There is a bill in the Connecticut legislature that will have a public hearing on Friday, March 4, 2016. It is SB 227, called Cecil's Law, and if passed will prohibit the import, sale or possession of any of the Big Five trophies and apparently would make it a felony to possess African elephant ivory.
What a world!

Wow!

A felony to possess already imported ivory?

God Bless America!

Trumps son is a elephant hunter. Cast your vote wisely.

I'm sure glad I don't live in Connecticut

This nation has gone off the rails and common sense is becoming very uncommon.

Realistically, I can't imagine this would stand up to a legal challenge. But then, who in their right mind would think such a nutty proposal would have any chance to begin with?

And I thought we had it bad in California.

Karl - Until DSC, SCI and all of us start fighting fire with fire, we are going to continue to get our asses KICKED!!!!!

Take the gloves off, and FIGHT!! We all gotta stop the politically correct crap - and fight!! If you want to know more about what I am referring to - talk to Fulson, he can tell you.

As for our next President - Trump is the only answer people, the only answer!

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Karl - Until DSC, SCI and all of us start fighting fire with fire, we are going to continue to get our asses KICKED!!!!!

Take the gloves off, and FIGHT!! We all gotta stop the politically correct crap - and fight!! If you want to know more about what I am referring to - talk to Fulson, he can tell you.

As for our next President - Trump is the only answer people, the only answer!

Exactly!

Political correctness is nothing more than a tool of the devil.

Sponsored by? Opposed? Legal opinions? Connecticut is hardly significant in the grand scheme of things but there is the monkey see, monkey do factor.

quote:

Originally posted by K Evans:
There is a bill in the Connecticut legislature that will have a public hearing on Friday, March 4, 2016. It is SB 227, called Cecil's Law, and if passed will prohibit the import, sale or possession of any of the Big Five trophies and apparently would make it a felony to possess African elephant ivory.
What a world!

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2016/TO...6SB-00227-R00-SB.htm



AN ACT CONCERNING CECIL'S LAW.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective from passage) (a) For purposes of this section, "big five African species" means any specimen of any of the following members of the animal kingdom: African elephant (loxodonta africana), African lion (panthera leo), African leopard (panthera pardus pardus), black rhinoceros (diceros bicornis) and white rhinoceros (ceratotherium simum cottoni), including any part, product or offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof, except fossils, whether or not it is included in a manufactured product or in a food product.

(b) No person shall import, possess, sell, offer for sale or transport in this state any big five African species.

(c) Any law enforcement officer shall have authority to enforce the provisions of this section and, whenever necessary, to execute any warrant to search for and seize any big five African species imported, possessed, sold, offered for sale or transported in violation of this section.

(d) Unless such activity is otherwise prohibited by federal law, the provisions of subsection (b) of this section shall not apply if any of the following conditions exist: (1) Such specimen of a big five African species was located or possessed within the state prior to the effective date of this section and the legal owner of such specimen obtained a certificate of possession from the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection; (2) such specimen of a big five African species is to be part of a temporary or permanent collection of a museum that has a tax exemption from the federal Internal Revenue Service as an educational or scientific institution, provided such specimen is not subsequently sold, offered for sale, traded, bartered or distributed to any other party; or (3) such specimen of a big five African species is distributed directly to a legal beneficiary of a trust or to a legal heir provided: (A) Such specimen was located or possessed by the decedent prior to the effective date of this section, (B) such beneficiary or heir does not subsequently sell, offer for sale, trade, barter or distribute such specimen to any other person, and (C) such beneficiary or heir obtains a certificate of possession from the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection not later than one hundred eighty days after receipt of such specimen.

(e) Any specimen of a big five African species and any other property or item used in connection with a violation of the provisions of this section shall be seized and held pending any criminal proceeding pursuant to this section.

(f) Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a felony and fined not more than ten thousand dollars and imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

(g) Upon conviction of a person for violation of the provisions of this section or upon the entry of a judgment restraining a defendant from importing, possessing, selling, offering for sale or transporting any specimen of a big five African species on the grounds that such activity is or would be a violation of the provisions of this section, any specimen of a big five African species and any other property or item that is seized and held pursuant to this section shall be forfeited and, upon such forfeiture, destroyed.

