quote:

The Service has completed its review of this information and is unable to find that the killing of an elephant whose trophy is intended for import into the United States would enhance the survival of the species in the wild

Was this sentence/wording meant to be specifically related to Zim, or elephants in general do you think? Insert 'Zimbabwe' or 'this country' into that sentence and the intention may be different?? Just saying.

The administration has their back so they got nothing to worry
We really do have screwy government plus like I said before in election year no one will do anything
Congress is bunch of girly men...

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

The Service has completed its review of this information and is unable to find that the killing of an elephant whose trophy is intended for import into the United States would enhance the survival of the species in the wild

Was this sentence/wording meant to be specifically related to Zim, or elephants in general do you think? Insert 'Zimbabwe' or 'this country' into that sentence and the intention may be different?? Just saying.

It is specifically related to Zim. The Service was saying that the information received from Zim, Conservation Force, and a handful of operators and other stakeholders was not sufficient to support that sport hunting in Zimbabwe was beneficial to the species.

quote:

"The decision to suspend import of elephant trophies from Zimbabwe will be re-evaluated in December 2014, or before if additional information is provided to address data gaps identified in this decision."

One would be extremely naive to believe the above so don't hold your "collective" breaths.

Don't blame Zim and other affected African hunting destinations. This moronic decision was made in your own back yard by your own wildlife "experts" and if the problem is not tackled in a hurry you wont likely be hunting sheep and goats in the near future either.

It is easy to slip into the trap of analyzing this issue and the USFWS's decision from the standpoint that the facts matter. We need to remember that is not the case . . . at least insofar as USFWS and the Administration are concerned. The ban was issued without any factual support and without any desire for knowledge of the facts. It was issued for politically motivated reasons. If the agency really wanted the facts they would have raised the need for better data before issuing the ban. The decision was reconfirmed today, not based on the facts (although the age of the data made it convenient to USFWS to justify their action), it was reconfirmed because that is consistent with the political agenda of the agency and the Administration. So while plugging the data gaps is important, from my perspective it is important only insofar as it aids the battles being fought in the courts, in Congress and the court of public opinion. USFWS and the Administration are not going to be persuaded by any facts and will always find a deficiency or issue with the data.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
It is easy to slip into the trap of analyzing this issue and the USFWS's decision from the standpoint that the facts matter. We need to remember that is not the case . . . at least insofar as USFWS and the Administration are concerned. The ban was issued without any factual support and without any desire for knowledge of the facts. It was issued for politically motivated reasons. If the agency really wanted the facts they would have raised the need for better data before issuing the ban. The decision was reconfirmed today, not based on the facts (although the age of the data made it convenient to USFWS to justify their action), it was reconfirmed because that is consistent with the political agenda of the agency and the Administration. So while plugging the data gaps is important, from my perspective it is important only insofar as it aids the battles being fought in the courts, in Congress and the court of public opinion. USFWS and the Administration are not going to be persuaded by any facts and will always find a deficiency or issue with the data.

A lot of truth there Mike. Only problem is that they disregard the courts as well. Only way to fix the problem now is to get Republicans elected. Winning the science war though with the pure (those that follow the facts) scientists...does tend to defang the left a bit and is worthwhile for that reason and to know the truth.

The only way to start to change things is to first get rid of Dan Ashe.

quote:

Originally posted by Use Enough Gun:
The only way to start to change things is to first get rid of Dan Ashe.

As long as Sally Jewel is the SI...that ain't gonna happen...unless she decides he is too far right to suit her.

I think the solution is for the Republicans to take the Senate and then to address issues at the USFWS through the budgeting and funding process.

Aaron Neilson, ledvm and MJines have a very good understanding of what happened here.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Only way to fix the problem now is to get Republicans elected.

Yes, because USFWS under Bush was so much better and scientific and willing to follow the law? Not hardly. I am no defender of Obama generally but this "blame the democrats" strategy is a poor one and historically based on a false perception of reality. The USFWS was just as bad during the 8 years of the Bush administration.

I have said this before and Steve referenced it above, but it's really time to vote with our feet as hunters. A little holiday home in Europe or Canada can be had for not much more than a good elephant safari or two so why not invest in a country or continent that allows import and go from there? That way, you can at least enjoy your trophy (and your investment) while also battling for US import of that same trophy.

