quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Nelson - I too say, THANK YOU!!!

While I don't exactly agree with everything posted above, some of which SCI was apparently told by the USFWS - just the opposite of what we were told? Funny how that happens? Funny how several of the scientists, including the one that the USFWS is actually listening to, told us a different story too? Regardless, you provided info - which is a lot more than anyone else from SCI has ever done, so thank you again.

If as you say, supporting the "Huntable Lion Definition" would have zero outcome on the potential up-listing as per the USFWS, then as a gesture of good conservation - why did SCI not just endorse it like many others, as a gesture of good faith? After all, its only a suggested guideline that to the USFWS matters not anyway, right?

In actuality, you are correct. The up-listing is to be solely based on facts that fit within the parameters of the up-listing requirements, and the "definition" has nothing to do with that at all. But do you really not think outside influences are considered, really?? Maybe it was just me, that was really disappointed to see the biggest hunting/conservation leader - sit on their hands and say nothing. That could simply be my own mis-guided expectations from SCI. If so, my apologies.

I do however find it highly concerning that SCI chooses to elicit $1million in donations from its members/supporters in the name of lion conservation, and then refuses to divulge where the money is/has gone? That's shocking to me, especially when you consider that the potential up-listing is all but announced (any day now) thus the only other avenue will be legal action should the up-listing happen? In short, its a "secret".

Look, I don't actually believe that SCI does not want to help the Lion, does not want to help wildlife conservation, not for a minute. But when it takes the likes of some of us here on AR to raise a stink like we have over the past few weeks, just to get info that SCI should easily and proudly be providing - something is wrong. IMO, that's what happens when only the lawyers are allowed to speak. (No offense to all AR lawyers)

I hope the lion is NOT up-listed at all, but if it is - we'll all look to SCI to take the lead.

Regards,

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

I do however find it highly concerning that SCI chooses to elicit $1million in donations from its members/supporters in the name of lion conservation, and then refuses to divulge where the money is/has gone? That's shocking to me, especially when you consider that the potential up-listing is all but announced (any day now) thus the only other avenue will be legal action should the up-listing happen? In short, its a "secret".

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
But when it takes the likes of some of us here on AR to raise a stink like we have over the past few weeks, just to get info that SCI should easily and proudly be providing - something is wrong. IMO, that's what happens when only the lawyers are allowed to speak. (No offense to all AR lawyers)

quote:

Originally posted by NelsonFreemanSCI:
Dear Saeed, Members of the A.R. Forum, and fellow conservationists

Safari Club International and Safari Club International Foundation submit this response to your questions regarding the March 2011 petition to list the African lion as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Below is a ten year perspective of Safari Club’s involvement with the African lion, leading up to present day discussion of age-based harvest restrictions.

In 2004, the world's governments were participating in an international convention on wildlife trade (CITES) in Bangkok, Thailand, reviewing whether or not the maximum restrictions on trade should be applied to the African lion. The conclusions reached by the governments at CITES was that there should be no change in regulations so as long as the lion range states actively developed comprehensive management plans to conserve lions.

With that call to action, SCI Foundation rolled up its sleeves and went to work with the lion range states. We knew that range states would need to show how many lions each country had, what threats to lions were most significant to manage for, and that the lion harvest was sustainable. The range states had to show they were capable of managing their own wildlife, and that their new management plans were based on science.

Regional lion management workshops were held in Cameroon (2005) and South Africa (2006), which identified common threats to lions and the actions needed to alleviate those threats. SCI Foundation cosponsored these workshops and while attending, supported the idea of developing national lion management plans for all range states.

Year by year, country by country, SCI Foundation assisted the African governments with studying their lion populations and helped incorporate the results of those studies into lion management planning. Annually, the Foundation coordinated (and still coordinates) the African Wildlife Consultative Forum, which is the only wildlife management conference in Africa that unites the professional hunting industry with government wildlife management authorities for the Sub-Saharan lion range states. The forum was ideal to encourage progress on lion management plans and maintaining sustainable use. This forum is a unique contribution to wildlife conservation that SCI Foundation can proudly claim as its own.

In March 2011, five animal-welfare/animal-rights organizations petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list lions as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Whether they knew it or not, they were picking a fight with us. We started preparing for battle and submitted public comments that challenged the merits of the lion petition. The U.S. government was late in their own process to review the petition, but they eventually determined to move forward with the listing process. We quickly realized that this issue was going to need a strong stance from the hunting community, and last year, SCI and SCI Foundation raised over one million dollars for our “Fighting for Lions Campaign.”

