http://dscnewscenter.org/2015/...-suit-against-delta/

Conservation Force, Dallas Safari Club, Houston Safari Club, the CAMPFIRE Association, the Tanzania Hunting Operators Association (TAHOA), and Corey Knowlton filed suit today against Delta Air Lines, Inc. to compel an end to Delta’s illegal embargo on transport of hunting trophies of the “Big Five” (lion, leopard, elephant, rhino, and buffalo) from Africa. The plaintiffs allege the embargo on transport of a specific class of non-dangerous cargo violates Delta’s duty as a common carrier not to discriminate against passengers or cargo.

SWEET!

Great news!!!

good.

AWESOME!!

Wow!! Do you think they have a chance to win? Do they even need to win the court battle to have this overturned or will delta cave early??

I hope this works!!

Bet you Delta caves, though I am sure JJIII et al would rather win a case to force other airlines to cave as well. JJ has a great tenacity in these matters.

I asked this question about suing the airlines a while ago. Glad to see someone take up the cause. All of the airlines should be held accountable.

Only way to tackle this not freighting hunting trophies nonsense...

South African has recently given it up..

If its legal to export the goods from one country, and legal to import them on the other side , there should be no grounds for a public carrier to refuse them. Period.

quote:

Originally posted by 1/2 slam:
I asked this question about suing the airlines a while ago. Glad to see someone take up the cause. All of the airlines should be held accountable.

I asked the question in August and was told by someone on here that there wasn't grounds. I am not a lawyer and don't even pretend to be, but I think the suit has is better than some that I hear about. They may have been waiting for someone to actually be refused service to have standing. There is also the possibility that Delta will see this as a chance to back off and say "we tried but our legal team yada yada yada".

I am guessing but maybe Deltas change of heart (saying they will not bow to pressure and then later changing their minds) may have something to do with it.

Sue them for what?

You cannot force a US corporation to do something they do not feel it is in their best interest to do - and thank God for that. Furthermore, Delta has a team of lawyers with noting better to do. So all of the hunting organisations are doing is wasting money and time. Not sure that's a winning strategy.

Maybe the only strategy here is for these organizations to push from more money from their members - like the NRA does.

Did you bother to read the petition? I will make it easy for you, start at Paragraph 46.

Discrimination. Got it. Good luck with that one.

Not even close but whatever.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
You cannot force a US corporation to do something they do not feel it is in their best interest to do - and thank God for that. Furthermore, Delta has a team of lawyers with noting better to do. So all of the hunting organisations are doing is wasting money and time. Not sure that's a winning strategy.

You would think that is the way it works, but some of the lawsuits against individuals based on discrimination goes against that logic. I can't see a large corporation wanting to go before a jury in a discrimination case. The hunting organizations will get blasted if they do nothing. I bet that at the DSC some of the members being affected are lawyers.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Not even close but whatever.

Yup.

quote:

Originally posted by CharlesL:

quote:

Originally posted by 1/2 slam:
I asked this question about suing the airlines a while ago. Glad to see someone take up the cause. All of the airlines should be held accountable.

I asked the question in August and was told by someone on here that there wasn't grounds. I am not a lawyer and don't even pretend to be, but I think the suit has is better than some that I hear about. They may have been waiting for someone to actually be refused service to have standing. There is also the possibility that Delta will see this as a chance to back off and say "we tried but our legal team yada yada yada".

Charles,

I got the same responses as well. I believed and still believe them to be BS.

It's not on the basis of discrimination against hunters at all folks, please read the entire petition - LINK . It's about the goods they carry, not the people paying the fares.


To MJines' point, para 46:
"46. Delta operates as a U.S. airline under a certificate issued by the Federal Aviation
Administration (“FAA”). Under FAA guidelines, a common carrier is a company that “‘holds
itself out’ as willing to furnish transportation … to any person who wants it.”5
Under federal
common law, a “common carrier” is required to transport freight or passengers without refusal
if the fare is paid. The Supreme Court has called a common carrier’s duty “comprehensive[,]
and exceptions are not to be implied” and has held “[r]efusal to carry the goods of some
shippers” but not others to be unlawful. E.g., Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. Atchison, 387 U.S. 397,
406-07 (1967). "


And just so we're clear, hunters are not a protected class, therefore discrimination against them would have no basis here anyway.

