quote:

---

White House eyes change in endangered animals policy

Proponents claim move will help poor countries and their rare species

By Shankar Vedantam, Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is proposing far-reaching changes to conservation policies that would allow hunters, circuses and the pet industry to kill, capture and import animals on the brink of extinction in other countries.
Giving Americans access to endangered animals, officials said, would both feed the gigantic U.S. demand for live animals, skins, parts and trophies, and generate profits that would allow poor nations to pay for conservation of the remaining animals and their habitats.

This and other proposals that pursue conservation through trade would, for example, open the door for American trophy hunters to kill the endangered straight-horned markhor in Pakistan; license the pet industry to import the blue fronted Amazon parrot from Argentina; permit the capture of endangered Asian elephants for U.S. circuses and zoos; and partially resume the international trade in African ivory. No U.S. endangered species would be affected.

Conservation groups counter that killing or capturing even a few animals is hardly the best way to protect endangered species, and say the policies cater to individuals and businesses that profit from animal exploitation. "It's a very dangerous precedent to decide that wildlife exploitation is in the best interest of wildlife," said Adam Roberts, a senior research associate at the nonprofit Animal Welfare Institute, an advocacy group for endangered species.

The latest proposal involves an interpretation of the Endangered Species Act that deviates radically from the course followed by Republican and Democratic administrations since President Nixon signed the act in 1973. The law established broad protection for endangered species, most of which are not native to America, and effectively prohibited trade in them.

Kenneth Stansell, assistant director for international affairs at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said there has been a growing realization that the Endangered Species Act provides poor countries no incentive to protect dying species. Allowing American hunters, circuses and the pet industry to pay countries to take fixed numbers of animals from the wild would fund conservation programs for remaining animals, he said.

U.S. officials note that such trade is already open to hunters, pet importers and zoos in other Western nations. They say the idea is supported by poor countries that are home to the endangered species and would benefit from the revenue.

Officials at the Department of Interior and Fish and Wildlife, who are spearheading many of the new policies, said the proposals merely implement rarely used provisions in the law.

"This is absolutely consistent with the Endangered Species Act, as written," said David Smith, deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. "I think the nature of the beast is such that there are critics who are going to claim some kind of ulterior motive."

Animal welfare advocates question the logic of the new approach, saying that foreign countries and groups that stand to profit will be in charge of determining how many animals can be killed or captured. Advocates also warn that opening the door to legal trade will allow poaching to flourish.

"As soon as you place a financial price on the head of wild animals, the incentive is to kill the animal or capture them," Roberts said. "The minute people find out they can have an easier time killing, shipping and profiting from wildlife, they will do so."

The proposals also trigger a visceral response: To many animal lovers, these species have emotional and symbolic value, and should never be captured or killed.

The Endangered Species Act prohibits removing domestic endangered species from the wild. Until now, that protection was extended to foreign species. Explaining the change, Stansell said, "There is a recognition that these sovereign nations have a different way of managing their natural resources."

Indeed, many of the strongest advocates for "sustainable use" programs -- under which some animals are "harvested" to raise money to save the rest -- have been countries that are home to various endangered species. Foreign trade groups and governments have tried for years -- mostly in vain -- to convince the United States that animals are no longer in limited supply, or that capturing or killing fixed numbers would not drive a species to extinction.

That could change after Oct. 17, the end of the public comment period on one proposed change. The proposal identified several species:

Morelet's crocodile, an endangered freshwater crocodile found in Mexico, Guatemala and Belize. Its skin is prized by U.S. leather importers.

The endangered Asian elephant of India and Southeast Asia. The declining population in U.S. breeding programs "has raised a significant demand among the (U.S.) zoo and circus community," the proposal said.

The Asian bonytongue, a valuable aquarium fish, found in Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia.

The straight-horned mar-khor, an endangered wild goat in Pakistan distinguished by corkscrew-shaped horns.

According to the proposal, "allowing a limited number of U.S. hunters an opportunity to import trophies from this population could provide a significant increase in funds available for conservation."

John Monson, a New Hampshire trophy hunter and former chairman of that state's Fish and Game Commission, said the program would help preserve rare animals. In 1999, Monson applied for a permit to shoot and import a straight-horned markhor. He was turned down.

Monson said the money he has spent hunting trophies -- including a leopard from Namibia and a bontebok antelope from South Africa -- has funded conservation programs.

