Perhaps this is hijacking the thread. If so, I apologize in advance.

While I think the event this week in DC should go forward, I suspect it will have limited usefulness. I hope I am wrong.

It seems to me that a much better course of action ( in theory) would be to identify someone ( a hunter) who has a serious connection to the legislators who oversee the USFWS budget and oversight. If this person could get the ear of the legislators in question, I think FAR more would be accomplished. We need to convince a very few people who have some power that the USFWS is wrong, not only wrong but counter productive.

I do not have direct access to the legislators on these committees. Does anyone here have such access?

Chairman John Fleming (Dr. Fleming) from Louisiana (Chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs) would be someone on the short list of people that actually might be able to get something done if I had to guess.

I agree Mike. Does anyone know this guy?

I have a bunch of client in Louisiana. I will ask them.

I know that Nelson said a group is meeting with Dr. Fleming on Thursday. They also have other meetings scheduled with him, including some international visitors that will be in DC. Whether any of those folks are persons that "have his ear" I do not know.

Larry and Mike

I think you are likely correct. I cant make it to DC, I wish I could.

I am very thankful for those of you that are going to Washington.

Many Thanks

Brett

This really screwed up my future hunting plans. What another example of misguided policy.

I'll be sending someone some money start with SCI and see who else gets on board

I think the best course of action is to have the NRA Chairman sit-in on any DC meetings.

If anything, this goes to show why we, as hunters, are not going to win much.

Certain individuals, who have an interest and affiliation to SCI, are trying what the mass media has been doing for years to deflect attention away from the real, important issues, to protect the politicians.

We have an organization that collects millions each year, which claims to be FIRST FOR HUNTERS - and in fact, has achieved relatively very little for what they are paid to do.

And a fee website, which charges nothing to advance the rights of hunters to practice what they love.

Now, any relatively sane person would know where the blame can be directed when something goes wrong, as it has in this instance. Because the government, in their infinite stupidity, have made a decision that affects all of us hunters.

But, guess what those individuals have decided to do?

They put the blame on the free website that charges its members absolutely nothing.

Hoping that this will make their favourite organization, which has been an utter failure so far, look in better light.

Yep, us hunters are doing just great, thank you!

It is "party politics" all over again.

With no winners!

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

SCI got blind sided. Any reasonable person would question their connections and power.

I have worked on a species issue which involved federal rulemaking. sometimes, the agency (FWS/NOAA Fisheries in my case) can play their cards very close to their vest, and one may indeed have no idea how their decision will come out. I was working for a many-multi-million dollar agency with high stakes; if they can get surprised, then a small advocacy group like SCI can.

when the decision comes down, then you have to sue. it's how the system is set up. SCI knew, or should have known, that the issue was on the table. notice had been published in the Federal Register. and then, they had to wait.

as to lobbying, the executive agencies are supposed to be insulated from legislative pressure, so lobbying can only go so far without a top-down directive.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
If anything, this goes to show why we, as hunters, are not going to win much.

Certain individuals, who have an interest and affiliation to SCI, are trying what the mass media has been doing for years to deflect attention away from the real, important issues, to protect the politicians.

We have an organization that collects millions each year, which claims to be FIRST FOR HUNTERS - and in fact, has achieved relatively very little for what they are paid to do.

And a fee website, which charges nothing to advance the rights of hunters to practice what they love.

Now, any relatively sane person would know where the blame can be directed when something goes wrong, as it has in this instance. Because the government, in their infinite stupidity, have made a decision that affects all of us hunters.

But, guess what those individuals have decided to do?

They put the blame on the free website that charges its members absolutely nothing.

Hoping that this will make their favourite organization, which has been an utter failure so far, look in better light.

Yep, us hunters are doing just great, thank you!

It is "party politics" all over again.

With no winners!

The most idiotic post I have read on this subject yet. Good luck trying to make yourself out as a martyr. Comical really.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
What is a better course of action than what SCI is attempting to do? I am all for an alternative. Personally, I can't think of a better plan of action. I would certainly support another if there was one.

As I understand one of the main issues USFW has with Zimbabwe is that USFW suspects that there is a fall in the elephant population below 40 T. As opposed to the Zim government that claims that it is climbing and in excess of 100 T.
Problem being that there has been no count the last many years.
Does anybody know what the cost and time frame would be do conduct this count?

