Trump lifts ban on import of Ivory

[Stainless]

It matters not what anyone says, the local jesters have their minds made up.

Welcome to the new posters, don't let the few dipshits who ask you "how did you get here?" and such bullshit bother you, they think they own this forum.

Please join in and continue to share your unique knowledge with posters who might be unfamiliar with the idea of conservation hunting and the processes that it entails.

The more the merrier!

You said this much more eloquently than I would have.
Was killing me last night not to post.
Phone phucked up, and shit internet service in Eliminators spray booth...


To you new guys!
Welcome aboard.
As you can see, there are some here who already know more than you experienced hunters. Even though they've never hunted there.

Your efforts weren't for not though. I learned from them, I'm sure others did as well.

Since you've already made the effort to join the site you may as well step into some other sections and poke around.
There's plenty to learn and see.

Check out the "New builds from the mold" section.
Many makers there offering an inside glimps into what goes into creating someone's dream.

You get to see it done from the inside out.

Post 365 from Wikipedia sealed what I already thought about Elephant conservation.

 

[DLS]

The US government says we need to kill Elephants as a trophy sport to save them. The logic here, make it a trophy sport, breed elephants, increase the population for profit. I understand that logic. Here is the problem. Africa contains the MOST (fact) corrupt countries in the world. Unless it is going to be heavily regulated (which I'm against), this will just end badly. I could be, wrong. I hope I am in the case.

I just joined RDP, as this topic is of great interest to me. I have a question in regards to your 'Here is the problem...' comment. Are you aware that these 'corrupt' African governments have been providing regulated hunting of elephants for decades? I agree that many African governments are corrupt, but that doesn't preclude the game departments of many of those countries from responsibly managing their wildlife populations, including elephants. Zimbabwe has been doing it rather well since their independence in 1980. Prior to that the Rhodesia government managed things well also.

In general, countries that do allow hunting of elephants have healthy populations, while many countries with low elephant populations have not had any regulated, legal elephant hunting for many years.

 

[Bobby V]

It matters not what anyone says, the local jesters have their minds made up.

Welcome to the new posters, don't let the few dipshits who ask you "how did you get here?" and such bullshit bother you, they think they own this forum.

Please join in and continue to share your unique knowledge with posters who might be unfamiliar with the idea of conservation hunting and the processes that it entails.

The more the merrier!

Relax SBM. The newbies invited everyone to their site before anyone asked for it and even posted a link to the thread in another post where Nganga asked them to come to RDP. Nobody was holding a elephant gun to their head.

 

[was thatguy]

Am I the only one that thinks it is funny that this thread was started (and titled) with a lie?

The OP and his coaches never gave a flying fuck about elephants until huckleberry dug up a 5 year old photo.
It's hilarious that he/ they are now the crusaders of all things Africa and experts in the field of conservation.
What a fucking joke.

 

[Stainless]

Am I the only one that thinks it is funny that this thread was started (and titled) with a lie?

The OP and his coaches never gave a flying fuck about elephants until huckleberry dug up a 5 year old photo.
It's hilarious that he/ they are now the crusaders of all things Africa and experts in the field of conservation.
What a fucking joke.

What is a lie about the the thread
title?

Hey Genious, I’ve never thought it was acceptable to hunt Elephants for sport!

And lastly I haven’t seen anyone post their degree in Conservation of Elephants, so in the same context what makes them qualified to discuss it?

 

[buck35]

An analogy to this with the elephants decimating crops , here in Washington a friend has an apple and pear orchard across the river from my place .the last couple winters a herd of elk has taken up residence ther and absolutely reaked havoc . They eat the buds off the trees and the big bulls tear the shit out of the limbs with their horns. He wishes someone would come kill em all, lol
there is 60 to 80 of them so these 500 lb animals can be a real problem with free food in the winter.

 

[SBMech]

What is a lie about the the thread
title?

Hey Genious, I’ve never thought it was acceptable to hunt Elephants for sport!

And lastly I haven’t seen anyone post their degree in Conservation of Elephants, so in the same context what makes them qualified to discuss it?

Well you certainly are no "Genius" .

Just so you know, there is no "Conservation of Elephants" Degree available.....It's called "Conservation Management" Or "Wildlife Conservation". Most game wardens have one or both degrees, as well as additional education pertaining to Law Enforcement, Biology, Ecology, and Natural Resource Management.

Trust me, the people who are involved in this more than "feelings" have much better tools to use than your ignorant opinion.

 

[Stainless]

Well you certainly are no "Genius" .

Just so you know, there is no "Conservation of Elephants" Degree available.....It's called "Conservation Management" Or "Wildlife Conservation". Most game wardens have one or both degrees, as well as additional education pertaining to Law Enforcement, Biology, Ecology, and Natural Resource Management.

Trust me, the people who are involved in this more than "feelings" have much better tools to use than your ignorant opinion.

So do any of the people in here lecturing have the degree you speak of, including yourself?
Trust me, I’m not listening to your ignorant opinions either!

 

[Bobby V]

So do any of the people in here lecturing have the degree you speak of, including yourself?
Trust me, I’m not listening to your ignorant opinions either!

SBM degrees are in oil changes and brake jobs.

 

[Stainless]

SBM degrees are in oil changes and brake jobs.

Didn’t he once say he lives in a $2M house? He must be a helluva Lubrication Engineer! Maybe I’m thinking of someone else, hmm.

 

[saucedaddy]

SBM degrees are in oil changes and brake jobs.

Yup, king of Lube jobs & Hand Jobs! Fab 5ers love a guy that can spin a wrench!

 

[buck35]

So do any of the people in here lecturing have the degree you speak of, including yourself?
Trust me, I’m not listening to your ignorant opinions either!

I would take first hand knowledge over internet knowledge anyday. Everything we see in this day and age seems to be skewed by the writers opinion. Could
he wrong , yep , but he has been there and seen and it. while I could never shoot one the thought of them being poisoned and suffering is far worse in my mind.Many years ago I was an avid hunter, killed a bear and upon walking down the mountain to check it out realized it was, a yearling. Worst thing was when we skinned it and it looked lile a human.
as far as elephants are concerned, with people encroaching how else can they be managed? I have no answers and feel for them , but as I posted above, I get it.

