I'm not a fan of Hilary in general and when she said Trump's kids were a good thing about trump I squirmed even more, in part because of this. I've seen no evidence whatsoever they are good kids. Everything indicates they are not.
Trump admin. to reverse ban on elephant trophies from Africa
- Thread starter sglowrider
- Start date
I'm not a fan of Hilary in general and when she said Trump's kids were a good thing about trump I squirmed even more, in part because of this. I've seen no evidence whatsoever they are good kids. Everything indicates they are not.
Just to clarify ahead of time: I am not a trophy hunter. I think trophy hunting is sick. I think any individual that would engage in trophy hunting is probably borderline sociopathic.
But...
There's a lot of evidence out there that some African countries have been successful in using limited and licensed trophy hunting as a way to help fund conservation and anti-poaching efforts. If lifting this ban makes it easier for rich sociopathic Americans to perversely transfer some of their ill-gotten gains to African conservation efforts, then I don't really care why they are doing it, because it's probably a net positive.
Conservation is a dirty word for this regime. Its just insecure men trying to be macho.
Yeah, but when a jackass customer leaves you a big tip because he's showing off for his friends and maybe hoping it will get your panties wet, you ignore his intentions, take the money, and pay your electric bill on time for a change.
Depressing times. I cant imagine the damage that will be done in the next few years and beyond.
Three more years and then hopefully we will have a responsible grown up in charge again.
In many ways, this ruling is a metaphor for the country too -- they treat the country like the elephant -- a trophy and to hell with the future or even the rule of law/conservation. It will poison the country in the long term.
Last edited:
The Dentist lobby strikes...
What can I tell you... Many of them are big time trophy hunters...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-hunter but I've always wondered about the hardcore trophy above all guys. Always seemed like some major league issues associated with that stuff...
The taxidermy first, "maybe" a steak or two a distant second, crew have always appeared to me to need help.
What can I tell you... Many of them are big time trophy hunters...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-hunter but I've always wondered about the hardcore trophy above all guys. Always seemed like some major league issues associated with that stuff...
The taxidermy first, "maybe" a steak or two a distant second, crew have always appeared to me to need help.
The Dentist lobby strikes...
What can I tell you... Many of them are big time trophy hunters...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-hunter but I've always wondered about the hardcore trophy above all guys. Always seemed like some major league issues associated with that stuff...
The taxidermy first, "maybe" a steak or two a distant second, crew have always appeared to me to need help.
It's like people who love to have gold everywhere in their apartment. Affirmation.
And three more years to go minimum! Yay!
Imagine the long term damage and the precedence this administration has started. Going after political opponents; de-legitimised MSN and a complete distrust and respect of government; low tolerance of diversity; fragmented society.... the list goes on. And the rest of the world will be poor for it.
People may need bolt down windows in high rises soon.
Last edited:
I think that’s bullshit. As someone who has been on 12 photo safaris, I think these people are sick. If they want to save black rhinos, donate money to conserve the black rhino.
It’s a great excuse to kill amazing and majestic animals. They’re f&cking weird. When I go to Africa, there are 4 groups of people on the airplane with me; African people, missionaries, photo safari enthusiasts, and total red necks going to kill an animal that has zero defense against a rifle.
These people are (as you’ve said) psychopaths. Any idiot could hire a guide to kill these animals. Anyone. They’re in no danger whatsoever.
It’s a great excuse to kill amazing and majestic animals. They’re f&cking weird. When I go to Africa, there are 4 groups of people on the airplane with me; African people, missionaries, photo safari enthusiasts, and total red necks going to kill an animal that has zero defense against a rifle.
These people are (as you’ve said) psychopaths. Any idiot could hire a guide to kill these animals. Anyone. They’re in no danger whatsoever.
Because REAL men drive species into extinction!
Btw how come this REAL man's knife is so clean despite, one assumes that Junior had sliced the elephant's tail off?
As usual, everybody is spouting off about their pet peeves with TLI.
I don't hunt, and I obviously don't take trophies. But I do have various leather garments and footwear. To some, wearing leather makes me the functional equivalent of a trophy hunter. None of us has the moral authority to impose a code of conduct on others, unless of course it affects our common bonds. We have a plethora of animal cruelty laws. Some of those laws make illegal here what is normal in many parts of the world---treating dogs and horses as livestock for example.
I also know in many places, wild big game are starving because of overpopulation. Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park is one example. So the authorities cull the herd. While I don't like the idea of using that as trophy taking, some are okay with that. So what? I also don't get upset about a Cabela's or Bass Pro Shop stores. Is there a moral difference between an elk rack and an elephant trophy?
While elephants in general are a threatened species, I can imagine that in some localized places they also are overpopulated. If the way to improve the health of the herd is to cull the herd, that is a good practice. If that involves taking trophies, who cares?
