Every day I am seeing signs over here in the U.S. that makes me glad I am doing my hunt in 2008 instead of waiting. The liberals and those who anthropomorphize animals into cute little cuddly talking Disney creatures and believe that no one should harvest an animal in the wild are gaining power and getting bolder. If enough of them get into power next year and/or, God forbid, one get elected President, we are in for some big trouble.

Take this example from the latest budget just sent to our President:

"Another area of interest involved language included via the Foreign Relations committee by Nita Lowey (D-NY) that would have denied funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for any country that allowed sport or trophy hunting. That language was removed and was changed to say that USAID shall consult with the various “Appropriations Committees on its conservation programs in Africa involving hunting." This was a mixed blessing for hunters. The original language was eliminated but now all funding must go thru the various appropriations committees who may or may not be friendly to our cause. This was of obvious interest to SCI due to the conservation work and sportsmen’s dollars that flow overseas. Also in that same language was a statement “restricting assistance to any international organization (including the United Nations) that requires the registration of or taxes a gun owned by a citizen of the United States.â€

So, here we are again, one of our politicians arrogantly trying to tell other countries how to effectively manage their game populations, using tried and true methods that gain them TONS of extra money, jobs, and investments. Not to mention being the best way to ensure the health and survival of their species.

I shudder to think of what effect this would have on hunting abroad if it ever got passed.

This is yet another example as why we should all be members of SCI regardless of how you feel about their trophy program.

John,

No need to shudder. There are so many contradictory rules already existing in USAID guidelines that for any project to start they need "waivers" excluding the project from one or a dozen of these regulations. It's all about Washington, not about development aid.

For all the present USAID projects underway in South Africa, Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Benin, Cameroon, Chad, and any number of others, hunting won't come to a screeching halt. It's the USAID projects which will take longer to get off the ground.

I hate greenies
a vegetarian is the cruelest thing on earth they wil cook a live carrot if it could the carrot wil scream

politics is al about bullshit some wil sell their souls for votes

quote:

Originally posted by 375 fanatic:
I hate greenies
a vegetarian is the cruelest thing on earth they wil cook a live carrot if it could the carrot wil scream

politics is al about bullshit some wil sell their souls for votes

In the good old USA, ALL OF THEM will sell their souls for votes.

Hello,
Well since we are naming nations we are giving aid, lest we forget Sudan, Palestine, Israel, Ethiopia, Somalia, Yemen, and the list goes on and on. Matter of fact, we are the largest contributor/supplier of aid in the African Continent, largest contributor to Islamic nations, and largest overall donor to the United Nations. If it were up to the general population of America, it would cease and cease quickly I might add.
You indicated that the aid was somewhat cumbersome and slow and that is true from what I observed some years ago, but how about none at all?? That is even better than slow!! For those African nations or others for that matter that do not like the speed in which we deliver our aid and comfort, all they have to do is refuse it, not so??

No disrespect intended, but I really don't know what this statement has to do with the discussion on this thread. We are talking about the threat to our hunting overseas by idiot politicians, and how they are trying to blackmail countries we give aid to into a wildlife management approach that will end up decimating their populations and making the nation poorer for it.

quote:

Originally posted by dsiteman:
Hello,
Well since we are naming nations we are giving aid, lest we forget Sudan, Palestine, Israel, Ethiopia, Somalia, Yemen, and the list goes on and on. Matter of fact, we are the largest contributor/supplier of aid in the African Continent, largest contributor to Islamic nations, and largest overall donor to the United Nations. If it were up to the general population of America, it would cease and cease quickly I might add.
You indicated that the aid was somewhat cumbersome and slow and that is true from what I observed some years ago, but how about none at all?? That is even better than slow!! For those African nations or others for that matter that do not like the speed in which we deliver our aid and comfort, all they have to do is refuse it, not so??

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnCrighton:
No disrespect intended, but I really don't know what this statement has to do with the discussion on this thread. We are talking about the threat to our hunting overseas by idiot politicians, and how they are trying to blackmail countries we give aid to into a wildlife management approach that will end up decimating their populations and making the nation poorer for it.
[QUOTE]

John that is a huge problem for me aswell the rumour has it that the south african gun laws was changed because of presure from anti gun lobbies they pay the goverment rediculus amounts for every firearm that is destroyed. when the laws changed a lot of people handed in the most beautiful guns because they were scared of the process. it also forced a lot of gunshops to close. people just wanted to give you guns.when they showed on tv the guns being desroyed you want to cry there was awesome guns lying there.

the best off all is that almost no illegal firearms were handed in so no progress in my opinion. the crimenals are better off

375 fanatic,

Given the fact that our Commisioner of Police [Jackie Selebi] is a criminal, why, other than to protect criminals from law-abiding armed citizens, do you think we have new firearms legislation?

