quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Can you show me a published statement on lion off-take by SCI???

Didn't your mother ever tell you not to answer a question with a question?

I don't think SCI was/is required to publish their submission... Especially not at this critical time.

You are right Matt. SCI has no lion conservation policy.

The "critical time" is the reason to have it...not something to hide behind.

Dam...do you think "the time" is going to get 'less critical' in the future???

Are they meant to be lobbying the USFWS or the general public with this?

So on the flip side of you blaming SCI for uplisting - by them not supporting you.... If there is an announcement that there will be no uplisting, will you give some credit to SCI? Or will you claim all the credit for yourself?

Damn, I thought this horse had died.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Are they meant to be lobbying the USFWS or the general public with this?

So on the flip side of you blaming SCI for uplisting - by them not supporting you.... If there is an announcement that there will be no uplisting, will you give some credit to SCI? Or will you claim all the credit for yourself?

Matt,
Certainly if there is no uplisting...that is a good thing and I am looking for no credit what-so-ever. I just want to be able to take my 5 year old hunting in Africa in about 13 years. That will be my reward.

Let's just wait and see how it turns out and take this conversation up again then.

Let me give you guys a little personal experience about "litigating" after the fact with USFWS.

In April 2008, I harvested a properly permitted Polar Bear. A few days later it was uplisted.

My permit check was returned by USFWS. Import was refused. A group of us have been trying to litigate or legislate being able to bring our capes into the US. No go so far.

That has been 6 years. A million dollars to litigate? That is a joke. SCI will burn through that in 2 years if the Lion is uplisted.

Litigate after the fact?

Rotsa Ruck.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Let me give you guys a little personal experience about "litigating" after the fact with USFWS.

In April 2008, I harvested a properly permitted Polar Bear. A few days later it was uplisted.

My permit check was returned by USFWS. Import was refused. A group of us have been trying to litigate or legislate being able to bring our capes into the US. No go so far.

That has been 6 years. A million dollars to litigate? That is a joke. SCI will burn through that in 2 years if the Lion is uplisted.

Litigate after the fact?

Rotsa Ruck.

Jeff

Exactly Jeff!!! You are 1000% correct!

Only winners there are a few lawyers. One should take note of those who are "really involved in this" who are lawyers and perpetuate their livelihoods with the litigation.

The war is won or lost with prevention. Litigation is just an expensive wish.

This polar bear situation was the reason the LCTF was formed originally...to prevent the same debacle...now we wait.

Matt - You can play word games with Lane all you want, and dodge the real issue all you want too, that's up to you. The fact is this - SCI is considered by the USFWS to be the biggest/most powerful leader in the hunting/conservation movement, period!!! USFWS, and many others - looked at SCI to take the lead in setting a standard for conservation minded lion hunting. Instead, they FAILED miserably!! They failed the lion, and they failed the entire hunting community as a whole, period!!

Would I go so far as to say its all SCI's fault if the lion is up-listed - probably not. But without question, I think had they taken the lead and put forth some sort of conservation message/guideline as it pertained to reformed lion hunting, we would all be having a totally different conversation right now. Likely we all would be praising SCI for being the single biggest reason that the LION would most likely NOT be up-listed. I say this because unlike you and most everyone here with an opinion - the LCTF was directly told this info via the USFWS. What part of that are you SCI flag wavers NOT COMPREHENDING?? ITS JUST MORE READING COMPREHENSION - NOTHING MORE.

Again, I thought this Nelson/SCI guy was gonna get us all a lot of this info??? What happened to that???

So now you are saying that SCI plans to use the money raised,in litigation hould the up listing come to pass - correct? Well, that's just dandy my friend! Rather than being pro-active in the beginning, let's be re-active in the end. Cause we all know what a quick/easy and cheap process it is to change law/policy in court - with these wildlife issues once a decision is made. (ie, the polar bear) No doubt the lion has years to wait on this most unlikely process. Sounds like a ton of brain power was put to use on this decision to me???

Secondly, that seems awfully odd to me - especially when they were told that they could likely be the single biggest reason the up-listing would not come to pass, should they step forward with a lion hunting/conservation message of some sort. But they failed to do so? Nothing, notta, zip, zilch!!! Just crickets!!!!

Instead now, the $1million will conveniently stay within the SCI coffers - no doubt paying SCI full-time employed attorneys is my guess. Hmmm, and some folks wonder why others are questioning the whole process? Ya, go figure!

quote:

So on the flip side of you blaming SCI for uplisting - by them not supporting you.... If there is an announcement that there will be no uplisting, will you give some credit to SCI? Or will you claim all the credit for yourself?

