This question is mainly for the Americans at the moment, but something for everyone to consider. Obviously CANNED lion hunting is not very popular amongst most of the AR members, but what will your opinion be if and unfortunately when the Lion gets up-listed to CITES 1 in March 2010?

I am one of about 35 people that receive ALL the insider e-mails from John Jackson of Conservation Force regarding the issue. Most of them he lists as confidential, so I cannot share them. However, its very unfortunate to see the overwhelming opinion from the majority of the folks on the other side of the coin that plan to support the up-listing. I assure you, Mr. Jackson is fighting it tooth and nail, but I am very afraid it will be a losing battle. If in fact the up-listing happens, the importation of Wild-Free Ranging lions into the U.S. will halt immediately. It won't matter how much money you have or how much you are willing to spend, getting one into the states will be a thing of the past. My understanding is the up-listing obviously will not effect raised lions, such as those from SA hunting farms, but wild lions from Zambia, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Moz, etc, will NOT be issued import permits from the USF&WS.

So, if this happens it brings me back to my original question. What will be your opinion regarding S.A. lion hunting, especially if you are an American and still want to hunt and import a lion? I for one will be devastated if the up-Listing gets passed and I can no longer hunt my favorite game animal and bring it back home. I already have a HUGE Polar Bear I shot several years ago still sitting in Canada, not sure I want to do that again.

Thanks,
Aaron Neilson

I'm guessing that, if the Lion is up-listed, Americans won't be able to import ANY African Lion, no matter how or where taken. It's anybody's guess, but that's mine.

If I hadn't already taken a Lion, I would have taken one in 2009 -- Up-listing is probable in my view and the USF&W Service will take a hard line if/when that up-listing happens.

Anyone can argue about the rights and wrongs of this, but I don't think that those arguments will matter much, the politics are pretty clear and the politics will likely carry the day for Americans.

Sad, but true.

Thanks for the tip. We're in the process of exploring lion possibilities and that would be the primary animal of interest. If lion is uplisted, this may cause us to alter our plans somewhat.

Damn, I love AR! You will have trouble finding this information easily anywhere else.

[quote]I assure you, Mr. Jackson is fighting it tooth and nail, but I am very afraid it will be a losing battle. If in fact the up-listing happens, the importation of Wild-Free Ranging lions into the U.S. will halt immediately

Aaron,

If this happens, does that mean everyone who shot or will shoot a lion this year or last and failed to get the lion imported into the U.S prior to the uplisting will be out of luck????

Will this be similar to the polar bear ban, hunters were in the field when it went into effect and they could not get their bears imported??

Good point Kathi........

As I have grown older the quality of the hunting experience and the memories that go with it have become the ultimate goals of my hunts. It is always nice to be able to bring the trophy home but if I cannot it does not make a huge difference to me, hence my decision to hunt a Pygmy forest elephant.

As long as Lions are legal in the country I hunt, I don’t care if I can bring a trophy back with me. The one thing I can never compromise on is the quality of the experience and in my book a canned lion hunt is a zero.

Aziz

quote:

in my book a canned lion hunt is a zero.

Kathi - Good question, but generally speaking the rule is that the animals are allowed in, as long as they were harvested before the official up-listing date. Although that didn't hold true for some of the polar bear hunters that you mention. If I had a lion skin in Africa, which I do from my June hunt to Zambia. I would be getting it home ASAP.

quote:

Originally posted by Kathi:
[quote]I assure you, Mr. Jackson is fighting it tooth and nail, but I am very afraid it will be a losing battle. If in fact the up-listing happens, the importation of Wild-Free Ranging lions into the U.S. will halt immediately

Aaron,

If this happens, does that mean everyone who shot or will shoot a lion this year or last and failed to get the lion imported into the U.S prior to the uplisting will be out of luck????

Will this be similar to the polar bear ban, hunters were in the field when it went into effect and they could not get their bears imported??

You can bet the an immediate total ban on imports will be the goal of some and, depending on the views of some as yet unidentified judge, that could well be the way it turns out.

There was really no excuse or real logic for banning the import of previously taken Polar Bears (actually there was no good reason for the hunting ban either), but that mattered not -- if you hadn't had your bear imported when the hunting ban took effect, it was lost forever.

Politics is politics.

Do we know when the decision will be made? Is it imminent, or is this something to be done in future?

"As long as Lions are legal in the country I hunt, I don’t care if I can bring a trophy back with me. The one thing I can never compromise on is the quality of the experience and in my book a canned lion hunt is a zero."

+1

I'll be hunting them either way. I'm all about the experience. I generally find it a good rule to listen to older people more experience then myself when they give advice. That said the more I listen to older/more experienced hunters the more I hear them say they wish they had mounted less and hunted more. I think I may go this route from the start!! I'll save the taxedermy price and put it towards another hunt!!!

Brett

Bryan - The next CITES meetings are now scheduled for March 2010, and the potential lion up-listing is on the agenda.