Good hunting
CF

Let me ask a rhetorical question.

What is the free website doing to oppose the elephant importation ban?

I am not one to do nothing as most of the big talkers on this board are want to do.

I am choosing to engage the system of influence that is most likely to yield a positive results.

A few emails ain't gonna get it.

So taking a dump on the few and I mean few that are trying to affect change is appropriate?

If PETA were trying to get the elephant ban lifted, I would support them.

Standing on some type of bullshit principle at a time like this is just an excuse for inaction.

The attitudes on this board are stunning.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Let me ask a rhetorical question.

What is the free website doing to oppose the elephant importation ban?

I am not one to do nothing as most of the big talkers on this board are want to do.

I am choosing to engage the system of influence that is most likely to yield a positive results.

A few emails ain't gonna get it.

So taking a dump on the few and I mean few that are trying to affect change is appropriate?

If PETA were trying to get the elephant ban lifted, I would support them.

Standing on some type of bullshit principle at a time like this is just an excuse for inaction.

The attitudes on this board are stunning.

Jeff

Jeff,

The ban affects you, as Americans first.

It is your government that is introducing the ban.

What do you expect of me living thousands of miles way, in another country to do?

What effect would I have on the USFW as a non-US citizen?

Excellent point.

In that light how about laying off the handful of people who are trying to make some impact.

BTW: If the US market goes, ALL African hunting goes.

Jeff

Saeed, true it effects USA citizens and as usual the rest of the world (hunting world) expects us to carry everyone else's water. What kind of organization (pro hunting) would you all have if not for the USA and its citizens i e SCI, yea I know it says International but lets be truthful it is by and large US hunters that provide the strongest support and I don't want to hear the Bull shit about donated hunts for without the American hunters buying them there would be much less international hunting. I wonder what the attendance at the SCI show would be if held say in Dubai or Tokyo.

Does Anyone know the percentage US sport hunting makes in the total African hunting market? 80%?

Just a guess

Larry - This is a serious situation and yours is a serious question for sure. I don't think you will get a "serious" answer though from those on here that are "bleacher sitters, whiners and haters of SCI . It's hard for me to believe that some here have such a deep rooted, uniformed hatred for SCI? If not for SCI, how much do you think the "haters" would be doing and contributing right now? Does 0 0 0 ring a bell?

I have always thought that trying to get "all'" hunters together to fight a common cause was the best way to enter a fight. I am now wondering if it might be best for the majority of us to distance ourselves from those who obviously put their own selfish thoughts, ideas and complete lack of understanding in these matters? These people continue to do us more harm than good and should be excluded from "any" participation for the common good.

Hunters, if you can call them that, who sit on the sideline and project totally negative thoughts with no "real" additional ideas are total losers to the cause. My thought, if you can't contribute in a positive way, put a sock in your mouth and stay the hell away!! Hope that's plain enough???

Larry Sellers
SCI(International)Life Member
Sabatti 'trash' Double Shooter
R8 Blaser
DRSS

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Saeed:

What would you think is a better approach?

This is a serious question.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Larry - This is a serious situation and yours is a serious question for sure. I don't think you will get a "serious" answer though from those on here that are "bleacher sitters, whiners and haters of SCI . It's hard for me to believe that some here have such a deep rooted, uniformed hatred for SCI? If not for SCI, how much do you think the "haters" would be doing and contributing right now? Does 0 0 0 ring a bell?

I have always thought that trying to get "all'" hunters together to fight a common cause was the best way to enter a fight. I am now wondering if it might be best for the majority of us to distance ourselves from those who obviously put their own selfish thoughts, ideas and complete lack of understanding in these matters? These people continue to do us more harm than good and should be excluded from "any" participation for the common good.

Hunters, if you can call them that, who sit on the sideline and project totally negative thoughts with no "real" additional ideas are total losers to the cause. My thought, if you can't contribute in a positive way, put a sock in your mouth and stay the hell away!! Hope that's plain enough???

Larry Sellers
SCI(International)Life Member
Sabatti 'trash' Double Shooter
R8 Blaser
DRSS

Ummmmm is now a good time to draw your attention to the 1st Amendment of your own constitution which you may recall includes something about the right to free speech?

