Captive Lions For Sale At Safari Club International

MarkB said:

It has become clear that you will never broaden your opinion. Demonstrated in your post above, "pen" please use real factual words, you sound like the person this thread was about. Did you even try and educate yourself by reading the material provided? Have you followed CITES? As for my protests, the main reason I protest is due to ignorance in words, miss truths and plain BS being spread around that ultimately destroys what I am so passionate about. Even more so when it comes from members within our community. It bothers me not that you would not participate in this sort of hunt, the fact you post and further proliferate the lies, mistruths does.

I have also been a member of SCI and other associations for a very long time. Have you never questioned WHY SCI has a whole category for nearly all species called "estate"? Maybe look that up. Why can you hunt and shoot a 550" elk in a non regulated "pen" and enter it into the SCI record book? But a captive bred lion that must follow strict rules cannot? When you call SCI after the research to complain about "canned" hunts will you request that they follow this no "canned" or real word estate hunts for all species. That must be what you believe, its not only lions. Please post the reply.

Feelings are individual and specific. As long as any hunt is legal I have NO moral obligation or right to force my feelings, beliefs or morals on someone else. Some safaris I have done were behind fences, I have accepted this, I accept and understand my upcoming lion hunt, I don't expect you to accept it, that's OK, I would like you to stop spreading BS, lies and incorrect words that may negatively stop others from participating. Your feelings may some day exclude my grandchildren from doing what I love. Because even hunters on here along with the antis do not understand the difference between captive bred, canned or estate.

MB

Click to expand...

gizmo said:

Just when I thought we were free from the CBL debates...... antis are going to use anything and everything to stir up crap, divide us, and start media frenzies over nothing.

Click to expand...

Vic said:

Captive bred lions will preserve the species just like captive bred Rhino.

The SCI are a bunch of hypocrites. They list estate hunting, but boycott captive bred lion hunts due to pressure from the antis.

Click to expand...

MarkB said:

Thank you Sir

That was my real point I was trying to make, no need to get help from hunters.

Those hunts you keep posting makes me envious. If I can ever get African safari out of my system I would enjoy a Texas safari. Maybe when age discourages long 2+ day flights.



I am not calling SCI any names as they are really our only hope for protecting our right to hunt on a world scale. One must understand they are also a "business" suffering hard times with all the attacks, even from their own members. Maybe we just call it estate hunts and the species should not matter.

MB

Click to expand...

gizmo said:

Thank you sir. I would love the opportunity to get to hunt with you and we certainly aren’t going anywhere. We do make for good practice on upcoming Safaris and a way to hone ones spot and stalk skills.

Click to expand...

MarkB said:

In my opinion if a Country signs an international agreement then refuses to follow rules and regs for that agreement it demonstrates poor judgement to say the least, with worse words at the other spectrum end. If you cannot import a species that CITES issues an export and import permit for then YOUR country is failing to follow the contract it signed and agreed. Period.

Click to expand...

MarkB said:

I will Safari in Texas one day, you are on the contact list. May strike you as weird (I have been called that before) but off all things from Texas in my buddy's memory room his life size armadillo is amazing. I would love one, along with your fox's.

MB

Click to expand...

Hank2211 said:

It would not surprise me at all that outfitters were selling captive bred lion hunts at SCI or DSC or anywhere else for that matter. Regardless of what some may think about these hunts, they are legal in South Africa, and there is a demand for them. They may not be advertised at the shows anymore, but if you ask, and are interested, and seem like a hunter, I have no doubt that many outfitters will accommodate. That's the business they're in.
...

Click to expand...

Royal27 said:

You're factually incorrect here. CITES sets the maximum number of Flora and Fauna that may be exported and imported. It also clearly states that any country may chose to allow less than the maximum number to be imported. So a country that chooses to import less, or none, is totally within it's rights and is in no way in violation of the CITES agreement .

Facts matter. Period .

And to be clear, I don't support not following CITES quotas, but every member state clearly has the right to do so .

Click to expand...

Tanks said:

Heck, there are many outfitters on this forum that advertise the canned hunts in RSA. They wouldn't be in business if demand was not there.

Click to expand...

MarkB said:

My mistake thank you for the correction, there are no regs or rules that are not being followed by choosing not to import/export and follow any CITES recommendations. Signing the agreement then deciding not to follow recommendations seams to be against the spirit of the agreement considering quotas and numbers are only decided after much research. Only my thoughts, but correct its not legally binding. This may be the reason many range states stated that CITES has been "taken" over by the antis, these same states are now threatening to pull out. This will not be good for international hunting in those states or possible the very species CITES wants to protect. I am still glad Canada chooses to honor the recommendations, at least for now.

