What has Pres. Trump done wrong so far.

I'm always an advocate of pilot programs, so instead of lifting the ban wholesale how about a small pilot program in concert with the government of one of the more stable African countries. 5 male lions and 5 male elephants per year in with 1/2 of the fee going to national government and 1/2 going toward the local village(s) near where the animals were shot. Special import license required. Poaching prevented by only issuing 5 licenses each per year. Expand as demand and logistics warrant.

You only need 1 male per harem with those species so you could remove 50-70% without issue AND provide an economic incentive to preserve females.

biochem wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Ok, if anyone can think of a single reason for lifting the ban on importing elephant ivory and lion head trophies besides "Obama had that ban and I want to reverse it because he had it and I'm a soulless asshole"..... I'm all ears.

There is a theory among some conservation groups that if you monitize them it will give the locals a reason to preserve them. Right now if you are an African farmer the monetary incentives strongly favor poaching. Elephants trample the crops and lions eat the calves and goats. Stirong incentive with that alone add in a payment from Chinese importers looking for traditional medicine components and the incentives lean even more strongly toward poaching. Conservation is a rich 1st world thing. Subsistence farmers in Africa are just trying to survive.

The theory is that if you allow big game hunting with trophies the long term monetary incentives will shift toward keeping a viable breeding population alive to keep the money rolling in. The idea is that you could educate the locals that long term prosperity ( permenant big game industry) outweighs the short term gain ( have big game hunters kill them now).

It may or may not work but right now the locals have every reason to want every elephant and lion outside of a National Park dead (the economics are different within the parks, western safari tourists provide an economic incentive toward preservation in those specific locations and thus while poaching is a major problem the locals employed as guides, souvenir sellers etc have an economic incentive to stop the poachers not to help the poachers).

Besides that, in a properly managed program, the money will also go (at least in part) to sustain conservation efforts. And from my understanding, hunters in this thing can't shoot any random elephant they come across - they can only shot specific designated ones, and the animals selected for being hunted are those who the rangers/wardens would have to kill anyway - e.g. those old enough that they'd starve to death as their teeth are too worn down to chew their food, rogue males who have killed other elephants, and so on.

So allowing restricted hunting isn't necessarily a problem in itself. The sticky part is, of course, making sure all the hunting is legal. The total ban on ivory imports is intended to reduce the profit of poaching by making it impossible for poachers to launder ivory in the US. In theory, the ban could be lifted to allow imports, if you're strict about getting verification from the countries where the hunting is taking place and know that said verification is reliable. So it depends on exactly how well-thought out the policy in place is; unfortunately, the current administration is not particularly detail-oriented and the slow gutting of the State Department would make things even more difficult. Also, the timing isn't good, given the current turmoil in Zimbabwe; the government there has bigger things to worry about than tracking and verifying ivory exports.

biochem wrote:The theory is that if you allow big game hunting with trophies the long term monetary incentives will shift toward keeping a viable breeding population alive to keep the money rolling in. The idea is that you could educate the locals that long term prosperity ( permenant big game industry) outweighs the short term gain ( have big game hunters kill them now).

I doubt that'll work since a lot of businesses in more developed nations seem to have forgotten that lesson in the past couple decades.

biochem wrote:I'm always an advocate of pilot programs, so instead of lifting the ban wholesale how about a small pilot program in concert with the government of one of the more stable African countries. 5 male lions and 5 male elephants per year in with 1/2 of the fee going to national government and 1/2 going toward the local village(s) near where the animals were shot. Special import license required. Poaching prevented by only issuing 5 licenses each per year. Expand as demand and logistics warrant.

You only need 1 male per harem with those species so you could remove 50-70% without issue AND provide an economic incentive to preserve females.

First, I have no idea how you think there is any relationship between restricting number of licenses and restricting poaching. Kind of the entire concept of poaching is "don't give a crap about licences".

As for the rest, sure it is *possible* to employ carefully tailored and directed selective hunting programs in a manner which is beneficial to increasing the numbers of endangered species. But that is not what is happening here. What is happening here is the same thing happening everywhere in the Trump administration, a thoroughly studied data backed policy being overturned on a whim (or maybe not, or maybe so, or who the heck knows what the next tweet from Trump will say about anything) by some new appointees with no knowledge of the topic they have been put in charge of who don't give a crap what the previous subject matter experts on the subject said.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/27/politics/ ... index.html

Trump makes 'Pocahontas' crack at event honoring Navajo code talkers

President Donald Trump, during an event at the White House honoring Navajo code talkers Monday, referenced his nickname for Sen. Elizabeth Warren, "Pocahontas," a label he has long used about the Massachusetts Democrat.

