Daily Telegraph
May 15, 2007
THE elephant, the world's largest land mammal, is being threatened with global extinction by a "rampant trade" in ivory on the eBay online auction site, animal welfare campaigners said today.
International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) said it had conducted a survey in Britain, Australia, China, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Canada and the United States and tracked more than 2,200 elephant ivory items listed on eBay websites.
It found more than 90 per cent of the listings breached even eBay's own wildlife policies.
International wildlife trade laws differ from country to country and are often complex, but according to the IFAW in general it is illegal to sell carved or uncarved ivory unless it is antique and accompanied by a proof of age certificate.
The Fund says the only way to protect elephants from poachers is to shut down the markets where illegal ivory can easily be passed off as antique.
"As the world's largest online shop window, eBay has a special responsibility to lead the way by banning ivory from their sites," Robbie Marsland, IFAW's British director, said.
"Only a global ban on all ivory sales will remove the cover under which this criminal activity currently operates and as a result, seriously help to decrease illegal trade and the cruel and unnecessary slaughter of elephants."
Gareth Streeter, a spokesman for eBay in London, said in a statement the web site operated policies to "restrict the sale of ivory in accordance with existing UK and international law.
"We have had a number of positive and fruitful discussions with the IFAW about how we can work together to ensure that our policies are effectively enforced, and we are committed to working with them to tackle the problem of illegal ivory sales," he said.
Marsland urged eBay to ban all trade in ivory.
"Elephants are facing extinction, in part because of internet ivory trade. It is time for action," he said.
Article at the following link:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21733731-5001021,00.html

...That guy is an idiot,,.,He should go shake the trunk of a cow elephant ,, or better yet go and pat her calf on the head..

Have you guys read Ron Thomson`s book "A Game Wardens Report"? After reading his book it´s quite obvious that the animal activists are behind most of the decisions made by CITES, African governments mm ie they are regulating hunting/wildlife management on a non-scientific basis.

Why aren´t we hunters better organized? Why don´t we have our voices represented where the decisions are made?

I find it hard to believe that we have less econimical clout -or brains- than the animal activists do.

Are we lazy or just "politically correct"?

If the current trends are allowed to persist then we will have a problem with elephants becoming extinct -because they are destroying their habitat- and they´ll drag quite a few other species with them when the do.

Read Ron´s book and let´s see if we can get somewthing done to counter what the animal rights people are doing.

cewe,
I'm reading Ron's latest book "Managing our wildlife" which is a summary if you will of all his books. A Game Wardens report is next on my list.

I certainly agree that the Anti's voices are louder than ours at the moment. Very little hunting PR get's the worldwide coverage that these animal rightists achieve. We are always on the defensive as a result.......

Isn't this a prime job for SCI to do something about?

Saw it on Sky news this morning as well....... typical mis informed clap trap but unfortunately there are a lot of viewers out there that will believe it. Then they'll see the Kenya/Mali/Zimbabwe Elephant hunting thing and support that rubbish as well........ and probably both things were deliberately timed to be announced one after the other for maximum publicity....... which brings us back to hoping SCI will do something to combat the antis...... I don't know what percentage of SCI's income is derived from African hunting, but it must be considerable, esp at the conventions. It must be in their own interest to take steps to protect & defend their members future sport........ and their own future income.

Indeed! Sci and all other pro-hunting associations need to make their voices heard more clearly and loudly. SCI might be doing this in the US already??

Hi guys,

I don´t really think we can trust SCI and other hunting associations to do anything -they´ve known of the situation for a long time already and nobody has -to my knowledge- lifted a finger. Then again it´s we the members that should force our organisations into action.

I used to believe some of that crap from reading the National Geographic! There´s a mag that has plenty of animal rights moles in their infrastructure...

We on AR all have voices (and pretty loud ones too) why can´t we try to get some kind of petition going? The animal rights people do a lot of blackmailing etc in order to spread their agendas so why can´t we?

WE -the hunters- should be seen as the conservationists we are. OUR money is very important to a lot of African countries so why don´t WE wake up and make the world aknowledge that fact?

There are a lot of animal activist groups in the Cites...how many hunting associations have bothered to become members?

i thought WE who have to work for a living and dont have the time to be lobbyists paid SCI and others to be our voice.

One of the reasons I joined SCI a number of years back was to lobby for us/me. That still doesn't excuse me from voicving my own personal concerns when i see fit.

I do think that when lobbying comes from the hunting organizations like SCI that the listeners only see a few of them. When it coes to the anti's they see a plethora of them.

