From: Safari Club International <safariclub@info.safariclub.org>
Date: April 10, 2014 at 4:08:39 PM EDT

Subject: LITIGATION ALERT: U.S. FWS Suspension of Elephant Imports From Zimbabwe, Tanzania
Reply-To: Safari Club International <safariclub_2F084DC447BD78279088A0FF3ABEEA87@info.safariclub.org>


Dear SCI Members:

On April 4, 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced an immediate ban on the importation of sport-hunted elephant trophies from Zimbabwe and Tanzania. The ban will apply to trophies from elephants hunted on or after January 1, 2014 (trophies hunted in 2013 or before and trophies already imported into the U.S. will not be affected by the ban).

SCI is collecting information to determine the extent of the impact of this ban on our members. If you are an SCI member and fall into one of the following categories, please contact us by e-mail (aseidman@safariclub.org) at your earliest opportunity and tell us how the ban is affecting or will affect you:

1) You successfully hunted an elephant in Zimbabwe or Tanzania in 2014 and have not yet imported the trophy into the United States; or
2) You are currently on or are en route to an elephant hunt in Zimbabwe or Tanzania; or
3) You have an elephant hunt planned for Zimbabwe or Tanzania in 2014 and have already made a financial commitment towards the hunt.

If you are not an SCI member, please do not respond to this e-mail. Please do not forward this e-mail to friends and colleagues who are not SCI members. We are attempting to collect data from SCI members only.

Thank you.

If you no longer wish to receive email from us, please Unsubscribe here. Thanks.

Obviously SCI has zero political influence. Why does SCI even exist?

dalew - And your statement is obvious without supporting FACTS. Where and why would you come up with something like that? Please inform all of us with FACTS to support your rant. Are you a SCI Member or just a Basher?

Seems to me SCI is quite on top of the situation and wants "first hand" information from it's Members to present to Fish and Wildlife on this situation.

Larry Sellers
SCI(International)Life Member
Sabatti 'trash' Double Shooter
R8 Blaser
DRSS

quote:

Originally posted by daleW:
Obviously SCI has zero political influence. Why does SCI even exist?

Thanks Larry for posting! You beat me to it! Those here on AR that are planning, or have planned and taken a trophy bull ele hunt in Zimbabwe should get their information to SCI. Marty: I know that you are leaving or have left, but get your info to them upon your return.

Done, and thank you.

quote:

If you are not an SCI member, please do not respond to this e-mail. Please do not forward this e-mail to friends and colleagues who are not SCI members. We are attempting to collect data from SCI members only.

Why would SCI not want the pool of those harmed by this decision be the deepest possible? By limiting their data to SCI members only my thought is that SCI would have a weaker case to reflect the true harm of USF&W's decision.

Not bashing SCI, I'm a member, I just don't understand the limiting of supporting data.

This is a time when all SCI bashers should wake up and realize that only the large hunting organizations, of which SCI is the largest, have the wherewithal to actively pursue resolution on issues such as this Elephant ban, by using all means at their disposal. That includes collecting information, lobbying congress and filing lawsuits as a beginning. Every hunter reading this should be a member of SCI, just as they should be a member of the NRA for protecting the Second Amendment.

This is hardly the time for slamming any organization willing to stand up to the USF&W. They are our enemy, not SCI. This is the time for everyone to suck it up and join SCI to help rectify this wrong perpetrated by USF&W.

I sent emails to all my congress critters via SCI and have provided SCI with the information on my Zimbabwe Elephant hunt scheduled for this September. I also notified all my hunting companions and referenced them to the SCI sites.

Frostbit: SCI cannot verify information of non-members. If they are going to represent that they speak for members or file a lawsuit on our behalf, they must be able to confirm our membership. No different from any organization in that regard. It's called "standing" in legalese.

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

If you are not an SCI member, please do not respond to this e-mail. Please do not forward this e-mail to friends and colleagues who are not SCI members. We are attempting to collect data from SCI members only.

Why would SCI not want the pool of those harmed by this decision be the deepest possible? By limiting their data to SCI members only my thought is that SCI would have a weaker case to reflect the true harm of USF&W's decision.

Not bashing SCI, I'm a member, I just don't understand the limiting of supporting data.

