EFFECTIVE 1/1/2022



102ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY
State of Illinois
2021 and 2022
HB0395


Introduced 2/8/2021, by Rep. Martin J. Moylan


SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED:

815 ILCS 357/1
815 ILCS 357/5
815 ILCS 357/10
815 ILCS 357/12
815 ILCS 357/15
Amends the Ivory Ban Act. Changes the short title of the Act to the Animal Parts and Products Ban Act. Makes the Act applicable to animal parts or products. Defines "animal part or product" to mean, in addition to ivory and rhinoceros horn, any item that contains, or is wholly or partially made from, the following animal family, genus, or species: cheetah, elephant, giraffe, great ape, hippopotamus, jaguar, leopard, lion, monk seal, narwhal, pangolin, ray or shark, rhinoceros, sea turtle, tiger, walrus, or whale, insofar as the species, subspecies, or distinct population segment is listed on specified endangered species lists. Authorizes the Department of Natural Resources to permit the transfer of covered animal parts or products to or from a museum, unless the activity is prohibited by federal law. Makes changes concerning exemptions for certain antiques.


LRB102 03915 KTG 13930 b





A BILL FOR


HB0395 LRB102 03915 KTG 13930 b

1 AN ACT concerning business.

2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:

4 Section 5. The Ivory Ban Act is amended by changing
5 Sections 1, 5, 10, 12, and 15 as follows:

6 (815 ILCS 357/1)
7 Sec. 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Animal
8 Parts and Products Ban Ivory Ban Act.
9 (Source: P.A. 100-857, eff. 1-1-19.)

10 (815 ILCS 357/5)
11 Sec. 5. Definitions. As used in this Act:
12 "Animal part or product" means any item that contains, or
13 is wholly or partially made from, the following animal family,
14 genus, or species: cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), elephant
15 (Elephantidae), giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis), great ape
16 (Hominoidea), hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius), jaguar
17 (Panthera onca), leopard (Panthera pardus), lion (Panthera
18 leo), monk seal (Neomonachus), narwhal (Monodon monoceros),
19 pangolin (Manis), ray or shark (Elasmobranchii), rhinoceros
20 (Rhinocerotidae), sea turtle (Chelonioidea), tiger (Panthera
21 tigris), walrus (Odobenus rosmarus), or whale (Cetacea),
22 insofar as the species, subspecies, or distinct population




HB0395 - 2 - LRB102 03915 KTG 13930 b

1 segment is listed:
2 (1) in Appendix I or II of the Convention on
3 International Trade in Endangered Species; or
4 (2) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
5 "Animal part or product" includes ivory, ivory products,
6 rhinoceros horns, and rhinoceros horn products.
7 "Ivory" means any tooth or tusk composed of ivory from any
8 animal, including, but not limited to, an elephant,
9 hippopotamus, mammoth, narwhal, walrus, or whale, or any piece
10 thereof, whether raw ivory or worked ivory, or made into, or
11 part of, an ivory product.
12 "Ivory product" means any item that contains, or that is
13 wholly or partially made from, any ivory.
14 "Raw ivory" means any ivory the surface of which, polished
15 or unpolished, is unaltered or minimally changed by carving.
16 "Rhinoceros horn" means the horn, or any piece thereof, of
17 any species of rhinoceros.
18 "Rhinoceros horn product" means any item that contains, or
19 is wholly or partially made from, any rhinoceros horn.
20 "Total value of the animal parts or ivory, ivory products,
21 rhinoceros horn, and rhinoceros horn products" means the fair
22 market value of the animal parts or products, ivory, ivory
23 products, rhinoceros horn, and rhinoceros horn products, or
24 the actual price paid for the animal parts or products, ivory,
25 ivory products, rhinoceros horn, and rhinoceros products,
26 whichever is greater.




HB0395 - 3 - LRB102 03915 KTG 13930 b

1 "Worked ivory" means ivory that has been embellished,
2 carved, marked, or otherwise altered so that it can no longer
3 be considered raw ivory.
4 (Source: P.A. 100-857, eff. 1-1-19.)