MB

Click to expand...

gizmo said:

Lol a new marketing opportunity, 3 day armadillo extravaganza. We see them all the time, they creep me out because they carry Leprocy. I realize only 5 % of the population is susceptible to getting it but as crappy as my luck is there is a 95% chance I’ll be one that is.

Click to expand...

MarkB said:

My mistake thank you for the correction, there are no regs or rules that are not being followed by choosing not to import/export and follow any CITES recommendations. Signing the agreement then deciding not to follow recommendations seams to be against the spirit of the agreement considering quotas and numbers are only decided after much research. Only my thoughts, but correct its not legally binding. This may be the reason many range states stated that CITES has been "taken" over by the antis, these same states are now threatening to pull out. This will not be good for international hunting in those states or possible the very species CITES wants to protect. I am still glad Canada chooses to honor the recommendations, at least for now.

MB

Click to expand...

MarkB said:

I must be part of the 5% as I have walked amongst many poor people with that horrible disease. Still would like to look at one armadillo daily.

MB

Click to expand...

Royal27 said:

Not against the spirit of the agreement at all. The agreement is to protect, not to freely trade. Allowing a country to ignore the agreement and go above the agreement would be going against the spirit of the agreement.

Not blindly following CITES may be against the spirit of what you wish it was, but it isn't against the spirit of what it is written to be.

What if CITES becomes completely corrupt (and many would argue it is well on its way)? Should a country just say, "well, we signed it gotta abide by it and let the rest of that forest be cut down."?

Hard to say it is against the spirit of the agreement when lowering quota or no quota for any member is written into the agreement.

Article XIV for your reading pleasure:

https://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.php#XIV

Article XIV

Effect on Domestic Legislation and International Conventions1. The provisions of the present Convention shall in no way affect the right of Parties to adopt:

(a) stricter domestic measures regarding the conditions for trade, taking, possession or transport of specimens of species included in Appendices I, II and III, or the complete prohibition thereof; or

(b) domestic measures restricting or prohibiting trade, taking, possession or transport of species not included in Appendix I, II or III.

2. The provisions of the present Convention shall in no way affect the provisions of any domestic measures or the obligations of Parties deriving from any treaty, convention, or international agreement relating to other aspects of trade, taking, possession or transport of specimens which is in force or subsequently may enter into force for any Party including any measure pertaining to the Customs, public health, veterinary or plant quarantine fields.

3. The provisions of the present Convention shall in no way affect the provisions of, or the obligations deriving from, any treaty, convention or international agreement concluded or which may be concluded between States creating a union or regional trade agreement establishing or maintaining a common external Customs control and removing Customs control between the parties thereto insofar as they relate to trade among the States members of that union or agreement.

4. A State party to the present Convention, which is also a party to any other treaty, convention or international agreement which is in force at the time of the coming into force of the present Convention and under the provisions of which protection is afforded to marine species included in Appendix II, shall be relieved of the obligations imposed on it under the provisions of the present Convention with respect to trade in specimens of species included in Appendix II that are taken by ships registered in that State and in accordance with the provisions of such other treaty, convention or international agreement.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles III, IV and V, any export of a specimen taken in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Article shall only require a certificate from a Management Authority of the State of introduction to the effect that the specimen was taken in accordance with the provisions of the other treaty, convention or international agreement in question.

6. Nothing in the present Convention shall prejudice the codification and development of the law of the sea by the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea convened pursuant to Resolution 2750 C (XXV) of the General Assembly of the United Nations nor the present or future claims and legal views of any State concerning the law of the sea and the nature and extent of coastal and flag State jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

SafariA said:

I guess it each country have the right to do what they seem fit .....just sad that some of this science makes Zero sense ....eg Brown Hyena vs Spotted imports ..... we have very little areas with limited numbers of Spotted Hyena ..... We have Brown Hyena pretty much country wide in very high numbers. There should be some method or science behind such decision .....especially by departments that puts ALL emphahsis on scientific research ..... Boils down to practise what you preach I guess ....

Click to expand...

sierraone said:

We had this same argument a couple of years ago. Some of the posters are the same, some not. But the arguments for the most part could have been copied and pasted from a couple of years ago!

Click to expand...

Royal27 said:

Should we start another Hornady thread too?

Click to expand...