Matt, I really don't have a dog in this fight as I have no plans to ever hunt a lion.
But from what I've read SCI is only preparing for an after the lion is uplisted fight, not a preventative fight.
IF that is the case, then NO, Sci should receive absolutely no credit if an uplisting does not take effect.
That's like giving a doctor credit for healing a patient that he did not see!

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
Damn, I thought this horse had died.

Nope, its alive and well. Don't forget Lane is a horse doctor.

quote:

no doubt paying SCI full-time employed attorneys is my guess. Hmmm, and some folks wonder why others are questioning the whole process?

Don't tell me that the 10% game is also played by such characters of untarnished repute and of good upstanding, surely not?

Jeez I thought it was only in Africa - guess I was wrong again.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

Again, I thought this Nelson/SCI guy was gonna get us all a lot of this info??? What happened to that???

Did you meet with anyone from SCIF at the convention? Their booth was about 40 feet from yours.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

So now you are saying that SCI plans to use the money raised,in litigation hould the up listing come to pass - correct? Well, that's just dandy my friend! Rather than being pro-active in the beginning, let's be re-active in the end.

NO, I did not say that at all. I said that I read at the convention that it would be used to fight the uplisting... ie. before it takes place. That is how I read it. It did not mention legal action.

Others have simply extrapolated from what I wrote ... just as you have done in your last paragraphs.

Is it written somewhere about USFWS expecting SCI to take the lead on this? Or was that in private correspondence?

quote:

Originally posted by bwana cecil:

quote:

So on the flip side of you blaming SCI for uplisting - by them not supporting you.... If there is an announcement that there will be no uplisting, will you give some credit to SCI? Or will you claim all the credit for yourself?

Matt, I really don't have a dog in this fight as I have no plans to ever hunt a lion.
But from what I've read SCI is only preparing for an after the lion is uplisted fight, not a preventative fight.
IF that is the case, then NO, Sci should receive absolutely no credit if an uplisting does not take effect.
That's like giving a doctor credit for healing a patient that he did not see!

Where did you read that?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by bwana cecil:

quote:

So on the flip side of you blaming SCI for uplisting - by them not supporting you.... If there is an announcement that there will be no uplisting, will you give some credit to SCI? Or will you claim all the credit for yourself?

Matt, I really don't have a dog in this fight as I have no plans to ever hunt a lion.
But from what I've read SCI is only preparing for an after the lion is uplisted fight, not a preventative fight.
IF that is the case, then NO, Sci should receive absolutely no credit if an uplisting does not take effect.
That's like giving a doctor credit for healing a patient that he did not see!

Where did you read that?

After reading and running in circles, just who can tell us how the money will be spent.

Reactively?

Proactively?

These are very simple questions.

FWIW, Polar Bear will NEVER reopen to US import.

Once Lion goes it's gone. Never coming back. EVER.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by bwana cecil:

quote:

So on the flip side of you blaming SCI for uplisting - by them not supporting you.... If there is an announcement that there will be no uplisting, will you give some credit to SCI? Or will you claim all the credit for yourself?

Matt, I really don't have a dog in this fight as I have no plans to ever hunt a lion.
But from what I've read SCI is only preparing for an after the lion is uplisted fight, not a preventative fight.
IF that is the case, then NO, Sci should receive absolutely no credit if an uplisting does not take effect.
That's like giving a doctor credit for healing a patient that he did not see!

Where did you read that?

After reading and running in circles, just who can tell us how the money will be spent.

Reactively?

Proactively?

These are very simple questions.

FWIW, Polar Bear will NEVER reopen to US import.

Once Lion goes it's gone. Never coming back. EVER.

Jeff

I can only pass on what I have found. SCIF reps are the people to ask for specifics.

Polar bear will never open again? Maybe not.... I guess they said they same thing about black rhino?

Matt - Again bro, your kind of avoiding the facts as some of us know them. Of course USFWS did not state in writing that they were very disappointed with SCI's lack of attention to the matter, why would they do that?? But they did in fact voice their concern to those who are in the mix, that it was very troubling to them that the hunting/conservation leader was not willing to take any sort of position in the matter. Thus they became very skeptical as to SCI's real intentions, and questioned their conservation message so often touted from the mountain tops.

But let me just be simple - and I'll move on.

IF, that is IF - the lion is up-listed. Lane, myself, numerous AR members (who lent support) DSC, most of the scientific community, and roughly 100 African Outfitters, Agents and PH's can all look everyone in the eye and say - "we tried, we really tried". We took a pro-active position, we put forth effort, rallied the troops, instigated some formal change, and did everything possible to stop the up-listing within our best ability/knowledge at the time.

