Stinkyjournalism.org
       Topics     Stinky News Count      
webby_award webby_award
 
Special Report: Sports
January 29, 2008
EXCLUSIVE: FOLLOW THE BACON :
12 Year Old Monster Pig Hunter Faces Possible Animal Cruelty Charges in Alabama
by Rhonda Roland Shearer
 Print Email Add comment Comments(54) Sphere: Related Content    Relevant ethics  Read more stories



Special to ESPNOutdoors.com

Editor’s note: Rhonda Shearer is the director of Art Science Research Laboratory, which she founded with her late husband Stephen Jay Gould. The New York-based think tank promotes cross-disciplinary studies and supports a journalism ethics program that publishes StinkyJournalism.org, a site bent on debunking erroneous media. She and her colleagues have put hundreds of hours into investigating the claims around a “monster” pig kill in Alabama last year, which they see as a case study in how to create an international media hoax. Because the investigation involves hunting law and ethics, she has written this report for ESPNOutdoors.com, to be published simultaneously on StinkyJournalism.org.

 

SPECIAL REPORT

Exclusive: Follow the Bacon: Part II
12 year old faces possible Grand Jury charges for animal cruelty.

Hog Washed!: Part I
Stinky Journalism investigation debunks AP and FOX News: “Giant Hog with Small Boy” Photo

   [RELATED]

When Jamison Stone shot and killed a massive swine in Alabama last year, the headlines blared: “Boy Bags Monster Pig in ’Bama.” An 11-year-old taking down a hog in Dixie was front-page news in Manhattan. “The Today Show” lined him up for an appearance.

Quickly, though, as the details of the hunt emerged, the spotlight abandoned Stone. After countless hours of following the story since it broke in May, I’ve pieced together a far shadier account of events than initially reported. And I’ve learned that Stone this week will face a grand jury in Clay County to answer for possible animal cruelty charges. He and the four adults he trusted – who ultimately tricked him and an overeager press – are all subject to questioning, and possible enforcement.

What went wrong?

For starters, the grand jury’s issue is not with Jamison’s father, Mike Stone, and his initial exaggeration of the pig’s dimensions. (Check out my investigation “Hog Washed!” on StinkyJournalism.org for a breakdown of how the “hero shots” after the hunt were manipulated.) Instead, it will be investigating the more serious matter of why experienced hunters let the half-ton hog bleed out across a three-hour hunt when they had the opportunity to kill it swiftly and humanely.

Stone, now 12, may not have known better. He’s the young man you remember holding the .50 caliber Smith & Wesson pistol behind the large, hairy hog he shot at a “hunting preserve” called Lost Creek Plantation in Lineville, Ala., in May.

He no doubt had placed trust in his father, Mike Stone, who arranged the hunt with Keith O’Neal and Charles Williams, owners of Southeastern Trophy Hunters. They brokered hunts with Eddy Borden, who owns Lost Creek.

Those men assured young Jamison that hog he killed was wild. The truth is, the animal was in fact a docile breeding swine named “Fred.”

The boy’s trust in these four men turned out to be misplaced. O’Neal, a professional hunter, persuaded the father to fork over $1,500 to guide Jamison on the rigged hunt. Their actions that day could lead Jamison to face charges in court.

How did three trained hunters and the boy’s father lead him around a fenced-in, 150-acre plot for more than three hours, allowing Jamison to repeatedly shoot – but merely wound – a 1,000-pound animal? Not one of them thought to say: “Look, son, you had your chance, but those belly shots have wounded the animal and it is in distress. We have to put the creature out of its misery.” Instead, they allowed the hog to bleed out from injury. Mike Stone told me during several phone interviews recorded over numerous hours that no kill shot was ever taken. “I regret that it didn’t die the first shot,” he told me on June 5 last year. “But that’s all I can say. That’s all I’m going to say.”

