Another point of view:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...vory-tusks

(11-20-2017 02:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 12:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 12:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump admin decides last week that they will lift a ban on the importing of the remains of legally hunted elephants in Africa.

Trump admin back tracks last week and says they will reverse the decision and leave the ban in place.

Absolutely mind boggling that the ban was going to be lifted (well, not really when you see what hobbies his children are into), and then how quickly the admin back peddled on it. I mean, I'm all for them making the right decision, but how inept/incompetent do you have to be to even try and lift that ban in the first place?

Managed hunting and appropriate herd culling are good conservation practices, but if that is part of the reason why the admin wanted to lift the ban, why not stick to your guns, act like you actually evaluated the decision before it was made, and put forward your rationale?

No problem with your post, just a question.

If the elephants were legally hunted, what is the purpose of the ban on importing the remains?

Usually, those bans, like the ivory ban, are to discourage poaching.

A few reasons, in my mine. 1) To discourage any shady practices where non-legally hunted elephant remains are imported as legally hunted. 2) To discourage the hunting practices which don't always benefit conservation efforts as much as they claim.

This article I read about it does a decent job of laying out the issues: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017...lephants0/

“There’s a real concern that legal hunting of elephants provides cover for illegal hunting. When trucks, guns, and hunters are allowed on the landscape, rangers don’t know who’s who,..."

What is the problem with checking permits? That's what game wardens all over do.

The poaching as I understand it, is mainly for ivory, which is already under a ban. Other than the tusks, what parts have a market?

The approach of banning everything because some things might be illegally obtained should also apply to diamonds, right? Some diamonds are blood diamonds so all diamonds should be excluded from the US?

Don't get me wrong. I want the elephants to live long and prosper. I just don't see how the illogicality here here benefits them.

Then the Trump admin should state their case.

I'm more commenting on the idiocy of the situation - carrying out a reversal of a ban only to quickly reverse the reversal and state that the administration would reevaluate the decision.

Shouldn't the ban reversal decision have been thoroughly evaluated before it went into place? Prior to enacting or removing legislation I would hope that there would be sound reasoning for doing it, and the reasoning would be sound enough to stand up against an initial public response to the decision.

As I stated in my reply, and as the National Geographic mentioned, intentional culling of elephant herds has its place and is necessary. The question just becomes what is the best way to support that practice. I'm no expert in that area, so I'll defer to conservation groups as to how best manage that, and if that includes having a ban on trophy imports than we should. If they think that the permitting fees and legalization of trophies is the best way to do that, then we should support that.

I guess my first reply made it sound like the actual decision to remove the ban was mind boggling, which isn't what I was trying to refer to. It's the entire situation that is mind boggling to me.

Most endangered species could see a significant increase in populations if some commercial breeding (and yes hunting) were allowed. See the article I linked above for examples and links to further examples.

But environmental regulators don't like this. Why not? Because if the species became unendangered, then they would not be able to regulate them any more. They have actually made precisely that argument in court opposing private commercial operations.

Mind-boggling is an appropriate term.

(11-20-2017 03:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Another point of view:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...vory-tusks

Makes a lot of sense.

Another example of trying to stop a practice by limiting supply would be Prohibition.

(11-20-2017 04:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 03:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Another point of view:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...vory-tusks

Makes a lot of sense.
Another example of trying to stop a practice by limiting supply would be Prohibition.

Or the war on drugs.

(11-20-2017 04:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Most endangered species could see a significant increase in populations if some commercial breeding (and yes hunting) were allowed. See the article I linked above for examples and links to further examples.

But environmental regulators don't like this. Why not? Because if the species became unendangered, then they would not be able to regulate them any more. They have actually made precisely that argument in court opposing private commercial operations.

Mind-boggling is an appropriate term.

Again, I was not commenting on the Trump admin decision and the merits of a ban/ban removal on importing trophies. I was commenting on the general ineptitude that was on full display.

I find the point of view expressed in the article you posted to be a compelling one. It makes logical sense to try and encourage private farming and to also make poaching or trophy importing illegal.