The lion petition led to a 12-month status review, which means our U.S. tax dollars were applied to investigate the best available science on lions. SCI Foundation provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with all of the lion science we had, all of the management plans and progress made, and in a move labelled as "unprecedented" by USFWS, SCI Foundation participated in its fact finding lion workshop held last summer 2013.

As part of our campaign, SCI Foundation hired legal experts specialized in the Endangered Species Act to assist with strategy. We also brought lion scientists from around the world to Washington D.C. so they could share their expertise, face to face, with the decision makers (FWS staff and Members of Congress). We invested in learning public opinion on the lion issue and in identifying what key points were necessary to help people understand how hunting lions was good for lion conservation. We also developed a lion website, published reports, exposed the bad facts presented by the petitioners, and enhanced our outreach on the lion issue. Additional work has been funded, but we are not releasing this information here as that would provide anyone with access to the internet hints about our strategy. Further, an exact accounting of where we have spent our funds will not be provided for the same reason, but we have spent approximately $375,000 from the campaign funds.

Currently, all attention is focused on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its decision on the listing petition, which as they told us at our most recent meeting with them during the Las Vegas Convention, they expect to announce in the next few weeks. SCI and SCI Foundation have participated aggressively in the process leading up to the decision by filing extensive comments on the petition and we have consistently made clear that regulated hunting of the lion is part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Relatedly, many questions have been asked on this forum regarding SCI’s decision not to agree to a “Definition of a Huntable Lion,” which was being promoted by some lion researchers, Dallas Safari Club, Accurate Reloading, etc. SCI Foundation’s Department of Conservation, SCI’s Department of Litigation, and SCI’s Department of Hunter Advocacy all disagree with the adoption of a definition for multiple reasons. First, we have met with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and confirmed that adoption of a definition of a “huntable lion” from the private sector and professional lion researchers would have absolutely zero effect on the status review and the decision whether to list the lion under the Endangered Species Act. They clearly stated the obvious, which is that the listing process is science based and the adoption of any such definition would not increase their level of knowledge on the biological status of the African lion. It seems as though a rumor was started regarding the impact a definition would have, but this rumor simply is untrue.

Secondly, SCI Foundation’s Conservation Committee carefully reviewed available lion aging data and talked with researchers and professional hunters. It was the clear consensus that currently there simply is no reliable way to age a male lion in the wild. The definition itself is simply impossible to implement as lion aging science is not strong enough to differentiate between ages 4, 5, 6, even when using dead lions. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect someone to be able to guarantee the age of a live lion on a hunt, in the bush. Tanzania’s Wildlife Department tried to implement age-based harvest regulations in 2013, using 6-year old lions as a cutoff. Our understanding is that Tanzania realized how difficult this regulation was to implement, and is now retreating to more broad categories such as adult, subadult and juvenile. It is clear that moving to a six year-old age restriction harvest is premature at this time.

Lastly, SCI Foundation is heavily invested in lion aging science to determine whether it is possible to accurately age lions using their teeth, and in the field using morphological characteristics. This long term research investment has cost approximately $200,000 to date and will tell hunters and wildlife managers whether exact-age restrictions can be used in the future, and whether humans can reliably identify the age of live lions in the field with accuracy. SCI Foundation is hoping to provide a ground-breaking research that may revolutionize future lion harvest regulations, as well as help produce a field aging guide for professional hunters and guides.

We welcome opening this dialogue so long as we all remain civil and understanding of the fact that we are working very hard, every day, to ensure sustainable conservation for lions and to protect hunting for the next generation.

I’ll leave you with one final comment. This website/forum is actively monitored by the opposition. They have made that abundantly clear in the past. Every time they are given an insight to our tactics, strategies and goals, we are giving them a strategic advantage. This is an unpleasant but obvious fact of the internet based communication which we utilize in modern times.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

I do however find it highly concerning that SCI chooses to elicit $1million in donations from its members/supporters in the name of lion conservation, and then refuses to divulge where the money is/has gone? That's shocking to me, especially when you consider that the potential up-listing is all but announced (any day now) thus the only other avenue will be legal action should the up-listing happen? In short, its a "secret".

Wildlife conservation? Money spent? Did you miss my post when I stated (repeated from SCI) that the $1M was flagged for fighting any uplisting, before and after the event (if it happens). Nelson confirmed the money was for the 'Fighting for Lions' campaign. Did Nelson not write above that only $375,000 had already been spent on this endeavour and that some of the balance had already been flagged for other actions??

