US removing ban on import of Elephant Trophies

[Gutpile]

You hunt stuff and it kills you, you deserve it. No one cares. It is a simple point Jeb.

Very true. It can and has happened. Only fucktard psychopaths hope for it, though.

- - - Updated - - -

Trophy hunters should be put on a government data base as possible future mass shooters/serial killers.

Got any examples of this happening or are you just full of shit? I have a hunch...

[Zaydin]

Very true. It can and has happened. Only fucktard psychopaths hope for it, though.

- - - Updated - - -



Got any examples of this happening or are you just full of shit? I have a hunch...

Cruelty to animals is one of the warning signs of a psychopath.

[NoRest4Wicked]

Does this mean I can get a pair of elephant ivory polyhedrals? Really need a set of those.

I bought https://www.artisandice.com/order/mammoth-ivory/ couple months back, elephant ones would round out my collection though.

[Sharein]

I know, right? Tell us more about how you don't advocate that people die.

Animals > hunters.

Trophy hunters are literally the scum of the Earth. Do I advocate that trophy hunters should die? Not really. Do I care if they get trampled to death by an elephant? I'd say good riddance!

[Every Pwny]

Trophy hunting is different from poaching. The problem for some animals, such as elephants is poaching and the reduced land they can roam due to farming. Trophy hunting is done usually for a specific elephant or other such animal, such as old/dying or out of control ones. The hunter will purchase the right to hunt this individual animal and that money usually goes into maintaining the refuge for these animals that protects their land and keeps poachers away as well as to the people of that community.

I'm not sure why someone would hunt them in the first place, I'm not a hunter, but it's not entirely a bad thing. The problem is poachers who hunt them illegally, not the people who are giving 300k (or however much) to the conservation to hunt a specific one.

[breadisfunny]

Animals > hunters.

Trophy hunters are literally the scum of the Earth. Do I advocate that trophy hunters should die? Not really. Do I care if they get trampled to death by an elephant? I'd say good riddance!

there is a severe difference between subsistence hunters and trophy hunters. one is practicing something humans have done for eons. the other is a bunch of overcompensating rich assholes who care only about themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

Lulz, ok...

wow real quality rebuttal there. come on champ try harder.

[Paranoid Android]

HOLY BLEEP!

Trump puts elephant trophies decision on hold following criticism

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...wing-criticism

[Ghostpanther]

HOLY BLEEP!




http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...wing-criticism

This is the real reason. Not criticism from liberals.

Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke echoed Trump's comment in his own tweet, saying that he and the president had spoken and "both believe that conservation & healthy herds are critical...the issuing of permits is put on hold..."

@realDonaldTrump & I have talked & both believe that conservation & healthy herds are critical...the issuing of permits is put on hold... pic.twitter.com/tdDf9GaqwR
— Secretary Ryan Zinke (@SecretaryZinke) November 18, 2017

It was not immediately clear why Trump made the announcement, but it came on the same day as the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee called on the Trump administration to reverse its newly announced policy, labeling it the "wrong move at the wrong time."

It actually was not his idea to begin with, but rather the US Fish and Game department which recommended the removal of the ban. He wants to hear more about it and is wiling to listen to his advisors and others before making a final decision. Which is good.

[Draco-Onis]

This is the real reason. Not criticism from liberals.

Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke echoed Trump's comment in his own tweet, saying that he and the president had spoken and "both believe that conservation & healthy herds are critical...the issuing of permits is put on hold..."

@realDonaldTrump & I have talked & both believe that conservation & healthy herds are critical...the issuing of permits is put on hold... pic.twitter.com/tdDf9GaqwR
— Secretary Ryan Zinke (@SecretaryZinke) November 18, 2017

It was not immediately clear why Trump made the announcement, but it came on the same day as the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee called on the Trump administration to reverse its newly announced policy, labeling it the "wrong move at the wrong time."

It actually was not his idea to begin with, but rather the US Fish and Game department which recommended the removal of the ban. He wants to hear more about it and is wiling to listen to his advisors and others before making a final decision. Which is good.

I think you are reading way too much into this, who knows why he made this decision but one thing we know from what Trump has shown so far measured and logical thinking are not his strong suit.

[Ghostpanther]

I think you are reading way too much into this, who knows why he made this decision but one thing we know from what Trump has shown so far measured and logical thinking are not his strong suit.