Edit: Discrimination against cargo is another matter, as noted several times throughout the complaint.

quote:

Originally posted by T.J.:
It's not on the basis of discrimination at all folks, please read the entire petition - LINK . It's about the goods they carry, not the people paying the fares.


To MJines' point, para 46:
"46. Delta operates as a U.S. airline under a certificate issued by the Federal Aviation
Administration (“FAA”). Under FAA guidelines, a common carrier is a company that “‘holds
itself out’ as willing to furnish transportation … to any person who wants it.”5
Under federal
common law, a “common carrier” is required to transport freight or passengers without refusal
if the fare is paid. The Supreme Court has called a common carrier’s duty “comprehensive[,]
and exceptions are not to be implied” and has held “[r]efusal to carry the goods of some
shippers” but not others to be unlawful. E.g., Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. Atchison, 387 U.S. 397,
406-07 (1967). "


And just so we're clear, hunters are not a protected class, therefore discrimination ewould have no basis here anyway.

Can you then explain in small words the legal and lawful basis for their refusal to transport lawfully harvested trophies?

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by T.J.:
It's not on the basis of discrimination at all folks, please read the entire petition - LINK . It's about the goods they carry, not the people paying the fares.


To MJines' point, para 46:
"46. Delta operates as a U.S. airline under a certificate issued by the Federal Aviation
Administration (“FAA”). Under FAA guidelines, a common carrier is a company that “‘holds
itself out’ as willing to furnish transportation … to any person who wants it.”5
Under federal
common law, a “common carrier” is required to transport freight or passengers without refusal
if the fare is paid. The Supreme Court has called a common carrier’s duty “comprehensive[,]
and exceptions are not to be implied” and has held “[r]efusal to carry the goods of some
shippers” but not others to be unlawful. E.g., Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. Atchison, 387 U.S. 397,
406-07 (1967). "


And just so we're clear, hunters are not a protected class, therefore discrimination ewould have no basis here anyway.

Can you then explain in small words the legal and lawful basis for their refusal to transport lawfully harvested trophies?

Jeff

No, and that principle forms the basis of the complaint - there is case precedent that says they cannot do what they are doing since they are a common carrier (Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. Atchison).

I think Mr. Jackson and the rest of the parties have it right. I'm very interested to see how Delta may respond and what precedents they cite. I'm not familiar with the case law at all so I cannot guess. I will venture a guess that they will cite other instances in which common carriers refuse to transport goods of any sort. Seems to be the most logical so perhaps it goes without saying. Perhaps they argue the "common carrier" part, but I don't know the requirements for that at all.

The world of litigation is very strange indeed. Almost like an alternate reality.

The basis of the complaint is as a common carrier, Delta cannot discriminate in the types of non hazardous goods it can and agrees to carry.

I wonder if common carriers are legally bound to transport non-hazardous cargo internationally, or if that just applies to domestic goods.

I wonder if Delta can be legally compelled to carry goods that would hinder or damage their standing and reputation within their client base and industry as a whole? I am betting not...

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
I wonder if Delta can be legally compelled to carry goods that would hinder or damage their standing and reputation within their client base and industry as a whole? I am betting not...

What lawful goods they are carrying in their cargo hold is not the business of any outside party.

How special . . . a non-lawyer Australian opining on matters regulated by the FAA.