 

[Stainless]

I would take first hand knowledge over internet knowledge anyday. Everything we see in this day and age seems to be skewed by the writers opinion. Could
he wrong , yep , but he has been there and seen and it. while I could never shoot one the thought of them being poisoned and suffering is far worse in my mind.Many years ago I was an avid hunter, killed a bear and upon walking down the mountain to check it out realized it was, a yearling. Worst thing was when we skinned it and it looked lile a human.
as far as elephants are concerned, with people encroaching how else can they be managed? I have no answers and feel for them , but as I posted above, I get it.

Why would you take the opinions of someone that is biased?
Sorry, I don’t agree with it, a lot of what’s been written in this thread is opinion based including mine.
But if you match facts, Elephant population is declining in spite of Sport Trophy Hunting Conservation, hence why they are a threatened species.

 

[DLS]

Why would you take the opinions of someone that is biased?
Sorry, I don’t agree with it, a lot of what’s been written in this thread is opinion based including mine.
But if you match facts, Elephant population is declining in spite of Sport Trophy Hunting Conservation, hence why they are a threatened species.

Stainless, I find it curious why you sit on your position about 'elephants declining' without opening your mind to much, or at least some, of what has been explained here. The topic is complex and yet, most people wish to consider it in simple, broad terms. Nobody has to agree with the other side, but to ignore rational, well reasoned posts solely because they don't support your view (or anyone else's's for that matter) is very closed minded. I find your comments to be of interest but also realize they're based on your feelings and personal philosophy, rather than biological scienc. I've spent a fair bit of time in elephant country and gotten to know a number of Africans who live among them, so you can realize I have a different view than you.

 

[Stainless]

Stainless, I find it curious why you sit on your position about 'elephants declining' without opening your mind to much, or at least some, of what has been explained here. The topic is complex and yet, most people wish to consider it in simple, broad terms. Nobody has to agree with the other side, but to ignore rational, well reasoned posts solely because they don't support your view (or anyone else's's for that matter) is very closed minded. I find your comments to be of interest but also realize they're based on your feelings and personal philosophy, rather than biological scienc. I've spent a fair bit of time in elephant country and gotten to know a number of Africans who live among them, so you can realize I have a different view than you.

First let me say I’m not used to having civil conversations as you guys have brought from the Handloading forum.
So allow me to ask if you read the link from Wikipedia in post 365? I know there’s a lot of BS in this thread including mine so you may have missed it. It’s not the only article out there, but I used it because it appears the least biased.
It’s simple numbers, Elephant population is declining and when you introduce outside money (Sport Trophy Hunting) into the mix it compounds corruption. $50K or whatever an Elephant permit costs when waived in front of a poor nation is the equivalent of a million dollars to us. People are greedy and will do other things with that money, it happens here in a legal sense(money collected for one thing and used otherwise) and we are a lawful nation. I seriously doubt much of the fee from an Elephant permit is actually helping the Elephants, but I would read anything that can be proved that says I’m wrong.
Thanks,
SS
Edit, in case you guys from Handloading haven’t noticed this forum is extremely Tribal, Trump Supporters vs Non supporters of Trump. So this thread is going the usual direction as all the others here do.

 

[LHeym500]

What forum are you guys on that got you to come over to a boating site.

Post the link from your forum that got you here.

I am not cumputer savvy to post links, but I have in my post here invited all to Accurate Reloading.com
That is where we come from on page Two of the African Hunting forum you can find the post from the former Zimbabwe game ranger detailing the over concentration of Elephant in national parks amped the post showing success of the 6 year old rule for lion.

 

[Stainless]

I am not cumputer savvy to post links, but I have in my post here invited all to Accurate Reloading.com

To post a link with PC place the pointer of your mouse on the thread title and right click, select copy.
Go to this forum and start a reply and right click in the open space, select paste and the live link will appear.
Basically the same with a phone except you use your finger instead of mouse.

 

[was thatguy]

Stainless, I find it curious why you sit on your position about 'elephants declining' without opening your mind to much, or at least some, of what has been explained here. The topic is complex and yet, most people wish to consider it in simple, broad terms. Nobody has to agree with the other side, but to ignore rational, well reasoned posts solely because they don't support your view (or anyone else's's for that matter) is very closed minded. I find your comments to be of interest but also realize they're based on your feelings and personal philosophy, rather than biological scienc. I've spent a fair bit of time in elephant country and gotten to know a number of Africans who live among them, so you can realize I have a different view than you.

Simply put, he hates Trump.
It's why he started this thread with the image and title that he used.
Anything Trump says, anything Trump does, Shameus is against.
No amount of discussion, proof, statistics, or anyone's personal experience will dissuade him from his path.
This is nothing new here.

 

[Stainless]

Simply put, he hates Trump.
It's why he started this thread with the image and title that he used.
Anything Trump says, anything Trump does, Shameus is against.
No amount of discussion, proof, statistics, or anyone's personal experience will dissuade him from his path.
This is nothing new here.

You forgot to add that I’m a Republican and that REALLY chaps your ass!
Also the fact that I’m not a sheep such as you.

Here, use a jar of this on your chapped ass.

 

[Sandlord]

Stainless, I find it curious why you sit on your position about 'elephants declining' without opening your mind to much, or at least some, of what has been explained here. The topic is complex and yet, most people wish to consider it in simple, broad terms. Nobody has to agree with the other side, but to ignore rational, well reasoned posts solely because they don't support your view (or anyone else's's for that matter) is very closed minded. I find your comments to be of interest but also realize they're based on your feelings and personal philosophy, rather than biological scienc. I've spent a fair bit of time in elephant country and gotten to know a number of Africans who live among them, so you can realize I have a different view than you.

Hi DLS and:
In time you will learn that he just takes the opposite side of every issue (he doesn't even have to know much about the issue). He usually doesn't start calling people names until they take the first shot. If you stick to the issue, have the facts to back up your position, and don't get emotional, you can somewhat get along with him. Otherwise expect 20 pages of back and forth off topic BS until the thread is ruined. He will always be waiting for you to show a weakness, make a mistake, or drop your guard. He claims to be a Republican, but I have yet to see him take the conservative position or support a conservative candidate. You will notice he and the other 6 lefties tend to "like" each others posts a lot and post GPAU (Great post as Usual) after each others post. They travel in a pack.

