SCI Adopts Policy On Captive Bred Lions

[rinehart0050]

I was just thinking the same as above. I think it’s great that Paul and Rick have taken time to join, comment and contribute. Even PHASA has joined to comment (I hope more). I don’t think that when this thread was started anyone thought the top brass of SCI would show up to discuss. Love SCI or hate it, I commend you both for showing up.

Concur. Great to have the relevant organisations involved in the discussion.

SCI's policy on captive bred animals was originally drafted in regards to Ungulates and not an apex predator as the behavior of each is vastly different

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of behavioral differences and how they are relevant to the ethics of captive-bred hunting.

Maybe someone can expand on this so we can understand how this was a major factor in the decision vs public opinion not being a consideration at all...

 

[rinehart0050]

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of behavioral differences and how they are relevant to the ethics of captive-bred hunting

My concern is that any behavioral differences between predators and ungulates that would significantly impact the ethics discussion can probably be easily applied to the ethics of hunting them in the wild too.

Potentially just more ammunition for the antis to move on to the next step- outlawing hunting in the wild.


I had a great discussion on this with my wife lady night from the perspective of winning or losing the war on hunting/ animal rights. Each time the antis loose a battle, they can re-fight the battle with the next administration, in a different country, at the next CITES,etc.

Each time the hunters loose a battle, it's lost forever. They have to move on to the next battle that the antis start.

Essentially, for hunters all victories should be seen as temporary, to be questioned and re-fought over and over. For the antis, each victory is permanent and moves them one step closer to winning the war.

It's a terrible situation to be in as a hunter because the odds are drastically stacked against us in the long term.

 

[SafariA]

I guess I will not get an answer on the 50k NZ stags . Let it be then . I think I made my point ..

 

[Paul Babaz]

Thank you Paul. I’m glad you are here and I appreciate the response. And I understand what you’re saying.
I too saw the comment referenced above and I believe you and Rick will prove you both are here for more than a token appearance. I most certainly hope so anyway

@iadram I appreciate the comments!

 

[Paul Babaz]

I was just thinking the same as above. I think it’s great that Paul and Rick have taken time to join, comment and contribute. Even PHASA has joined to comment (I hope more). I don’t think that when this thread was started anyone thought the top brass of SCI would show up to discuss. Love SCI or hate it, I commend you both for showing up.

@Mike B thanks Mike, I'm glad to be here and participate. As I've said before SCI isn't perfect and neither am I. SCI is governed by over 200 Board members, and we are all passionate about protecting the freedom to hunt and wildlife conservation. Not everyone is going to agree with everything we do, but it still amazes me that folks are so quick to threaten to resign as a member when the don't agree with something SCI does or doesn't do. I have to wonder if these same people would have voted for Hillary if they didn't like something the GOP did or didn't do in the last election cycle.

 

[Paul Babaz]

I am glad they are here, but they have opened up a can of worms for themselves. They can't make everyone happy regardless of the question, and we are a very small group. I fully understand they have to work for a living and don't expect to see them on this forum everyday. But I do wish them the best of luck!!!

@sierraone Believe me when I tell you that we are quite adept at opening a can of worms! Folks often ask me why I do this as we get beaten up as badly by some hunters as we do from the antis! We all know we can't please everyone and there will be folks that will complain, not matter what you do. ie: If President Trump, cured cancer tomorrow and solved world hunger, there would be those out there who would complain that it took him too long! The same goes here, not matter what we do, there will always be Monday morning quarterbacks who will criticize what we do or don't do. I'm just happy to be here!

 

[wesheltonj]

@Mike B . . . SCI is governed by over 200 Board members . . . .

Does it really take 200 Board Members and could that be part of SCI's problem, as to why it seems that are alway late to the show?

 

[Paul Babaz]

I guess I will not get an answer on the 50k NZ stags . Let it be then . I think I made my point ..

@SafariA

This entire rant is not directed at you but I am trying to cover a lot as I am limited on time here.

I'm sorry if I didn't answer this sooner, but I have to say there are so many posts to sort through, it's tough to keep track. I'm not exactly sure what your question was, but I'm guessing you are asking about high fence operations in NZ? Not being a wildlife biologist, a red deer being an ungulate is very different behavior wise then an apex predator, so they are not included in the policy.