No surprise from the .gov that sends 8+ armed agents to impound Land Rovers at 6AM, places a CG cutter off the Alabama coast to enforce a ridiculous red snapper ban in the face of overwhelming numbers of fish while ignoring the epic crisis at our southern border.

Yup, blowing off CITES sounds like par for the course.

Hmm? If I recall correctly, didn't we have a republican president when the USF&W declared that polar bears were a "threatened" species (due to alleged global warming). From my perspective, both democrat and republican politicians are worthless.

"The U.S. government's decision to label the bears a "threatened" species in May 2008 made it illegal to import polar-bear trophies, even those killed before the ban went into effect, leaving the bears killed in March and April of that year in bureaucratic limbo."

I had planned to bring home my Ele hide from this years - September - hunt. That won't be happening now. But I've brought home ivory and hide in the past, so I'll still kill another Elephant this year, to support the Zim people and hunters and to spite USF&W.

My concern now is that Beau has his first Leopard and Lion on quota for our safari and the Lion ban is still pending. I hope this decision doesn't empower the bastards to move on the Lion ban, but I am not optimistic.

Since I was one of the affiants in the SCI lawsuit, I wonder how long before I receive my IRS audit notice? Phuque all democrats and every republican who stayed home rather than vote for Romney; you're the ones responsible for this, among other issues such as illegal immigration, Russian aggression, Hamas, illegal IRS audits, the mistreatment of American veterans and the decline of America!

Semper Fi!

Don't hold your breath on it changing when a Government with a different point of view comes to power.

The Moz ban has been in place for something like a quarter of a century and no bugger has changed that so I doubt this one will be any different.

quote:

Originally posted by tendrams:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Only way to fix the problem now is to get Republicans elected.

Yes, because USFWS under Bush was so much better and scientific and willing to follow the law? Not hardly. I am no defender of Obama generally but this "blame the democrats" strategy is a poor one and historically based on a false perception of reality. The USFWS was just as bad during the 8 years of the Bush administration.

I have said this before and Steve referenced it above, but it's really time to vote with our feet as hunters. A little holiday home in Europe or Canada can be had for not much more than a good elephant safari or two so why not invest in a country or continent that allows import and go from there? That way, you can at least enjoy your trophy (and your investment) while also battling for US import of that same trophy.

Tendrams,
You have a point...but! In the Bush administration...it was Laura (as much as I liked her in other ways) that was the problem for polar bear and leopard. I personally discussed that very fact with John Jackson sitting in Dave Fulson's kitchen. Bush was too carried away with 2 wars and such at the time. That said...when Bush was president you could reason with him. He would listen to orgs like DSC, SCI etc. NOT Barry!

Then...there is the fact that today's Democratic Party currently in power is far far far to the left of the party of Bill Clinton in the 90's. They have a far "greener" agenda and are ruthless and corrupt in taking it forth.

So...there is a lot of merit today in seeking help through the Republican Party.

quote:

Originally posted by safari-lawyer:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

The Service has completed its review of this information and is unable to find that the killing of an elephant whose trophy is intended for import into the United States would enhance the survival of the species in the wild

Was this sentence/wording meant to be specifically related to Zim, or elephants in general do you think? Insert 'Zimbabwe' or 'this country' into that sentence and the intention may be different?? Just saying.

It is specifically related to Zim. The Service was saying that the information received from Zim, Conservation Force, and a handful of operators and other stakeholders was not sufficient to support that sport hunting in Zimbabwe was beneficial to the species.

Thanks Will!!!

I see several options going forward, and having a vacation home in another country just to facilitate trophy importation is not one of them (amazing, someone would hang their hat on a place like Canada as being the source of reasonable long term policies on populist issues like hunting? Doesn't Canada include Queerbec?).

- We work cooperatively with the USFWS. Seems like one of the hunting organizations suggested that approach. Let me take the under on that bet. The USFWS has its own political agenda and responsible fish and game policies are not included in that agenda. Certainly facts and science do not enter into the equation. As they say, it takes two to tango and the USFWS ain't interested in letting hunters participate in their line dance with the left.

