They all just keep tightening the noose! Our children will NEVER have the opportunity to enjoy or experience half of the things that we have.

The prick who banned imports of elephant parts was pressured by the fringe, no factual grounds were considered, it was purely emotive rubbish.
The data used to stop lion parts was bent like a frigging banana and was heavily underpinned by the canned lion crap in South Africa, once again all emotive rubbish.
This pandering, uneducated, political correctness just makes the blood boil.
Stu

quote:

Originally posted by stuey:
The prick who banned imports of elephant parts was pressured by the fringe, no factual grounds were considered, it was purely emotive rubbish.
The data used to stop lion parts was bent like a frigging banana and was heavily underpinned by the canned lion crap in South Africa, once again all emotive rubbish.
This pandering, uneducated, political correctness just makes the blood boil.
Stu

This Government needs to be informed that they are strangling indigenous communities and promoting desertification. To enforce trade restrictions on Africa is unacceptable.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by stuey:
The prick who banned imports of elephant parts was pressured by the fringe, no factual grounds were considered, it was purely emotive rubbish.
The data used to stop lion parts was bent like a frigging banana and was heavily underpinned by the canned lion crap in South Africa, once again all emotive rubbish.
This pandering, uneducated, political correctness just makes the blood boil.
Stu

This Government needs to be informed that they are strangling indigenous communities and promoting desertification. To enforce trade restrictions on Africa is unacceptable.

100% The paternalism is palpable. And we need to stop talking about hunting, and start telling stories about people, the ecosystem, and animals. With hunting being the focus, we are easily dismissed as selfish brutes. But when you can show the total picture, how complicated the problem is, and how even more complicated an answer is, you start to get people thinking. A few years ago I did a small presentation for a class at UW regarding elephant hunting - did an interview with our friend here Bcolyer. That 15 minute presentation turned into a further hour regarding the elephant situation in Zimbabwe. The class was engaged, asked great questions, and were really surprised at how little they knew about what was going on in country. On the fly, I drew heavily from Buzz's DAPU site, showing them what it looks like on the ground to protect elephant habitat, the pressures of poaching (none had ever heard the term "bushmeat") and human encroachment, and how hunting plays a positive part in the whole question.

You would have been very surprised to hear the reactions of people after an hour of facts and pictures. After the class, many people came up to me and expressed their thanks in showing a side of the problem they had never heard about, how it changed their perceptions of the whole problem, and most importantly, how, even though they personally did not like hunting, they saw the value in allowing a few elephant to be killed to help prevent the indiscriminate slaughter of elephant en masse. Many people came into the presentation with the idea that the rich hunters just roll in, rape and pillage, and leave. This is not an uncommon perception.

We have a great story to tell (and I'm not even an elephant hunter), and I have seen first-hand how a fact-based and compelling (not sappy or disingenuous) presentation can plant a seed in people's mind about how much they know about a subject, and what they think is an answer to a very difficult question.

Did I read this right, is Australia asking other CITES members to be aware of Australia’s own goofy law and not follow their own country’s laws and refuse to grant a CITES export permit because Australia (not CITES) feels they know what an animal should really be classified as?

I could understand them not allowing it to go through as a consequence of their law, but isn’t that Australian custom’s issue, not the exporting nation’s?

Chuck,

That's how I read it.

Mark