The biggest problem with elephants are the poachers. Nobody can justify that. I think we should continue our ban on poached goods such as ivory. But if the local law allows a regulated elephant hunt, and a US resident wants to take a trophy, I don't like it, and I also don't care. I don't think there is a public interest in making that a federal crime.
I don't hunt, and I obviously don't take trophies. But I do have various leather garments and footwear. To some, wearing leather makes me the functional equivalent of a trophy hunter. None of us has the moral authority to impose a code of conduct on others, unless of course it affects our common bonds. We have a plethora of animal cruelty laws. Some of those laws make illegal here what is normal in many parts of the world---treating dogs and horses as livestock for example.
I also know in many places, wild big game are starving because of overpopulation. Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park is one example. So the authorities cull the herd. While I don't like the idea of using that as trophy taking, some are okay with that. So what? I also don't get upset about a Cabela's or Bass Pro Shop stores. Is there a moral difference between an elk rack and an elephant trophy?
While elephants in general are a threatened species, I can imagine that in some localized places they also are overpopulated. If the way to improve the health of the herd is to cull the herd, that is a good practice. If that involves taking trophies, who cares?
The biggest problem with elephants are the poachers. Nobody can justify that. I think we should continue our ban on poached goods such as ivory. But if the local law allows a regulated elephant hunt, and a US resident wants to take a trophy, I don't like it, and I also don't care. I don't think there is a public interest in making that a federal crime.
LOL. One can only jump the shark once.
Do you have anything important to say?
Maybe you would like to articulate the public policy behind banning some big game trophies and not others? Or maybe you would like to tell us why we should make elephant trophies illegal in the US, where as far as I know we have no native elephants, when that is legal in places where wild elephants live?
What a dork. Doesn't even know how to dress like a man. Must suck being such a rich loser. He needs jailed.
Is that a real picture? Only a total loser a$$hole would shoot an elephant and cut off its tail.
Lifting the Ban on Elephant Trophies Will Probably Help Save Elephants
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ophies_will_probably_help_save_elephants.html
I believe you're right. I was driving somewhere earlier today and NPR had a guy on from some conservation non-profit that basically said that this idea that allowing trophy hunting actually supports the preservation of endangered species and conservation sites is largely a misnomer perpetuated from the types of groups and people who want to go on large-animal trophy hunts.
In a nut shell, he said mostly what you said - if you want to help keep wild animals protected and alive, advocate for and support protecting them and keeping them alive.
EDIT/ADDITION: One thing the guy being interviewed said (I'll try to find his name and the interview) was that he believed tourism could either support or further develop far more support for conservation efforts. His line of reasoning was that people will pay to see an animal in their natural habitat. If you charge someone to kill an elephant - even if it's at a cost of six figures - over the potential lifespan of that elephant it's probably going to be potential net loss.
Last edited:
The people whose job it is to conserve wildlife disagree. When managed properly, hunting can be a valuable tool in the conservation box. See Mark's link directly above.
I agree whole-heartedly about the sociopathic Trump kids. Obviously I don't know them from Adam, but more and more they keep giving me reason to think they're despicable.
I'd never wish this on anyone, but I wouldn't shed a tear if a big ol' plate of karma was served to them on one of their big-game hunts and the role of prey/hunter was reversed.
Last edited:
A couple of things here.
I realize it very well could be the hand we're dealt, but it seems a sad state of affairs that since some people do some truly evil and abhorrent things, we're agreeing to charge rich douchebags a lot of money to do slightly less evil and abhorrent things. Seems like we're starting from the wrong base line there (not you and me specifically - humanity in general).
And I'm highly skeptical that the money raised on this type of thing will be managed properly. Supposing all the money earmarked for conservation leaves the US, it's never been clear how the money is distributed once it makes it to Zimbabwe or how it's distributed.
And I know people will attack the source, but this blog post from Humane Society president Wayne Pacelle details the pitfalls of lifting the ban on shipping big game hunting trophies to the US.
Agreed...and I would also add that hunters are looking for the alpha at the top whatever type of animal they are hunting. For instance killing the largest bull elephant with the biggest tusks. Killing the dominant male lion in a certain area. You can see the Cape Buffalo they shot in the pictures is a big dominant male. They're the big, bad, bachelors who hang out together.
It weakens the ecosystem. As an example, during Mozambique's civil war, the two groups fighting funded a lot of their weapons by shooting the elephants with the biggest tusks and then selling the ivory. Now, the elephants in Mozambique either have no tusks or tiny tusks. Man has completely changed the species there.
It weakens the ecosystem. As an example, during Mozambique's civil war, the two groups fighting funded a lot of their weapons by shooting the elephants with the biggest tusks and then selling the ivory. Now, the elephants in Mozambique either have no tusks or tiny tusks. Man has completely changed the species there.
You have zero understanding of how biology works. You're just making up pseudoscience to back up your preferred position.