Now, if the forum will allow me to speak for myself personally, and I mean speak for Paul and not for SCI. I have hunted in New Zealand years ago when a friend of mine and I bought a hunt on an auction. I hadn't hunted a high fence operation before and I have to say for me speaking for myself, I would not equate it to hunting a free range red stag in other areas, but if someone wants to hunt high fence, so be it, it's just not my cup of tea. If someone wants to hunt high fence, that is certainly their choice.

The view on high fence for ungulates has been as they have proven conservation value, ie: the three amigos which I believe someone on AH has mentioned before. I'll add that SCI's litigation department fought the legal battle to continue to allow the hunting of the three amigos and it took several years a great deal of $! But that's what SCI does! There are some hunters that are physically challenged and this is a great option for them. An example is young man form Atlanta by the name of Chip Madren. Chip is 20 years old or so now, and has been hunting since he was a young boy, but at the age of 11 or so, he got cancer. The tumor formed on his spine and he pretty much paralyzed. Chip has gone through extensive surgeries, and rehab and now has regained a great deal of mobility but is in a special wheel chair. I nominated Chip to partake in the SCIF Pathfinder hunt which is a hunt that an SCI auction donor purchase of the opportunity to take a physically challenged folks on a trip and a lot of times its's wounded veteran. Well, Chip will be going to New Zealand in April to hunt Red Stag, thanks to a very generous SCI exhibitor donor and a very generous SCI member who bought the hunt for to make a physically challenged hunter's dream come true. Now I fully realize that I have just opened myself up for a lot more criticism, but above I was stating my personal opinion. I will go on the record to say that I am a U.S. Army Vet, and have participated in a lot of hunts with wounded veterans and physically challenged kids and adults. I'm proud of what SCI and SCIF are doing for these folks and I won't apologize to anyone for it. As I have said previously, I don't believe the two species can be treated the same. Remember, I am stating my own personal opinion here. SCI is governed by a board of over 200 board members, so I am not speaking for all of them in this paragraph and I am not speaking for SCI.

The bottom line is not everyone is going to agree with everything SCI does or does not do, but it is really shocking to me that the hunting community can be so divided on an issue or issues, when we fundamentally agree on the majority of what we are working on. I will continue to say it.... everyone has an opportunity to become in involved with SCI in the governance of SCI, starting with a local chapter (You may or may not know that 70% of the chapter funds raised stay in the chapter for them to use for their own advocacy efforts, conservation, education, etc.) Unfortunately, I think it's in some folks nature to sit back and criticize. If someone doesn't want to support SCI, that is certainly their choice, but SCI spends a tremendous amount time and resources protecting the freedom to hunt or everyone whether they are a member or not and regardless of what they choose to hunt, big game or small game. The NRA does a great job, DSC does a good job, and HSC does a great job, as well as CSF, and WSF. I am a member and life member of all of these organizations. Do I agree with everything that all the organization do or don't do? Of course not, but they are the best thing we have working for us, and I won't get my panties in a wad, go off and bash the organizations that have unpaid volunteer leadership, especially if I'm not carrying part of the burden. In my opinion, there is a lot more involved in being a member of an organization then paying annual dues or donating $. If you have constructive criticism, speak up, if you have a suggestion to make things better, I welcome it! If you want to effect change, I invite you to get involved. But if you want to sit back, whine and complain without offering help or positive solution, I think you are too late, as the liberal have already cornered that market!

I have to apologize for the long rant and if I gave offense, but political correctness is not my strong suit. I am limited on time, so I am trying to cover a lot in one post.

Thanks for listening and good hunting, Paul

 

[Paul Babaz]

Does it really take 200 Board Members and could that be part of SCI's problem, as to why it seems that are alway late to the show?

@wesheltonj , that way our bylaws were written in the beginning, every chapter President is a board member. There has been a lot of talk over the years as SCI's number of chapters has grown to reduce the size of the board, but you can imagine the reaction when just the mentioning of taking away someone vote went over. Imagine what your wives would say if it was suggested to repeal suffrage! At any rate, having such a large board does present challenges sometimes, but I think it's a good thing as all the chapters are out raising the $ and they should have a voice in the governance of SCI, not to mention that we have very diverse board from all walks of life and they all bring something to the table. Same with any group, we don't always agree, but we all are passionate about hunting and we can disagree, but we can work together. Again, the reason I am always surprised the hunting community gets so divided on issues, when we are all trying to work towards a common goal.

