THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM HUNTING FORUMS

Merry Christmas to our Accurate Reloading Members

Accuratereloading.com    The Accurate Reloading Forums    THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS  Hop To Forum Categories  Hunting  Hop To Forums  African Big Game Hunting    Information on SCI Foundation Fighting for Lions Campaign
Page 1 2 

Moderators: Saeed
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Information on SCI Foundation Fighting for Lions Campaign
 Login/Join
 
new member
posted
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.
 
Posts: 15 | Location: Washington, DC | Registered: 24 October 2013Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Thank you.
 
Posts: 12159 | Location: Orlando, FL | Registered: 26 January 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Thanks for the information Nelson - and for engaging the forum!!


A day spent in the bush is a day added to your life
Hunt Australia - Website
Hunt Australia - Facebook
Hunt Australia - TV


 
Posts: 4456 | Location: Australia | Registered: 23 January 2003Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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,


Aaron Neilson
Global Hunting Resources
303-619-2872: Cell
globalhunts@aol.com
www.huntghr.com

 
Posts: 4888 | Location: Boise, Idaho | Registered: 05 March 2009Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Nelson,

Thanks for your post. Some would like to believe that SCI has done little or nothing for lions and for African conservation. I appreciate the clarification of the SCI role.

Mark


MARK H. YOUNG
MARK'S EXCLUSIVE ADVENTURES
7094 Oakleigh Dr. Las Vegas, NV 89110
Office 702-848-1693
Cell, Whats App, Signal 307-250-1156 PREFERRED
E-mail markttc@msn.com
Website: myexclusiveadventures.com
Skype: markhyhunter
Check us out on https://www.facebook.com/pages...ures/627027353990716
 
Posts: 13118 | Location: LAS VEGAS, NV USA | Registered: 04 August 2002Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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,


I don't blame them for not disclosing specifics here on AR. No doubt this is being watched by the antis. It could disclose SCI's strategy.
 
Posts: 12159 | Location: Orlando, FL | Registered: 26 January 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of MJines
posted Hide Post
Speaking of lions, kudos Nelson for venturing into the lion's den and offering an explanation. I am highly confident it will soon be declared deficient and inadequate by some and picked apart with a host of questions that are demanded to be answered. Despite whatever faults may exist with SCI, it remains the most effective advocate for hunter rights and hunting we have as a group today. Thank you Nelson.


Mike
 
Posts: 21976 | Registered: 03 January 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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...


A day spent in the bush is a day added to your life
Hunt Australia - Website
Hunt Australia - Facebook
Hunt Australia - TV


 
Posts: 4456 | Location: Australia | Registered: 23 January 2003Reply With Quote
Administrator
posted Hide Post
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.



Nelson,

Thank you very much for this answer.

It is more information that we have been able to find previously.

I don't agree with some of my friends here that we should keep it a secret that USFW sometimes acts in most illogical manner regarding wildlife, and go it alone despite the recommendations of CITES.


www.accuratereloading.com
Instagram : ganyana2000
 
Posts: 69697 | Location: Dubai, UAE | Registered: 08 January 1998Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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...


Matt - Some of us who have dealt with the lion issue a bit more intimately, are not as easily willing to blindly follow/accept all the above as you are. READ between the lines Matt!!! I did not ask for a dollar breakdown, Nelson said himself they are NOT WILLING to tell us here on AR where any of the money has been spent - his words, not mine. The issue is all but settled, its just a matter of the USFWS making it public, so there's no reason not to show their hand to this point, the current game that has been bet on, is already over! So why can't they tell us where the $375,000 they claim to have spent on Lion Conservation already, has gone to? Basically its a convenient way to avoid the issue, and disclosing where the funds have gone, and will go, IMO.

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. My friend, you make a loyal soldier/follower - blindly to a fault IMO.

Regardless, I'll keep wanting to hunt with you for some strange reason - and I will let this go as well. Smiler

Good day my friend, and time for me to move on!! This is a no-win situation.


Aaron Neilson
Global Hunting Resources
303-619-2872: Cell
globalhunts@aol.com
www.huntghr.com

 
Posts: 4888 | Location: Boise, Idaho | Registered: 05 March 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Nelson,

Thank you for the information.

Jeff
 
Posts: 2857 | Location: FL | Registered: 18 September 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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.


