Trump administration quietly makes it legal to bring elephant parts to the U.S. as trophies
26 replies, posted
[quote]The Trump administration will allow Americans to bring tusks and other elephant body parts back to this country as trophies, in a pivot away from the support President Trump voiced last year for an Obama-era trophy ban.
The decision, announced quietly in a March 1 memorandum from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, withdrew previous rulings on trophy hunting and said the agency would allow sport hunters to receive permits for the trophy items on a “case-by-case basis.”
The move contrasts sharply with the position taken by Trump in November.
[...]
“The Trump administration is trying to keep these crucial trophy import decisions behind closed doors, and that’s totally unacceptable,” Tanya Sanerib, international legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity, told the Associated Press. “Elephants aren’t meant to be trophies, they’re meant to roam free.”
The president’s sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump are avid game hunters. A photograph of Trump Jr. holding a knife and a dead elephant’s tail after a hunt in Zimbabwe in 2011 has drawn wide attention in the past.
Under Zinke, who is also a hunter, the Interior Department’s policies have become noticeably more pro-hunting. According to the AP, the department took a step in June to potentially allow grizzly bears near Yellowstone National Park to be hunted. And the Fish and Wildlife Service has begun allowing African lions killed in Zimbabwe and Zambia to be imported, the AP reported.[/quote]
[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2018/03/06/trump-called-elephant-hunts-a-horror-show-his-administration-just-lifted-a-trophy-hunting-ban/?utm_term=.0d02bc6c8bbf]Source: The Washington Post[/url]
"Hey guys, how can we continue making ourselves look absolutely evil?"
Man fuck the environment right?
I want a tusk to decorate my wall, what does it matter if I poach and kill endangered species?
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;53183571]Man fuck the environment right?
I want a tusk to decorate my wall, what does it matter if I poach and kill endangered species?[/QUOTE]
Legal trophy hunting actually favors the environment because it finances the reservation which helps protect animals from poachers.
[QUOTE]The president’s sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump are avid game hunters. A photograph of Trump Jr. holding a knife and a dead elephant’s tail after a hunt in Zimbabwe in 2011 has drawn wide attention in the past.[/QUOTE]
A deplorable family of degenerates is what I would call them.
I mean as long as it's from legal trophy hunting, I don't see a problem with this. Tho I have my doubts this administration is going to make the effort of upkeeping that anyway.
Preemptive move so Trump & family can finally bring home their collection of dead elephant tooths.
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;53183571]Man fuck the environment right?
I want a tusk to decorate my wall, what does it matter if I poach and kill endangered species?[/QUOTE]
First off, watch this:
[video=youtube;cQh-f1rBjx4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQh-f1rBjx4[/video]
Trophy hunting helps endangered species. And this has nothing to do with the environment.
Second:
[QUOTE] the agency would allow sport hunters to[B] receive permits for the trophy items[/B] [I]on a “case-by-case basis.”[/I][/QUOTE]
They are most likely going to be ensuring that the items were acquired via a legitimate legal trophy hunt, and making sure poachers can't import anything.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53183598]First off, watch this:
[video=youtube;cQh-f1rBjx4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQh-f1rBjx4[/video]
Trophy hunting helps endangered species. And this has nothing to do with the environment.
Second:
They are most likely going to be ensuring that the items were acquired via a legitimate legal trophy hunt, and making sure poachers can't import anything.[/QUOTE]
so how many elephants a year are trophy hunted vs how many are born? megafauna take decades to grow and mature and they also have low birthrates. what if we fucked up our counts or an economicly inclined reserve offers more licenses over time because they needed more money and it exceeds the birthrate?
additionally, the money people are paying goes to the travel agencies, the hotels, and the reserves, and like trickledown economics may eventually see its way to the communities that really are needed to stop poaching
[QUOTE=Sableye;53183621]what if we fucked up our counts or an economicly inclined reserve offers more licenses over time because they needed more money and it exceeds the birthrate?[/QUOTE]
Then they're not economically inclined because they put themselves out of a job.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53183598]First off, watch this:
[video=youtube;cQh-f1rBjx4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQh-f1rBjx4[/video]
Trophy hunting helps endangered species. And this has nothing to do with the environment.