If they are planning to sue, which obviously it sounds like they are, and they intend to sue in the name of SCI they need to be able to demonstrate that they represent members of the organization that have been aggrieved by the USFWS action. So they are limiting it to members to avoid creating a standing concern. Probably more than you had any desire to know.

I think this is an excellent move on their part.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

If you are not an SCI member, please do not respond to this e-mail. Please do not forward this e-mail to friends and colleagues who are not SCI members. We are attempting to collect data from SCI members only.

Why would SCI not want the pool of those harmed by this decision be the deepest possible? By limiting their data to SCI members only my thought is that SCI would have a weaker case to reflect the true harm of USF&W's decision.

Not bashing SCI, I'm a member, I just don't understand the limiting of supporting data.

If they are planning to sue, which obviously it sounds like they are, and they intend to sue in the name of SCI they need to be able to demonstrate that they represent members of the organization that have been aggrieved by the USFWS action. So they are limiting it to members to avoid creating a standing concern. Probably more than you had any desire to know .

Not sure why you would say that Mike. Thanks for the answer it makes sense.

Its not a "standing" issue, at least not a well thought out one. SCI could and should track everyone who is impacted. Simply asking if they are members, getting their membership numbers and organizing accordingly is all it takes. The implication that they are following a well thought out legal strategy to avoid dismissal based on standing is hopefully not an indication of SCIs legal acumen.

More likely it is a continuation of their very strict policy of "first for our members." I'm a member FYI.

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

If you are not an SCI member, please do not respond to this e-mail. Please do not forward this e-mail to friends and colleagues who are not SCI members. We are attempting to collect data from SCI members only.

Why would SCI not want the pool of those harmed by this decision be the deepest possible? By limiting their data to SCI members only my thought is that SCI would have a weaker case to reflect the true harm of USF&W's decision.

Not bashing SCI, I'm a member, I just don't understand the limiting of supporting data.

If they are planning to sue, which obviously it sounds like they are, and they intend to sue in the name of SCI they need to be able to demonstrate that they represent members of the organization that have been aggrieved by the USFWS action. So they are limiting it to members to avoid creating a standing concern. Probably more than you had any desire to know .

Not sure why you would say that Mike. Thanks for the answer it makes sense.

Just felt like it was a bunch of legalese that makes people's eye's glaze over, mine too.

quote:

Originally posted by Navaluk:
Its not a "standing" issue, at least not a well thought out one. SCI could and should track everyone who is impacted. Simply asking if they are members, getting their membership numbers and organizing accordingly is all it takes. The implication that they are following a well thought out legal strategy to avoid dismissal based on standing is hopefully not an indication of SCIs legal acumen.

More likely it is a continuation of their very strict policy of "first for our members." I'm a member FYI.

It is absolutely a standing issue. SCI may not feel they can establish standing because they have not been harmed . . . certain of their members have been harmed. While there is third party standing in some cases, why take on a standing fight if you can avoid it. They want to file with or on behalf of those harmed members to avoid facing dismissal of the lawsuit (or a long procedural fight over standing that delays getting to the merits). That said, I do not intend to debate legal principles here, that is not the point. I am confident SCI's lawyers know what they are doing, what they are doing makes sense to me and all I was doing was answering Jim's question.

If you want SCI to represent you in this but are not a paid-up member... it wouldnt be hard to get on the phone and get your dues up to date. It's not rocket surgery.

SCI has a track record on things like this and they have do know how to approach it. They have learned a thing or two over the last several decades.

That said, if you want to see where things are really at these days and have a better feel for the fight ahead, just read up on the entire polar bear debacle. This is going to be a hard sell……………… if global warming trumps Canada's proven track record on polar bear management and the opinions of CITES member countries, what chance do you think there is with trophy ivory imports from Zim and Tanzania??

They did not give a shit about the Inuit communities and how the US import ban affected the funds generated for local indigenous people and wildlife management. They did not pay any attention to the fact that the US ban on import will not change the allowable harvest on polar bears as non-residents were merely taking some of the annual polar bear allocation allotted to the various communities as a sustainable harvest.

In the recent past it took years and many court battles to finally get the USFWS to approve the import of legally taken wood bison trophies. They refused to allow import for years well past the various conditions they required to secure the species had been met.