I do wonder who these "environmental regulators" you speak of are. That sounds like a big boogie man that doesn't exist. The decision was made by the Fish and Wildlife Service. I guess they should be responsible for setting up elephant farms in Zimbabwe?

(11-20-2017 04:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 03:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Another point of view:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...vory-tusks

Makes a lot of sense.
Another example of trying to stop a practice by limiting supply would be Prohibition.

Or the war on drugs.

Completely agree with you two on the overall ineffectiveness of trying to discourage personal vices via prohibition. Alcohol consumption and drug use are not effectively curbed by making their purchase/use illegal. Legality, or decriminalization of personal vices make a lot of sense to me - especially when their abuse can lead to self harm. People then won't be discouraged from seeking help. This is where a vice tax to help curb consumption makes a lot of sense, since consuming these items is not exactly healthy, and having a healthy populous is good.

I think you have to be careful, though, with taking that logic, though, and apply it to everything. It really works well when you're talking about the demand for an item that you use personally and really only affects you, but when it can start having negative externalities that are hard to understand, it's less clear. I mean, we do have practices in place that limit supply when we restrict the number of bucks you can shoot during hunting season (or the fact that there even is a hunting season), and they work well. We have been able to use hunting bans to successfully protect and increase animal populations.

(11-20-2017 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  . We have been able to use hunting bans to successfully protect and increase animal populations.

If demand is low, they will work. Not a lot of people want to hunt bald eagles.

stwill co,es down to demand.

Getting back to elephants, how do we reduce the demand for,ivory world wide?

(11-20-2017 02:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The poaching as I understand it, is mainly for ivory, which is already under a ban. Other than the tusks, what parts have a market?

Skins for boots. I bought a pair of elephant boots close to 30 years ago --- suckers are still like new. Amazingly tough hide.

Havent been able to get a pair in the US for 25 years.... cant tell the difference between legal and illegal hides. Further, one species is endangered, so you cant buy or import *any* elephant hide products because, again, customs cannot tell the difference.

Thought about the FO approach, and next time I'm in jurisdiction that I can get them, buy them and wear them back.

Quote:The approach of banning everything because some things might be illegally obtained should also apply to diamonds, right? Some diamonds are blood diamonds so all diamonds should be excluded from the US?

If people were consistent in their beliefs that would hold water. Many people are not.

Quote:Don't get me wrong. I want the elephants to live long and prosper. I just don't see how the illogicality here here benefits them.

Nice pun on the 'live long'.....

As an aside, was going through boxes of my mother's items after clearing her house out. Came across an ivory ashtray. So wrong on so many levels, that I am going to have to display it in my den.....

(11-20-2017 04:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Most endangered species could see a significant increase in populations if some commercial breeding (and yes hunting) were allowed. See the article I linked above for examples and links to further examples.

But environmental regulators don't like this. Why not? Because if the species became unendangered, then they would not be able to regulate them any more. They have actually made precisely that argument in court opposing private commercial operations.

Mind-boggling is an appropriate term.

Funny thing is that (according to my 'boot guy') herds of elephant in Africa are becoming so large that they pose a threat to local villages --- trampling, bull charge attacks, and crops being wiped out in some places are the new norm.

But the entire spectrum of endangered elephants is isolated to Asia and India-Borneo. African elephants are no longer on the endangered lists.

But the sentiment seems to ban everything in site traced to elephants.

(11-20-2017 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We have been able to use hunting bans to successfully protect and increase animal populations.

And many times when a species has rebounded to be a threat/nuisance, the bans are kept in place.

Alligators in the US is an example.

Sometimes the protection and increase of a population is not wanted. Exploding deer populations in many portions of the US are an example of that as well.

(11-20-2017 06:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  . We have been able to use hunting bans to successfully protect and increase animal populations.

If demand is low, they will work. Not a lot of people want to hunt bald eagles.

stwill co,es down to demand.

Getting back to elephants, how do we reduce the demand for,ivory world wide?