Second:
They are most likely going to be ensuring that the items were acquired via a legitimate legal trophy hunt, and making sure poachers can't import anything.[/QUOTE]
This is a myth, the reality looks totally different and everyone who isn't a youtuber who makes controversial clickbaity videos for a living or is actually profiting from it is saying so:
[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/trophy-hunting-fees-do-little-to-help-threatened-species-report-says.html[/url]
[url]https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151715-conservation-trophy-hunting-elephants-tusks-poaching-zimbabwe-namibia/[/url]
[url]https://africageographic.com/blog/trophy-hunting-a-conservation-concept-vs-the-reality/[/url]
[url]https://howtoconserve.org/2015/08/21/trophy-hunting-myths/[/url]
[editline]fixed[/editline]
fixed urls
[QUOTE=Killuah;53183638]This is a myth, the reality looks totally different and everyone who isn't a youtuber who makes controversial clickbaity videos for a living or is actually profiting from it is saying so:
[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/trophy-hunting-fees-do-little-to-help-threatened-species-report-says.html[/URL]
[URL]https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151715-conservation-trophy-hunting-elephants-tusks-poaching-zimbabwe-namibia/https://africageographic.com/blog/trophy-hunting-a-conservation-concept-vs-the-reality/[/URL]
[URL]https://howtoconserve.org/2015/08/21/trophy-hunting-myths/[/URL][/QUOTE]
Your first link is a super vague article quoting from a report from the democratic party
The second link gives a 404.
The third link is a shotgun of theories, not an actual evidenced argument that it is in fact worse for conservation. It also makes extremely deceptive statements. For example, it says that the rate at which lions are killed would be bad for their species if continued. They don't mention that the US Fish and Wildlife Service didn't even have them listed as endangered during the time that they were being hunted at that rate. It makes this point based on a statement from the ICUN, but they don't mention that the ICUN is also in favor of regulated trophy hunting. Many of their points are like this: half truths with much left out.
It's funny that you call his video "controversial clickbait," and then post super partisan, non-scientific crap as what "everyone" else believes.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53183658]Your first link is a super vague article quoting for a report from the democratic party.
[/quote]
What's that supposed to mean? Yes, yes it may quote a report from the democratic party.
Well that isn't actually correct, the article says "democratic staff of the House Natural Ressources Committee".
But I am sure you misread this? It can't be that you didn't understand that the "democratic" merely means that it is the staff under te democratic house, not a report actually written by the democratic party itself?
And even if it was, how is that even a valid point unless you make some nonsensical assumptions about the democratic party?
But back to the report/article.
What about the points raised do you criticize?
[quote]
The second link gives a 404.
[/quote]
Fuxed the urls.
[quote]
The third link is a shotgun of theories, not an actual evidenced argument that it is in fact worse for conservation.
[/quote]
I don't see you disproving any of these "theories" here. Meanwhile the article has clickable sources, some of them papers.
So unless you can prove anything substantial all I take from your post so far is ...well nothing.
Trophy Hunting for conservation does not work.
Can't imagine why he'd want this!
[Img]https://i.redd.it/k20hvsn1syny.jpg[/img]
While conservation efforts encourage killing of older elephants, I can see things going wrong very quickly.
[QUOTE=Killuah;53183682]What's that supposed to mean? Yes, yes it may quote a report from the democratic party.
Well that isn't actually correct, the article says "democratic staff of the House Natural Ressources Committee".
But I am sure you misread this? It can't be that you didn't understand that the "democratic" merely means that it is the staff under te democratic house, not a report actually written by the democratic party itself?
And even if it was, how is that even a valid point unless you make some nonsensical assumptions about the democratic party?
But back to the report/article.
What about the points raised do you criticize?
Fuxed the urls.
