Prince William: 'We must do more on illegal ivory trade'

[Halb]

Prince William: 'We must do more on illegal ivory trade'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37443467

A nice issue to take up arms for. I hope he sticks with it.

Also just seen, how cheetahs are being threatened by fkwit rich ARabs wanting them as pets.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3745...

They just had a quick run-down on some big cats

cheetahs 100,000 down to 7,000 since 1900
tigers down from 100,000 in 1900 to 3,000 circa
Lions down from 400,000 in 1950 to 20,000 now.

[Halb]

It would be, 'half'.

[Halb]

Cotty said:

No I missed it as I was not aware that you could hunt an elephant legally.

Not even sure how something like that could work, considering gestation and numbers, even putting aside the fkwittery of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3746...

Maybe it's best that these intelligent creatures die out (along with other megafauna)? Then there will be no retards to hunt them.

[Halb]

Cotty said:

That's why im curious what would happen after they are gone. Would the poachers just move onto another endangered species?

That's why it may be better that the megafauna die out, eventually we'll just be left with cows and sheep.
Then maybe fkwittery will decrease? :jester?

AJL308 said:

It works fine in the places which allow it. If animals are worth more to the population via legal hunting than they are through poaching then they won't be poached. Hunting is regulated while poaching is obviously not.

It really is that simple.

With numbers tumbling, the gestation being almost 2 years and the habitat falling, it doesn't look that simple for a creature like the elephant. Not everything has the same answer.

[Halb]

AJL308 said:

I take it that you also consider all the Chinese people who are buying the illegal poached Ivory and Rhino horn to be 'retards' as well then? No one ever seems to make that point.

Yes, they're retards, and yes, the point that it is the Chinese/east that drives a lot of this is made every single time this issue crops up. In the very articles I post

[Halb]

AJL308 said:

So why is it that countries which allow managed hunting don't seem to have a significant problem with illegal poaching?

Gestation times are irrelevant. You only shoot old animals who won't be reproducing anyway. Nor do you need to have a large supply of huntable animals. It isn't like producing broiler chickens or keeping a sport fishing lake stocked. It's extremely expensive so one animal brings in a lot of cash.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151715-conservation-trophy-hunting-elephants-tusks-poaching-zimbabwe-namibia/
"Trophy hunting isn’t stopping poaching, especially in countries that have a poor record of protecting their wildlife.

Six countries—South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique, Namibia, and Tanzania—have many of the remaining savanna elephants. Along with Cameroon and Gabon, these nations allow sport hunting regardless of the level of decline in their elephant populations. (Botswana, which has more than 130,000 elephants by one recent estimate, has banned trophy hunting.)

According to the latest figures, Tanzania’s elephant population has fallen from nearly 110,000 in 2009 to just over 43,000 at the end of 2014—a 60 percent drop. Mozambique’s elephants declined from an estimated 20,000 to 10,300 during the same period. In Zimbabwe, a recent survey shows massive losses in some parks."

[Halb]

MarshPhantom said:

We should hunt the Royal Family instead.

It wouldn't last that long?

[Halb]

AJL308 said:

Conservation Magazine appears to take a different view:

http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy...

"[i]
Is there such evidence? According to a 2005 paper by Nigel Leader-Williams and colleagues in the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy the answer is yes. Leader-Williams describes how the legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies.[/i]

It does mention that badly run hunting schemes don't work very well, no surprise there then, but I did refer properly regulated hunting.

I don't believe for one minute that South Africa and those other countries mentioned in the NG allow animals to be hunted without regard to their numbers - well, Zimbabwe under it's current psychotic leadership may do. However, even they point out that this lot also thinks that properly run hunting is a perfectly reasonable way to further conservation.

https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_ssc_guidin...

That article quotes Zimbabwe as a success, when it isn't, as shown in the article I posted from a later date.
http://www.herald.co.zw/jumbo-population-down-40pc...
Do the hunter needs to pay more for bodyguards for the elephants to stop the poachers?
Poaching isn't going to disappear, and from the looks of things, hunting isn't helping much.

[Halb]

Matthen said:

Solution is simple; flood the market with synthesised ivory. As long as you can't tell the difference between fake and real, the price will plummet.

Is that possible?
If so, I'll start cranking up the 3d printer!

[Halb]

Cotty said:

How about just removing the locals? Perhaps to the North Pole less animals for them to kill up there.

It's about time we did something that those pesky polar bears!!

[Halb]

Cotty said:

Halb said:

It's about time we did something that those pesky polar bears!!

Like what? I have already suggested a feeding program.

Do we feed them to PHers or feed PHers to them?...