Donald Trump administration lifts ban on importing lion hunt trophies

I'm a cat person, so this is one move I oppose

Love Trump, but leave lions (and other animals) alone

a reply to: CranialSponge

I don't see any difference between game hunters and poachers other than one is rich doing it for fun and the other is poor doing it to survive.
When they're gone they're gone.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

May the elephants trample and big cats eat those juicy rich well fed trophy hunters.

Wanna shoot wild life and bring back proof?? Get a fk-ing camera.

a reply to: intrepid

Cause if you're going to spend $10,000 - $45,000 to go hunt an elephant or lion ( which the profits generally go to buying more land for sanctuaries) then you should be able to spend a couple more grand to ship it home. Go spend a lot of money to hunt an exotic animal but have to hang the trophy in the lodge you visited, just doesn't make sense.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

There isn't.

Unfortunately, trophy hunting is legal. If the animal is taken legally, then the trophy should be allowed into the country.

As soon as trophy hunting becomes illegal, then this can, and should be, revisited.

Saw a picture one of his kids in Africa with a dead Leopard, another holding a knife and an elephants tail..whole family are sociopathic cockroaches, I pray the elephant stomps the life out of him next time.
Disgusting f'ing losers.

Donnie is so anti establishment. Everyone knows that only middle class hunt for trophies of rare and endangered animals.

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: Indrasweb

As backwards as it sounds, its the big game hunters that funnel the most money into the direct conservation over there, as opposed to donations.

I think its silly unless youre eating the meat, and stuffing it is twice as dorky.

Someone may have already commented on this...but I had to stop and respond. Yes, trophy hunters are simply looking for a trophy to bring home. In Africa, most often, the guides assist and the meat actually is given to the local native tribe to feed their community/families. It is regulated and not only benefits the environment conservation but the people there locally too. If the hunter cannot import his trophy hunt home...they will not spend their $$$ and not only will the environment suffer but the local tribes too.

Edit add: even Africa recognizes the win/win here. Regulating hunting does conserve the populations...more money and poachers will not make as much if the hunter can legally bring his trophy home. Obviously, they realized that making it illegal only makes a trophy worth more ... Thus more lions suffer.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
I don't understand the logic behind this? What legitimate reason could there possibly be to lift this ban??

The news about lion trophy imports come after Donald Trump's administration said on Wednesday it was going to lift the Obama-era ban on imports of elephant remains from the same two African countries.

The announcement was condemned as a "backwards step" by conservation charities, which warned elephant numbers were sharply declining due to poaching and a reduction in their territory.

www.independent.co.uk...

Never ceases to amaze me, the actions of this administration. Just when you think it can't go any crazier. Lions have been designated endangered by the FWS. I can't find any justification for this. None. But hey maybe I shouldn't be too surprised given the history of the Trumps and trophy hunting:

The FWS **WANTS** this reversal

The FWS argues that the reversal of the ban, first imposed by the Obama administration in 2014, will help create a revenue stream for pouring money back into conservation efforts to help elephants and other African animals, particularly those whose population statuses are currently threatened.

www.slate.com...

Deny Ignorance....

Big game hunting provides revenue that directly funds conservation. By contrast, virtue-signalling does nothing.

a reply to: gortex

I don't see any difference between game hunters and poachers other than one is rich doing it for fun and the other is poor doing it to survive. When they're gone they're gone.

The difference is that legal hunters have set limits - ie: they can only kill one lion per x number of days or whatever.

Whereas poachers slaughter as many in a day as they damn well please. Running the risk of bringing a species on the brink of extinction, or at the very least, an endangered species.

Poaching is a problem everywhere, but even more so in a poverty stricken place like Africa.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Virtue-signalling doesn't really cut it when it comes to the conservation of species, but hunting does.

Or does it.

“If it is well managed, then yes there might be a case to be made for hunting as a means for conservation because it does bring in a little bit of money,” said Pieter Kat, co-founder of Lion Aid. But for hunting to act as an unlikely bedfellow for conservation it relies on good management and in the majority of cases this did not occur, he said.

“I would say there are some examples, but it largely depends on the honesty of the hunting operators. By far the largest majority of people that are in the hunting profession are not doing it out of any form of conservation. They are in it for the money,” said Kat.

Kat was highly critical of Zambia’s decision to overturn its lion and leopard hunting ban. He said the government had “caved in to powerful hunting interests”. Zambia’s government said the move was based on fresh field assessments, but Kat said no such count has occurred. The government estimates there are 4,000 lions in the country, but informal estimates put the number at more like 400.
“There is little evidence that hunting does much to conserve wildlife in Tanzania, Zambia, Mozambique or much of West Africa,” said Professor Craig Packer, a lion expert at the University of Minnesota. Only in Zimbabwe and Namibia did he say hunting revenues appeared to be actively protecting species.
www.theguardian.com...

I see some never heard of or watched Ghost and the Darkness.

Based on TRUE EVENTS.



Making a mountain of a sinkhole.

a reply to: neo96

Really, really good movie!!

a reply to: gortex

Of course it would have to be well managed.

If it's legal then I don't have a problem with it. The funny thing is all of the soft hearted liberals in this thread give more creadence to a feline life then a human one. Ponder that for a second. 🤔

how does this apply to ivory? can the ivory be imported now too? and then legally resold outside the four states that ban them? or is that still restricted? i ask because this could let poachers have a new avenue to sell the ivory with much less red tape then before. thats the only problem i can see coming from this if the ivory rules are changed

Trump may have an OCD thing about overturning anything Obama did.

However, of course on another level Trump cares little for human beings, why would one think he gives a dam about animals

Generally where these animals are hunted the governing authority of that nation issues the licenses. The meat is largely distributed to the locals in the area most times.

This is not the same a poaching and it is not the same as endorsing poaching.

I get that people don't like to see the animals killed, but it is still illegal to hunt endangered species.

What legitimate reason is there for the US government to interview?

To keep animals from going extinct due to bad peoples' selfishness.