I don't see you disproving any of these "theories" here. Meanwhile the article has clickable sources, some of them papers.
So unless you can prove anything substantial all I take from your post so far is ...well nothing.
Trophy Hunting for conservation does not work.[/QUOTE]
This is just another attempt by sgman1 to derail a thread that criticizes the Trump government. I imagine he's just waiting to jump in and drown out the actual news and relevance of this thread by worthless semantics.
[QUOTE=Killuah;53183682]What's that supposed to mean? Yes, yes it may quote a report from the democratic party.
Well that isn't actually correct, the article says "democratic staff of the House Natural Ressources Committee".
But I am sure you misread this? It can't be that you didn't understand that the "democratic" merely means that it is the staff under te democratic house, not a report actually written by the democratic party itself?
And even if it was, how is that even a valid point unless you make some nonsensical assumptions about the democratic party?
But back to the report/article.
What about the points raised do you criticize? [/QUOTE]
What is there to criticize? There's just a claim based an explicitly partisan report. It doesn't give evidence. It doesn't give a study. Hell, it doesn't even link to the actual report. I point out that it comes from a political party because that's a horrible source for unbiased data on just about anything, Republicans included.
[QUOTE]I don't see you disproving any of these "theories" here. Meanwhile the article has clickable sources, some of them papers.
So unless you can prove anything substantial all I take from your post so far is ...well nothing.[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to try and "disprove" stuff that doesn't have anything to support it in the first place. I also pointed out a specific example where they argued with half truths that totally destroy what they're saying. They claim a certain organization says that current levels of hunting will be bad for the species, but they fail to mention that the same organization is in support of regulated trophy hunting because the issue is based on classifications of the animals, not an inherent issue with the hunting. So clearly they don't make the conclusions that they are being quoted in support of.
Here, I'll humor you and go into detail of what I mean:
1) Corruption
This point is supported by a single anecdote and a dead link. It makes absolutely zero attempt to show that corruption, as a whole, overcomes any positives.
2) Poverty
This point states that only 3% of the money goes to the local community. It cites a CNN article, which states that the number is actually 3-5%. I can't look at the actual study because it won't load for me. With that said, this still isn't an argument to stop it altogether. 3-5% is more than they would be getting otherwise.
3) Genetics
This point is nothing but a super vague theory with no attempt to evidence it.
4) Evolution
I had to go through a few levels of links to find the actual source, but it states, and I quote:
"At present, researchers' alarm about these trends are based on theories that are hard to prove. To make scientific claims about the effects of hunting on the evolution of a species, researchers like Melnick would need thorough data from animal populations that lived at least several decades ago, which rarely exist. Evolution, it turns out, is a difficult beast to study in real time because it is the product of so many factors—changes in climate, habitat and food supply, as well as gene frequencies—and because it occurs so slowly. Researchers began tracking sheep on Ram Mountain in the early 1970s, corralling the entire population every year to make measurements and trace genealogies. "You cannot really just go out and take data and look for a trend," says Festa-Bianchet. "Even if you find a trend it can be due to environmental changes, to changes in density. You're really trying to tease out the genetic part of the change." ([URL]http://www.newsweek.com/how-hunting-driving-evolution-reverse-78295[/URL])
So it's, again, nothing more than another hypothesis lacking evidence.
The rest of the points are the same thing: Unsupported hypotheses, bad arguments, and half-truths.
[QUOTE=Killuah;53183682]
[B]Trophy Hunting for conservation does not work.[/B][/QUOTE]
I agree.
Unfortunately I don't think the Trump administration has any regard for endangered and conserved species.
[editline]7th March 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;53183906]What is there to criticize? There's just a claim based an explicitly partisan report. It doesn't give evidence. It doesn't give a study. Hell, it doesn't even link to the actual report. I point out that it comes from a political party because that's a horrible source for unbiased data on just about anything, Republicans included.