Look, people like Wayne Pacelle don't want us to hunt animals for sport. I get that. But the question here isn't whether or not sport hunting is wrong. It's whether or not having a limited hunting program can help conservation efforts. That's not really debatable. There is a reason the Obama administration banned trophy imports Zambia and Zimbabwe, but not South Africa or Namibia, and that's because those two countries had successfully demonstrated that the elephant populations were stable, and that the money was being put to good use. Zimbabwe had failed (AFAIK, at the time, Zambia hadn't even tried, since they had already banned elephant hunting out of fear the population was shrinking; they didn't allow it again until 2015, after more research showed the population to be healthy and stable).
Namibia is probably the poster child for successful trophy hunting. They have almost no resources to put toward conservation and anti-poaching efforts, and rely heavily on exorbitant fees from rich Westerners looking to add rare animals to their collection. They are real life evidence that this works. Most experts agree that without the well-managed trophy hunting program, game populations in Namibia would be in much worse shape, because poaching would be rampant.
People like Pacelle and our own DrHoops are like the pro-lifers who only care about banning abortion because they think it's wrong, but have no concern for looking at policies that actually reduce the number of abortions in real life, such as better access to reproductive planning services and better support for poor single mothers. As I said in my very first reply, I think trophy hunters are sick puppies. If one of them were killed by a lion they were stalking, my gut reaction would be "Good for the lion." But the fact is these programs work.
And maybe Botswana made the right decision. What's best for one population isn't necessarily best for the other. You've been to Namibia, but you ignore the fact that Namibia is a big game hunting success story.
A well-managed hunting program can be a helpful part of larger conservation efforts. This is what the experts say, and they have good reason to say it. You can spout off all you want, but I'll trust the experts.
Didn't he say that he makes all policies and decisions? Military or otherwise.
#flipflopper2020
He probably didn't even have anything to do with it, but now that it's a story, it's politics.
Pretty obvious that hunting in this day and age is a lousy option at best, even if it's the best option currently available in any given region. Ecological culling of herds, if really needed, doesn't need to be done through game hunting. Hopefully each area will come up with better and viable solutions before it's too late.
The problem with places like sub-Saharan Africa really comes down to money. They don't have the resources to combat poaching. As long as they can keep the population stable, those rare hunting licenses, which can sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single kill, pump needed money into the effort.
You are being way too pragmatic in your responses.
I've been to Africa once (Kenya). Might as well been on Mars compared to what we are used to here.
This wouldn't have been a POTUS level call. I'm sure he heard of it the same time that we did.
Please note, I'm not defending this specific change, or suggesting I think Zambia and Zimbabwe will get it right (especially Zimbabwe with their current situation). I'm just pointing out that there is actual, real-world evidence that when African countries who need the money for conservation do use limited hunting as a tool, and when they manage it correctly, it works. It works in Namibia, a country that probably couldn't even investigate poaching without the funds hunting brings in. So it clearly can be done. That doesn't mean it's the right choice for every country, but it does mean that the people who are spouting off that hunting is always detrimental to an animal population are full of crap.
EDIT: Plus, I'll listen to the never-hunters the minute they go permanently vegan. A death is a death, whether you do it with a rifle, or someone else did it with a blade two months before you picked up your conveniently-no-longer-looks-like-a-living-being at Kroger.
No, I got it exactly. There were plenty of liberal sites that had the same conclusion that you did.
Being smart is using science and research to come up with good public policy. For me, I don't care what side it comes from...as long as there is a legit argument. The knee jerk response to to this issue from the left (including on this thread) was poor.
I don't get trophy hunting at all. I could never enjoy killing a deer here in Indiana, and I know it's something than needs to be done to contain the population.
That said, I was in Texas last week shooting guns, and probably changed my perspective a tiny bit on the topic, in general.
I would also never engage in trophy hunting. I think it's a sick sport. I enjoy target shooting, and I imagine if I was hunting for food, I'd have no problem with it (I've never had a problem fishing for food, for example). But I can't get down with hunting living animals just for the sport of it.
That said, you've encapsulated my main point well. This is about policy. Policy shouldn't be about knee-jerk reactions; it should be about what works.
I'll only add....that people REALLY underestimate how large the Federal Govt is. And how many decisions are made on a daily basis that have very, very little to do with political appointees.
Almost everything that happens, beyond the super high-level, uber-politcal decisions are completed by career folks in the SES level of govt.
@Aloha Hoosier and others that have spent a lot of time working within the beast can attest to this.
Like I said above, I doubt Trump had anything to do with this decision. It was probably made by FWS professionals.
I know that you know that.
Most people....and the this is one thing that I hate the media for....says "Trump Admin kills ban on Elephant heads"
Technically true.
But 95% of public see Trump sitting at a desk saying go kill elephants....and the reality is he never even had a clue because it wouldn't of been at his level.