5 (815 ILCS 357/10)
6 Sec. 10. Prohibitions.
7 (a) In addition to the prohibitions under any other law,
8 it shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, offer for
9 sale, purchase, barter, or possess with intent to sell, any
10 animal part or product, any ivory, ivory product, rhinoceros
11 horn, or rhinoceros horn product, except as provided by this
12 Act.
13 (b) It shall be a rebuttable presumption of possession
14 with intent to sell when any animal part or product ivory,
15 ivory product, rhinoceros horn, or rhinoceros horn product is
16 possessed in a retail or wholesale outlet commonly used for
17 the buying or selling of similar products; , provided,
18 however, that nothing in this subsection (b) shall preclude a
19 finding of intent to sell based on any other evidence that
20 which may serve to independently establish that intent. The
21 act of obtaining an appraisal of an animal part or product
22 ivory, an ivory product, rhinoceros horn, or a rhinoceros horn
23 product, alone shall not constitute possession with intent to
24 sell.
25 (c) A person may convey an animal part or product to a




HB0395 - 4 - LRB102 03915 KTG 13930 b

1 legal beneficiary as part of an estate, trust, or other
2 inheritance being conveyed to lawful beneficiaries upon the
3 death of the owner of the animal part or product or in
4 anticipation of that death. ivory, an ivory product,
5 rhinoceros horn, or a rhinoceros horn product to the legal
6 beneficiary of the ivory, ivory product, rhinoceros horn, or
7 rhinoceros horn product which is part of an estate or other
8 items being conveyed to lawful beneficiaries upon the death of
9 the owner of the ivory, ivory product, rhinoceros horn, or
10 rhinoceros horn product or in anticipation of that death.
11 (d) None of the prohibitions set forth in this Section
12 shall apply to employees or agents of the federal or State
13 government undertaking any law enforcement activities under
14 federal or State law or any mandatory duties required by
15 federal or State law.
16 (e) The prohibition on import set forth in subsection (a)
17 of this Section shall not apply where the import is expressly
18 authorized by federal license or permit.
19 (f) Unless the activity is prohibited by federal law, the
20 The Department of Natural Resources may permit, under terms
21 and conditions as the Department may adopt by rule, the
22 import, sale, offer for sale, purchase, barter, or possession
23 with intent to sell, of any animal part or product: (1) ivory,
24 ivory product, rhinoceros horn, or rhinoceros horn product for
25 bona fide educational or scientific purposes; or (2) to or
26 from a museum , unless this activity is prohibited by federal




HB0395 - 5 - LRB102 03915 KTG 13930 b

1 law.
2 (Source: P.A. 100-857, eff. 1-1-19.)

3 (815 ILCS 357/12)
4 Sec. 12. Exemptions. The prohibitions under Section 10
5 shall not apply:
6 (1) When the animal part or product ivory or
7 rhinoceros horn is part of a bona fide antique, if:
8 (A) the animal part or product gun or knife and is
9 less than 20% by volume of the antique;
10 (B) the animal part or product is a fixed
11 component or components of a larger item and is not, in
12 its current form, the primary source of value of the
13 item; and
14 (C) , and the seller establishes by documentation
15 that the antique is not less than 100 years old.
16 (2) When the animal part or product ivory or
17 rhinoceros horn is part of a musical instrument,
18 including, but not limited to, a string or wind instrument
19 or piano, and that is less than 20% by volume of the
20 instrument, and the owner or seller provides historical
21 documentation demonstrating provenance and showing the
22 item was manufactured no later than 1975.
23 (Source: P.A. 100-857, eff. 1-1-19.)