The mystery remains: Why did the hunters do nothing? As director of the Art Science Research Laboratory, which runs a media ethics program and a web site called StinkyJournalism.org, I led hundreds of hours of on-the-record interviews and research into the monster pig case (the records of which were subpoenaed by Clay County District Attorney, Fred Thompson). The results of that investigation will offer the jury some clues.

Here is what we found.

Although O'Neal's web site boasted that the hunting at Lost Creek was “legendary,” the hunting operation at the plantation was only four-months-old at the time of the hunt. Eddy Borden had big plans for developing his canned-hunt operation, the Clay County Times reported shortly before the hunt. Borden, along with O'Neal, hatched a scheme following the blueprint for hype and financial success generated by “Hogzilla,” the first famous and controversial monster hog, shot on a hunting plantation in Georgia in 2004.

Using buzzwords associated with the Hogzilla hype, O’Neal placed an advertisement on April 28th. It promised a “once in a lifetime” hunt for a “monster” wild boar that they had “trapped” and that was now “roaming the wilds of the Lost Creek Plantation.”

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.

O’Neal, in charge of selling the hunting escapade, knew full well there was no, “beast roaming Lost Creek.” Still, he placed an advertisement on his web site, Southeasterntrophyhunters.com, and sent out a mailing to hype the canned hunt as a safari-like adventure. He may have already had Mike Stone in mind as a prospect. The ad featured Stone himself, who had shot a 627-pound hog at Lost Creek only weeks before. He also mentioned that Borden had just trapped another boar larger than the one Stone had shot.

According to Mike Stone, a local news station advised O’Neal that in order for the hunt to become a news story, only the boy – not an adult – could take the shot. The media got what they asked for, and a brave young lad shot and killed a “monster” hog in the wilds of Alabama.

Trouble was, it just wasn’t true.

The Anniston Star newspaper reported on May 30th that hunt organizers O’Neal and Williams said they “knew the harvest of the pig alone would draw some attention but that the addition of Jamison doing the shooting moved the story to a higher level.”

O’Neal told the paper: “We knew it was going to be something significant because of the sheer size. The fact that an 11-year-old did it with a pistol, that’s what perpetuated it and has kept it going.”

The Star continued: “O’Neal and Williams went on to say that a lot of this skepticism might have never happened. They had invited television stations to come with them on the hunt, but none showed up.”

It was the Star’s May 23, 2007 report that first launched the story into the media; StinkyJournalism.org discovered that it also was invited to attend the hunt, but did not disclose this fact. (We will be writing more later about the media’s responsibilities and role in this international fake news story.) We also found out the main independent witness used to verify the hog’s size and skull for the Star, taxidermist Jerry Cunningham, had a business relationship with O’Neal for over 16 years. This should have been revealed to the public.

Was creating a news story in order to promote a hunting business the primary reason the professional hunters didn’t take any shots and went to such lengths to ensure that only the boy took aim? Were the resulting international headlines – “11 Year Old Boy Slays Monster Pig in Alabama'' – worth the cruelty and suffering to the pig? Borden may no longer think so. Instead of creating a booming business, the Hogzilla scheme backfired. It generated bad press and has led to possible charges against Borden as well as the boy. Lost Creek Plantation has apparently since been closed, and realtors have confirmed to Stinkyjournalism.org that it is up for sale.


Eddy Borden, owner of Lost Creek Plantation, Lineville Alabama, April 19, 2007 just days before the May 3 Monster Pig hunt . The local weekly, Clay County Times, took this photo for their news story featuring the hunting operation. Following the controversy, the Lost Creek hunting preserve was recently put up for sale according to local realtors.
(Image from Lost Creek Plantation web site, now down. Photo credit: Clay County Times)

Mike Stone, who was sold a “pig-in-a-poke” by O’Neal, Williams and Borden, should not be charged. These three adults, all professional hunters, are responsible. Jamison and the hog are the victims in this case.