Please read the petition; it's well written and very informative. It explains well how sport hunting is essential to the continued existence of wildlife in Africa and around the globe. Cut and copy essential excerpts; use them as reference material when asked to justify sport hunting. I'd bet this type of information may carry a lot of weight with a rational and reasonable person who isn't informed about hunting and seeks to understand it. These are the folks we must reach out to. As for the anti-hunters, this information won't make a difference to them (e.g., those that would rather see a species become extinct before accepting sport hunting as a conservation strategy), so don't worry about arguing this with them.
I commend the plaintiffs and their counsel.

p.s., imho, having for years dealt with the business and legal sides of common carrier pipelines, I believe the petitioners' claims make sense and have a very reasonable chance for success on their merits.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
How special . . . a non-lawyer Australian opining on matters regulated by the FAA.

Regulated by FAA?....Please tell, what is the reference number for that particular FAA regulation?

Airlines operate under "common carriage" terms when they carry passengers & their cargo,

C-C is not officially defined in FAA FAR's.

Reason is, C-C is just a common law term, which the FFA only offers 'advisory' guidelines on.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
How special . . . a non-lawyer Australian opining on matters regulated by the FAA.

Have you had a special legally binding "charisma by pass"?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
How special . . . a non-lawyer Australian opining on matters regulated by the FAA.

How precious ... how do you know I'm not a lawyer?

If the AR court pleases - My sincere apologies to Opus1 - I should have worded that as a question rather than statement, to wit - "Surely what lawful goods they are carrying in their cargo hold is not the business of any outside party?".

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
How special . . . a non-lawyer Australian opining on matters regulated by the FAA.

How precious ... how do you know I'm not a lawyer?

If the AR court pleases - My sincere apologies to Opus1 - I should have worded that as a question rather than statement, to wit - "Surely what lawful goods they are carrying in their cargo hold is not the business of any outside party?".

Because lawyers know the difference between a declaratory sentence and a question.

I don't need to know many details beyond the the fact that Conservation Force is a plaintiff. He is a winner. Mr. Jackson has been doing a magnificent job representing our interests and we should all be contributing to CF regularly.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

Because lawyers know the difference between a declaratory sentence and a question.

Might I suggest this purchase, Mike?

Worthy of your consideration.

quote:

Originally posted by BEGNO:
I don't need to know many details beyond the the fact that Consevation Force is a plaintiff. He is a winner. Mr. Jackson has been doing a magnificent job representing our interests and we should all be contributing to CF regularly.

+1, John does more with less than any other group out there.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
How special . . . a non-lawyer Australian opining on matters regulated by the FAA.

How precious ... how do you know I'm not a lawyer?

If the AR court pleases - My sincere apologies to Opus1 - I should have worded that as a question rather than statement, to wit - "Surely what lawful goods they are carrying in their cargo hold is not the business of any outside party?".

Because lawyers know the difference between a declaratory sentence and a question.

That made me blow coffee out of my nose...hurt like a bitch...

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
How special . . . a non-lawyer Australian opining on matters regulated by the FAA.

How precious ... how do you know I'm not a lawyer?

If the AR court pleases - My sincere apologies to Opus1 - I should have worded that as a question rather than statement, to wit - "Surely what lawful goods they are carrying in their cargo hold is not the business of any outside party?".

Because lawyers know the difference between a declaratory sentence and a question.

As much as I am angered and to some degree injured by the airlines knee jerk,self protective reaction to the Cecil episode-

They ARE businesses -- "common carrier" or not-
and within certain purview - they able to choose what they carry in terms of non-hazardous freight-

I suspect no government entity will assist in this matter

I also suspect this suit will end up "much ado about nothing"

quote:

Originally posted by Clan_Colla:
As much as I am angered and to some degree injured by the airlines knee jerk,self protective reaction to the Cecil episode-

They ARE businesses -- "common carrier" or not-
and within certain purview - they able to choose what they carry in terms of non-hazardous freight-

I suspect no government entity will assist in this matter

I also suspect this suit will end up "much ado about nothing"

Unless they refuse service to some freaking homo, that's where the SHTF big time.

http://www.takepart.com/articl...ban-lawsuit-airlines


Rhino Hunter Sues Airline So He Can Bring His Animal Trophy Home
Hunting groups claim Delta’s ban on big game hunting trophies is ‘discriminatory.’


