Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Debate over Dallas Safari Club auctioning black rhino hunting permit
#11
Hardly a new approach fo Safari Club International.

http://www.idausa.org/campaigns/wild-fre...al-values/


'2012: The SCI is driving the killing of African lions, and is contributing to the species’ rapid decline of more than 50% over the last three decades, leaving fewer than 40,000 individuals in the wild. Yet, without any concern for the survival of African lions, SCI is fighting the petition of several wildlife protection groups to list the lion as endangered.
2011: The SCI in conjunction with the National Rifle Association (NRA) intervened in the 9th Circuit Court, to defend the constitutionality of Section 1713 of H.R. 1473, “Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011,” a law that directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the Northern Rocky Mountain wolves from the endangered species list.
In 2007, SCI testified at a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service hearing opposing the proposed listing of polar
bears as a “threatened” species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.
1994: Trophy hunting organizations, including the SCI, successfully lobbied for a change in the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act 1972 to allow for the importation of previously banned sport-hunted polar bear trophies into the United States from Canada.
During the Bush Administration era, the SCI proposed to “save” endangered species by killing or selling them, and then using the revenues as an incentive for poor countries to improve their conservation efforts. The proposal offered several examples of how wildlife can be exploited for profit, and included suggestions, e.g., to import wild-caught Asian elephants for circuses and zoos. This concept continues to echo through conservation cycles touted as ‘wise-use’ of wildlife, and the notion that wild animals should pay for the survival of their species. In other words, some animals pay with their lives so that others may stay alive, only to be killed by trophy hunters at a later point in time.
1981: The National Rifle Association and Safari Club International, argued against inclusion of a felony penalty, and other strengthening measures of the Lacey Act, the only strong law that brings poachers and wildlife traffickers to justice when they take illegally gotten wildlife across state boundaries.'


More SCI dirt:

https://www.causes.com/actions/1681076-r...sory-panel
Reply
#12
DeusxMac wrote:
Think those wealthy hunters would bid to NOT hunt a rhino?

Then all that money could go to help save ALL the rhinos.

I didn't think so.

+1
Reply
#13
99% of the poaching is driven by China's obsession with magical medicine. When impoverished peoples can get the equivalent of a villages lifetime income for one bullet.. Stop the demand !
Reply
#14
Maybe all of us concerned citizens should start (or should have started) an online contribution campaign to raise money to buy the license ourselves, so that we could publicly destroy it.
Reply
#15
The UnDoug wrote:
Maybe all of us concerned citizens should start (or should have started) an online contribution campaign to raise money to buy the license ourselves, so that we could publicly destroy it.

I suspect they'd just turn around and sell/auction it again; using the same supporting argument.
Reply
#16
I think it's wrong, and it looks to me like it's just a way for the SCI to finagle a "hunt" for something that would normally be off limits. But at the same time it's my perception that the same people who make a lot of noise about this type of stuff do the same types of things when it suits them. In our town, the shakespeare theater built their theater right in the middle of sensitive riparian habitat, bald eagle nesting, etc. When the environmental impact statement came back and said no, they were up in arms and were able to pull political strings to get an ok. Now they want to build their offices in some of the remaining habitat. Same with semi-well off people and their beautiful mcmansions built in "scenic" habitat. And when they need a road for their commute or developments, it just has to go through despite environmental impact. It's too bad, but humans are just built to selfishly utilize every last drop of resources, and it's my opinion that most people have more impact than they think. kj.
Reply
#17
Selling these kills is where a majority of the money comes from to protect these species against illegal poaching. Without the millions from legal hunts, the species would probably be extinct by now.
Reply
#18
DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=The UnDoug]
Maybe all of us concerned citizens should start (or should have started) an online contribution campaign to raise money to buy the license ourselves, so that we could publicly destroy it.

I suspect they'd just turn around and sell/auction it again; using the same supporting argument.
The club is controlling this particular auction pretty tightly, and they will know who each bidder is. I doubt they would let a person or group not known to them bid on it, at any price.

http://biggame.org/convention/auction-information/
Reply
#19
kj wrote:
... It's too bad, but humans are just built to selfishly utilize every last drop of resources, and it's my opinion that most people have more impact than they think. kj.

those are certainly valid points

we should all do what we can to understand and then reduce our own negative impact on the environment
Reply
#20
kj wrote: It's too bad, but humans are just built to selfishly utilize every last drop of resources, and it's my opinion that most people have more impact than they think. kj.

Only "some" humans are like that. There is a large part of the US where the culture is that individuals are entitled and the common good is a sucker's game. In much of the world (including parts of the US), the human culture is not like that at all, and social values are of much higher perceived value than individual power.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)