US to allow imports of elephant trophies from Zimbabwe, Zambia

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Clearly the supporters of this move must hate the Republican party to allow for their mascot to be treated so poorly.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

[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

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

[GoTfan]

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.

That doesn't make him wrong.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Repealing the elephant ivory ban in their manifesto was an underreported error that lead to the Conservatives losing their majority in the election this year

[politics_king]

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.

I
Umm... 🤔 What? So it makes it ok to slaughter a living mammal because it saves other like minded ones? What planet are you from? It's barbaric and cutting off a nose? Do that to a human being and see the reaction. Smh, I almost hope you have twisted sarcasm.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

That doesn't make him wrong.

no, just irrelevant.

[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.

[Wakie77]

When does it cross the line that we just decide to not care for the Trump voter?  There is no low to which they will not approve.

[KingSweden]

Per a news alert on my phone, it sounds like they’re backing off on this for now

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Trump's backing off. Good.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

[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.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

Perhaps you should offer your expertise on these issues to the "utter dodos" at the IUCN and other conservation groups who support the idea that trophy hunting can be a help to conservation.   Again, it's not a solution that I find morally unproblematic (to say the very least), and it may not be the most effective one, but to deny that there is a serious debate about the role of trophy hunting suggests an unwillingness to really engage with the complexities of this issue.

[SoLongAtlas]

Trump put a halt to the reversal for now (pending review with Zinke so not a good sign of a full halt)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiTmiekAU1c