Monson is president-elect of Safari Club International, a national hunting advocacy group. He agreed to an interview only in his personal capacity.

Safari Club International gave $274,000 to candidates during the 2000 election cycle, 86 percent of it to Republicans. It also spent $5,445 printing bumper stickers for the Bush presidential campaign. Monson has made a variety of contributions himself, including $1,000 to the Bush for President campaign.

Teresa Telecky, former director of the wildlife trade program at the Humane Society, blamed lobbying by Safari Club International and other special interest groups for a "sea change" in conservation policy. "The approach of this administration is it is all right to kill endangered or threatened species or capture them from the wild so long as somebody says there would be some conservation benefit," she said.

Stansell said conservation goals, not lobbying, drove the proposals, which he said evolved through previous administrations.

Still, the application of "sustainable use" has never been so broad. Last November, the U.S. reversed its long-held position and voted to allow Botswana, Namibia and South Africa to resume trade in their ivory stockpiles. Stansell said the sales, which have not yet begun, will support elephant conservation.

But Susan Lieberman, former chief of the Scientific Authority at the Fish and Wildlife Service and now director of the species program at the World Wildlife Fund, said legal trade in ivory always triggers illegal poaching. "Money doesn't always mean conservation," she added. "To me, the theme is allowing an industry to write the rules, which is a Bush administration pattern."

Smith, the administration official, said permits would be issued only after foreign countries showed they had strong conservation programs. "There is nothing else we have as a country to force other countries to conserve their wildlife, other than being paternalistic and saying 'no, no, no,'" he said.

In another "sustainable use" proposal, the Fish and Wildlife Service announced in August a precedent-setting exemption to the Wild Bird Conservation Act, which was signed into law in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush. The policy would allow importation of the blue fronted Amazon parrot from Argentina. The agency is reviewing public comment.

The prized parrots sell for several hundred dollars apiece. Stansell said Argentina, which approached Fish and Wildlife with the proposal, would allow the capture of about 10 nestling parrots from five nests in every 250 acres of parrot habitat.

With export taxes of $40 to $80 per bird, a 250-acre area would generate $400 to $800 per year to support conservation. Stansell conceded that cutting down forest habitat and selling timber would generate far more money for landowners, but said the Argentine government concluded that owners would prefer sustainable returns from selling the birds.

Conservation biologists said the service made poor estimates -- or no estimates -- about how many parrots would be left.

"It's an extraordinarily bad idea," said Jamie Gilardi, director of the World Parrot Trust, a conservation group that has filed opposition to the plan in a letter signed by 88 international biologists. "The quotas are based on poor or inadequate science -- and the sustainability issue is simply not addressed at all."

The Fish and Wildlife Service's parrot proposal cited scientific estimates by Enrique Bucher, a top Argentine parrot biologist, in determining how many birds could be safely captured. But in a telephone interview from the University of Cordoba in Argentina, Bucher said his research actually showed the U.S. proposal was poorly conceived and lacked scientific oversight.

"It's a very romantic idea, but in practice I do not know any positive examples," he said, referring to "sustainable use" plans. "The assumption that local communities will have the organization and altruism to put the money into long-term protection of the environment where you have terrible economic forces pushing for deforestation is a little naive."

---

 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
Glad you beat me to it.
 

---

Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
 
This is revolting.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
Next on "It's your White House' whaling will make a come back.....
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
But purely in order to save the whales.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I bet "sustainable harvesting" of Republicans would only protect the species.
Lets find out.
 

---

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
 
Zoos and circuses should be outlawed. You want to see a lion, go to Africa and watch one, they're not here for your fucking amusement.

I was so glad when they got to that south african pasty-white asshole who lured lions to a fence by putting their cubs on the other side, then let flown-in millionaires shoot them.
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
Can we paint a big red bullseye on the back of certain influential Republicans and declare it open season?

I bet "sustainable harvesting" of Republicans would only protect the species.

I'll slide them on the "hazardous to nature" list.

You want to see a lion, go to Africa and watch one...

... but then you're an intruder in their domain, and a disruptive presence.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Somehow I think it'd be far less disruptive that making the lion jump through a ring of fire or other lase-ass circus tricks.
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
It wasn't a counter-argument. Most people just aren't aware how much damage a safari causes, or that there even IS a flip side to tourism.
 

