It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
During the Obama administration, the answer became a clear “no” — the import of elephant trophies was banned outright under the Endangered Species Act. But in November, President Trump’s US Fish and Wildlife Service announced it was set to lift the ban. Hunting groups like the National Rifle Association and the Safari Club International Foundation, which had opposed the ban, were thrilled by the news.
It will be interesting to see how the president responds, since he has publicly disagreed with hunting advocates and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, the uberboss of Fish and Wildlife, on this issue. It is also unclear to what degree the White House was involved in the latest announcement. Fish and Wildlife released its latest decision without much fanfare. We’ll have to wait and see if Trump himself wades back into the issue.
So why is this happening? In December, a federal appeals court ruled on a suit brought by the NRA and the Safari Club arguing that the Obama administration had not followed the exact letter of the law when creating the regulation that banned the trophies. Specifically, the judge said it didn’t go through the usual lengthy rulemaking process that involves a period of public comment.
Because of the decision on the case, Fish and Wildlife says, it’s lifting the Obama-era ban and moving to this “case-by-case” evaluation of permits instead.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: howtonhawky
...hunting for meat when food is easily available at much cheaper prices at the store is simply twisted.
Have you even calculated the cost of purchasing a whole deer from a butcher versus paying for the ammunition and hunting license to hunt your own?
Better yet, have you ever researched the nutritional difference between wild-hunted meat versus store-bought (which is generally farm-raised and fed poorly and injected with unnecessary things and many more differences)?
And did you even consider self-reliance in your equation?
originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: introvert
Actually i do not think that banning or not banning in the usa will make a drop in the bucket on this issue and that is why i hinted to a more global system of protection. That may not be the answer either but would have more of an effect.
What needs to happen and i believe the only way to get a grip on the problem is to have a stronger system in those countries to combat the poaching and a stronger force to combat the global ivory trade.
The people encroach on the habitat and the elephants destroy crops in retaliation. They can wipe out villages faster than a tank.
It will take an effort to set up better farming practices and more protected lands for the creatures.
Much more game wardens with greater powers than what they currently have and genuine support from the governments before all the throats are cut.
originally posted by: XAnarchistX
At what delusional point could you figure that being allowed to Kill, Murder animals would help them in the end?
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Yes. I have and there have been many others to do the same. Per pound, you are much better off to go to the store and get some beef, chicken, or whatever. The investment it takes to properly hunt, plus get licensed, get land rights, etc, is out-of-line compared to other options.
The nutritional value of meat in general has been a topic of heated debate for some time. Not sure how you can make a comparison of nutritional value when doctors cannot even decide whether or not meat is even good for you at all.
Yes. I've heard about it many times. Seems to be a mechanism to excuse their mental illness.
originally posted by: Plotus
LEAVE THE ELEPHANTS BE, LET THEM LIVE.