 

[Stainless]

Hi DLS and:
In time you will learn that he just takes the opposite side of every issue (he doesn't even have to know much about the issue). He usually doesn't start calling people names until they take the first shot. If you stick to the issue, have the facts to back up your position, and don't get emotional, you can somewhat get along with him. Otherwise expect 20 pages of back and forth off topic BS until the thread is ruined. He will always be waiting for you to show a weakness, make a mistake, or drop your guard. He claims to be a Republican, but I have yet to see him take the conservative position or support a conservative candidate. You will notice he and the other 6 lefties tend to "like" each others posts a lot and post GPAU (Great post as Usual) after each others post. They travel in a pack.

Lol, a lot of hypocrite in this post.

 

[Sandlord]

Lol, a lot of hypocrite in this post.

thats funny, you don't see it? maybe read it again, slower

 

[saucedaddy]

Hi DLS and:
In time you will learn that he just takes the opposite side of every issue (he doesn't even have to know much about the issue). He usually doesn't start calling people names until they take the first shot. If you stick to the issue, have the facts to back up your position, and don't get emotional, you can somewhat get along with him. Otherwise expect 20 pages of back and forth off topic BS until the thread is ruined. He will always be waiting for you to show a weakness, make a mistake, or drop your guard. He claims to be a Republican, but I have yet to see him take the conservative position or support a conservative candidate. You will notice he and the other 6 lefties tend to "like" each others posts a lot and post GPAU (Great post as Usual) after each others post. They travel in a pack.

Since your relatively new and for accounting purposes...
1. GPAU was created out of the Fab 5ers constant use of "Another great post" by...any said 5er or lemming.
2. The #2 in Fab 5 hierarchy leads the league in "Likes" #16025?
GPAU.....

 

[was thatguy]

Since your relatively new and for accounting purposes...
1. GPAU was created out of the Fab 5ers constant use of "Another great post" by...any said 5er or lemming.
2. The #2 in Fab 5 hierarchy leads the league in "Likes" #16025?
GPAU.....

When did I get bumped to #2?

Although it is true I'm a "likable" guy (you yourself threw a like my way today) historically you've labeled me #3
Was there a shuffling I'm unaware of?

 

[LHeym500]

To post a link with PC place the pointer of your mouse on the thread title and right click, select copy.
Go to this forum and start a reply and right click in the open space, select paste and the live link will appear.
Basically the same with a phone except you use your finger instead of mouse.

Thank you I, I will give it try tomorrow afternoon. If one can break screw a computer function up it is me.

 

[Stainless]

thats funny, you don't see it? maybe read it again, slower

Never gets talked about in here, but here’s a couple;
1 I’m against abortion
2 I’m against stricter gun control

As for why I can’t stand Trump;
1 loudmouth blow hard
2 racist
3 bully
4 treats women like shit that don’t bow to him
5 liar
6 fucks off playing golf all the time
7 travels somewhere every weekend after saying he was going to be at the WH
8 won’t work cooperatively to get anything done
9 braggart
10 incites violence with minorities


The one thing you got right is I don’t start the insults.

 

[Stainless]

Thank you I, I will give it try tomorrow afternoon. If one can break screw a computer function up it is me.

Lol, do you have a test section at your home site to practice? If not there’s one here down at the bottom I believe.

 

[saucedaddy]

View attachment 604481

When did I get bumped to #2?

Although it is true I'm a "likable" guy (you yourself threw a like my way today) historically you've labeled me #3
Was there a shuffling I'm unaware of?

Sorry dog, someone must have removed the sticky but I'm sure it's archived somewhere? Last year when PK got removed for excessive absenteeism you got bumped you to #2. #2 fits you perfectly as well.
GPAU & a Like!

 

[was thatguy]

Thanks Sprayer, I forgot about that.

Back to the pretend topic, here's what a CNN contributor has to say.
Hopefully it won't make Shameus head explode.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/24/opinions/trophy-hunting-decline-of-species-opinion-dickman/index.html

 

[saucedaddy]

Thanks Sprayer, I forgot about that.

Back to the pretend topic, here's what a CNN contributor has to say.
Hopefully it won't make Shameus head explode.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/24/opinions/trophy-hunting-decline-of-species-opinion-dickman/index.html

Original Fab 5. Circa 2014
1. Reeeg
2. PK
3. WTG
4. OT
5. 5hundy

Updated Fab 5.. Reorg. Took place in 2016 and rankings change and PK got bounced for weak participation.
Current Membership.
1. Reegie
2. WTG
3. UncleGeo
4. BBC. (Grads had an updated moniker for BBC, but I don't remember):headscratch:
5. OT
Now it is highly possible OT will be released this year, so all you Fab 5 wannabes need to start producing some irrational, dyslexic vitriol that is required for membership. Right now the bench sits about 4 deep.:champagne:
GPAUarty2:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/24/opinions/trophy-hunting-decline-of-species-opinion-dickman/index.html[/QUOTE]

 

[buck35]

Why would you take the opinions of someone that is biased?
Sorry, I don’t agree with it, a lot of what’s been written in this thread is opinion based including mine.
But if you match facts, Elephant population is declining in spite of Sport Trophy Hunting Conservation, hence why they are a threatened species.

I dont think you bothered to read post 406, I can see both sides of this and fully understand the principles of conservation.

They are threatened because the natives want them controlled or irradicated.

 

[DLS]

First let me say I’m not used to having civil conversations as you guys have brought from the Handloading forum.
So allow me to ask if you read the link from Wikipedia in post 365? I know there’s a lot of BS in this thread including mine so you may have missed it. It’s not the only article out there, but I used it because it appears the least biased.
It’s simple numbers, Elephant population is declining and when you introduce outside money (Sport Trophy Hunting) into the mix it compounds corruption. $50K or whatever an Elephant permit costs when waived in front of a poor nation is the equivalent of a million dollars to us. People are greedy and will do other things with that money, it happens here in a legal sense(money collected for one thing and used otherwise) and we are a lawful nation. I seriously doubt much of the fee from an Elephant permit is actually helping the Elephants, but I would read anything that can be proved that says I’m wrong.
Thanks,
SS
Edit, in case you guys from Handloading haven’t noticed this forum is extremely Tribal, Trump Supporters vs Non supporters of Trump. So this thread is going the usual direction as all the others here do.