---

Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
 
I don't think hunting should be banned outright, I just think they ought to even up the odds a bit more. "Here you go, sir. Now that's a 4 inch hunk of sharpened stone, and somewhere out there on the plains (likely blending into the high grass) is a fiercely territorial 200 pound six foot long predator with extremely powerful claws and teeth. Happy hunting!" Let us say it might do well to cull the human herd.
 

---

Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
 
Revolting. I agree. We need to have open season on government officials.
 

---

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
 
Huuuuunteeeers... *clinks bottles together* Come out and play-ay...
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
How many endangered species have more members living in captivity in various and sundry zoos than there are in the wild?

Does anybody intend to find out?
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
What's your point?
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
The point being that in some cases, capturing an endangered animal and placing it in a zoo might actually be beneficial to the survival / reintroduction of the species at some point.

I'm thinking about the California Condor. Wasn't the breeding program that saved them carried out entirely in captivity? In zoos?

Maybe an American zoo (where poaching, IIRC, is not likely) is a better habitat for the Endangered... Hairy-footed Underhill... than a country in which it's likely to be poached.

So the trade in LIVE animals, in any case, might not be so bad.

The hunting, however, seems a tad counterproductive, but I don't know enough about the situations and precedents to make the sort of knee-jerk conclusions I see here.

Remember, the people protesting this are the same people who told us that the oil drilling in Alaska (Not ANWR, the stuff that's been operating for decades now) would wipe out the Caribou population - which promptly tripled.
 

---

Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
 
Let me get this straight, Fo2: Are you seriously suggesting that by killing more of these endangered animals (or effectively reducing their numbers by placing them into captivity) we might allow more of them to survive? I just want to make sure I've got your logic right. Removing them, to save them, right?
 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
When I first saw this article, I thought of that guy in Vietnam who said, "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it."
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Try reading my post again, after the knees stop jerking, and your mind doesn't make ludicrous Vietnam analogies.

Killing? No, I don't have enough information to draw a conclusion on that point. Frankly, at first glance I think the killing part is probably a bad idea. Probably. The thing is, I like to get past first glances when it comes to issues like this. Sometimes, wildlife management requires just that. Management.

As for the placing of such animals in zoos... can you provide data that proves that such animals in captivity always decline further? I reiterate, do you have a counterexample to the California condor?

Captive animals sometimes fare badly, if they're overcrowded or put into improper environments.

Other times, they outlast their "free" brethren because of the environmental control, lack of predation by natural or human enemies, and medical care that zoos provide that the Wild does not.
 

---

Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
 
I'll give you a knee-jerk.

No, but seriously think about what you are defending. I admit that sometimes limited population control is a good idea in wildlife management, particularly in situations where the natural predators have been eliminated (generally via human intervention) and the resultant population explosion is beyond the region's capacity to support it. But that's not at all the situation what they are talking about here. They are talking about reducing the numbers of certain species whose populations are already so critically low so as to be near extinction. I ask you how will removing even more of them help even in the slightest? And I'm sorry but the belief that this money would go to future protection is such complete Bull-pucky that even you must see that? And putting them into over-crowded, under-funded zoos so they can putter away their free brains dwindling with regular feeding and inept attempts at forced breeding? Do you think that will balloon their populations? When is that going to happen? At some glimmering point in the dim and distant future where all Republicans seems to believe everything will be put to rights? At which point you will of course be miserably dead because we spent your Social Security procurring several Texan billionaires' oil interests and your raggedy grand-children are scraping around asphalt horizons desperately trying to make ends meet while Chinese wagon-wheel space stations cartwheel overhead and no ghost of any endagered species ever need fret because they were sacrificed for the good of industry.

What you have is a trophy hunter with political connections who wants to shoot (presumbably with some absurdly high-powered assault rifle) a goat with straight horns instead of curly ones.
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Tell me again about the condors.
 

---

Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
 
They are choking to death on garbage .
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
I'll agree that zoos can do some fine work when it comes to endangered species, however, I have to think that the preservation of natural habitat must be stressed somewhere in the process.

Bear in mind to that according to the article, in the area of the "capture the animal to save it" were not just talking touchy-feely zoos, but the ever benevolent circus and pet industries as well.