Are you expecting a dollar breakdown? Nelson says he will not publish it - and gave reasons why not.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
But when it takes the likes of some of us here on AR to raise a stink like we have over the past few weeks, just to get info that SCI should easily and proudly be providing - something is wrong. IMO, that's what happens when only the lawyers are allowed to speak. (No offense to all AR lawyers)

SCIF was invited (recently) by AR members to come here and address this issue. Nelson is here at that request, I believe.

Most of this information is to be found on the Fighting For Lions website too...

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

Believe it or not Matt, SCI does not have a monopoly on insight/insider info with the USFWS, etc. I do appreciate Nelson's info, but you seem to think the rest of us are just guessing - and SCI has all the answers/facts.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

Believe it or not Matt, SCI does not have a monopoly on insight/insider info with the USFWS, etc. I do appreciate Nelson's info, but you seem to think the rest of us are just guessing - and SCI has all the answers/facts.

Your words and thoughts Aaron, not mine. I havent expressed these opinions anywhere - nor guessed what the outcome of all this will be. I trust what Nelson has said - and trust that the $375k was spent wisely and that the remaining money will also be spent wisely - to ensure that sustainable utilisation of the lion can continue.

I can see you are bitter about all this - but dont be bitter at me - I have just been trying to get the iinformation for AR members. I have an interest in seeing this work - mainly as we have (many) similar battles to fight where I live.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

Believe it or not Matt, SCI does not have a monopoly on insight/insider info with the USFWS, etc. I do appreciate Nelson's info, but you seem to think the rest of us are just guessing - and SCI has all the answers/facts.

Your words and thoughts Aaron, not mine. I havent expressed these opinions anywhere - nor guessed what the outcome of all this will be. I trust what Nelson has said - and trust that the $375k was spent wisely and that the remaining money will also be spent wisely - to ensure that sustainable utilisation of the lion can continue.

I can see you are bitter about all this - but dont be bitter at me - I have just been trying to get the iinformation for AR members. I have an interest in seeing this work - mainly as we have (many) similar battles to fight where I live.

Matt - You know me better than that, I'm not bitter. What in the world would I be bitter about? I carry no emotion when it comes to these things. Bitter is not it, I would probably call it more informed.

If the $375k was spent "wisely" as you say, then why the secret about how it was spent? As I mentioned, the fight is effectively OVER bro! See Jeff's Polar Bear example of trying to be re-active against such up-listings through litigation. I'm fully aware of the process as I too have followed it closely in hopes I would get my polar bear home too. The lion doesn't have years to wait, if they could over-turn it at all. The lion needs help now.

I make no assumption that it was NOT spent wisely, I simply don't see the need for secrecy - after the fact?

Man, the democrats here in the USA could use more of you though my friend. Don't ask questions, just trust us - we got ya covered.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Nelson - I too say, THANK YOU!!!

While I don't exactly agree with everything posted above, some of which SCI was apparently told by the USFWS - just the opposite of what we were told? Funny how that happens? Funny how several of the scientists, including the one that the USFWS is actually listening to, told us a different story too? Regardless, you provided info - which is a lot more than anyone else from SCI has ever done, so thank you again.

If as you say, supporting the "Huntable Lion Definition" would have zero outcome on the potential up-listing as per the USFWS, then as a gesture of good conservation - why did SCI not just endorse it like many others, as a gesture of good faith? After all, its only a suggested guideline that to the USFWS matters not anyway, right?

In actuality, you are correct. The up-listing is to be solely based on facts that fit within the parameters of the up-listing requirements, and the "definition" has nothing to do with that at all. But do you really not think outside influences are considered, really?? Maybe it was just me, that was really disappointed to see the biggest hunting/conservation leader - sit on their hands and say nothing. That could simply be my own mis-guided expectations from SCI. If so, my apologies.

I do however find it highly concerning that SCI chooses to elicit $1million in donations from its members/supporters in the name of lion conservation, and then refuses to divulge where the money is/has gone? That's shocking to me, especially when you consider that the potential up-listing is all but announced (any day now) thus the only other avenue will be legal action should the up-listing happen? In short, its a "secret".

Look, I don't actually believe that SCI does not want to help the Lion, does not want to help wildlife conservation, not for a minute. But when it takes the likes of some of us here on AR to raise a stink like we have over the past few weeks, just to get info that SCI should easily and proudly be providing - something is wrong. IMO, that's what happens when only the lawyers are allowed to speak. (No offense to all AR lawyers)

I hope the lion is NOT up-listed at all, but if it is - we'll all look to SCI to take the lead.