Now, on the other hand - what can SCI say when asked by the hunting/conservation/scientific community what they did to try to prevent the up-listing of Africa's King? Ummm, how about a big, fat, resounding, JACK SH*T!!!!!! Need I really say more?????

I'll move on now.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

Now, on the other hand - what can SCI say when asked by the hunting/conservation/scientific community what they did to try to prevent the up-listing of Africa's King?

"we raised $1 mil….wanna see it?"

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

Now, on the other hand - what can SCI say when asked by the hunting/conservation/scientific community what they did to try to prevent the up-listing of Africa's King?

"we raised $1 mil….wanna see it?"

"We raised $1 mil... No one is allowed to see it or where it went"

This looks like the SCI submission here... at the links Nelson Freeman provided last month.

http://www.fightingforlions.or.../FWSpresentation.pdf

Not sure if this has been discussed before?

There were also the letters mentioned several times, put together by SCI - these reverse petitions that were singed by the PH assoc's and very many African govts - petitioning SCI not to uplist.

There was quite a bit of info on the Lions website... http://www.fightingforlions.org/ I guess SCIF sees this as important enough to give it its own website. Have a look around.

Still looking for specifics on how the $1M is being spent to prevent the uplisting. I doubt it will be very clear if most of it is paying lobbyists, lawyers and media people - at the end of the day it is about the result.

Lots of interesting stuff there...

Support for Paula White's study...
http://www.fightingforlions.or...d-aging-research.cfm

I guess 'everyone' will benefit from that down the track...

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

You are right Matt. SCI has no lion conservation policy.

The "critical time" is the reason to have it...not something to hide behind.

Dam...do you think "the time" is going to get 'less critical' in the future???

So I take it that you didnt bother to read the links that Nelson Freeman provided you with last month?

Lane and Aaron,

I agree that not calling back was impolite.

I agree that making a non binding position statement really wouldn't cost SCI anything, and was silly of them not to make it, even if they insisted on doing it themselves instead of through LCTF/DSC it would have been good.

I certainly believe that SCI also gave position papers and statements to USFW that refute any need for uplisting.

But on the other hand, I also really doubt that it would have made a difference if they did or did not make a public policy statement. This is a fight between the elements of USFW that want to use a solid scientific basis for wildlife policy decisions vs. the for lack of a better term, "political class" people. If the scientists win, no change for the reasons that you and SCI related to USFW. If the political types win, we will have an uplisting.

I think a partial uplisting is in the teal leaves. That is bad because it means that USFW has been contaminated by people making decisions on a political basis; but then we already knew that.

I believe that Dr. Easter made this point before as far as who was doing the fighting. I don't believe that you can trust whoever it was that made the statement to have delivered on that promise, but I agree it would not have cost anyone at SCI anything to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

I agree that making a non binding position statement really wouldn't cost SCI anything, and was silly of them not to make it, even if they insisted on doing it themselves instead of through LCTF/DSC it would have been good.

I certainly believe that SCI also gave position papers and statements to USFW that refute any need for uplisting.

So ... did they make position papers/statements or not?

It sure looks like they did from what I posted above.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Lane and Aaron,

I agree that not calling back was impolite.

I agree that making a non binding position statement really wouldn't cost SCI anything, and was silly of them not to make it, even if they insisted on doing it themselves instead of through LCTF/DSC it would have been good.

I certainly believe that SCI also gave position papers and statements to USFW that refute any need for uplisting.

But on the other hand, I also really doubt that it would have made a difference if they did or did not make a public policy statement. This is a fight between the elements of USFW that want to use a solid scientific basis for wildlife policy decisions vs. the for lack of a better term, "political class" people. If the scientists win, no change for the reasons that you and SCI related to USFW. If the political types win, we will have an uplisting.

I think a partial uplisting is in the teal leaves. That is bad because it means that USFW has been contaminated by people making decisions on a political basis; but then we already knew that.

I believe that Dr. Easter made this point before as far as who was doing the fighting. I don't believe that you can trust whoever it was that made the statement to have delivered on that promise, but I agree it would not have cost anyone at SCI anything to do so.

Dr. Butler,

I basically agree with most of what you said with this small caveat.

I do think making the statement would have made a huge difference.

Why???

Because then the 2 largest hunting orgs were on record of agreeing in principle with the leading lion groups of the world on what a harvestable male lion was.