I don’t know. Again, I have no immediate issue with the decision to end the ban (I realize how it seems like it was, based on my phrasing). The thing I was trying to comment on was the hilarious immediate backpedal by the admin and the fact that they had, apparently, not thoroughly reviewed this decision. Let’s get back to the fact that either the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing, or POTUS doesn’t have the ability to sufficiently justify the decisions his administration is making.

(11-20-2017 09:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We have been able to use hunting bans to successfully protect and increase animal populations.

And many times when a species has rebounded to be a threat/nuisance, the bans are kept in place.

Alligators in the US is an example.

Sometimes the protection and increase of a population is not wanted. Exploding deer populations in many portions of the US are an example of that as well.

Ecosystem management is very complicated. Even the wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone isn’t the fairy tale it is sometimes made out to be. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to protect endangered species, which it sounds like you’re suggesting we avoid because sometimes those protections last too long.

And where are deer or alligators still protected? In Florida I know you’re able to hunt both.

(11-20-2017 10:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 06:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  . We have been able to use hunting bans to successfully protect and increase animal populations.

If demand is low, they will work. Not a lot of people want to hunt bald eagles.

stwill co,es down to demand.

Getting back to elephants, how do we reduce the demand for,ivory world wide?

I don’t know. Again, I have no immediate issue with the decision to end the ban (I realize how it seems like it was, based on my phrasing). The thing I was trying to comment on was the hilarious immediate backpedal by the admin and the fact that they had, apparently, not thoroughly reviewed this decision. Let’s get back to the fact that either the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing, or POTUS doesn’t have the ability to sufficiently justify the decisions his administration is making.

Like I said in post #2238, I have no problem with your post re: the Trump Administration.

(11-20-2017 11:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 09:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We have been able to use hunting bans to successfully protect and increase animal populations.

And many times when a species has rebounded to be a threat/nuisance, the bans are kept in place.

Alligators in the US is an example.

Sometimes the protection and increase of a population is not wanted. Exploding deer populations in many portions of the US are an example of that as well.

Ecosystem management is very complicated. Even the wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone isn’t the fairy tale it is sometimes made out to be. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to protect endangered species, which it sounds like you’re suggesting we avoid because sometimes those protections last too long.

And where are deer or alligators still protected? In Florida I know you’re able to hunt both.

From watching Swamp People, I know that alligator hunting is limited to those with tags, and limited to a short hunting season.

(11-21-2017 12:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 11:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 09:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We have been able to use hunting bans to successfully protect and increase animal populations.

And many times when a species has rebounded to be a threat/nuisance, the bans are kept in place.

Alligators in the US is an example.

Sometimes the protection and increase of a population is not wanted. Exploding deer populations in many portions of the US are an example of that as well.

Ecosystem management is very complicated. Even the wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone isn’t the fairy tale it is sometimes made out to be. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to protect endangered species, which it sounds like you’re suggesting we avoid because sometimes those protections last too long.

And where are deer or alligators still protected? In Florida I know you’re able to hunt both.

From watching Swamp People, I know that alligator hunting is limited to those with tags, and limited to a short hunting season.

I guess I view having limits to avoid over-hunting as being different from protecting an animal from being hunted at all. I was thinking we were talking about protections from any hunting at all.

Plus, alligators are farmed - there is active alligator farming across the Gulf of Mexico, so if people really want to harvest alligators for profit they can do it legally.

(11-21-2017 07:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 12:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 11:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 09:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We have been able to use hunting bans to successfully protect and increase animal populations.

And many times when a species has rebounded to be a threat/nuisance, the bans are kept in place.

Alligators in the US is an example.

Sometimes the protection and increase of a population is not wanted. Exploding deer populations in many portions of the US are an example of that as well.

Ecosystem management is very complicated. Even the wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone isn’t the fairy tale it is sometimes made out to be. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to protect endangered species, which it sounds like you’re suggesting we avoid because sometimes those protections last too long.

And where are deer or alligators still protected? In Florida I know you’re able to hunt both.

From watching Swamp People, I know that alligator hunting is limited to those with tags, and limited to a short hunting season.

I guess I view having limits to avoid over-hunting as being different from protecting an animal from being hunted at all. I was thinking we were talking about protections from any hunting at all.