Sec. 2. Subsection (d) of section 26-311 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):

(d) Nothing in section 1 of this act or sections 26-303 to 26-312, inclusive, or any regulations adopted pursuant to said sections shall prohibit transportation through this state of any endangered or threatened species in accordance with the terms of any permit issued under the laws of another state provided the person in possession of an endangered or threatened species can prove legal possession of the species.

They don't even have the Big Five right. At least Connecticut hunters can still buffalo hunt I guess.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Karl - Until DSC, SCI and all of us start fighting fire with fire, we are going to continue to get our asses KICKED!!!!!

Take the gloves off, and FIGHT!! We all gotta stop the politically correct crap - and fight!! If you want to know more about what I am referring to - talk to Fulson, he can tell you.

As for our next President - Trump is the only answer people, the only answer!

Exactly!

Please friends, understand what I am saying! I'm not pointing fingers at anyone / any organization specifically, I'm pointing the finger at us all. We all need to do a whole lot more - otherwise we are going to continue to lose, until there's nothing left to fight for.

Aaron is exactly right. All of us hunters have skin in the game. Regardless of organization and beliefs we need to stand and fight.

Well said Aaron.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Karl - Until DSC, SCI and all of us start fighting fire with fire, we are going to continue to get our asses KICKED!!!!!

Take the gloves off, and FIGHT!! We all gotta stop the politically correct crap - and fight!! If you want to know more about what I am referring to - talk to Fulson, he can tell you.

As for our next President - Trump is the only answer people, the only answer!

The LIBERALS will continue to try and Disarm us and take away our Hunting rights!!! Stand and Fight!!!......TEAM TRUMP!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Slider:
The LIBERALS will continue to try and Disarm us and take away our Hunting rights!!! Stand and Fight!!!......TEAM TRUMP!!!

Slider - Hunting is NOT a "right", its a privilege! I know what you meant, and you're exactly correct. Unless we take the gloves off, fight fire with fire, and get aggressive about defending our hunting opportunities - we are going to lose!

http://www.huntingreport.com/c...ion_force.cfm?id=400



Cecil's Law and EU Declarations - What Is the Risk, Where Is the Truth?
Written By John J. Jackson III, Conservation Force Chairman & President
(posted April 2016)

By Regina Lennox


How much of a threat are two recent efforts to ban hunting trophies in Connecticut and the EU? Here, we evaluate the attacks, describe their proponents, and refute the lies on which they are based. To clarify the conflation of legal hunting and poaching, we offer 25 reasons why hunting is not like poaching. (A citated version of this list is available on our website, www.conservationforce.org.)

No attack on hunting can safely be ignored. There has been too much negative press and unsubstantiated criticism. But from a legal perspective, these attacks are low risk and do not threaten to close hunting. Do they carry weight in the court of public opinion? It is harder to say. Therefore, we must take every chance to explain the benefits of regulated, sustainable hunting and not to allow any attack, even a weak one, to spread misinformation.

Cecil's Law


The first attack seeks to ban the import, possession, sale, and transport of hunting trophies and products of African elephant, lion, leopard, and black and white rhino in the state of Connecticut.

The bill, named "Cecil's Law," was introduced in February and is pending in the Legislature's Environment Committee. It was drafted by animal rights group Friends of Animals (FoA). Although this bill has a limited potential impact, any law that prohibits the import or possession of legal trophies is a threat.

FoA's press release claims Cecil's Law only targets hunting trophies. That is false. The bill prohibits import, possession, sale, or transport of "big five African species." It defines "big five African Species" broadly, as "any specimen" of African elephant, lion, leopard, and rhino including any live or dead parts or products. The only exceptions are grandfathered specimens for which the owner obtains a certificate of possession, distribution of grandfathered specimens to a legal beneficiary or heir; nonprofit museum collections; and specimens passing through the state with a permit from another state, which do not exist.

Cecil's Law is illegal. It is "preempted" (overridden) by the ESA, which does not allow states to substitute their judgments in place of those by Congress or the US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS). When FWS issues a permit, a state must respect it. Courts have voided state laws that banned commercial trade in elephant products authorized by FWS regulations. We would expect a similar outcome here.

FoA


FoA is an animal rights group opposed to hunting and wildlife management. FoA opposes the "concept of animals as resources for human beings" and international trade in wildlife. Its website defines hunting as "a deceitful and unnecessary act … for purely gratuitous reasons … unethical, socially unjustifiable and ecologically disruptive."

Conservation Force is litigating against FoA to defend two permits for black rhino trophies from Namibia: imports FWS found enhanced the survival of the rhino. The hunts contributed $550,000 exclusively for black rhino conservation and protection. Yet FoA sued to rescind the permits and stop FWS from using the ESA's enhancement provision as a positive tool for conservation.

FoA also sued the State and Interior Departments over the sale of 22 live elephant from Zimbabwe to China. Although FoA's complaint frequently referred to "baby elephant," photos and Zimbabwe's wildlife authority confirmed that they were sub-adults, not "babies." In July 2015, the Secretariat confirmed the sale was permitted under CITES. Conservation Force represented Zimbabwe and was to intervene when the case was voluntarily dismissed.

FoA admits it is trying to "end the importation into the US of trophy hunted animals by 2020."

Anti-Hunting Declaration in the European Parliament


In January, a proposed Written Declaration on trophy hunting was filed in the European Parliament calling on the European Council and Commission "to examine the possibility of restricting all trophy imports." The Declaration does not pose a legal threat, but its anti-hunting emotion should be of concern to those who support sustainable use.

The Declaration cannot stop hunting or imports. It is not a law. It is not binding. It is only a request, in this case for an "examination" of hunting. If the Declaration receives signatures from half the Members of the European Parliament, it will be sent to the Council and Commission. But it seems unlikely to succeed: it has only 78 out of 376 signatures so far and will lapse on April 18 if it does not get the rest.

The Declaration should not be adopted as it makes an end-run around the EU Scientific Review Group (SRG). Like the FWS, the SRG makes findings on the sustainability and benefits of hunting programs which guide EU members in issuing import permits. The SRG imposes high standards on range nations, and those standards must be respected by EU members.

The Declaration is legally without teeth; however, challenges or criticisms of hunting at this level should worry all. FACE and other pro-hunting groups in Europe are monitoring and opposing the Declaration. So is Conservation Force.

Born Free


The Declaration is masterminded by Born Free Foundation, a British animal welfare group. Born Free was founded by the stars of the movie Born Free. It has grown incredibly, raising £3.8 million income in 2015. Born Free's President is President of the Species Survival Network, a coalition of about 80 animal rights groups, including HSUS.

Born Free uses its substantial assets to fund scientific research, including research by the lead author of the 2015 IUCN Red List assessment for African lion. Born Free is a formidable foe due to its resources and reach. Its website states it will "never forget[] the individual" animal, and also states Born Free's position against sport hunting.

The List of Lies


The following list summarizes the inaccuracies in Cecil's Law and the Declaration, and explains the reality below each lie. A list of references is available on our website.
"Trophy hunting is a cruel and cynical business" and "brutality."

Safari hunting is not a "cruel business." Death by bullet is much quicker and less brutal than death in the wild.

Good operators are stewards of their areas. For example, Bubye Valley Conservancy reinvests the revenue from hunting in conservation, and its efforts have paid off in the largest population of black rhino in Zimbabwe (the third largest in the world), and important populations of cheetah, wild dog, and 500-plus lion. Hunting is the conservancy's only source of revenue. It pays for those black rhino, lion and other species. That is not cruel or cynical - it is conservation.
EU members do not follow rules that require a demonstrable positive conservation benefit for import of game species.

The SRG is responsible for evaluating whether the hunting of protected wildlife (including elephant, rhino, and lion) is sustainable and benefits the species. The SRG meets often. It dialogues with range nations. In 2015, it closed the import of elephant trophies from Tanzania, but opened imports from Zambia because Zambia showed it had a stable elephant population, updated management plan, and community benefits program. In other words, the SRG did its job. Most EU members do their jobs and follow the SRG's opinions. Criticism of this stringent process is unwarranted.
Trophy hunting puts the world's "wonderful wildlife" at risk.

The greatest threat to wildlife in Africa is loss of habitat due to human population growth. Hunting areas provide at least 1.3 million km2 of habitat, countering the threat and transferring the cost of combatting encroachment to the private sector. That alone is a significant benefit to "wonderful wildlife."
US hunters kill too many animals. "Trophy hunters rob the rest of us of our shared wildlife heritage."

Hunting has restored game and protects it. Hunting areas offer extensive habitat and serve as buffers for national parks, creating conditions for wildlife growth. Much hunting occurs on private land where wildlife is owned by individuals and cannot be "stolen" from the public. In South Africa, privately owned game far exceeds that in national parks. Private ranches are responsible for recovering species like the white rhino and bontebok.

Hunting offtakes are sustainable. Most game taken is abundant and not at-risk; e.g., 96% of game hunted in South Africa is common or abundant. Offtakes of listed species are low. South Africa's elephant quota is 150 bulls. Namibia's is 90. Tanzania's is 100 in a population exceeding 40,000. And utilization is almost always lower than that. In Tanzania in 2014, only seven bulls out of 100 were taken. The same for lion: in 2015 in Tanzania, only 39 were harvested, and the utilization in Zimbabwe in 2015 was 39/85.

These low numbers do not threaten populations - as the CITES Parties recognized when they authorized limited offtakes/exports of black rhino and markhor. The reality is not robbery but more like investment. Hunting operators protect and grow wildlife and take a small dividend from the population to offset expenses. This is a workable model that focuses on and is successful in protecting the species as a whole.
Legal hunting enables illegal poaching.

The press release on Cecil's Law claims "there is growing scientific evidence that the legal trade of trophy hunted species enables illegal poaching by providing poachers a legal market to launder their contraband. One example is South Africa. The country has seen a marked rise in illegal rhino poaching since it began selling permits for trophy hunted rhinos in 2004. Illegal trophy hunting has increased 5,000 percent since 2007." But FoA cites no evidence of these studies. The facts undercut this claim.

The opening of regulated hunting in South Africa led to recovery of the white rhino, from ~100 to 20,000+ today. Although hunting of black rhino in South Africa took place before, export of five black rhino trophies was authorized by a 2004 CITES Resolution. According to FoA, poaching, primarily of white rhino, did not increase for more than three years. That is a weak connection. In fact, hunting has nothing to do with increased poaching; regulated, sustainable hunting is the antithesis of unlawful, unsustainable poaching.
Trophy hunting is nefarious and wasteful.

Antis love the term "trophy" hunting and use it like a curse. But trophy hunting is the same safari hunting that has existed since Teddy Roosevelt. It is nothing more than selective hunting - waiting for a high-quality specimen.

Antis like to imply that trophy hunters cut the heads off animals and walk away. That is false. Hunting ethics prohibit waste, and trophy animals are not wasted. In most cases they provide protein for entire villages. In Zambia, a study found game meat distributions to communities from a small amount of hunting exceeded 6,000kg per year. In Bubye Valley, 45 tons of game meat is distributed annually. Trophy hunters are selective in their harvest but they are certainly not wasteful.
Trophy hunting does not benefit range nation conservation programs. And FWS cannot ensure trophy imports are from well-managed programs. For example, it closed elephant imports from Tanzania and Zimbabwe because it did not have enough information on those programs.

Of course, if FWS closed imports from two countries because it could not find their programs enhanced the survival of the species, FWS was doing its job. Putting aside the inconsistency of FoA's criticism, what do range nation governments say about the value of regulated hunting?

South Africa's Environmental Minister expressed disappointment when the airlines embargoed transport of Big Five hunting trophies. She said: "The legal, well-regulated hunting industry in South Africa is … a source of much needed foreign exchange, job creation, community development and social upliftment." Similarly, in opposing the listing of African lion, Tanzania documented significant benefits from licensed, regulated hunting including: underwriting management and anti-poaching programs; shifting costs to the private sector; community benefits-sharing; and justifying and funding most wildlife habitat. Tanzania confirmed that 80% of its anti-poaching funds come from hunting revenue.

And recently, Namibia's Cabinet directed the ministry to campaign against any proposed bans on hunting and trophy exports. Among other things, the Cabinet pointed to income hunting generates for communal conservancies, private farms, anti-poaching, and wildlife conservation. Thus, according to range nations, legal, sustainable hunting is a key component of their conservation programs and is critical to maintaining wildlife populations. Western organizations who try to stop hunting ignore the range nations, and blind themselves to the fact that conservation costs money. Hunters have paid the bills for years. That truth is confirmed by the source. And it must be broadcast to quiet down groups like FoA and Born Free and shut down initiatives like these.
25 Reasons Licensed, Regulated, Sustainable Hunting (Hunting) Is Not Poaching
Hunting is licensed. It requires a permit and fee. By definition, poaching is illegal.
Hunting is regulated by species, area, season, number, quota, sex, age, etc. Poaching is indiscriminate. Snares do not distinguish species, sex or age.
Hunting restricts methods used, such as prohibiting some weapons or motorized transport. A poacher uses whatever means are available, including poison, without concern for any collateral damage.
Hunting only occurs at certain times. In Namibia and Zambia, for instance, no lion are hunted at night. Hunting has off seasons to avoid disrupting reproductive cycles. Poachers usually hunt during off times and do not care about animal cycles.
Hunting is selective. Poachers do not care and will shoot whatever passes by. Snares do not discriminate.
There are size and age limits for legal trophies. E.g., in Tanzania, elephant tusks must be at least 20kg or 1.6m. Lion must be above a certain age. Similar limits are imposed in other countries. Poachers do not follow any such rules.
Hunting is sustainable because it is quota-based.
Hunting is adaptive. If over-hunting (legal or not) occurs, legal hunting is halted. For example, lion hunting was suspended in 2005 outside Hwange NP due to concerns about the cumulative effects of hunting and problem animal control (PAC). The population recovered rapidly, and regulated hunting was re-opened.
Hunting can be a bio-management tool. E.g., in Namibia, only "surplus" or "problem" black rhino are hunted. Removal of the rhino allows younger bulls to assume dominant positions and may increase reproductivity, or removes an animal that killed other rhino. Poaching undercuts management goals by taking any animal, including females and young.
Hunting preserves habitat - the most habitat. In southern and eastern Africa, ~23% more habitat exists in hunting areas than national parks. That level is far higher in countries where hunting is legal, with five times more habitat in Tanzania and ~three times more in Zambia and South Africa. Hunters protect and police this habitat against the poachers who invade it.
Hunting puts anti-poaching boots on the ground. Hundreds of game scouts are directly employed by hunting operators. In South Africa and Zimbabwe many rhino are privately owned. The high protection costs are paid by private operators.
Hunting underwrites most anti-poaching by governments and communities. It provides the lion's share of funds for government wildlife authorities; for instance, it pays 80% of Tanzania's anti-poaching bills. Returns from hunting operations also pay for community scouts. How can anyone credibly compare it to poaching when legal hunting is the largest source of anti-poaching?
Sharing of hunting fees and revenues, and contributions of supplies and services by hunting operators, creates conservation incentives for the communities most affected by wildlife. They receive significant revenues, e.g., 75% of trophy and permit fees in Tanzania, and 55% of fees directly into village bank accounts and 41% of fees through district councils in CAMPFIRE areas. Clinics and schools are built, boreholes drilled, and infrastructure is developed.
By generating financial incentives, hunting reduces human-wildlife conflict. Human wildlife conflict (HWC) increases if hunting is banned, as in Kenya and recently Botswana. Poaching does not offset HWC because it steals benefits from communities and transfers them to individual poachers.
Hunting provides meat to protein-poor communities. E.g., in Zambia, 50% of game meat must be shared with communities. Bubye Valley donates 45+ tons of meat from hunting. Commercial poachers usually leave the meat of poached animals to rot.
Hunting dis-incentivizes poaching. In Tajikistan, former poachers created a conservancy that generates revenue from markhor hunts. They recognized the hunting offered sustainable benefits compared to short-term gains. The protection from this conservancy and others has increased the number of markhor and at-risk predators like snow leopard.
Hunting recovers wildlife. Witness the white rhino population explosion once private ranchers began to financially benefit from hunting. The same is true in Tajikistan with markhor. Populations recover because legal hunting is controlled and sustainable, and offers a reason to increase numbers despite associated costs. Poaching can decimate wildlife.
Hunters pay the big money that funds habitat protection, anti-poaching, employment, management and surveys, etc. Poachers do not pay the government, property owners, or anyone else.
Hunting generates employment and tax revenue. In some areas it is the only source of employment. In Namibia, which faces 28% unemployment, a ban on legal hunting would cost ~3,500 jobs, mainly on community conservancies. Hunting also spurs jobs in service and tourist industries. These wages translate to spending and tax revenue to support under-resourced governments. Poaching generates no income or taxes and threatens jobs by reducing wildlife populations.
Hunting revenues are the foundation of wildlife authority budgets. Hunters bankroll conservation in range nations throughout Africa. Poachers cost governments by necessitating higher enforcement expenditures.
Hunting is ethical. It is generally based on a fair-chase code. Hunters make every effort to be humane. Poaching is unethical, brutal, and inhumane.
Hunting is not commercial. Trophies are for personal use. Poaching can be commercialized and driven by syndicates and black-market cartels.
Hunting is self-regulating. Clubs and professional hunters/operators' associations have strict codes of conduct. Poachers follow no codes. They are law-breakers by definition.
Hunting is government-monitored. Range nations require the return of forms describing the hunt and harvest. Many require a government scout observe hunts. Poaching is neither monitored nor sanctioned by range nations.
There is no correlation between hunting and increased poaching. In South Africa, white (and black) rhino hunting took place well before an increase in poaching. Namibia kept poaching in check since black rhino exports began by using the revenue from these hunts. Elephant hunting occurred for years before the current poaching "crisis." As shown here, hunters are the counter to poachers, not the cause.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Karl - Until DSC, SCI and all of us start fighting fire with fire, we are going to continue to get our asses KICKED!!!!!

Take the gloves off, and FIGHT!! We all gotta stop the politically correct crap - and fight!! If you want to know more about what I am referring to - talk to Fulson, he can tell you.

As for our next President - Trump is the only answer people, the only answer!

Exactly!

Please friends, understand what I am saying! I'm not pointing fingers at anyone / any organization specifically, I'm pointing the finger at us all. We all need to do a whole lot more - otherwise we are going to continue to lose, until there's nothing left to fight for.

Well said Aaron...this is our individual fight as well and as such we should always be carrying the message whenever possible.

Karl…thanks for posting this and Kathi for the info from Conservation Force. As always, there is some very useful information from John regarding background, “The List of Lies,” and a great informational resource to share with non-hunters “25 Reasons Licensed, Regulated, Sustainable Hunting (Hunting) Is Not Poaching.”

We have pushed John’s message through our social media feeds (Blog, Facebook, and Twitter) and provided an additional link below in case anyone else also wishes to utilize it or to utilize the content as a formatted cut and paste:

Cecil's Law and EU Declarations - What Is the Risk, Where Is the Truth?

I had minor formatting issues from the original article so just cleaned it up to view better on our links.

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:
I'm sure glad I don't live in Connecticut

States can do this,? sounds like a Federal matter to me .

Grizz

Sounds like Moulen Labe might apply to more than just our guns.

Did the Connecticut bill pass?

Bill Quimby

Town of Tonopah, Nevada has a statute on the books making it illegal to take a bath more than once a week, so yes, they probably can, but...what about the issue of compensation for stuff like ivory that was already legally imported? Or is the governor going to change his name to Robert Mugabe so he can just take peoples' property?

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzly Adams:

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:
I'm sure glad I don't live in Connecticut

States can do this,? sounds like a Federal matter to me .

Grizz

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

Slider - Hunting is NOT a "right", its a privilege! I know what you meant, and you're exactly correct. Unless we take the gloves off, fight fire with fire, and get aggressive about defending our hunting opportunities - we are going to lose!

AARON: You are DEAD WRONG! In 19 of our 50 states, hunting is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, written right into the states' constitutions. Do a Google search under "hunting rights by state constitution" That's 38% of our states, and the number is growing. I'm amazed that a guy who makes his living in the hunting industry would be so ignorant.

The way I read the bill, it exempts trophies that are already possessed and even lets one's heirs inherit them. Small consolation.

OK. So we all need to unite and fight. But what exactly should we do? If we don't live in Connecticut, I mean.

quote:

Originally posted by Barry Groulx:
Town of Tonopah, Nevada has a statute on the books making it illegal to take a bath more than once a week, so yes, they probably can, but...what about the issue of compensation for stuff like ivory that was already legally imported? Or is the governor going to change his name to Robert Mugabe so he can just take peoples' property?

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzly Adams:

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:
I'm sure glad I don't live in Connecticut

States can do this,? sounds like a Federal matter to me .

Grizz

I've been to Tonopah a bunch of times, sounds about right lol

I am not an attorney but it strikes me that we need to start attacking these laws the same way gays and others repealed laws that impacted them - by claiming a violation of constitutional rights.

We have a right to purse life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This law is intended to take away the last two.

AR Members -

Yes, SCI is involved with fighting this ill-convinced piece of legislation - along with a stand alone ivory ban in Connecticut. We have submitted testimony for both bills that can be found online - here is our S. 227 testimony: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2016/EN...nternational-TMY.PDF

We have been working with the traditional sportsmen's groups along with local antiques dealers and musical instrument manufacturers and of course SCI members to relay how this proposal affects a large percentage of Connecticut's population.

If you have any questions about the specifics of this proposal feel free to ask or to PM the account.

Follow us on social media and our website for advocacy updates: https://www.facebook.com/scihunt/ https://twitter.com/sci_advocacy and https://www.safariclub.org/what-we-do/freedom-to-hunt.

Great to have you on board SCI Hunter Advocacy. Looking forward to many more posts by you on this forum!

I just heard on NRA news that Delaware has a bill, senate bill 156, introduced that blanket bans the sale, purchase, and possession with intent to sell, of all ivory, including antiques and musical instruments containing ivory.

quote:

Originally posted by trekker111:
I just heard on NRA news that Delaware has a bill, senate bill 156, introduced that blanket bans the sale, purchase, and possession with intent to sell, of all ivory, including antiques and musical instruments containing ivory.

Yes, 24 states introduced either stand alone anti-ivory bills or anti-importation including ivory this session alone. A number of states also introduced more than one anti-ivory bill.

They tried to introduce one here in Nevada a few months ago and a number of us wrote our state senators and exposed the truth about the ban, along with the democratic state senators that were sponsoring the bill. We pointed out the fact that federal law already covered the ivory issues, and allowed for legally imported ivory to be possessed. It is likely the same bill that has been making the rounds around the United States. It bans ivory from elephant, hippo, warthog, or any similar so called ivory. I believe that it even bans mammoth ivory. In any event, they are doing it under the guise that it will somehow stop elephant poaching, which is not at all true. Legally imported and owned ivory cannot be banned if allowed by federal law. By doing so, we stopped the bill dead in committee. I suggest that all of you others do the same. Fight it now before it becomes law or has a chance to do so. I believe that it has already become law in Washington state. Maybe others as well.

NEW JERSEY also has a similar bill in the works! NJ S997.. Passed both houses!!!

https://legiscan.com/NJ/text/S977/2016

One day it's gonna be necessary to stand on the porches of these elected officials. Even the ones with gates.

New Jersey has a law that states you can't poses a foothold trap.

http://wshu.org/post/connectic...-bans-trophy-hunting



Connecticut, New York Consider Bans On Trophy Hunting
By DAVIS DUNAVIN • APR 19, 2016


The killing of Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe last year by a Minnesota dentist brought a lot of attention to the idea of trophy hunting. Washington is the only state that bans some hunters from bringing their trophies into the country. Now four other states are considering similar bills -- among them, New York and Connecticut.

Connecticut State Senate President Bob Duff was inspired to introduce a bill to ban trophy hunting after he attended a fundraising concert last fall to benefit the advocacy organization Friends of Animals. The concert featured a piece by pianist Christopher Jessup, who wanted to make people aware of the dangers to animals like Cecil the Lion.

“I went to the concert, met him and his family,” Duff says. “I figured that he had so much passion about it, that I should also try and do what I could do.”

Duff says this bill, which is called Cecil’s Law, is really about making a statement to the rest of the country, since federal lawmakers aren’t considering banning trophy hunting.

“We really don’t want to have these type of trophy animals here in our state,” he says. “We don’t want them coming into the state of Connecticut.”

But in order for a ban to fully work in Connecticut, New York must also pass its proposed ban on trophy hunting. That’s because New York is a designated entry point for hunting trophies from Africa. Connecticut is not.

“If we were able to get legislation in particular with the New York Port Authority, you would see initially a pretty major slide in the number of trophies entering into the United States,” says Michael Harris, director of the Wildlife Law Program at Friends of Animals.

About 4,000 lions, leopards, elephants and rhinos have come through New York from Africa in the past 10 years. The proposed bills in New York and Connecticut would ban those four animals as trophies.

Bob Crook is the head of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen. He opposes any ban on trophy hunting. He says a ban would actually hurt conservation, because of the fees trophy hunters pay to hunt animals in Africa.

“All these trophy fees go into law enforcement in the African areas to prevent poaching,” Crook says. “It’s a loss to the African nations, it’s a loss to the Connecticut hunters who want to go there.”

New York has the power to shut down a lot of trophy hunting traffic in the Northeast, including Connecticut. But if the bill passes, there are other states where hunting trophies can enter the U.S., like Texas and Florida. The only end-all solution, according to animal rights advocates, is a federal ban -- which so far, has not been raised.