Then the scientific side of USF&W could use that to show the political side that there was no basis. IE: HSUS & Born Free both point to science from the authors of the "Definition of a Hunatble Male Lion". So...the political side of USF&W could then go to its base (which right now the political base for USF&W is far left) and say look...your scientists are in support of continuing hunting as long as it adhere's to these guidelines and now (if SCI had of signed on) the major hunting orgs have joined the scientists.

See...it gave them a political out. That is what they needed.

I believe it would have ensured a threatened status worst case scenario and might have gotten a total dismisal of the petition.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

I agree that making a non binding position statement really wouldn't cost SCI anything, and was silly of them not to make it, even if they insisted on doing it themselves instead of through LCTF/DSC it would have been good.

I certainly believe that SCI also gave position papers and statements to USFW that refute any need for uplisting.

So ... did they make position papers/statements or not?

It sure looks like they did from what I posted above.

No Matt they DID NOT. That is just a response to the uplist...that states the same old tired rhetoric.

What USF&W want was a statement showing that hunters were acknowledging the the current recommendations on lion off-take...something along these lines.

Read our (Aaron, I, & LCTF) response on this page.

They wanted to see SCI acknowledging the need for change.

Matt,

Does it bother you that you and Larry Sellers can come up with no better information than the rest of us?

I wish someone could and the answers were all fabulous.

Certainly someone is trolling and not commenting that could help clarify matters.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

I agree that making a non binding position statement really wouldn't cost SCI anything, and was silly of them not to make it, even if they insisted on doing it themselves instead of through LCTF/DSC it would have been good.

I certainly believe that SCI also gave position papers and statements to USFW that refute any need for uplisting.

So ... did they make position papers/statements or not?

It sure looks like they did from what I posted above.

No Matt they DID NOT. That is just a response to the uplist...that states the same old tired rhetoric.

What USF&W want was a statement showing that hunters were acknowledging the the current recommendations on lion off-take...something along these lines.

What other statements (conservation statements) etc, did you turn-in to USFWS, in relation to the proposed uplisting?

OK, sorry I see the link to the letter now.

I can understand why SCI would not sign-on to that. It is simply pushing this 'huntable male lion' thing, nothing more. It is incomplete.

Perhaps they dont agree with the 'definition' as it is written either? I dont know? I am only guessing but it would seem that may be the case.

SCI has gone its own way in handling this issue... what is the problem with that?

Matt,

I don't really mean this disrespectfully, and maybe it's because you are not from this country, but really sir you know very little about what is going on with the lion in regards to the potential uplist of the lion to the endangered species list via the Endangered Species Act.

Both Aaron and I have a very good grasp of the situation.

The majority of the outfitters and PH's that exhibit at DSC convention endorsed that def along with DSC itself.

So either they are all wrong or you you and SCI are wrong.

Until proven otherwise...I believe SCI screwed the proverbial pooch.

And more than anything else...I am tired of listening to your rhetoric. In 5 pages you really have not said a dam thing.

Lane,

Just like the reform SCI thread, this has also been a waste of time.

Somebody of knowledge has read all this shit and could have provided helpful and informative information.

That is how you build coalition and consensus as well as mutual respect.

As in the reform thread, good information could have been provided with specifics about what SCI is doing about the African Lion.

It's not going to happen unfortunately. A lot of us would have felt a lot better about being members.

As for myself I will metaphorically walk away shaking my head and chalk this up as another lost opportunity by SCI to bolster it's position with the rank and file membership.

Jeff

You claim they havent made statements; I show you were they have but you ignore it.

You claim they wont sign onto your documents - I offer to give you reasons why but you ignore that.

I have made other suggestions and asked questions that you have just ignored.

I dont know three-fifths of fuckall about lions - but this subject could equally be about any hunted animal. I am not arguing your science. This is about preventing a political action - I do know a bit about that - and I do have an interest in ww animal conservation, hence my interest in this.

I can see you looking down your nose at me now - why?

Let me ask you another question - I understand that all those outfitters signed on to your Huntable Male Lion thing... did they also sign on to your USFWS representation letter dated Feb 8th 2013?

ledvm - Not taking sides with anyone or anything on this issue. I think everyone knows what you and Aaron are doing. I think everyone at DSC knows what you and Aaron are doing. It's good that DSC is on board with YOUR way of seeing things.

However, I don't think ANYONE knows what SCI is/has been doing in this issue. I am sure they are doing a lot and what THEY see as best, but not necessarily what YOU, ME , AARON have in mind. I don't think it's too much to ask to wait and find out the details of their efforts when they feel it best to disclose. As someone else mentioned, it's quite possible the details are best not published for ALL to see at this particular moment? And really we here at AR are but a droplet of rain in the ocean when it comes to the big picture.

