urgh....things just keep getting worse and worse for hunters

http://www.huntingreport.com/c...ion_force.cfm?id=416

quote:

On June 17, 2016 US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) noticed a proposal to "revise its seizure and forfeiture regulations." 81 FR 39848 through 39865. The comment period ends August 16, 2016. There was no prior scoping notice of the revisions. It is not responsive to the multiple requests by Conservation Force for fairer treatment--not at all. It is just the opposite. It tightens the screws on hunters like never before. It "streamlines" the forfeiture process.

We cannot cover the full extent of the revisions here and now, but the following are some alarming highlights. FWS clarifies that any permitting error invalidates an import permit and converts the trophy to unlawful contraband. It is not a valid permit regardless of the harmless nature of the error, the innocence of the owner or his expert agents or the issuing government. The innocent owner, harmless error, proportionality or excessiveness of penalty (potentially a $150,000 trophy forfeited for a harmless government clerical error) defenses provided by Congress through the Civil Assets Reform Act (CAFRA) are all said not to apply. They do provide protection in court or with a solicitor.

One important change is a property owner can no longer file a claim for judicial relief after a petition for remission has been filed with the Solicitor. Property owners have switched over to claims after filing petitions for remission when Solicitors have taken a year or two to render a decision, but they will no longer have that protection. Also, in cases where there was disagreement on the law as applied in a Solicitor's discretionary denial of a petition, property owners have been able in the past to take the matter to court by filing a claim after the Solicitor's unfavorable denial. This has been very important in many seizures where the seizing agent has not supplied any statement of the facts in the seizure report or notice. Without a statement of the factual reasons for the seizure explaining the violation one cannot defend his property. All too often a petition for remission has had to be filed as a discovery tool to learn what the facts are behind the seizure.

A Director's Order has provided that the factual basis be spelled out but that is almost never followed, so property owners too frequently do not know what their agents did wrong. They do not know that it is a legal issue that more properly belongs before a court than the Solicitor. Notice that you have violated the ESA because your permit violated CITES without notice of the factual elements of what was done wrong is little help. Frequently, some seizures are just for purposes of investigation. Moreover, the proposal provides that "During the remission consideration, a valid forfeiture is presumed." Frankly, we are not yet sure what that means.

The proposal would limit when a supplemental petition or request for reconsideration of a Solicitor's petition denial could be filed to when you have "new evidence that has not been previously considered." In short, remissions are not favored and administratively rearguing a petition denial is discouraged. Worse, there is a great deal of language in the proposal making it clear that remissions are not to be favored or routinely granted for innocent mistakes, harmless errors, or other equity concerns.

In our view it is time for more political intervention to protect hunters' interests and the integrity of foreign conservation strategies that are dependent upon sustainable use.

More money for the bloody lawyers!

Gotta love the .gov.

.gov crimes are just a misunderstanding or a mistake, while citizen mistakes are criminal.

Then the pols wonder why the public don't trust the gov or any pols.

George

This makes it clear, you are better off NOT to bring back trophies.

This is alarming. We need the Congressional Sportsmans Alliance, SCI, DSC and the NRA to immediately get involved, along with John Jackson of Conservation Force. I think we finally have had enough of Dan Ashehole and the USFWS. Something finally needs to be done through an organized, "full court press" effort. Karl Evans where are you?

This year's Presidential election is a referendum on hunting.

One candidate's family foundation has vowed to stop all ele, lion, and leopard hunting and said foundation has already conspired with USF&WS on the ivory import ban.

While the other candidate has vowed to let his son (an avid hunter) head a committee to reset the agenda of USF&WS and the Department of Interior as a whole to re-embrace the time honored and proven concept of hunting as conservation.

Correct the USF&WS at the ballot box and then we can put this to rest.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
This year's Presidential election is a referendum on hunting.

One candidate's family foundation has vowed to stop all ele, lion, and leopard hunting and said foundation has already conspired with USF&WS on the ivory import ban.