And calling the potential hunting and the trade in endangered animal parts a "tad counterproductive" is rhetoric that belies the serious nature of this proposal and what could happen if the United States gives sanction to such trade.

Once again, we get to see first hand how incredibally short sighted and downright anti-environment / conservation the Bush administration really is.
 

---

Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
 
It does seem anti-environmental. To me it seems insane. I mean this is far more than just short-sighted or merely environmentally oblivious. This seems like a deliberate attempt (i.e. going out of their way) to ensure that endangered and fragile species the world over would have even less protection than they do now. The only benefactors of this policy would seem to be: A) the poachers and trappers and B) the people who have a strong urge to have something rare and dead on their wall, floor or possibly in their tea. These would seems to constitute a EXTREMELY small portion of the population and the will thereof. Who is a part of this group? Why the fuck should we be catering to them?

Perhaps I'm missing something here, Rob, but this seems to be an entirely indefensible position. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think your heart is really in trying to defend this ludicrous and dangerous re-imagining. At times I can see the logic of your arguments on other issues, but on this one I'm at a loss. I understand not wanting people to simply have a knee-jerk response, but this really is a matter of common-sense. If these species die off, they are gone for good. So if we're going to let that happen, I think we'd better have a pretty fucking good reason to do so. Irresponsible doesn't cover it. Reckless doesn't cover it. This is actively supporting and encouraging the extinction of a variety of endagered species around the globe. Tell me what general good can possibly come of this.
 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 

quote:

---

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is proposing far-reaching changes to conservation policies that would allow hunters, circuses and the pet industry to kill, capture and import animals on the brink of extinction in other countries.
Giving Americans access to endangered animals, officials said, would both feed the gigantic U.S. demand for live animals, skins, parts and trophies, and generate profits that would allow poor nations to pay for conservation of the remaining animals and their habitats.

---

quote:

---

In another "sustainable use" proposal, the Fish and Wildlife Service announced in August a precedent-setting exemption to the Wild Bird Conservation Act, which was signed into law in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush. The policy would allow importation of the blue fronted Amazon parrot from Argentina. The agency is reviewing public comment.

The prized parrots sell for several hundred dollars apiece. Stansell said Argentina, which approached Fish and Wildlife with the proposal, would allow the capture of about 10 nestling parrots from five nests in every 250 acres of parrot habitat.

With export taxes of $40 to $80 per bird, a 250-acre area would generate $400 to $800 per year to support conservation. Stansell conceded that cutting down forest habitat and selling timber would generate far more money for landowners, but said the Argentine government concluded that owners would prefer sustainable returns from selling the birds.

---

quote:

---

Conservation biologists said the service made poor estimates -- or no estimates -- about how many parrots would be left.

"It's an extraordinarily bad idea," said Jamie Gilardi, director of the World Parrot Trust, a conservation group that has filed opposition to the plan in a letter signed by 88 international biologists. "The quotas are based on poor or inadequate science -- and the sustainability issue is simply not addressed at all."

The Fish and Wildlife Service's parrot proposal cited scientific estimates by Enrique Bucher, a top Argentine parrot biologist, in determining how many birds could be safely captured. But in a telephone interview from the University of Cordoba in Argentina, Bucher said his research actually showed the U.S. proposal was poorly conceived and lacked scientific oversight.

"It's a very romantic idea, but in practice I do not know any positive examples," he said, referring to "sustainable use" plans. "The assumption that local communities will have the organization and altruism to put the money into long-term protection of the environment where you have terrible economic forces pushing for deforestation is a little naive."

---

quote:

---

I was disappointed to read about the Bush administration's policy shifts on threatened species ["U.S. May Expand Access to Endangered Species," news story, Oct. 11].

I conducted field research for Kenneth Stansell and others at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1996 that refuted the very arguments he and others in the administration are using to justify the shift.

Commercial use of wildlife, whether through captive breeding or controlled "harvesting," does not pay for the species' conservation. Even when government sets a good policy and fair management rules and regulations are in place and reasonably enforced, private businesses often evade the scientific and management protocols with serious, sometimes irreversible consequences to the species. Local people, especially those living in poverty, rarely benefit, for reasons related not to wildlife biology but to politics.

This is true in both developing and developed countries. And make no mistake: Trading and trafficking in wildlife is serious business, which may help explain the Safari Club International's enormous political contributions ($274,000) in the 2000 election cycle.

