quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
What, no noise from the complaining ones??? How interesting.

Larry Sellers
SCI(International)Life Member
Sabatti "trash" Shooter

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
What, no noise from the complaining ones??? How interesting.

Larry Sellers
SCI(International)Life Member
Sabatti "trash" Shooter

Don't provoke them Larry!! Good boy!!

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
What, no noise from the complaining ones??? How interesting.

Larry Sellers
SCI(International)Life Member
Sabatti "trash" Shooter

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
OK guys, I'll comment on the lackluster response to this thread. And firstly, realize I am a SCI supporter, serving on the BOD of my local chapter. I've taken many positions of support for SCI here on AR and will continue to do so, as I believe the good SCI does outweighs the issues the organization does have. Furthermore, correcting those issues can only be done by working from within, not throwing peanuts from the gallery. I've been accused of being one of the cheerleaders for SCI and so on. I start this commentary in this manner so that you remember where I have stood regarding SCI. I also try, maybe not always succeeded, but try to make fair and accurate comments without getting caught up in hyperbole and zealotry.

Personally, I find the information in the link to be underwhelming at best. Yes, there is some good information there but I would like a few more specifics. Now, let me say, I think SCI's strong suit and main purpose is lobbying for our interests and litigation rather than in the field projects, so that may be the problem here but when I hear of the chest thumping of "$1 million raised for the lion project", I want to hear more about it. The problem with this link is that is says "click here to read more details". So you do ... and find another link to click on to read details ... etc. What I want is some specifics such as the LCTF here on AR provided where the specific scientists were named, the exact studies they have conducted have been spelled out in detail, each scientists positions' posted, and their exact presentation to the USFWS comment committee was published word for word. Specifics!! Not just that we raised $1 million for the lion project!

So, when SCI originally refused to sign on to the "Definition of the Huntable Male Lion", it was stated, just weeks before the USFWS hearing, that a study would be commissioned by SCI using the leading lion scientists. As was asked by the LCTF, who are those leading lion scientists as it appeared most of the scientists at the fore of the lion issue had already conducted their research and SCI missed the boat. So again, I'll ask, who are the leading scientists working on the SCI Lion Project, what research have they conducted, and what are their findings? If the SCI Lion Project is not based in field work, but rather lobbying efforts, as was originally stated as the MO, what progress has been made? What law makers or regulatory officials have been approached, what affects on said officials have been achieved (what are their current positions regarding the uplisting), etc.

If we can get some specific commentary along these lines, I think the response here would be more enthusiastic.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
OK guys, I'll comment on the lackluster response to this thread. And firstly, realize I am a SCI supporter, serving on the BOD of my local chapter. I've taken many positions of support for SCI here on AR and will continue to do so, as I believe the good SCI does outweighs the issues the organization does have. Furthermore, correcting those issues can only be done by working from within, not throwing peanuts from the gallery. I've been accused of being one of the cheerleaders for SCI and so on. I start this commentary in this manner so that you remember where I have stood regarding SCI. I also try, maybe not always succeeded, but try to make fair and accurate comments without getting caught up in hyperbole and zealotry.

Personally, I find the information in the link to be underwhelming at best. Yes, there is some good information there but I would like a few more specifics. Now, let me say, I think SCI's strong suit and main purpose is lobbying for our interests and litigation rather than in the field projects, so that may be the problem here but when I hear of the chest thumping of "$1 million raised for the lion project", I want to hear more about it. The problem with this link is that is says "click here to read more details". So you do ... and find another link to click on to read details ... etc. What I want is some specifics such as the LCTF here on AR provided where the specific scientists were named, the exact studies they have conducted have been spelled out in detail, each scientists positions' posted, and their exact presentation to the USFWS comment committee was published word for word. Specifics!! Not just that we raised $1 million for the lion project!

So, when SCI originally refused to sign on to the "Definition of the Huntable Male Lion", it was stated, just weeks before the USFWS hearing, that a study would be commissioned by SCI using the leading lion scientists. As was asked by the LCTF, who are those leading lion scientists as it appeared most of the scientists at the fore of the lion issue had already conducted their research and SCI missed the boat. So again, I'll ask, who are the leading scientists working on the SCI Lion Project, what research have they conducted, and what are their findings? If the SCI Lion Project is not based in field work, but rather lobbying efforts, as was originally stated as the MO, what progress has been made? What law makers or regulatory officials have been approached, what affects on said officials have been achieved (what are their current positions regarding the uplisting), etc.

If we can get some specific commentary along these lines, I think the response here would be more enthusiastic.

It would have been nice if SCI would have signed on to the document. It would have gone a long way towards building a coalition between hunters and scientists and proven to the USF&W Service "prior" to their deliberation that scientists and hunters were on the same page.

Now we wait for the USF&W verdict.

In defense of SCI...I do know some specific researchers on the ground getting SCI dollars. I do not know how many others they might support. It would be nice to know specifically who and what they are supporting.

Then again if USF&W rules the wrong way...it will be a moot point for us in the US.

SCI had no real reason to NOT support the definition. It took the teeth away from the petitioners and put science behind the hunters.

While science may not dissuade "the antis"...the USF&W is bound to rule on the science provided.

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
I knew someone would not be satisfied.

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
They said they have raised 1 million they didn't say they have spent that monies as of yet. I believe they said they have a plan for the use of those funds. Why would they say they have raised the funds if they were not going to spend them on various lion projects? I am sure when they do spend the monies on Lion projects they will have not selected the proper projects or the correct amount of funds on the various projects.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
They said they have raised 1 million they didn't say they have spent that monies as of yet. I believe they said they have a plan for the use of those funds. Why would they say they have raised the funds if they were not going to spend them on various lion projects? I am sure when they do spend the monies on Lion projects they will have not selected the proper projects or the correct amount of funds on the various projects.

Thanks Ed....... It'd be interesting to know where the money came from & what projects they'll spend it on etc but not a bad start.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
They said they have raised 1 million they didn't say they have spent that monies as of yet. I believe they said they have a plan for the use of those funds. Why would they say they have raised the funds if they were not going to spend them on various lion projects? I am sure when they do spend the monies on Lion projects they will have not selected the proper projects or the correct amount of funds on the various projects.

Thanks Ed....... It'd be interesting to know where the money came from & what projects they'll spend it on etc but not a bad start.

How quickly we forget. The $1M was raised at the convention last year to establish the lion fund.

http://huntforever.wordpress.c...ns-and-lion-hunting/

lots more reading if you start searching. As others have said the exact fiigures and distribution may not be publicly shown - but it is going out to researchers. Without that reseach lion hunting will be gone and hunter fundraising for that area will be useless.

http://huntforever.wordpress.c...ns-and-lion-hunting/

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Lane - I dont know what the reasons are and if they were riight oor wrong in doing so.

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Lane - I dont know what the reasons are and if they were riight oor wrong in doing so.

Its crystal clear and quite likely they contributed in screwing the pooch (or in this case, the Lion)!

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
Lane, if it is truly about the hunt not scores or taxidermy what does it matter if the trophy is not importable. The hunter will still have photos and memories. That is what people say, eh.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Lane - I dont know what the reasons are and if they were riight oor wrong in doing so.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
Lane, if it is truly about the hunt not scores or taxidermy what does it matter if the trophy is not importable. The hunter will still have photos and memories. That is what people say, eh.

Have a full read of the Lacey Act sometime then come back and ask that again.

There is some language in the Lacey Act that could be used to litigate the actual act of the hunt.

It has not ever been done to my knowledge...but its implication is already being discussed by lawyers for the HSUS, Born Free, and such should the up-list come to pass.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
Lane, if it is truly about the hunt not scores or taxidermy what does it matter if the trophy is not importable. The hunter will still have photos and memories. That is what people say, eh.

Have a full read of the Lacey Act sometime then come back and ask that again.

There is some language in the Lacey Act that could be used to litigate the actual act of the hunt.

It has not ever been done to my knowledge...but its implication is already being discussed by lawyers for the HSUS, Born Free, and such should the up-list come to pass.

Lacey only kicks in if the action was actually illegal in the first place. Is that what you mean with regard to the lion definition?

Is it not correct that the TZ lion definition has already been used to screw hunters around with their lawful exports?

Maybe SCI saw that one coming?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Lacey only kicks in if the action was actually illegal in the first place. Is that what you mean with regard to the lion definition?

Is it not correct that the TZ lion definition has already been used to screw hunters around with their lawful exports?

Maybe SCI saw that one coming?

Matt,
If the lion is uplisted to endangered it then becomes illegal. It is illegal for a US citizen to hunt an endangered animal with certain listings...so it does depend on the exact listing. But...it can become a Lacey violation even without import.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Lacey only kicks in if the action was actually illegal in the first place. Is that what you mean with regard to the lion definition?

Is it not correct that the TZ lion definition has already been used to screw hunters around with their lawful exports?

Maybe SCI saw that one coming?

Matt,
If the lion is uplisted to endangered it then becomes illegal. It is illegal for a US citizen to hunt an endangered animal with certain listings...so it does depend on the exact listing. But...it can become a Lacey violation even without import.

Well not too sure about that. What law would the hunter have broken if they hunted a lion legally and not imported it? None... My understanding is that Lacey doesnt kick in till you break a wildlife law in some jurisdiction. The endangered uplisting is related to the importation as I understand it.

So have the 'lion definitions' been used to screw hunters around already?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I am speaking of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the USA.

quote:

Originally posted by Joe Savikataaq Jr:
Of the one million, 90% admin fee taken for the benefit of the inner circle? LOL