While the other candidate has vowed to let his son (an avid hunter) head a committee to reset the agenda of USF&WS and the Department of Interior as a whole to re-embrace the time honored and proven concept of hunting as conservation.

Correct the USF&WS at the ballot box and then we can put this to rest.

Great post Lane, this is the ONLY solution!

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
This year's Presidential election is a referendum on hunting.

One candidate's family foundation has vowed to stop all ele, lion, and leopard hunting and said foundation has already conspired with USF&WS on the ivory import ban.



While the other candidate has vowed to let his son (an avid hunter) head a committee to reset the agenda of USF&WS and the Department of Interior as a whole to re-embrace the time honored and proven concept of hunting as conservation.

Correct the USF&WS at the ballot box and then we can put this to rest.

Layne, EXCELLENT POST!

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
This year's Presidential election is a referendum on hunting.

One candidate's family foundation has vowed to stop all ele, lion, and leopard hunting and said foundation has already conspired with USF&WS on the ivory import ban.



While the other candidate has vowed to let his son (an avid hunter) head a committee to reset the agenda of USF&WS and the Department of Interior as a whole to re-embrace the time honored and proven concept of hunting as conservation.

Correct the USF&WS at the ballot box and then we can put this to rest.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
This year's Presidential election is a referendum on hunting.

One candidate's family foundation has vowed to stop all ele, lion, and leopard hunting and said foundation has already conspired with USF&WS on the ivory import ban.

While the other candidate has vowed to let his son (an avid hunter) head a committee to reset the agenda of USF&WS and the Department of Interior as a whole to re-embrace the time honored and proven concept of hunting as conservation.

Correct the USF&WS at the ballot box and then we can put this to rest.

quote:

Originally posted by Use Enough Gun:
This is alarming. We need the Congressional Sportsmans Alliance, SCI, DSC and the NRA to immediately get involved, along with John Jackson of Conservation Force. I think we finally have had enough of Dan Ashehole and the USFWS. Something finally needs to be done through an organized, "full court press" effort. Karl Evans where are you?

This is being looked at by several groups, their proposal needs a bit of clarification (to say the least)and efforts are being made to get that clarification before any other action can be taken. Individuals may submit comments as well.

Thanks Karl. Something like this could effectively spell the end to a majority of international sport hunting for US hunters. And it could severely impact the international professional sport hunting community. When the USFWS holds this much discretion over your imported sport hunted trophies then we're in major trouble. I have passed this on to Anna Seidman, Director of SCI litigation. She is currently out of country.

Comments are closed. Only 5 were submitted, 4 against and 1 for. Guess who was the for, HSUS/HSI.

I skimmed the proposal and comments, I don't don't know about a court test. The million dollar question (actually cost unknown, but more then I can spend) is who going to pay for the challenge.

To answer your million dollar question: likely SCI and/or Conservation Force, although the NRA might get involved.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
This year's Presidential election is a referendum on hunting.

One candidate's family foundation has vowed to stop all ele, lion, and leopard hunting and said foundation has already conspired with USF&WS on the ivory import ban.

While the other candidate has vowed to let his son (an avid hunter) head a committee to reset the agenda of USF&WS and the Department of Interior as a whole to re-embrace the time honored and proven concept of hunting as conservation.

Correct the USF&WS at the ballot box and then we can put this to rest.

And hunting won!

There is at least HOPE now. One of the first things we need to do is get a conservative Supreme Court Justice.

Ted Cruz for the Supreme Court! Would he be awesome or what?

The hunting community won big last night. We all need to be proactive with our legislators to reform USFWS.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
This year's Presidential election is a referendum on hunting.

One candidate's family foundation has vowed to stop all ele, lion, and leopard hunting and said foundation has already conspired with USF&WS on the ivory import ban.

While the other candidate has vowed to let his son (an avid hunter) head a committee to reset the agenda of USF&WS and the Department of Interior as a whole to re-embrace the time honored and proven concept of hunting as conservation.

Correct the USF&WS at the ballot box and then we can put this to rest.

And hunting won!

Lane,

You must be chuffed. Better get on the phone and give your mate a call.