There is another very pro sporting group out there that hasn't gotten a lot of press as they have but one small banquet a year and work well behind the scenes. US Sportsmen's Alliance has been a very good watch dog in the US. Just over a year ago they began a fairly organized international hunting initiative, and CITIES is in their sights along with USFWS as groups that need to get religion.

Charity Navigator gives USSAA 4-stars. I give them cash. It's called an investment. If you are interested find them at www.ussportsmen.org

I would hope that all who feel SCI should be the voice of reason when dealing with these types of problems are members

The same thing can be said for the NRA.

of course the libs pretty much own the news media world wide, so until that changes it will be hard for any positive hunting coverage to get out.

Never criticize SCI unless you are a member.

Paid member at that!

Changing things is never easy, I think most of us take the lobbying bit for granted (I pay my dues for others to do it etc) when we shoulod seriously be pushing or respective organisations into action.

The animal rights groups have managed to obtain "charity status" which means that their funds aren´t taxed etc (right me if I´m wrong).

Why couldn´t a pro-hunting pro-conservation org have the same status?

how do we go about doing all this?

I support SCI and I believe they are the strongest force protecting hunting on the planet. I do not blame them for the ignorance that drives the anti-elephant hunting propoganda we all are dealing with. However to argue that individuals should not criticize SCI on the basis of whether they are paid members is a failure in debate. If these arguments are valid then we should never criticize felons until we pay for their ammunition plus thier deffense teams. Please come up with better points in your arguments it will reflect better on the organization you are deffending.

Is anyone on AR knowledgable about how to get a protest written and delivered to the right organisations? Would Saeed allow us to use the forum for promoting "conservation through utilisation"?

If we get togther as an organisation we could carry some weight and maybe sway some opnions before it´s too late.

I find it hard to figure that some members criticize SCI for doing nothing. That is pure hooey. SCI has been out there with amicus briefs, testimony, meetings with CITIES, et cetera. If folks would read the mag and the newspaer that SCI puts out, and get on their e-letter list they would know what SCI has been trying to do.

But, that is also the problem in the us versus them dilema. There are a whole lot of them's out there, and SCI happens to be one of the few us'es. Those "them" members just don't rely on their orgs to get their point across, they are prolific letter writers and phone callers. We "us" folks aren't nearly so vocal nor excercised in the pen department.

Me thinks it we throw stones, all too easily, when SCI, USSA and the PH orgs can't get our point across. Me also thinks that we would be much farther ahead if we wrote individually as well, and not just rely on "them" to do it. One organization gets one impression no matter the number of members. One letter or calll from one person gets the same impression.

Flood'em with mail. Flood'em with calls.
And, yes, i have a full-time job. We can all still find the time.

quote:

I find it hard to figure that some members criticize SCI for doing nothing. That is pure hooey. SCI has been out there with amicus briefs, testimony, meetings with CITIES, et cetera. If folks would read the mag and the newspaer that SCI puts out, and get on their e-letter list they would know what SCI has been trying to do.

Well said nkonka! How many hunters are in the world? How many just in Europe, Africa and the US? If we had 1/4th of them in SCI, NONE of the crap would be an issue. With a membership of somewhere around 2 million NRA members, we are the most feared lobby in Washington (by the gun grabbing liberals). Politics aside, SCI works worldwide to protect our hunting rights. If everyone of us brought 1 new member into SCI our ranks would double instantly. I've brought 3 into our fold in the last month and will continue to spread the word. I think that's a better use of my time and efforts than complaining. Help yourself: help our love of hunting! Join SCI!!! Hell, the magazine alone is worth it. Just my 2 cents worth. LDK

quote:

Originally posted by D99:
Never criticize SCI unless you are a member.

Never criticize SCI Handgun Control International, PETA, ASPCA, Humane Society, etc. unless you are a member.

I am always amazed at the criticisms leveled at SCI by people who are not members. It seems similar to those who criticize the government and then don't vote.

Hot Air.

If those of you who are members had bothered to read the email alerts, and the Safari Times you would know what SCI is doing in regards to CITES and other issues.

If you are a member and don't read about these sources than you should.

If 1/4 of the people in the World who hunt outside their own Country joined SCI than there would be millions of members instead of thousands.

Unfortunately talk is cheap and so are most hunters who don't belong to SCI.

When did this thread turn into a "SCI mudslinging" bash?

It was never my point to badmouth SCI it´s just that we the members (of whatever organisation) need to be more active in the process of pushing for lobbying. The NRA example is a good one -they carry a lot of weight politically.

