http://thehill.com/policy/ener...phant-hunting-policy



Court faults Obama administration for elephant hunting policy

BY TIMOTHY CAMA - 12/22/17 12:32 PM EST


A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the Obama administration did not follow the right procedures when it banned importing elephant hunting trophies from Zimbabwe.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) should have gone through an extensive process of proposing a regulation, inviting public comment and making the regulation final when it made determinations in 2014 and 2015 that elephant trophies cannot be brought into the country.

The decision could complicate the ongoing deliberations within the Trump administration over whether to undo Obama's ban on bringing body parts, such as heads, from hunted Zimbabwe elephants into the country.


FWS reversed the ban last month, inviting significant pushback from numerous corners, including animal rights activists, lawmakers and commentators from both parties.

President Trump jumped in amid the backlash to put the decision on hold. Neither he nor his administration has made any announcement on the matter since then.

Since the three-judge appeals court panel ruled Friday that Obama’s ban should have gone through the rulemaking process, any attempt to repeal the ban would likely have to go through a similar process.

“In this case, the 2014 and 2015 enhancement findings had all of the qualities of a legislative rule, so the Service was obligated to follow the [Administrative Procedure Act’s] notice-and-comment procedures before promulgating the findings,” Judge Harry Edwards, nominated to the post by former President Carter (D), wrote in the decision.

But while the procedure was incorrect, the substance of the elephant trophy ban was legal, the judges found, and did not meet the “arbitrary and capricious” standard that courts use to evaluate whether regulations are not compliant with the law.

“In this case, there is no serious dispute over the fact that the regulatory criteria for import were not satisfied,” Edwards said.

Safari Club International and the National Rifle Association had sued the FWS over the elephant trophy ban. A lower court last year rejected all of their arguments, a decision they appealed.

Members of CITES should not be second guessing its rules!

If a country issues an export permit, meeting CITES regulations, other countries have no business refusing an import permit!

Sadly, the US and Europe are doing it all the time!

I must agree 100% with Saeed on this issue.

I have believed this to be the case for many years, in that if a country voluntarily agrees to participate as a member of CITES that they should therefore agree to the CITES rulings and not "go their own way" on issues which the whole body has agreed upon.

It also makes little to no sense for country A, who possesses none of the species in question, to disagree with country B who supports a large, wild, naturally occurring population of the species.

quote:

Originally posted by LionHunter:
I must agree 100% with Saeed on this issue.

I have believed this to be the case for many years, in that if a country voluntarily agrees to participate as a member of CITES that they should therefore agree to the CITES rulings and not "go their own way" on issues which the whole body has agreed upon.

It also makes little to no sense for country A, who possesses none of the species in question, to disagree with country B who supports a large, wild, naturally occurring population of the species.

Amen

Make me a third! I agree wholeheartedly.

.

Count me as the 4th.

I may as well pile on too. 5th.

Dave

http://www.biologicaldiversity..._Circuit_opinion.pdf


Link to court's opinion.

Anyone want to explain to me how this court ruling changes the fact I can't import any of my April 2015 Elephant?

CITES actually specifically says the onus is on the EXPORTING country to get CITES quota for their animals.

Once that is decided, member countries should NEVER refuse import permits for those animals.

Europe and North America are pandering to the fringe idiots whose pulling their political strings.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
CITES actually specifically says the onus is on the EXPORTING country to get CITES quota for their animals.

Once that is decided, member countries should NEVER refuse import permits for those animals.

Europe and North America are pandering to the fringe idiots whose pulling their political strings.

You are stating the obvious Saeed.

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:
Anyone want to explain to me how this court ruling changes the fact I can't import any of my April 2015 Elephant?

Here's why:
"The Service was fully within its rights to retain its regulatory approach because the Convention expressly allows signatories to enforce stricter regulations than provided in the treaty. See CITES art. XIV(1)(a), 27 U.S.T. at 1108."

One cannot expect any sense from anything written by lawyers

Amen brother!!

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:
Anyone want to explain to me how this court ruling changes the fact I can't import any of my April 2015 Elephant?

Here's why:
"The Service was fully within its rights to retain its regulatory approach because the Convention expressly allows signatories to enforce stricter regulations than provided in the treaty. See CITES art. XIV(1)(a), 27 U.S.T. at 1108."

So....

USFWS is actually following, and not ignoring, CITES regulations. Figures that there is an out.