I studied the effect of the commercial use in El Salvador of green iguanas, a protected species at the time. I interviewed local people, the iguana ranch owners, the ranch employees, the government officials responsible for enforcing the regulations and wildlife biologists and conservationists in El Salvador and in the United States.

My findings were straightforward: The local communities received no tangible benefits from the sustainable production and trade of green iguanas in El Salvador. In some cases, they were worse off, because the iguana ranchers had bought the land that tenant farmers had been renting to graze their cattle, reducing the security of the tenant farmers' livelihood.

Before making a decision on whether to allow for the intensified commercial use of threatened species, it is critical to answer the following questions: Who benefits? How much do they benefit? How do they benefit?

Failure to do so not only will endanger the species but also will hurt the local people who were supposed to benefit.

AARON M. CHASSY

Arlington

---

quote:

---

Saving Endangered Wildlife by Killing It?

At ceremonies two years ago in honor of Earth Day, President George Bush stood beneath a giant sequoia and called for "a new environmentalism for the 21st century." As fleshed out by his administration, this new environmentalism prefers market-based incentives to government regulation and elevates property rights over wilderness and species protection. It is, in many ways, simply the environmental corollary to the administration's broader deregulatory views.

Peter Huber, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, is one of the brains behind the administration's approach to the environment. His influential political tract, Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists, was published in 2000 as a conservative counterweight to Al Gore's Earth in the Balance.

In Hard Green, Huber lauds Teddy Roosevelt as the ultimate environmentalist role model. Roosevelt, famous as a hunter and safari enthusiast, once killed several hundred wild animals - including a reported nine lions, five elephants, thirteen rhinos and seven hippos - during a single extended expedition in Africa. As Huber puts it, approvingly: "He loved wild animals. He particularly loved to shoot them."

Roosevelt's 'love them and kill them' approach is the obvious antecedent of a new endangered species policy that the Bush Administration announced this summer. As set forth in a draft document whose comment period expires on Friday, the Administration plans to begin allowing hunters, zoos, circuses and others to kill, capture, and import wildlife facing extinction in other countries.

----

To "Enhance the Propagation or Survival" of the Species

In the past, officials of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have interpreted the law to bar the commercial importation of endangered plants and animals to the United States. The clear reasoning behind this refusal was that U.S. demand would further deplete these species' already limited numbers.

The current administration, however, argues that the burgeoning U.S. market for sporting trophies, hides, pelts and other animal parts, as well as the demand for exotic pets and circus animals, could create positive conservation incentives. Section 10(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to grant exemptions to the law's ban on endangered species imports in order to "enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species." Invoking this section, the administration proposes to permit the importation of wildlife from countries with effective conservation programs.

Imports would be allowed, specifically, in cases where the country has a conservation plan by which the number of wildlife that are killed or captured is offset by increases in the target population. The overall net impact of such a plan should, theoretically, be positive.

The administration's draft policy is crowded with the language of incentive and sustainable use. Its promised benefits are speculative and long-term, however, while its risks are direct and immediate.

By opening up the American market to endangered species from abroad, the proposal creates direct incentives for the depletion of existing wildlife stocks. In contrast, the promised overall growth in endangered species populations will result only in those countries where the conservation plan is well thought out, where the authorities are genuinely interested in implementing it, and where the circumstances are such that implementation is actually possible. Given the corruption, disorganization, and competing priorities in many countries, it is doubtful that the proposed influx of American cash will have the desired effect.

In the end, what the change does is allow Fish and Wildlife Service officials to gamble with the future of foreign wildlife stocks. It substitutes a speculative weighing of incentives for a bright line rule.

----

The Larger Context

It is worth remembering, in closing, that the recent proposals are part of a larger attack on the Endangered Species Act. With the administration's support, Republicans in Congress have been seeking to amend the law in order to weaken it. To achieve the same goal though other means, the administration has also consistently underfunded the endangered species program, creating a work backlog that undermines the Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to enforce the law's requirements.

Several of the administration's federal court nominees, such as Alabama Attorney General William Pryor and Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, have a history of hostility to the Endangered Species Act. Interior Secretary Gale Norton, the head of the department charged with enforcing the law, once filed a legal brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging significant cuts in endangered species protections. Her assistant secretary for water and science is a former mining lawyer who once called for the abolition of the Endangered Species Act.

