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.

 

Trump wildlife board stuffed with trophy hunters

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Trump wildlife board stuffed with trophy hunters

Board of stuffed trophy hunter politicos. How ironic! Now is it their heads, busts, or full body mounts? And what kind of / sized board are we talking about here? I'm trying to guess how many could get mounted on the thing, but without the dimensions + size of the pieces (let alone the number of them) the possibilities are endless...




posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Thick headed this one is.

Have you still not found the basis for my thought that i have laid out several times so far?

The conservation structure that we have in the usa does not exist in the same form in other countries and until we as hunters make the changes then we are just pissing in the wind. over and over.


Thick headed? No, knowledgeable on the topic, unlike yourself.

I did find the basis for your thought, and I wiped it off my boot as I would any other pile of crap I'd stepped in. Legal hunts in places like Africa are properly managed just as they are in the US. A species can be "threatened" globally while being locally overpopulated. Thanks to regional genetic differences and regional disease resistances, it makes more logical sense to thin the locally overpopulated herds or cull older animals (or animals with disadvantageous traits) than it does to transport them to areas where populations are locally threatened. If the regions can achieve this goal while also bringing wealth into their community through hunt fees, guide services, and exportation taxes, more power to them.

Look, I don't even think the USA should have a stance on importation of animal trophies taken legally under the policies of the country of origin. IT IS NOT THIS GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS WHAT KENYA ALLOWS.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: howtonhawky

I am not saying these guys are good for the environment..


Actually, we are. Thanks to the Pittman-Robertson Act, federal waterfowl stamp requirements, and large contributions to various wildlife conservation organizations, sportsmen fund the majority of conservation efforts nationwide.


Not to mention the tons and tons and tons of meat that hunters donate annually to those in need.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: howtonhawky
When is the last time a hunter got an adrenaline rush from creating management structures?

There is no pay off physically speaking in protecting species but if you say here hunt but at some point you need to conserve then what is the body gonna tell the mind to do?


You obviously don't know jack SNIP about this topic. Visit your local Fish & Game office and ask to speak to any of the hunting or fishing activity coordinators. Ask if you can talk to their volunteer habitat restoration teams, which are made up universaly of the folks who use the resource (hunters and fishermen). You'll see the passion for conservation and restoration. There's adrenaline in that.


That statement only affirms my statements.

I have been involved in hunting and conservation for a very long time.

Now you are becoming a bit peeved at me cause you still refuse to address my points validly.

It is as simple as putting a plate of meat and veggies and then a plate of desert in front of your average child and telling them they should eat.

Honestly what plate will most kids choose.

That is not to compare us with children but to point out human nature at it's base level.



If you are so smart on the subject and i do not know what i am talking of then tell me what would be wrong in saying that before we can import trophies we first have to through conservation practices increase the populations by 10%?



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: howtonhawky
When is the last time a hunter got an adrenaline rush from creating management structures?

There is no pay off physically speaking in protecting species but if you say here hunt but at some point you need to conserve then what is the body gonna tell the mind to do?


You obviously don't know jack SNIP about this topic. Visit your local Fish & Game office and ask to speak to any of the hunting or fishing activity coordinators. Ask if you can talk to their volunteer habitat restoration teams, which are made up universaly of the folks who use the resource (hunters and fishermen). You'll see the passion for conservation and restoration. There's adrenaline in that.


Absolutely everything you are saying is just soaring right over their heads. It's just not something they care about even attempting to comprehend.

I don't know why I even try any more.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

So basically you are saying that in Africa, it's not possible to use conservation techniques that work well in other parts of the world?

I'm a life long hunter, not for trophies, but for meat and I can see some validity in that.

However I do not agree that hunters are a bad choice to staff a wildlife board. Hunters would be the only logical choice.

The worst thing that could happen is activists on a board of that nature. They always make things worse due to denial of reality and their bias. The Sierra Club through it's law suits have caused more damage to herds of game animals than hunters ever could or would. I've personally seen massive winter kills due to one of the Sierra Clubs phony cover groups suing to stop a special hunt. Why? They simply don't know what they are doing and to placate the radicals that pour money into their bank accounts and pockets, they back actions that do a lot of harm to the wildlife. Things like protecting the Buffalo herds in Yellowstone to the point they starved the Elk herds. Problem is the Buffalo were only transient residents of the park until they contained them there and they use so many resources the Elk herds were decimated. True, but you won't find any facts about that in any activist publication.