- We work with the Administration. See above. [Although if you believe this is the strategy to pursue, please contact me by PM and I will give you good odds on a sizable bet against.]

- We change the tide of public opinion in favor of hunting. Really? Does anyone watch the man-in-the-street interviews that Jay Leno did, that Jimmy Kimmel does or Waters does on O'Reilly? We are going to convince people that believe that the Ukraine is a foot fungus that hunting is the best way to conserve animal populations? Hell, the USFWS does not even believe that.

- We fight in the courts. May take some time, odds are always stacked in favor of the agency but plaintiffs do beat the agency sometimes (just look at the Hobby Lobby and DC Circuit decisions in the last month or so on Obamacare). As they say, if you got no choice, you got no problem.

- We work the issue through the appropriations process in Congress. There are some sympathetic ears in Congress and funding is the life blood of an agency. Again, a long putt but if the option is capitulation, which do you prefer.

- We simply wring our hands, complain to one another about the world going to hell in a hand basket, talk about the good old days and generally waste our time. Already seems like we have strong contingent committed to this option. I would suggest that a handful of folks work on some of the other options so we do not double down on this one.

Maybe Will is right, get Debbie Peake at Mochaba Developments on board in Zimbabwe and have her pull together some numbers like she did in Botswana. Not sure it could be done before December 2014, but she sure had a hell of a lot of information when Botswana closed that proved hunting had a negligible impact on the elephant population.

http://www.huntingreport.com/c...ion_force.cfm?id=329



lavaca,


This is the latest news I have seen on Tanzania. Best of luck on your hunt.



USFWS Produces Letter of Inquiry to Tanzania on Elephant Populations
Written By John J. Jackson III, Conservation Force Chairman & President
(posted July 2014)

After two full months and five separate requests, USFWS finally produced an email and postal letter that it had sent to the Tanzania Minister, Lazaro Nyalandu advising of the suspension and why. The three following paragraphs are the substance of the five paragraph letter. The whole letter can be seen at www.conservationforce.org/pdf/...tter_to_minister.pdf.

The US Government is gravely concerned about the escalation in poaching activity throughout Tanzania over the past several years, and we have expressed this concern in our CITES findings over the past few years. With new information now showing significant declines in key elephant populations in Tanzania, we are unable to make positive findings required by CITES and the ESA to allow import of elephant trophies taken in Tanzania during calendar year 2014 (see attachments). We recognize that sport-hunting, as part of a sound management program, can provide benefits to the conservation of species. However, because of the rampant elephant poaching in Tanzania, we are concerned that the additional killing of elephants, even if legal, is not sustainable and would not support effective management and community programs that enhance the survival of the species in Tanzania.

We will reevaluate the situation in Tanzania for elephant trophies taken in calendar year 2015 and beyond. When we receive information that indicates a significant improvement for elephants in Tanzania, we will re-consider the import suspension. In order to allow elephant trophies to be imported in the future, documented total offtake from the elephant population (i.e., all sources of elephant deaths, including poaching, sport-hunting, problem animal control, and natural mortality) would need to be below the elephant’s annual population growth rate, requiring the poaching rate to be significantly reduced. We will look to the following sources of information to provide us with this documentation:

• New population census information, demographic surveys, and carcass analyses;

• Monitoring of Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) and Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) reports; and

• Other relevant sources of information.

In addition, in response to the drastic population decline, we hope that the Government of Tanzania will appropriately adjust its quotas downward and take management actions to address the poaching crisis, such as increased capacity for law enforcement. We would appreciate receiving information on how funds generated from the sport-hunting of elephants are used to support the long-term survival of the species. Such support could be in the way of on-the-ground conservation efforts, such as surveys and anti-poaching efforts, or more indirect support through community development projects that can be tied to the benefits that can be generated by maintaining healthy elephant populations.

Although Tanzania’s management can be said to be more up-to-date due to an up-to-date national management plan and elephant population surveys, the undisputed poaching may make it more difficult to re-establish imports than in Zimbabwe where elephant are only on Appendix II. The problem in Tanzania is the documented poaching level which is already coming under control. The elephant population should soon be growing again, and with the conservative quota Tanzania has, the imports re-established.