Joanne Mariner, FindLaw

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TSN:
Unless I missed something, Rob only said that he agreed with putting some of the animals in zoos, because it might help keep them protected. He said he's not sure about the "kill them to save them" part of the plan. Why is everyone acting like he's shouting "YEAH! BURN ALL THE FUCKING ANIMALS! WOO!"?

---

quote:

---

I, like you

---

quote:

---

Sustainable use programs have been implemented in the Northern Territory, and have proven to be highly successful in giving people an incentive to preserve not only the crocodiles but more importantly the habitat which supports them. These primarily involve collection of eggs from wild nests, with payment for the eggs being given to the landowners. The hatchlings are then sold to crocodile farms for raising and skin production. Extensive surveys are conducted with the harvesting, which has demonstrated no detectable impact of the harvesting program on population growth. A trial harvest of wild, adult crocodiles involving aboriginal communities was started in 1997 - the first time crocodiles had been legally hunted in the Northern Territory for 26 years. Some discussion of safari-style hunting is now taking place, directed by traditional Aboriginal landowners, but such programs are yet to be implemented.

---

quote:

---

This is MANAGEMENT. It's not wholesale slaughter, it's regulated up the wazoo, just as you'd expect it to be.

---

One wonders where corruption comes into the pictures, Pollyanna.

And, considering how anti-regulation Mr. Bush and his ilk are, one wonders how far that goes too. This is afterall, a huge swipe at the current batch of regulations, some of which prevent Mr. Bush's wealthy friends from going on safari.

Apparently, trophy hunting is good.
 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
All you had to day was "yes, I support this policy," and we wouldn't have wild accusations that you're yelling "KILL ALL THOSE ANIMALS AND TAKE THEIR SKINS! YEAH, BABY!"

OK, I will not ignore this evidence, as I have been accused of doing, although I'm surprised you are accusing me of ignoring evidence.

But that's all w/the Fo2 bashing.

Now, though it seems possible that hunting these animals may save them, it looks suspiciously like a ploy to give hunters and trophy-seekers all the animals they want. That's what it looks like to ME. It also seems dubious that they are apparently making it seem like it is only in the animal's best interest to kill them.

I would rather they have made new changes in helping to conserve the animals--such as pressuring countries to do so, give money to conservation groups, or, if all else fails, capture them to increase their numbers.

But, it says they want to start hunting endangered species, which, I think, is a bad idea.

And please no accusations of "Of course, you think Bush is about money, money, money and oil, oil, oil and he would never want to help the environment," blah blah blah.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
The problem with your argument is in your example:
Crocs and Alligators are bred with relative ease and they have clutches of 4-8 eggs each time they reproduce whereas most animals(mammals mainly) give birth to only one or two offspring each time they reproduce and unlike crocidiles, most mammals only reproduce a few times in their lifetimes.
While it's easy to site one workable example as a basis for broad sweeping plans to hunt endangered species, there is very little data on many species' reproductive capabilities to make that judgment.
Alligators and CRocidiles have neen bred by humans for a looong time and are a known quantity while most species on the endangered species list are practically unstudied due to their relative scarcity and need for conservation.

What works for a crocidile wont work for a shark or a zebra because their rate of reproduction and offspring survivability are so vastly diffrent.

The current "plan" is obviously politically motivated to payback contributors and has nothing for the animal's future except (at best) becoming completely dependant on humans for their survivial.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
There's seemingly another problem with the comparison, too:

The Australians took a local endangered species, bred it back up to a higher population, and then allowed controlled hunting while continuing the breeding process.

What the US is proposing is to let people go hunt endangered animals in other countries, and then hope that those countries will use the revenue to work on conserving the species.

crocodiles: conservation leads to controlled levels of hunting

Bush: uncontrolled levels of hunting will, with luck, lead to conservation (carried out by someone else)

These are not the same thing, by any stretch of the imagination.

[ October 19, 2003, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: TSN ]
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Also consider that Australlia is not corrupt like most of the third-world dictatorships of Africa's savannas.
How could we ever regulate what's done with any supposed proceeds from hunting?
All it would do is make endangered species into a bigger commodity for sale.