Yes, I've read the Wikipedia information you linked to in post 365. For the most part it is pretty good information. However, there is much more to this topic than Wikipedia addressed.

I should also disclose to you that I've hunted elephants twice, taking old bulls in Zimbabwe in 1983 and 1986. Both bulls were thought to be at least 45 years old and one probably around 50 based on the molars. My first elephant was part of a 24 day safari that I exchanged for a powerful (at the time) computer system that was needed by the Matetsi Research Office of Zimbabwe Parks and wildlife. They spec'd the system they needed and offered me a safari if I would donate it to them. They wanted the equipment instead of money to make sure my U.S. Dollars weren't diluted through corruption. I also supplied additional equipment to Zim Parks and Wildlife a few years later as a straight donation with nothing in exchange, only this time it was low light sights that game rangers needed for their rifles to better enable them to shoot ivory and rhino horn poachers at night around their campfires. So, I feel that I've done more than most foreigners when it comes to protecting elephants and combatting poachers. I also, on a safari in Botswana, participated in tracking a group of elephant poachers we spooked off a couple elephants they'd just chopped the tusks out of. We never caught up to them which may have been good as our intent was to eliminate these poachers permanently.

Stainless, I believe you're over-simplifying things when you state, accurately, that continent-wide numbers are historically low and you don't see a reason to hunt them under this scenario. There are a couple shortcomings with this view. First, just as there are areas with too few elephants for the habitat, there are also areas with too many. In the heavily populated areas, reducing the population through selective hunting provides many benefits well beyond anything the hunter directly realizes. Second, everything I've read from you and others about regulated hunting of elephants ignores the fact that offtake would be far greater in many areas except for the revenue from sport hunters that funds anti-poaching patrols and acts as a deterrent by their presence in the field. You seem to miss the fact that a great deal of protected habitat where healthy elephant populations are hunted would be converted to settlement and cattle grazing if it were not set aside for safari hunting.

You worry that not enough money from sport hunters gets to the local communities due to corruption but seem to miss the fact that the very existence of vast tracts of wild habitat exist only because of the safari hunting industry. The CAMPFIRE program in Zimbabwe is supported strongly by the local communities in areas of elephant habitat. They see value in it, regardless of what foreigners think. Loss of habitat, along with poaching, are probably the 2 greatest threats to elephants as well as many other species including lions, so the very existence of a hunting safari industry protects elephants in ways they will not otherwise be protected. I believe in taking a few as long as it saves many. Regulated hunting does exactly this.

I could go on and on but will stop here for the time being. I hope you'll consider my points in the same spirit I offer them, to educate and enlighten, not to demean or disagree.

 

[530RL]

Yes, I've read the Wikipedia information you linked to in post 365. For the most part it is pretty good information. However, there is much more to this topic than Wikipedia addressed.

I should also disclose to you that I've hunted elephants twice, taking old bulls in Zimbabwe in 1983 and 1986. Both bulls were thought to be at least 45 years old and one probably around 50 based on the molars. My first elephant was part of a 24 day safari that I exchanged for a powerful (at the time) computer system that was needed by the Matetsi Research Office of Zimbabwe Parks and wildlife. They spec'd the system they needed and offered me a safari if I would donate it to them. They wanted the equipment instead of money to make sure my U.S. Dollars weren't diluted through corruption. I also supplied additional equipment to Zim Parks and Wildlife a few years later as a straight donation with nothing in exchange, only this time it was low light sights that game rangers needed for their rifles to better enable them to shoot ivory and rhino horn poachers at night around their campfires. So, I feel that I've done more than most foreigners when it comes to protecting elephants and combatting poachers. I also, on a safari in Botswana, participated in tracking a group of elephant poachers we spooked off a couple elephants they'd just chopped the tusks out of. We never caught up to them which may have been good as our intent was to eliminate these poachers permanently.

Stainless, I believe you're over-simplifying things when you state, accurately, that continent-wide numbers are historically low and you don't see a reason to hunt them under this scenario. There are a couple shortcomings with this view. First, just as there are areas with too few elephants for the habitat, there are also areas with too many. In the heavily populated areas, reducing the population through selective hunting provides many benefits well beyond anything the hunter directly realizes. Second, everything I've read from you and others about regulated hunting of elephants ignores the fact that offtake would be far greater in many areas except for the revenue from sport hunters that funds anti-poaching patrols and acts as a deterrent by their presence in the field. You seem to miss the fact that a great deal of protected habitat where healthy elephant populations are hunted would be converted to settlement and cattle grazing if it were not set aside for safari hunting.

You worry that not enough money from sport hunters gets to the local communities due to corruption but seem to miss the fact that the very existence of vast tracts of wild habitat exist only because of the safari hunting industry. The CAMPFIRE program in Zimbabwe is supported strongly by the local communities in areas of elephant habitat. They see value in it, regardless of what foreigners think. Loss of habitat, along with poaching, are probably the 2 greatest threats to elephants as well as many other species including lions, so the very existence of a hunting safari industry protects elephants in ways they will not otherwise be protected. I believe in taking a few as long as it saves many. Regulated hunting does exactly this.

I could go on and on but will stop here for the time being. I hope you'll consider my points in the same spirit I offer them, to educate and enlighten, not to demean or disagree.

I don't think people who oppose the killing of elephants are arguing that all of your points above are not valid.

What they are arguing is that if hunters were solely concerned about elephants, they could donate the time, money, computer or whatever else with the same conditions and programs sans the right to kill an elephant, and as a mathematical result, there would be one more elephant. Put more simply, there are other solutions than hunting, and other solutions are being funded and implemented and to argue absent hunting it would be worse can neither be proven as true or false at this point.

Further, as you state above that the only reason vast tracts of habitat exist is "only because of the safari hunting industry" would certainly be argued with by dozens of independent groups, the tourism industry, quasi-government and government agencies that support vast tracts of wild habitat.

Hunters care about big trophy game populations so that they can kill big trophy game and understand that if these populations continue to fall, they will not be able to kill big trophy game. The help given by hunters in the form of cash, computers or other consideration could be given by these same people if they so chose to, however they only give the money in order to kill an elephant or other trophy game.

