THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM AFRICAN HUNTING FORUM


Moderators: Saeed
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Zim Elephant import status?
 Login/Join
 
One of Us
Picture of LionHunter
posted
Looks like USFWS opened Lion imports. Anybody have any news on the Elephant import status from Zim?

We will likely be hunting multiple Elephant with CMS in about 6 months and would like to import some trophy parts again.


Mike
______________
DSC
DRSS (again)
SCI Life
NRA Life
Sables Life
Mzuri
IPHA

"To be a Marine is enough."
 
Posts: 3577 | Location: Silicon Valley | Registered: 19 November 2008Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Steve Ahrenberg
posted Hide Post
Hi Mike,

Great question, I'm curious as to both Lion and Elephant in Tanzania as well. I have a 21 day license there next year and it will make difference as to how I prepare financially.

I'm a bit surprised things moved at this velocity. I was having dinner with a guy last year, we brought up USFWS and Zinke, my comment was "I hope importation rules change for next year" I was told "You have a very amateurish view of American Politics, if you think one administration can change this" Cool


Formerly "Nganga"
 
Posts: 3342 | Location: Phoenix, Arizona | Registered: 26 April 2010Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of LionHunter
posted Hide Post
Hey Steve,

Yes, I also have very high hopes for Zinke and his ability to reform USFWS.

As you know, a big part of the problem is the number of antis who have risen in the ranks of the organization and how they have been able to impact the decisions thereof. I honestly believe we don't have to wait forever with the current administration. We have never had a POTUS like we do now, and Zinke, as a former Navy SEAL, is quite used to operating in unusual and inhospitable environments. I am still optimistic.

Here's hoping we both can import our trophies in 2018.


Mike
______________
DSC
DRSS (again)
SCI Life
NRA Life
Sables Life
Mzuri
IPHA

"To be a Marine is enough."
 
Posts: 3577 | Location: Silicon Valley | Registered: 19 November 2008Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
We will likely be hunting multiple Elephant with CMS in about 6 months and would like to import some trophy parts again.


It's being worked on...I think an answer will be forthcoming very soon, as in days.


Karl Evans

 
Posts: 2723 | Location: Emhouse, Tx | Registered: 03 February 2010Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Hoping this works out soon. Fingers crossed!
 
Posts: 58 | Registered: 02 November 2014Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
tu2 tu2
 
Posts: 1782 | Location: Sinton, Texas | Registered: 08 November 2006Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
https://www.law360.com/sports/...ugh-dc-circuit-bench



Elephant Trophy Ban Faces Tough DC Circuit Bench


By Jimmy Hoover

Law360, Washington (October 13, 2017, 2:27 PM EDT) -- A skeptical D.C. Circuit panel on Friday suggested that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service bypassed its required rule-making process when it banned imports of sport-hunted African elephant trophies from Zimbabwe.
The FWS, an agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior, faced pushback from the three-judge panel while fending off a challenge from the Safari Club and the National Rifle Association to its decision to ban the imports under the Endangered Species Act.

The service adopted the policy after finding that Zimbabwe didn’t have enough information about the country’s elephant hunting program to conclude that sport hunting was enhancing survival of the species — a requisite condition for allowing imports of African elephant hunting trophies under a special rule that the FWS enacted in 1978 under the ESA.

During oral arguments on Friday, the judges asked why the agency didn’t make that determination through its normal rule-making process, subject to the public comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

“That’s the problem with your case,” U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards told an attorney for the government. “Where’s the rule-making required by the APA?”

Department of Justice attorney Avi Kupfer responded, saying that the agency's enhancement finding that there wasn’t enough information to conclude that sport hunting enhanced the elephants’ survival was an “adjudication” that did not have to go through the notice and comment procedures of traditional rule-makings.

There is “no regulation or statute that requires the agency to proceed with a rule-making,” Kupfer said.

The judges pushed back against that argument.

“Who is the party of the adjudication?” asked U.S. Circuit Judge David Tatel. “How can you have an adjudication without another party?”

Judge Edwards offered his answer: “There’s no adjudication here, counselor.”

Perhaps sensing the tenor of the judge’s questions, Kupfer fell back on his argument that even if the agency should have made its enhancement finding through the normal rule-making process, it was harmless error because the Safari Club still submitted comments and hasn’t shown how its arguments would have been different under a rule-making proceeding.

That argument also appeared to fall flat.

