lb404,

I mean no disrespect, I respect your views just disagree with them. My disillusionment as you refer to it is that it seems that many are quick to be critical, anxious to declare defeat and devote their efforts and energies to being non-constructive. I truly am open to any better ideas and approaches that may surface, but in the mean time it seems ludicrous to simply criticize the one effort that is underway and pretend this issue is just going to go away. In business there is a saying, hope is not a strategy. I cannot ascribe to the views of the "I will keep my fingers crossed" crowd and hope this all works out. Either get behind the current effort or come up with a better effort. But to simply sit on the sidelines with a beer in one hand and popcorn in the other and denigrate the current effort is a disservice to the hunting community and the good people that are directly impacted by this ban. For all the folks that have been quick to throw stones, I have yet to even hear one of them articulate a reasoned alternative, much less seen any effort on their part to organize or launch such a alternative. This issue needs leaders not critics.

I have not yet heard a winning argument or strategy . Been in medicine for well over 35 years. In that timeframe I have never been used.I have seen numerous of my fellow practitioners be hit hard by litigation and MOSTLY over things that would never see a courtroom in other countries. The point is any fool can go to court in the USA. Winning is the real issue. Talking to senators and congress-folks has not seemed to have had the desired effect. I am not sure what tack to take but occasionally even a simple person wants to see results.

I am quite confident of the outcome of the twiddle-the-thumbs approach. But if that is the strategy you intend to align behind, have at it. I will take the under on that being a winning strategy.

I have to say that I am extremely shocked and disappointed at the attitude of many on this matter . Playing ostrich and hoping for the best is guaranteed to be a losing proposition.

Lots of stones thrown at SCI with not a single alternative plan.

Very disappointing.

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
I just spoke to SCI. If for whatever reason you cannot make it to D.C. for the rally you can make a cash donation to SCI specifically to aid the litigation against USFW on the ivory ban issue.

Call 202-543-8733 (same # you use for signing up for the rally) and say you'd like to contribute to the ligation against USFW on the ivory import issue. They'll take your CC info and earmark your contribution for the litigation. You may also contribute by check. Call the SCI # for instructions.

Mark

I can't make the rally in DC due to new responsibilities thrust upon me in a time of crisis at work. But I did make a donation to the cause.

I too must say it's incredibly disappointing to see the "do nothing and hope for the best" attitude. Really astonishing IMO but I suppose it's not too far removed from the positions taken by many regarding the efforts made by Lane and Aaron on the lion issue. So many objections were raised without giving thought to the backdrop of the timing of an uplisting decision. Of course SCI didn't get behind that one and I'm really pissed about the position SCI took when they could have made a huge positive impact to protect our interests concerning lion hunting. Regardless, I don't see ANY OTHER plan than SCI's at the current juncture attempting to reverse the ivory ban. I think there comes a time to put differences aside in an attempt to pull together and make an effort. Will SCI's plan be effective in getting the ban reversed? Who knows. As stated here already, doing nothing will all but guarantee imports of elephant ivory into the US from Zim and Tanz are all but over. Guess what guys, RSA and Namibia WILL be next. And the Lion? Say goodbye! Along with that, say goodbye to many of the outfitters and before long, the animals themselves! Just because you don't live in the USA or even hunt elephant doesn't mean this will ultimately not affect you. But the most disturbing thing of all is watching the past SCI bashers appear to actually be pulling for the organization's efforts to fail. I simply do not understand the motivations behind that!

Governmental (USA government) wrongs HAVE been corrected in the past. It doesn't always work out for the better, but we can't just roll over and be steam rolled without making an effort to turn the ship around. I'm not ready to throw up my hands and say it's over. It may in fact be over, but let's go down fighting with honor! I implore you guys, if you value your hunting rights, and love African hunting especially, let's put the SCI bashing and differences of opinion aside at least temporarily and make an effort to correct this. No one can guarantee a positive outcome here, but you can guarantee yourself of doing something more than merely bitching about it.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Yeah...I have been an NRA member since 1983. At one time...they worked hard for their popularity. They used Charlton Heston back when they needed PR help. Today...the 2nd amendment is the "in thing." Even Obama is reluctant to take that on.