And that is certainly their right, but let's at least consider it objectively.

 

[500bbc]

I don't think people who oppose the killing of elephants are arguing that all of your points above are not valid.

What they are arguing is that if hunters were solely concerned about elephants, they could donate the time, money, computer or whatever else with the same conditions and programs sans the right to kill an elephant, and as a mathematical result, there would be one more elephant. Put more simply, there are other solutions than hunting, and other solutions are being funded and implemented and to argue absent hunting it would be worse can neither be proven as true or false at this point.

Further, as you state above that the only reason vast tracts of habitat exist is "only because of the safari hunting industry" would certainly be argued with by dozens of independent groups, the tourism industry, quasi-government and government agencies that support vast tracts of wild habitat.

Hunters care about big trophy game populations so that they can kill big trophy game and understand that if these populations continue to fall, they will not be able to kill big trophy game. The help given by hunters in the form of cash, computers or other consideration could be given by these same people if they so chose to, however they only give the money in order to kill an elephant or other trophy game.

And that is certainly their right, but let's at least consider it objectively.

I agree, welfare has always achieved much better results than work.

 

[DLS]

I don't think people who oppose the killing of elephants are arguing that all of your points above are not valid.

What they are arguing is that if hunters were solely concerned about elephants, they could donate the time, money, computer or whatever else with the same conditions and programs sans the right to kill an elephant, and as a mathematical result, there would be one more elephant. Put more simply, there are other solutions than hunting, and other solutions are being funded and implemented and to argue absent hunting it would be worse can neither be proven as true or false at this point.

Further, as you state above that the only reason vast tracts of habitat exist is "only because of the safari hunting industry" would certainly be argued with by dozens of independent groups, the tourism industry, quasi-government and government agencies that support vast tracts of wild habitat.

Hunters care about big trophy game populations so that they can kill big trophy game and understand that if these populations continue to fall, they will not be able to kill big trophy game. The help given by hunters in the form of cash, computers or other consideration could be given by these same people if they so chose to, however they only give the money in order to kill an elephant or other trophy game.

And that is certainly their right, but let's at least consider it objectively.

OK, 530, let's consider it objectively...

Those people who suggest that hunters should make contributions even if they can't hunt elephants should start leading by example and donating vast sums of cash themselves with no expectation of any personal benefit back to them. I've heard the suggestion about hunters just giving the money for years but I've never heard of those same people giving tens of thousands of dollars themselves to the causes they suggest hunters do. Hypocritical double standard if there ever was one. Until anti-hunters step up and individually give tens of thousands of their own money to elephant conservation, I don't buy this arguement one iota.

As to your response to my comment about areas only existing as wild habitat because of hunting, I think you miss my point. Some areas are in fact supported by photo tourism, but nowhere near the acreage supported by hunting. If photo tourism really were the be all-end all, then why haven't they taken over all the safari areas? The reason is that many safari areas are not conducive to photo-tourism and also that, just like with hunting, the market for photo safaris is somewhat limited, it is not endless. If safari areas were not set aside for safari hunting, they would be used for other purposes. Most other uses are not as wildlife friendly.

I take it that you are a non-hunter, so I don't expect you to really understand what motivates some of us to hunt, and it can be somewhat difficult to put into words. I don't hunt only for a large trophy animal, though that is certainly the objective that causes me to go on a hunt. I hunt for the overall experience of hunting. I often come home without firing a shot but always bring back good memories. I hunt to visit wild places that I'd never go to otherwise and as a result I've been blessed with sights and wildlife experiences that most people will never know in their lifetimes. I have a room with mounted animals from hunts all over the world, but not many people have seen them. That room is for me, not others. What I see when I look at these animals are reminders of some of the greatest experiences of my life that came from the hunts for those animals. Whether Alaska, the Yukon, the American west or various countries in Africa, my passion for hunting has taken me to incredible places where I've enjoyed amazing experiences that go far beyond shooting an animal. Elephant hunting is, for me, an important piece of that puzzle. Knowing that I'm also making a positive contribution that goes beyond dollars is a nice aspect but I'd do it regardless as hunting is important to my life. I believe that hunting is a natural act and I do not find anything wrong with it, though I will concede that I have issues with the way some people conduct themselves while hunting. Do you think there is anything wrong with hunting?

While we focus on an animal such as elephants or lions or whatever, I think we all miss an important point in this discussion. At the core, there is a group of people who believe they should be the arbiters of what everyone else does in leading their lives. Many of these people don't personally approve of hunting, so they don't believe anyone else should do it. They are not content to realize that other people have different interests or values; they believe that people should not do the things they don't approve of. They are closed minded and don't care what others think. They are 'right' (in their own minds) and unaccepting of the fact that some people simply have other values that run counter to theirs and have every bit as much right to pursue their own lives as they choose. Elephants are simply the poster child of the moment. Part of that is the elephant and part of it is because it involves Trump and Trump haters won't miss any opportunity to raise conflict simply because of him. Before elephants, it was a lion nobody in western Zimbabwe had heard of before he was shot. After elephants, it'll be something else.

The issue isn't really elephants. The issue is people who are control freaks that believe everyone else should cow-tow to their own beliefs and values.

 

[530RL]

OK, 530, let's consider it objectively...

Those people who suggest that hunters should make contributions even if they can't hunt elephants should start leading by example and donating vast sums of cash themselves with no expectation of any personal benefit back to them. I've heard the suggestion about hunters just giving the money for years but I've never heard of those same people giving tens of thousands of dollars themselves to the causes they suggest hunters do. Hypocritical double standard if there ever was one. Until anti-hunters step up and individually give tens of thousands of their own money to elephant conservation, I don't buy this arguement one iota.

As to your response to my comment about areas only existing as wild habitat because of hunting, I think you miss my point. Some areas are in fact supported by photo tourism, but nowhere near the acreage supported by hunting. If photo tourism really were the be all-end all, then why haven't they taken over all the safari areas? The reason is that many safari areas are not conducive to photo-tourism and also that, just like with hunting, the market for photo safaris is somewhat limited, it is not endless. If safari areas were not set aside for safari hunting, they would be used for other purposes. Most other uses are not as wildlife friendly.