Judge Tatel raised a 2002 case called Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida v. Veneman, in which the panel — which coincidentally included two of the members of Friday’s panel: Tatel himself and now-Chief Judge Merrick Garland — held that the failure to do notice and comment was not harmless, even though the government received some input from the parties.

“In the Sugar [Cane] Growers case, we rejected that argument,” he told Kupfer.

“I believe the facts in that case were somewhat different,” Kupfer responded.

“Of course,” Judge Tatel replied. “The facts in all cases are different.”

The FWS first announced that it would suspend trophy imports from Zimbabwe in April 2014. The service expressed concern about the management, funding and resources of wildlife authorities in Zimbabwe, noting a lack of data on the population numbers in the country, according to court documents.

The service first published notice of that interim suspension in the Federal Register on May 12, 2014, but said that the suspension would be effective dating back to elephants that were killed on or after April 4, 2014.

The Safari Club and NRA have argued that if the FWS wanted to ban the imports, it needed to make an “affirmative finding” that sport hunting in the country would not aid the animals' survival, not simply that the regulator “lacked” information to conclude so.

“What they’ve never been able to say, what the presumption requires them to find, is that the service finds that hunting does not enhance survival,” Douglas S. Burdin, an in-house attorney at the Safari Club, said on behalf of the challengers.

Burdin said that the service based its decision to ban the imports in part on inaccurate media reports that poachers poisoned 300 elephants in Hwange National Park in 2013. Although unfortunate, the actual figure was closer to 100 elephants, Burgin said.

Burdin said that the service also underestimated the number of elephants in Zimbabwe, saying that the actual number of animals was closer to 85,000 rather than the government’s estimate of around 45,000.

On appeal is a September 2016 ruling from U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who granted summary judgment to the government on most of its APA defenses.

Judge Lamberth, shelving the challengers’ arguments that the government needed to make an “affirmative” enhancement finding, ruled that the regulations were not that clear and that the FWS was entitled to deference under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling in Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., which gives deference to agency interpretations of unclear or ambiguous laws.

Judge Lamberth did, however, side with the Safari Club and the NRA in finding that the FWS should not have been able to backdate the suspension, granting the groups’ motion for summary judgment on that issue. He ordered that the effective date of the interim suspension should be May 12, 2014, the date it appeared in the Federal Register.

The Safari Club is represented in-house by Anna M. Seidman, Douglas S. Burdin and Jeremy E. Clare. The NRA is represented in-house by Christopher A. Conte and Michael Thomas Jean.

The U.S. Department of the Interior is represented by Avi Kupfer, Jeffrey Heath Wood, Matt Littleton and Andrew C. Mergen of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The activist groups are represented by Anna Frostic of The Humane Society of the United States, and Tanya Sanerib and Sarah Uhlemann of the Center for Biological Diversity.

The consolidated cases are Safari Club International et al. v. Ryan Zinke et al., case numbers 16-5358 and 16-5362, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

--Additional reporting by Natalie Olivo. Editing by Stephen Berg.


Kathi

kathi@wildtravel.net
708-425-3552

"The world is a book, and those who do not travel read only one page."
 
Posts: 9348 | Location: Chicago | Registered: 23 July 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
http://www.huntingreport.com/c...ion_force.cfm?id=458



Conservation Force Makes a Compelling Argument on Zimbabwe Elephant Trophy Imports before the FWS Director
Written By John J. Jackson III, Conservation Force Chairman & President
(posted September 2017)

By Regina Lennox, Staff Attorney


On August 10, we argued the denial of two permit applications to import elephant trophies hunted in Zimbabwe in 2015 before the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). John J. Jackson, III and I represented the applicants. The Acting FWS Director, Greg Sheehan, was accompanied by the Chief of Permits, Chief of the Division of Management Authority (DMA), Deputy FWS Director for Operations, and two representatives of the Solicitor's Office of the Department of Interior. In short, we had a full house. We held everyone's attention when we described the hunting community's disappointment with the 40-month (and pending) suspension of elephant trophy imports.

I focused on the details of the argument, and John added big-picture concerns, including the length of the continuing suspension, its impact on Zimbabwe's community wildlife management program (CAMPFIRE), and the apparent FWS policy against Zimbabwe, among other key points. He noted that the suspension of elephant trophy imports and de facto suspension of lion trophy imports has been an unexpected double-attack on Zimbabwe and other countries in Southern Africa with stable or increasing game populations. John stated, flatly, that the suspension must end, and imports must be re-established, or CAMPFIRE and rural community tolerance for elephant will disappear. He also stated, flatly, that if the FWS does not have the capacity to make decisions under a "special rule" enhancement standard-which is not required by the Endangered Species Act itself-then the FWS should not adopt a special rule. These actions are not in the best interests of the elephant.