Alternatively continue with the sport of elephant hunting in order the Zim boys have an income and communities still receive their protein but Zimbabwe would have to look at a more attractive pricing system.

Not sure what happens to the ivory then? In theory it still belongs to the client.

You could consider synthetic duplicates of the tusks or Ivory sold to offset the cost of the safari?

So USFWS acknowledges that the elephants are going to be sport-hunted and killed, despite their prohibition of import to the USA?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I see several options going forward, and having a vacation home in another country just to facilitate trophy importation is not one of them (amazing, someone would hang their hat on a place like Canada as being the source of reasonable long term policies on populist issues like hunting?

Well, I currently have four trophies there that are not importable to the US (or were not when hunted)...so you tell me which side of the border constitutes the "Land of the Free" on the issue of hunting. Also no one said it had to be Canada. Nothing wrong with doing such a thing in Southern Europe (Portugal sounds nice) or Central America (Belize?) or the Caribbean (Caymans?) Frankly, I just look at the whole idea as a way to diversify ones investment portfolio while also ensuring future hunting flexibility.

As per the USF&W document:

"To make an enhancement finding, the Service evaluates a number of factors including: 1) whether a country has a national or regional management plan; 2) whether that plan is being implemented fully; 3) the status of the elephant population and trends over time; 4) how the sport hunting programs has been incorporated into national/regional management strategies, particularly in light of data on population numbers and trends, levels of utilization (both legal and illegal), and ability to effectively implement hunting programs."

In response to MJines latest posting, perhaps it is time for NGO's such as SCI, DSC, WWF, MIKE (aka - Monitoring of the Illegal Killing of Elephants), etc. to proactively partner up with The Zimbabwe Parks & Wildlife Authority (Zim Parks) to cooperatively develop and implement a national management plan. With WWF's cooperation, the partnership could be led and coordinated by a well respected ecologist/conservationist such as Dr. Russell Taylor with WWF. Dr. Taylor is a citizen of Zimbabwe, former ecologist with National Parks, and played a central role in establishing CAMPFIRE. For those who are not familiar with MIKE, MIKE supports parties (i.e. - Zim Parks) that do not have the capacity to conduct herbivore surveys on their own. MIKE incorporates aerial surveys to determine trends, spatial distribution and social organization of large herbivore populations.

Just my thoughts on the subject. Cheers!

quote:

Originally posted by tendrams:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I see several options going forward, and having a vacation home in another country just to facilitate trophy importation is not one of them (amazing, someone would hang their hat on a place like Canada as being the source of reasonable long term policies on populist issues like hunting?

Well, I currently have four trophies there that are not importable to the US (or were not when hunted)...so you tell me which side of the border constitutes the "Land of the Free" on the issue of hunting. Also no one said it had to be Canada. or Central America (Belize?) or the Caribbean (Caymans?) Frankly, I just look at the whole idea as a way to diversify ones investment portfolio while also ensuring future hunting flexibility.

Once away from the coastal areas, there's very little crime, prices are low, summers are good and the hunting, shooting & fishing is great........ oh and trophy import is a doddle if you use the right company.

I think everyone is in violent agreement that a data collection/elephant population management process/program needs to be implemented. And based on what I personally observed in Zim several weeks ago, that is happening at least at some level. One would hope (but certainly not expect) that groups like SCI, DSC, CF and even HSC, at a minimum, could put aside their differences and find a way to work together to make that happen. My view is that the data gathered, however, will be more meaningfully useful in the context of efforts in the courts and in Congress than it will be at the USWFS or with the current Administration which have both already demonstrated that facts are not high on their respective priority lists.

Thinking a GOP sweep in the midterms and the 2016 elections will "fix" this is naïve. These are elephants we're talking about here. Elephants, man!

Do you know how many conservative republicans, tea partiers, conservative independents, and other typically pro gun and pro hunting Americans approve of killing an elephant to showoff the tusks in a trophy room? Go take a poll. It ain't many. What politician from either party will run on the "I'm for killing elephants" platform? Who has enough political capital to squander most of it testifying before Congress defending our right to import legally killed elephant tusks? Who? Nobody from any party.

