What is the latest on the US ivory ban from Zim? Does anybody expect action soon or by convention time?

As written the suspension expires at the end of the year unless the USFWS takes affirmative action to extend the suspension. That suggests to me that we will know one way or the other what the situation is likely to be for 2015 by the shows.

From the USFWS questions and answers: "We will reevaluate this decision in December 2014 in order to make a new finding for calendar year 2015."

That said, I would not plan on the ban not be extended (excuse the double negative).

Mike-

Did anything ever get put into law about a ban on sale of ivory already legally in the US? That was being bantered around last year and had a lot of people shook up including hunters to Musicians who had instruments with Ivory inlays...etc??

I would bet the new Senate might take these issues on before renewal....and killing the other if ever put in place...

I have never been able to substantiate a law was put into place...or one of Obama's famous Executive Orders covering this??

Cheers,

My WAG is that they will kick the can down the road by extending current ban for at least a year.

Let's hope things will improve
After the case solved, we need to get polar bear and jags legalized...

We had a visit from a gentleman who deals with CITES.

I asked him about all the contradictory regulations from different countries regarding CITES import of hunting trophies.

He said CITES is very clear about this, and there are no ground for any dispute.

The rules stipulate that a country which has CITES permits for any animal that is hunted, is the one that sets teh rules.

As an example.

He said if a country has CITES permits of 100 leopards for instance, they are allowed to issue up to 100 leopard export licenses.

Any country that is a signatory to CITES SHOULD accept any of these 100 leopards.

He said most Western countries are talking a very conservative policy towards CITES animals is pure PR, nothing else.

Apparently CITES do check exporting countries, and if anyone of them breaks the rules, CITES re-evaluates their quota and acts accordingly.

Saeed, that is one of my primary objections to the USFWS actions . . . that and the lack of any factual basis for the actions and the absence of any public input into the decision. If the US is a signatory to CITES and participates in all the CITES deliberations, then it is presumptuous in the extreme for the US to effectively second guess the CITES determinations. The Administration talks about the US needing to be a better world citizen, doing things through international consensus, etc. and then they have the temerity to second guess determinations by international groups they participate in. It is typical government hypocrisy. This is all a sop to animal rights groups.

Well put Mike. Thanks to all for the update.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Saeed, that is one of my primary objections to the USFWS actions . . . that and the lack of any factual basis for the actions and the absence of any public input into the decision. If the US is a signatory to CITES and participates in all the CITES deliberations, then it is presumptuous in the extreme for the US to effectively second guess the CITES determinations. The Administration talks about the US needing to be a better world citizen, doing things through international consensus, etc. and then they have the temerity to second guess determinations by international groups they participate in. It is typical government hypocrisy. This is all a sop to animal rights groups.

Excellent post. I couldn't agree more.

I'm not sure but I thought I saw something in one of the auction house ads about requiring some kind of certification document for any item with Ivory on it that would detail the origin and legality of the ivory. I have no idea what the origin of the requirement was or which department of government issued it.

Hunters would have a copy of their CITES paperwork and USF&W import Doc if imported after 1974.
Proper purchased Ivory, that was legal, usually had a certificate of origin and dated.
If you have Ivory that was collected before the 1974 ban hopefully you have had it marked by the game dept with a date or you have safari records to prove where and when....
I think that's the gig??
Cheers

http://www.fws.gov/news/ShowNe...412-DADBA60BBDA5D4C5



Press Release
Service Takes Next Steps in Commercial Elephant Ivory Trade Ban, Eases Restrictions on Musical Instruments and Other Uses
May 15, 2014

Contacts:
Claire Cassel
(703) 358-2357
claire_cassel@fws.gov


As part of the Obama administration’s commitment to combat wildlife trafficking that is rapidly pushing populations of African elephants, rhinos and other iconic species towards the brink of extinction, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today announced two administrative actions clarifying trade in elephant ivory. The changes will help ensure that domestic markets do not contribute to the decline of African elephants in the wild, while also allowing certain ivory uses to continue.

Service Director Dan Ashe signed a revised Director’s Order that allows musicians to transport internationally certain musical instruments containing African elephant ivory, and for the import of museum specimens and certain other items not intended for sale. Owners of these items will need to prove that they were legally acquired prior to February 26, 1976—the date that the African elephant was listed by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)—and have not been bought or sold since February 25, 2014—the date when the Service issued Director’s Order 210 instructing agency staff how to enforce existing restrictions on the commercial trade of elephant ivory.