A better option for washington to encourage conservationism is: "Countries killing off endangered wildlife are a threat to America's Ecological Security and will be subject to "regime-change"....
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
Damn you Jason, you discovered the plan....

... where the buffalo roamed....
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 

quote:

---

And next time, ladies, try to think up better insults to cover the fact that you have nothing to say and no counterexamples to argue.

---

And again with the "it's my ball, I'm going home" response. Anytime he can't win, he just ignores it. Anyone seen our favourite Librarian show much of a presence in that thread where he mentioned the Roland missiles? Nope. Why? Because his absurd little bit of France-bashing got laughed off the Forums for the faithful Bushite propaganda it is.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Lee, what's your take on this?
We already know you and your lIbrarian freind dont agree on anything....so, do YOU think this us really a wise decision?
I dont, but I'll be intrested to hear a compelling argument in it's favor.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Wait, I'm not your favorite librarian? Okay, so I'm not a "real" librarian, but still... Now I'm depressed.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
What?! I have to have opinions now?!

OK, simply put: if you want to save animal populations from dropping to such levels they become endangered, or even extinct, then. . . Stop fucking killing them!

Unfortunately I know it's not that simple. But I don't - I'd never - presume to have all the answers. One example. . . India is the second most populous country on Earth, and it's also home to the tiger. Something's got to give in that equation, and it isn't going be a billion Indians. But the x factor isn't letting some oilman who donated a lot to the GOP shoot tigers and then hope maybe that'll make everyone feel sorry for tigers and learn to live in peace with them.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
Well, now you've gone and irked Lee....

We are a little late on killing things off to the point of extinction, or near enough to it, and then felling sorry for that species....

What happens when some ass can brag, "Well, the limit was only one of these rare creatures, but with a little extra to the GOP I was able to get a waiver and killed both of these, which happened to be the last breeding females of their kind...."

The government is for the (rich) people, by the (rich) people....
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
The solution is simple: Make better animals.
What the fuck is science for if we cant bring back the megafauna of the ice age to kill some hunters and keep our own population in check?
I'd go so far as to improve the animals themselves.
I want 40 foot tall grizzlies roaming logging country.
I want twelve foot tall bulletproof Tasmanian Tigers with a craving for humans....
Lets give the hunters a reason to hunt!
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
Hey, you act like taking trophies isn't important....

Remeber hearing about the days when hunting was done to feed people????
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I remeber them days!
Back wen spellin' came second to killin!
 

---

Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
 
I do like Jason's suggestion about making better animals, but I still prefer my option of restricting hunters to the use of a sharpish-seeming rock and leaving the forty-foot grizzlies out of it. Just even up the odds. You know? Make it more exciting.

I mean think of it. You sneak up on a pheasant with that four-inch long hunk of rock and cut the poor thing's throat? Presto, just like that you're a cold-blooded killer. You have a marketable skill now. You weren't some pussy with a shotgun 50 yards away. You sneaked up on a wild bird and stabbed it to death with a rock. That's not an easy thing to do (I don't think). Or maybe you bury yourself in leaves near the stream and then pop up and kill a deer in single combat with your chunk of rock? There's no telescopic sites, no hollowpoints. There's just you with your collapsed lung now drenched in deer blood. Congratulations, you have earned your venison, you fucking barbarian. In fact, you kill a polar bear (or a rhinoceros or a tiger) with that same hunk of rock and no one could ever deny ever that you are one fucking tough son-of-a-bitch and you have every right to stuff that thing and prop it up in your livingroom, you sick, sick fucking cold-blooded killing bastard. Think of that. Think of how the numbers of avid hunters would change if you actually made hunting difficult or dangerous. Deaths by animal mutilation. Not so much of that these days. What more fitting way to cull the human herd? How many instances of "I didn't think it was loaded" would come up? It's not like pulling a trigger at all. You've got to really want to kill something to kill it with a sharp rock. It'd be great. Hunting could become a respectable past-time again. I mean hunting stories might actually be impressive at that point. "It was him or me" -- you could actually fucking mean that.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
Go BX go man....

A little too much fucking for my taste, but it works well...
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
I'm irked?
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
You're always irked.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
For lack of a better word, I suppose, it beat saying he got a reaction out of you....

Jay, no, no, he always irks, but is seldom irked....
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 

quote:

---

Jay, no, no, he always irks, but is seldom irked....