My thought is that we could see ourselves as members of an "AR association" and do a bit of petitioning ourselves.

Cewe,

It really wouldn't take all that much. If no cash changes hands then no official paperwork needs to be established. A number of the anti orgs are literally a bunch of like-minded people who come up with a letterhead, a name to put in the sig block as president or some such, and they become automatically recognized.

True, a paid member, as a lobbyist makes a much bigger impact, but, again, it is the number of letters and calls they (CITIES, USFWS, et cetera) get that makes the most impact.

So... all of us should write and or call ourselves, and if we get the blessing of Saeed, then maybe a bunch of us could form a linked group. I would suggest a different name than AR. Sorry, as much as I enjoy being a member here, that name, AR, will cause some at CITIES et al to just think we are a bunch of blasters only interested in dead animals, rather than the true conservationists we are.

As an example, look at Humane Society of The United States-- vehemently anti-hunting. They chose that name to confuse and befuddle, and to get granny to donate her pension to save the poor little kitties. Funny thing, HSUS doesn't own nor do they operate a single shelter.

nkonka: You have very good point there. We could call us "Friends of rational conservation" (sounds a bit stuffy) and get a petition rolling.

Are you out there Saeed? What are your thoughts on this?

the reply posted by gator is exactly what I am talking about. I support SCI. But I am getting tired of this click speaking diarea that if you don't belong to SCI you are "cheap". This segregation amongst hunters is why SCI isn't as strong as it could be. Maybe other hunters do want to be affiliated with SCI and thier positive force but don't want to join because they would be grouped with Gator.

I see no bickering if we stop now..... The anti's have enough sense to spend their time trying to dismantle everything ALL OF US on AR love and enjoy. No guns, no hunting, no fishing...nothing left to do, but be a spineless, couch potato blow monkey. If you don't know what a blow monkey is, don't ask me. It might offend someone and here we go again. Whether your a member of this or that, your here and a member of AR. I take that as a good thing personally. You can write, email or call your Senator, Congressman, CITES, USF&W, USDA etc. Our International brothers & sisters can do likewise. There shouldn't be another poke at anyone. This thread is a serious threat...let's take it at face value and find constructive things to fight it. Good hunting, God bless each of you and have a nice day!

I couldn't agree more Mr. Kieth.
Good hunting, and good luck

quote:

Originally posted by smarterthanu:
the reply posted by gator is exactly what I am talking about. I support SCI. But I am getting tired of this click speaking diarea that if you don't belong to SCI you are "cheap". This segregation amongst hunters is why SCI isn't as strong as it could be. Maybe other hunters do want to be affiliated with SCI and thier positive force but don't want to join because they would be grouped with Gator.

smarterthanu (always nice to meet someone who thinks highly of themself)

My only point is that you can contribute or you can ride on the coatails of those that do. If you choose to ride on the coatails than you have no right to complain about the speed.

Mr Keith: Wise words, I salute you.

So how do we proceed? Since we are quite an international group I guess it would be best to send something to CITES and/or Southern African Governments.

Remember that when we hunt we leave a lot of money in our host country -we help to employ tens of thousands of people so "they" should stand to attention when we complain.

I´ve seen web petitions from different groups in Finland but I don´t know how it´s done technically.

Any one have a better idea?

First of all, I'm a bit confused with the intention that's being discussed here.

Is the intention to complain/push the various pro-hunting associations to lobby more at Gov to resist the Anti's pressure?

IMO, the hunting fraternity needs to "reach out" more to the common person who knows nothing about Conservation and "educate" them on the meaning of the word. We should NOT focus on justifying why we hunt rather educate most everyone on the true meanings of conservation and wildlife management.

Lobby Gov to include such teachings in school curriculums, same as religion.

I can't immagine a rationale person with even basic common sense not accepting the basic principles of wildlife management if they read Ron Thompson's book "managing our wildlife heritage".

quote:

Originally posted by cewe:


Why aren´t we hunters better organized? Why don´t we have our voices represented where the decisions are made?

I find it hard to believe that we have less econimical clout -or brains- than the animal activists do.

Are we lazy or just "politically correct"?

No, but we are usually very busy fighting amongst ourselves over what type of hunting is moral and ethical. So busy, in fact, that we have little time left to fight those who believe that no method of hunting is moral and ethical.

Perhaps there is an easier way!

The IUCN was formed in 1948 by the United Nations to supervise man's sustainable use of the earth's Natural resources both domesticated and wild. The IUCN boasts that it is the largest, most represented and most experienced alliance of wild natural resource management authorities, environmental agencies and history interest groups in the world. The IUCN in partnership with WWF and UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) published its mission statement which is called the Wildlife Conservation Strategy (WCS).