You might not not like or agree with what others think or say but they have every right to express any opinion they choose just as you do.

Actually, although I'm no fan of SCI, I think they're doing the right thing in challenging the ban........ I don't think it'll work but good for them for trying.

Steve, no one and I mean no one has to draw Americans to our constitution. We appreciate all amendments to the constitution. I am sure most other posters would like to live in a country like ours - if not I do believe our citizens would be leaving in droves instead of droves of citizens of other countries migrating to our shores both legal and illegal.

I am sure I will be repeating myself here. I won't be the first.

I have been a life member of SCI for many years. I support them. However, they FREQUENTLY do things that leave me shaking my head. I can make a long list of their actions or inaction's as the case may be that irritate me to no end. One little example is the Out of Africa fiasco.

Having said that, they appear to be ONLY hunting organization to do ANYTHING on this matter. Right or wrong, they are at least doing something. I don't see DSC doing anything. While the local NRA guy told me that the NRA was getting involved, I have yet to hear another word.

Quite honestly, I have my doubts about the likely success of this trip to DC. However, I am 100% certain the battle will be lost if we sit around and do nothing. Don't you all think we at least need to try?

Rather than bitching and whining, wouldn't it be better for all of us to try to come up with a better idea? Personally, the only thing I can think of is to get someone who is very close to the people on the committee who have oversight on the USFWS and convince them that not only is the USFWS wrong, their actions are counterproductive to the goals. If we can get to the right person, we might be able to do something.

I have attempted to reach out to people who might be politically well connected. I have yet to find the right person. I am super busy but I will continue looking.

I can't believe the number of people who just accept this. Even worse, I can't believe the people who seem to want SCI to fail. Shocking is all I can say.

Everyone had better wake up. This is a direct attack on our beloved sport. Someone has got to fight for us.

I am going tomorrow even though my workload is horrendous. I am going even thought I just got an RFP that has to be done in short order that involves hundreds of thousands of dollars of fees. It is that important to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
Steve, no one and I mean no one has to draw Americans to our constitution. We appreciate all amendments to the constitution. I am sure most other posters would like to live in a country like ours - if not I do believe our citizens would be leaving in droves instead of droves of citizens of other countries migrating to our shores both legal and illegal.

Ed

At least one American obviously doesn't appreciate that particular amendment because he said "My thought, if you can't contribute in a positive way, put a sock in your mouth and stay the hell away!! Hope that's plain enough???"

If he believes people should remain silent if they disagree with his opinion, simple logic decrees that he obviously doesn't support the right to free speech.

Steve - Are you really that dense????? I never said a word about anyone remaining silent. I never said anything about yours or others here right to "free speech" Rant and rave all you want with your negative comments. I simply said maybe we would be better off to continue on with this fight and leave folks like you and some others here out of it. It's obvious the "haters" have nothing positive to add or they would simply answer Larry Shores question.

The sock in mouth applies to all the negative crap being spread by the "sideliners" so if the shoe (sock) fits wear it.

Fishing is good today, huh?

Larry Sellers
SCI(International)Life Member
Sabatti 'trash' Double Shooter
R8 Blaser
DRSS

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
Steve, no one and I mean no one has to draw Americans to our constitution. We appreciate all amendments to the constitution. I am sure most other posters would like to live in a country like ours - if not I do believe our citizens would be leaving in droves instead of droves of citizens of other countries migrating to our shores both legal and illegal.

Ed

At least one American obviously doesn't appreciate that particular amendment because he said "My thought, if you can't contribute in a positive way, put a sock in your mouth and stay the hell away!! Hope that's plain enough???"

If he believes people should remain silent if they disagree with his opinion, simple logic decrees that he obviously doesn't support the right to free speech.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Steve - Are you really that dense????? I never said a word about anyone remaining silent. I never said anything about yours or others here right to "free speech" Rant and rave all you want with your negative comments. I simply said maybe we would be better off to continue on with this fight and leave folks like you and some others here out of it. It's obvious the "haters" have nothing positive to add or they would simply answer Larry Shores question.

The sock in mouth applies to all the negative crap being spread by the "sideliners" so if the shoe (sock) fits wear it.

Fishing is good today, huh?

Larry Sellers
SCI(International)Life Member
Sabatti 'trash' Double Shooter
R8 Blaser
DRSS

Ja you did. Your exact words were; "My thought, if you can't contribute in a positive way, put a sock in your mouth and stay the hell away!! Hope that's plain enough???" - And that remark quite clearly tries to deny others the right to free speech. You might not have meant that but that's what you said.

Moving on to your comment of:

"Rant and rave all you want with your negative comments" - I haven't ranted & raved at all & in fact, never do. I debate politely & logically......... & leave others to rant & rave just like you are now.

If you check my previous comment, you'll see that I've quite clearly stated I think SCI are doing the right thing. I also said, I don't think it'll work but good for them for trying.

Not only do I have every right to express my opinion, in this case, we more or less agree. So why are you trying to shout me down?

Oh & BTW. I'm not an SCI hater...... Although I quite openly admit I do hate some of the things they do such as the 'donation scheme'.

I just disagree with them on a number of things & I choose to use the right of free speech to express that disagreement from time to time & don't give a stuff who I upset when exercising that right. ....... but no. I don't hate SCI per se.

Thanks Steve for proving my point!! Over and out.

Larry Sellers
SCI(International)Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Steve - Are you really that dense????? I never said a word about anyone remaining silent. I never said anything about yours or others here right to "free speech" Rant and rave all you want with your negative comments. I simply said maybe we would be better off to continue on with this fight and leave folks like you and some others here out of it. It's obvious the "haters" have nothing positive to add or they would simply answer Larry Shores question.

The sock in mouth applies to all the negative crap being spread by the "sideliners" so if the shoe (sock) fits wear it.

Fishing is good today, huh?

Larry Sellers
SCI(International)Life Member
Sabatti 'trash' Double Shooter
R8 Blaser
DRSS

Ja you did. Your exact words were; "My thought, if you can't contribute in a positive way, put a sock in your mouth and stay the hell away!! Hope that's plain enough???" - And that remark quite clearly tries to deny others the right to free speech. You might not have meant that but that's what you said.

Moving on to your comment of:

"Rant and rave all you want with your negative comments" - I haven't ranted & raved at all & in fact, never do. I debate politely & logically......... & leave others to rant & rave just like you are now.

If you check my previous comment, you'll see that I've quite clearly stated I think SCI are doing the right thing. I also said, I don't think it'll work but good for them for trying.

Not only do I have every right to express my opinion, in this case, we more or less agree. So why are you trying to shout me down?

Oh & BTW. I'm not an SCI hater...... Although I quite openly admit I do hate some of the things they do such as the 'donation scheme'.

I just disagree with them on a number of things & I choose to use the right of free speech to express that disagreement from time to time & don't give a stuff who I upset when exercising that right. ....... but no. I don't hate SCI per se.

what it boils down to is you either support the first amendment or you think people that disagree with you should STFU. But you cannot have it both ways and as you stated the latter.....

Like some of you pointed out, they ( SCI ) are doing something and that's better then poke in the eye.
And DSC has not said a word on any plans in this fight.
Everything in life is learned after some kinda mistake and we are learning as we go to get anything accomplished, we as hunters have to enter politics either we like it or not.
I for one should, one way or the other.
My excuse is, kids still part time home, small business, that this time a year I'm stuck to like a glue and finances ( which we know, in politics matter the most ) .
US of A is still the best in the world by far, but not perfect, because people even here get drunk on POWER.
This is definitely Screwed up situation... What's next?

Steve, just for clarification, this has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. The 1st deals specifically with limiting the government from infringing the rights of the people to speak out. It has nothing to do with citizens trying to shut each other up

I have no dog in this particular fight and am not taking any side in it. I think what Larry is trying to point out is that we are all in this together and if we are not moving it forward, we are falling behind. We have a saying in the US, especially us military folks, that goes "Either lead, follow, or get out of the way." which is closely followed by "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."

Perhaps it is good moment in time for us all to stick together to be part of the solution. We can bitch about the problems later!

Just my tuppence worth...

quote:

Originally posted by BwanaCole:
We have a saying in the US, especially us military folks, that goes "Either lead, follow, or get out of the way." which is closely followed by "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."

