quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

ane USF&WS was always going to do what it wanted to do and they had the audacity to sidestep CITIES and other regulatory bodies.

Maybe so Andrew...but there was a time that USF&WS wanted to liaise with hunters through SCI and DSC. They gave the LCTF a chance show there was reciprocity with DSC (which there was) and SCI (which there was not).

What the LCTF asked DSC and SCI to do was endorse a good conservation practice. So when SCI turned down the chance to endorse good conservation and form a partnership bringing the worlds leading lion scientists together with the hunting community...USF&WS moved on.

And that my friend is exactly how it happened.

Lane,

do we have a quote or anything written from Ashe along these lines? That way we could all be done with SCI once and for all.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

. . . it is simply a knee jerk reaction to the Cecil nonsense.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

. . . it is simply a knee jerk reaction to the Cecil nonsense.

I would describe it differently. I think this was something USFWS had in the works and wanted to do for some time . . . Palmer gave them the pretense for doing it now.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
Without being disrespectful no one was going to stop USFWS from implementing these policies and it is simply a knee jerk reaction to the Cecil nonsense.

There are those in Tanzania who adopted an ageing system and restrictions long before LCTF came along and their work has not been recognised and they are now in the same boat.

As for Mr Packer he needs to make up his mind whether he is for or against hunting? His history is one of conflicting arguments and quotations.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

. . . it is simply a knee jerk reaction to the Cecil nonsense.

I would describe it differently. I think this was something USFWS had in the works and wanted to do for some time . . . Palmer gave them the pretense for doing it now.

quote:

USFWS was trying to use Palmer as a convenient cover story/excuse for the action

quote:

All we needed was SCI to join at that time and the deal was sealed.

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:

quote:

All we needed was SCI to join at that time and the deal was sealed.

Lane,
Did SCI ever give a reason why they didn't sign on?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
This was the positive direction the ball was rolling early in 2013.

All we needed was SCI to join at that time and the deal was sealed.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
This was the positive direction the ball was rolling early in 2013.

All we needed was SCI to join at that time and the deal was sealed.

You are delusional if you think SCI's signature would magically make everything right....

I see it that SCI smelt a rat (Packer and Co) - and it seems their judgment was 100% spot-on.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Perhaps SCI is the rat . . . ?

Please lay out for us all the accomplishments of SCI in terms of preserving sport hunting in 2015. Take your time.

I will get you started, black bear hunting in Florida. Can you come up with two or three others? One other?

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

I sort of agree with you mate. Did USFWS confer with CITIES or simply override them as well?

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

Maybe those who want Lion should just go and do it and take USFWS on afterwards?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Perhaps SCI is the rat . . . ?

Please lay out for us all the accomplishments of SCI in terms of preserving sport hunting in 2015. Take your time.

I will get you started, black bear hunting in Florida. Can you come up with two or three others? One other?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Perhaps SCI is the rat . . . ?

Please lay out for us all the accomplishments of SCI in terms of preserving sport hunting in 2015. Take your time.

I will get you started, black bear hunting in Florida. Can you come up with two or three others? One other?

What are you talking about accomplishments? Is it only measured in terms of 'wins'?

Are you suggesting that all of those SCI chapters haven't done their own parts in preserving sport hunting?

The blaming and finger-pointing being played out in these threads is just disgusting. Hunters dumping on other hunters....

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
This was the positive direction the ball was rolling early in 2013.

All we needed was SCI to join at that time and the deal was sealed.

You are delusional if you think SCI's signature would magically make everything right....

I see it that SCI smelt a rat (Packer and Co) - and it seems their judgment was 100% spot-on.

quote:

Originally posted by Leopardtrack:
Are any of you reconsidering your SCI membership??

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
This was the positive direction the ball was rolling early in 2013.

All we needed was SCI to join at that time and the deal was sealed.

You are delusional if you think SCI's signature would magically make everything right....

