From SCI:

Elephant Importation Ban – Litigation Update

December 26th, SCI and NRA received good and bad news in our efforts to challenge the ongoing importation bans on sport-hunted elephants from Zimbabwe and Tanzania. The D.C. federal district court issued a ruling on several motions that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had filed to try to dismiss our claims.

We received very good news about our Zimbabwe elephant claims. The court ruled in SCI and NRA’s favor on our ability to proceed with our challenges to the Zimbabwe importation bans — both to the ban announced on April 4, 2014 and the decision to continue the ban that the FWS announced on July 23, 2014. The FWS fought particularly hard to have our claims against the April 4, 2014 decision dismissed because they know that they will have the most difficult time defending their conduct in making their abrupt decision to ban importation despite lacking adequate evidence to do so. The Court refused to allow the FWS to sweep this conduct under the rug. The ruling cleared the way for SCI’s Litigation team to move forward to present our case on why the FWS acted illegally in shutting down importation from Zimbabwe without a sufficient basis for doing so.

Unfortunately, the court’s ruling on our Tanzania claims was not favorable. The judge took the position that because importation from Tanzania requires a permit, the only ones who can sue to challenge the ban are those who apply for permits, have their applications denied and unsuccessfully participate in the FWS’s lengthy permit appeal process. The court rejected SCI’s and NRA’s arguments that, instead of disputing the denial of an individual permit, we challenged the underlying decision upon which all importation applications would be measured and that submission to the permit process would be a futile exercise. The court dismissed our Tanzania importation ban challenges. SCI’s Litigation team is currently considering whether we should or can seek an immediate appeal of the Tanzania ruling.

We are moving forward with our challenge to the 2014 Zimbabwe importation ban and are watching for the FWS’s decision on importation from both countries for 2015. If the FWS does not lift the bans, we will consider whether we should amend our current suit or file new litigation to challenge the 2015 bans. Please continue to watch out for SCI Litigation Alerts, e-mail communications and Crosshairs for updates on this important case.

Thanks for the update. Cautiously optimistic for Zim.

I don't know
Two more years of Obama gives USFWA two more years of protection
I hope sound mind will prevail but ...

Interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Interesting.

To say the least!!

What is the NRA's involvement in this?

I thought the NRA is mainly concerned with gun ownership, not hunting??

Has this been partially successful because of the NRA's involvement?

Saeed

there have been many of us pushing the NRA into hunters rights along with gun rights for years--they are finally getting it together.

We must hang together or we will surely hang separately---

quote:

Originally posted by Sean Russell:
Saeed

there have been many of us pushing the NRA into hunters rights along with gun rights for years--they are finally getting it together.

We must hang together or we will surely hang separately---

Sean,

Thank you for the expalantion.

I am a Life Member of the NRA too, and have been for many years.

Have always admired what they have been doing - sadly, I cannot say the same thing about being a Life member of SCI.

We keep shouting they would put their efforts into doing something useful for a change, may be our efforts are paying off??

I think you're right Saeed.
Pressure works

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Interesting.

To say the least!!

What is the NRA's involvement in this?

I thought the NRA is mainly concerned with gun ownership, not hunting??

Has this been partially successful because of the NRA's involvement?

I know the NRA president. I took him turkey hunting last year . We also recently had dinner with him and his wife. Jim Porter has told me of their push into hunting issues through something called the Hunting Leadership Forum or something to that effect.

I am supposed to take the local NRA guy who stays in contact with me out quail hunting next month . I will ask him what he knows about this matter from the NRA's perspective.

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:
Two more years of Obama gives USFWA two more years of protection

You say that like Bush was a hunter's friend when he was actually anything but!

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Interesting.

To say the least!!

What is the NRA's involvement in this?

I thought the NRA is mainly concerned with gun ownership, not hunting??

Has this been partially successful because of the NRA's involvement?

I know the NRA president. I took him turkey hunting last year . We also recently had dinner with him and his wife. Jim Porter has told me of their push into hunting issues through something called the Hunting Leadership Forum or something to that effect.

I am supposed to take the local NRA guy who stays in contact with me out quail hunting next month . I will ask him what he knows about this matter from the NRA's perspective.

And please tell him we all appreciate what they are doing.

From what I have heard and read I believe the NRA's interest in the issue is slightly different than being focused on the preservation of hunting rights. They are concerned about how action regarding ivory, its importation and its sale, might impact the use and sale of ivory in shooting-related items, e.g., ivory grips, ivory shotgun beads, ivory handled cleaning tools. Some of this relates to the parallel effort to ban the sale of ivory, even pre-ban ivory, unless the seller could demonstrate that it was more than 100 years old. Also impacted guitar makers and others. So I believe their interest in the litigation is in fact gun-related. Regardless, of what brought them to the party they are certainly a wonderful guest to have at the party.

I am taking the local NRA rep quail hunting tomorrow morning. I will see what I can find out.