Funny, yesterday I was thinking in the context of this dialogue on SCI's efforts about the line in Crimson Tide when Gene Hackman was addressing the crew of the USS Alabama:

"This might be our Commander-in-Chief's Navy, but this is my boat. And all I ask is that you keep up with me. And if you can't, that strange sensation you'll be feeling in the seat of your pants will be my boot in your ass."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...in_the_United_States

However. Putting that aside for a moment:

I have no idea of the behind the scenes tactics being employed by SCI & others but I reckon they would be well advised to heed how F&WS have ignored the court orders won by JJ & CF re the Moz ban & also remember that there is a grain of truth in what F&WS are using as their argument.

Personally, I doubt anything will reverse the ban but I do think pressure should be applied to the African Govts concerned to pull their finger out & correct the faults USF&WS are pointing their fingers at.

quote:

Originally posted by BwanaCole:
Steve, just for clarification, this has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. The 1st deals specifically with limiting the government from infringing the rights of the people to speak out. It has nothing to do with citizens trying to shut each other up

I have no dog in this particular fight and am not taking any side in it. I think what Larry is trying to point out is that we are all in this together and if we are not moving it forward, we are falling behind. We have a saying in the US, especially us military folks, that goes "Either lead, follow, or get out of the way." which is closely followed by "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."

Perhaps it is good moment in time for us all to stick together to be part of the solution. We can bitch about the problems later!

Just my tuppence worth...

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Let me ask a rhetorical question.

What is the free website doing to oppose the elephant importation ban?

I am not one to do nothing as most of the big talkers on this board are want to do.

I am choosing to engage the system of influence that is most likely to yield a positive results.

A few emails ain't gonna get it.

So taking a dump on the few and I mean few that are trying to affect change is appropriate?

If PETA were trying to get the elephant ban lifted, I would support them.

Standing on some type of bullshit principle at a time like this is just an excuse for inaction.

The attitudes on this board are stunning.

Jeff

Jeff,

The ban affects you, as Americans first.

It is your government that is introducing the ban.

What do you expect of me living thousands of miles way, in another country to do?

What effect would I have on the USFW as a non-US citizen?

If you want to hunt elephants in the future, and pretty much anything else, you need to understand that the rest of the world and CITIES will be following close behind.

Then, after the substantial anti poaching funds and substantial financial incentive to preserve hunting areas provided by two of the most expensive hunts, lion and elephant, dry up, you can rest assured that buff and the rest will follow, as hunting areas are invaded and the game ravaged.

The US may have a raving socialist f--ktard for a president today, but we are still one of the more conservative countries.

And I agree, lead, follow or at least get the hell out of the way, and a primary course of action in this regard is to let your burning distaste for SCI lay dormant for the moment, because for the moment they are at least doing something in an effort to blunt and delay and reveal the government's actions, their consequences and motives.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by gunslinger55:
Does Anyone know the percentage US sport hunting makes in the total African hunting market? 80%?

Just a guess

I read somewhere that it is a little over 50% across all of Africa (in total).

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
Then, after the substantial anti poaching funds and substantial financial incentive to preserve hunting areas provided by two of the most expensive hunts, lion and elephant, dry up, you can rest assured that buff and the rest will follow, as hunting areas are invaded and the game ravaged.

You are exactly right. And if anyone believes that our opponent's ultimate objective is simply to stop all hunting of lion and elephant, they are seriously mistaken. These folks act in a very deliberate manner and take a long-term view. I am sure that the ultimate objective of their strategy is a ban on virtually all sport hunting. We can take a clue from how they have approached environmental laws and regulations on power plants. I had someone in a fairly senior position with the Sierra Club tell me once, our objective in pushing for laws and regulations to shut down coal-fired power plants is simply the first step. Once we shut down the old coal plants, we will focus on the new coal plants. Once we shut down all the coal plants, we will focus on other fossil fired plants like gas plants. Our objective is to shut down all fossil-fired plants. It is mistake to underestimate these folks, they are smart, passionate, well funded by the likes of Michael Bloomberg and patient in fighting the war in one small battle after another.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
Then, after the substantial anti poaching funds and substantial financial incentive to preserve hunting areas provided by two of the most expensive hunts, lion and elephant, dry up, you can rest assured that buff and the rest will follow, as hunting areas are invaded and the game ravaged.