The 3 objectives of the WCS are;
1- To maintain essential ecological processes and life support systems on wehich human survival depends.
2- To preserve genetic diversity, and
3- TO ENSURE THE SUSTAINABLE UTILISATION OF SPECIES AND ECOSYSTEMS

The majority of responsible sovereign states are members of IUCN and have signed their agreement to the above points of the WCS. The IUCN has extended its membership application to any wildlife NGO that wants to become a member. However, a key condition of membership acceptance is that the applicant endorses the WCS. This means that any animal welfare or rights organisation that wants to be a member of IUCN has to accept points 1, 2 and, particularly, point 3 of the WCS. This has effectively kept out all of the worst animal rightists groups from being able to participate in the IUCN decision making processesa and future reviews of the WCS . This is important as other world organisations such as CITES and WWF have numerous animal rightist groups as members in different ways.

My suggestion is the following:
If we take the example of SCI and NRA in the US (as they are the most recognised pro-hunting organisations with the most membership world wide). If these 2 organisations could lobby their respective Gov to change the laws of their country to include, as a pre-condition to the registration of any wildlife NGO, organisation, group, etc within the USA, the fact that they need to endorse ALL 3 points of the WCS (or be forced to become members of the IUCN), we would illiminate in very short order all lawful statuses of the majority of animal welfarist and rightist groups in the US. These animal rightist groups would refuse to endorse point 3 of the WCS because it is completely opposite to their main belief!

After all, the IUCN is the worlds' main recognised body for matters pertaining to the earth's natural resources, so by default any group/ngo/etc that wishes to be a part of preserving, conserving the earths' natural resources should in one way or another embrace the same message.

Just a thought.

bwana: The WSC has been accepted my most countries but a change was made at some point that makes it´s meaning less clear -it´s all in Ron´s book and I don´t have it with me at the moment or I´d check.

With the risk of sounding paranoid -the greenies are a few steps ahead of us on a lot of things.

The point about hunters bickering amongst themselves is also valid and -sorry to say- true. This fact has been noticed and used by the animal rightists-greenies.

Educating the public is very important, according to one survey 80% of the population don´t have a view on wildlife/hunting/conservation issues! If these people where given a chance to get real info, and not just media hype, then that would go along way when this sort of thing gets to the ballot.

I think most of us have the same thoughts on most of these issues, we just need to get are voices heard.

I heard some wise words when visiting an animal rehab center close to Kruger (I think the name of the place was Maholoholo): Conservation is done with the brain and not with the heart.

according to Ron: "The revised WCS was published in 1991. It was renaimed "Caring for the Earth - A strategy for sustainable living". In the new document the wording was changed but the principles remained the same".

bwana: Thanks for checking that. This then means that we already have the legislature we just need to see it used where and when it´s needed.

I´d never heard about this document before reading Ron´s book -which is scary. How many of us had any idea that such a document even existed?

Now to get really paranoid: Why haven´t we heard about the WCS?

All wildlife organisations and pro hunting groups - such as SCI - leaders should read this book; Managing our Wildlife Heritage by Ron Thomson. Its a pocket size book of just 116 pages (one afternoons' reading) but is such an eye-opener

In fact, National policy makers should also read this book

Disclaimer: I am not pimping Ron's book and i gain no financial benefit from the sales of his book whatsover.

Guys, being that this issue concerns hunting on a worldwide scale, maybe we should contact SCI and inquire about what to do in a constructive and beneficial way. I'm going to make a call and ask to speak to someone in this department. If I can get any solid advice I will post it on this thread. Surely they will know what we can do as a group to let our voices be heard. I will keep you posted. Good hunting, David

By the way gator the name is a joke between me and another buddy on the forum. And People disagreeing with SCI has zero relation to riding coattails. It would do us all good to listen to complaints and not worry about who is in your little click. If you want to disagree with PETA I don't think you should have to pay thier membership dues either. If you have allready joined PETA then all this would make much more sense to me.

L.D.Keith, I hope you can dig up some way for us to proceed while we have some momentum.

Bwana, I´m also pushing Ron´s book as I feel that more hunters -and people in general- should be aware of whats happening right under our noses.

smarterthanu: I totally agree that one always has the freedom of speech -I think that´s the first amendment?

Guys: I called SCI and was directed to the Washington DC office. I have left voice mail and hope to hear back from them soon. If not, I promise to post their phone numbers, and one of them is toll free