"I just want to thank you because you are very, very special people. You were here long before any of us were here," Trump said. "Although, we have a representative in Congress who has been here a long time ... longer than you -- they call her Pocahontas!"

Trump did not name Warren.

Not the Onion. He actually did this.

Calling him an immature toddler in an old man's body is seriously beginning to be a disservice to toddlers at this point.

Eyal wrote:Besides that, in a properly managed program, the money will also go (at least in part) to sustain conservation efforts. And from my understanding, hunters in this thing can't shoot any random elephant they come across - they can only shot specific designated ones, and the animals selected for being hunted are those who the rangers/wardens would have to kill anyway - e.g. those old enough that they'd starve to death as their teeth are too worn down to chew their food, rogue males who have killed other elephants, and so on.

So allowing restricted hunting isn't necessarily a problem in itself. The sticky part is, of course, making sure all the hunting is legal. The total ban on ivory imports is intended to reduce the profit of poaching by making it impossible for poachers to launder ivory in the US. In theory, the ban could be lifted to allow imports, if you're strict about getting verification from the countries where the hunting is taking place and know that said verification is reliable. So it depends on exactly how well-thought out the policy in place is; unfortunately, the current administration is not particularly detail-oriented and the slow gutting of the State Department would make things even more difficult. Also, the timing isn't good, given the current turmoil in Zimbabwe; the government there has bigger things to worry about than tracking and verifying ivory exports.

Yeah Zimbabwe probably isn't the best choice for stable African partner right now. But there are other countries. Kenya perhaps.

I agree the current administration is not detail oriented. I actually prefer that to having Trump write the details, but there are people at Fish and Wildlife who are detail oriented and if the executive order was come up with a small pilot program to test the hypothesis vs blanket removal, I believe that they could do that. Blanket removal would be a nightmare from the verification standpoint. Any new program has bugs and glitches. Releasing an uncontrolled flood of pent up demand with trophies coming in from every country in Africa without time for them to set up a verification program on their end is a receipe for abuse. It's much easier to get the verification system working with just a few animals.

First, I have no idea how you think there is any relationship between restricting number of licenses and restricting poaching. Kind of the entire concept of poaching is "don't give a crap about licences".

It would limit specific types of poaching relevant to the USA. Someone going to Africa in what they think is a legal hunt but which is actually organized by poachers. Restricted licenses would also make it easier to track down forged licenses. If there are only 5 licenses issued but 6 lion heads imported then one must be fake and it's time to go knock on 6 doors.

It would not eliminate the major cause of organized poaching, the Asian medicine market (nothing to do with the USA, unless we want to play global cop).

It also would not eliminate local causes of poaching i.e. that lion ate my goat (also nothing to do with the USA, unless we want to start dictating to other countries how to handle their own internal criminal activity).

As for the rest, sure it is *possible* to employ carefully tailored and directed selective hunting programs in a manner which is beneficial to increasing the numbers of endangered species. But that is not what is happening here. What is happening here is the same thing happening everywhere in the Trump administration, a thoroughly studied data backed policy being overturned on a whim (or maybe not, or maybe so, or who the heck knows what the next tweet from Trump will say about anything) by some new appointees with no knowledge of the topic they have been put in charge of who don't give a crap what the previous subject matter experts on the subject said.

It's actually a standard Trump administration theme. Trump makes a grand far reaching statement with few details on implementation. The left panics. Trump comes back with a smaller less far reaching proposal. That version of the proposal moves forward.

Scott Adams thinks he does this on purpose. Gcomeau thinks he does it by accident. I am somewhat in the middle. I think sometimes it is on purpose, sometimes it is by accident.

Trump is however shown that he is very flexible, you don't like A, how about B? Something you opponents should remember - he is almost always (there are a few limited exceptions) willing to be flexible. It you pick the things you hate the most about his various proposals, it can be easier just to get him to remove or reduce those specific concerns than to spend all of your energy on "I hate him, so there".

biochem wrote:Scott Adams thinks he does this on purpose. Gcomeau thinks he does it by accident. I am somewhat in the middle. I think sometimes it is on purpose, sometimes it is by accident.

If Trump was caught murdering someone over a tweet, Scott Adams would praise him.

Scott Adams is an idiot, is what I'm trying to say. He's the king of trying to find ex post facto rationalizations for very clearly irrational behaviour; his assertion that, underneath all the bluster, incoherence and stupidity Trump is known for there's a highly intelligent and skilled political operator is flat-out wrong.