I hope you all get the desired results. Sadly I think much time, energy and money is going to be spent with little to show for it. However, you guys do not have a choice and it is a battle that must be fought. I hope the end result is more positive than the polar bear fight but in truth, the USFWS has a lot more of a leg to stand on with the issue at hand than they did with the polar bear.

Poaching is rampant in both Zim and Tanzania. Actual in the field game department enforcement is minimal at best and corruption is commonplace. Even though their decision is going to be detrimental for elephants, operators and local communities in the long run…….. their decision to ban imports is not going to be a hard sell.

The USFWS really needs to be cut off at the knees. They are planning on pushing for polar bears to be up-listed again at the next CITES convention. Not happy with the past they are going to go for the jugular……… a vindictive bunch if I have ever seen them.

I hope they are getting ready to sue, as someone suggested.

And in that vein, I responded.

I have one elephant in limbo: shot in Tanzanis in 2013, import permit pending. Not technically subject to the ban, but will I get my permit?

Second, I've booked a hunt in Tanzania for 2015 and put a deposit on it. My focus was on elephant, although there are obviously a lot of other things on the ticket. If I'd have known elephant wasn't an option, though, I'd have included cats.

So I've responded to SCI. I hope they get some results.

Once we have a change in the Administration, perhaps we will get some action.

quote:

posted 11 April 2014 18:50Hide Post
dalew - And your statement is obvious without supporting FACTS. Where and why would you come up with something like that? Please inform all of us with FACTS to support your rant. Are you a SCI Member or just a Basher?

Seems to me SCI is quite on top of the situation and wants "first hand" information from it's Members to present to Fish and Wildlife on this situation.

Why do I need to give supporting facts?

When US Fish and Wildlife Service prohibited polar bear hides from being imported into USA---SCI was powerless to stop it.

US Fish and Wildlife Service current Ivory import ban into USA ---there is nothing SCI can do to stop them.

SCI has zero political influence.

SCI can do all the surveys and collect information to determine the extent of the impact of this ban all it wants. It will not change the outcome and the ban will remain because SCI has zero political clout or influence.

IF SCI had one ounce of political power, polar bears would be imported into USA and there would never have been any mention of Ivory ban from any country.

Attempting to argue otherwise, is absurd.

Dale

Isn't that silly idea of "lobbying" supposed to stop unwanted laws being enacted in the first place?

True but this isn't a law.

quote:

Originally posted by daleW:

quote:

posted 11 April 2014 18:50Hide Post
dalew - And your statement is obvious without supporting FACTS. Where and why would you come up with something like that? Please inform all of us with FACTS to support your rant. Are you a SCI Member or just a Basher?

Seems to me SCI is quite on top of the situation and wants "first hand" information from it's Members to present to Fish and Wildlife on this situation.

Why do I need to give supporting facts?

When US Fish and Wildlife Service prohibited polar bear hides from being imported into USA---SCI was powerless to stop it.

US Fish and Wildlife Service current Ivory import ban into USA ---there is nothing SCI can do to stop them.

SCI has zero political influence.

SCI can do all the surveys and collect information to determine the extent of the impact of this ban all it wants. It will not change the outcome and the ban will remain because SCI has zero political clout or influence.

IF SCI had one ounce of political power, polar bears would be imported into USA and there would never have been any mention of Ivory ban from any country.

Attempting to argue otherwise, is absurd.

Dale

Dale does have a point here. Lets compare SCI to the NRA. NRA makes these elected hacks piss down their collective legs. Nobody wants to oppose them. Until hunters and fishermen are able to rally under one collective banner and wield the kind of muscle that the NRA does then we are (SCI and other factions) just pooting into a windstorm.

Jeff

It's no secret that USF$WS are a bunch of anti hunting bastards but they're a VERY stubborn bunch of anti hunting bastards and I'll bet a pound to a pinch of the smelly brown stuff that all the lobbying from SCI, DSC, NRA & everyone else and all the letters and petitions and all the king's horses and all the king's men won't achieve squat.

If John Jackson & CF can win court case after court case and yet still fail to get USF&WS to allow the import of Mozambican elephant products, there's no way on God's earth any of this effort & squealing will change their minds about Tanzania & Zimbabwe.

Personally, I reckon time & effort would be better spent trying to get the Govts of those African countries to pull their finger out and actually do something about the entire situation........... and I don't hold much hope of that happening either...... I also don't think the USF&WS will stop with elephants either. I reckon rhino & lion will be next on their agenda.

