quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Matt would argue the sky was RED if SCI told him so.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
You guys should start up a 'comedy duo' act!!! Hilarious!!

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

Aaron and I were involved in the effort...you were not.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
You guys should start up a 'comedy duo' act!!! Hilarious!!

The fact of the matter is Matt...your a day late and a dollar short. This is all last years news when there was a chance to make a difference.

Aaron and I were involved in the effort...you were not.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

Aaron and I were involved in the effort...you were not.

No quite right I was not. I only got involved at all when you started spouting-off about SCI and crying in your cornflakes that they wouldn't play with you.

Yes you were involved for sure but from what I have seen you have been taking advice from some suspect sources. And propogating some BS and conspiracy.

Yes, I guess the decision is made ... but I have heard that before from govt's before .... Hopefully they tell the anti's that their petition is a dud.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

Aaron and I were involved in the effort...you were not.

No quite right I was not. I only got involved at all when you started spouting-off about SCI and crying in your cornflakes that they wouldn't play with you.

Yes you were involved for sure but from what I have seen you have been taking advice from some suspect sources. And propogating some BS and conspiracy.

Yes, I guess the decision is made ... but I have heard that before from govt's before .... Hopefully they tell the anti's that their petition is a dud.

quote:

Originally posted by SBT:
Seems to me that a lot of people, including Lane and Aaron, worked hard on the lion issue and came up with some good work. DSC got behind the definition, but SCI wasn't so sure. They looked at what was happening in Tanzania and found the PH's/Hunters weren't able to differentiate between 4 year old and 6 year old lions, so they didn't back the definition. In hind sight, probably the right choice. The important thing is we as conservationists are moving forward on the lion issue. Let's do it together.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Lane - don't be so damn nasty. You KNOW now that your sources are suspect. Your ideas about where the money 'went' are simply incorrect.

If you would like to speak directly to my sources I will very gladly pass them on to you.

quote:

Originally posted by SBT:
Seems to me that a lot of people, including Lane and Aaron, worked hard on the lion issue and came up with some good work. DSC got behind the definition, but SCI wasn't so sure. They looked at what was happening in Tanzania and found the PH's/Hunters weren't able to differentiate between 4 year old and 6 year old lions, so they didn't back the definition. In hind sight, probably the right choice. The important thing is we as conservationists are moving forward on the lion issue. Let's do it together.

You guys remember Rodney King? Can't we all just get along?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by SBT:
Seems to me that a lot of people, including Lane and Aaron, worked hard on the lion issue and came up with some good work. DSC got behind the definition, but SCI wasn't so sure. They looked at what was happening in Tanzania and found the PH's/Hunters weren't able to differentiate between 4 year old and 6 year old lions, so they didn't back the definition. In hind sight, probably the right choice. The important thing is we as conservationists are moving forward on the lion issue. Let's do it together.

Sounds about right to me. Also sounds like the scientists are still working on these ideas and an adaptive plan will be formulated over time. Hopefully USFWS sees that and allows it to move forward. IMO - LCTF should still try and work with ALL pro-parties before it is too late to do so. This exposure on AR may well allow that to happen.

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 tno 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.