It's old news but still stinks like fish...

http://www.pipesdrums.com/arti...seized-at-us-border/

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
From what I have heard and read I believe the NRA's interest in the issue is slightly different than being focused on the preservation of hunting rights. They are concerned about how action regarding ivory, its importation and its sale, might impact the use and sale of ivory in shooting-related items, e.g., ivory grips, ivory shotgun beads, ivory handled cleaning tools. Some of this relates to the parallel effort to ban the sale of ivory, even pre-ban ivory, unless the seller could demonstrate that it was more than 100 years old. Also impacted guitar makers and others. So I believe their interest in the litigation is in fact gun-related. Regardless, of what brought them to the party they are certainly a wonderful guest to have at the party.

Mike:

I got the same impression after Googling "NRA elephant litigation." I only opened a couple of the early NRA press releases but found no mention of SCI, even though it had filed the lawsuit originally. They may have changed that in later releases, though.

Bill Quimby

Mike

thats been the NRA for a while- my point is some of us are pushing them to be more active on the hunting front also.

Mike:

If you need a plaintiff with standing, I might be able to fit the bill. I have one of the last legally imported elephants from Tanzania and am going back next October. Planned on hunting elephant, but that changed due to the current sitution. Could purchase a tag. Would I actually have to shoot an elephant and try to import it? That's possible too, but not guaranteed.

PM sent.

Mike, thanks so much for what you and others are doing. I am 62 and have been a Life Member since I was 18 and am in the process of upgrading to the next level. I also support NRA-ILA and have for years. I had the opportunity to have a few minutes of face time with Wayne LaPierre sometime back at a book signing and he is aware that too many American hunters have their head in the sand (or someplace else) regarding gun rights, and that the NRA now, more than ever, needs to appeal to hunters to maintain and increase membership which equates to political clout. The first time the NRA "backs off" from a legitimate "hunters' rights" issue, no matter where on the planet it occurs, I predict they will lose a LOT of members. Just my $.02

To be clear, I am just passing along information. I am not involved in the litigation, although I do know several folks that are . . . have submitted affidavits in support of the claims. I am just a cheerleader.

I think the challenge for hunters is something the NRA has found a way to solve. The NRA has been successful in convincing gun owners (rightly so in my opinion) that attacks on magazine capacities, assault rifles and the like are just the first step. That the ultimate goal is to reach all weapons, including shotguns and hunting rifles. So they have been able to motivate and engage the guy that owns one shotgun in Kansas to support efforts to control magazine capacities in New York. Hunters on the other hand seem to never scream unless it is their ox that is being gored. Most hunters could care less (wrongly in my view) about the ivory ban because their view is that they are so far removed from that type of hunting that it will never impact them as a bowhunter in Idaho. They are mistaken. The goal of these groups is to eliminate all hunting . . . just like the goal of the gun control groups is to eliminate or control all weapons. These groups have just started with elephants, lions, wolves and the like because those are animals that generate substantial public sympathy (the same way that assault rifles and high capacity magazines generate public contempt in many circles). Once they are successful in shutting that down, then on to other species like bears, elk, pheasant and the like. Hunters need to show the same level of outrage and engagement over the elephant ban (as the first step on a slippery slope) as the gun owner that is a blackpowder shooter does over legislation to control handgun magazine capacities. That is the challenge in my mind . . . wish I had a wiz-bang solution.

Extremely well said. The proverbial "camel's nose under the tent".

Well said Mike. I feel the same way about other African countries closing down hunting or having an import ban ( Zim Elephants ) Even though this brings business to the countries that are still operating , its bad for hunting. We need them all open. We need a healthy African hunting industry. Fingers crossed for the Zambian and Zimbabwean outfitters.

How wonderful to see an organization living up to what it is supposed to do.

The NRA does not hesitate to take up a challenge when they see it is required!

What an utter shame that puts SCI in??!!

FIRST FOR HUNTERS??

Are you kidding??

Just imagine how much good SCI COULD do if it was run by honest individuals who do value hunting rather than their own fame!!

Probably worth noting that the NRA has close to 100 times the membership of SCI (more than 4,000,000 members versus 50,000 members) and a commensurate difference in budget with which to pursue their mission. Also worth noting that SCI filed the lawsuit and the NRA joined later.

Since we all agree that SCI could and should be improved, it would really be nice to simply allow a thread like this to be a place to share information and discuss the relevant issue as opposed to seeing it degenerate into a string of obligatory anti-SCI statements . . . but alas that will never be the case.

Thanks Larry. They are certainly a group that believes in brevity. I submitted a comment would encourage others to do so as well.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Probably worth noting that the NRA has close to 100 times the membership of SCI (more than 4,000,000 members versus 50,000 members) and a commensurate difference in budget with which to pursue their mission. Also worth noting that SCI filed the lawsuit and the NRA joined later.

Since we all agree that SCI could and should be improved, it would really be nice to simply allow a thread like this to be a place to share information and discuss the relevant issue as opposed to seeing it degenerate into a string of obligatory anti-SCI statements . . . but alas that will never be the case.