Give hunting the same face...conservation through sustainable use...as the NRA gave the 2nd amendment and then you have done something. Something more than all the lawsuits and acts of congress collectively will ever do.

Yes...a PR campaign is exactly how the NRA got that membership that gives them the bucks which make them effective...BUT better yet...it made them POPULAR.

Lane,

You miss the VERY, VERY LONG, VERY, VERY BROAD though not always successful LITIGATION CAMPAIGN waged by the NRA over the last three or four decades. We are where we are with the Second Amendment because of NRA sponsored LITIGATION, as well as incessant and successful lobbying.

The official, legally recognized interpretation of the Second Amendment's individual right to own and bear arms is only the result of LITIGATION through the court system and to the Supreme Court. The individual's right to own and bear firearms became the settled, recognized and incontrovertible law of the land only within the last several years. Prior to the series of Supreme Court cases which settled the interpretation of the Second Amendment with regard to an individual's right to own and bear arms there were competing interpretations, those held by you and me, and those held by the BATF, New York City, The District of Columbia, Chicago, etc, etc, etc. It will take more LITIGATION to enforce the relatively new and settled law of the land regarding an individual's right to own and bear arms.

The long and the short is that the fight (whether regarding the import ban or the Second Amendment) needs to be on several, every possible, front, using every available legal means, from lobbying, to litigation to fund raising for candidates which support our cause.

The NRA model, with lobbying, legislation, litigation and indirect fund raising for candidates (through the published rankings of candidates with regard to their fidelity to Second Amendment issues,) is a good and proven model.

I've been a life member of the NRA for about 25yrs, I have not agreed with every official viewpoint or action, and don't need to be to be 100% in support of their goal.

Same with what right now is the only viable organization taking any significant action, and that is SCI.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Yeah...I have been an NRA member since 1983. At one time...they worked hard for their popularity. They used Charlton Heston back when they needed PR help. Today...the 2nd amendment is the "in thing." Even Obama is reluctant to take that on.

Give hunting the same face...conservation through sustainable use...as the NRA gave the 2nd amendment and then you have done something. Something more than all the lawsuits and acts of congress collectively will ever do.

Yes...a PR campaign is exactly how the NRA got that membership that gives them the bucks which make them effective...BUT better yet...it made them POPULAR.

Lane,

You miss the VERY, VERY LONG, VERY, VERY BROAD though not always successful LITIGATION CAMPAIGN waged by the NRA over the last three or four decades. We are where we are with the Second Amendment because of NRA sponsored LITIGATION, as well as incessant and successful lobbying.

The official, legally recognized interpretation of the Second Amendment's individual right to own and bear arms is only the result of LITIGATION through the court system and to the Supreme Court. The individual's right to own and bear firearms became the settled, recognized and incontrovertible law of the land only within the last several years. Prior to the series of Supreme Court cases which settled the interpretation of the Second Amendment with regard to an individual's right to own and bear arms there were competing interpretations, those held by you and me, and those held by the BATF, New York City, The District of Columbia, Chicago, etc, etc, etc. It will take more LITIGATION to enforce the relatively new and settled law of the land regarding an individual's right to own and bear arms.

The long and the short is that the fight (whether regarding the import ban or the Second Amendment) needs to be on several, every possible, front, using every available legal means, from lobbying, to litigation to fund raising for candidates which support our cause.

The NRA model, with lobbying, legislation, litigation and indirect fund raising for candidates (through the published rankings of candidates with regard to their fidelity to Second Amendment issues,) is a good and proven model.

I've been a life member of the NRA for about 25yrs, I have not agreed with every official viewpoint or action, and don't need to be to be 100% in support of their goal.

Same with what right now is the only viable organization taking any significant action, and that is SCI.

JPK

No disagreement here.