A day spent in the bush is a day added to your life
Hunt Australia - Website
Hunt Australia - Facebook
Hunt Australia - TV


 
Posts: 4456 | Location: Australia | Registered: 23 January 2003Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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. Smiler


Aaron Neilson
Global Hunting Resources
303-619-2872: Cell
globalhunts@aol.com
www.huntghr.com

 
Posts: 4888 | Location: Boise, Idaho | Registered: 05 March 2009Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of SBT
posted Hide Post
SCI - beer clap


"There are worse memorials to a life well-lived than a pair of elephant tusks." Robert Ruark
 
Posts: 4782 | Location: Story, WY / San Carlos, Sonora, MX | Registered: 29 May 2002Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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. Smiler
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?


A day spent in the bush is a day added to your life
Hunt Australia - Website
Hunt Australia - Facebook
Hunt Australia - TV


 
Posts: 4456 | Location: Australia | Registered: 23 January 2003Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Zig Mackintosh
posted Hide Post
Thanks for posting Nelson, keep up the good work.
 
Posts: 240 | Location: South Africa/Zimbabwe | Registered: 31 December 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of ledvm
posted Hide Post
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,


+1

And Thank You Nelson.
 
Posts: 38627 | Location: Gainesville, TX | Registered: 24 December 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of ledvm
posted Hide Post
PS: I do have some specific questions to ask, some points to clarify on the huntable male lion definition, and some aging opinion to share...just as soon as I get time to sit down and type it out.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Lane Easter, DVM

A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House

No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991.
 
Posts: 38627 | Location: Gainesville, TX | Registered: 24 December 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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. Smiler
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.


Aaron Neilson
Global Hunting Resources
303-619-2872: Cell
globalhunts@aol.com
www.huntghr.com

 
Posts: 4888 | Location: Boise, Idaho | Registered: 05 March 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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. Smiler
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,

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
 
Posts: 2857 | Location: FL | Registered: 18 September 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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
Hmmm - I fear you are right. Who knows - let's stay positive and work toward a good outcome!!


A day spent in the bush is a day added to your life
Hunt Australia - Website
Hunt Australia - Facebook
Hunt Australia - TV


 
Posts: 4456 | Location: Australia | Registered: 23 January 2003Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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!!! Big Grin 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? rotflmo


A day spent in the bush is a day added to your life
Hunt Australia - Website
Hunt Australia - Facebook
Hunt Australia - TV


 
Posts: 4456 | Location: Australia | Registered: 23 January 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of shakari
posted Hide Post
Nelson

Thanks for posting the info.

I don't personally think you provided all the answers to the questions that have been asked but at least you provided some.

I, like others don't understand the need for all the secret squirrel stuff & quite honestly, I think you owe an explanation of what happened to those who donated the US$1M at the very least....... that way, they'd know what SCI has done with their money.

In an ideal world, I'd like to see Nelson or someone else from SCI become a regular member here so we can ask questions of the organisation & get well reasoned, logical, polite answers from an informed source because what happens at the moment is every time the subject of SCI comes up, a few members, immediately throw an ultra hysterical hissy fit & just start throwing insults & silly accusations at anyone who dares to criticise or ask a question.

As I've said many times before, no-one wants to see SCI closed down but many would like to see it become what it could & should be.






 
Posts: 12415 | Registered: 01 July 2002Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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!
 
Posts: 2731 | Registered: 23 August 2010Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Skyline
posted Hide Post
Polar bear numbers……… they are being killed as per the allowable harvest numbers that are set for each population/management area and the communities in those areas.

Trophy hunters use part of the annual allowable quota in the various communities. The difference is the quota used for non=resident hunters provides jobs and boosts the local economy. Trophy hunters are also targeting big males, which are not the best bears for locals who want nice fur and meat………. as opposed to battle scared old males with yellowed fur.

Much more to it, but anyways………….. the USFWS has become a complete joke. They can't even manage things properly on the home turf, what makes them think they have a right to play lord and master to every other country on the planet? Time for them to simply abide by the decisions made at CITES.


______________________________________________

The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who are bereft of that gift.



 
Posts: 1868 | Location: Northern Rockies, BC | Registered: 21 July 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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!
Whats that? An award to stating the obvious?


