Found this Atlantic story today:

http://www.theatlantic.com/mag...circle-of-life/8721/

Good article actually.

505 Gibbs and all the Craig Packer haters should read it.

why?

The article was remarkably even handed.

On the other hand, your defense of Packer is a bit strong. Sure, he refused to state that he would support a hunting ban, but did he say he wouldn't or did he just demur on answering the question?

You don't think its hyperbolic that he says "The only lions out there with a mane and testicles are youngsters."

This is why I don't particularly trust Dr. Packer to have an unbiased view of things. He's trying to say unbiased things, and yet his apparent bias seeps in.

Now, I think he's probably honest enough to not do something that may actively harm lion in his view, but do you honestly feel that if Dr. Packer personally feels after review of the subject that hunting neither hurts nor harms lion populations in the long run that he will not advocate for a ban?


I hope like hell he's wrong, or else my hunt I leave for on Monday will have been a waste of over a $100,000.

quote:

You don't think its hyperbolic that he says "The only lions out there with a mane and testicles are youngsters."

This is why I don't particularly trust Dr. Packer to have an unbiased view of things. He's trying to say unbiased things, and yet his apparent bias seeps in.

Considering that the account is second hand, and there really is not a frame of reference, I would say that the above statement focuses perfectly on my biggest concern about Mr. Packer. He seems to find a way to word things in a way that his opponents are dying to accept, considering that it you truly heard what he is saying, you would realize that he is pushing towards your greatest fear. Either that, or like above, he dances around (or "demurs'on) the subject, when he would appear to have already made up his mind yet realizes the need to appear unbiased.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:


You don't think its hyperbolic that he says "The only lions out there with a mane and testicles are youngsters."

Now, I think he's probably honest enough to not do something that may actively harm lion in his view, but do you honestly feel that if Dr. Packer personally feels after review of the subject that hunting neither hurts nor harms lion populations in the long run that he will not advocate for a ban?

Two things...1) aged (over 6) lions are rare in the wild Africa of today...just ask Bwanamich who monitors them...just a fact. And 2) Packer is smart enough to know well managed hunting is good for wild lion...another fact. This fact makes your question to me moot.

Another fact is that poorly managed hunting is harmful.

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:

quote:

You don't think its hyperbolic that he says "The only lions out there with a mane and testicles are youngsters."

This is why I don't particularly trust Dr. Packer to have an unbiased view of things. He's trying to say unbiased things, and yet his apparent bias seeps in.

Considering that the account is second hand, and there really is not a frame of reference, I would say that the above statement focuses perfectly on my biggest concern about Mr. Packer. He seems to find a way to word things in a way that his opponents are dying to accept, considering that it you truly heard what he is saying, you would realize that he is pushing towards your greatest fear. Either that, or like above, he dances around (or "demurs'on) the subject, when he would appear to have already made up his mind yet realizes the need to appear unbiased.

I know 100% for sure that he feels that well managed lion hunting is in the best interest of the lion as I have heard it first hand.

Lane,
What say you to the fact that the only concrete, documented proof (that I have been able to find) Craig Packer offers in his publications to a declining lion population (and consequent need for uplisting) is a steady reduction in the numbers of lions harvested by hunters?

Lane,
This is my biggest argument with you over this type of discussion.

You interject your personal conversations with a man that tells different things to his audience depending on what he thinks they want to hear. You say that he is rather open to hunting when he is having undocumented conversations with you, and presumably with the folks involved in hunting and running the Lion quota system in Tanzania. When you get him commenting to the mainstream and green media, he seems to not say that.

To me that says that he is playing both sides of the fence, and probably is deliberately misleading one side or the other, unless someone is misquoting him, and in that case, he sure has not come out and said that he is being misquoted or taken out of context. I don't want to have my major recreation (hunting) be in the hands of someone who behaves in this fashion, and I find it somewhat puzzling that you defend the guy as much as you do.

Also, you have scientific training. A rhetorical question-

Is None vs. Few a significant difference?

Of course it is. None is extinct. Few may be a normal population level. This official expert says "none" when he could just as easily said few or very few (and been more factually correct). He is trying to bias the argument, assuming he was accurately quoted. I assume he was, because the author had no problem with printing the Namibian expert's point blank defense of hunting and its value.

Now, I have no doubt that improper hunting is a problem for populations of any game animal. Something obviously needs to be tried differently than the status quo ante. Nevertheless, somehow, as before, I think the threats to sustainable wild Lion populations are much more linked to nonhunting issues, but still that is not something that a man who has the bully pulpit of being the "acknowledged expert" on lion places as his biggest priority in his popular talks about the lion on this hunting angle.

I guess I would look at it as more a distrust of the "expert" rather than a problem with the proposals that have been implemented to this point.

The 6 year rule is workable, but it may mean some folks like me are in the lurch while the various folks involved get on the same page. I suspect that there will be some shootable 6 year olds not taken because the PH is not confident that he is making the right call. The converse of a sub 6 year old getting shot is also there, but given the limitations of the science on identifying them, it sounds like they will have some uncertainty in determining it.

You and now you say Dr. Packer prefer the Niassa system. That may well also be a great way to go also.

I don't have a problem with the use of whatever system the sovereign governments decide is in their best interest to conserve their wildlife, as long as there is some scientific proof that they are trying to apply.

I have a real problem with a biased observer (which I have no concrete evidence of, but as pointed out above, there is some anecdotal evidence that Dr. Packer is biased, maybe one way, maybe the other) being the final arbiter of what is going to happen to the status of Lion in a country that has no wild lion population, and to top it off, has recently been shown to make so-called scientific decisions based on political calculations here in the US.

I will give you a more informed, but still layman's opinion when I get back around Christmastime from the Masailand.

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:
Lane,
What say you to the fact that the only concrete, documented proof (that I have been able to find) Craig Packer offers in his publications to a declining lion population (and consequent need for uplisting) is a steady reduction in the numbers of lions harvested by hunters?

Of course he does not rank improper harvest as the number one cause.

His rank: 1) habitat loss/human encroachment 2) poisoning/retaliatory killing 3) improper off-take by sport hunters 4) poaching.

Dr. Butler,

I have no argument with you. CP has his issues no doubt. But...he is a smart man...smart enough to know that loss of lion hunting totally is bad for the lion. He freely admits that he is pro-lion hunting with the caveat that it reforms.

quote:

Of course he does not rank improper harvest as the number one cause.

His rank: 1) habitat loss/human encroachment 2) poisoning/retaliatory killing 3) improper off-take by sport hunters 4) poaching.

J. Lane Easter, DVM
DRSS

Lane,
I understand what Mr. Conniff says that Craig Packer says. My question to you is not what Packer says is the cause, rather, what your thoughts are on his published statements offering a decline in hunter related harvests as the only documented or quantitative proof of a declining lion population and subsequent need for the species to be uplisted.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

I will give you a more informed, but still layman's opinion when I get back around Christmastime from the Masailand.

Bring your rain boots and a paddle

quote:

One alternative that WWF hopes to test is getting tourists to behave like hunters and pay a sort of trophy-photography fee—say, an extra $10 for each sighting—to go into a special fund for lion conservation.

Turning the unfenced wilderness of Namibia into a pay-per-view world might sound unduly venal, but it may be the price we need to pay to preserve one of the last places in Africa where lions still roam free.

I know this is slightly off topic but i'm all for this idea. Everyone doing their bit for animal conservation!

I am not going to support anyone who does not come outright and state that hunting is acceptable.

Anything else, and he is just postering.