quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Dr. Easter, all I know is what they told me, and copied it here.

I have met Dr. White, and I don't know if she talked with SCI or SCIF, I do believe that she supports what is scientifically the best option for the lion. If she said she did, she did, and its possible that the guy I was corresponding with does not know what she said.

With your parting shot before, would you (if you worked for SCI) come on here and endure the personal attacks?Dr. Butler, My father taught me that the 'talk softly but carry a big-stick method' was best. But he always told me that if you were going to use that method...be prepared to use the stick! (read AR forum) So...to answer your immediate prior question...for something as important as the lion, not only yes but hell yes. You should see some of the BS I have endured for the sake of the lion in this endeavor. Or for that matter, take what you say seriously?

Why don't you have Dr. White (or Dr. Packer) drop me an email (you already have mine) and I will give them the name, email address, and phone number of the guy I corresponded with and they can talk with him directly?

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:
Been following this thread. I hope I'm wrong about two things regarding SCI.

1) It may well boil down to DSC stepping up to the plate first being too much for SCI to swallow.

2) Future funding for Paula White by SCI could be in jeopardy thanks to some emails posted on this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:
Been following this thread. I hope I'm wrong about two things regarding SCI.

1) It may well boil down to DSC stepping up to the plate first being too much for SCI to swallow.

2) Future funding for Paula White by SCI could be in jeopardy thanks to some emails posted on this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:
Been following this thread. I hope I'm wrong about two things regarding SCI.

1) It may well boil down to DSC stepping up to the plate first being too much for SCI to swallow.

2) Future funding for Paula White by SCI could be in jeopardy thanks to some emails posted on this thread.

Jim,
She sent me that e-mail expressly to share.

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:
Been following this thread. I hope I'm wrong about two things regarding SCI.

1) It may well boil down to DSC stepping up to the plate first being too much for SCI to swallow.

2) Future funding for Paula White by SCI could be in jeopardy thanks to some emails posted on this thread.

Jim,
She sent me that e-mail expressly to share.

Gutsy!! Scientists will usually do what they must to preserve funding. She may well have just tossed some of hers.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:
Been following this thread. I hope I'm wrong about two things regarding SCI.

1) It may well boil down to DSC stepping up to the plate first being too much for SCI to swallow.

2) Future funding for Paula White by SCI could be in jeopardy thanks to some emails posted on this thread.

Jim,
She sent me that e-mail expressly to share.

Gutsy!! Scientists will usually do what they must to preserve funding. She may well have just tossed some of hers.

Paula is a gutsy woman no doubt.

But that is my point...they are raising money to support research (so they say)...and every single credible lion scientist is waiting for them to endorse the huntable lion definition.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Well guys, I sent an email to the SCIF Washington office and got a reply from them. Sounds to me like there is a bit to the rest of the story...

Also, notably enough, they gave me a list of some of the SCI funded projects.

I think that some folks here are so "rabidly" anti-SCI that the folks there don't feel comfortable commenting over here. I did delete out the name and email addresses, but it should be easy enough to get for any one interested. I will admit that my email was probably not the friendliest one I have sent, but the staff there were very friendly and prompt in their reply. I did copy this with their permission.


Mr. Butler,

From time to time I do check the Accurate Reloading forum; not always a safe place to be when you're an SCI employee! Regardless, I did see the recent conversation about lions, conservation funding for lions, and the age limitation.



The LCTF position statement on sustainable lion hunting is premature in being issued, because the research project that will demonstrate physical characteristic correlation to lion age is not yet complete. In fact SCI Foundation is funding the research by Paula White to demonstrate the viability of this very position statement that was generated by the LCTF



They called SCIF to tell us they are moving forward with the 12 month review and not waiting for the periodic review, as previously promised. I do not think that most biologists and researchers are tuned up the legal intricacies of ESA listings and the political bent that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is taking. Just look at the FWS proposal to uplist polar bears at CITES; range states including Canada, Demark (Greenland), and Norway along with the CITES Secretaiat think it does not need uplisting. SCI and the SCI Foundation are advocating against this uplisting along with the World Wildlife Fund and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. It appears as if the FWS left science at the door.



In closing, no other organization has done what SCI Foundation has done in African for lion conservation. Most folks will scoff at that statement; that's a cynical view point but to reinforce the credibility of the statement please see the list of conservation projects in Africa listed here.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
It would seem that the position is more than halfway there to getting accepted.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
If you want the definition to be accepted, being humble, eating a bunch of BS, and getting the job done probably will mean that you don't get any credit, but the job will get done.

I think now is the time to be pragmatic, not making asinine comments like "SCI last for hunters."

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Dr. Easter & Mr. Neilson

I am not debating you. I don't know why the fellow I was corresponding with said what he did, but it was obvious to me that from the responses here, people were saying that SCI was not answering questions. I sent him an email and he replied.

If Dr. Packer and Dr. White have been talking with SCI, great.

I have no doubt that Dr. Packer is intimately involved with discussions with USF&W. I would tend to take anything that he says about the situation with regards to them as a inside voice. If Dr. White said that she talked with SCI, and they put her off, that is wrong, especially given that they are paying her to come up with results, and they are disregarding their own expert.