A day spent in the bush is a day added to your life
Hunt Australia - Website
Hunt Australia - Facebook
Hunt Australia - TV


 
Posts: 4456 | Location: Australia | Registered: 23 January 2003Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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!!! Big Grin 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? rotflmo


If the lion is up-listed, SCI/CF can use the courts to "try" and get the decision reversed - if they can provide enough over-whelming evidence to warrant the change. That's the only way it can work right now, and that can only be tried once the decision is made public. Lets hope that's not even necessary.

Polar Bears are, and should be being killed!! Canadian wildlife dept sets quotas for every inuit community, a small portion of that quota is/can be used by visiting sport hunters. Its been like this for years!!! Its NOT a free-for-all, where the inuits can shoot/hunt all the polar bears they want, totally unregulated!! Fact is, I am booked for another polar bear hunt in Sept. 2015 - I can't wait! Gonna do this one with my bow.

Call me what you will Matt, just show me the MONEY!!!!wave


Aaron Neilson
Global Hunting Resources
303-619-2872: Cell
globalhunts@aol.com
www.huntghr.com

 
Posts: 4888 | Location: Boise, Idaho | Registered: 05 March 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of ledvm
posted Hide Post
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.


I have stated in earlier posts that I had some questions for Mr. Freeman…but the first thing I must do is rebut Mr. Freeman on his statement about the “Definition of a Huntable Male Lion”.

Prior to the body of this rebuttal…we must first put this conversation in context of the times in which “the Definition” was written and the time at which the Lion Conservation Task Force Inc. (LCTF) was asking for support of “the Definition” by DSC, SCI, and the hunting community in general.

“The Definition” was written in 2011 in the immediate aftermath of the submission of the petition to up-list the African Lion under the ESA as an endangered species to USF&W. The writing was hosted by the LCTF office.

The sole purpose of “the Definition” was to show that their existed a sub-set of male African Lion that the hunting community and the scientific community could agree upon that were harvestable without harming the population. And…“the Definition” does that very nicely for if you look at the authorship of “the Definition” there is a representative listed from every major lion conservation group in existence. “The Definition” by its very existence defanged the petitioners for every scientific paper they could point to arguing to disallow hunting was discounted by this acknowledgement that these lion were huntable in the scientific communities’ eyes. Not only that…many of the authors of this definition submitted their own response to the petition to USF&W saying hunting was valuable to give worth to the lion and lion habitat as long as hunting was regulated in such a way as to not destabilize the lion population itself.

SCI states above that they contacted USF&W and they were told that adoption of the definition would have no bearing on the agencies decision as the decision would be based solely on science.

This is untrue both directly and indirectly and here is why: First…some of the authors of the definition had direct meetings with USF&W themselves. They were told directly that USF&W would prefer to leave the ability to hunt lion under the discretion of the governments of the Range States. That said…if there was a movement within the hunting community itself that showed it was heeding what scientists were showing in studies that it would be easier for them to rule in favor of the continuance of hunting. Thus…an adoption of “the Definition” would have shown said stance by the Hunting Community for all to see. IE: The hunting community following scientific data on which lions were harvestable.

With this information in hand…the authors of “the Definition” did say that USF&W would like to see the Hunting Community adopt the definition…but it was NOT a rumor.

Secondly and indirectly…the push for SCI to adopt the definition was prior to the completion of data collection on the subject by USF&W. Many authors of the definition were consequently interviewed for their opinions on lion hunting by USF&W. Had the Whole-of-the-Hunting-Community embraced “the Definition” prior to these interviews…it is quite possible that the continuance of lion hunting would have gotten stronger praise for its role in conservation by these scientists thus giving USF&W more science in which to rule AGAINST the up-list.

In regards to lion aging…SCI’s take above again is incorrect. First…”the Definition” was not a rule. It was a statement on the fact that there was a huntable subset of lion…nothing more…nothing less. LCTF in its’ response the petition also agreed that the hard-and-fast six-year-old rule would be hard to implement and preferred the model set by the Niassa Reserve rules…which eventually came to pass. Most of the authors of “the Definition” held the Niassa Reserve Rules up as the Gold-Standard for lion hunting rules.

However, even the Niassa Rules use the 6 year old mark as the delta…thus giving more validity to the definition.