And I think you purposely look on the negative side of anything which Trump does. :P

[Draco-Onis]

And I think you purposely look on the negative side of anything which Trump does. :P

He doesn't exactly make it hard

[Ghostpanther]

He doesn't exactly make it hard

Which with the Trump haters, it does not matter. I think it is a good decision to place it on hold until further review. I see nothing negative about it.

[Draco-Onis]

Which with the Trump haters, it does not matter. I think it is a good decision to place it on hold until further review. I see nothing negative about it.

I think it's good that it is on hold but nothing praise worthy until I know the final decision, this is the administration that is fine with companies dumping toxic waste into rivers and streams.

[hakujinbakasama]

If I remember the break down of this correctly...

1. The hunters not only pay but are sponsored by the host country.

2. The killed animal (elephant in this case) is butchered and utilized for its entirety.

3. The initial ban was a "feel good" public relations response rather than being actually productive.

People keep assuming "rich assholes" oblivious to the fact that rich people are the largest contributors to charities and foundations.

[Macaquerie]

If I remember the break down of this correctly...

1. The hunters not only pay but are sponsored by the host country.

2. The killed animal (elephant in this case) is butchered and utilized for its entirety.

3. The initial ban was a "feel good" public relations response rather than being actually productive.

People keep assuming "rich assholes" oblivious to the fact that rich people are the largest contributors to charities and foundations.

If these rich hunters really cared about doing good, why not just donate the money to conservation efforts without demanding a reward, and, I dunno, go get a 3D printout of an elephant head instead?

[Schmiggy]

Very true. It can and has happened. Only fucktard psychopaths hope for it, though.

I think you'd find you're actually in the minority here. I think most people in any developed society would relish in a big game hunter being killed by his prey. The simple reality is that these hunters (regardless of how much they're paying to do it) get pleasure from killing innocent and defenseless animals, there is no rational argument you can make to justify that kind of behaviour.

Also, I haven't seen anyone bring this up yet, but an elephant's pregnancy lasts 640-660 days. Male elephants don't start producing sperm until 10-15 YEARS, and females typically don't start reproducing until 12-14 YEARS. So I don't give a rats ass how much these licenses contribute to "conservation" the reproductive cycle is fucking long! So don't give me that shit, "oh but poachers kill more", every single life matters!

[Thrif]

Very true. It can and has happened. Only fucktard psychopaths hope for it, though.

Nope, not really, if anyone think it's a good idea to go hunting endangered species because it's uh, fun or prestigious or whatever, they're such revoltingly selfish human being that we're way better off without them.

It'd be interesting to see a poll on this, but judging from what I've read in this thread, your definition of "fucktard psychopaths" would include a huge majority of us.

[Heavens Night]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/15/politi...bia/index.html

Excerpt from the article below:



I can't fathom why in the world this is ok. They're an endangered species and while we can't control what happens in those countries the US can control incentivizing Americans to go over and kill elephants. Also the whole argument being made by the pro elephant murdering that it's "conservation". Conservation of what?? They're fucking endangered!! If anyone thinks they can come up with an argument for why this should be ok or killing elephants ok, I'm all ears.

Overall petition to the UN to ban all trophy hunting: https://www.change.org/p/united-nati...g-stop-imports

Honestly what the fuck is wrong with the US.
Sickening.

EDIT: Just found this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42035832

[hakujinbakasama]

If these rich hunters really cared about doing good, why not just donate the money to conservation efforts without demanding a reward, and, I dunno, go get a 3D printout of an elephant head instead?

Who says they don't? Also, rare life time experience. Also, who cares?


Also....just to be a dick here.... how dare you judge their culture. You should be more sensitive and culturally woke and accepting. Talk about some privlegde.

[Draco-Onis]

If I remember the break down of this correctly...

1. The hunters not only pay but are sponsored by the host country.

2. The killed animal (elephant in this case) is butchered and utilized for its entirety.

3. The initial ban was a "feel good" public relations response rather than being actually productive.

People keep assuming "rich assholes" oblivious to the fact that rich people are the largest contributors to charities and foundations.

No actually the ban was because those countries did not provide proper documentation or show that the money was doing what they said it was. There is no wide ban you can still do this in other parts of Africa, it's just that these two countries are very suspect especially considering one of them is in the middle of a coup right now.