Andrew McLaren

One theory is that it was all instigated as part of the deal for SA to get the World Cup. - The deal was, SA had to be seen to tighten firearm control and reduce crime and in return would get the WC. - Don't know how true that is, but it wouldn't suprise me if it were true.

Nita Lowey (D-NY) One of the dumbest women in Congress. And a typical example of why we need term limits. Like many of her kind she fails to realize that it is the hunter and the hunter's dollars that conserve the wildlife in these African countries. Kenya is one of the best examples of how non hunting can be so destructive. SCI membership? You bet.

i agree that they(politicians) will sell out for votes. i think sci has good and bad things but to help our hunting futures i will get a sci membership

375 Fanatic, I don't think that your comment on greenies is irrelevant to the topic, this is more of a pan-global situation. As to conservation in it's general status accross anywhere in the world, you have to make tough decisions. I think that would apply in Australia (or Africa with elephants) at the moment, where there is a big 'who-ha' on culling of the brumbies or wild horses that have run feral and become an ecological hazard.

It is very sad to have to step in and cull the wild horses, but, all other measures have failed as far as I am aware, and, if you let them carry on breeding, things will spiral out of control. The horses do not belong there full stop. It was man's doing in the first place, now it should be his responsibility to protect the native species that will perish there if he does not intervene (which greenies will fight for). This is not Australia's only problem, there are many, such as cane toads, feral pigs, just about feral anything that man has introduced there over time! If you have made a big mistake of introducing a foreign animal, be it a grey squirrel to the UK, it should be your responsibility to try contain it, although remembering that you will probably never be able to elliminate it completely once it has become established.

I believe that the restrictions on licensing in SA are getting more and more frustrating. The irritating thing is that criminals are probably going to find it more easy to target innocent civilians, because the circulation of illegal firearms has probably not stemmed all that much, although the number of civilians who are armed and able to protect themselves will be diminishing.

John, unfortunately politics will always be the main pitfalls to constructive conservation anywhere in the world. This has been proved in Africa, especially Zim, which had some of the most dedicated and hardest working people imagineable in conserving wildlife, which hunting was a part of too. However, even the best ideas hold no weight when politics take over! Politics are in my mind the greatest threat to conservation anywhere in the world.

I worked on this issue with the NRA including meeting with some folks in Namibia who could have been adversely affected by the original language.

SCI was certanly involved in fixing this but so were other organizations including NRA, Dallas Safari Club, Conservation Force and others.

NRA staff worked very hard to fix this problem (which was quite complex) and DSC hired a lobbyist to specifically work this issue.

I would strongly recommend maintaining your membership in each of these organizations as they are critically important.

The Humane Society of The US were the ones behind Nita Lowey's report language. They will continue to be up to no good especially with the current makeup of the US Congress. The organizations I mentioned are the only ones with the resources and knowledge to fight them so keep up your memberships in all of them.


Todd

quote:

Originally posted by Nzou:
375 Fanatic, I don't think that your comment on greenies is irrelevant to the topic,.

I get your point but there is a diference between a conservationist and a greenie.
Conservationist understand that there is a circle of life and due to the modern world and man intervention controled hunting plays a big part.

a greenie is someone that watches animal planet and think they can understand wildlife and change the world but they have never realy experienced true nature.

the problem is to many goverments listen to the greenies and not to conservationists.

.375 Fanatic, hoe gaan dit meneer? Ek verstaan 100%! I think that most people who actively use this site know the difference between a greenie and a conservationist. I have some extremely hard working conservationist friends, involved in wildlife management, and a few of them don't like hunting at all, but they all accept it for what it does for conservation and they all like and know where biltong comes from.

As you rightly say, it is people who do not understand ecology and that life and death are linked in a natural cycle that are a nuisance. Unfortunately, such people often include a great majority of the population. A lot of the time it is just ignorance and emotions running before reason on their part. However, when their views start affecting effective conservation in any form, that starts to irritate me, and I am sure that I am not the only one.

Happy New Year swaer,
Cheers,
Nzou.