Further, one need not identify the “exact age” of a lion to implement the Niassa Reserve (now TZ too) Rules but put the lion into categories of ages…namely…<5, 5-6, 7&>. With currently available science…it IS possible to separate dead lion into these 3 groups with reasonable accuracy. Overtime…PH’s could learn to predict lion’s age groups ante-mortem based on phenotypic criteria learned from the overall process..

In conclusion …“the Definition” sets the benchmark for lions harvested to be at-least six years of age which is founded in science. The NEW Tanzania rules along with the Niassa Reserve Rules allow for a reasonable implementation of the Definition’s standards. Those who HAVE endorsed the definition have sent a strong message that the Hunting Community heeds science and is conservation minded. Those who have DECLINED ENDORSEMENT have said they were for the status quo…which went against what science has described.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Lane Easter, DVM

A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House

No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991.
 
Posts: 38627 | Location: Gainesville, TX | Registered: 24 December 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
I have to agree with Lane and Aaron. By not having a definition of what is huntable, you show a possible rift in the hunting community.

Jeff
 
Posts: 2857 | Location: FL | Registered: 18 September 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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?


A day spent in the bush is a day added to your life
Hunt Australia - Website
Hunt Australia - Facebook
Hunt Australia - TV


 
Posts: 4456 | Location: Australia | Registered: 23 January 2003Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of ledvm
posted Hide Post
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?


While the definition is still current with the science we have today...you are totally missing the point man.

The initial fight is over. The USF&W is deliberating with a decision pending any day now.

And maybe...it will be in our favor and this will be a moot point...for now anyway.

The point of the discussion was then not now. And that SCI missed the boat to give the lion the best chance possible to NOT be up-listed in the first place.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Lane Easter, DVM

A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House

No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991.
 
Posts: 38627 | Location: Gainesville, TX | Registered: 24 December 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Aaargh... MY point is that may have been the reason SCI avoided it back then. SCI should have partipated in the writing of the 'definition' or document to replace it - that much is certain. SCI was aloof at best.


A day spent in the bush is a day added to your life
Hunt Australia - Website
Hunt Australia - Facebook
Hunt Australia - TV


 
Posts: 4456 | Location: Australia | Registered: 23 January 2003Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of ledvm
posted Hide Post
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?


OK Matt,

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

'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.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Lane Easter, DVM

A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House

No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991.
 
Posts: 38627 | Location: Gainesville, TX | Registered: 24 December 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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.


Aaron Neilson
Global Hunting Resources
303-619-2872: Cell
globalhunts@aol.com
www.huntghr.com

 
Posts: 4888 | Location: Boise, Idaho | Registered: 05 March 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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 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.
Fair enough. I am just thinking that it could have been more.

I am not being critical - just looking into SCIF's possible thinking on this.


A day spent in the bush is a day added to your life
Hunt Australia - Website
Hunt Australia - Facebook
Hunt Australia - TV


 
Posts: 4456 | Location: Australia | Registered: 23 January 2003Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of ledvm
posted Hide Post
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.



Matt,
The research done supports "the Definition" we could have referenced it with a bibliography of references but we were not writing it for acceptance into a scientific journal...it was a conservation message. The science is there or the worlds leading experts would not have signed it.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Lane Easter, DVM

A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House

No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991.
 
Posts: 38627 | Location: Gainesville, TX | Registered: 24 December 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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.


A day spent in the bush is a day added to your life
Hunt Australia - Website
Hunt Australia - Facebook
Hunt Australia - TV


 
Posts: 4456 | Location: Australia | Registered: 23 January 2003Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of ledvm
posted Hide Post
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.


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.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Lane Easter, DVM

A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House

No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991.
 
Posts: 38627 | Location: Gainesville, TX | Registered: 24 December 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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.


A day spent in the bush is a day added to your life
Hunt Australia - Website
Hunt Australia - Facebook
Hunt Australia - TV


 
Posts: 4456 | Location: Australia | Registered: 23 January 2003Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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.


killpc


Aaron Neilson
Global Hunting Resources
303-619-2872: Cell
globalhunts@aol.com
www.huntghr.com

 
Posts: 4888 | Location: Boise, Idaho | Registered: 05 March 2009Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

Accuratereloading.com    The Accurate Reloading Forums    THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS  Hop To Forum Categories  Hunting  Hop To Forums  African Big Game Hunting    Information on SCI Foundation Fighting for Lions Campaign

Copyright December 1997-2023 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia