Here is a press release from today regarding the current Zim and Tanzania ivory ban. Many of you probably think this should have come out much earlier, and I agree, but other efforts have slowed things down a bit.


"DALLAS (June 16, 2014) – With independent lawsuits predictably stalling and failing in court, the Dallas Safari Club (DSC) continues to pursue an aggressive but more cooperative approach to reversing a U.S. ban on importing ivory from lawfully hunted elephants from Tanzania and Zimbabwe in 2014.

Along with its partners, DSC is providing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with the data it needs to assuage concerns about regulated elephant hunting in the two African nations.

For example, elephants in areas of Zimbabwe are severely overpopulated and destroying their habitat. Regulated hunting provides needed management. DSC is hopeful that this and other evidence will help the agency see that broad-brush actions such as nationwide bans have no basis in science or law and are bad public policy.

Combating criminal ivory traffickers by regulating legal hunter-conservationists, DSC officials say, is an ill-conceived, knee-jerk response by regulators or, more probably, politicians looking for photo-ops so they appear to be doing something about the abhorrent problem of elephant poaching.

“Regulating the lawful, in order to change the behavior of the unlawful, always fails,” said Ben Carter, DSC executive director.

Carter added, “DSC considered legal remedies but concluded that suing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is likely to be costly, slow and ultimately unsuccessful. Just as importantly, lawsuits can be counterproductive if they needlessly alienate those who otherwise are charged with the responsibility, and would cooperate, to resolve your issue.”

However, others did institute legal action. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction against the ban. The entire lawsuit was not dismissed but is under advisement. If the case is allowed to move forward at all, it will drag out far more than a year – longer than the stated ban.

DSC believes the court’s initial ruling validates the strategy of a diversified response from the hunter-conservationist community.

Along with providing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with additional information, DSC is working to bring officials from Tanzania and Zimbabwe to the U.S. to testify about the harmful effects on wildlife and people of the elephant ivory ban.

DSC also is keeping Congress informed of the issues.

Carter said, “We believe in using scientific resources and data to prove that this arbitrary and capricious ban is actually hurting elephant conservation, not helping it. We continue to believe the ban should be, and will be, reversed as soon as possible.”

Karl

Nice to finally hear something from DSC. Regardless of which strategy you ascribe to, not sure it makes much sense for one group to poke a stick at the other. In the final analysis, everyone is after the same thing regardless of the tactics chosen. Really is remarkable, at a time when hunters and hunting groups should be united, there seems to be more infighting and backbiting than ever (the ill-conceived SCI Outdoors effort, DSC talking pot shots at SCI). Got to make the opponents of hunting smile . . .

+1

Personally, I was disappointed in the potshots even though they may be right.

Good to read!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Nice to finally hear something from DSC. Regardless of which strategy you ascribe to, not sure it makes much sense for one group to poke a stick at the other. In the final analysis, everyone is after the same thing regardless of the tactics chosen. Really is remarkable, at a time when hunters and hunting groups should be united, there seems to be more infighting and backbiting than ever (the ill-conceived SCI Outdoors effort, DSC talking pot shots at SCI). Got to make the opponents of hunting smile . . .

Pretty sad when half your press release is about what the other guys did wrong. I expect better from DSC.

Cheap Shot! Not up to DSC standards and totally unnecessary. It does no good to criticize anyone trying to resolve the issue.

On the other side, if you lack integrity you end up siding with joe Stalin for a short term advantage with huge long term costs. Integrity is always the better long term "strategy". Always.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Nice to finally hear something from DSC. Regardless of which strategy you ascribe to, not sure it makes much sense for one group to poke a stick at the other. In the final analysis, everyone is after the same thing regardless of the tactics chosen. Really is remarkable, at a time when hunters and hunting groups should be united, there seems to be more infighting and backbiting than ever (the ill-conceived SCI Outdoors effort, DSC talking pot shots at SCI). Got to make the opponents of hunting smile . . .

You missed the main point Mike.

DSC has been doing it right from the beginning.

They knew a "knee-jerk reaction for a PR photo op" law suit is not going to work!

Well done DSC, as always, trying your best to do the right thing.

Let us leave the "knee-jerk" reactions to those who are better at it than you.

Why does the phrase "one trick pony" come to mind?

quote:

You missed the main point Mike.

DSC has been doing it right from the beginning.

They knew a "knee-jerk reaction for a PR photo op" law suit is not going to work!

Well done DSC, as always, trying your best to do the right thing.

Let us leave the "knee-jerk" reactions to those who are better at it than you.

AMEN Saeed,
A knee jerk reaction to a knee jerk reaction never did anyone any good.

USFW are apparently using their current position to delay issuance of permits for importation of prior trophies. I've been waiting for months to get permits for an elephant and leopard taken in 2013.

Sounds like Good Cop to me.

Isn't this the approach Conservation Force is taking?

quote:

Originally posted by Gayne C. Young:

quote:

You missed the main point Mike.

DSC has been doing it right from the beginning.

They knew a "knee-jerk reaction for a PR photo op" law suit is not going to work!

Well done DSC, as always, trying your best to do the right thing.

Let us leave the "knee-jerk" reactions to those who are better at it than you.

AMEN Saeed,
A knee jerk reaction to a knee jerk reaction never did anyone any good.

Neither does poking a stick in the eye of another group seeking the same objective as you. I hope you did not write that abortion of a press release Gayne. Many of us had hoped for something better from DSC on this subject.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Gayne C. Young:

quote:

You missed the main point Mike.

DSC has been doing it right from the beginning.

They knew a "knee-jerk reaction for a PR photo op" law suit is not going to work!

Well done DSC, as always, trying your best to do the right thing.

Let us leave the "knee-jerk" reactions to those who are better at it than you.

AMEN Saeed,
A knee jerk reaction to a knee jerk reaction never did anyone any good.

Neither does poking a stick in the eye of another group seeking the same objective as you. I hope you did not write that abortion of a press release Gayne. Many of us had hoped for something better from DSC on this subject.

If they (SCI) are part of the problem (as they were/are with the lion issue)...it makes perfect sense.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Gayne C. Young:

quote:

You missed the main point Mike.

DSC has been doing it right from the beginning.

They knew a "knee-jerk reaction for a PR photo op" law suit is not going to work!

Well done DSC, as always, trying your best to do the right thing.

Let us leave the "knee-jerk" reactions to those who are better at it than you.

AMEN Saeed,
A knee jerk reaction to a knee jerk reaction never did anyone any good.

Neither does poking a stick in the eye of another group seeking the same objective as you. I hope you did not write that abortion of a press release Gayne.

Mike,

"The other group" have been trying to do what is best, and the knee-jerkers were up to their usual "LOOK AT ME" photo op stand.

Not surprising really, as I just got my new Safari magazine, and was so amazed at how many "awards" are being handed out for umpteen titles.

There was a mention of a new one for me - PINNACLE - of this and PINNACLE of that award!

One suitable award might be PINNACLE of BULLSHITTERS!

Would be perfect for those running the organization supposed to be FIRST FOR HUNTERS.

Again well done DSC!

Makes me proud to be an honorary Texan!

We want to talk about what makes the NRA so effective, one thing that makes them effective is that they do not criticize other gun rights groups. So in the last week when an NRA staffer make critical comments about an open carry advocacy group, within days Chris Cox with the NRA came out publicly and on the radio and renounced the criticism saying that it was inappropriate for the NRA to criticize other gun owners. It is bush league and the NRA leadership understands that. They also understand how the opponents of gun rights use apparent disagreements to their advantage. It was a poor move by DSC whatever their motivation and regardless of whether you agree or disagree with their tactics on the ban.

quote:

I hope you did not write that abortion of a press release Gayne.

No, but thanks for thinking of me.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
We want to talk about what makes the NRA so effective, one thing that makes them effective is that they do not criticize other gun rights groups. So in the last week when an NRA staffer make critical comments about an open carry advocacy group, within days Chris Cox with the NRA came out publicly and on the radio and renounced the criticism saying that it was inappropriate for the NRA to criticize other gun owners. It is bush league and the NRA leadership understands that. They also understand how the opponents of gun rights use apparent disagreements to their advantage. It was a poor move by DSC whatever their motivation and regardless of whether you agree or disagree with their tactics on the ban.

Your opinion.

I happen to believe SCI is part of the problem. While I wish them success and will not bender them or criticize them to the "enemy"...when amongst other hunters...as we are here...I feel obligated to say they are a misguided organization.

I applaud DSC on its "correct" stance.

I understand the contempt for SCI with the inner circle, the extortion at the convention, their arrogance, and utter stupidity of some of SCI's actions. There is almost nobody on this forum that should have more contempt for SCI than me for some other reasons.

That being said I can still separate the good they do versus the stupidity in which they engage.

Breakdown there press release and look at what DSC claims they are doing. I removed the snide comments towards SCI and other non-relevant comments as to what DSC is doing..

quote:

Along with its partners, DSC is providing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with the data it needs to assuage concerns about regulated elephant hunting in the two African nations.

Along with providing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with additional information, DSC is working to bring officials from Tanzania and Zimbabwe to the U.S. to testify about the harmful effects on wildlife and people of the elephant ivory ban.

DSC also is keeping Congress informed of the issues.

So there are three things DSC is doing or trying to do. I hate to tell the SCI haters this but SCI is doing the same with one exception, they are not "trying" to bring in officials from Zimbabwe and Tanzania, THEY DID. I saw them with my own two eyes and spoke to some. They were in front of multiple government officials in DC over a month ago.

My opinion is a lawsuit is a good way to go. The recreational fisherman in the Gulf of Mexico were royally screwed due to a the NMFS incompetence and a lawsuit by the commercial fishing lobby. So yes they do work.

While I fully support DSC's efforts, we can maybe start high fiving when they come up with a new strategy and not one SCI already has in motion.

I am still disappointed with DSC for taking the potshots at SCI, very low class.

Thank you DSC, I'm glad you are in the game.

I trust DSC far more than SCI. I would never give SCI a dime. SCI might take my money and start a travel or booking agency or something like that for all you know

Anyone for lifting the ivory ban has to force USFW to differentiate between Zim and Tanzania. Tanzania is a mess and elephant hunting needs to be stopped there. Show me one ph or booking agent or elephant hunting expert who before the ban was saying Tanzania elephant hunting is top notch or there is no poaching issues in Tanzania. How many elephants are shown in any of Saeed's films over the last few years?

Saeed you spend a fair bit of time in Tanzania every year - has poaching become worse ? Would you hunt elephants in Tanzania ?

I think DSC has the right approach although it may not do much in Obama's USFW agency politics.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Mike70560:
I understand the contempt for SCI with the inner circle, the extortion at the convention, their arrogance, and utter stupidity of some of SCI's actions. There is almost nobody on this forum that should have more contempt for SCI than me for some other reasons.

That being said I can still separate the good they do versus the stupidity in which they engage.

Breakdown there press release and look at what DSC claims they are doing. I removed the snide comments towards SCI and other non-relevant comments as to what DSC is doing..

quote:

Along with its partners, DSC is providing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with the data it needs to assuage concerns about regulated elephant hunting in the two African nations.

Along with providing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with additional information, DSC is working to bring officials from Tanzania and Zimbabwe to the U.S. to testify about the harmful effects on wildlife and people of the elephant ivory ban.

DSC also is keeping Congress informed of the issues.

So there are three things DSC is doing or trying to do. I hate to tell the SCI haters this but SCI is doing the same with one exception, they are not "trying" to bring in officials from Zimbabwe and Tanzania, THEY DID. I saw them with my own two eyes and spoke to some. They were in front of multiple government officials over a month ago.

My opinion is a lawsuit is a good way to go. The recreational fisherman in the Gulf of Mexico were royally screwed due to a the NMFS incompetence and a lawsuit by the commercial fishing lobby. So yes they do work.

While I fully support DSC's efforts, we can maybe start high fiving when they come up with a new strategy and not one SCI already has in motion.

I am still disappointed with DSC for taking the potshots at SCI, very low class.

While it remains to be seen whether the end result is positive or negative...SCI did harm on the lion issue and I was there to witness that with my own eyes.

DSC has chosen an alternative route and has also chosen to challenge "all things" they see as a threat to our way of life. I applaud them for seeing the hand-writing on the wall and choosing not to be insane by doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
We want to talk about what makes the NRA so effective, one thing that makes them effective is that they do not criticize other gun rights groups. So in the last week when an NRA staffer make critical comments about an open carry advocacy group, within days Chris Cox with the NRA came out publicly and on the radio and renounced the criticism saying that it was inappropriate for the NRA to criticize other gun owners. It is bush league and the NRA leadership understands that. They also understand how the opponents of gun rights use apparent disagreements to their advantage. It was a poor move by DSC whatever their motivation and regardless of whether you agree or disagree with their tactics on the ban.

So it was a poor move by DSC because they did not agree with SCI, and went their own way to do something useful?

Is it better to scream your head off to give the false impression that you are doing something useful, while in reality all you are doing is messing things up - as usual - to get some brownie points?

Isn't this exactly like what had happened with the lion situation?

Those who had a plan, and were doing something about it, got ignored by SCI.

Are you also telling us to stop criticizing SCI even when they come up with some grand policy like the creation of SCIO?

Well, you might, but as we have already seen, many members have had enough of this silly behavior.

Suing the USF&W has not worked before, why is it going to work now?

Personally, knowing the things that Mike70560 has pointed out……….. and given everything else that has been said and taken place, I think the DSC response is anemic at best. There is no disputing the errors and display of poor judgement the executive of SCI has displayed repeatedly in recent years, but they did get into the ring on this one in a timely fashion.

Whether you agree or disagree with what they did and how they did it, they did respond to the issue ASAP.

Personally I think all of the pro DSC and anti SCI bullshit on here does nothing but a disservice to all of us in the long run. Instead of the cliques from both sides constantly being divisive…………… how about we all start pushing at both organizations to get their shit together and work as a unified force. That would be energy well spent…………. bitching and snivelling gets us no where. And although I know the immediate response from some will be that it cannot be done because SCI can't be worked with, the same can be said for DSC. There is a lot of old history that neither seem to be able or willing to forget.

Both organizations executive need to grow up and get past this if we truly want an organized front. If not, then the talk about the formation of another organization that truly works for hunts is not such a bad idea.

At this point in time egos and grudges are our worst enemies.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
DSC has chosen an alternative route and has also chosen to challenge "all things" they see as a threat to our way of life. I applaud them for seeing the hand-writing on the wall and choosing not to be insane by doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

So it was a poor move by DSC because they did not agree with SCI, and went their own way to do something useful?

Suing the USF&W has not worked before, why is it going to work now?

On this issue (other than the lawsuit) what is DSC doing different? They are doing the same things, or at least trying, as SCI.

Like I posted above I know for a fact the lawsuits do work in government.

Sometimes I do forget that everything SCI = BAD and everything DSC = Good.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
We want to talk about what makes the NRA so effective, one thing that makes them effective is that they do not criticize other gun rights groups. So in the last week when an NRA staffer make critical comments about an open carry advocacy group, within days Chris Cox with the NRA came out publicly and on the radio and renounced the criticism saying that it was inappropriate for the NRA to criticize other gun owners. It is bush league and the NRA leadership understands that. They also understand how the opponents of gun rights use apparent disagreements to their advantage. It was a poor move by DSC whatever their motivation and regardless of whether you agree or disagree with their tactics on the ban.

So it was a poor move by DSC because they did not agree with SCI, and went their own way to do something useful?

Is it better to scream your head off to give the false impression that you are doing something useful, while in reality all you are doing is messing things up - as usual - to get some brownie points?

Isn't this exactly like what had happened with the lion situation?

Those who had a plan, and were doing something about it, got ignored by SCI.

Are you also telling us to stop criticizing SCI even when they come up with some grand policy like the creation of SCIO?

Well, you might, but as we have already seen, many members have had enough of this silly behavior.

Suing the USF&W has not worked before, why is it going to work now?

. . . make that pony do that trick . . . over and over.

Pity your ability to reason appears to lag your ability to spew rhetoric. You know what I am saying and you know darn good and well that I am more than prepared to criticize SCI when warranted. I am also prepared to criticize DSC when warranted and it is warranted in this case. DSC mishandled the communications on this issue plain and simple.

quote:

Originally posted by Skyline:
Both organizations executive need to grow up and get past this if we truly want an organized front. If not, then the talk about the formation of another organization that truly works for hunts is not such a bad idea.

At this point in time egos and grudges are our worst enemies.

Amen.

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:
I trust DSC far more than SCI. I would never give SCI a dime. SCI might take my money and start a travel or booking agency or something like that for all you know

Anyone for lifting the ivory ban has to force USFW to differentiate between Zim and Tanzania. Tanzania is a mess and elephant hunting needs to be stopped there. Show me one ph or booking agent or elephant hunting expert who before the ban was saying Tanzania elephant hunting is top notch or there is no poaching issues in Tanzania. How many elephants are shown in any of Saeed's films over the last few years?

Saeed you spend a fair bit of time in Tanzania every year - has poaching become worse ? Would you hunt elephants in Tanzania ?

I think DSC has the right approach although it may not do much in Obama's USFW agency politics.

Mike

Mike,

I have been hunting all animals in Tanzania, including elephants, for many years.

But, we have never seen any shootable bulls - the poachers have taken care of that.

Poaching IS getting worse every year, by the evidence that we see less and less elephants each year we are there.

Poaching has gotten out of hand there, as all other animals are suffering too.

I honestly hope the game department gets their act together and do something about it.

Private concession holders are doing all they can, but its like a drop in the ocean.

May be we are forgetting one simple fact here.

DSC has had enough of the shenanigan's of those running SCI years ago, and started their own organization.

By the passing of each day, we can clearly see that they were absolutely right to distance themselves from the silly crown running SCI.

quote:

There is a lot of old history that neither seem to be able or willing to forget.

Both organizations executive need to grow up and get past this if we truly want an organized front. If not, then the talk about the formation of another organization that truly works for hunts is not such a bad idea.

Not just "old history" but some pretty recent as well. How can anyone get past it when SCI is riddled to the core with self-centered elements who are counter productive to the values SCI purports to hold and promotes?

It was rotten 20 years ago when I bailed out and hasn't changed since!

Maybe Aaron will chime in to corroborate but when he and I were in the heat of the battle over the lion uplisting we found DSC very approachable and always willing to listen. When they disagreed...DSC still listened. When they did agree they facilitated action.

SCI...they stonewalled us at every turn, did nothing productive, and IMHO inflamed the situation in several ways.

The sad thing in the lion situation...was the fact that we had the chance to effect some real resolve that would satisfy the majority of the hunting AND non-hunting community. It hinged on us (Aaron & I) bringing SCI on board...which we failed to do. But in our defense...they never even gave us a chance. They were actually very condescending.

My opinion: SCI is broken...unrepairable...we need to move on. DSC may not be perfect...but they are better.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike70560:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
DSC has chosen an alternative route and has also chosen to challenge "all things" they see as a threat to our way of life. I applaud them for seeing the hand-writing on the wall and choosing not to be insane by doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

So it was a poor move by DSC because they did not agree with SCI, and went their own way to do something useful?

Suing the USF&W has not worked before, why is it going to work now?

On this issue (other than the lawsuit) what is DSC doing different? They are doing the same things, or at least trying, as SCI.

Like I posted above I know for a fact the lawsuits do work in government.

Sometimes I do forget that everything SCI = BAD and everything DSC = Good.

Mike,
With all due respect to you sir.

In regards to your question above...it is sometimes all about what you don't do.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike70560:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
DSC has chosen an alternative route and has also chosen to challenge "all things" they see as a threat to our way of life. I applaud them for seeing the hand-writing on the wall and choosing not to be insane by doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

So it was a poor move by DSC because they did not agree with SCI, and went their own way to do something useful?

Suing the USF&W has not worked before, why is it going to work now?

On this issue (other than the lawsuit) what is DSC doing different? They are doing the same things, or at least trying, as SCI.

Like I posted above I know for a fact the lawsuits do work in government.

Sometimes I do forget that everything SCI = BAD and everything DSC = Good.

Mike,
With all due respect to you sir.

In regards to your question above...it is sometimes all about what you don't do.

. . . and sometimes it is about how you do it . . . like in the case of this press release which was handled poorly. That was, and continues to be, my only point.