24 (815 ILCS 357/15)




HB0395 - 6 - LRB102 03915 KTG 13930 b

1 Sec. 15. Penalties.
2 (a) In addition to any applicable penalties that which may
3 be imposed under any other law, a person violating any
4 provision of Section 10 of this Act, or any rule adopted under
5 Section 20 of this Act, shall be guilty of:
6 (1) for a first offense, a business offense and shall
7 be fined not less than $1,000 or an amount equal to 2 times
8 the total value of the animal parts or ivory, ivory
9 products, rhinoceros horn, and rhinoceros horn products
10 involved in the offense, whichever is greater; and
11 (2) for a second or subsequent offense, a Class A
12 misdemeanor and shall be fined not less than $5,000 or an
13 amount equal to 2 times the total value of the animal parts
14 or ivory, ivory products, rhinoceros horn, and rhinoceros
15 horn products involved in the offense, whichever is
16 greater.
17 (b) Upon a conviction for violating the provisions of
18 Section 10 of this Act, the court shall order the seizure of
19 all animal parts or products ivory, ivory products, rhinoceros
20 horn, and rhinoceros horn products involved in the violation
21 and determine the penalty for the violation based on the
22 assessed value of the seized products under subsection (a) of
23 this Section. After sentencing the defendant, the court shall
24 order that the seized animal parts or products ivory, ivory
25 products, rhinoceros horn, and rhinoceros horn products be
26 transferred to the Department of Natural Resources for proper




HB0395 - 7 - LRB102 03915 KTG 13930 b

1 disposition. The Department, at its discretion, may destroy
2 the animal parts or products ivory, ivory products, rhinoceros
3 horn, and rhinoceros horn products or donate them to an
4 educational or scientific institution or organization,
5 including, but not necessarily limited to, a museum,
6 university, or research group.
7 (Source: P.A. 100-857, eff. 1-1-19.)

Stupidity at its worst!

Deranged idiots!

Nothing like helping sign a death warrant for African wildlife from abroad!!

This may expedite the migration from Illinois. Unfortunately for most of Illinois Chicago actually ruins the whole state.

quote:

Originally posted by CharlesL:
This may expedite the migration from Illinois. Unfortunately for most of Illinois Chicago actually ruins the whole state.

It really seems more and more the USA is becoming a tale of 2 countries instead of 2 parties. The 2 sides are so diametrically opposed to each other these days. Not much common ground any longer.

Yes but it's an example of states rights that some want so badly for everything and make so much noise about. Seems what you want can be a double edged sword sometimes.

I do feel for the people of Illinois but I think this is going to be a trend in other states in the future.

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:
Yes but it's an example of states rights that some want so badly for everything and make so much noise about. Seems what you want can be a double edged sword sometimes.

I do feel for the people of Illinois but I think this is going to be a trend in other states in the future.

This law will likely be struck down in the courts. California passed a similar law several years ago, and the governor vetoed it with comments that it violated the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. There were many groups ready to take it to court if it passed.

There is a Federal legal theory called Preemption.

The Feds have regulated the interstate and international trade/possession of ivory. The state would appear to have been preempted from doing so.

That is not even a thumbnail of the analysis. It is simply a thought.

quote:

Originally posted by DLS:

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:
Yes but it's an example of states rights that some want so badly for everything and make so much noise about. Seems what you want can be a double edged sword sometimes.

I do feel for the people of Illinois but I think this is going to be a trend in other states in the future.

This law will likely be struck down in the courts. California passed a similar law several years ago, and the governor vetoed it with comments that it violated the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. There were many groups ready to take it to court if it passed.

It is still ILLEGAL in CA for me to go hunt in Utah for a mountain lion and then bring it back into CA. So, somehow the Interstate Commerce Clause is ignored in this situation.

Everyone move to Texas!

We've done this to ourselves gents.

During the last 10 or so years, we have had an intramural squabble pertaining to posting pictures of dead things on social media. It has overall negatively effected, our continued ability, to hunt/import internationally.

As most know, I am in the vehemently "anti" posting pictures camp. There was a time when it was fine. people even seemed to enjoy seeing them.

Then, something happen and the "woke" saw what we do and began a jihad against big game hunting period.