The Acting FWS Director asked only one question, about the scope of the argument: did it cover just two permits, or did it go further to apply to the entire suspension? We responded that our appeal covered two import permit applications; however, the information, particularly a July 2015 response from Zimbabwe to the FWS, dated both before and after these applications. The information dated to 2014, 2016, and future hunting seasons. Therefore, although only two applications were technically on appeal, the entire suspension (past, present and future) was actually at issue, if the FWS finally incorporated relevant data that still had not been considered in an enhancement finding. The Director clearly understood our point.

Our argument began by laying out a timeline of the suspension, Zimbabwe's responses to FWS questionnaires, numerous comments filed by Conservation Force and other parties, and the DMA's negative enhancement findings. The key take-aways were, first, that negative findings preceded FWS data requests to Zimbabwe's Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (ZPWMA). Although the trophy import suspension was allegedly based on a lack of information, the FWS' decision to "make negative findings first, ask questions later" was insulting to ZPWMA, and suggested the negative decisions had already been made. The second key take-away was that the process had stagnated. A lot of activity occurred in 2014, and quite a bit in 2015. ZPWMA responded in July 2015 to an FWS questionnaire, and then everything ground to a halt. That response was not incorporated into any finding. Few communications or decisions occurred in 2016 and 2017. That lack of progress had to be corrected.

Our argument then addressed alleged data gaps and "sticking points" in the March 26, 2015 negative enhancement finding. The two permits were denied based on that finding, which applies to the "2015 season and future hunting seasons." We broke down and rebutted this finding to clear the way for future imports. But again, we noted that ZPWMA's July 2015 response provided extensive 2014 data, which would be sufficient to reverse the past negative findings and lift the suspension across the board.

We went through each section of the enhancement finding, identifying and resolving "sticking points." For the first section, "Management Plans," the negative March 2015 finding primarily objected that Zimbabwe's prior elephant management plan had not been updated since its adoption in 1997, and there were no "specific measurable indicators" to gauge the plan's implementation. We pointed out that, at the end of 2014, Zimbabwe prepared a brand-new management plan, with specific action steps, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), and means of verifying the implementation of those KPIs. ZPWMA also held regional workshops to prepare action plans to address each region's unique management situation. The first draft of the new plan was sent to the FWS in December 2014; the final draft was sent in July 2015; and regional workshop materials were sent throughout 2015. Because the 1997 plan had been replaced, the first objection was moot. We also cited information from ZPWMA which described specific management actions and means of verification used under the prior, 1997 plan. This information was available to the FWS, and should have been incorporated into an updated enhancement finding. This information alleviated the FWS' concern that there were no "measurable indicators," and it should have been considered in the March 2015 finding.

For the second section, "Population Status," the FWS' key concerns were an asserted lack of recent surveys, and a six percent decline in Zimbabwe's elephant population compared to the 2001 countrywide survey. We provided seven recent surveys and evidence of other monitoring activities, which showed that ZPWMA was keeping abreast of its elephant population trend. Further, the six percent decline was considered "not statistically significant" by the survey's authors. Zimbabwe's elephant population was basically stable between 2001 and 2014. Zimbabwe simply cannot hold ~140,000 elephant, because the range capacity is only about ~45,000 and the human population is rapidly expanding. The stability of Zimbabwe's population reflects strong management given the 20% increase in the human population during the same period. This fact should not be dismissed by the FWS.

The March enhancement finding identified a lack of information on ZPWMA's capacity to enforce "adequate" laws in the section on "Regulations and Enforcement." However, the FWS' concern relied upon a non-existent panel of experts. Moreover, the FWS received ZPWMA's budget data in July 2015. That data revealed that ZPWMA received sufficient revenue from hunting to protect safari areas and part of the national parks. This is essential revenue to protect critical habitat for elephant. ZPWMA updated FWS on its implementation of the new Elephant Management Plan, and funds spent, in November 2016. According to this update, ZPWMA had sufficient capacity to manage elephant; however, the FWS suspension on elephant trophy imports was standing in the way of full implementation. This data resolves the finding's concern about lack of capacity-any lack is due to the FWS' policy, not Zimbabwe's.