Regards,

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

Believe it or not Matt, SCI does not have a monopoly on insight/insider info with the USFWS, etc. I do appreciate Nelson's info, but you seem to think the rest of us are just guessing - and SCI has all the answers/facts.

Your words and thoughts Aaron, not mine. I havent expressed these opinions anywhere - nor guessed what the outcome of all this will be. I trust what Nelson has said - and trust that the $375k was spent wisely and that the remaining money will also be spent wisely - to ensure that sustainable utilisation of the lion can continue.

I can see you are bitter about all this - but dont be bitter at me - I have just been trying to get the iinformation for AR members. I have an interest in seeing this work - mainly as we have (many) similar battles to fight where I live.

Matt - You know me better than that, I'm not bitter. What in the world would I be bitter about? I carry no emotion when it comes to these things. Bitter is not it, I would probably call it more informed.

If the $375k was spent "wisely" as you say, then why the secret about how it was spent? As I mentioned, the fight is effectively OVER bro! See Jeff's Polar Bear example of trying to be re-active against such up-listings through litigation. I'm fully aware of the process as I too have followed it closely in hopes I would get my polar bear home too. The lion doesn't have years to wait, if they could over-turn it at all. The lion needs help now.

I make no assumption that it was NOT spent wisely, I simply don't see the need for secrecy - after the fact?

Man, the democrats here in the USA could use more of you though my friend. Don't ask questions, just trust us - we got ya covered.

I guess we will find out soon enough Aaron. SCIF doesn't want to flag its methodology. Personally I dont think SCIF were planning this as a rear-guard action in the courts once (if) it is uplisted. They expect to win (I would think), at least in the short-term. As for the other $$ allocations - there could be all sorts of things that could be used for - uplisted or not. They may have made promises to FWS that there would be more expenditure on research (for example) - if the uplisting is put on hold. That is just an example - a plausible scenario - that I just plucked out of my arse. It is well within SCIF's capability - to raise the money and put it into action.

As for the polar bear - that is a basket case by all accounts.... the Inuit are killing them just as fast, if not faster and selling the product. But if FWS is going to come to the party on these species (black rhino being a great example), including the lion... there is some hope for the future is there not?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

Believe it or not Matt, SCI does not have a monopoly on insight/insider info with the USFWS, etc. I do appreciate Nelson's info, but you seem to think the rest of us are just guessing - and SCI has all the answers/facts.

Your words and thoughts Aaron, not mine. I havent expressed these opinions anywhere - nor guessed what the outcome of all this will be. I trust what Nelson has said - and trust that the $375k was spent wisely and that the remaining money will also be spent wisely - to ensure that sustainable utilisation of the lion can continue.

I can see you are bitter about all this - but dont be bitter at me - I have just been trying to get the iinformation for AR members. I have an interest in seeing this work - mainly as we have (many) similar battles to fight where I live.

Matt - You know me better than that, I'm not bitter. What in the world would I be bitter about? I carry no emotion when it comes to these things. Bitter is not it, I would probably call it more informed.

If the $375k was spent "wisely" as you say, then why the secret about how it was spent? As I mentioned, the fight is effectively OVER bro! See Jeff's Polar Bear example of trying to be re-active against such up-listings through litigation. I'm fully aware of the process as I too have followed it closely in hopes I would get my polar bear home too. The lion doesn't have years to wait, if they could over-turn it at all. The lion needs help now.

I make no assumption that it was NOT spent wisely, I simply don't see the need for secrecy - after the fact?

Man, the democrats here in the USA could use more of you though my friend. Don't ask questions, just trust us - we got ya covered.

I guess we will find out soon enough Aaron. SCIF doesn't want to flag its methodology. Personally I dont think SCIF were planning this as a rear-guard action in the courts once (if) it is uplisted. They expect to win (I would think), at least in the short-term. As for the other $$ allocations - there could be all sorts of things that could be used for - uplisted or not. They may have made promises to FWS that there would be more expenditure on research (for example) - if the uplisting is put on hold. That is just an example - a plausible scenario - that I just plucked out of my arse. It is well within SCIF's capability - to raise the money and put it into action.

As for the polar bear - that is a basket case by all accounts.... the Inuit are killing them just as fast, if not faster and selling the product. But if FWS is going to come to the party on these species (black rhino being a great example), including the lion... there is some hope for the future is there not?