I'd say it's more a case of using good judgement in which hunters are picked. Since I don't know these people I can't say if they are good or bad choices, do you happen to know them personally to have on opinion on each of them? If so, share please? Otherwise it's just propaganda.
edit on 3/16/2018 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Let's say you live in the middle of nowhere and you raise chickens. You have left 2 hens and one rooster. You have a craving for chicken. What do you do?

Which would you eat?

Would you possibly find another food source until you can raise more chickens or would you just keep eatin till they are all gone?



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

The only one I'm familiar with is Cameron Hanes, who often gets characterized as a "trophy hunter" because he hunts big game (with a bow, mind you) and takes pictures with his kills. Hanes is often quoted or attributed with supporting hunting animals like elephants. What folks typically fail to mention is that what he supports is the culling of herds and "taking" the sick, injured, and old animals rather than just letting them die and go completely to waste. He does not advocate killing healthy, viable animals simply for the sake of killing them. And that's what he's been up Zinke's ass about.

Hanes is the same guy that, when he kills a moose or elk, will pack out literally hundreds of pounds of meat just to turn around and donate it.

My opinion is that he's a decent guy who is extremely passionate about wildlife management being done correctly.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

Thank you for the logic.

I agree that hunters are a fine choice to make up the team but they have to be motivated toward a goal cause they are naturally wired for other goals.

This is what we are not doing by not setting goals for them to hit.

Of coarse they have some goals but few are motivated to reach those goals without incentive.

I say we need a person above the group appointed that has a clear path to rehabilitation for these animal species.

One that takes into account the money sucking governments and organizations and has goals to create lasting change that i as a hunter can get behind and i as a wildlife enthusiast can get behind.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
If you are so smart on the subject and i do not know what i am talking of then tell me what would be wrong in saying that before we can import trophies we first have to through conservation practices increase the populations by 10%?


Well, first of all, why in the hell is it any business of the US' what the hunting policies are in non-US countries? Hell, I'll roll you back over and throw you a bonus concession by saying the argument could be somewhat made that the US has some justification in taking an active role on import policies for game taken in Canada and Mexico simply because we're connected and animals don't recognize national borders... but we're talking about Africa here. So long as game was taken legally per whatever African nation's laws, the US government should know their role and stay out of this entirely. To suggest that this country has any right, justification, or business stating "goals" for conservation efforts in foreign countries is absurd and vastly overreaching.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Let's say you live in the middle of nowhere and you raise chickens. You have left 2 hens and one rooster. You have a craving for chicken. What do you do?

Which would you eat?

Would you possibly find another food source until you can raise more chickens or would you just keep eatin till they are all gone?


That is silly and insulting to the readers intelligence.




I have been involved in hunting and conservation for a very long time.


Then you know how important culling herds is and controlling predator populations, right? What do you personally hunt, so we can get an idea of your knowledge level.

Thinking about your premise, it seems to me that the problem in Africa is money to administrate and police good conservation programs. The best place to get that money would be from hunters. Activists talk a lot, but hunters would support it in a meaningful way with real money. I suspect the real danger to animals in Africa is from local poachers, not the small number of animals legal hunters take. You have not addressed that?



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: howtonhawky
When is the last time a hunter got an adrenaline rush from creating management structures?

There is no pay off physically speaking in protecting species but if you say here hunt but at some point you need to conserve then what is the body gonna tell the mind to do?


You obviously don't know jack SNIP about this topic. Visit your local Fish & Game office and ask to speak to any of the hunting or fishing activity coordinators. Ask if you can talk to their volunteer habitat restoration teams, which are made up universaly of the folks who use the resource (hunters and fishermen). You'll see the passion for conservation and restoration. There's adrenaline in that.


That statement only affirms my statements.

I have been involved in hunting and conservation for a very long time.

Now you are becoming a bit peeved at me cause you still refuse to address my points validly.

It is as simple as putting a plate of meat and veggies and then a plate of desert in front of your average child and telling them they should eat.

Honestly what plate will most kids choose.

That is not to compare us with children but to point out human nature at it's base level.



If you are so smart on the subject and i do not know what i am talking of then tell me what would be wrong in saying that before we can import trophies we first have to through conservation practices increase the populations by 10%?

I would ask you something sincerely. From what location deep in your colon did you pull this 10% BS from? You can't unilaterally just use numbers like that.

Some species have to be managed at the local level to prevent recessive genetic issues from inbreeding. Some species need populations maintained to account for environmental carrying capacity. There are some places where elephants are already outstripping their resources. A 10% population increase would be catastrophic.

There are lots of factors and the money these big trophy hunts generate help them manage far better than they did 15-20 years ago.

There is your answer to why this BS number you came up with doesn't work. We won't even discuss the wildly exaggerated, emotionally charged, fallacy that trophy hunts have a significant impact on these species.