Brett - I agree man, not sure I can comprise how I feel about lion hunting just to bring another one home. By January 2010 I will have 7 life-size lions mounted any, and a couple more waiting to be mounted. I think that will probably be enough. I don't plan to stop hunting them either, and I guess we will just have to get accustom to the idea of leaving them behind. However, many folks will have a much different opinion and will not want to hunt a lion and spend the money, if they can't bring it home. Very unfortunate, both for the hunters, and the LIONS!!
By the way, Richard Bell-Cross just shot another HUGE lion in Lunga Luswishi. I am waiting for the picture, once I get it, I'll post it!

Aaron Neilson
Global Hunting Resources

That said I DID want to full mount my first lion, but I'll live. Let's see the pics Aaron!!!

Brett

Aaron,

Even if they do upgrade, whilst it's not ideal and assuming a similar sport hunting excemption as Elephant & Leopard, it'll just mean the hunter has to apply for an import permit the same way as they do for the aforementioned other species.

Shakari - Your comment is the MIS-CONCEPTION that MOST have regarding this whole thing. THE USF&WS has CHANGED their regulations regarding NEWLY listed CITES 1 animals, and most people are not aware of it! The only way an import permit will be issued for NEW CITES 1 animals is after a 3 year study of the impact of hunting on that particular species has been presented from the exporting country, to the USF&WS. A report that NEEDS to clearly state that the hunting of said species has had a positive impact on the species as a whole, from that particular area. In other words, its nothing more than a move by the USFWS to stop importation of NEWLY listed CITES 1 animals. Your idea of what will happen is exactly what I thought at first too, until I was given all the info regarding the new regulations!!

I fully believe this is exactly WHY more hunters are not throwing a huge fit over this, or trying everything they can to stop the up-listing. They are NOT aware of the new regulations, and what the outcome of up-listing the lion will actually be. Many think it will be no different than the current status of the Elephant & Leopard, but that is sadly not the case!

I will try and get Mr. Jackson to send me the EXACT wording of the new USF&WS regulations, then I will post them.

Aaron Neilson
Global Hunting Resources

Aaron,

There's no doubt that USF&WS are a rule unto themselves and I don't doubt your word for a moment but I'd be very interested to see the new regulations because I spent a far while on their site just a few weeks ago and didn't see anything about it then........ but as I say, they are a rule unto themselves.

Neither can I find anything on the CF site, although admittedly, I only took a quick squiz.

One obvious question that springs to mind in these hard financial times is who conducts and finances the 3 year study?

I hope you have better luck contacting JJ than I did....... I've tried to contact him several times and haven't had a single reply.

Steve - I assure you, JJ will get back to me. Once he does, I will post the info that he gives me. Trust me, there is nothing I would like more than to eat my own words!

Guaranteed, the 3 yr study will have to be funded by the country in question. The USFWS certainly isn't gonna pay for it.

Aaron Neilson
Global Hunting Resources

Mate, it's truly not a question of your eating your own words....... as I said, I don't doubt your word for a minute.

I will however be interested to see the relevent info. ..... I'd also be interested to know why it doesn't appear to feature on either website.

As I said though, I have my doubts as to whether the proposal will be approved. It's not the first time it's been tried and so far, it hasn't come close to being approved.

Steve - I hope you're right, and I'll let you know once I get the info. I know the up-listing has been tried before, but it just seems to be getting much more support, at least from what I have seen.

Aaron Neilson
Global Hunting Resources

We would all hope that, if the Lion is up-listed, that the USF&W Service will be forthcoming with a reasonable implementation that won't disrupt Lion hunting throughout Africa.

That said, it's extremely unlikely. Certainly, they won't be "advertising" their intent to be unreasonable -- quite to the contrary, I would suggest that the prevailing view within that organization will be that a three year or more hiatus on the import of Lion trophies while they evaluate conservation studies from various countries is nothing if not "reasonable."

All one has to do is look at the lack of progress in approving ivory imports from Mozambique, total lack of progress in approving import of Black Rhino trophies, or the way in which the, definitely, not endangered Polar Bear listing has been handled.

This is not to suggest that all of the employees of USF&W Service are unreasonable -- they're not and I have long had a favorable impression of how most of them do their jobs -- but the fact is that much of the leadership sees no value in hunting as a conservation tool and they've made that very clear through their actions for many years. That certainly will not change so long as political liberals control all of the reins of power in Washington -- and will not change for long after the political landscape there swings back toward the right.

Why is SCI, the supposed leader in advocating for hunters and hunter's rights, seemingly silent on this issue to this point?

I may have missed it, bot I do not recall seeing any news of the uplisting from SCI whatsoever.

Oldhandgunhunter - I think your overall assessment of the USFWS is pretty accurate!!

