journalism“, and the efforts of that site’s owner, Rhonda Shearer, to uncover the facts behind the big pig and the “hunt” on which it was taken.
If you don’t recall, or if you want to read all that Shearer wrote, you can view it on her site. In short, though, she takes the adults to task for using the youngster (Jamison Stone) as publicity pawn. She also suggests that animal cruelty laws should be brought to bear on the adults for the unnecessarily protracted suffering of the hog.
Anyway, I received an email last week from one of the principals at the Monster Pig website. The writer suggests that Rhonda Shearer’s information is inaccurate. I’m reprinting his email here, so you can see what he has to say for yourselves:
I just wanted to drop you a note, I found your blog today while doing some searching. The information your refer by a certain “journalistic ethics advocate” is inaccurate. The truth was posted on the monsterpig.com website. The hog has been studied by a well known hog scientist who says the pig was feral and was no pet. All the negative stories about this hunt came form this one “ethics” person and people took it as truth because she posted it on her website. I would appreciate you removing the inaccuracies or the story all together if it is not going to be the truth. Jamison NEVER faced possible criminal charges, there was NO crime committed. You can verify this with the Clay County, AL District Attorney. This is just one of the many of mistruths that was published about this hunt on the “ethics” website. I know this is old news but it is important to us.
As with most of these things, I’m happy to let you, the Hog Blog readers make up your own minds. The Monster Pig website doesn’t appear to have their story online any longer, but I do remember reading it when the issue was still current. There was a lot of justification and rationalizing, but not a lot that the reader could “take to the bank”, so to speak.
As far as removing anything I’ve written about this issue so far, that’s not gonna happen. To me, this is nothing more than a he-said/she-said argument, and I’ll not take down or retract anything I’ve posted to date without something more compelling than an email. I’ve provided a platform for both sides of the argument, and that’s about as much as I “owe” anyone.
If I had the resources and motivation to try to track down all the parties involved here, I’d certainly chase this story to ground. (I wish someone would pay me a living wage to write about hog hunting!) In lieu of that, I’ve checked around a bit on other sites that have reported on this story, including ESPN, and seen nothing that disputes Shearer’s accounting of the event. If national news takes up this story again, I’ll be certain to provide coverage.
What I wrote in the previous posts is my own opinion of the events, and that really hasn’t changed. I still think that the guys who turned this whole story into a worldwide news story manipulated the facts and did an extreme disservice to both the boy (Jamison) and the hunting community in general. It was a foolish and ugly publicity ploy that was destined to blow up in their faces.
I don’t know if there were grounds for criminal charges, but that’s not a determination for me to make anyway. If the Grand Jury didn’t find reason to indict the participants, then that says all I need to know.
Beyond that, the best thing that could happen right now would be for the folks involved to shut up and let this story die the death it should have died a long time ago. It’s really just not that worth it.
I think you’ve done all that needs to be done, Phillip. You’ve pointed out both sides of the story, and gave your readers plenty of places to check facts and come to their own opinions.
Enough said!
As for me, I agree with you whole-heartedly. I think this whole story was bound to blow up from the start.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Ask yourself why Mr. Stone does not use my name–just “ethics person” but I freely use his?
Answer?
I have abundant evidence that what I say is true. He is afraid to say untruths about me that my risk a law suit.
It is really sad that after the whole world knows the hog was “Fred” a domestic swine just off the farm for only four days, Stone lies again and tries to say that Fred was feral. AP and I both have the same authoritative sources: The Blissitts who owned the hog and Allen Andress, the chief of law enforcement for the Alabama Wildlife and Fisheries Division.
I wrote on ESPN Outdoors and our site:
“It turns out that the “monster” boar was in fact plain ol’ Fred, a domesticated, part Duroc hog whose original owner, Phil Blissitt, said that the guides Borden and Williams drove their truck to pick up the swine from his farm on April 29th. (Allen Andress, the chief of law enforcement for the Alabama Wildlife and Fisheries Division, confirmed the pickup date in a separate phone interview.) Borden paid Blissitt $250 for the hog, and in that instant Fred went from breeding stock to ‘wild’ beast just four days before the hunt.”
Quoted From …
http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/latest-journalism-news-updates-123-keyword-farm
It is unfair to me and inaccurate to characterize my research as “He said/she said” exchange with Mr. Stone.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Silliness. The photo says it all, with the kid so far behind that hog that he isn’t even in focus. I’m not saying it isn’t a big pig, but come on.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Ms Shearer, as far as I am concerned this exchange is exactly what I called it… “He said/she said.” That is both accurate AND fair.
I’ve not researched or validated the information either of you have presented. For all anyone else knows, either of you could be misrepresenting the truth to promote your personal agenda.