I see it that SCI smelt a rat (Packer and Co) - and it seems their judgment was 100% spot-on.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

You think the members are getting good value for their contributions and dues from the organization that is First for Hunters? Pretty simple, if we are not critical and introspective on what is working and what is not working it is hard to improve things. This is not the time for one big kumbayah group sing. About time we started focusing on what is necessary to preserve the sport . . . including how organizations are failing in their mission . . . instead of just making happy talk or excuses. The fact is that the national/international SCI group has seriously let it members down and that failure continues to this day. If that is blaming and finger pointing, so be it.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

Since you were not privy to any of the conversations all I give you is a !!!

How is the fact that they did not endorse working out for us???

Especially since it (the Def) is something we almost all agree on today.

quote:

For fucks sake get over it!! If you SCI-bashers want to throw your weight behind the NRA, go for it, they sure are a powerful organisation

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

You think the members are getting good value for their contributions and dues from the organization that is First for Hunters? Pretty simple, if we are not critical and introspective on what is working and what is not working it is hard to improve things. This is not the time for one big kumbayah group sing. About time we started focusing on what is necessary to preserve the sport . . . including how organizations are failing in their mission . . . instead of just making happy talk or excuses. The fact is that the national/international SCI group has seriously let it members down and that failure continues to this day. If that is blaming and finger pointing, so be it.

Hey I am all for SCI improving their engagement and communication - we can all learn and improve - but that isn't what many of the posts here (the tone of them) are about. The fact that you keep crapping on about the 'First For Hunters' slogan is proof of that. For fucks sake get over it!! If you SCI-bashers want to throw your weight behind the NRA, go for it, they sure are a powerful organisation - SCI themselves have always recognised and acknowledged that fact.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

You think the members are getting good value for their contributions and dues from the organization that is First for Hunters? Pretty simple, if we are not critical and introspective on what is working and what is not working it is hard to improve things. This is not the time for one big kumbayah group sing. About time we started focusing on what is necessary to preserve the sport . . . including how organizations are failing in their mission . . . instead of just making happy talk or excuses. The fact is that the national/international SCI group has seriously let it members down and that failure continues to this day. If that is blaming and finger pointing, so be it.

Hey I am all for SCI improving their engagement and communication - we can all learn and improve - but that isn't what many of the posts here (the tone of them) are about. The fact that you keep crapping on about the 'First For Hunters' slogan is proof of that. For fucks sake get over it!! If you SCI-bashers want to throw your weight behind the NRA, go for it, they sure are a powerful organisation - SCI themselves have always recognised and acknowledged that fact.

Why the reluctance to concede that SCI has largely failed in their mission to be First for Hunters? Let me ask you this, what evidence can you point to that SCI understands their fundamental failure and is adapting and adjusting to address the realities facing the organization today? I am sure we would all benefit from hearing your perspective on how they are retooling organizationally to be the group they purport to be. Perhaps we have just overlooked their efforts to evolve to be an effective voice for hunters. Help us out.

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Perhaps SCI is the rat . . . ?

Please lay out for us all the accomplishments of SCI in terms of preserving sport hunting in 2015. Take your time.

I will get you started, black bear hunting in Florida. Can you come up with two or three others? One other?

Bear hunting in NJ and battled HSUS'ballot initiative in Maine that would have ended bear hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

You think the members are getting good value for their contributions and dues from the organization that is First for Hunters? Pretty simple, if we are not critical and introspective on what is working and what is not working it is hard to improve things. This is not the time for one big kumbayah group sing. About time we started focusing on what is necessary to preserve the sport . . . including how organizations are failing in their mission . . . instead of just making happy talk or excuses. The fact is that the national/international SCI group has seriously let it members down and that failure continues to this day. If that is blaming and finger pointing, so be it.

Hey I am all for SCI improving their engagement and communication - we can all learn and improve - but that isn't what many of the posts here (the tone of them) are about. The fact that you keep crapping on about the 'First For Hunters' slogan is proof of that. For fucks sake get over it!! If you SCI-bashers want to throw your weight behind the NRA, go for it, they sure are a powerful organisation - SCI themselves have always recognised and acknowledged that fact.