Was it Cecil? not sure but just the fact that everyone understands what I mean by "Cecil" speaks volumes.

Point being, those of you that took an "in your face" screw you attitude, accelerated the end of our international or endemic/iconic domestic species hunting.

I'm not blaming that in total, as I believe this would have happened anyway. Just later rather than right now.

"Fight Club" The first rule of fight club, don't talk about fight club.

We ourselves killed the golden goose. The anti's are just doing what they do. They have been very successful in demonizing our sport by convincing the blissfully ignorant middle that Conservation through responsible sport hunting isn't sustainable.

They have successfully and purposely conflated hunting and poaching as the same. New legislation such as this is simply the beginning.

Killing animals isn't a spectator sport, nor should it be.

I remember when switch blade knives were banned in Illinois in order to "stop gang violence", then all gun owners needed to register and get a photo ID. I still have mine.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
We've done this to ourselves gents.

During the last 10 or so years, we have had an intramural squabble pertaining to posting pictures of dead things on social media. It has overall negatively effected, our continued ability, to hunt/import internationally.

As most know, I am in the vehemently "anti" posting pictures camp. There was a time when it was fine. people even seemed to enjoy seeing them.

Then, something happen and the "woke" saw what we do and began a jihad against big game hunting period.

Was it Cecil? not sure but just the fact that everyone understands what I mean by "Cecil" speaks volumes.

Point being, those of you that took an "in your face" screw you attitude, accelerated the end of our international or endemic/iconic domestic species hunting.

I'm not blaming that in total, as I believe this would have happened anyway. Just later rather than right now.

"Fight Club" The first rule of fight club, don't talk about fight club.

We ourselves killed the golden goose. The anti's are just doing what they do. They have been very successful in demonizing our sport by convincing the blissfully ignorant middle that Conservation through responsible sport hunting isn't sustainable.

They have successfully and purposely conflated hunting and poaching as the same. New legislation such as this is simply the beginning.

Killing animals isn't a spectator sport, nor should it be.

We should all hide in shame I suppose then??

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
We've done this to ourselves gents.

During the last 10 or so years, we have had an intramural squabble pertaining to posting pictures of dead things on social media. It has overall negatively effected, our continued ability, to hunt/import internationally.

As most know, I am in the vehemently "anti" posting pictures camp. There was a time when it was fine. people even seemed to enjoy seeing them.

Then, something happen and the "woke" saw what we do and began a jihad against big game hunting period.

Was it Cecil? not sure but just the fact that everyone understands what I mean by "Cecil" speaks volumes.

Point being, those of you that took an "in your face" screw you attitude, accelerated the end of our international or endemic/iconic domestic species hunting.

I'm not blaming that in total, as I believe this would have happened anyway. Just later rather than right now.

"Fight Club" The first rule of fight club, don't talk about fight club.

We ourselves killed the golden goose. The anti's are just doing what they do. They have been very successful in demonizing our sport by convincing the blissfully ignorant middle that Conservation through responsible sport hunting isn't sustainable.

They have successfully and purposely conflated hunting and poaching as the same. New legislation such as this is simply the beginning.

Killing animals isn't a spectator sport, nor should it be.

I totally disagree Steve
With internet , it’s free for all and everyone has their own playground/sand box to rule and then trying the rule others ( pics or no pics, videos or no videos)
The classic saying “ first they came for your neighbors and you were Ok with it as you didn’t like him anyway and then they came for you…”

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
We've done this to ourselves gents.

During the last 10 or so years, we have had an intramural squabble pertaining to posting pictures of dead things on social media. It has overall negatively effected, our continued ability, to hunt/import internationally.

As most know, I am in the vehemently "anti" posting pictures camp. There was a time when it was fine. people even seemed to enjoy seeing them.

Then, something happen and the "woke" saw what we do and began a jihad against big game hunting period.

Was it Cecil? not sure but just the fact that everyone understands what I mean by "Cecil" speaks volumes.

Point being, those of you that took an "in your face" screw you attitude, accelerated the end of our international or endemic/iconic domestic species hunting.