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:


Matt,

Unfortunately Polar bears star in Coke commercials and there FUTURE demise has been linked to deminishing polar ice. Fuzzy and political. Don't need no stinkin science.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham: I guess we will find out soon enough Aaron. SCIF doesn't want to flag its methodology. Personally I dont think SCIF were planning this as a rear-guard action in the courts once (if) it is uplisted. They expect to win (I would think), at least in the short-term. As for the other $$ allocations - there could be all sorts of things that could be used for - uplisted or not. They may have made promises to FWS that there would be more expenditure on research (for example) - if the uplisting is put on hold. That is just an example - a plausible scenario - that I just plucked out of my arse. It is well within SCIF's capability - to raise the money and put it into action.

As for the polar bear - that is a basket case by all accounts.... the Inuit are killing them just as fast, if not faster and selling the product. But if FWS is going to come to the party on these species (black rhino being a great example), including the lion... there is some hope for the future is there not?

Matt - Plucking assumptions out of your arse, really?

For the last time - there's nothing to hide, the game is OVER!! The jury has the case, only the decision is still in question! So to say we are not willing to show where the money has gone, that has been spent already - because we don't want to show our strategy is non-sense. Not to mention, Nelson already showed with the info provided in the associated links (as did you) what SCI did say about the potential up-listing to USFWS. No big secret there, no special secret course of action that hasn't been seen by the opposition already, period! All info/positions submitted to the USFWS as it pertains to the case is available to the public to see.

Any party opposed to the pending decision has only ONE option now, litigation - period! Now I could understand not divulging what strategy SCI would implement in said litigation - although any person with 2 ounces of brain cells already knows their strategy. Its clearly laid out in the provided links already - good heavens. But simply saying that we plan to use the resources in question to fight the up-listing in court - should it happen isn't giving away a damn thing.

So I'll say it again - where did the money go? Where's the future money going, or anticipated to go? Very simply questions.

My previous un-answered question to Nelson, listed below.
If as you say, supporting the "Huntable Lion Definition" would have zero outcome on the potential up-listing as per the USFWS, then as a gesture of good conservation - why did SCI not just endorse it like many others, as a gesture of good faith? After all, its only a suggested guideline that to the USFWS matters not anyway, right?

Dude, you just gotta stop guessing at this stuff - and deal with the facts! The Polar Bear issue had/has ZERO to do with the Inuits, period! That was NEVER even mentioned/considered in the equation. Bulls**t science basing guesses on future Global Warming effects/future loss of habitat (ice pack shrinking - although it was roughly 60% higher last year than it was the previous year or two years) played the never before seen role of speculating as to future negative effects. Anyone who thinks liberal politics/liberal bleeding hearts didn't influence this decision hugely has their head in the sand. And the same could very well happen with the lion, especially with our current administration.

quote:

despite their uplisting the polar bear is still being killed in equal numbers as before, if not more.

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

despite their uplisting the polar bear is still being killed in equal numbers as before, if not more.

That statement merits the Melbourne Award!

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham: I guess we will find out soon enough Aaron. SCIF doesn't want to flag its methodology. Personally I dont think SCIF were planning this as a rear-guard action in the courts once (if) it is uplisted. They expect to win (I would think), at least in the short-term. As for the other $$ allocations - there could be all sorts of things that could be used for - uplisted or not. They may have made promises to FWS that there would be more expenditure on research (for example) - if the uplisting is put on hold. That is just an example - a plausible scenario - that I just plucked out of my arse. It is well within SCIF's capability - to raise the money and put it into action.

As for the polar bear - that is a basket case by all accounts.... the Inuit are killing them just as fast, if not faster and selling the product. But if FWS is going to come to the party on these species (black rhino being a great example), including the lion... there is some hope for the future is there not?

Matt - Plucking assumptions out of your arse, really?

For the last time - there's nothing to hide, the game is OVER!! The jury has the case, only the decision is still in question! So to say we are not willing to show where the money has gone, that has been spent already - because we don't want to show our strategy is non-sense. Not to mention, Nelson already showed with the info provided in the associated links (as did you) what SCI did say about the potential up-listing to USFWS. No big secret there, no special secret course of action that hasn't been seen by the opposition already, period! All info/positions submitted to the USFWS as it pertains to the case is available to the public to see.

Any party opposed to the pending decision has only ONE option now, litigation - period! Now I could understand not divulging what strategy SCI would implement in said litigation - although any person with 2 ounces of brain cells already knows their strategy. Its clearly laid out in the provided links already - good heavens. But simply saying that we plan to use the resources in question to fight the up-listing in court - should it happen isn't giving away a damn thing.