Still, Mike Stone is no angel in all of this. He created a web site, Monsterpig.com, filled with celebrity endorsements, posters for sale with Jamison’s autograph ($10), and an announcement that Jamison had just received a part in the movie, The Legend of Hogzilla. Mike Stone bragged that Jamison received congratulations from such celebrities as Rickey Medlocke of Lynyrd Skynyrd; country star Kenny Chesney; Benelli exhibition marksmen Tom Knapp and Tim Bradley; and Smith & Wesson marksman Jerry Miculek.

However, there was no groundswell of support by personalities contacting Jamison. Stone solicited all of these celebrities for their congratulations, and every last one was surprised and dismayed to hear that their names appeared on Jamison’s web site.

I asked Miculek, the famed sharpshooter and a role model for hunting youth, whether the .50 caliber hand gun was the cause for Jamison having missed so many shots. “You hit poorly because you can't control the recoil on it,” Miculek said.

What about letting the hog bleed out? Miculek did not flinch. “The idea of the hunt is to make a good one-shot presentation on the animal, so it’s over with,” he said. “It doesn’t matter if you’re 12-years old or you’re 90-years old. You have to respect what you hunt, and you owe it to the animal as much as you do to yourself to make it a quick and accurate shot, so he [Jamison] did neither.”

I don’t live in Alabama, but I would be willing to wager that most Alabamians know the importance and value of a quick kill when hunting. Not since Neil Young’s song “Southern Man” has there been a better time to once again draw the line between what is morally acceptable and what is not. The ugly truth is that a child and his father were duped by three men for financial gain. What happened here is not hunting.

As the grand jury deliberates this week, the state needs a Lynyrd Skynyrd, “Sweet Home Alabama” rebuttal. By enforcing its animal cruelty laws, people who criticized the hog’s needlessly painful death around the world will learn that a few flim-flammers won’t be allowed to tarnish the good name of Alabama – or hunting itself. Who else will join Stinkyjournalism.org to speak out for poor Jamison and hold the real culprits accountable?

Might the manner of Fred’s death constitute cruelty? And if so, who is at fault: a 12-year-old boy, or scheming adults? It is up to a grand jury in Clay County, Alabama to determine.

   Alabama's Monster Pig Hoax, one year later

   INTERPORK:

   PIG TALES

   Mike Stone, Unturned

   BIG PIG SMACK DOWN: BIG NORM'S OWNER WEIGHS IN.

   Hyped Hog Hits Speedbump on Way to Fame.

   "The Monster Pig Photo's a Fake:" Reader's Comments

   HOG WASHED!

 Print Email Add comment Comments(54) Sphere: Related Content    Relevant ethics  Read more stories


Rate the Journalist or Publication featured in this article on a Stinky Scale.    Send them a Stink-O-Gram
Current Rank: (1 Low - 5 High)      Out of total 15 votes
Stinky Moldy Cheese Stinky Shoe Stinky Skunk Stinky Dead Fish Stinky Garbage Can
 
 
Comments
54
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
View comments

  Show all
 1     

"Animal Cruelty"???? For killing an invasive, destructive, disease-spreading, large and dangerous species? WTF?

Comment by JF | Jul 18, 2009 at 08:50 AM EST

Didn't you read the article? This was a farm animal.

Comment by Rhonda Roland Shearer | Jul 18, 2009 at 09:02 AM EST

The kid was 11. His father is to blame and the men that run the place are just plain con artists and should be treated as such. This is more than just animal crualty. This is child endangerment and really exposing this child to criminal acts at an early age should be treated as child abuse. This child is raised to trust adults especially his father and associates and he is on trial. Bull Shit.

Comment by Jim | Feb 6, 2008 at 02:36 PM EST

Good job Rhonda!
I was the one you had a private conversation with on the hunting forum in TX. Most, if not all hunters despise these type hunts. Thank you for the truth.

