The 60 pound ele tusk I took with Vaughan Fulton was seized this week by the USF&W. Turns out that one number on the tusk may not match the CITIES permit. The "21" on the form was read as "24" by the inspector.

The certified letter I received today gives me the option of forfeiting the ivory, appeal to their in house solicitor, or file a claim in Federal court.

My property arrived in LAX on 1/11/2009. I was told 10 days later that there was a "problem". After waiting a month with nothing but stone walling from the USF&W, I contacted my congressman. They have a liason, which could not get any info from the DC.

I believe Vaughan did everything he could from his end. He actually was able to speak with someone in their Ministry. He saw a document sent by the "Management Authority" explaining there was a simple clerical error. Yet no one in our own country would confirm or deny any information. Funny, but I have more belief in the Namibian Government to straiten this out than our own.

Wendell Reich was my sounding board, chipping in with advice. And with all respect to Linda Adams, if he could do something, he would. The simple fact is he has no power or authority to move the trophies.

At the end of the day, the disrespect in the USF&W was next to impossible to deal with. They basically said do not ask questions, NO no we cannot give you info, NO no we cannot tell you what's going on, NO no we cannot show you documents, and it is all Africa's fault. And no, they will not consider the fax that Vaughan Fulton claims they sent to Washington some time ago.

A bigger surprise is Pam Foerster. I paid her to do a job, and she failed. When asked in Reno if she checked the permit numbers against the tusk, she got that deer in the headlights look, and simply said "No." I have asked her to reimburse me for the extra handling and storage, right now around 900 bucks, but she has not responded to me. I believe her responsible to double check. Not good business practices Pam.

My son and I had planned for that hunt for two years, paid a ton of money, were unbelievably successful. As you can imagine, getting my tusk is closure to the trip of a lifetime. But no, now this. John Jackson at the Conservation Force tells me I need to file a claim in Federal Court. He advised under no circumstances was I to appeal to their inspector general, as they rubber stamp whatever the inspectors in the field do. It will cost me well north of 5k to take this to court, but right now I do not see a choice.

I would like you all to consider the value of taking the stand against the USF&W seizure of legally sport hunted property. If this can happen to me, it can happen to you. Please send any donation you think reasonable to the Conservation Force, attn: John Jackson.

Thank you,

PS: Has anyone else had a similar experience that they could share, maybe with a happy ending?

PSS: Here he is

This is bureaucracy at it's worst! Is there a recommended figure $$$ to donate?

You should definitely appeal this to Federal court. I would think that John Jackson is the man to help you in the fight.

Get a copy of the fax sent by the Namibian government to the USF&WS if you can. It will be important.

This is an outrageous abuse of authority on the part of USF&WS. It makes me sick to think that an agency charged with responsibility for oversight of hunting could so blatantly disregard the equities of your situation.

I know everybody has a job to do... But if there was a clerical error, it should have been caught when they were cutting the cites numbers into the ivory...
I remember scanning my Cites permit to my PH and they inturn were present when numbers were cut into ivory...
Why can they give you one of the tusks or was the numbers wrong on both?
I agree I would fight it... Also who is the girl involved???

Mike

I hate to see this, but you're much farther than "half-way across the ocean." You gotta file a claim in federal court. You've spent too much to give up now.

BFJack - Thank you for your offer. I only ask that you support John Jackson's efforts in whatever measure you think fair. He does a tremendous amount of work for hunting rights we do not even know about. Very much like the spare tire, you do not think about it until you need it, then it is essential.

This is a battle for all hunters-one person in a government office (overworked and underpaid I am sure) chose personality over a principle. If they think they are immune and not held accountable, it can only get worse for all of us. I am ready to take that battle as far as I can. My goal is for one bureaucrat to get the message-do your job!

Mike, Pam Foerster owns International Air Cargo Services out of Namibia. A newbie here on AR. She was chosen by Vaughan Fulton to handle the shipment of my ivory. I wish she would have taken the 30 seconds to double check the cities....

Partial Victory though - I did get one tusk Thursday. Look at the photo again - any guesses which one they took?

Well.. I would think there is plenty of material for DNA samples.. If both tusk match.. Shazam!.. Case closed..

I hope you shuved the other tusk up his backside .

this is the ideal case for SCI to make a statement with have you spoken to them ?

You should contact John Jackson of Conservation Force, www.conservationforce.org. He deals withb this sort of thing all the time and knows the US fish and wild life like nobody else. He will give you some great advice.

At the risk of having someone jump down my throat, isn't this a fairly straightforward case for SCI to get involved and defend the rights of the hunter?

I don't know if it's the same in th US but in the UK, they're supposed to offer you the option of paying to have the trophies returned from whence they came so that you can get the paperwork re-issued correctly and then shipped back again. Admittedly, it would be at the shippers or owners cost, but it would beat the hell out of having them confiscated and destroyed.

How terrible! Good luck!

It has been apparent since day one that the inspector has no interest in helping. In fact, I believe the opposite is true. He is doing everything possible to derail any effort to clear up this issue.

The MET (Ministry of Environment and Tourism) Faxed a letter to the inspector to attempt to clear this up. He got mad and said that they should not communicate with him, they should only talk to DC and he did not want to hear from them.

This inspector has the authority to have some discretion, he could clear the tusk if he wanted, the final say so rests with him. He cleared one tusk and released it, so, essentially he is saying that he knows this one tusk was hunted and imported legally, but he is saying that the other tusk was not.



A "4" that was stamped lightly, or at an angle and looks like a "1" is no cause for this kind of action. He cleared one tusk, so it would stand to reason that no huge international crime has been committed.

All it takes is the smallest bit of reason to see what happened. He is seizing an opportunity to exploit a situation that does not require this kind of action. Unfortunately, this is what we have come to expect from the USF&W.

Help me understand the problem properly:
An elephant was legally hunted with a CITES permit and numbers.
Now, as part of the correct CITES prescribed export procedures,(i) someone cut a number into one tusk, but that number was wrong; somehow read incorrectly from the papers and incorrectly cut into the tusk, or the fact is that the number on the tusk is indeed wrong.
(ii) the correct CITES number was cut into the tusk, but someone read the [correct] number that was cut into one tusk wrong?

Now USF&WS do not want to say which is which?

As someone asked, was this on only one tusk while the other was released as being correct in all respects?

Help me understand the problem.

In good hunting.

Andrew McLaren

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew McLaren:
Help me understand the problem properly:
An elephant was legally hunted with a CITES permit and numbers.
Now, as part of the correct CITES prescribed export procedures,(i) someone cut a number into one tusk, but that number was wrong; somehow read incorrectly from the papers and incorrectly cut into the tusk, or the fact is that the number on the tusk is indeed wrong.
(ii) the correct CITES number was cut into the tusk, but someone read the [correct] number that was cut into one tusk wrong?

Now USF&WS do not want to say which is which?

As someone asked, was this on only one tusk while the other was released as being correct in all respects?

Help me understand the problem.

In good hunting.

Andrew McLaren

Andrew,

Yes the elephant was hunted legally.

The numbers were cut into the tusk. Unfortunately, I am not at all familiar with the documentation process. Al I know is that the numbers on the permit read "xxx 21 55" and I am told the number on the tusk reads "xxx 24 55".

I asked for clarification from both the US and VF, but no one could tell me what the procedure is. So in essence we do not know what the problem is, so I cannot fix it. And the USF&W sure ain't helping.

I did receive the one tusk Thursday last. So I know which cities permit number they have a problem with.

Thank you

Jack,

I appreciate it'd be quite an expense, but can you have the problem tusk returned to Namibia for new paperwork and then shipped back?

I suggest you make a point of asking that question in writing, because even if they refuse, they'll do so in writing and that refusal just might be useful in any future court case.........

Truly feel for you. I cannot offer you any better advice than you have gotten. So I will just wish you good luck and whatever you do don't let the idiot inspector win.

quote:

Posted 15 March 2009 14:47 Hide Post
At the risk of having someone jump down my throat, isn't this a fairly straightforward case for SCI to get involved and defend the rights of the hunter?

Jack,

I can only imagine your frustration. Best of luck with this.

Mark

There is form and there is substance. There is law and there is justice. The guy who seized the tusks knows nothing of the differences. What a pharisaical, government minion.

Somebody needs to send the stupid s.o.b. a DVD of Peter Ustinov's great version of Billy Bud. In fact, everyone who has governmental authority might do well by learning Melville's truth that mindlessly following the "law" sometimes leads to great injustice. JMHO.

Wow sorry to hear!!hope all goes ok with the ivory

Jack,

You have my sympathy. It is not going to be easy to solve this one. CITES procedure for Schedule 1, on which elephant is, that the receiving country (USA) issues a CITES Permit with numbers, xx 21 55. These should be engraved on the tusks and sent with all the supporting paperwork when exported. Methinks that more than one individual slipped up, be it the actual number engraver, and certainly his/her boss who should have checked that the work was done correctly, then whoever packed that wrongly numbered tusk and a whole chain of unfortunate events.

Now you sit with a serious problem. USF&WS cannot sent the tusk back to wherever the incorrect number was engraved on - ivory can only be exported with a CITES permit and USF&WS does not have and probably cannot get a permit. I doubt if USF&WS will release an "illegal tusk", as it is exactly that, an "illegal tusk", even though it was a most regrettable but possible human error that causes the tusk to be illegal, to be sent back to wherever the mistake was made. To export ivory a CITES permit is needed. Period. On what grounds can USF&WS apply for a permit?

It almost certainly is an offence to change a number on a tusk in any way. I think you should approach CITES, if there was a bona fide "error" and the number xx 24 55 has not yet been allocated to another pair of tusks they may be convinced to re-issue a permit with xx 24 55 as the number. But the whole thing is going to depend upon some co-operation between a number of people who must first all be convinced that it was a bona fide human error.

I hold thumbs for you and really 'think' that CITES is a better bet to approach than USF&WS - they have to adhere to a legal procedure which is pretty clear. Whatever I'm afraid that you are in for a LOT of red tape and frustration. IMHO whichever organization actually engraved the xx 24 55 into the one tusk, i.e. actually made the mistake, should take responsibility for their mistake and pay your costs to rectify the matter. If that organization is in Africa, and particularly in Zimbabwe, I really feel sorry for you. But then a lot of it will all depend on the business integrity of the "owner" and his financial ability to actually make good where there was a bugger-up by the engraver that works for him.

Good luck! But it should be easily solvable. Wish I could give you sterling advice on how to start solving the problem. I think I can give you advice that most persons in your position will need: No matter what, don't ever loose your temper. Never, no matter how much some thickheaded clerk asks to be properly thumped, don't loose your cool!

In good hunting.

Andrew McLaren

Andrew,

Great advice, thank you. Heard the same from Wendell. Otherwise some folks in DC would know what I REALLY think of their performance.

Any idea how I would contact CITIES?

Thank you

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
In fact, everyone who has governmental authority might do well by learning Melville's truth that mindlessly following the "law" sometimes leads to great injustice.

Unless it advances your agenda.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Jack,

I appreciate it'd be quite an expense, but can you have the problem tusk returned to Namibia for new paperwork and then shipped back?

I suggest you make a point of asking that question in writing, because even if they refuse, they'll do so in writing and that refusal just might be useful in any future court case.

This is an excellent piece of advice.

Brother, I feel sorry for you.

I got into a huge fight with USFW in the 90's over a clerical error made in Zimbabwe. It was frustrating, time consuming and expensive. My advice to you is to stop dealing with USFW directly and get an attorney, preferable one politically well connected. It made all the difference in the world in my case.

Also FYI, they refused to allow my shipment to be sent back to Zim to have the paperwork corrected.

Good luck.

I feel bad for you. It is bad enough when any legal trophies become lost or seized but a lifetime elephant, this is truly terrible.

Would there be any way to find out if there was ever a permit issued to anyone with the numbers xxx2455. If so, and there is only one permit per elephant and a max of two tusks per elephant, I would try to find the real xxx2455. This would prove it as human error. I would assume the CITES permit office could easily determine if a permit was ever issued with those numbers. Good luck with your quest, I hope you can get it back.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Brother, I feel sorry for you.

I got into a huge fight with USFW in the 90's over a clerical error made in Zimbabwe. It was frustrating, time consuming and expensive. My advice to you is to stop dealing with USFW directly and get an attorney, preferable one politically well connected. It made all the difference in the world in my case.

Also FYI, they refused to allow my shipment to be sent back to Zim to have the paperwork corrected.

Good luck.

Larry,

How did you make out? PM me with your contact info. I would love to hear your advice.

thanks

Shame is that a Govt. "Burocrat" cannot make a decision and do what is right, and realize that some one in Africa made a clerical mistake and issue your tusk.

Of course sometimes "Burocrats" have a hidden agenda, and do not fufill their job as being "servants for the public" doing what is right.

Who ever carved the numbers wrong, who ever was the supervisor of the "carver"

and the entity they work for can all be sued for your losses in my opinion.

Since you live in Kali, probably the answer is no, but contact your congressman or senator if they are pro-hunting. See if they could help.

Good luck

Jack, this is a major learning experience for all of us who are following the developments in your situation. Unfortunately, I should think that this case will add to the problems of the safari industry in general, through bad press. If this kind of antagonistic governmental obstructionism is tolerated, then people just will not hunt over seas.

As you know by experience from hunting Africa, the hassles of flying with guns and hunting overseas and then arranging freight 6 months later are already at a back-breaking level. Now this further provocation from some officious civil "servant". It's disgusting. Could things get even worse? I have to admit that I suspect they will. Thank you for keeping us all informed.

quote:

Originally posted by Duckear:
Since you live in Kali, probably the answer is no, but contact your congressman or senator if they are pro-hunting. See if they could help.

Good luck

Yup, Senators Feinstein and Boxer are all over this.

My Congressman's office working on it. But the staffer has had the same amount of luck as I had. This AM, I asked that my Congressman Gary Miller call the head of the USF&W. If any of you are friendly with your congressman, man I could use the help.

In all likely hood, someone in USF&W DC law enforcement could look at the file, especially since Vaughan Fulton tells me the proper fax was sent, and get this cleared up in 5 minutes.

Thank you all,

Jack

Friends of mine recently had somewhat similar problems with mountain zebras. They hunted as a group, the taxidermist put names on the hides, and then put documents in the crates. Problem was that some of the hides were put in the wrong crates.

Same customs or USF&W agent handled all crates, and it could easily be seen that there were 4 sets of documents (properly filled out), 4 hides, total names and number of hides matched, just some hides were in the wrong crates. Easy to see that somewhere in Namibia somebody just randomly threw the 4 hides into the 4 crates, nobody trying to get away with anything sneaky. They were being threatened with fines and seizures.

Friends got a lawyer involved and the whole mess got cleared up pretty quickly without any fines and no seizure. As much as we like to joke about them, lawyers can really be a Godsend when you need them.

This type of error is not common but they do happen. The most important thing you need to do is NOT sign the abandonment letter that F&W will send you as attachment on the seizure notice. Respond on the seizure notice before the deadline by filing a petition for remission. Attach a copy of the communication made by the Namibian cites office to Sheila Einsweiler, the U.S. head of cites in D.C. acknowledging their error. Also include proof of your legal hunt in Namibia, i.e. hunting license, hunting register, etc. The key thing is for the Namibian cites office to work this out with D.C. Pam would be able to update you on the messages sent to D.C. and any reply received. The reason USFWS in LAX is not saying anything is because your case is undergoing "inter governmental negotiations". There is strict protocol on this. If Sheila Einsweiler is satisfied with the explanation from the head of Cites in Namibia, she will instruct LAX to release your tusk. These things take a while but a disposition from her will come soon. Meanwhile, the seizure notice has to be attended to if they already mailed one to you.

Feel free to call me if you need to discuss further.

Maria Europa-Felix
President
Hunter International Brokerage Services, Inc.
Tel (925) 417-5270
E-mail: mlfelix@sbcglobal.net or meuropa@sbcglobal.net
www.hunter-international.net

Hi Maria, and welcome to AR. Good to have you here.

For those who don't know her, Maria is a Cutoms Broker in the S.F. Bay Area. I have known her for years and have used her prior to and since she and her husband opened Hunter International. I highly recommend her to my clients as she has been dealing with African trophy shipments for many years and is a reliable agent.

quote:

This type of error is not common but they do happen. The most important thing you need to do is NOT sign the abandonment letter that F&W will send you as attachment on the seizure notice. Respond on the seizure notice before the deadline by filing a petition for remission. Attach a copy of the communication made by the Namibian cites office to Sheila Einsweiler, the U.S. head of cites in D.C. acknowledging their error. Also include proof of your legal hunt in Namibia, i.e. hunting license, hunting register, etc. The key thing is for the Namibian cites office to work this out with D.C. Pam would be able to update you on the messages sent to D.C. and any reply received. The reason USFWS in LAX is not saying anything is because your case is undergoing "inter governmental negotiations". There is strict protocol on this. If Sheila Einsweiler is satisfied with the explanation from the head of Cites in Namibia, she will instruct LAX to release your tusk. These things take a while but a disposition from her will come soon. Meanwhile, the seizure notice has to be attended to if they already mailed one to you.

Feel free to call me if you need to discuss further.

Maria Europa-Felix
President
Hunter International Brokerage Services, Inc.
Tel (925) 417-5270
E-mail: mlfelix@sbcglobal.net or meuropa@sbcglobal.net
www.hunter-international.net

Maria,

Thank you so much for that important bit of information. I have been advised by John Jackson, Conservation Force, to file a claim in Federal Court. Seems that the petition for remission goes to the USF&W solicitor who may not be unbiased. The paperwork tells me that if that decision is unfavorable, my tusk could be gone forever. I do not want to take that chance.

In the mean time, I am hoping my congressman's office can ask Ms. Einsweiller to take a look at a document my PH claims was sent by Namibian MET.

Thank you again for this beacon in an otherwise murky government sponsored nightmare.

Jack

Jack,
I am no lawyer, but have spent a lot of time abroad.

I noticed that when people, trained to write in the British system or Russian system, they make a 1 look like a 4. In other words, the had a down to the left slanting mark on the top of the one, much like a 7 but angling down. My kids called it a 1 with a funny hat.

The numbers that were mis-read were a 1 and a 4. Outside the US and Canada, this is not a problem, but I found many times mis-reading a 1 and 4 when dealing with writing styles elsewhere.

I would bet a dollar that is what happened here.

Jack

As Shakari said, one would expect/hope/pray that SCI might be a body with some teeth to help/assist/advise. They have paid officials in HIGH PLACES whom should help !!

Are you a paid up member of SCI ... IF YES then call their HOTLINE and see what develops. Nothing ventured nothing gained

This is a list of Chapters .... maybe contact your chapter or one near you and pose the question as to what if any assistance they might offer !!

Regards, Peter

Peter,

Thank you for your concern. Already contacted SCI. I will make no comments until the situation evolves. Please rest assured their role for being first for hunters will be discussed thoroughly.

Cheers, Jack

Jack, Sorry to hear this. It makes me nervous about my ele now. I hope this all gets worked out soon. Listen to Maria she is good at what she does. I will also be ver interested in what role SCI takes in this. Keep us posted.

Not to hijack this thread.
Maria it is good to see you here. We could use your expertise. I will talk to you soon about my next shipment. In the meantime is there anything else Jack can do?