So I'll say it again - where did the money go? Where's the future money going, or anticipated to go? Very simply questions.

My previous un-answered question to Nelson, listed below.
If as you say, supporting the "Huntable Lion Definition" would have zero outcome on the potential up-listing as per the USFWS, then as a gesture of good conservation - why did SCI not just endorse it like many others, as a gesture of good faith? After all, its only a suggested guideline that to the USFWS matters not anyway, right?

Dude, you just gotta stop guessing at this stuff - and deal with the facts! The Polar Bear issue had/has ZERO to do with the Inuits, period! That was NEVER even mentioned/considered in the equation. Bulls**t science basing guesses on future Global Warming effects/future loss of habitat (ice pack shrinking - although it was roughly 60% higher last year than it was the previous year or two years) played the never before seen role of speculating as to future negative effects. Anyone who thinks liberal politics/liberal bleeding hearts didn't influence this decision hugely has their head in the sand. And the same could very well happen with the lion, especially with our current administration.

OK - explain me how litigation would work right at this very moment.

You completely misunderstood what I was saying about the Inuit too. Somehow you added 2+2 and got 5!!! I was just commenting that despite their uplisting the polar bear is still being killed in equal numbers as before, if not more.

"So I'll say it again - where did the money go? Where's the future money going, or anticipated to go? Very simply questions. "
Who are you ? The Grand Inquisitor?

quote:

Originally posted by NelsonFreemanSCI:
Dear Saeed, Members of the A.R. Forum, and fellow conservationists

Safari Club International and Safari Club International Foundation submit this response to your questions regarding the March 2011 petition to list the African lion as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Below is a ten year perspective of Safari Club’s involvement with the African lion, leading up to present day discussion of age-based harvest restrictions.

In 2004, the world's governments were participating in an international convention on wildlife trade (CITES) in Bangkok, Thailand, reviewing whether or not the maximum restrictions on trade should be applied to the African lion. The conclusions reached by the governments at CITES was that there should be no change in regulations so as long as the lion range states actively developed comprehensive management plans to conserve lions.

With that call to action, SCI Foundation rolled up its sleeves and went to work with the lion range states. We knew that range states would need to show how many lions each country had, what threats to lions were most significant to manage for, and that the lion harvest was sustainable. The range states had to show they were capable of managing their own wildlife, and that their new management plans were based on science.

Regional lion management workshops were held in Cameroon (2005) and South Africa (2006), which identified common threats to lions and the actions needed to alleviate those threats. SCI Foundation cosponsored these workshops and while attending, supported the idea of developing national lion management plans for all range states.

Year by year, country by country, SCI Foundation assisted the African governments with studying their lion populations and helped incorporate the results of those studies into lion management planning. Annually, the Foundation coordinated (and still coordinates) the African Wildlife Consultative Forum, which is the only wildlife management conference in Africa that unites the professional hunting industry with government wildlife management authorities for the Sub-Saharan lion range states. The forum was ideal to encourage progress on lion management plans and maintaining sustainable use. This forum is a unique contribution to wildlife conservation that SCI Foundation can proudly claim as its own.

In March 2011, five animal-welfare/animal-rights organizations petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list lions as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Whether they knew it or not, they were picking a fight with us. We started preparing for battle and submitted public comments that challenged the merits of the lion petition. The U.S. government was late in their own process to review the petition, but they eventually determined to move forward with the listing process. We quickly realized that this issue was going to need a strong stance from the hunting community, and last year, SCI and SCI Foundation raised over one million dollars for our “Fighting for Lions Campaign.”

The lion petition led to a 12-month status review, which means our U.S. tax dollars were applied to investigate the best available science on lions. SCI Foundation provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with all of the lion science we had, all of the management plans and progress made, and in a move labelled as "unprecedented" by USFWS, SCI Foundation participated in its fact finding lion workshop held last summer 2013.

As part of our campaign, SCI Foundation hired legal experts specialized in the Endangered Species Act to assist with strategy. We also brought lion scientists from around the world to Washington D.C. so they could share their expertise, face to face, with the decision makers (FWS staff and Members of Congress). We invested in learning public opinion on the lion issue and in identifying what key points were necessary to help people understand how hunting lions was good for lion conservation. We also developed a lion website, published reports, exposed the bad facts presented by the petitioners, and enhanced our outreach on the lion issue. Additional work has been funded, but we are not releasing this information here as that would provide anyone with access to the internet hints about our strategy. Further, an exact accounting of where we have spent our funds will not be provided for the same reason, but we have spent approximately $375,000 from the campaign funds.