That doesn’t mean I personally doubt what you’ve written… in fact, you certainly make the better case with referenceable sources, and I generally agree with your assessment of the events… but I am in no position to argue either side authoritatively. Therefore, for the purposes of this blog, it is your word against that of the alleged Mr. Stone. The readers must decide for themselves who to believe.
The thing about journalism on the Internet is that anyone can represent themselves as an “expert” on anything. They can represent any story or opinion as “fact”, and as long as no one challenges that “fact” with independent research, then it’s as true as anything else.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Ms. Shearer,
Can you really blame us for believing the worst?
In this day and time when the far left media, literally has gotten a President elected by intentionally omitting the facts concerning Mr. Obama’s background.
And then when the facts were finally pointed out, the left slanted media either shifted attention to another subject or ignored the truth altogether.
We hunters have to endure this type of “one sided media” vilification upon a daily basis, and a most recent example would be the “Lead Ban” issue.
There was never any conclusive evidence pointing in the direction of Condors ingesting “Hunters Bullets” and bringing about its possible extinction!
P.e.T.A. and the H.S.U.S. tell outright lies about Hunters and Animal Ranchers on a daily basis.
They take the worst case scenario possible, such as an isolated incident, and with their political and monetary clout, spew their propaganda rhetoric out in millions of pounds of ink, paper and type set upon a gullible public in order to further their hard core agenda.
That agenda, by their own self admission, is to eventually take away “all” of our animal ownership and force us “all” into being Vegan’s just like themselves.
So having said all of that, please forgive us for believing the worst from your reporting on the Hogzilla story!
July 6th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
P.S.
Ms. Shearer, you should also refrain from using the term “Canned Hunting” as this term is of wikipedia/P.e.T.A.s making and is “not” a legal term, and when used in a court of law by an overzealous animal rights attorney, can get a complete case dismissed.
It is nothing more than a “Buzz Word” which is used by the far left extremists A.R.G.s in order to enflame the publics sentimentalities against whomever they have set their sights upon for further vilification.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
[...] A nice web master created an interesting post today on Just When You Thought It Was Safe to Say, Monster Pig – The Hog …Here’s a short outlineI just wanted to drop you a note, I found your blog today while doing some searching. The information your refer by a certain âjournalistic ethics advocateâ is inaccurate. The truth was posted on the monsterpig.com website. The hog has been studied by a well known hog scientist who says the pig was feral and was no pet. All the negative stories about this hunt came form this one âethicsâ person and people took it as truth because she posted it on her website. … [...]
July 6th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Man, I always hated the he-said/she-said stories when I was still in the newspaper business. Avoided ‘em like the plague.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
that does it! I am going to shoot one of those damn monster hogs that are eating up our garden at the Christmas Place and by God you will see a giant hog then!
July 6th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
THUNDERHOOF IS A PIG???
July 6th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
That is strange, no matter how much I search, I can not find any reference to a “Hog Scientist”. Thought maybe I would get myself a new job.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Sorry Dave… I’m working that angle for myself. If the job appears, and I need an administrative assistant, I’ll be sure and give you a call.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
[...] A nice web master placed an interesting blog post on Just When You Thought It Was Safe to Say, Monster Pig – The Hog …Here’s a brief overviewWe’re not using the four D meats- dead, dying. for learning about the mind-biology connection. Bones alone do not constitute your optimal choice of diet, though. Learning Biology RSS Entries and RSS Comments. Your dog will learn to love the agility obstacles, not just tolerate them. can we use scientific evidence to help us make healthy food and activity choices? Optimum Choices is now offering water filters from Multi-Pure. After meeting with a colleague who has a masters in biology. Barbara’s Notes Dog Biology Dog Care Dog Food Allergies. play with them outdoors; get a dog and go for daily walks). Even walking the dog or playing in the yard or the park can be a good start. These eight Sensible Choice dry dog food products and seven Kasco dry dog. about dog diet, the brief history of dogs, their biology and their behavioural personality is. common-sense lifestyles for our children, [...] [...]
July 9th, 2009 at 12:01 am
You write “I’ve not researched or validated the information either of you have presented. For all anyone else knows, either of you could be misrepresenting the truth to promote your personal agenda…but I am in no position to argue either side authoritatively.”
That is the problem–you have not checked facts and you CAN. You have taken stable, established facts and entered doubt under the banner of ‘fairness” WITH no evidence.
You have unfairly given an established liar legitimacy without doing the work to justify doing so.
I believe before publishing his crap, you should have contacted me first to ask for proof that supports any one of the points in question. I would and will gladly send it to you. These include taped interviews with Stone and others, documents etc. Then you ask him for proof….
Asking Stone for proof before you publish what he says, is being responsible.
Just because someone says something doesn’t mean you give it legs by posting it–especially true when what you post something that accuses someone– me, in this case–of lying.
To take the argument to an extreme to make the point: It is an established fact that the earth circles the sun–if Stone writes in, and says it doesn’t –will you also print that too just to be fair, because you haven’t done the science research yourself?