I for one will wait for the facts to be fully disclosed on what it is SCI is doing/not doing before passing any sort of judgment on their efforts.

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

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
You claim they havent made statements; I show you were they have but you ignore it.

You have not shown a GD thing sir!

You claim they wont sign onto your documents - I offer to give you reasons why but you ignore that.

Bla bla bla, yadi, yadi, yada

I have made other suggestions and asked questions that you have just ignored.

I have ignored nothing as you have said: NOTHING!!!

I dont know three-fifths of fuckall

That you got right.

about lions - but this subject could equally be about any hunted animal. I am not arguing your science.

This is about preventing a political action - I do know a bit about that

You haven't a clue about US politics and it is blatantly obvious.

I sir have lobbied in DC in similar circumstances. I really do know about USA politics.

- and I do have an interest in ww animal conservation, hence my interest in this.

I can see you looking down your nose at me now - why?

Let me ask you another question - I understand that all those outfitters signed on to your Huntable Male Lion thing... did they also sign on to your USFWS representation letter dated Feb 8th 2013?

Aaron is a licensed TZ PH and 2 anonymous authors were also TZ PH's/outfitters. We did not ask anyone else to sign. We got huge support for submitting. Look at the New TZ rules and what we wrote!

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
ledvm - Not taking sides with anyone or anything on this issue. I think everyone knows what you and Aaron are doing. I think everyone at DSC knows what you and Aaron are doing. It's good that DSC is on board with YOUR way of seeing things.

However, I don't think ANYONE knows what SCI is/has been doing in this issue. I am sure they are doing a lot and what THEY see as best, but not necessarily what YOU, ME , AARON have in mind. I don't think it's too much to ask to wait and find out the details of their efforts when they feel it best to disclose. As someone else mentioned, it's quite possible the details are best not published for ALL to see at this particular moment? And really we here at AR are but a droplet of rain in the ocean when it comes to the big picture.

I for one will wait for the facts to be fully disclosed on what it is SCI is doing/not doing before passing any sort of judgment on their efforts.

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

Larry,
I agree...we wait and see. Matt won't drop it though. He just keeps on with the same tired old rhetoric. I have read all he posted months ago.

I...through my sources DO keep up with what is happening between USF&W & SCI.

But...again...I agree we wait. Mainly because that is all we can do NOW. Maybe it will turn out the right way.

ledvm - I think we are all on the same side but with slight bits of differences here an there. Can't/won't speak for Matt but it seems what he is saying is also to see what it is that SCI is up to before laying blame at their doorstep just yet. Not you, but others here are quick to blame SCI without any facts, figures, for just about any and everything. I think you and Aaron have done a lot of good, and can see where you might think SCI has ignored you, but I am sure your voices were heard and will be considered in the bigger scope of things. The ball is really out of our court at the moment so best to take a deep breath and wait until it comes back to our side. JMHO.

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

I am very sure, certain that SCI's voice has been heard in Washington on this issue.... it just didnt happen in the way Lane and Co. wanted it to happen - ie. under their banner.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
I am very sure, certain that SCI's voice has been heard in Washington on this issue.... it just didnt happen in the way Lane and Co. wanted it to happen - ie. under their banner.

Matt, Larry,

These answers are non-answers.

I am not as trusting to assume that SCI's "voice" has been heard.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
I am very sure, certain that SCI's voice has been heard in Washington on this issue.... it just didnt happen in the way Lane and Co. wanted it to happen - ie. under their banner.

I am not as trusting to assume that SCI's "voice" has been heard.

Jeff

But Lane insists that it would be heard. USFWS was (allegedly) begging them for a submission - how could they not be heard?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
I am very sure, certain that SCI's voice has been heard in Washington on this issue.... it just didnt happen in the way Lane and Co. wanted it to happen - ie. under their banner.

I am not as trusting to assume that SCI's "voice" has been heard.

Jeff

But Lane insists that it would be heard. USFWS was (allegedly) begging them for a submission - how could they not be heard?

Question with a question. Once again a non-answer. As with the Reform SCI thread, I am done here.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
I am very sure, certain that SCI's voice has been heard in Washington on this issue.... it just didnt happen in the way Lane and Co. wanted it to happen - ie. under their banner.

I am not as trusting to assume that SCI's "voice" has been heard.

Jeff

But Lane insists that it would be heard. USFWS was (allegedly) begging them for a submission - how could they not be heard?

Question with a question. Once again a non-answer. As with the Reform SCI thread, I am done here.

Jeff

You didnt ask me a question!!!!!!