Douchecanoe

[weltschmerz]

Maybe he needs an elephant-foot umbrella stand to impress his guests at Mar-A-Lago.

I suspect the elephant needs it more.

[haapai]

Get with the program, if you're rich enough to buy the hunt/trophy permit and cover the costs of travel and the hunt, you should be exempt from rules meant for the plebes.  Why should rules meant for those folks impinge on your ability to display how above-all-that you are? 

[weltschmerz]

It makes me sick.

[Opti]

That's outrageous. I would hope its not just because of the sons. From your URL-

As a result, the number of African elephants has shrunk from about 5 million a century ago to about 400,000 remaining. And that number continues to decline each year.

According to the United Nations, as many as 100,000 African elephants were killed between 2010 and 2012. For forest elephants, the population declined by an estimated 62% between 2002 and 2011.

I noticed the NRA lobbying arm is happy with this decision.

[haapai]

In fairness, I have to note how surprisingly mum this article was about what an elephant trophy actually is.  I'm not entirely sure that this move would allow the importation of elephant tusks, which are certainly the most valuable, tradeable, and most oomphable elephant trophies. 

I don't really give a flyer about tacky umbrella stands, tails fashioned into fly whisks or those bracelets that were so popular in the late seventies and early eighties.  Forget skulls, those things weigh a ton, stink to high heaven, and warp and crack terribly during drying. 

What matters are tusks, and to be fair, I'm not sure that this move would grease the importation of the tusks of trophy-hunted animals nearly as much as is implied. 

[weltschmerz]

Mar 7, 2018 22:30:13 GMT -5 Opti said:

That's outrageous. I would hope its not just because of the sons. From your URL-

As a result, the number of African elephants has shrunk from about 5 million a century ago to about 400,000 remaining. And that number continues to decline each year.

According to the United Nations, as many as 100,000 African elephants were killed between 2010 and 2012. For forest elephants, the population declined by an estimated 62% between 2002 and 2011.

I noticed the NRA lobbying arm is happy with this decision.

Well, of course they are!
The rest of the planet is trying to put a stop to this elephant genocide.
Not Trump.

[weltschmerz]

Mar 7, 2018 23:04:26 GMT -5 haapai said:

In fairness, I have to note how surprisingly mum this article was about what an elephant trophy actually is.  I'm not entirely sure that this move would allow the importation of elephant tusks, which are certainly the most valuable, tradeable, and most oomphable elephant trophies. 

I don't really give a flyer about tacky umbrella stands, tails fashioned into fly whisks or those bracelets that were so popular in the late seventies and early eighties.  Forget skulls, those things weigh a ton, stink to high heaven, and warp and crack terribly during drying. 

What matters are tusks, and to be fair, I'm not sure that this move would grease the importation of the tusks of trophy-hunted animals nearly as much as is implied. 

Does it matter? If you take the tusks or the trunk or the feet, you still have a dead elephant.

[haapai]

Heck yeah, it matters.  The trunk, tail, feet and eyelashes make damn tacky trophies that embarrass everyone that sees them.  The ivory, is much more impressive and much more fungible. 

A total ban on ivory importation does wonders for elephants, restricting the trade in yucky umbrella stands, not so much.  I'm really not all that concerned about a relaxation of the importation of non-ivory trophies.  They're revolting, and an elephant dies in their creation, but they aren't nearly as profitable.  

[Tennesseer]

I believe it is pretty much a given the elephant trophies to be allowed into the U.S., will be the heads with tusks still intact, which are the most important trophy of all.

You don't usually see deer forelegs only mounted on walls.

[busymom]

You must remember, every decision being made is all about whatever makes him & his family happy.  He doesn't care about us mere mortals, nor any other living thing.  It's all about him and his "brand".  

[dezii]

being brought back into the country...As the tail one of his kids was holding next to a dead Elephant I presume he shot...

Says this big game hunting is good conservation...like Dumbo really would rather end up on a wall somewhere...