Currently, all attention is focused on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its decision on the listing petition, which as they told us at our most recent meeting with them during the Las Vegas Convention, they expect to announce in the next few weeks. SCI and SCI Foundation have participated aggressively in the process leading up to the decision by filing extensive comments on the petition and we have consistently made clear that regulated hunting of the lion is part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Relatedly, many questions have been asked on this forum regarding SCI’s decision not to agree to a “Definition of a Huntable Lion,” which was being promoted by some lion researchers, Dallas Safari Club, Accurate Reloading, etc. SCI Foundation’s Department of Conservation, SCI’s Department of Litigation, and SCI’s Department of Hunter Advocacy all disagree with the adoption of a definition for multiple reasons. First, we have met with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and confirmed that adoption of a definition of a “huntable lion” from the private sector and professional lion researchers would have absolutely zero effect on the status review and the decision whether to list the lion under the Endangered Species Act. They clearly stated the obvious, which is that the listing process is science based and the adoption of any such definition would not increase their level of knowledge on the biological status of the African lion. It seems as though a rumor was started regarding the impact a definition would have, but this rumor simply is untrue.

Secondly, SCI Foundation’s Conservation Committee carefully reviewed available lion aging data and talked with researchers and professional hunters. It was the clear consensus that currently there simply is no reliable way to age a male lion in the wild. The definition itself is simply impossible to implement as lion aging science is not strong enough to differentiate between ages 4, 5, 6, even when using dead lions. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect someone to be able to guarantee the age of a live lion on a hunt, in the bush. Tanzania’s Wildlife Department tried to implement age-based harvest regulations in 2013, using 6-year old lions as a cutoff. Our understanding is that Tanzania realized how difficult this regulation was to implement, and is now retreating to more broad categories such as adult, subadult and juvenile. It is clear that moving to a six year-old age restriction harvest is premature at this time.

Lastly, SCI Foundation is heavily invested in lion aging science to determine whether it is possible to accurately age lions using their teeth, and in the field using morphological characteristics. This long term research investment has cost approximately $200,000 to date and will tell hunters and wildlife managers whether exact-age restrictions can be used in the future, and whether humans can reliably identify the age of live lions in the field with accuracy. SCI Foundation is hoping to provide a ground-breaking research that may revolutionize future lion harvest regulations, as well as help produce a field aging guide for professional hunters and guides.

We welcome opening this dialogue so long as we all remain civil and understanding of the fact that we are working very hard, every day, to ensure sustainable conservation for lions and to protect hunting for the next generation.

I’ll leave you with one final comment. This website/forum is actively monitored by the opposition. They have made that abundantly clear in the past. Every time they are given an insight to our tactics, strategies and goals, we are giving them a strategic advantage. This is an unpleasant but obvious fact of the internet based communication which we utilize in modern times.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
A more complete Definition, including the up-to-date science and methodology may have been more acceptable. Does the Definition allow for adaptation for the research still being conducted - the research SCI is partly paying for?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
A more complete Definition, including the up-to-date science and methodology may have been more acceptable. Does the Definition allow for adaptation for the research still being conducted - the research SCI is partly paying for?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
A more complete Definition, including the up-to-date science and methodology may have been more acceptable. Does the Definition allow for adaptation for the research still being conducted - the research SCI is partly paying for?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
OK Matt,

For arguments sake...what do you feel the definition is lacking to be complete?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

'Our purpose'...for the defintion was to establish that all scientists can agree that there does exist a sub-set of lion that if harvested...do not harm the local population in which they existed...nothing more...nothing less.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
OK Matt,

For arguments sake...what do you feel the definition is lacking to be complete?

The science behind it and that allows it to happen sucessfully. For starters.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
A more complete Definition, including the up-to-date science and methodology may have been more acceptable. Does the Definition allow for adaptation for the research still being conducted - the research SCI is partly paying for?

Matt - The definition is as complete as can be, and co-authored by those that are the world's leading African Lion Experts (5 expert/field experienced scientists, including Dr. Packer) it is/was based on the most up-to-date methodology. It clearly states the optimal lion is 6 yrs of age/older, optimal lion Matt, optimal. But as Lane mentions, you totally are over-looking the point. Its that same game you like so much - "follow the leader", even if they ask you to blind-fold yourself.