I am disappointed that SCI has not endorsed the statement or came up with a public statement as to where they think the proposal is short. While I am not a lion researcher (and honestly, it seems most of the LCTF leadership is not, either...) I personally agree with the position that you have espoused. My initial statement to them was along the lines of what is SCI's position on this, and why haven't you come out in support?

This was their answer. In my limited contact, I think the guy I was communicating with was telling the truth as he knows it. It is one of the weaknesses of SCI that no one seems to be able to get an answer out of them- probably because of their incredibly byzantine method of organization.

But both of you have seemed to jump on the anti SCI bandwagon for whatever reason. I have not heard that they reject the LCTF definition, just that it's premature. It would seem that the position is more than halfway there to getting accepted. I would think that if you could avoid the name calling, since (at least to my unexpert eye) the science supports the LCTF definition, they will also eventually support it. But if the LCTF executive directors keep pushing anti SCI rhetoric, the odds are greater that they will do something else.

The two of you seem to be taking my support of the definition, and my request that you stop attacking another group of hunters as an attack. To the contrary, I think if you could keep the DSC good, SCI bad out of it, I think SCI will be on board BECAUSE you are right.

I work with the mentally ill daily. Basically, one thing I learned pretty early on is that if you start making things a conflict, regardless of how much the other guy really agrees with you, he will not work with you.

Look at it. What are you doing? What is your goal?

If it is to make LCTF the one answer to lion conservation, maybe your current tack will work, but it will be after a big fight and a lot of bad feelings.

If you want the definition to be accepted, being humble, eating a bunch of BS, and getting the job done probably will mean that you don't get any credit, but the job will get done.

I think now is the time to be pragmatic, not making asinine comments like "SCI last for hunters."

quote:

I can tell you that Lane had some e-mail comms with SCI leadership just prior to the SCI convention, which I was copied on (LANE, WHO WAS THAT AGAIN - I CANNOT REMEMBER??) Anyway, I too chimed in and made it very clear that I would be at the convention, and available at anytime for consultation, etc. I never heard from anyone??

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
If you want the definition to be accepted, being humble, eating a bunch of BS, and getting the job done probably will mean that you don't get any credit, but the job will get done.

quote:

Originally posted by Indi:
Go ahead Aaron , the lion needs you and your efforts and the whole hunting community are with you i am sure.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH SIR !

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Folks, I would still encourage everyone to continue strong support of SCI - they are without question a leader in wildlife conservation around the world. They have done great things for hunters, hunting, and wildlife conservation - facts that should never be overlooked.

Some of us are simply wanting/needing them to take swift and decisive action as it pertains to conservation minded lion hunting, and the "definition" of a huntable male lion.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Folks, I would still encourage everyone to continue strong support of SCI - they are without question a leader in wildlife conservation around the world. They have done great things for hunters, hunting, and wildlife conservation - facts that should never be overlooked.

Some of us are simply wanting/needing them to take swift and decisive action as it pertains to conservation minded lion hunting, and the "definition" of a huntable male lion.

quote:

Originally posted by A.Dahlgren:
http://www.lionaid.org/blog/20...ore-the-lions-do.htm

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
quote from Lionaid describing me:

"J. Lane Easter, DVM – Co-founder of LCTF. Lane Easter is a dedicated hunter and life member of the Dallas Safari Club."

They fail to point out that I am a veterinarian. Even though it is plainly stated in our letter.

quote:

Originally posted by Cross L:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
quote from Lionaid describing me:

"J. Lane Easter, DVM – Co-founder of LCTF. Lane Easter is a dedicated hunter and life member of the Dallas Safari Club."

They fail to point out that I am a veterinarian. Even though it is plainly stated in our letter.

Doesn't the "DVM" say it all?



or is that just the rancher in me talking?

quote:

Originally posted by David Hulme:
Good comment Aaron, I'd 'like' it if I hadn't been banned from lionaid

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Ferrall:
Gents and ladies,
With all due respect to the learned folk posting here, I have to say that a good many of you are tilting at windmills. My years as a grassroots volunteer with the NRA in California has taught me that facts mean nothing to politicians with an agenda. "Cartago delenda est!", is the correct attitude. The USFWS is headed by an Obama political appointee or a facsimile of same. There simply is no more time for research at this point. If you are not ready for, or in tune with the concept of, a bare-knuckeled, no-holds-barred fight with CITES COP, and the USFWS, then you still believe in Fantasy Island! If SCI wants to use the monies collected for lion to fight the more-or-less-inevitable uplisting, then more power to them. They have deeper pockets. It's time to block the divide and conquer strategy our foes are using on us so successfully, and join forces on all fronts--research, education, and litigation, and beat our opponents until they resemble what Capstick called, "furry guava jelly"!
Respectfully yours,
Tim

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Ferrall:
Lane,
Thanks for the kind words. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that President Reagan was able to downlist the leopard from endangered to threatened, with the result that American hunters could once again enjoy one of hunting's greatest experiences. Having said that, it is the only example I can think of. California is full of governmental betrayals, as I'm sure you know--the extermination of deer and elk from Santa Rosa Island, continuous attempts to remove watering devices from the Mohave Preserve, bans on hunting bears with dogs, or mountain lions at all, junk science to justify non-lead projectiles, changing the "Department of Fish and Game" to "Department of Fish and Wildlife", etc., etc., ad nauseum. I look forward to throwing punches alongside you and Aaron at our foes and applaud your support.
Tim