I hope I'm wrong in those beliefs but I'll bet I'm not!

You're dead right Steve!

Unfortunately there are too many people out there who are of the opinion and firm belief that SCI, letters and petitions to Senators and Governors, etc. is the way forward.

One has to be be naive to believe that these individuals are going to tilt the apple cart to speak against one of their own kind!

Hey, after our impotent U.S. congressmen and senators conclude the "Benghazi Gate" investigation (starring Hillary Clinton), and the "Fast and Furious" debacle (starring Eric Holder), and the "IRS Scandal" (starring Louis Lerner), and the "Nobama Care Act" (starring dictator Nobama), and the congressional "Contempt of Congress" proceedings (starring Eric Holder), and the "Invasion of Crimea" (starring Vladimer Putin), and survive the upcoming mid-year elections in November, and implement "Immigration Reform" (starring 12 million law breaking illegals), then perhaps they will find the time to rein in the USFWS. However, in the mean time, I reckon that I will spend my time playing golf. Cheers!

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:
You're dead right Steve!

Unfortunately there are too many people out there who are of the opinion and firm belief that SCI, letters and petitions to Senators and Governors, etc. is the way forward.

One has to be be naive to believe that these individuals are going to tilt the apple cart to speak against one of their own kind!

So rather than throw stones, what would you propose be done to address this situation?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:
You're dead right Steve!

Unfortunately there are too many people out there who are of the opinion and firm belief that SCI, letters and petitions to Senators and Governors, etc. is the way forward.

One has to be be naive to believe that these individuals are going to tilt the apple cart to speak against one of their own kind!

So rather than throw stones, what would you propose be done to address this situation?

Mr. Jines,

The old adage of how you eat an elephant probably applies here. One bite at a time. Collective voices can and will work. BUT what will be the vehicle to channel all of this energy? SCI, NRA, Something yet formed. I guess it depends on how much further we allow ourselves to be pushed.

Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from the Bundy Ranch in Nevada.

Jeff

Right on Jeff! I actually saw part of the Bundy group kicking ass on the Feds on Saturday as I was driving up to St. George, Utah. Made my heart feel good. I also got to talk with a BLM agent on Sunday and he was literally removing all signs of the BLM from his government vehicle out of fear of people in Vegas knowing who he was! LOL! We can whine and say it's impossible for us to kick the USFWS' ass or we can join in with groups that are tryng to get things changed and work towards that. It all starts with us, folks, and it all starts with us doing SOMETHING, instead of NOTHING.

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:
You're dead right Steve!

Unfortunately there are too many people out there who are of the opinion and firm belief that SCI, letters and petitions to Senators and Governors, etc. is the way forward.

One has to be be naive to believe that these individuals are going to tilt the apple cart to speak against one of their own kind!

quote:

Originally posted by Cajun1956:
Hey, after our impotent U.S. congressmen and senators conclude the "Benghazi Gate" investigation (starring Hillary Clinton), and the "Fast and Furious" debacle (starring Eric Holder), and the "IRS Scandal" (starring Louis Lerner), and the "Nobama Care Act" (starring dictator Nobama), and the congressional "Contempt of Congress" proceedings (starring Eric Holder), and the "Invasion of Crimea" (starring Vladimer Putin), and survive the upcoming mid-year elections in November, and implement "Immigration Reform" (starring 12 million law breaking illegals), then perhaps they will find the time to rein in the USFWS. However, in the mean time, I reckon that I will spend my time playing golf. Cheers!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
So rather than throw stones, what would you propose be done to address this situation?

Mike

I don't think anyone is throwing stones & I'm sure we all wish SCI, DSC, NRA & the letter writers & petitioners etc the very best of luck in getting the ban reversed.......... But I for one & apparently several others don't think it's gonna happen in the foreseeable future.

Personally, I think the effort would be better directed at applying pressure to western politicians to make them apply pressure to make the African Govts do something about the cause of the problem.

Withdrawal of foreign aid & freezing assets etc would be a good place to start.

Steve: Your suggestions are quite wonderful in a real world where everyone cares. But you have to look at reality and just who we are dealing with when it comes to this administration. With everything else that is happening in this good old world, the withdrawal of foreign aid and freezing of assets of those governments and officials in Zim and Tanzania regarding the elephant is pure pie in the sky, my friend. I'll take my chances at this time with the actions of SCI and others. They will be focusing on the real issue and directing it at the real agencies involved. But, we're still friends! LOL!

quote:

Originally posted by Use Enough Gun:
Steve: Your suggestions are quite wonderful in a real world where everyone cares. But you have to look at reality and just who we are dealing with when it comes to this administration. With everything else that is happening in this good old world, the withdrawal of foreign aid and freezing of assets of those governments and officials in Zim and Tanzania regarding the elephant is pure pie in the sky, my friend. I'll take my chances at this time with the actions of SCI and others. They will be focusing on the real issue and directing it at the real agencies involved. But, we're still friends! LOL!

Mate,

If you read my other comments, you'll see that I said (several times) that I don't hold out much hope of it happening but quite honestly, I reckon there's even less chance of USF&WS reversing their decision in the forseeable future.

As I've said several times, if John Jackson and Conservation Force can win court case after court case for year after year after year and yet still fail to get the Moz ban reversed then there's not a hope in hell of these bans being reversed simply due to what USF&WS will see as nothing more than the squealing they almost certainly expected.

Also as I've said before, I hope I'm wrong but don't think I am.

In order for anything to be successful, we are going to have to get out of our comfort zone. Unfortunately unlike NRA where one size fits all, the US whitetail hunter will not rally to the cause of the poor beleaguered elephant hunter. In fact just the opposite may occur. Figure out how to bridge those divides and you have a coalescing force. Without the grass root support from your rabbit hunter, you are toast.

Jeff

If SCI sues on behalf of their members, for the reasons Mr. Jines stated, those others who are harmed and are not members of SCI can seek leave to file a third party intervenor's action with the suit. This allows one affected by USFWS's actions and not an SCI member to have a legal forum. Not an uncommon action.

Dutch

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
In order for anything to be successful, we are going to have to get out of our comfort zone. Unfortunately unlike NRA where one size fits all, the US whitetail hunter will not rally to the cause of the poor beleaguered elephant hunter. In fact just the opposite may occur. Figure out how to bridge those divides and you have a coalescing force. Without the grass root support from your rabbit hunter, you are toast.

Jeff

This may be the best thing said on the the subject of anti-hunting as a whole.

So typical, everyone has lots of advice on why everything being done won't work and no ideas on what to do or worse yet ideas that strain credulity (e.g., just get the morally and financially bankrupt African countries to step up and do right). I guess we should just fold the tent and go home? Not me. I will work the system and see what happens. I would rather go down swinging my hands than wringing my hands. My reservations for DC are made.

Several here crumb on SCI, yet when they do something, they nay say it.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
So typical, everyone has lots of advice on why everything being done won't work and no ideas on what to do or worse yet ideas that strain credulity (e.g., just get the morally and financially bankrupt African countries to step up and do right). I guess we should just fold the tent and go home? Not me. I will work the system and see what happens. I would rather go down swinging my hands than wringing my hands. My reservations for DC are made.

Good luck in DC. I would be interested to hear back on how many hunters showed up (not counting booking agents who may be there for economic reasons). Also what the political reception SCI/elephant hunters receive from politicians.

As for me, I am going to renew my membership to the NRA. They will fights for gun rights first, the firearms industry second and hunting for the NRA will be second derivative of gun rights. I don't expect the NRA to really put its political muscle behind elephant hunting but I hope they do.

Mike

quote:

I would rather go down swinging my hands than wringing my hands.

Nice turn of the phrase Mike. I agree. We can all rant to each other on the internet and do a piss-pot full of good or rant at our elected officials and at least be heard. May do some good, may not, but to take the tact, "nothing will happen anyway so I will just do nothing" is an absolute way of assuring we will not defeat the edict. Use CAPWIZ on SCI site and make your voice heard...

I still contend that hunters need a unified voice. Pheasant hunters to elephant hunters.

Something modeling NRA.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
I still contend that hunters need a unified voice. Pheasant hunters to elephant hunters.

Something modeling NRA.

Jeff

So Jeff, do we sit around and wait for that to happen or take action as best we can now? What you describe is great aspirationally, but it does not exist now. I say we use the infrastructure we have and get our butts in gear.