Mike,

Isn't it relevant that our biggest hunting organization does relatively VERY little regarding conservation in Africa?

Isn't it relevant that sometimes they even go as far as being NEGATIVE regarding conservation in Africa??

Remember the lion issue?

Are we supposed to just keep quiet when ANOTHER, non-hunting organizations seems to do better??

Okay, so did you comment in opposition to the ban on the thread started by ANOTHER, non-hunting organization that does better . . . uh, no. The point is I think many hunters find it easier to criticize than to constructively contribute to working on a solution.

Larry started another thread about SCI, why not use that thread as the vehicle to rant and rave and leave this one to discuss what is happening on the ban, what can be done to support current efforts, etc. Just a suggestion.

I think we gotta pull together for Petes sake
That goes for Saeed too
Ok Saeed, for once pull your head out if your ass and let's stand united
Constantly complaining really doesn't work

Getting back to the original subject, whilst it's great news the court has found in favour of the challenge, it's a long way to go before anything changes and as an example of that, all you have to do is look at how John Jackson & conservation force have won case after case against USF&WS with the Mozambique ban and yet time and time again, USF&WS ignore the court rulings and continue to enforce the ban.

I just love it when everyone is trying to be nice to SCI, while SCI is doing their best - and have been for years - doing nothing bloody useful for hunters and conservationist in Africa.


Any of you who wish to keep quiet while SCI continues their silly policies, fine, that is your choice.

I am not going to stop until I see a drastic change for the better.

So if you cannot support SCI's efforts to reverse the ban, why not support the NRA's efforts by commenting on their social media link for American Hunter noted above? Maybe you think the ban is good thing?

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Getting back to the original subject, whilst it's great news the court has found in favour of the challenge, it's a long way to go before anything changes and as an example of that, all you have to do is look at how John Jackson & conservation force have won case after case against USF&WS with the Mozambique ban and yet time and time again, USF&WS ignore the court rulings and continue to enforce the ban.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And until we get rid of Obama and Holder...the USFW will CONTINUE to do as it pleases. Especially right now with Sally Jewel in charge. Maybe...we can lobby the NEW congress to pressure them with cutting funding. Other than that...we are going to have to pray for a knowledgeable-on-the-subject Republican president who is pro-hunting. Sadly to say.

Just like the lion thing...they moved only to list as threatened but enacted special rules to allow them to decide importation on their discretion...hmmm...wonder how that will work out?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
So if you cannot support SCI's efforts to reverse the ban, why not support the NRA's efforts by commenting on their social media link for American Hunter noted above? Maybe you think the ban is good thing?

Mike,

With all due respect, what do you actually know what I am doing in respect of conservation in Africa??

You freely share your criticisms of what groups like SCI are doing wrong perhaps it would be worthwhile to share your efforts to support other groups and activities so we can understand where our efforts would be better directed collectively.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
You freely share your criticisms of what groups like SCI are doing wrong perhaps it would be worthwhile to share your efforts to support other groups and activities so we can understand where our efforts would be better directed collectively.

Mike,

I like to keep what I do to help between me and whoever is receiving my help.

I have no wish to brag so loudly, and do almost nothing in effect.

Just like SCI keeps doing.

Fair enough. I am sure you are doing more than your fair share . . . my disagreement is simply that I fail to appreciate or understand how being critical of efforts by organizations like SCI on issues like the ivory ban is going to make a meaningful difference in our efforts to defeat anti-hunting groups. To be clear, SCI certainly has issues that need to be addressed and we should not be shy to raise those issues, like those of us that wrote to the SCI board condemning their efforts to create an outfitting organization to compete with SCI's outfitter members. I also think we have to be able to recognize and appreciate what SCI does right, like pursuing reversal of the ivory ban, and support and not denigrate those efforts.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Fair enough. I am sure you are doing more than your fair share . . . my disagreement is simply that I fail to appreciate or understand how being critical of efforts by organizations like SCI on issues like the ivory ban is going to make a meaningful difference in our efforts to defeat anti-hunting groups. To be clear, SCI certainly has issues that need to be addressed and we should not be shy to raise those issues, like those of us that wrote to the SCI board condemning their efforts to create an outfitting organization to compete with SCI's outfitter members. I also think we have to be able to recognize and appreciate what SCI does right, like pursuing the ivory ban, and support and not denigrate those efforts.

Mike,

The point is we are not in disagreement regarding SCI behavior at all - at least that is the impression I am getting.

But, SCI really needs to do more than lip service - every time we ask any questions, we get some silly PR blurb with sums of money available, but no one knows where it all goes??

Ultimately, we are all in agreement that something does need to be done regarding all the silly actions USF&W takes - bloody hell, sometimes I honestly think there is no one with any brain capable of reasonable thinking is in charge there.

Welcome to Groundhog Day, edition 2015.