When you read Nelson's reasoning why SCI did not adopt it, and your posts like the one above - its apparently obvious neither SCI or you have ever READ the definition, or frankly even understand it. For the 100th time, its simply a "suggested conservation guideline" - based on sound conservation/best available science. No where did it say that one should "guarantee" the lion harvested is 6 yrs old as Nelson's suggests, or guarantee the lion is any age at all, period! Just because Tanzania changed their hard/fast law of 6 or nothing (as they should have) doesn't change the fact that the "optimal" lion to take is 6 yrs old/older - thus the Definition is still as up-to-date now, as it was 1 year ago, when SCI declined to adopt it. Its not a rule, which clearly carries the connotation of "penalty" when said rule is violated. ITS A CONSERVATION GUIDELINE - there's nothing to implement NELSON/SCI. Which is obvious to the more than 100 PH's/Outfitters/Agents/organizations across Africa and around the world who do support it - otherwise, if they too thought it was insinuating a rule/penalty, or needed implementation, not a single one of them would ever have endorsed it. I guarantee it!!!! We all clearly know what it says (those of us that wrote it/read it) and it doesn't say anything close to SCI's claim as to why they did not adopt it - period!

Bottom line, its clear to those without blind "almost cult like" obedience to SCI - that the above is simply a smoke-screen for some other reason they chose not to adopt the Def, and choose not to "show us the money"?

Frankly, wouldn't it be better to just come out and say you don't want to adopt it - cause you didn't create it yourself/don't like it, and you don't want to tell where the money went, cause you just don't have to? At least people would respect the honesty, I certainly would. Nothing is more irritating than when folks try to talk down to you.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
A more complete Definition, including the up-to-date science and methodology may have been more acceptable. Does the Definition allow for adaptation for the research still being conducted - the research SCI is partly paying for?

Matt - The definition is as complete as can be, and co-authored by those that are the world's leading African Lion Experts (5 expert/field experienced scientists, including Dr. Packer) it is/was based on the most up-to-date methodology. It clearly states the optimal lion is 6 yrs of age/older, optimal lion Matt, optimal. But as Lane mentions, you totally are over-looking the point. Its that same game you like so much - "follow the leader", even if they ask you to blind-fold yourself.

When you read Nelson's reasoning why SCI did not adopt it, and your posts like the one above - its apparently obvious neither SCI or you have ever READ the definition, or frankly even understand it. For the 100th time, its simply a "suggested conservation guideline" - based on sound conservation/best available science. No where did it say that one should "guarantee" the lion harvested is 6 yrs old as Nelson's suggests, or guarantee the lion is any age at all, period! Just because Tanzania changed their hard/fast law of 6 or nothing (as they should have) doesn't change the fact that the "optimal" lion to take is 6 yrs old/older - thus the Definition is still as up-to-date now, as it was 1 year ago, when SCI declined to adopt it. Its not a rule, which clearly carries the connotation of "penalty" when said rule is violated. ITS A CONSERVATION GUIDELINE - there's nothing to implement NELSON/SCI. Which is obvious to the more than 100 PH's/Outfitters/Agents/organizations across Africa and around the world who do support it - otherwise, if they too thought it was insinuating a rule/penalty, or needed implementation, not a single one of them would ever have endorsed it. I guarantee it!!!! We all clearly know what it says (those of us that wrote it/read it) and it doesn't say anything close to SCI's claim as to why they did not adopt it - period!

Bottom line, its clear to those without blind "almost cult like" obedience to SCI - that the above is simply a smoke-screen for some other reason they chose not to adopt the Def, and choose not to "show us the money"?

Frankly, wouldn't it be better to just come out and say you don't want to adopt it - cause you didn't create it yourself/don't like it, and you don't want to tell where the money went, cause you just don't have to? At least people would respect the honesty, I certainly would. Nothing is more irritating than when folks try to talk down to you.

From a lobbying perspective I just dont think it is good enough. I already said that. It should have included the nuts and bolts of how the definitions aims would be achieved. I dont know if SCI felt the same or not - I am only speculating on that. I have no doubt there were other 'factors' involved.

Of course I have read it and the letter submission.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

The definition had no aims...it was a definition of a type of lion that is ideal to harvest.

The nuts and bolts of aging is irrelevant to the definition.

Albeit...the worlds leading experts on aging lions were authors of the definition as well as the President of Panthera.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

The definition had no aims...it was a definition of a type of lion that is ideal to harvest.

The nuts and bolts of aging is irrelevant to the definition.

Albeit...the worlds leading experts on aging lions were authors of the definition as well as the President of Panthera.

A document with no aim! Uh huh.