---

Too true, too true.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Hey! Stop talking about me as if I'm not here!
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
Did some one say something???
 

---

Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
 
Yes, me!

I would suggest putting the chimpanzee that is called Bush (am I really the only one who thinks he looks and acts like one?) in a zoo. Period.

Seriously though I agree with the majority here in thinking that this proposed shift in policy is potentially very dangerous.

Protect the animals in their natural environtments I say. And ban hunting for pleasure. Penalty? Death! Why send someone to the electric chair for murdering a person but not for killing some protected animal? Where's the difference? In case you had forgotten, humans are animals too! Always have been, always will be. No so-called "sophistication" will be able to change that fact.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
AP, you are right, we shouldn't place one 'protected' animal's life over and above another in that manner....


Jason, I re-read my post and caught the meaning of yours, damn I am slow.... But I guess I will remember to check my spelling a bit better now...
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Just a second bit of actual data:

In Philip Caputo's ( National Geographicjournalist)book Ghosts of Tsavo, he relays how, when the big-game hunting was outlawed in Kenya in 1977, the market for ivory taken from the tusks of elephants grew exponentially.

As a result, elephant poaching by Somali gangs on the border with Kenya, for whom a single tusk could far surpass several years worth of living expenses (Caputo says that the ivory from two elephants could yield a profit of $1 million US dollars) nearly depleted the species in the 1980s.

Big-game hunters had a fairly marginal effect on the species, as they sampled relatively few animals, much like the policy that the Administration is supporting, and the dividends brought by their patronage served as an incentive to protect the wildlife and helped the Kenyan economy.

Conversely, efforts by Richard Leakey, who headed Kenya's Wildlife Department and even formed a group of heavily armed "rangers" with armed helicopters to curb poaching, fell dramatically short until the international ivory trade was banned in 1989 when the species was threatened with extinction.

While this approach may seem to be somewhat cold and on the surface seems to fly in the face of common sense, in fact the approach has documented success and is not nearly as "stupid" or "ill-thought" as one might imagine.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
Appearantly the 'rangers' didn't do enough, I would have to see if they were being bribed to hush up, helping for a fee, incompetent, or anything else that would inhibhit their doing the job properly.

Or are these people above corruption????
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
Euphemism allert!

"...sampled..."

Love that.

Anyway, a bit of a comment, if I might.

In the first part of this, I don�t necessarily see a one-to-one relationship between the big game hunters and the increased traffic in elephant ivory.

Sure it�s all well and good that these fine fellows spent some money for the pleasure of shooting wild animals, but I can�t really see how that alone could sustain a regional economy, which is what you�re talking about.

Mix into the equation the social unrest, civil wars, and famine, and there are certainly other economic factors at play here. Clearly the poachers saw the economic incentive in taking elephant tusks, but you could just as easily put some of that on the outlawing of the trade which drove the prices that a poacher might receive up.

So, yeah, you take the trophy hunter money out of the picture and the locals are going to look for a way to make it up, but I question how much real impact they might have had. And I wonder what roll regional social-economic instability had in this. I have to imagine that at some point that more and more displaced peoples regionally were pushed into an area where the reward of poaching was greater than the risk

As for the Richard Leakey paragraph, I�m not at all sure what the point is. What you may not notice is that it certainly bolsters the argument against re-opening ivory and skins trade. If heavily armed �rangers� couldn�t stop the poaching but the elimination of the end market did, well, why should we, as Mr. Bush�s administration seems to argue, re-open the end-market?
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
It seems to me that only real good was done for the Elephants when the international ban was enacted and if the ban had been erected BEFORE the elephant's numbers reached critical levels, there would never have been such a crisis in the first place.

Why not just enact a severe ban on ALL endangered species poaching and products?

Because then, asian men wouldnt have whatever aincent potion they think will make their dicks bigger.
Ever see what these fuckers do for their sharkfin soup?
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
Jason, that would then take away those nice trophies that one has to have on the wall, for one to be someone you do know.

I really do hope the sarcasm is there, it is sooo hard to get it in with just typing....

I guess if read as if being said by an uppity person should do the trick....
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
Yeah, it's there.

And if this Administration were really so interested in generating profits to help poor countries with wildlife conservation, it would, oh, cancel its agricultural subsidies so products from said countries could actually compete on the market. Free trade... but only in trophies.
 

---