I'm not going to try and "disprove" stuff that doesn't have anything to support it in the first place. I also pointed out a specific example where they argued with half truths that totally destroy what they're saying. They claim a certain organization says that current levels of hunting will be bad for the species, but they fail to mention that the same organization is in support of regulated trophy hunting. So clearly they don't make the conclusions that they are being quoted in support of.
Here, I'll humor you and go into detail of what I mean:
1) Corruption
This point is supported by a single anecdote and a dead link. It makes absolutely zero attempt to show that corruption, as a whole, overcomes any positives.
2) Poverty
This point states that only 3% of the money goes to the local community. It cites a CNN article, which states that the number is actually 3-5%. I can't look at the actual study because it won't load for me. With that said, this still isn't an argument to stop it altogether. 3-5% is more than they would be getting otherwise.
3) Genetics
This point is nothing but a super vague theory with no attempt to evidence it.
4) Evolution
I had to go through a few levels of links to find the actual source, but it states, and I quote:
"At present, researchers' alarm about these trends are based on theories that are hard to prove. To make scientific claims about the effects of hunting on the evolution of a species, researchers like Melnick would need thorough data from animal populations that lived at least several decades ago, which rarely exist. Evolution, it turns out, is a difficult beast to study in real time because it is the product of so many factors—changes in climate, habitat and food supply, as well as gene frequencies—and because it occurs so slowly. Researchers began tracking sheep on Ram Mountain in the early 1970s, corralling the entire population every year to make measurements and trace genealogies. "You cannot really just go out and take data and look for a trend," says Festa-Bianchet. "Even if you find a trend it can be due to environmental changes, to changes in density. You're really trying to tease out the genetic part of the change." ([url]http://www.newsweek.com/how-hunting-driving-evolution-reverse-78295[/url])
So it's, again, nothing more than another hypothesis lacking evidence.
The rest of the points are the same thing: Unsupported hypotheses, bad arguments, and half-truths.[/QUOTE]
None of what you just said does anything but continue to derail the thread to fight criticism of the trump administration.
Can you please link me to data supporting the idea that trophy hunting improves the lives and chances of breeding out of the endangered species list please?
I'd like to read for myself so I'm not worried like I was about the last 5 species we poached out of existence since 2010.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53183906]What is there to criticize? There's just a claim based an explicitly partisan report. It doesn't give evidence. It doesn't give a study. Hell, it doesn't even link to the actual report. I point out that it comes from a political party because that's a horrible source for unbiased data on just about anything, Republicans included.
I'm not going to try and "disprove" stuff that doesn't have anything to support it in the first place. I also pointed out a specific example where they argued with half truths that totally destroy what they're saying. They claim a certain organization says that current levels of hunting will be bad for the species, but they fail to mention that the same organization is in support of regulated trophy hunting because the issue is based on classifications of the animals, not an inherent issue with the hunting. So clearly they don't make the conclusions that they are being quoted in support of.
Here, I'll humor you and go into detail of what I mean:
1) Corruption
This point is supported by a single anecdote and a dead link. It makes absolutely zero attempt to show that corruption, as a whole, overcomes any positives.
2) Poverty
This point states that only 3% of the money goes to the local community. It cites a CNN article, which states that the number is actually 3-5%. I can't look at the actual study because it won't load for me. With that said, this still isn't an argument to stop it altogether. 3-5% is more than they would be getting otherwise.
3) Genetics
This point is nothing but a super vague theory with no attempt to evidence it.
4) Evolution
I had to go through a few levels of links to find the actual source, but it states, and I quote:
"At present, researchers' alarm about these trends are based on theories that are hard to prove. To make scientific claims about the effects of hunting on the evolution of a species, researchers like Melnick would need thorough data from animal populations that lived at least several decades ago, which rarely exist. Evolution, it turns out, is a difficult beast to study in real time because it is the product of so many factors—changes in climate, habitat and food supply, as well as gene frequencies—and because it occurs so slowly. Researchers began tracking sheep on Ram Mountain in the early 1970s, corralling the entire population every year to make measurements and trace genealogies. "You cannot really just go out and take data and look for a trend," says Festa-Bianchet. "Even if you find a trend it can be due to environmental changes, to changes in density. You're really trying to tease out the genetic part of the change." ([URL]http://www.newsweek.com/how-hunting-driving-evolution-reverse-78295[/URL])
So it's, again, nothing more than another hypothesis lacking evidence.