The negative finding's largest criticism of ZPWMA's "Sustainable Use" was insufficient data on elephant offtakes and quota-setting practices. But ZPWMA's July 2015 response provided the mortality information, so this criticism was unwarranted. Further, all ZPWMA's responses (April and October 2014 and July 2015) explained quota-setting in detail. Quotas are based on a range of data, including offtakes from all sources and environmental, biological and social factors. Reported offtakes have been way more than sustainable-they averaged about 0.25% of the elephant population in the 2010-2015 period. This limited offtake benefited the elephant and was not detrimental to its survival.

For the sixth and seventh sections ("Revenue Utilization" and "Local Conservation Efforts"), we emphasized the importance of CAMPFIRE. The devolution of Appropriate Authority to local landholders has invested them with stewardship of wildlife on their land. It has reduced human-wildlife conflicts and benefitted hundreds of thousands of rural Zimbabweans. ZPWMA, the CAMPFIRE Association, and Conservation Force provided data to show the essential role played by US hunters, who represent most tourist hunters in Zimbabwe. The negative finding failed to comprehend that Appropriate Authority is a government mechanism benefiting elephant and other game. We spoke passionately on these points, because the rural communities who live alongside wildlife are ultimately the ones who will determine the species' long-term survival.

We then focused on the ESA's "enhancement" standard. We cited specific facts and figures to prove that tourist hunting creates incentives to protect almost four times as much habitat as in National Parks. It generates over one-third of the revenue for ZPWMA-revenue then used for enforcement and wildlife management. Tourist hunting funds anti-poaching in safari areas, most communal areas, and private conservancies. Operators maintain their own anti-poaching teams and, in 2013 alone, a sample of 14 operators spent almost $1 million on anti-poaching. ZPWMA relies upon the public-private partnership that exists between safari operators and the government to sustain elephant management over a huge area.

Finally, over 90% of CAMPFIRE's revenue comes from hunting, and two-thirds from elephant hunting, which means elephant hunting alone is responsible for increasing tolerance among rural Zimbabweans through infrastructure investment, game meat donations and more. The Director, and even the Solicitors, nodded in appreciation of these benefits. They undoubtedly satisfy the ESA (and the self-imposed "special rule" for elephant), which requires the activity only "enhance the survival of the specie." We emphasized that this standard should not be redefined in each finding, and John stated that there is no replacement for the value generated by tourist hunting in Zimbabwe.

We focused on what is at stake by continued suspension in the last section of our 59-slide presentation. ZPWMA lost 12% of its revenue from 2013 to 2014 because of the suspension. CAMPFIRE lost 37.5% of its revenue from 2013 to 2015. Zimbabwe's reliance on tourist hunting as a management tool-enshrined in the new plan-is being undermined. Even the authors of the negative findings had to appreciate the suspension's counter-productive impact following our presentation.

The Acting Director thanked us and confirmed his team would dig into our information and issue a ruling soon. We are confident that we made a compelling case, to guide this upcoming decision.


Kathi

kathi@wildtravel.net
708-425-3552

"The world is a book, and those who do not travel read only one page."
 
Posts: 9348 | Location: Chicago | Registered: 23 July 2003Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Carl Frederik Nagell
posted Hide Post
Good work tu2
 
Posts: 489 | Location: Denmark | Registered: 04 March 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Frostbit
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kathi:
http://www.huntingreport.com/c...ion_force.cfm?id=458



Conservation Force Makes a Compelling Argument on Zimbabwe Elephant Trophy Imports before the FWS Director
Written By John J. Jackson III, Conservation Force Chairman & President
(posted September 2017)

By Regina Lennox, Staff Attorney


On August 10, we argued the denial of two permit applications to import elephant trophies hunted in Zimbabwe in 2015 before the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). John J. Jackson, III and I represented the applicants. The Acting FWS Director, Greg Sheehan, was accompanied by the Chief of Permits, Chief of the Division of Management Authority (DMA), Deputy FWS Director for Operations, and two representatives of the Solicitor's Office of the Department of Interior. In short, we had a full house. We held everyone's attention when we described the hunting community's disappointment with the 40-month (and pending) suspension of elephant trophy imports.