I take it that you are a non-hunter, so I don't expect you to really understand what motivates some of us to hunt, and it can be somewhat difficult to put into words. I don't hunt only for a large trophy animal, though that is certainly the objective that causes me to go on a hunt. I hunt for the overall experience of hunting. I often come home without firing a shot but always bring back good memories. I hunt to visit wild places that I'd never go to otherwise and as a result I've been blessed with sights and wildlife experiences that most people will never know in their lifetimes. I have a room with mounted animals from hunts all over the world, but not many people have seen them. That room is for me, not others. What I see when I look at these animals are reminders of some of the greatest experiences of my life that came from the hunts for those animals. Whether Alaska, the Yukon, the American west or various countries in Africa, my passion for hunting has taken me to incredible places where I've enjoyed amazing experiences that go far beyond shooting an animal. Elephant hunting is, for me, an important piece of that puzzle. Knowing that I'm also making a positive contribution that goes beyond dollars is a nice aspect but I'd do it regardless as hunting is important to my life. I believe that hunting is a natural act and I do not find anything wrong with it, though I will concede that I have issues with the way some people conduct themselves while hunting. Do you think there is anything wrong with hunting?

While we focus on an animal such as elephants or lions or whatever, I think we all miss an important point in this discussion. At the core, there is a group of people who believe they should be the arbiters of what everyone else does in leading their lives. Many of these people don't personally approve of hunting, so they don't believe anyone else should do it. They are not content to realize that other people have different interests or values; they believe that people should not do the things they don't approve of. They are closed minded and don't care what others think. They are 'right' (in their own minds) and unaccepting of the fact that some people simply have other values that run counter to theirs and have every bit as much right to pursue their lives as they choose. Elephants are simply the poster child of the moment. Before elephants, it was a lion nobody in western Zimbabwe had heard of before he was shot. After elephants, it'll be something else.

The issue isn't really elephants. The issue is people who are control freaks that believe everyone else should cow-tow to their own beliefs and values.

Alright, let's be objective.

Your first paragraph makes my point which is that hunters don't really care about elephants, they care about being able to kill elephants. I agree that that it is hypocritical for "anti-hunters" not to do more, but it is equally ironic that people who want to kill elephants criticize people who do not want to kill elephants as hypocrites when the sole reason a hunter gives money is in order to kill an elephant himself. Yet they insist on wrapping themselves in the cloak of conservation and saving elephants all the while killing elephants.

With respect to the wildlife areas as well as the communal areas management program for indigenous resources, most of the data shows that very little money makes it down to the people on the ground, the hunting industry employees about 15,000 people in the six major game hunting countries whereas they have a population of over 150 million, and the vast majority of resources for game preservation areas are not from hunting organizations, but are from local governments, foreign governments, global government support organizations such as the UN and EU and other support organizations.

The objective truth is that the population of large game animals is going to continue to decline because the population is continuing to expand, over 1.2 billion people live on the African continent and the birth rate is higher than other developed countries. This is just a fact that can not be disputed. There is not enough land for the number of people and animals to survive on.

So I too think we all miss an important point in this discussion. At the core, these animals are mostly going to die over time and become extremely limited if not entirely extinct, but in the mean time each and every group will use them as cover to support what they want to do. Whether it be anti-hunters trying to tell hunters they should not kill an elephant or tiger, or hunters trying to sell their own spiel that killing elephants or tigers actually saves elephants and tigers.

At the end of the day, the issue really is not elephants, tigers or control freaks. The issue is the anti-hunters and the hunters want everyone else to cow-tow to their own beliefs and values.

With respect to your question about hunting, yes when I was younger I did hunt but I do not anymore. And quite frankly I don't really care is someone is pro-killing elephants or anti-killing elephants or any other animal for that matter. I'm just against either side trying to blow smoke up my ass so they can attempt to promote their own beliefs and values.

Why can't people just be honest and say; I wan't to kill an elephant, or I want to kill a tiger? Why is that so hard?

 

[DLS]

Alright, let's be objective.

Your first paragraph makes my point which is that hunters don't really care about elephants, they care about being able to kill elephants. I agree that that it is hypocritical for "anti-hunters" not to do more, but it is equally ironic that people who want to kill elephants criticize people who do not want to kill elephants as hypocrites when the sole reason a hunter gives money is in order to kill an elephant himself. Yet they insist on wrapping themselves in the cloak of conservation and saving elephants all the while killing elephants.

For example, how many computer systems have you donated to the same wildlife resources office without the right to hunt for trophy animals? Dozens I would hope since 1984, given the change in technology and the importance of the mission to save elephants?

With respect to the wildlife areas as well as the communal areas management program for indigenous resources, most of the data shows that very little money makes it down to the people on the ground, the hunting industry employees about 15,000 people in the six major game hunting countries whereas they have a population of over 150 million, and the vast majority of resources for game preservation areas are not from hunting organizations, but are from local governments, foreign governments, global government support organizations such as the UN and EU and other support organizations.

The objective truth is that the population of large game animals is going to continue to decline because the population is continuing to expand, over 1.2 billion people live on the African continent and the birth rate is higher than other developed countries. This is just a fact that can not be disputed. There is not enough land for the number of people and animals to survive on.

So I too think we all miss an important point in this discussion. At the core, these animals are mostly going to die over time and become extremely limited if not entirely extinct, but in the mean time each and every group will use them as cover to support what they want to do. Whether it be anti-hunters trying to tell hunters they should not kill an elephant or tiger, or hunters trying to sell their own spiel that killing elephants or tigers actually saves elephants and tigers.

At the end of the day, the issue really is not elephants, tigers or control freaks. The issue is the anti-hunters and the hunters want everyone else to cow-tow to their own beliefs and values.

With respect to your question about hunting, yes when I was younger I did hunt but I do not anymore. And quite frankly I don't really care is someone is pro-killing elephants or anti-killing elephants or any other animal for that matter. I'm just against either side trying to blow smoke up my ass so they can attempt to promote their own beliefs and values.

Why can't people just be honest and say; I wan't to kill an elephant, or I want to kill a tiger? Why is that so hard?

