https://www.safariclub.org/wha...od-news-and-bad-news



Court Rules on Zimbabwe Elephant Imports – Good News and Bad News

Oct 04, 2016


On September 30, 2016, Judge Royce Lamberth, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, issued an opinion on SCI’s and the National Rifle Association of America’s challenge to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s ban on the importation of elephants from Zimbabwe. The ruling brought both good and bad news for those who have successfully hunted elephants since April 4, 2014, and those who wish to go to Zimbabwe to hunt elephants in the future. The judge ruled against the FWS on one of the most egregious components of the elephant importation ban. Judge Lamberth agreed with SCI and NRA that the FWS could not breach its own commitment not to change its position on elephant importation without first notifying the public in the Federal Register. Because the FWS did not publish a Federal Register notice of the importation ban decision until May 12, 2014, Judge Lamberth ruled that the elephant importation ban did not go into effect until that date.

The judge’s ruling potentially remedies the troubling experience of hunters who successfully harvested an elephant in Zimbabwe between April 4, 2014 and May 12, 2014. For some hunters, when they entered Zimbabwe to hunt, importation was legal, but by the time they finished their hunts, importation had been outlawed. These individuals harvested elephants with the expectation of being able to bring them home, learning to the contrary only after their successful hunt. Other hunters had little time to decide whether to undertake their hunts despite the recently announced import ban. SCI’s and NRA’s attorneys are actively researching how all hunters who harvested an elephant prior to May 12, 2014, can take advantage of the court’s ruling and import their legally hunted elephants into the United States.

The court’s ruling has significance for all hunters. Judge Lamberth made clear that the FWS does not have carte blanche to take hunting and importation opportunities away from U.S. hunters. If the FWS makes a binding commitment to the hunting community, it had better meet that commitment.

Unfortunately, the ruling did not bring good news to other elephant hunters affected by the ban. The court did not agree with SCI and NRA on several other parts of SCI and NRA’s lawsuit. The court rejected arguments that the FWS had an obligation to provide the public with the opportunity to comment on its change in position concerning whether elephant hunting in Zimbabwe enhances the survival of the species, had not overcome a statutory presumption that elephant hunting in Zimbabwe enhances the survival of the species, never provided an adequate explanation about why an enhancement finding was necessary for the importation of elephants from Zimbabwe, and used improper standards in determining whether elephant hunting in Zimbabwe meets the enhancement requirement.

The court devoted much of its 56-page opinion to the substance of the FWS’s decision to end importation and largely deferred to the agency’s conclusions. The court upheld the FWS’s assertion that in 2014 and 2015 the information about Zimbabwe’s elephant population estimates and management strategies were out of date and it was less than certain that revenues from hunting were being directed toward conservation. Aspects of the judge’s rulings did not come as a surprise to SCI and NRA as they were consistent with rulings Judge Lamberth made on previous cases involving the importation of elephants from Mozambique and Zambia.

Judge Lamberth’s ruling is not necessarily the end of the Zimbabwe elephant importation ban story. SCI and NRA now have approximately two months to review the decision and determine whether to appeal the court’s negative rulings. We will analyze the potential benefits and risks of appealing. SCI and NRA’s attorneys, together with SCI’s Legal Task Force, Government Affairs Committee and Executive Committee, will consider all the options and will keep members apprised of our efforts and decision-making.

Unfortunately, the judge’s ruling means that, for the time being, those who hunted elephants in Zimbabwe since May 12, 2014 still cannot bring their elephants home. Barring a reversal of the court’s decision on appeal, hunters who wish to import elephants from Zimbabwe into the U.S. in the future will have to wait for the FWS to change its current position.

SCI and NRA have been pursuing their challenge against the importation ban since filing suit on April 21, 2014. The original case included claims involving bans on the importation of elephants from both Zimbabwe and Tanzania. Judge Lamberth dismissed SCI and NRA’s claims concerning Tanzania and SCI and NRA filed an appeal of that decision. SCI and NRA appeared before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for oral argument on September 19, 2016, and we are now awaiting the appellate court’s ruling.

In the meantime, SCI and NRA will be contacting members who harvested elephants in Zimbabwe between April 4, 2014 and May 12, 2014. If you fall into this category or know someone who does, please contact Anna Seidman, Director of Litigation for Safari Club International, by e-mail at aseidman@safariclub.org.

http://www.courthousenews.com/...ant-trophies-okd.htm



Feds' Ban on Importing Elephant Trophies OK'd
By ROSE BOUBOUSHIAN


(CN) — Rejecting the notion that killing elephants will save them, a federal judge has ruled against the National Rifle Association in its challenge to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's ban on importing elephant trophies.
No longer finding "that the killing of the animal whose trophy is intended for import would enhance the survival of the species," the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service suspended the importation of elephant trophies sport-hunted in Zimbabwe in 2014.
That led Safari Club International and the National Rifle Association to sue in D.C. federal court, where their claims regarding elephants from Tanzania were dismissed in 2014.
After the agency renewed the suspension the next year, the hunters filed a second suit.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth later refused to let the hunters rely on emails they claim show regulatory protocol errors behind the import ban.
In the latest ruling in the consolidated case, Lamberth partially denied the hunters' summary judgment request Friday, finding the service did not require that sport-hunting "ensures" rather than simply enhances the survival of the species.
"Plaintiffs fail to recognize the difference in the quality and amount of information the agency had in 1997 compared to the information it had in 2014 and 2015," Lamberth wrote.
He later added: "Plaintiffs would have the agency focus only on whether sport-hunting generates revenue for species conservation and whether the presence of hunters deters poaching. But these factors address only the first part of the inquiry, and taken as true, they would always result in a positive enhancement finding."
The agency, however, "examines not only whether these factors exist but their effect on the species as a whole: whether fees generated by U.S. hunters are in fact being used to promote conservation and how they are being used under the government's management plan and sport-hunting program, whether their use is improving the species' prospects for survival into the future, and how the species would fare if U.S. hunters could not import trophies," Lamberth said.
Fish and Wildlife must find a causal link between the killing and the survival of the entire species, not just one or some elephants, according to the ruling.
"Thus, generating hunting fees and deterring poaching in specific instances do not show enhancement, without a showing that a government is properly using funds and protecting the species more broadly," Lamberth wrote. "Accordingly, the court holds that the agency did not apply an improper standard in issuing the three challenged findings."
But the judge awarded the plaintiffs summary judgment on the claim that the agency failed to publish notice of the changed enhancement finding in the Federal Register until May 2014, about a month after the suspension was put into place.
Colorado-based defendant-intervenor Friends of Animals' legal director Michael Harris said, "This is an important victory for African elephants."
The species "has taken a huge loss this past year, largely due to poor conservation management practices. Zimbabwe is one of the worst wildlife managers on earth," Harris said.
"It is about time the United States took action to protect these elephants from Americans seeking to take advantage of Zimbabwe's poor conservation practices in order to take a blood trophy."
Friends of Animals will defend the ban in the court of appeals if need be, Harris said.
"We hope to push the federal government to expand the ban to other African countries," he added.
Justice Department spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle said the government is reviewing the decision, but declined to comment further.
The plaintiffs did not return requests for comment before publication Tuesday.

quote:

The agency, however, "examines not only whether these factors exist but their effect on the species as a whole: whether fees generated by U.S. hunters are in fact being used to promote conservation and how they are being used under the government's management plan and sport-hunting program, whether their use is improving the species' prospects for survival into the future, and how the species would fare if U.S. hunters could not import trophies," Lamberth said.

This is exactly what many in the industry have been screaming about for years. It's great to use the old line "But hunting supports conservation and creates jobs", but without actual data and examples, they are hollow words. The industry's lack of data to support the claim of conservation will work against both hunting and conservation.

It is not just the hunting industry's fault either. Governments and NGO's have been lazy in collecting and disseminating the data as well.

The elephant population is going to suffer as the professional hunting industry declines along with our ability to protect both habitat and wildlife. And we are not about to see Friends of Animals' legal director Michael Harris taking up arms, running patrols, and/or funding anti poaching efforts either.

Sad.

God news for me, my 2014 ivory will pass muster. Doesn't yet change the big picture. Perhaps a ray of hope?

Those that consider all hunting murder, a threat to every species and a blight on civilization are the same ones that will vote for Hitlary and will be getting ALL of the government that they deserve. Unfortunately, they take the rest of us down with them. :<(

I amazes me how one can claim to be pro hunting and pro gun and still vote for Hillary.

Major logic disconnect there...