The rest of the points are the same thing: Unsupported hypotheses, bad arguments, and half-truths.[/QUOTE]
:hypeisnotreal: We need a smiley like this for "Derailing"
It's kinda fucked up if you think about it. Traveling all that way just to kill an animal so you can put a body part on a wall "because it looks cool". It just seems so macabre if you try to look at it from the perspective of more intelligent animals known to mourn and grieve the dead in "graveyards" such as elephants, doesn't it? :thinking:
Like if it's "good for the environment" or "the species" then cool but there's plenty of scavengers that could've chowed down on that head, man. Kinda "Leatherface" in a way. :v:
[QUOTE=Alec W;53183909]I agree.
Unfortunately I don't think the Trump administration has any regard for endangered and conserved species.
[editline]7th March 2018[/editline]
None of what you just said does anything but continue to derail the thread to fight criticism of the trump administration.
Can you please link me to data supporting the idea that trophy hunting improves the lives and chances of breeding out of the endangered species list please?
I'd like to read for myself so I'm not worried like I was about the last 5 species we poached out of existence since 2010.[/QUOTE]
I'm derailing because I directly responded to claims and challenges made in this thread. Ok.
You want an actual study, with real data, published in a respected conservation journal? Here ya go: [URL]https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070315-hunting-africa.html[/URL]
[QUOTE=sgman91;53184123]I'm derailing because I directly responded to claim made in this thread. Ok.
You want an actual study, with real data, published in a respected conservation journal? Here ya go: [url]https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070315-hunting-africa.html[/url][/QUOTE]
I went looking to disprove this article
[url]https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/10/trophy-hunting-killing-saving-animals/[/url]
This isn't "Counter" evidence, it's just a very complex topic that no blanket statement actually works on. It isn't as easy as saying "Trophy Hunting = bad", it's complicated and needs a lot of grey area to be discussed in.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53184148]I went looking to disprove this article
[URL]https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/10/trophy-hunting-killing-saving-animals/[/URL]
This isn't "Counter" evidence, it's just a very complex topic that no blanket statement actually works on. It isn't as easy as saying "Trophy Hunting = bad", it's complicated and needs a lot of grey area to be discussed in.[/QUOTE]
I actually agree. It's a very complex issue that has many different answers depending on many different variables. It doesn't lend itself to easy blanket bans or allowances.
There's good reason to believe, for example, that regulated trophy hunting played a big part in the recovery of the white Rhino species from ~50 animals to over 11,000.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53183598]First off, watch this:
[video=youtube;cQh-f1rBjx4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQh-f1rBjx4[/video]
Trophy hunting helps endangered species. And this has nothing to do with the environment.
Second:
They are most likely going to be ensuring that the items were acquired via a legitimate legal trophy hunt, and making sure poachers can't import anything.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure there were already provisions for conservation hunts, anyway.
This is yet another thing a democrat gets to waste time fixing come the time a new one is in office
thanks
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53184148]This isn't "Counter" evidence, it's just a very complex topic that no blanket statement actually works on. It isn't as easy as saying "Trophy Hunting = bad", it's complicated and needs a lot of grey area to be discussed in.[/QUOTE]
Depends whether one thinks that killing elephants for sport is ethical at all. It can be relatively cut and dried if not.
Damn, we should let China trophy hunt everything to save Africa.
I imagine we'll be able to backup DNA and eggs from species like this as they will likely die out given that the demand created by their tusks and such outstrip the need to preserve them.
It's a shame that parting gift of the elephant is the wisdom to be good stewards of the next planet.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;53186141]Damn, we should let China trophy hunt everything to save Africa.[/QUOTE]
We should trophy hunt the fuck outta the siberian tiger to stop it being critically endangered.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.