Plus, alligators are farmed - there is active alligator farming across the Gulf of Mexico, so if people really want to harvest alligators for profit they can do it legally.

Kind of supports what Owl69 posted.

Usually, limits and seasons are to control populations and to allow people a chance to hunt for recreation and/or profit without endangering the species. We have a dove season. dove are not endangered. But if we had open season 7/24/365, we might be in danger of wiping them out, a la the passenger pigeon.

Endangered means NO hunting. Think whooping crane instead of dove.

back to elephants. If some can be hunted legally, and certified as such in the country of origin, I see no reason to disallow the importation of parts. Like diamonds.

JMHO.

(11-21-2017 08:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 07:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 12:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 11:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 09:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And many times when a species has rebounded to be a threat/nuisance, the bans are kept in place.

Alligators in the US is an example.

Sometimes the protection and increase of a population is not wanted. Exploding deer populations in many portions of the US are an example of that as well.

Ecosystem management is very complicated. Even the wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone isn’t the fairy tale it is sometimes made out to be. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to protect endangered species, which it sounds like you’re suggesting we avoid because sometimes those protections last too long.

And where are deer or alligators still protected? In Florida I know you’re able to hunt both.

From watching Swamp People, I know that alligator hunting is limited to those with tags, and limited to a short hunting season.

I guess I view having limits to avoid over-hunting as being different from protecting an animal from being hunted at all. I was thinking we were talking about protections from any hunting at all.

Plus, alligators are farmed - there is active alligator farming across the Gulf of Mexico, so if people really want to harvest alligators for profit they can do it legally.

Kind of supports what Owl69 posted.

Usually, limits and seasons are to control populations and to allow people a chance to hunt for recreation and/or profit without endangering the species. We have a dove season. dove are not endangered. But if we had open season 7/24/365, we might be in danger of wiping them out, a la the passenger pigeon.

Endangered means NO hunting. Think whooping crane instead of dove.

back to elephants. If some can be hunted legally, and certified as such in the country of origin, I see no reason to disallow the importation of parts. Like diamonds.

JMHO.

I'm very confused as it seems like you're trying to argue with me about something, and I'm not sure what.

I never disagreed with Owl69 or refuted what he said, and I really don't disagree with your statement about importing elephant trophies if they are hunted legally. I just provided arguments for why legally hunted trophies aren't legally allowed to be imported.

(11-21-2017 08:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 08:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 07:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 12:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 11:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ecosystem management is very complicated. Even the wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone isn’t the fairy tale it is sometimes made out to be. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to protect endangered species, which it sounds like you’re suggesting we avoid because sometimes those protections last too long.

And where are deer or alligators still protected? In Florida I know you’re able to hunt both.

From watching Swamp People, I know that alligator hunting is limited to those with tags, and limited to a short hunting season.

I guess I view having limits to avoid over-hunting as being different from protecting an animal from being hunted at all. I was thinking we were talking about protections from any hunting at all.

Plus, alligators are farmed - there is active alligator farming across the Gulf of Mexico, so if people really want to harvest alligators for profit they can do it legally.

Kind of supports what Owl69 posted.

Usually, limits and seasons are to control populations and to allow people a chance to hunt for recreation and/or profit without endangering the species. We have a dove season. dove are not endangered. But if we had open season 7/24/365, we might be in danger of wiping them out, a la the passenger pigeon.

Endangered means NO hunting. Think whooping crane instead of dove.

back to elephants. If some can be hunted legally, and certified as such in the country of origin, I see no reason to disallow the importation of parts. Like diamonds.

JMHO.

I'm very confused as it seems like you're trying to argue with me about something, and I'm not sure what.

I never disagreed with Owl69 or refuted what he said, and I really don't disagree with your statement about importing elephant trophies if they are hunted legally. I just provided arguments for why legally hunted trophies aren't legally allowed to be imported.

The two bolded statements should clear it up for you.

A minor point, but if you go back to post #2238, it was always my question. I guess next we can debate the forest and the trees.

It only took 54 weeks and 2236 posts before we started arguing about elephant hunting. :)