Actually, 530, it is very unlikely that I'll ever shoot another elephant or that my son will ever hunt them. But, I damn sure want them around when I'm out in the bush. Wild places without elephants just aren't the same, at least to me. My life is richer when I get to experience elephants up close and personal. I have no problem that my interest in conservation, including elephant conservation, is directly tied to my interest in hunting. I don't believe there is anything wrong with that. One difference is that I'm not suggesting others contribute to conservation because I think it's the right thing to do. I do it because I believe in it and get great enjoyment from the time I spend in those areas. Again, I ask you to point out what is wrong with that if you see anything negative. The fact that all game populations benefit as a residual effect of what I do is another positive benefit. But that's secondary and I'm fine with that.

You still miss an important point, illustrated by your statement that 'anti-hunters and hunters want everyone else to cow-tow to their beliefs'. Actually, I think you are half right. Anti's do want everyone to bend to their will. I think most hunters just want to be left alone to pursue their interest and don't feel a need for others to approve of them as long as they leave us alone. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it. 530, I don't know what your, or others, interests are and it's none of my business unless it impacts me. Do whatever the heck you want as long as it's legal. But, by the same measure, don't tread on my interests and how I choose to lead my life. I really do think it's as simple as that.

 

[Stainless]

I found this while googling CAMPFIRE during lunch, it's a recent article in National Geographic and contradicts a lot of what is being posted here about Sport Trophy Hunting of Elephants.
I don't have time to debate today, but hopefully I'll have time tonight.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...bwe-namibia/&usg=AOvVaw3eAG1YqB1SQYgUivSfDfH3

 

[530RL]

Actually, 530, it is very unlikely that I'll ever shoot another elephant or that my son will ever hunt them. But, I damn sure want them around when I'm out in the bush. Wild places without elephants just aren't the same, at least to me. My life is richer when I get to experience elephants up close and personal. I have no problem that my interest in conservation, including elephant conservation, is directly tied to my interest in hunting. I don't believe there is anything wrong with that. One difference is that I'm not suggesting others contribute to conservation because I think it's the right thing to do. I do it because I believe in it and get great enjoyment from the time I spend in those areas. Again, I ask you to point out what is wrong with that if you see anything negative. The fact that all game populations benefit as a residual effect of what I do is another positive benefit. But that's secondary and I'm fine with that.

You still miss an important point, illustrated by your statement that 'anti-hunters and hunters want everyone else to cow-tow to their beliefs'. Actually, I think you are half right. Anti's do want everyone to bend to their will. I think most hunters just want to be left alone to pursue their interest and don't feel a need for others to approve of them as long as they leave us alone. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it. 530, I don't know what your, or others, interests are and it's none of my business unless it impacts me. Do whatever the heck you want as long as it's legal. But, by the same measure, don't tread on my interests and how I choose to lead my life. I really do think it's as simple as that.

Your second paragraph that I am half right is my point. Quite frankly it is the point of all arguments in a Political Section.

You believe that people who want to protect an elephant from being killed, should have no right to express that opinion and should have no right to attempt to stop the killing of elephants because such actions are an attempt to make hunters bend to the will of those who support the elephant; and by attempting to protect the elephants from being killed, such actions tread on a hunters ability to kill, and interest in killing elephants.

But hunters who want to kill elephants should have an absolute right to kill elephants, and having that absolute right does not in any way make those who want to protect elephants, who want to see elephant populations expand as opposed to recede, bend to a hunters will.

Personally I understand hunters want to kill elephants, and I understand some people don't want hunters to kill elephants. And both sides have a right to their arguments and want to force it down the throat of the other. But I do think both sides are trying to cram their beliefs down the other side, as there is a third party involved.

And neither side is ever going to win until every last elephant is gone. Unfortunately, that is how these arguments are typically solved.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

I found this while googling CAMPFIRE during lunch, it's a recent article in National Geographic and contradicts a lot of what is being posted here about Sport Trophy Hunting of Elephants.
I don't have time to debate today, but hopefully I'll have time tonight.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj797OouN_XAhVDjVQKHWPUB8oQFghhMAw&url=https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151715-conservation-trophy-hunting-elephants-tusks-poaching-zimbabwe-namibia/&usg=AOvVaw3eAG1YqB1SQYgUivSfDfH3

So if rich people hunt elephants for sport, they die. And if rich people don't hunt elephants for sport, they still die. So the question becomes is the trophy hunting revenue greater than the black market revenue?

Of course the system is corrupt when the government is corrupt. But even that article says that the rich people's money does go to causes to protect elephants, just not as much as some would want. 0% of black market revenue goes into protecting them. The article also says that despite some corruption, Namibia's elephant population has been growing, as have their revenues as they allow trophy hunting in wilderness parks. Also this money keeps wild areas from becoming populated, giving elephants a habitat.

Seems like the corrupt systems should be fixed, not the hunters that want to pay to hunt an elephant.

 

[Frostbit]

I found this while googling CAMPFIRE during lunch, it's a recent article in National Geographic and contradicts a lot of what is being posted here about Sport Trophy Hunting of Elephants.
I don't have time to debate today, but hopefully I'll have time tonight.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj797OouN_XAhVDjVQKHWPUB8oQFghhMAw&url=https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151715-conservation-trophy-hunting-elephants-tusks-poaching-zimbabwe-namibia/&usg=AOvVaw3eAG1YqB1SQYgUivSfDfH3

Stainless,

During your google search did you find anything about Campfire and the benefits of hunting? If you did, would you honestly post it?

National Geographic has been overtly anti hunting for over a decade.

Just thought, since you are about seeking the unbiased truth you would want to know that.

Cheers
Jim

 

[Frostbit]

Biased, but well done video

 

[Stainless]

So if rich people hunt elephants for sport, they die. And if rich people don't hunt elephants for sport, they still die. So the question becomes is the trophy hunting revenue greater than the black market revenue?

Of course the system is corrupt when the government is corrupt. But even that article says that the rich people's money does go to causes to protect elephants, just not as much as some would want. 0% of black market revenue goes into protecting them. The article also says that despite some corruption, Namibia's elephant population has been growing, as have their revenues as they allow trophy hunting in wilderness parks. Also this money keeps wild areas from becoming populated, giving elephants a habitat.