I'm not blaming that in total, as I believe this would have happened anyway. Just later rather than right now.

"Fight Club" The first rule of fight club, don't talk about fight club.

We ourselves killed the golden goose. The anti's are just doing what they do. They have been very successful in demonizing our sport by convincing the blissfully ignorant middle that Conservation through responsible sport hunting isn't sustainable.

They have successfully and purposely conflated hunting and poaching as the same. New legislation such as this is simply the beginning.

Killing animals isn't a spectator sport, nor should it be.

I totally disagree Steve
With internet , it’s free for all and everyone has their own playground/sand box to rule and then trying the rule others ( pics or no pics, videos or no videos)
The classic saying “ first they came for your neighbors and you were Ok with it as you didn’t like him anyway and then they came for you…”

Boarkiller, you and I have been able to respectfully disagree. And as with this, we will continue to .

I am not advocating for any rule, law or regulation regarding our ability to do as we wish with pictures.

My point is, why inflame a VERY well organized and VERY well funded liberal opposition? I see no sense in "poking the bear".

We cannot win the battle of public opinion on this one.

To quote Mark Twain "Never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel and paper by the ton"

My behavior, hasn't changed. My sharing of pictures of the events has changed. Which is more important to your love of hunting, continuing to have the freedoms to do so or your ability to post pictures of the activity?

Well, like you can buy a gun in one state and bring into your state you can have your banned animal imported into another state for the taxidermy work and then just bring it into your restrictive state in a closed vehicle to your house.

quote:

Originally posted by tanks:

quote:

Originally posted by DLS:

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:
Yes but it's an example of states rights that some want so badly for everything and make so much noise about. Seems what you want can be a double edged sword sometimes.

I do feel for the people of Illinois but I think this is going to be a trend in other states in the future.

This law will likely be struck down in the courts. California passed a similar law several years ago, and the governor vetoed it with comments that it violated the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. There were many groups ready to take it to court if it passed.

It is still ILLEGAL in CA for me to go hunt in Utah for a mountain lion and then bring it back into CA. So, somehow the Interstate Commerce Clause is ignored in this situation.

And numerous people have flaunted this law, shooting lions in other states and advising CA Fish & Wildlife they are bringing the Mtn Lion in, even going so far as to tell them what time they’ll be at the inspection station in Truckee so they can be cited. Many people want to make a test case to overturn this stupid law, but Fish & Wildlife won’t cite anyone as they understand it’ll be overturned in court. Our state is full of stupid laws on the books, that’s for sure.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
I remember when switch blade knives were banned in Illinois in order to "stop gang violence", then all gun owners needed to register and get a photo ID. I still have mine.

No wonder you moved to Alaska!

quote:

Originally posted by DLS:

quote:

Originally posted by tanks:

quote:

Originally posted by DLS:

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:
Yes but it's an example of states rights that some want so badly for everything and make so much noise about. Seems what you want can be a double edged sword sometimes.

I do feel for the people of Illinois but I think this is going to be a trend in other states in the future.

This law will likely be struck down in the courts. California passed a similar law several years ago, and the governor vetoed it with comments that it violated the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. There were many groups ready to take it to court if it passed.

It is still ILLEGAL in CA for me to go hunt in Utah for a mountain lion and then bring it back into CA. So, somehow the Interstate Commerce Clause is ignored in this situation.

And numerous people have flaunted this law, shooting lions in other states and advising CA Fish & Wildlife they are bringing the Mtn Lion in, even going so far as to tell them what time they’ll be at the inspection station in Truckee so they can be cited. Many people want to make a test case to overturn this stupid law, but Fish & Wildlife won’t cite anyone as they understand it’ll be overturned in court. Our state is full of stupid laws on the books, that’s for sure.

Wasn’t the California director of Fish & Game forced to resign because he shot a mountain Lion in another state? Isn’t the an abundance of mountain lions in California and are causing problems for hikers, etc.?