OCT 19, 2015Taylor Hill is an associate editor at TakePart covering environment and wildlife.


Last year, when Texas big game hunter Corey Knowlton purchased a $350,000 permit to hunt and kill a critically endangered black rhino in Namibia, he did so with the intention of bringing the dead animal back to the U.S. with him.

But that was before a Minnesota dentist shot Cecil, Zimbabwe’s most famous lion, and commercial carriers, under mounting public pressure, banned the transport of lion, elephant, tiger, and rhino trophies on their flights. United, American, and Delta Airlines all joined South African Airways and Emirates, which put such policies in place earlier in 2015, in enacting the ban.



So when Knowlton tried to bring his prized carcass back after a much-scrutinized May 2015 hunt, Delta allegedly denied his request to transport the animal from southern Africa. To Knowlton and a consortium of pro-hunting groups, that’s discrimination against hunters.

In a lawsuit filed Oct. 15, Dallas Safari Club, Houston Safari Club, Conservation Force, Knowlton, and others argue that Delta’s ban on big game trophy transport is unlawful, “robbing the species of the enhancement tourist hunting provides,” the suit claims.



Essentially Knowlton and the pro-hunting groups are arguing two points: Delta can’t discriminate against what its passengers can transport if it’s been deemed “legal cargo” by federal authorities, and the new ban is hindering conservation efforts raised through trophy hunting permit fees like Knowlton’s.

“Delta cannot discriminate against passengers or cargo,” the suit continues. “Trophies of the ‘Big Five’ [lion, elephant, buffalo, leopard, rhinoceros] are not dangerous goods. Delta’s irresponsible embargo appears to be based on misinformation and a misunderstanding of the legal status of these goods, and motivated by a desire to placate a noisy and ill-advised group of Facebook posters, at the expense of conservation programs, wildlife, livelihoods of local peoples, and the interests of plaintiffs.”



Delta Airlines has not responded to a request for comment regarding the suit.

The lawsuit reeks of a publicity stunt, according to Chris Green, executive director of Harvard Law School’s animal law program—and a bad one at that.

“I cannot think of a less sympathetic plaintiff to challenge Delta’s commonsense policy than Corey Knowlton—the Texan who paid to kill one of Africa’s rarest black rhinos,” Green said in an email. “No rational airline ever would want to be associated with transporting this endangered animal’s butchered body out of Africa just to go hang on some rich American’s wall.”



Green was integral in pushing the trophy transport issue into the public domain earlier this year. In May he created a petition calling for Delta to change its policies; it garnered nearly 400,000 signatures.

Now, with the ban in place, he sees the hunting groups’ court challenge and the arguments listed as “desperation.”

“Multiple studies (some of them by the hunting industry itself) have determined that only around 3 percent of trophy hunting revenues ever trickle down to the local communities impacted by such hunting,” Green wrote.


In one of these studies, it was shown that large, captivating species such as elephants are worth a lot more alive than dead—76 times more. That’s because tourists are willing to spend big bucks to visit ecotourism camps in Africa for the chance to see and photograph elephants. The study estimated that just one elephant, over the course of its life, would generate $1.6 million to the local economy compared with the $23,000 or so the animals’ tusks would bring to the black market from poaching or the $40,000 estimated cost for a 10-day legal elephant trophy hunt.

“As we saw with Cecil, nearly all of the income from big game hunting ends up concentrated in the hands of a few (often Western-run) hunting operations that have nothing to do with conservation,” Green wrote.

As for Delta not meeting its legal obligations as a “common carrier” and discriminating against hunters, Green said that’s a stretch.


Common carriers have certain obligations, but those typically are limited to services viewed as “universally necessary.”



“I highly doubt that any judge would agree that transporting dead animal trophies to assuage a hunter’s vanity falls into that class,” he said.

Additionally, hunters like Knowlton have options other than Delta for transporting their hunting trophies—UPS, FedEx, and South African Airways, which rescinded its ban in July—all allow hunting trophies to be transported.

Exactly when Delta denied Knowlton’s request is unclear.