Hold On A Minute........

Nov 20, 2017
The weeks before a major holiday normally are low-impact. Nearly everyone is in the wind-down mode, focusing more on the logistics of getting families together than the usual complications of life.The news business is no exception, and this week normally focuses on gas prices, holiday shopping and the inevitable complications of weather on one of the heaviest travel times of the year.

This year might be different- especially for big-game hunters.

Instead of focusing on pardoning the presidential turkey, Mr. Trump has cut the legs out from under Fish & Wildlife Service - and simultaneously infuriated many of the groups whose members helped put him in the White House.

Today's news contains announcements from hunting groups applauding a Thursday announcement from the USFWS that the 2014 ban on importation of elephant trophies from Zimbabwe was being lifted.

For big game organizations, the announcement seemed to herald a return to scientific wildlife management. It was a significant change from apparently politically-motivated decisions made under the previous administration.

Unfortunately, the applause for the USFWS was deserved, but the celebration premature.

On Friday, President Trump shocked his own administration and the conservation organizations with this tweet:

"Put big game decision on hold until such time as I review all conservation facts. Under study for years. Will update soon with Secretary Zinke. Thank you!"
(@realDonaldTrump).


Yep, in 144 characters (or less), Mr. Trump tossed the USFWS decision, discounted scientific research done by wildlife managers, and ignored reforms made in both Zimbabwe and Zambian wildlife management that were credited with the 2014 ban.

Unfortunately, these groups used facts to argue the fate of most African wildlife. This decision seems driven entirely by social media and mainstream criticism of the USFWS announcement.

The fact that managed hunting helps maintain healthy wildlife herds while simultaneously bringing much-needed income to equip game rangers to combat the rampant poaching that reduced elephant herds by nearly 30 percent from 2007-2014 drove the USFWS decision, but it appears they had nothing to do with Mr. Trumps decision to stop the process.

That decision appears to have been a reaction to the protests of "weaponized" followers of animal rights groups.

Only minutes after word of the USFWS decision got out, groups like the Center for Biological Diversity and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) turned their followers on the White House, using social media and a willing media to categorize the USFWS decision as "political fealty to the NRA and SCI".

Mr. Trump, simply stated, buckled under that pressure.

As the Center for Biological Diversity celebrated Mr. Trump's blocking the USFWS, a spokesman said it would take "more than a tweet to stop trophy hunters from slaughtering elephants and lions."

The meaning was pretty obvious: CBD now knows whose button to push- and they won't be reluctant to do so going forward.

No anti-hunting group offered any suggestion as to what might stop the wholesale slaughter of both species by rampant poaching. But the CBD, the HSUS and similar groups are far more focused on banning hunting than preserving wildlife.

But Mr. Trump's tweet also seems to have infuriated- and energized- one of the very groups the HSUS's Wayne Pacelle suggested Mr. Trump owed political fealty: Safari Club International.

In today's news section, you'll see a story headlined "SCI Ushers in New Era in Hunting"

Going forward,the release reads, SCI "will be more proactive and not back down" when it comes to accurately telling the story of wildlife preservation -and the positive role hunters play in effective game management.

Now, it seems what was nothing much more than a small victory for hunters and game managers has the potential to escalate into a pitched battle between hunters and anti-hunters. A battle, SCI President Paul Babaz says, his organization has no intention of losing.

In fact, he says SCI will "quick to respond when hunting is criticized".

We'll see - especially if the response needs to be addressed to @realDonaldTrump.

Are hunters and the outdoor industry really willing to take on a president they helped put in the White House? Attempting to correct any unilateral decision, even ill-informed ones, could invite an even worse response.

But even the most ardent Trump supporters who are big game hunters may have a hard time rationalizing continued support in the face of this decision.

As always, we'll keep you posted.

--Jim Shepherd