Why the reluctance to concede that SCI has largely failed in their mission to be First for Hunters? Let me ask you this, what evidence can you point to that SCI understands their fundamental failure and is adapting and adjusting to address the realities facing the organization today? I am sure we would all benefit from hearing your perspective on how they are retooling organizationally to be the group they purport to be. Perhaps we have just overlooked their efforts to evolve to be an effective voice for hunters. Help us out.

You are proving my point about the finger-pointing. Move on - stop criticising other hunters.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

You think the members are getting good value for their contributions and dues from the organization that is First for Hunters? Pretty simple, if we are not critical and introspective on what is working and what is not working it is hard to improve things. This is not the time for one big kumbayah group sing. About time we started focusing on what is necessary to preserve the sport . . . including how organizations are failing in their mission . . . instead of just making happy talk or excuses. The fact is that the national/international SCI group has seriously let it members down and that failure continues to this day. If that is blaming and finger pointing, so be it.

Hey I am all for SCI improving their engagement and communication - we can all learn and improve - but that isn't what many of the posts here (the tone of them) are about. The fact that you keep crapping on about the 'First For Hunters' slogan is proof of that. For fucks sake get over it!! If you SCI-bashers want to throw your weight behind the NRA, go for it, they sure are a powerful organisation - SCI themselves have always recognised and acknowledged that fact.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
Thanks Tim and Packer should be sent packing. Really who the fcuk is he anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

Since you were not privy to any of the conversations all I give you is a !!!

How is the fact that they did not endorse working out for us???

Especially since it (the Def) is something we almost all agree on today.

For how long will you be stomping your foot like a child?

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Vining:
For the past year I have been living and working in Tanzania with Hilary Daffi, Outfitter and PH. As a result of USFWS recent final rule on Lion, both Hilary and I sat down and met with Dr. Dennis Ikanda, of Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute on Dec 28, 2015. I have transcribed my notes as shown below: I will say as a result of meeting with Dr. Ikanda, that USFWS has perpetuated fraud on the American People with the final rule. Furthermore Tanzania should be exempted from this final rule. Herewith are my notes

MEETING WITH DR. DENNIS IKANDA, 12/28/2015 AT THE HEADQUARTERS OFFICE OF TANZANIA WILDLIFE RESEARCH INSTITURE, ARUSHA TANZANIA
DR. IKANDA, CV
PhD Wildlife Biologist
BS in Zoology
MS thesis on lion conflict and livestock
Doctorial Thesis Lion predatory behavior on humans
DR. IKANDA IS THE MAN IN CHARGE OF LION RESEARCH IN TANZANIA
deni@africamail.com
dennis.ikada@tawiri.or.tz

Also Present: Hilary Daffi, Former Chairman of SIMBA Professional Hunters Association.
Current Chairman of Tanzania Safari Outfitters Association

Notes from meeting with Dr. Ikama on 12/28/2015

DR. IKANDA’S MAIN MESSAGE
TANZANIA HAS THE POPULATION TO MAINTAIN AN ANNUAL TAKE OF 200 MALE LIONS, 6 YEARS IN AGE OR OLDER. CURRENTLY ABOUT 50 MALE LIONS ARE TAKEN ANNUALLY.

1. Tanzania has a cultural history in support of hunting
2. There are six major lion populations
3. Population studies are difficult and highly subjective
4. Lions are predominantly located in woodland habitat the exception being the Serengeti
5. Lions in Serengeti and other Parks are somewhat habituated to human presence whereas in areas like the Selous, lions are more secretive and much more difficult to locate
6. Population studies are difficult and lack precision due to woodland habitat, aside from visual observation, other indices are utilized such as scat and tracks
B. CONSERVING OF SPECIES IS A MATTER OF NATIONAL POLICY
1. Lion Population is stable at 16,800 lions (based on 2010 census)
2. Throughout the lion range there are no serious conservation issues
3. Tanzania is very proud of its conservation practices
4. Over the last 5 years 50 to 100 lions have been trophy hunted in Tanzania equating to 0.29% to 0.59% of the lion population.
5. In the Selous alone, there are 4,000 lions within an area of 43,000 square kilometers or a density of about 1 lion per 1000 kilometers.

C. ALLOCATION OF LION RANGE IN TANZANIA
1. 80 % of the lion range is strictly protected area where human habitation is not allowed
Such as the national parks and game management areas. Areas such as the Selous and Rungwa to name a few.
2. 15% of the lion range has some human population
3. 5% of the lion range lies outside of protected areas

D. INHERENT ISSUE
1. loosing 200 lions per year (male, female, young and old) due to conflict with pastoralists.
2. Non-government organizations (NGO) helping pastoralists deal with lion conflicts

E. IMPACT ON LION POPULATION AS A RESULT OF U.S. HUNTERS NOT BEING ALLOWED TO HUNT LIONS
1. Lion population will not be affected by loss of U.S. Hunters or even if all lion hunting was banned in Tanzania.
2. Dr. Ikanda reason is the 80% of lion range that is not habituated by humans and Tanzania’s national policy of lion conservation.
3. Outfitters and PH’s are the most affected as lions are the reason Tanzania is a hunting destination.
4. Without the fees lion hunts generate, outfitters cannot afford to pay concession fees

F. DR CRAIG PACKER
1. Dr. Ikanda opinion is that Craig Packer has unduly influenced USFWS, using falsified data.
2. Packer has and had made allegations of government corruption involving trophy hunting. They are allegations only, however no factual evidence exists. USFWS bases their final rule that while trophy hunting is beneficial, the government and other stakeholders are corrupt and not to be trusted. At no time has factual evidenced been brought forward in support of the corruption allegation. Packer made these allegation while doing research. Packer’s allegations while conducting research was the reasoning behind Packer being declared persona non gratis. Packer is no longer allowed in Tanzania according to Dr. Ikanda
3. Dr. Packer’s data is intellectually dishonest. Packer has only worked in a 300 square kilometer area within Serengeti National Park, whereas there is about 300,000 square kilometers of lion range in Tanzania.
4. The short grass plains of the Serengeti are not representative of the majority of lion range.
5. Environmental conditions are harsher in the Serengeti than in the Woodlands.
6. Cub mortality is higher in Serengeti than in Ngorongoro Crater. Throughout the lion range, cub mortality is about 50%. The gestation period for lion is 3 months. Females typically mate once every 2 years.
7. Applying statistical inference from a small sample area of the Serengeti of 300 Sq. Kilometers, that has a total area of some 14,000 square kilometers is not representative of the lion species throughout Tanzania
7. Packer received substantial funds for his work from donations. Being thrown out of Tanzania adversely affects donations to him from private parties.
G. THE ACTIONS OF USFWS
1. At no time has USFWS employed personnel sat down with officials from Tanzania’s Ministry of Wildlife.
2. USFWS final rule is largely driven by Dr. Craig Packer who has been thrown out of Tanzania
3. The International Union Conservation Nature (ICUN) falsely presented population data of Katavi National Park, based on data supplied by Packer.
H. TANZANI AND THE E.U.
1. The European Union had started to take a similar path as USFWS. However, earlier this year Tanzania Wildlife Officials, principally Dr. Ikanda, met with EU officials in Brussels.
2. Data presented by Dr. Ikanda was accepted by the EU and consequently the EU has since not pursued banning trophy hunting of lions.
I. TRANSPARENCY
1. Dr. Ikanda plainly stated that Wildlife studies and his presentation to the EU are available.
2. His opinion the way forward to overturn USFWS final rule is for USFWS officials to sit down with Tanzania wildlife officials and review Tanzania’s policies and studies.

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Vining:
5. In the Selous alone, there are 4,000 lions within an area of 43,000 square kilometers or a density of about 1 lion per 1000 kilometers.
.