It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Elephant trophy hunting, and Trump’s confusing positions on it, explained

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   
vox


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.


The back and forth is hurting the overall effort being made in reviving the species and imo at this point it is inhumane and incredibly to lie to yourself and pretend that killing these endangered species is helping them.Simply because the proper structure that we have in the usa that protects and controls the species is not even close to a working model yet.

I say screw the nwo but if we have to have a global effort to get a grip on the encroachment of human populations onto the habitat of these great animals and vice versa then that is our path on this subject. I believe that in the usa we have done much on the subject of protection of animals and hunters rights and i see no reason under the sun not to really get involved more worldwide on the subject.



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.







edit on 8-3-2018 by howtonhawky because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 11:56 AM
link   
# it, let’s just nuke all the endangered species. Show Mother Nature who’s boss, right? Survival of the fittest.
edit on 3/8/2018 by eNumbra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

did you actually read that article?
Fish and Wildlife are following a court ruling that says Obama illegally made the ban. This case was brought to the court by NRA and safari club.

Fish and wildlife have to respect the courts and the head of fish and wildlife is at odds with Trump. Trump can't do # about the court ruling or hed be overstepping his power.

In other words a new ban can be put in place if they follow the law this time. Part of that is due process in the legislature in public.

its only confusing if you let idiots confuse you.

I hope they get the ban back in place soon.
we shall see.


edit on 8-3-2018 by Reverbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Anyone else noticing a trend where Trump catches heat for having to nullify or invalidate things illegally put in place by Obama? Yet, nobody blames Obama for overstepping his legal authority to do these things, they only want to scream about how evil Trump is.

Go figure.

Pertinent information as to the "why" behind the Fish & Wildlife's decision does exist way down in the article:

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.

If Obama had learned how to regulate or pass laws and policies correctly, we wouldn't be in this mess at the moment, and I doubt that it would be something that Trump would even be concerned about. Yes, this is an time when "but, Obama" is appropriate to say.



posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Reverbs

yes i actually have kept up with it and is why i posted the particular article i chose to put forth.



posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

yep
the former melded much down in those areas and we are seeing many problems because of his meddling in this area and the human populations of the region as we see in the news as of late



posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

I'm not entirely sure on the specifics of this case, but I will say that while I am not is a position to say whether or not it should be banned, I do think hunting is a form of a mental illness, unless the person absolutely needs it to feed their family.

Hunting for trophies or hunting for meat when food is easily available at much cheaper prices at the store is simply twisted.



posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   

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.

Possibly the least-educated thing that will be written in this thread.

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)?

What a silly comment to make.

And did you even consider self-reliance in your equation?



posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 12:34 PM
link   
At what delusional point could you figure that being allowed to Kill, Murder animals would help them in the end?

what reason could anyone want to go out killing animals and endangered animals just for fun? for sport? to "own the libs"?



posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: XAnarchistX

well if we are talking of a species that is not endangered then many studies have shown that proper management of herds can and will generate a more healthy ecosystem and make populations stronger.

game management is key

now when pro hunter groups use this as an excuse to promote hunting of a failing herd it just serves to undermine the populations further and is ignorant at that point.



posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey



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?


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.



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)?


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.



And did you even consider self-reliance in your equation?


Yes. I've heard about it many times. Seems to be a mechanism to excuse their mental illness.



posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   

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.


That is reasonable.



posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: XAnarchistX


At what delusional point could you figure that being allowed to Kill, Murder animals would help them in the end?

Do some actual research on the topic and you might be surprised.

What you have to understand is that it is a multi-faceted problem, but a big driver is that in many places, people have reduced in number the natural predators of the area, allowing prey-animals to often over-populate areas and cause harm to the species and population due to lack of habitat and food.

There is a reason that the phrase "culling the herd" exists, and it's not because most people just find it "fun," or "for sport," or "to 'own the libs.'"

So, seriously, do some research on it, because while it's not always necessary and there are some very obvious mental gymnastics in some instances to justify the actions, in many instances, there is no "delusional" thinking behind it.

Kind of a funny question for someone who thinks that there should be no governing entity and calls himself "Amoral" and a "Nihilist" in their signature block.
edit on 8-3-2018 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
LEAVE THE ELEPHANTS BE, LET THEM LIVE.
edit on 8-3-2018 by Plotus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Reverbs
Thanks Reverb, thanks for the clarification.....



posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   

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.

No, it's not "out-of-line," as you subjectively claim. I don't believe you that you've done the math, at all. And you pretend that it's always a big investment? Let's see...

Here in KY, I know many, many people who own enough land where they can hunt on it. They have hunting rifles that still work passed down from their parents or grandparents. Ammo is plentifully available and relatively cheap. Deer stands and hunting blinds can last on properties for years, if not decades.

A statewide hunting license here in KY specifically for deer only (permits for two deer) is a whopping $35. If I want an additional permit which adds two more deer, that's an additional whopping $15.

Let's not pretend like getting some meat from god-knows-where in a grocery store is a better and cheaper option. Hell, a good rib-eye steak can cost more than the additional deer permit that allows for two more whole entire deer. And if you can process your own deer (which isn't really that difficult, just time-consuming), that's a cost that you can avoid, too.

But, yes, that must be "out-of-line" with grocery-store options...man, that's laughable. Of course, I will concede that the fiscal benefit probably differs greatly from state-to-state.


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.

    A. Because a doctor's opinion is irrelevant to comparing nutritional levels of standard vitamins and minerals between farm-raised and wild-hunted meats of the same species.

    B. Because most nutritionists agree that meat is good for you, but different types of meats should be eaten in different portion sizes and at different intervals.

    C. Because nutritional value has no bearing on opinions of people concerning the health benefits of a certain food. You can measure the nutritional value of corrugated cardboard, but that doesn't mean that it should be eaten.




Yes. I've heard about it many times. Seems to be a mechanism to excuse their mental illness.

You're a silly goose, you know that?



posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Plotus



LEAVE THE ELEPHANTS BE, LET THEM LIVE.




that is a contradiction (i am not trying to be dickish)

if we leave them be then they will be killed by the locals even if not by us trophy hunters

sadly very close intervention to the human and animal populations is the only answer i see



posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

It's disgusting whichever way you cut it. There's no guarantee that monies go into help preseravation, and animals being slaughtered for trophies, and in this case the ivory, (about a LB in weight) is beyond belief if that is the case.
Otherwise, in some places people eat Elephant meat, and there's not much counter to that, but that only muddies the water about trophieism and food.
However we have these animals classed as endangered in some particular degree by world organisations, and all nations should heed that, in much the same way as we preserve fishing stocks, since they are a food source.
As for the case by case basis, I would challenge that as being as good or as bad as the word of whomever provides the information, there's too much rich guys money involved, and it's a lot.

Overall though, the idea of these rich guys from affluent countries killing for trophy's and smiling about it, is sickening, especially if you allow that these animals probably have more brains they they do.



posted on Mar, 8 2018 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Plotus
a reply to: Reverbs
Thanks Reverb, thanks for the clarification.....


yea thanks for the kneejerk reverb

i mean even the title of the op answered the questions




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join