Finally, I am a hunter. The only agenda I have is truth. Letting a pig bleed out 3 hours in a small fenced-in pen to get publicity as a motive is beyond what any real hunter would accept as fair, speaking of fairness.
My research is still there…see below. Stone has removed everything but “fan photos” from his site…why?
Why is he using you when he has his own high-traffic site– monsterpig.com?
Not one person–including Stone–has disputed any fact to ESPN. Why does he write to you and not to ESPN or me? If I am lying, Stone has one heck of a law suit–but not one peep from him, except here.
1. http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/latest-journalism-news-updates-123.php
2. http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/latest-journalism-news-updates-45.php
3. http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/latest-journalism-news-updates-129.php
July 12th, 2009 at 2:05 am
Rhonda,
Whenever possible I will ALWAYS post up both sides of a discussion… regardless of which side my personal opinion falls on. That’s what I’ve done here. Real sorry you’ve taken it so personally.
As far as “checking the facts”, I have no desire to spend the time double-checking your sources or validating what you wrote. To be honest, I don’t care that much about this thing to make that kind of effort.
I read your site. I read Stone’s site too, before it was changed. I formed an opinion then, and wrote about it when the issue was still fresh. My position on this whole thing hasn’t changed a lick, which is exactly what I told the person who sent that email (it was not Mr. Stone). That person has chosen not to participate in the open forum, and that’s fine by me.
Bottom line… if you have a problem with my posting this, it’s time to get over it.
July 12th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
So an anonymous person –not Mike Stone–challenges the facts without any evidence and you see fit to post it–but don’t take responsibility for doing this, because you don’t care?
If you don’t want to spend the time checking facts, don’t publish unverified claims that are untrue personal attacks.
July 12th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Enough with the histrionics, Rhonda. It gets tiring.
I don’t owe you a damned thing in the way of explanation, but for the benefit of any readers who are actually still paying attention to this foolishness, I’ll have one last go at it…
First, if you read and comprehended my comments about the message (It was not anonymous, by the way, I have had several communications with the person who sent it… but then you wouldn’t know that. You’d rather jump to foolish conclusions.), you’d have seen that I pretty much discredited it. I pointed out that your blog posts on the topic were pretty well done and referenceable… hence far more credible. At no point did I, personally, challenge your findings. But I thought it would be interesting for readers to see that there are always two sides to a story… even if one side is a little hard to swallow. A quick look at most of the comments tells me that most of these folks got it… even if you didn’t.
As far as what I see fit to post, you have no more right to challenge it than did the person who sent me the message above, asking me to remove my references to your blog. You don’t have to like it, but you, or anyone else, who wants to tell me what I should or shouldn’t post on this blog can pretty well kiss my ass. If I want to publish that the moon is actually a giant acorn and there’s a 3500 lb hog up there killing astronauts, I’ll damned well do it. The Hog Blog readers are intelligent enough to either know it’s not true, or inquisitive enough to go find out for themselves.
And that’s the main point in my posting things that everybody might not like to read… if it doesn’t sound right, go find out for yourself. Question it. Don’t rely on my site, or ANY blog site (including Stinky Journalism), to provide the whole truth. While the fact is that I would not intentionally mislead my readers, I also know that I am fallible and that I can be taken in by a bad source of information.
I have never claimed that the Hog Blog was pure journalism. It is a hobby and a vanity… just like most other blogs out there. I print what I find interesting or curious, and I generally add my own opinion. I make no pretense that it is anything else. I do take certain topics more seriously, and I do spend the time to research and report on them in a serious maanner.
The fact is, though, that the Monster Pig story was never worth the effort of a serious journalist… and certainly not worth the energy you put into it. It was just a silly curiosity. It’s just another sensational tale of a big pig and some headline-seeking individuals. If a crime was committed, then that’s for the courts to settle… not the blogosphere.
I’m finding now that I’ve dedicated way more effort and time to this discussion with you than either you or the topic deserve. You’ve had your say. If you have anything else of substance to add here, and I doubt it, then please feel free to offer it up. But if you just want to caterwaul because someone had the gall to challenge your “journalistic integrity”, and then tell me what I should or should not print… then you are pissing in the wind.
This way to the egress.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:38 am
Amen Phillip!
July 13th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
[...] Another decent blogger added an interesting post on Just When You Thought It Was Safe to Say, Monster Pig – The Hog …Here’s a small excerptI just wanted to drop you a note, I found your blog today while doing some searching. The information your refer by a certain âjournalistic ethics advocateâ is inaccurate. The truth was posted on the monsterpig.com website. The hog has been studied by a well known hog scientist who says the pig was feral and was no pet. All the negative stories about this hunt came form this one âethicsâ person and people took it as truth because she posted it on her website. … [...]
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:39 am