 

[Big5]

[COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 255)]. . . . . . [B]Unfortunately, I think it's in some folks nature to sit back and criticize.[/B] If someone doesn't want to support SCI, that is certainly their choice, but SCI spends a tremendous amount time and resources protecting the freedom to hunt or everyone whether they are a member or not and regardless of what they choose to hunt, big game or small game. The NRA does a great job, DSC does a good job, and HSC does a great job, as well as CSF, and WSF. I am a member and life member of all of these organizations. Do I agree with everything that all the organization do or don't do? Of course not, but they are the best thing we have working for us, and I won't get my panties in a wad, go off and bash the organizations that have unpaid volunteer leadership, especially if I'm not carrying part of the burden.[/COLOR]

[B]I could not agree more.[/B]

.

 

[BRICKBURN]

........

I have to apologize for the long rant and if I gave offense, but political correctness is not my strong suit. .........

Paul, Glad you made it clear you can manage yourself here on AH and speak your mind and also represent SCI. Thanks for being clear. There is no requirement to be PC.

This fella differentiated the Manners and PC. I like the distinction.

Good Manners vs. Political Correctness

Against both political correctness and the trolling it inspires, I propose an old-fashioned remedy: good manners. Everyone should feel comfortable speaking their minds - as long as they're polite. In slogan form: It's not what you say; it's how you say it.

Every child knows the basics of politeness. Talk nicely. Don't yell. Don't call names. Listen and respond to what people literally say. Don't personally insult people. Don't take generalizations personally. If someone's meaning is unclear, don't put words his mouth; ask him to clarify. And of course, don't escalate. If someone's impolite, the polite response is to end the conversation, not respond in kind.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/03/good_manners_vs.html

 

[BRICKBURN]

................. Do I agree with everything that all the organization do or don't do? Of course not, but they are the best thing we have working for us, and I won't get my panties in a wad, go off and bash the organizations that have unpaid volunteer leadership, especially if I'm not carrying part of the burden. In my opinion, there is a lot more involved in being a member of an organization then paying annual dues or donating $. If you have constructive criticism, speak up, if you have a suggestion to make things better, I welcome it! If you want to effect change, I invite you to get involved. But if you want to sit back, whine and complain without offering help or positive solution, I think you are too late, as the liberal have already cornered that market!
.........

I think the complaining is actually a compliment. In an indirect manner.
It actually represents the underlying expectation that people have and want from leadership. If SCI were not actually in a leadership role there would be zero complaint or expectation.

Glad you invited people to participate and be part of the solution! Either or or . It is a choice.

 

[1dirthawker]

brickburn,

i agree with you on manners! the problem is, a keyboard filters out many of the human elements that make a conversation and many times begins more questions than it answers. makes one sound more curt, or aggressive than one intends....sometimes.

 

[Royal27]

Paul, Glad you made it clear you can manage yourself here on AH and speak your mind and also represent SCI. Thanks for being clear. There is no requirement to be PC.

This fella differentiated the Manners and PC. I like the distinction.

Good Manners vs. Political Correctness

Against both political correctness and the trolling it inspires, I propose an old-fashioned remedy: good manners. Everyone should feel comfortable speaking their minds - as long as they're polite. In slogan form: It's not what you say; it's how you say it.

Every child knows the basics of politeness. Talk nicely. Don't yell. Don't call names. Listen and respond to what people literally say. Don't personally insult people. Don't take generalizations personally. If someone's meaning is unclear, don't put words his mouth; ask him to clarify. And of course, don't escalate. If someone's impolite, the polite response is to end the conversation, not respond in kind.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/03/good_manners_vs.html

AMEN!!!!

 

[Hank2211]

@Mike B thanks Mike, I'm glad to be here and participate. As I've said before SCI isn't perfect and neither am I. SCI is governed by over 200 Board members, and we are all passionate about protecting the freedom to hunt and wildlife conservation. Not everyone is going to agree with everything we do, but it still amazes me that folks are so quick to threaten to resign as a member when the don't agree with something SCI does or doesn't do. I have to wonder if these same people would have voted for Hillary if they didn't like something the GOP did or didn't do in the last election cycle.