I focused on the details of the argument, and John added big-picture concerns, including the length of the continuing suspension, its impact on Zimbabwe's community wildlife management program (CAMPFIRE), and the apparent FWS policy against Zimbabwe, among other key points. He noted that the suspension of elephant trophy imports and de facto suspension of lion trophy imports has been an unexpected double-attack on Zimbabwe and other countries in Southern Africa with stable or increasing game populations. John stated, flatly, that the suspension must end, and imports must be re-established, or CAMPFIRE and rural community tolerance for elephant will disappear. He also stated, flatly, that if the FWS does not have the capacity to make decisions under a "special rule" enhancement standard-which is not required by the Endangered Species Act itself-then the FWS should not adopt a special rule. These actions are not in the best interests of the elephant.

The Acting FWS Director asked only one question, about the scope of the argument: did it cover just two permits, or did it go further to apply to the entire suspension? We responded that our appeal covered two import permit applications; however, the information, particularly a July 2015 response from Zimbabwe to the FWS, dated both before and after these applications. The information dated to 2014, 2016, and future hunting seasons. Therefore, although only two applications were technically on appeal, the entire suspension (past, present and future) was actually at issue, if the FWS finally incorporated relevant data that still had not been considered in an enhancement finding. The Director clearly understood our point.

Our argument began by laying out a timeline of the suspension, Zimbabwe's responses to FWS questionnaires, numerous comments filed by Conservation Force and other parties, and the DMA's negative enhancement findings. The key take-aways were, first, that negative findings preceded FWS data requests to Zimbabwe's Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (ZPWMA). Although the trophy import suspension was allegedly based on a lack of information, the FWS' decision to "make negative findings first, ask questions later" was insulting to ZPWMA, and suggested the negative decisions had already been made. The second key take-away was that the process had stagnated. A lot of activity occurred in 2014, and quite a bit in 2015. ZPWMA responded in July 2015 to an FWS questionnaire, and then everything ground to a halt. That response was not incorporated into any finding. Few communications or decisions occurred in 2016 and 2017. That lack of progress had to be corrected.

Our argument then addressed alleged data gaps and "sticking points" in the March 26, 2015 negative enhancement finding. The two permits were denied based on that finding, which applies to the "2015 season and future hunting seasons." We broke down and rebutted this finding to clear the way for future imports. But again, we noted that ZPWMA's July 2015 response provided extensive 2014 data, which would be sufficient to reverse the past negative findings and lift the suspension across the board.

We went through each section of the enhancement finding, identifying and resolving "sticking points." For the first section, "Management Plans," the negative March 2015 finding primarily objected that Zimbabwe's prior elephant management plan had not been updated since its adoption in 1997, and there were no "specific measurable indicators" to gauge the plan's implementation. We pointed out that, at the end of 2014, Zimbabwe prepared a brand-new management plan, with specific action steps, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), and means of verifying the implementation of those KPIs. ZPWMA also held regional workshops to prepare action plans to address each region's unique management situation. The first draft of the new plan was sent to the FWS in December 2014; the final draft was sent in July 2015; and regional workshop materials were sent throughout 2015. Because the 1997 plan had been replaced, the first objection was moot. We also cited information from ZPWMA which described specific management actions and means of verification used under the prior, 1997 plan. This information was available to the FWS, and should have been incorporated into an updated enhancement finding. This information alleviated the FWS' concern that there were no "measurable indicators," and it should have been considered in the March 2015 finding.

For the second section, "Population Status," the FWS' key concerns were an asserted lack of recent surveys, and a six percent decline in Zimbabwe's elephant population compared to the 2001 countrywide survey. We provided seven recent surveys and evidence of other monitoring activities, which showed that ZPWMA was keeping abreast of its elephant population trend. Further, the six percent decline was considered "not statistically significant" by the survey's authors. Zimbabwe's elephant population was basically stable between 2001 and 2014. Zimbabwe simply cannot hold ~140,000 elephant, because the range capacity is only about ~45,000 and the human population is rapidly expanding. The stability of Zimbabwe's population reflects strong management given the 20% increase in the human population during the same period. This fact should not be dismissed by the FWS.

The March enhancement finding identified a lack of information on ZPWMA's capacity to enforce "adequate" laws in the section on "Regulations and Enforcement." However, the FWS' concern relied upon a non-existent panel of experts. Moreover, the FWS received ZPWMA's budget data in July 2015. That data revealed that ZPWMA received sufficient revenue from hunting to protect safari areas and part of the national parks. This is essential revenue to protect critical habitat for elephant. ZPWMA updated FWS on its implementation of the new Elephant Management Plan, and funds spent, in November 2016. According to this update, ZPWMA had sufficient capacity to manage elephant; however, the FWS suspension on elephant trophy imports was standing in the way of full implementation. This data resolves the finding's concern about lack of capacity-any lack is due to the FWS' policy, not Zimbabwe's.