Seems like the corrupt systems should be fixed, not the hunters that want to pay to hunt an elephant.

Another pile on by one of the Trump supporting regulars, lol. Just calling it like it is because that’s the motivation of the regulars here, but that’s ok, bring it!

Now to address your post, my opinion is it’s a free for all between poachers, those issuing permits, those receiving permits and company’s booking these hunts. Example, there is an assertion in the article that permits are being issued to kill problem Elephants before they are even known to be a problem. How can that be? The answer, it’s greed!

 

[Stainless]

Stainless,

During your google search did you find anything about Campfire and the benefits of hunting? If you did, would you honestly post it?

National Geographic has been overtly anti hunting for over a decade.

Just thought, since you are about seeking the unbiased truth you would want to know that.

Cheers
Jim

No I didn’t Jim, I didn’t have much time.
I have not sugar coated my feelings anywhere in this thread about killing Elephants for sport, I disapprove.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

Another pile on by one of the Trump supporting regulars, lol. Just calling it like it is because that’s the motivation of the regulars here, but that’s ok, bring it!

Now to address your post, my opinion is it’s a free for all between poachers, those issuing permits, those receiving permits and company’s booking these hunts. Example, there is an assertion in the article that permits are being issued to kill problem Elephants before they are even known to be a problem. How can that be? The answer, it’s greed!

Your opinion is just that, opinion. Frankly mine is as well but your logic does not compute.

How can it be a “free for all” if there are protected reserves that house elephants in their natural habitat? Simple because it is not a free for all.

So it must be the poachers that pay for the reserves since they are all honest and on the up and up right? No. The big game hunters are the main reason the preserves exist.

So only Africans are greedy, is that what you are saying? Because local governments give preferential treatment to people or business all the time, in every country. If some hunter gets an “advanced permit” to hunt in the reserve from the government that is the reason you are using to stop trophy hunting? If that revenue stream dries up, that will end wild preserves, and just allow poachers to kill elephants in an unregulated “free for all.”

 

[Stainless]

Your opinion is just that, opinion. Frankly mine is as well but your logic does not compute.

How can it be a “free for all” if there are protected reserves that house elephants in their natural habitat? Simple because it is not a free for all.

So it must be the poachers that pay for the reserves since they are all honest and on the up and up right? No. The big game hunters are the main reason the preserves exist.

So only Africans are greedy, is that what you are saying? Because local governments give preferential treatment to people or business all the time, in every country. If some hunter gets an “advanced permit” to hunt in the reserve from the government that is the reason you are using to stop trophy hunting? If that revenue stream dries up, that will end wild preserves, and just allow poachers to kill elephants in an unregulated “free for all.”

I’m saying anyone paying to kill an Elephant is fueling the corruption.

A couple of people here said they have chased poachers and one said he was instructed to kill them, maybe that’s what should be done.

Also, you neglect to mention that people against killing Elephants are also helping to pay for these preserves as well as other tourism such as photo safaris which is a popular vacation, although I have no confidence all that money helps Elephants either.

I’ll say it for the 10th time in this thread, Elephant population is shrinking to the point they are an threatened species. With all this conservation being argued why is that?

 

[SBMech]

I’m saying anyone paying to kill an Elephant is fueling the corruption.

A couple of people here said they have chased poachers and one said he was instructed to kill them, maybe that’s what should be done.

Also, you neglect to mention that people against killing Elephants are also helping to pay for these preserves as well as other tourism such as photo safaris which is a popular vacation, although I have no confidence all that money helps Elephants either.

I’ll say it for the 10th time in this thread, Elephant population is shrinking to the point they are an threatened species. With all this conservation being argued why is that?

Absolutely the poachers should be killed.

There are several countries that do not host hunts, and allow unlimited killing of elephants, either through lack of concern or lack of proper hunting seasons/permits etc. Open poaching still happens there all the time. The countries that do host hunts have a plan in mind at least to allow cohabitation with management. This is what will save them from extinction.

Your lack of confidence is a direct reflection of your disinterest in reading/watching the information presented to you by several individuals that have participated personally, and have unique knowledge of such events.

Your continued participation while using such resources as "Wikipedia" a completely open editable source to the public with nothing even close to recognizable facts is laughable.

 

[Stainless]

Absolutely the poachers should be killed.

There are several countries that do not host hunts, and allow unlimited killing of elephants, either through lack of concern or lack of proper hunting seasons/permits etc. Open poaching still happens there all the time. The countries that do host hunts have a plan in mind at least to allow cohabitation with management. This is what will save them from extinction.

Your lack of confidence is a direct reflection of your disinterest in reading/watching the information presented to you by several individuals that have participated personally, and have unique knowledge of such events.

Your continued participation while using such resources as "Wikipedia" a completely open editable source to the public with nothing even close to recognizable facts is laughable.

Just because someone posts something and they are biased I should believe that? Are you stoned?

As for Wikipedia I’ll read it over any of the Brietbart shit you read and believe!

I’ll bet we can revisit this thread a year from now and the Elephant population will be smaller.

 

[SBMech]

Just because someone posts something and they are biased I should believe that? Are you stoned?

As for Wikipedia I’ll read it over any of the Brietbart shit you read and believe!

I’ll bet we can revisit this thread a year from now and the Elephant population will be smaller.

Absolutely it will be until they are gone from the countries that do not have any conservation programs.

Are you really this stupid? Did you even read anything I posted? Holy shit guy. Get over your ignorance.

For the record, I do not follow Breitbart, nor do I get my information from them. My education in wildlife conservation is from active participation in local efforts in Colorado and Alaska, as well as Washington and Oregon, Nevada and California. After reading your as well as 530's responses in this post, my opinion is that you are both fabricating any real big game hunting experience.

 

[Stainless]

Absolutely it will be until they are gone from the countries that do not have any conservation programs.

Are you really this stupid? Did you even read anything I posted? Holy shit guy. Get over your ignorance.

For the record, I do not follow Breitbart, nor do I get my information from them. My education in wildlife conservation is from active participation in local efforts in Colorado and Alaska, as well as Washington and Oregon, Nevada and California. After reading your as well as 530's responses in this post, my opinion is that you are both fabricating any real big game hunting experience.

And I believe you are fabricating your experience too dipstick!