“We have one goal: to shut down the illegal trade in ivory that is fueling the poaching crisis facing African elephants today. By implementing a near complete ban on trade in elephant ivory, we are effectively closing loopholes and eliminating the cover provided by legal commercial trade that traffickers have exploited for years,” said Ashe. “That said, we have listened to the very real concerns expressed by the regulated community and have made common-sense adjustments.”

The Service also announced a final rule to revise Part 23 of the U.S. CITES implementing regulations. The current regulations contain a provision known as “use after import,” which restricts domestic sales—both across state lines and within a state—of African elephant ivory by requiring sellers to show documentation of the date that their ivory was imported.

When the rule goes into effect within 30 days of publication in the Federal Register, sellers of African elephant ivory will be required to demonstrate that any item offered for sale—whether across state lines or within a state—was lawfully imported prior to the CITES Appendix-I listing of the African elephant in 1990 or that the ivory was legally imported under a CITES pre-Convention certificate. Appendix-I covers species around the world most at risk due to international trade, and therefore is the most restrictive of the CITES listings, effectively banning commercial international trade. This change is intended to reduce the regulatory impact on the public without reducing conservation benefits for African elephants.

For more information on the impacts the Director’s Order and U.S. CITES regulations will have on the trade and transport of elephant ivory and other protected wildlife and wildlife products, please see www.fws.gov/international/trav...ons-and-answers.html.

More information on the Service’s efforts to combat wildlife trafficking can be found at www.fws.gov/international/wildlife-trafficking.

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated professionals, and commitment to public service. For more information on our work and the people who make it happen, visit www.fws.gov.

For more information on our work and the people who make it happen, visit http://www.fws.gov/. Connect with our Facebook page, follow our tweets, watch our YouTube Channel and download photos from our Flickr page.

" THEY LISTENED"
What a crock of shit
These people really are clueless

http://www.huntingreport.com/c...ion_force.cfm?id=349



Status Report on Elephant Import Suspensions
Written By John J. Jackson III, Conservation Force Chairman & President
(posted December 2014)

In mid-December, Conservation Force filed its third set of comments opposing the import suspension of elephant hunting trophies from Zimbabwe. This supplemental comment included documentation of the two elephant planning workshops described above and the scheduling of the two Regional Workshops to be held in January and February. We also provided the new elephant population census information. We believe that this comment warrants the lifting of the suspension for both 2014 and 2015. It is not smart to continue the suspension because "enhancement" has been demonstrated and the suspension reduces and reverses that enhancement that is essential for elephant survival. We argued that the suspension was a "mistake" based upon misinformation and negative speculation. Conservation Force has provided hard scientific data on the status of those elephant, initiated the update of the national management plan and provided data on the crucial financial benefits of the hunting. A new finding by USFWS is expected in early January, if not sooner.

Conservation Force also filed the final appeal of several test import permits for Tanzania elephant taken in 2014. We asked to make an oral argument before the Director, but have received no response to that request and must presume at this point that the appeal will be decided without oral argument. The decision for those 2014 import permits and the determination for 2015 are both expected in early January. Tanzania is doing everything right, so we expect the determination to turn on the preliminary results of the Great Elephant Census. That survey is completed but the results have not yet been released. No doubt it must show a stable or increasing population. We have reason to believe that poaching has been turned around and may have come under control as much as two years ago. The survey will hopefully show that the operators and the Chief Warden in the Selous are reporting far less poaching. Moreover, on October 30th, Tanzania's Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism published its 95-page National Strategy to Combat Poaching and Illegal Wildlife Trade.

Thank you Kathi! Great post and update.

Seems to me that serious African hunters should be making reasonable donations to The Conservation Force. I do annually.

Interesting note, SCI does NOT embrace the work of John Jackson III. I find that very mysterious....perhaps they think they are doing a better job?? My thought, aren't we stronger in numbers and teams??

Cheers,

Thank you Kathi

Saeed,

So if Tanzania has 200 elephant permits, which never get filled by the way, how can the U.S. ban importation?

Sorry, I just don't get it. I never agreed with or understood the U.S.F.W. banning importation of legally taken trophies, whether they were polar bears or elephants.

California has banned mountain lion importation for years as a knee jerk reaction even though there are more killed every year under depredation permits than ever taken as sport . They do it because they can.

What sucks about all this is that the US is a "consumer" of CITES animals and generally not a "producer" of what other countries might want to import. Given that, they have a LOT of power to act without much threat of retaliation. It's not like too many people from Zimbabwe are clamoring to import their Black Bear.