Sorry Donald..conservation by hunting possible ok with some species...deer for example...reproduce easily, to many not good......possible wild turkeys too..but big game that is being diminished in Africa just because of habitat good for them is being diminished..? Nahh...plus just doesn't look good...

Think one of his kids was posed next to a dead giraffe for g-d sake...A f dead giraffe...such a majestic calm non threatening creature and laid out with that long neck...wanted to up chuck.....Geeze do we really have to wait till 2020 before we get a shot at removing this piece of t--d from office..

Getting old his daily crap ....


abcnews.go.com/Politics/interior-sec-elephant-trophy-policy-100-aligned-trump/story?id=53588627

[Opti]

Dezi, this should be folded into Weltz's douchecanoe thread.

[Opti]

Maybe someone can search out a NY times article I read. According to someone who ran big game hunts and used the money to hire people to police poachers, Obama's trophy laws unfortunately resulted in more poaching and less land for wildlife. Sobering article. I don't like big game hunting, but if it enables responsible hunting over poaching, it appears its the better option.

The guy quoted in the article said lots of former wildlife land is now used for cattle and is unlikely to be reclaimed.

Not a fan of Donald, but he might accidently be doing the wiser thing.

[MJ2.0]

Can we please keep the Politics posts in the Politics area?

[dezii]

Mar 7, 2018 23:04:26 GMT -5 haapai said:

In fairness, I have to note how surprisingly mum this article was about what an elephant trophy actually is.  I'm not entirely sure that this move would allow the importation of elephant tusks, which are certainly the most valuable, tradeable, and most oomphable elephant trophies. 

I don't really give a flyer about tacky umbrella stands, tails fashioned into fly whisks or those bracelets that were so popular in the late seventies and early eighties.  Forget skulls, those things weigh a ton, stink to high heaven, and warp and crack terribly during drying. 

What matters are tusks, and to be fair, I'm not sure that this move would grease the importation of the tusks of trophy-hunted animals nearly as much as is implied. 

understand the ban on importation of ivory stands...at least for now.

[Virgil Showlion]

weltschmerz, a hypothetical for you:

The rationale given for overturning the ban is that allowing importation of trophies increases the appeal of sport hunting, hunting brings significant wealth into the local economies surrounding game reserves, and this wealth both i) funds conservation efforts, including efforts to combat poaching, which is a far bigger problem, and ii) stimulates local economies, obviating the need for poaching as source of income. Hence the argument is that the good (both for men and elephants) significantly outweighs the bad.

I have no idea whether this is true, and I suspect you don't either. The only document that would convince me either way is a rigorous study in a peer-reviewed journal examining numerous cases no older than 15 years. If you ever look into it, I recommend holding yourself to the same standard.

For now, suppose somebody managed to prove to you beyond a doubt that the rationale is sound: the trophies promote sport hunting, and the sport hunting significantly reduces the overall numbers of elephants killed as well as improving the standard of life for the locals.

Would you support the importation of trophies in these circumstances? Would you support legal sport hunting of elephants? Or do the ends not justify the means here?

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

When we were in Africa, our safari guide was of two minds about this, and I understand his quandary, especially considering his profession and that he was an Afrikaans.

Optimally, big game hunting serves a couple of purposes.  If it is done the way that the country wants it done, it culls the herds of the old, sick and less capable animals which would normally die anyway.  For the privilege of doing this, the hunter was required to buy an expensive hunting license.....which was supposed to support conservation and maintaining a healthy ecosystem for the environment, which in a poor country (and the poor is NOTHING like I have ever seen in the US anywhere) is not at the top of the financial importance scale there.  However, these are not the animals that hunters want to hunt.  The one hunters want are the strong, virile animals that are still contributing to the gene pool, and unfortunately it is difficult to  regulate this, due to corruption among other things.

Elephants are horribly destructive animals, and when you have too many of them, they destroy the ecosystem for other animals.  So many places try to cull elephants, in particular, as they are so destructive.  The elephants destroy vegetation that the other animals need for food, which causes a depletion of these herds, making hunting difficult for the carnivores.  