Paul, I do appreciate your presence on this forum.

With respect to this comment, I have to say I find it a bit ironic when you consider how many people resigned from PHASA over a decision it made with which they didn't agree.

I assume you support those resignations?

By the way, I'm not going to resign from SCI!

 

[IdaRam]

With respect to this comment, I have to say I find it a bit ironic when you consider how many people resigned from PHASA over a decision it made with which they didn't agree.

DOUBLE LIKE! Cuz sometimes one like is just not enough!

 

[sierraone]

DOUBLE LIKE! Cuz sometimes one like is just not enough!

Refresh my memory. The PHASA members resigned over allowing farm raised lion hunting?

 

[AfricaHunting.com]

Refresh my memory. The PHASA members resigned over allowing farm raised lion hunting?

Here:

The droves of members that resigned totalled 51 out of a little over 1200 members .

Happy Hunting !

AND

I would like to post the most recent Press Release from Phasa . Unfortunately some people and Organizations jumped to conclusions without having relevant information. I hope this will help clear some unfound statements





PRESS RELEASE
For immediate release 26 May 2017
PROFESSIONAL HUNTERS SA
ON FALSE MEDIA REPORTS ON BURGER’S RESIGNATION

The unfounded, misleading, opportunistic, and inflated media reports that Stan Burger resigned as president of the Professional Hunters’ Association of South Africa (PHASA) earlier this week because he “reeled under the pressure of some captive-bred lion hunting supporters” are untrue.

“PHASA acknowledges that our members have different and strong opinions on how the association’s resolution on the hunting of captive-bred lions (CBL) should be implemented, and that this has caused conflict within the association. This is, however, not the only reason that led to Stan’s resignation on 23 May,” says newly elected PHASA president, Dries van Coller.

The conflict [referred to above] may have caused some of the challenges that both PHASA and Stan had to endure, address and overcome during the past six months, “but these challenges are not putting PHASA’s CBL resolution in jeopardy in any away. This resolution still stands,” adds van Coller.

Stan’s reasons and motivations for resigning are not meant for public scrutiny and debate as it has to do with the manner in which the association and its members were governed in the past few months, and ought to be governed in the future.

Both Stan and PHASA have agreed not to discuss these details in the press because these matters are internal and personal, and have nothing to do with the future of well-regulated, responsible and legal hunting in South Africa.

“With that said, I need to clearly state that contrary to the inflated media reports that we have witnessed this week, PHASA is not going to dissolve nor are we about to heed to any “demands” that are not in the best interest of our members or in violation of PHASA’s constitution,” notes van Coller.

“Stan is a valued member of PHASA and the executive committee wishes him all of the best,” says van Coller.

He adds that PHASA will continue to safeguard, facilitate and promote the future of legal and sustainable trophy hunting as part of responsible conservation. “It is every hunter’s duty to ensure that whatever we do benefits Africa’s wildlife and contributes to the social-economic wellbeing of our communities,” concludes van Coller.

Other changes in PHASA leadership include the reinstatement of Barry York as vice-president.

THE END
ISSUED BY THE PROFESSIONAL HUNTERS’ ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA
MEDIA ENQUIRIES: media@phasa.co.za or +27 83 353 6811

 

[BRICKBURN]

brickburn,

i agree with you on manners! the problem is, a keyboard filters out many of the human elements that make a conversation and many times begins more questions than it answers. makes one sound more curt, or aggressive than one intends....sometimes.

Computer land certainly has its limitations.

A screen is also in your face and no one would ever stand that close to you unless they wanted a physical altercation or a kiss. (Not asking for either, honest.)

I don't mind watching a good fight (debate), just as long as it is conducted by the rules (whatever rules everyone agrees to).
Focus is lost so quickly when the name calling starts.

 

[IdaRam]

Refresh my memory. The PHASA members resigned over allowing farm raised lion hunting?

Well... I guess it depends on who’s tellin’ the story
However, it seems to me more a case of not getting their way. I’m picking up my toys and going home kind of thing.