You are exactly right. And if anyone believes that our opponent's ultimate objective is simply to stop all hunting of lion and elephant, they are seriously mistaken. These folks act in a very deliberate manner and take a long-term view. I am sure that the ultimate objective of their strategy is a ban on virtually all sport hunting. We can take a clue from how they have approached environmental laws and regulations on power plants. I had someone in a fairly senior position with the Sierra Club tell me once, our objective in pushing for laws and regulations to shut down coal-fired power plants is simply the first step. Once we shut down the old coal plants, we will focus on the new coal plants. Once we shut down all the coal plants, we will focus on other fossil fired plants like gas plants. Our objective is to shut down all fossil-fired plants. It is mistake to underestimate these folks, they are smart, passionate, well funded by the likes of Michael Bloomberg and patient in fighting the war in one small battle after another.

+1...what Mike and John say are spot on.

Nonthing is going to change.

It is the same old story.

We have been asking WHAT is SCI doing for us as hunters in AFRICA for a number of years, and all we get is some figures with no details.

The last of which all the hoopla they made about collecting a million dollars for lions.

We never heard WHERE that money has gone.

If SCI wants us hunters to support them, be up front with what good you are doing.

Instead, they have mastered the art of politics, where they say a loot and mean nothing.

Now they have been caught with their pants down, panic has set in.

I know that proactive action is something you are not that familiar with, preferring to be a thumb twiddler, but do not mistake deliberate action for panic. You have made your position clear, you prefer to do nothing (I count simply throwing stones as nothing maybe even worse). That's fine, just do not get in the way of others that prefer another approach. As George Bernard Shaw said, those that say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Saeed,
I have to take difference with the position you have stated. You ask what SCI has done in Africa? Well, I have posted a couple of different points, but they are blown off. This current action by SCI is one of the best, but all the naysayers do is say it won't work. Please, for us minions, get behind the effort and if it doesn't work, you can say "I told you so".

I know SCI isn't perfect, but they are the only game in town. No one else , and I mean no one, is doing anything to help.

Lets unite!

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
what it boils down to is you either support the first amendment or you think people that disagree with you should STFU. But you cannot have it both ways and as you stated the latter.....

the 1st amendment applies against the government, not private actors (generally). it does not apply to private forums. it is widely misunderstood.

quote:

Originally posted by delloro:

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
what it boils down to is you either support the first amendment or you think people that disagree with you should STFU. But you cannot have it both ways and as you stated the latter.....

the 1st amendment applies against the government, not private actors (generally). it does not apply to private forums. it is widely misunderstood.

Thank you!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
Then, after the substantial anti poaching funds and substantial financial incentive to preserve hunting areas provided by two of the most expensive hunts, lion and elephant, dry up, you can rest assured that buff and the rest will follow, as hunting areas are invaded and the game ravaged.

You are exactly right. And if anyone believes that our opponent's ultimate objective is simply to stop all hunting of lion and elephant, they are seriously mistaken. These folks act in a very deliberate manner and take a long-term view. I am sure that the ultimate objective of their strategy is a ban on virtually all sport hunting. We can take a clue from how they have approached environmental laws and regulations on power plants. I had someone in a fairly senior position with the Sierra Club tell me once, our objective in pushing for laws and regulations to shut down coal-fired power plants is simply the first step. Once we shut down the old coal plants, we will focus on the new coal plants. Once we shut down all the coal plants, we will focus on other fossil fired plants like gas plants. Our objective is to shut down all fossil-fired plants. It is mistake to underestimate these folks, they are smart, passionate, well funded by the likes of Michael Bloomberg and patient in fighting the war in one small battle after another.

In general, I have to agree with you. They are smart and pick their targets carefully. They know that only a tiny handful of hunters are directly affected by bans on ele and (lets hope not..) lion. They also know that these animals are in that charismatic megafauna category that really attracts the attention of the masses. Hell they know 95 percent of the hunters out there do not care about these bans as they are unaffected by it and that many hunters in fact have the Disney view well established during their upbringing and believe the crap fed to them by media and special interest groups.

They know exactly what they are doing.