Comment by MDC | Feb 6, 2008 at 11:36 AM EST

Thanks, MDC, for the encouragement . Nice to hear from you.

Comment by Rhonda R. Shearer | Feb 6, 2008 at 06:32 PM EST

If the pig has been or will be ruled as “domestic” and not wild, then I will retract my statement regarding that cruelty doesn’t apply. I thought that I had read here that the pig was ruled feral. My mistake and in this situation, I appear to be wrong. The link that you provided is one that I have already visited and armed only with an accountant’s knowledge of the law, it seems that it ONLY applies to domesticated animals. I am not sure why 4 days in the wild would make a legal difference in it’s classification. My question to Alabama Game and Fish would be “At what point does the animal become wild".Sounds fishy in itself and at the very least subjective. When it comes to cruelty of animals, I have been and will continue to draw the line between domestic and wild. If this pig is or has been ruled as feral, then cruelty doesn’t apply, at least in the courtroom.

You can assume that I have ties to these parties but I can assure that my independence is one of the truths on this site and in my estimation that truth may sit with a minority of other absolute truths. I felt that if I kept posting, and if there was ulterior motivation, it would come out. Based upon your replies I don’t think that you are nearly as offended by the news networks and their journalism skills as you are by these hunters and their actions. You probably keep responding to me, not out of respect but it simply keeps your site in the fore front and is good publicity and I have likely stirred some of your emotions regarding animal rights. My stereotype is that animal right’s activist don’t want to be confused with the facts. They have an agenda and will not bend or tolerate other viewpoints. Feral pigs were once domesticated and they either escaped or was turned loose in the wild. They are destructive and they propagate like kudzu. They will ruin a piece of property in a matter of months and they should be removed. The hunting efforts are not very efficient at population control and usually disease and environmental changes have a larger effect.

As far as these hunters lying or sensationalizing, I think that you are guilty as they are. You have embellished and dramatized the situation for your gain. The best that I can surmise is that your website is promoted as a site that is for exposing journalists and their bad and unethical behavior. From your “about us page”, Its mission differs from other journalism sites in its focus on the knowable, the testable, the verifiable—in short, the facts. The intent of our case studies is to improve journalistic fact-finding and fact-checking methods and practice. I would like to add that I think it is about facts that you chose to report and not necessarily 100% of the facts, just those that create a better story with a smidgen of hyperbole thrown in for good measure. These hunters are not journalists but you have devoted hundreds of hours of your precious time left on this earth to expose these mean men. Good for you. Where is the effort to persecute these journalists? I came to this site expecting stinky journalism and all that I got was stinky hunting. I saw where you doing a piece on dog fighting. Is there a journalism infraction or is it about dog fighting? Just curious. I sincerely hope that more activists are offended by my stance and are prompted to post. I am sure that there are some intelligent and could make a good case but they don’t usually feel the need to respond to a hillbilly like me. My experience has taught me that most are like the yahoo’s that have already posted on here and that is like turning on the kitchen light and watching the cockroaches. I am through posting partly because there isn’t anything else to be said and partly because I have gotten bored with it. I will likely visit from time to time to see what else you may be cooking. I may even drop you a line to attempt to set you straight. (ha) And by the way, I truly do feel sorry for people like James and rik. It must be a miserable life. I don’t guess it would be accurate to say that I these boys are the type of person that I would like to have a glass of Merlot or a swig of moonshine with, but I don’t hate them either and that my friend is another absolute truth. You can bank on it. (piggy bank) Regards,

Comment by Concerned | Feb 3, 2008 at 11:26 AM EST

Not fair that you say I am not speaking of stinky journalism and only of the issues to the hunt as proof of my bad motives. I am only responding to your statements and questions presented to me about the hunt, the law etc. If your questions were about journalism, my answers and discussion would follow that topic. So please stop the rhetorical trickery.Especially unjust is your equating what I do as lying and equal to the hunters blatant lies. If you, Sir, are accusing me of lying, you better present evidence right here and now--or retract your claim. There are libel laws to protect me.