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:
Yes but it's an example of states rights that some want so badly for everything and make so much noise about. Seems what you want can be a double edged sword sometimes.

I do feel for the people of Illinois but I think this is going to be a trend in other states in the future.

I'm 100% in favor of states rights. So if the Illinois folks want it that way, so be it. Not a double edged sword at all. The closer the laws are made to the specific community, the more the desires of the specific community are served. If all laws are originated at a central planned fed government level, you'll have more disenfranchised folks. I know what works for me in rural Texas is a far cry from what works in New York City. I don't want their restrictions and evidently, they don't want our freedoms, or else I'd live there and visa versa.

My comment was more about the depth of the split between Americans these days. Shame to see us so divided. To a point I don't know how we find common ground at this point. I don't have the answers but I do believe the rift is getting worse. I worry about how it is eventually resolved.

quote:

Originally posted by DCS Member:

quote:

Originally posted by DLS:

quote:

Originally posted by tanks:

quote:

Originally posted by DLS:

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:
Yes but it's an example of states rights that some want so badly for everything and make so much noise about. Seems what you want can be a double edged sword sometimes.

I do feel for the people of Illinois but I think this is going to be a trend in other states in the future.

This law will likely be struck down in the courts. California passed a similar law several years ago, and the governor vetoed it with comments that it violated the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. There were many groups ready to take it to court if it passed.

It is still ILLEGAL in CA for me to go hunt in Utah for a mountain lion and then bring it back into CA. So, somehow the Interstate Commerce Clause is ignored in this situation.

And numerous people have flaunted this law, shooting lions in other states and advising CA Fish & Wildlife they are bringing the Mtn Lion in, even going so far as to tell them what time they’ll be at the inspection station in Truckee so they can be cited. Many people want to make a test case to overturn this stupid law, but Fish & Wildlife won’t cite anyone as they understand it’ll be overturned in court. Our state is full of stupid laws on the books, that’s for sure.

Wasn’t the California director of Fish & Game forced to resign because he shot a mountain Lion in another state? Isn’t the an abundance of mountain lions in California and are causing problems for hikers, etc.?

The fellow who stepped down was a member of our state fish & game commission. He legally shot a lion in Idaho and there was a big outcry by the anti’s; so he resigned his position. Yes, California has a fantastic Mtn Lion population, probably the highest in the USA. If we had a season, it would be great hunting.

Sounds like a time for citizens from both states to get involved with those that represent hunters and work to get this off the books.

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:
Sounds like a time for citizens from both states to get involved with those that represent hunters and work to get this off the books.

Conceptually, I agree with you. Problem is, politicians care about only one thing; getting re-elected.

There is no politician that will go against these type laws. They stick their finger into the wind, check out public opinion, then make a policy decision.

There isn't a single demographic anywhere in America that those that agree with us/you are enough to get a guy re-elected. However, if he/she were to agree with us, there are plenty of votes to get he/she voted out of office.

Politicians are a parasitic, repugnant bunch.

The more scared we are, the harder the politicians are going to stand against us.

As previously noted, the California legislature passed a ban on importation of African animal parts several years ago. The governor vetoed the bill, calling it, "unenforceable." This was legalspeak that meant that the U.S. Government already fully occupied the field of international wildlife imports. More recently, the same legislature tried to pass a similar bill, falsely claiming that it was necessary due to the alleged animal origin of the Covid pandemic. The bill failed to pass before the end of the legislative session due to 11th hour amendments introduced by more moderate legislators. The ban on hunting of mountain lions goes back decades, stemming from a ballot measure that passed. As such, the ban is equivalent to a California Constitutional Amendment, and overturning it would require an extreme amount of money and time, possibly an appeal to the Supreme Court, with no guarantee of the case being granted cert. To date, no entity has been willing to commit the time and money to fight the ban on interstate import of a single animal. It is possible that with the nearly balanced makeup of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a court challenge to the ban might succeed. Time will tell. The lunacy of all this is that the Department of Fish and Wildlife still grants depredation permits for "problem" lions, and the Wildlife Services division of the USFWS can still kill such lions wherever and whenever they deem it appropriate. The number of lions killed yearly has been equal or greater to the numbers killed before the ban.