Fiery political rhetoric is easy and it is the go-to for many commentators, but it doesn't advance this issue one inch and is mostly irrelevant. The same people that think the Republicans will get elected and save the day for elephants and we elephant hunters are the same people that will be scratching their heads in amazement when Fox News is the last station to report that Hillary Clinton has just been elected the first female POTUS. Uh, how'd that just happen?

The ruling is the roadmap to the relief we want.
1. Print the 13 page ruling.
2. Highlight every deficiency noted in the report.
3. Make a list of what needs to be done.
4. Identify the people and organizations that can accomplish the items in #3 and the cost of the same.
5. Divide the list into what can be done with the time, people, equipment and money available versus what cannot be done for whatever reason.

It's not rocket science, though it requires a strong leader who is organized and a host government that will accept the help that it is being offered. It also requires a helluva lot of cash, cash that will likely come from private donors and NGOs.

Until the affected nation states produce the data that USF&W demanded, this ruling is not changing, even if Rick Perry was POTUS.

Will:

Well said - best post I've seen on this topic.

Charles

quote:

Originally posted by safari-lawyer:
Thinking a GOP sweep in the midterms and the 2016 elections will "fix" this is naïve. These are elephants we're talking about here. Elephants, man!

Do you know how many conservative republicans, tea partiers, conservative independents, and other typically pro gun and pro hunting Americans approve of killing an elephant to showoff the tusks in a trophy room? Go take a poll. It ain't many. What politician from either party will run on the "I'm for killing elephants" platform? Who has enough political capital to squander most of it testifying before Congress defending our right to import legally killed elephant tusks? Who? Nobody from any party.

Fiery political rhetoric is easy and it is the go-to for many commentators, but it doesn't advance this issue one inch and is mostly irrelevant. The same people that think the Republicans will get elected and save the day for elephants and we elephant hunters are the same people that will be scratching their heads in amazement when Fox News is the last station to report that Hillary Clinton has just been elected the first female POTUS. Uh, how'd that just happen?

The ruling is the roadmap to the relief we want.
1. Print the 13 page ruling.
2. Highlight every deficiency noted in the report.
3. Make a list of what needs to be done.
4. Identify the people and organizations that can accomplish the items in #3 and the cost of the same.
5. Divide the list into what can be done with the time, people, equipment and money available versus what cannot be done for whatever reason.

It's not rocket science, though it requires a strong leader who is organized and a host government that will accept the help that it is being offered. It also requires a helluva lot of cash, cash that will likely come from private donors and NGOs.

Until the affected nation states produce the data that USF&W demanded, this ruling is not changing, even if Rick Perry was POTUS.

With all due respect Will, if you checked every box that the USFWS listed that needed to be checked, and did so in a credible and responsible manner, I think the naivety is believing that the USWFS will respond with agency action in the same credible and responsible manner. If you really believe that the issue was all about the USFWS needing facts and data, why didn't the USFWS, rather than announce a ban, institute a fact finding and data collection process to determine whether a ban should be instituted? I will offer that they did the ban in the first instance because that is the substantive result they desired regardless of the facts and data. Don't get me wrong, the facts and data are needed, but not to convince the USFWS to do anything but rather to have others force the USFWS to do the right thing.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by safari-lawyer:
Thinking a GOP sweep in the midterms and the 2016 elections will "fix" this is naïve. These are elephants we're talking about here. Elephants, man!

Do you know how many conservative republicans, tea partiers, conservative independents, and other typically pro gun and pro hunting Americans approve of killing an elephant to showoff the tusks in a trophy room? Go take a poll. It ain't many. What politician from either party will run on the "I'm for killing elephants" platform? Who has enough political capital to squander most of it testifying before Congress defending our right to import legally killed elephant tusks? Who? Nobody from any party.

Fiery political rhetoric is easy and it is the go-to for many commentators, but it doesn't advance this issue one inch and is mostly irrelevant. The same people that think the Republicans will get elected and save the day for elephants and we elephant hunters are the same people that will be scratching their heads in amazement when Fox News is the last station to report that Hillary Clinton has just been elected the first female POTUS. Uh, how'd that just happen?