I will be reporting more details about the stinky journalism involved very soon, if you are really interested. The main subject of the article above was to present the issue of Jamison facing a court room with a risk of enforcement through not fault of his own.

I hardly think enough of myself to imagine this bloated discussion we are having will somehow creates a surge in page views on this site!. It is purely out of respect for you that I am answering--maybe our mothers would care to read all this yada yada talk, but I am not even so sure of that. So please, I have not attacked you for having a bad motive for writing ..its very unfair you attack my motive especially when I treat you so fairly. In reality, for all anyone knows you have a site...that in my fantasy world and speculation...links to this comments section. You do this for the purpose of driving visitors to your ad filled blog!! Aha! Gotcha And that's why you write...Pleeze. Give me a break. I have given you one. I don't think either of us have a hidden $ motive! But what I believe you are trying to do is use an ad hominem attack or "logical fallacy" to discredit me instead of dealing only with my facts and argument-- which is unfair on its face. I selected the following from the web at random and from Dictionary.com

AD HOMINEM : Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

"Description of Ad Hominem"

"Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form: "

1. Person A makes claim X.

2. Person B makes an attack on person A.

3. Therefore A's claim is false.

"The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made)."


Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."


Comment by Rhonda R. Shearer | Feb 3, 2008 at 01:39 PM EST

I going to go back on my word now when I said I was thru posting but only to set the record straight. I said and I quote: "As far as these hunters lying or sensationalizing, I think that you are guilty as they are." Apparently that angered you in a manner that prohibited you from understanding what I was saying. The more that I have actually went to other sources for some of my information, I am not convinced that these guys did anything legally wrong.
If you have truly been offended by my comments, then I apologize and retract all that I have said. You have made some pretty sharp comments about me but I take it in the spirit of the debate and I assumed that you did likewise. . Some of your posters have went further with their comments and again I did not take it personally. If you don't find value in my posts or if you believe them to be incorrect, I would respectfully ask that you remove them.

Sometimes the written word doesn't come across the same way that I intend. My last post was meant to add a litte bit of humor but apparently it missed it's mark.
With your permission, I will leave this argument as it is.

Comment by Concerned | Feb 3, 2008 at 02:56 PM EST

Thank you for your apology. Please come back. I want people to feel free to speak their minds but want to discourage name calling or personal attacks. Especially serious accusations, like lying--must be backed up with facts. Indeed, it is my responsiblity to firmly and actively defend my good name from false accusatons.

My accusation of lying by the hunters is completely verified and documented by their own ad, the farmer's testimony of when he was paid and the hog picked up, and further confirmed by Alabama Wildlife and Fisheries.

Comment by Rhonda R. Shearer | Feb 3, 2008 at 03:23 PM EST

"Whats the difference if it takes an animal 15 minutes or 3 hours to die" - someone commented, ... plain stupid remark., insensitive idiot! i'd like to do a 'trading places' on ya so you'd get your answer! hunting should only be allowed if there is a genuine NEED, Sport hunting is SENSELESS. there's far to many people and few animals .. endangered, etc.

In general the human race is pathetic, stupid, ruins & destroys most all around it (nature, environment)... including itself. we should go back to the days/times when there were Beast filled arenas, Crocodile pits, Shark pools and throw evil, cruel, sadistic, idiotic morons there (of which there are plenty eXamples of here, Bush should be one of the 1st) ... we'd be doing the human race and the world a favor!

Comment by riK | Feb 2, 2008 at 02:51 PM EST
Show all
 1     

 
About Us      Art Science Research Laboratory, Inc.      Email Us: info@asrlab.org      Sign Up for Mailing List      Site Map      RSS Feed
© 2009 StinkyJournalism.org   62 Greene Street, New York, NY 10012      Tel:(212) 925-8812      Fax:(212) 925-0459