I do not see a fact pattern that does not result in the Supreme Court being Petitioned to grant cert. that does not mean cert would be granted.

Those who have actually paid money for hunts of said animals, or suffer confiscation or penalty from the proposed legislation, if passed, would be required to survive the standing analysis.

I never understood why the “Assault Weapons” ban litigation never addressed the issue from the perspective of Preemption. The Feds through the National Firearms Acts have occupied the field on what and how such weapons can be possessed.

thank Biden and the democraps for this lunacy.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
The more scared we are, the harder the politicians are going to stand against us.

Seems my outcry to "fly under the radar" is in alignment with this?

This is why John Jackson with Conservation Force and the (bipartisan) Congressional Sportsmen Foundation are so critical. They monitor these threats and have the legal and political chops to fight it.

CF was a key part of overturning the CA ban. We need to put our financial support behind these folks on the frontline in the US and globally. I know DSC does and will continue to support them.

The problem hunting has is there is not a President Theadore Roosevelt, Ernest Hemingway, nor Robert Roark type celebrity giving hunting (big game sport hunting) the social acceptance it needs. These were not celebrity hunters like we have today. They are examples of people with public voice and public importance that hunted lending that credibility to hunting.

The British Royal Family long traditional sporting supporters is moving away from sport hunting (See Megan narrating a Disney documentary on elephant).

The word “sport” has become a vulgarity. When “sport” was added to the jargon/lexicon, the purpose was to shift public conception of hunting from market hunting. The word Sport implied a set of rules, a morality to hunting. The animal escaping was baked in and necessary to the experience with the end goal being an experience. This was juxtaposed to Market hunting which required slaughter and was responsible for the destruction of animals across their range.

Now, the opinion makers have hijacketed the word Sporting to mean ego, selfish, slaughter driven.

I disagree that hiding will coo text this problem, and allow a correction of opinion.

We need to take the alternative, sex, gender play book. They gained social acceptance by refusing to hide and coming to popular culture. Why do you think so many female celebrities come out as bi-sexual now. This coming out is seen as decent and approved behavior and singles to the audience such behavior is more than okay. The behavior is good.

We need articulate public faces engaging in and showing sport hunting in non-traditional media (nor hunting shows though most do not go on those). Hunting celebrates will not carry the day. They do not have the exposure nor the creditability.

This is why the sex toy fist with dead animal type photos are do damning. However, photos presented correctly, articulated as a shared experience, just like the first humans did must be if we are to regain ground.

Celebrities do hunt, but they are scared shitless of making it public knowledge.

We have had quite a number of celebrities who are very well known the world over come to our place.

But they always ask for their visits to be kept quiet.

This is understandable as the negative media would kill them financially.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The problem hunting has is there is not a President Theadore Roosevelt, Ernest Hemingway, nor Robert Roark type celebrity giving hunting (big game sport hunting) the social acceptance it needs. These were not celebrity hunters like we have today. They are examples of people with public voice and public importance that hunted lending that credibility to hunting.

The British Royal Family long traditional sporting supporters is moving away from sport hunting (See Megan narrating a Disney documentary on elephant).

The word “sport” has become a vulgarity. When “sport” was added to the jargon/lexicon, the purpose was to shift public conception of hunting from market hunting. The word Sport implied a set of rules, a morality to hunting. The animal escaping was baked in and necessary to the experience with the end goal being an experience. This was juxtaposed to Market hunting which required slaughter and was responsible for the destruction of animals across their range.

Now, the opinion makers have hijacketed the word Sporting to mean ego, selfish, slaughter driven.

I disagree that hiding will coo text this problem, and allow a correction of opinion.

We need to take the alternative, sex, gender play book. They gained social acceptance by refusing to hide and coming to popular culture. Why do you think so many female celebrities come out as bi-sexual now. This coming out is seen as decent and approved behavior and singles to the audience such behavior is more than okay. The behavior is good.

We need articulate public faces engaging in and showing sport hunting in non-traditional media (nor hunting shows though most do not go on those). Hunting celebrates will not carry the day. They do not have the exposure nor the creditability.

This is why the sex toy fist with dead animal type photos are do damning. However, photos presented correctly, articulated as a shared experience, just like the first humans did must be if we are to regain ground.

It is in vogue to be gay/bi or whatever now. The reason they have come out with such aggression is, they have the media to carry their water.

If you believe International Sport Hunting will have the media support us, as they do the LBGTQ community, you're delusional.

The media hates us, they hate Republicans they hate everything and anything that isn't deemed liberal or progressive. Supporting "Rich Americans" who wantonly go overseas on killing vacations isn't a cause they will support...ever.

I believe they forced spiral acceptance by not hiding.

You sound like you want us to act like the port industry, gambling, or the mob.

Just hid in our own world, and hope no one regulates us. That is not going to happen, and hiding will not help. Hiding just makes us look more scummier.

Your approach would regulate us to the dark parts of the internet. How are we to recruit new hunters, educate non hunters if we take your mentality. The answer is we don’t. Then we die.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I believe they forced spiral acceptance by not hiding.

You sound like you want us to act like the port industry, gambling, or the mob.

Just hid in our own world, and hope no one regulates us. That is not going to happen, and hiding will not help. Hiding just makes us look more scummier.

Your approach would regulate us to the dark parts of the internet. How are we to recruit new hunters, educate non hunters if we take your mentality. The answer is we don’t. Then we die.

We live in odd times. Just look at the nature of America.

Our borders are open, come one, come all.

Biological males can and do compete with biological females in international sports.

If you think your method will help bring in new hunters, airlines will magically start accepting trophies and Elephant and Lion trophies will begin to be imported, Have at it.

Remember that Cecil started all of this in motion. If we aren't in agreement on at least that, good luck.

Hard to say where we'd be had that picture not been posted. . . or do you believe that photo was a benefit to our demographic?

Remember what happened to one of our own, Mjines? think he'd like to be able to "unring" that bell?

And yes, I'd MUCH prefer to hide in the shadows as an International Sport Hunter than to not be able to participate at all.

Cecil got over because most US and UK citizens think the hunt was illegal and done just for self promotion, ego.

If we had been more open, and educating folks the impact may have been less.

Again, read my first post you copied. We must have new people of social importance hunting and being seen to hunt.

It was SCI’s refusal to accept the definition of a prideless, 5 plus year old male lion that directly led to US up listening lion. It was not Cecil.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

Remember what happened to one of our own, Mjines? think he'd like to be able to "unring" that bell?

. . . to answer your question, not really. Many of the most judgmental folks were in fact “fellow” hunters. I am unlikely to post another hunt report here more because I do not want to invite/endure the “constructive” commentary of hunting colleagues than because of the risk of pirated images by anti-hunters.

I'm not a lawyer, and don't play one on TV, but this Act appears to apply ONLY to the sale of the prohibited items, and doesn't change this section of the amended Law:


(e) The prohibition on import set forth in subsection (a) of this Section shall not apply where the import is expressly authorized by federal license or permit.

I think everybody can put their hair out now.

I read the posting as two Separate House Bills. So, both, one, or none can pass.

I could be wrong as I do not know how Illinois post, publishes, or presents their bills. It may just be the post.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I read the posting as two Separate House Bills. So, both, one, or none can pass.

I could be wrong as I do not know how Illinois post, publishes, or presents their bills. It may just be the post.

Was approved by the Governor after passing both House and Senate, signed on 7/9/21.

https://www.ilga.gov/legislati...128391&SessionID=110

All it does is prohibit the importation for sale
and trade or sale of products from the listed animals, I don't see anything that would affect the importation of trophies.

But by all means folks are free to continue rending their garments and voicing lamentations...