The ruling is the roadmap to the relief we want.
1. Print the 13 page ruling.
2. Highlight every deficiency noted in the report.
3. Make a list of what needs to be done.
4. Identify the people and organizations that can accomplish the items in #3 and the cost of the same.
5. Divide the list into what can be done with the time, people, equipment and money available versus what cannot be done for whatever reason.

It's not rocket science, though it requires a strong leader who is organized and a host government that will accept the help that it is being offered. It also requires a helluva lot of cash, cash that will likely come from private donors and NGOs.

Until the affected nation states produce the data that USF&W demanded, this ruling is not changing, even if Rick Perry was POTUS.

With all due respect Will, if you checked every box that the USFWS listed that needed to be checked, and did so in a credible and responsible manner, I think the naivety is believing that the USWFS will respond with agency action in the same credible and responsible manner. If you really believe that the issue was all about the USFWS needing facts and data, why didn't the USFWS, rather than announce a ban, institute a fact finding and data collection process to determine whether a ban should be instituted? I will offer that they did the ban in the first instance because that is the substantive result they desired regardless of the facts and data. Don't get me wrong, the facts and data are needed, but not to convince the USFWS to do anything but rather to have others force the USFWS to do the right thing.

Then comes litigation.

But, litigation before getting the science and data organized is a waste of time and money.

The 13 page report would be U.S. Ex. 1 and would be used to relentlessly beat the Plaintiffs over the head. I can imagine a U.S. Dist. Judge quoting the USF&W report in the Order denying the Plaintiff's Application for a Preliminary Injunction.

Based on the status of the ongoing 1) Fast & Furious investigation; 2) Benghazi investigation, 3) IRS investigation; 4) VA administration investigation; 5) invasion of our southern border by illegal aliens; 5) Nobama Care fiasco; 6) mid-term elections; 7) etc., I suspect that our self-serving politicians have neither the time, energy, nor the desire to take on the USF&W's elephant importation ban. IMO

Just wondering if decisions like the ele important ban have political goals instead of conservation? Could it be possible that they are trying to discourage Americans from leaving their dollars to countries that are not US or Euro friendly?

Will,
While I wholeheartedly agree with all the steps you have laid out and am for full speed ahead on them...the USF&W serves at the will of the administration. And except for funding...pretty much are the puppet of the administration.

While I am not going to hold my breath to hear his inauguration speach...I would be willing to wager a sizable sum that this would not be happening if Rick Perry were president.

While politics is NOT the total solution...more conservative leaders is a step in the right direction.

What I can tell you 100% from working on the lion up-list issue is that it (the lion issue) was solely based on politics...as the science was presented and they still have not and probably will not drop the chance to up-list.

I see this in the same way I see sky rocket cigarette taxes.I don't believe it has anything to do with trying to get people to stop smoking for whatever reason.The tax money is meant to be pocketed,IMO.

typical US govt meddling in something they know nothing about. I have read where there are too many elephants in Zim for the carrying capacity of the land. Wonder how the Antis are gonna feel when the control people have to go in and kill thousands regardless if the meat and other animal products are put to good use. That's ok in a couple of years Obama will leave us and go to Kenya to run their game dept.

Will and his proposed plan sounds good to me.

"Ecological Colonialism"

quote:

Originally posted by Wowo:
"Ecological Colonialism"

Even worse. It flies in the face of the collective action taken by CITES, in which the United States is an active participant.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Wowo:
"Ecological Colonialism"

Even worse. It flies in the face of the collective action taken by CITES, in which the United States is an active participant.

Interesting thought!! Any way to get CITES to step up and condemn the actions of USF&W as a blatant overreach?

The groups can't directly get African Governments to stop the hunting or dance to their tune. So they go and lobby to IMPOSE and force African Govts. They kill a few birds with one stone.
They achieve this in Africa AND it opens the door to do the same in the US... Bring the anti lead laws ...
They have this ability to get institutions to act and quickly. When these implementing institutions realise that perhaps they hadn't made the a prudent decision it's too late.
The only way to save face is to standby there decision no matter. Besides of course they're quite left anyway .. Just some thoughts.

Bottom line the west is imposing on African govts..