We we had a long 2 hour trek where Ren (our guide) and I talked about this and it really isn’t straightforward as the premise of hunting = wrong.  I’m not sure there is any right answer.

Poaching is a huge problem there, and yet poaching patrols cost a lot of money to keep going 24/7.  The elephants on the reserve we visited were a mom, her sister and the child that was the remains of a large herd that had been poached.  The poaching turned the animals understandably skittish at the sound of helicopters, but every reserve we visited used both helicopters and land patrols to monitor for poachers.  We had a helicopter patrol fly overhead while we were near them and the guide reached for his rifle.  

[weltschmerz]

"The rationale given for overturning the ban is that allowing importation of trophies increases the appeal of sport hunting, hunting brings significant wealth into the local economies surrounding game reserves, and this wealth both i) funds conservation efforts, including efforts to combat poaching, which is a far bigger problem, and ii) stimulates local economies, obviating the need for poaching as source of income. Hence the argument is that the good (both for men and elephants) significantly outweighs the bad. "
=============
You know what brings in even more wealth?
Tourism...where you can shoot  elephants with cameras.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 9, 2018 0:34:02 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

"The rationale given for overturning the ban is that allowing importation of trophies increases the appeal of sport hunting, hunting brings significant wealth into the local economies surrounding game reserves, and this wealth both i) funds conservation efforts, including efforts to combat poaching, which is a far bigger problem, and ii) stimulates local economies, obviating the need for poaching as source of income. Hence the argument is that the good (both for men and elephants) significantly outweighs the bad. "
=============
You know what brings in even more wealth?
Tourism...where you can shoot  elephants with cameras.

Absolutely. My mother went on a trip into deep Africa with my Aunt in 2010 and both claimed it was one of the best trips of their lives. They particularly raved about the elephants on the reserve they were staying at. Remarkably intelligent and playful creatures.

Having said this, some people are only interested in hunting, and the two activities--hunting and touring--presently don't preclude each other. There's plenty of Africa.

Hence the hypothetical question stands, if you're willing to answer.

[Artemis Windsong]

Shall we ask a large stakeholder in this.  The African tribe processing the meat for their community. 

[Deleted]

  Do you know what happens to the meat and other products of it's body ?   The effects of legal hunting ?




Quote;  The anti-hunting community would like you to believe the elephant is endangered and on the verge of extinction. Facts however paint a very different picture.

There are in excess of 70,000 elephants in ONLY Zimbabwe today – nearly double the amount of elephants that the environment has the capacity to support due to human encroachment on suitable habitat.

If we want elephants to be around for future generations, elephant hunting is an important conservation tool that must be considered.

It IS legal to hunt elephants in many African countries.

The meat is given to local people, it’s never wasted.

The money from hunting the elephant goes towards elephant conservation. The trophy fee on a elephant is quite expensive, more then any of the locals will make in a lifetime, so this system works out well for all involved.

Once an elephant is shot, the villagers just start to appear. Word gets out fast. It is like a celebration when an elephant is killed, the entire village will join in.

No protein ever goes to waste in Africa.

Several of the ivory hunters who wrote books commented on how quickly the meat was used, and on how villagers would scavenge and boil the green meat from carrion days old if they found it. The natives cut all of the meat off the bone and take it to their village to eat. They don’t let anything go to waste.

The myth of the “elephant graveyard” began because nobody ever saw any dead ones lying about. Within hours, or at most a couple of days, a dead elephant will be completely gone.


gothunts.com/see-what-happens-to-an-elephant-after-elephant-hunting/

[weltschmerz]

A pro-hunting site. Big surprise.

Of course they'll advocate for trophy slaughtering.

[Virgil Showlion]

dezii: I've merged your thread with Weltz' earlier thread on the same subject.

   - Virgil (Mod)

[dezii]

Mar 10, 2018 17:21:58 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

dezii : I've merged your thread with Weltz' earlier thread on the same subject.

   - Virgil (Mod)

[Virgil Showlion]

I wish I could make your post the OP, since the original OP was deleted and the thread title makes even less sense without context. But post order is entirely dictated by timestamps.