Habitat loss and bush meat trade. Look them up.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe


What is your point?

I believe that there are many factors including corrupt governments corrupt conservation organizations.

This is the biggest hurdles we face.

The group appointed has many great challenges ahead of them so there first move is too kill more animals?

Give me logic please.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

You make a good point about that.

I've been an Alaskan for 18 years now, but was from Idaho before that and I've seen that in play there in Idaho.

We had a very mild winter and the Mule Deer herds were overpopulated for the expected harsh winter that followed. A group formed by the Sierra Club sued to stop the special hunt that was set up to cull the herd to save it. It ended in a 90% winter kill and the remaining animals were thin and sickly. Had they not interfered that year, by culling just 10% as much as 80% of the remaining herd could have survived and been healthy. They were directly responsible for almost wiping out the local herds, which were at historic levels even larger than when the Pilgrims landed. Just like in Yellowstone, activism kills animals in the name of saving them.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

currently i hunt ignorance the most. As to eliminate.

No offence but we have gotten this far in the thread and just now figuring out that there are huge gaps in conservation between the usa and s.a..

For the record as if it really matters my family owns and manages a successful game ranchin texas and i have bagged most species that are native to the state and many exotics from across the world. I bagged my firsts deer at 10 alone.

You claim that the chicken delimmea i posted is insulting but i disagree and purpose that we have to tackle the problem from the reality that big game is on the decline. And first and formost is turning the numbers into the positive before culling the herd.



YOU CAN NOT CULL A NON EXISTENT HERD



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
For the record as if it really matters my family owns and manages a successful game ranchin texas


THERE IT IS! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Your family financially benefits, and greatly I'm sure, from laws and regulations that discourage if not outright prevent American hunters from going outside the US to participate in exotic hunts. This is called a conflict of interest. Your position on this now makes perfect sense.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   
It is beyond ignorance to think that killing part of what few exotic animals out there will help the longevity of the species if you do not have the proper protection forces in place to conserve through management.

The success of the usa protection for animals and the monies for conservation was built on the backs of badass game wardens. The first step in s.a. is too give the wardens down there the same powers that we gave the wardens here.

They would be able to track down poachers of meat and funds.

In the beginning it might even take some other type of force to stabilize the overall aspects that the wardens operate in.

Even before that we have to identify the usa politicians that seek to undermine the creation of such efforts and the removal of tillerson was a start but my friends he was not alone in those meetings in sa. last week.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: howtonhawky
For the record as if it really matters my family owns and manages a successful game ranchin texas


THERE IT IS! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Your family financially benefits, and greatly I'm sure, from laws and regulations that discourage if not outright prevent American hunters from going outside the US to participate in exotic hunts. This is called a conflict of interest. Your position on this now makes perfect sense.


care to stake something other than your ignorance on your accusations?

If you are so sure then put something on it other than your desire for an escape goat.

I like you much and respect you much and will tell you that you just dropped into a great trap of your own making.

You should spend some time thinking on your accusation before going further down into the trap.

point one there are no endangered species on the ranch.

I will give you time to review your false accusations.

edit on 16-3-2018 by howtonhawky because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

Nonexistent?
LINK


In many parts of Africa, elephants are threatened by poaching. But in South Africa, they're doing so well that some game reserves say they're overpopulated. Now, many of those reserves are trying to limit elephant reproduction


The animals at Makalali seem to be living in the wild, but this is a fenced-in reserve, and the wildlife is closely managed. Most notably, many of the elephants are on birth control. Audrey Delsink is in charge of them. She explains that when elephants were reintroduced to Makalali in the 1990s, their population ballooned.


That was in 2013.

Instead of birth control, perhaps a well managed hunt may make more sense.

I agree in some cases the numbers are a problem, but the real danger is from locals who poach the animals to sell, not from legal hunting. To address the problem, you must address the real problem, not attack those who are not involved. Remember we are talking legal hunts here.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

No need, really. From your OP...

originally posted by: howtonhawky
From the outside it sounds like they have a budget to take a hunting trip.

Obviously if they're prevented by the US government from using that money on an African hunt, the implication/expectation/hope would be that they could turn around and use that big hunt fund in Texas. Why allow that money to go to Africa when it's $1,500 a day to hunt Blesbock in Uvalde plus $6,500 trophy fee? While on that hunt be sure to drop another $1,200 per day on Watusi (plus $20k trophy fee)... and bring the whole family along ($300 per day per additional non-hunting guest food, lodging, and entertainment fee.)

I know the game and how it's played, man.




top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join