The negative finding's largest criticism of ZPWMA's "Sustainable Use" was insufficient data on elephant offtakes and quota-setting practices. But ZPWMA's July 2015 response provided the mortality information, so this criticism was unwarranted. Further, all ZPWMA's responses (April and October 2014 and July 2015) explained quota-setting in detail. Quotas are based on a range of data, including offtakes from all sources and environmental, biological and social factors. Reported offtakes have been way more than sustainable-they averaged about 0.25% of the elephant population in the 2010-2015 period. This limited offtake benefited the elephant and was not detrimental to its survival.

For the sixth and seventh sections ("Revenue Utilization" and "Local Conservation Efforts"), we emphasized the importance of CAMPFIRE. The devolution of Appropriate Authority to local landholders has invested them with stewardship of wildlife on their land. It has reduced human-wildlife conflicts and benefitted hundreds of thousands of rural Zimbabweans. ZPWMA, the CAMPFIRE Association, and Conservation Force provided data to show the essential role played by US hunters, who represent most tourist hunters in Zimbabwe. The negative finding failed to comprehend that Appropriate Authority is a government mechanism benefiting elephant and other game. We spoke passionately on these points, because the rural communities who live alongside wildlife are ultimately the ones who will determine the species' long-term survival.

We then focused on the ESA's "enhancement" standard. We cited specific facts and figures to prove that tourist hunting creates incentives to protect almost four times as much habitat as in National Parks. It generates over one-third of the revenue for ZPWMA-revenue then used for enforcement and wildlife management. Tourist hunting funds anti-poaching in safari areas, most communal areas, and private conservancies. Operators maintain their own anti-poaching teams and, in 2013 alone, a sample of 14 operators spent almost $1 million on anti-poaching. ZPWMA relies upon the public-private partnership that exists between safari operators and the government to sustain elephant management over a huge area.

Finally, over 90% of CAMPFIRE's revenue comes from hunting, and two-thirds from elephant hunting, which means elephant hunting alone is responsible for increasing tolerance among rural Zimbabweans through infrastructure investment, game meat donations and more. The Director, and even the Solicitors, nodded in appreciation of these benefits. They undoubtedly satisfy the ESA (and the self-imposed "special rule" for elephant), which requires the activity only "enhance the survival of the specie." We emphasized that this standard should not be redefined in each finding, and John stated that there is no replacement for the value generated by tourist hunting in Zimbabwe.

We focused on what is at stake by continued suspension in the last section of our 59-slide presentation. ZPWMA lost 12% of its revenue from 2013 to 2014 because of the suspension. CAMPFIRE lost 37.5% of its revenue from 2013 to 2015. Zimbabwe's reliance on tourist hunting as a management tool-enshrined in the new plan-is being undermined. Even the authors of the negative findings had to appreciate the suspension's counter-productive impact following our presentation.

The Acting Director thanked us and confirmed his team would dig into our information and issue a ruling soon. We are confident that we made a compelling case, to guide this upcoming decision.



That meeting was August 10. It's over two months ago.

I wonder how long it took FWS to originally ban Zim Elephant imports. Roll Eyes


______________________
DRSS
______________________
Hunt Reports

2015 His & Her Leopards with Derek Littleton of Luwire Safaris - http://forums.accuratereloadin...6321043/m/2971090112
2015 Trophy Bull Elephant with CMS http://forums.accuratereloadin...6321043/m/1651069012
DIY Brooks Range Sheep Hunt 2013 - http://forums.accuratereloadin...901038191#9901038191
Zambia June/July 2012 with Andrew Baldry - Royal Kafue http://forums.accuratereloadin...6321043/m/7971064771
Zambia Sept 2010- Muchinga Safaris http://forums.accuratereloadin...6321043/m/4211096141
Namibia Sept 2010 - ARUB Safaris http://forums.accuratereloadin...6321043/m/6781076141
 
Posts: 7572 | Location: Alaska | Registered: 05 February 2008Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of ledvm
posted Hide Post
I have ivory sitting in Zim from this year. Applied for permit over a year ago. Other than a notice of application receipt...have gotten no response.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Lane Easter, DVM

A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House

No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991.
 
Posts: 36416 | Location: Gainesville, TX | Registered: 24 December 2006Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata  
 


Copyright December 1997-2023 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia

Since January 8 1998 you are visitor #: