US to allow imports of elephant trophies from Zimbabwe, Zambia

[Badger]

(CNN) - "US authorities will remove restrictions on importing African elephant trophies from Zimbabwe and Zambia.

That means Americans will soon be able to hunt the endangered big game, an activity that garnered worldwide attention when a Minnesota dentist took Cecil, perhaps the world's most famous lion, near a wildlife park in Zimbabwe."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/15/politics/elephant-trophies-us-restrictions-zimbabwe-zambia/index.html

--

Idiots Jr. and Eric most likely lobbied hard for this. Get your elephant rifles ready Wall Streeters! To the hunt!

This makes me sick. It is probable that within my lifetime, elephants will become extinct due to BS like this.

It's official: The Trump Clan are Bond villains.

Mr. Burns from The Simpsons is less of a caricature.

[Badger]

Does anybody know anything about this topic?

The hunting is controlled, so they won’t be hunted to extinction. It also costs a lot to hunt these animals, and that money goes towards protection efforts.

When the ones in the wild are still being hunted, even in preserves, and habitat is still being lost, it doesn't make sense to legally allow the breeding stock to be decreased further... 

The question then is how to make these preserves economically sustainable, and create the incentives for more habitat to be created rather than destroyed.  Trophy hunting is an answer to that. Not a great answer, not one I really feel okay about ... but an answer.

That does nothing to stop poaching, so both happening at once decreases the overall population. It ignores the fact that preserves should be "economically viable" or "create a profit", which is a very sad view of extinction.

Not protecting habitat decreases the overall population.

In a poor country, for conservation to work, and for habitat to be protected, people need to be invested in it, which means there needs to be a sense that it is a help rather than a hindrance to their subsistence and economic well being.

Look at the people backing this. Is has exactly f*** all to do with protecting the habitat, and 110% to do with letting some Rich Hunter f**** get some more trophies and convince themselves that they're not Satan incarnate cuz somehow some of their large s going to protect the environment that they're killing. Don't f****** fool yourself

[Badger]

Does anybody know anything about this topic?

The hunting is controlled, so they won’t be hunted to extinction. It also costs a lot to hunt these animals, and that money goes towards protection efforts.

When the ones in the wild are still being hunted, even in preserves, and habitat is still being lost, it doesn't make sense to legally allow the breeding stock to be decreased further... 

The question then is how to make these preserves economically sustainable, and create the incentives for more habitat to be created rather than destroyed.  Trophy hunting is an answer to that. Not a great answer, not one I really feel okay about ... but an answer.

That does nothing to stop poaching, so both happening at once decreases the overall population. It ignores the fact that preserves should be "economically viable" or "create a profit", which is a very sad view of extinction.

Not protecting habitat decreases the overall population.

In a poor country, for conservation to work, and for habitat to be protected, people need to be invested in it, which means there needs to be a sense that it is a help rather than a hindrance to their subsistence and economic well being.

Look at the people backing this. Is has exactly f*** all to do with protecting the habitat, and 110% to do with letting some Rich Hunter f**** get some more trophies and convince themselves that they're not Satan incarnate cuz somehow some of their large s going to protect the environment that they're killing. Don't f****** fool yourself

Being angry doesn't solve the problem of habitat destruction I'm afraid.

Wrong. Being angry is the,first step to caring, and caring is the first step towards taking action. What doesn't solve the problem is being obtuse enough to believe that this actually has to do with something clever market-based solution to preserving the habitat of these animals versus indulging the whims of Rich buddies who like trophy hunting.

[Badger]

Does anybody know anything about this topic?

The hunting is controlled, so they won’t be hunted to extinction. It also costs a lot to hunt these animals, and that money goes towards protection efforts.

When the ones in the wild are still being hunted, even in preserves, and habitat is still being lost, it doesn't make sense to legally allow the breeding stock to be decreased further... 

The question then is how to make these preserves economically sustainable, and create the incentives for more habitat to be created rather than destroyed.  Trophy hunting is an answer to that. Not a great answer, not one I really feel okay about ... but an answer.

That does nothing to stop poaching, so both happening at once decreases the overall population. It ignores the fact that preserves should be "economically viable" or "create a profit", which is a very sad view of extinction.

Not protecting habitat decreases the overall population.

In a poor country, for conservation to work, and for habitat to be protected, people need to be invested in it, which means there needs to be a sense that it is a help rather than a hindrance to their subsistence and economic well being.

Look at the people backing this. Is has exactly f*** all to do with protecting the habitat, and 110% to do with letting some Rich Hunter f**** get some more trophies and convince themselves that they're not Satan incarnate cuz somehow some of their large s going to protect the environment that they're killing. Don't f****** fool yourself

Being angry doesn't solve the problem of habitat destruction I'm afraid.

Wrong. Being angry is the,first step to caring, and caring is the first step towards taking action. What doesn't solve the problem is being obtuse enough to believe that this actually has to do with something clever market-based solution to preserving the habitat of these animals versus indulging the whims of Rich buddies who like trophy hunting.

Your angry comments are addressed toward the motives of trophy hunters.  That has nil to do with saving elephants.  If you have an effective way to address habitat destruction and poaching that does not require concerning oneself with economic realities, please let us know.

How's this? Simply transfer the nominal pittance Trophy Hunters would give as a-near symbolic donation for engaging in there counterproductive little Hobby, or better still several times that amount, and don't let Hunters aggravate the problem that poachers already compound. The unquestionable venal and corrupt nature of the Zimbabwean government is irrelevant. If they are going to steal from foreign aid then they will steal from Hunters Trophy Hunters license fees and the like.

 again, I will gladly take anger towards the Trump administration's efforts to cater to the Hobby of some great white Trophy Hunters who clearly offer some pittance of their fees as a PR effort more than actually sustaining habitats, then your Sublime zen-like ignorance over what is actually going on here. Yes, I'm angry that someone who is normally quite intelligent could be such an utter dodo

Seriously suggest changing your username to deliberately obtuse.