Trump is however shown that he is very flexible, you don't like A, how about B? Something you opponents should remember - he is almost always (there are a few limited exceptions) willing to be flexible. It you pick the things you hate the most about his various proposals, it can be easier just to get him to remove or reduce those specific concerns than to spend all of your energy on "I hate him, so there".

He doesn't seem to be very flexible on his greed. Or his embarassing rambling on whatever subject is on his mind in any particular second. Or his spreading of misinformation about immigrants, health care, taxes....

biochem wrote:

First, I have no idea how you think there is any relationship between restricting number of licenses and restricting poaching. Kind of the entire concept of poaching is "don't give a crap about licences".

It would limit specific types of poaching relevant to the USA. Someone going to Africa in what they think is a legal hunt but which is actually organized by poachers. Restricted licenses would also make it easier to track down forged licenses. If there are only 5 licenses issued but 6 lion heads imported then one must be fake and it's time to go knock on 6 doors.

It would not eliminate the major cause of organized poaching, the Asian medicine market (nothing to do with the USA, unless we want to play global cop).

It also would not eliminate local causes of poaching i.e. that lion ate my goat (also nothing to do with the USA, unless we want to start dictating to other countries how to handle their own internal criminal activity).

As for the rest, sure it is *possible* to employ carefully tailored and directed selective hunting programs in a manner which is beneficial to increasing the numbers of endangered species. But that is not what is happening here. What is happening here is the same thing happening everywhere in the Trump administration, a thoroughly studied data backed policy being overturned on a whim (or maybe not, or maybe so, or who the heck knows what the next tweet from Trump will say about anything) by some new appointees with no knowledge of the topic they have been put in charge of who don't give a crap what the previous subject matter experts on the subject said.

It's actually a standard Trump administration theme. Trump makes a grand far reaching statement with few details on implementation. The left panics. Trump comes back with a smaller less far reaching proposal. That version of the proposal moves forward.

Ummm.... no. Just no.

We are a year in almost now. He has gotten effectively NO substantial legislation passed. At all.

Trump's tactic is "Gimme what I want! Gimme gimme gimme!"

Then do no work to actually make it happen because Trump doesn't actually DO work.... in case you still have somehow managed not to notice this. Constantly blunder around making public pronouncements about what is or is not going to happen that are so divorced from reality (because he is not involving himself AT ALL in the work of actually doing it) they constantly blow up even his own party's attempts to actually write legislation and move it through the process, and nothing happens.

There is actually a serious possibility they won't even get TAX CUTS done. An entirely GOP controlled House and Senate is in danger of not being able to pass TAX CUTS. Because the process is being handled so incompetently that the bill they have put together is toxic even to some of the surviving sane Republicans who are maybe kinda not ok with destroying the nation's fiscal health in order to give Trump's billionaire buddies even more money. If this was anything *except* tax cuts they already would have killed this effort too, tax cuts being an item of religious dogma to Republicans is the only reason this horror show of a bill is still alive. And Trump does nothing to help (not that he has the capacity to anyway). He just shoots his mouth off from the sidelines.

Seriously, what alternate dimension do you post from where Trump is good at any of this???

Scott Adams thinks he does this on purpose.

Scott Adams is a moron who would say Trump was engaged in a brilliant strategy of masterful persuasion if he walked into a world leaders summit, farted loudly, then took a dump in a potted plant and walked out of the room to go home and take a nap after his exhausting day of diplomacy.

Trump is getting most of his accomplishments through executive actions and judicial appointments.

Tax cuts and Obamacare were not big themes of his on the campaign trail. Both, however, have been major talking points of Congressional Republicans for years. Trumps primary statements have been to the effect of I'm here, I'm Republican and I'll sign anything you send me on these issues so now you have your chance to follow through on the promises. So far Congress's ability to do anything has been an epic fail. Thus Republican voters blame congress not Trump.

Trump hasn't tried to get any of his own campaign themes legislated.

Immigration - enforcing existing laws
The wall - building samples
Drain the swamp - series of executive orders
Protect from terrorism - executive order fights in court
Defeat ISIS - delegate to Mad Dog
Trade - seems to be getting some concessions by threatening trade wars etc
Save USA jobs - taking credit for the small but real improvement in the us economy (some of it directly due to him via the regulatory executive actions most is just the usual i.e. the current president always gets credit for the economy for good or ill), little directly on jobs but he seems to be getting some credit for trying
America First - mostly psychological via speeches etc

Note no attempted legislation on HIS priorities