Safari-lawyer: I too have been wondering the same?? Just a couple months ago I wrote an article regarding this issue. I sent it to the editors of DSC, SCI, AFRICAN SPORTING GAZETTE, & AFRICAN HUNTER. The only publication NOT using some or all of it was SCI, in fact the editor never even gave me a response??

Could the NRA help influence the USF&WS? They have a lot more political clout.

Indy - Good question, but I'm not sure this kind of thing is really up their alley.

Aaron

Aaron,

Can you let us know which countries are backing the proposal. Usually it's Kenya and a few others, none of which have any significant hunting industry but I'd be interested to know who else is involved in the proposal.

Also, do you have any idea who finances Conservation Force by any chance? - Feel free to PM me that info if you prefer not to do it on a public forum.

I thin that Safarilawyer has a good point. Didn't someone say recently that SCI are part of the attendees of the CITES do?

Of course, it could well be they want to keep their powder dry for the debate but I'd have thought they'd at least make their members aware of what's in the wind.

quote:

Originally posted by safari-lawyer:
Why is SCI, the supposed leader in advocating for hunters and hunter's rights, seemingly silent on this issue to this point?

I may have missed it, bot I do not recall seeing any news of the uplisting from SCI whatsoever.

Doesn't ring a bell to me from SCI updates.....

Shakari - I will certainly let you know what I get. I should have saved all the emails from JJ, but honestly, I'll bet I have received at least 50 of them regarding this issue over the past 6 months.

Conservation Force is funded by guys like you and I, the hunting fraternity! That's why I have been on AR a few times asking for people to give dontations to them. No doubt DSC and organizations of the like, give as well. Either way though, its on us.

Aaron Neilson
Global Hunting Resources

Aaron,

What I was trying to find out about the funding is if it's funded by solely by individual donations or if any of the larger hunting organisations fund it at all?

It strikes me they get a lot done and cover a lot of ground for a relatively small organisation.

As there are CITES II animals years later still trying to get off the USFWS ESA listing and become importable, I have NO doubt that a downgrade of lion to CITES I will result in immediate ESA listing and unimportability pending proof that the local management plans "ensure enhancement of the survival of the species". Right. Good luck with that.

Solution....buy a small place in Canada. I am serious. Think about it...for what guys spend to hunt lion and for what is spent to enlarge existing structures to ridiculous proportions for the purposes of trophy display, a second little place north of the border starts to look pretty realistic. If that place can be on the edge of some prime whitetail country, all the better. What better way to thumb your nose at the USFWS!?!? Sure it's not practical for a guys single cheetah, but if someone wanted cheetah, some unimportable Asian sheep, lion post downgrade, Cameroon elephant or other such things, it makes good sense. Further, assuming prices are lower on these species than importable "comparables", then the place north of the border starts to pay for itself.

Gotta go now....I have a walrus, polar bear, and seal to go shoot this afternoon.

Shakari - I am just not sure of all the funding outlets Conservation Force has, sorry.

Tendrams - Don't think for a second I haven't considered the little place in Canada too!

Aaron Neilson
Global Hunting Resources

well for me maybe the Dominician Republic: much closer, cheaper and warmer. Hell, I have to store my rifles in Texas as a result of our gun control laws( we have just experienced our 26th homicide of the year out of a population of about 125K, which should ensure our place at the top of homicides/100k), so I might as well store a lion in the D.R.

I remember when St. Thomas used to be fun...during the 60's...

Shakari & Others - Bare with me as I got some lengthy info today from both John Jackson & Dr. Paula White. Dr. White is a friend of mine and has been the head of the Zambian Lion Project since 2004. I need to get permission to make the info they gave me public, if all is well, I will post it.

Thanks,
Aaron Neilson
Global Hunting Resources

Shakari & Others - Below is the latest CF bulletin for Sept, 2009. Its lengthy, but if you read it, you will see some of the huge problems with the USF&WS, and the way they regard importing CITES 1 animals.

Aaron Neilson
GLobal Hunting Resources


World Conservation Force Bulletin for September 2009


The Unrealized Potential of Conservation Hunting
Symposium on “The Ecologic and Economic Benefits of Hunting”, Windhoek, Namibia, September, 2009 by John J. Jackson, III, Chairman, Conservation Force

In the early 1970s, one international convention and one national law were passed that have proven to be significant barriers to conservation strategies based upon sustainable use. The convention is CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. It governs international trade of animals and plants threatened by trade. The national law is the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of the United States. The administration of both by the USF&WS is particularly important because America is the largest safari hunting market.
This presentation will briefly describe both CITES and the ESA, then describe known examples where those protective measures obstruct rather than serve sustainable use, particularly conservation hunting because of the way CITES and the ESA are administered. Both are protective measures greatly influenced by politics. The U.S. administration of both is generally the source of the problem. Although CITES is an international convention, the U.S. has its own regulations implementing CITES for trophy imports into the U.S.
CITES governs the international trade of animals that the Parties list. Those listed on Appendix II only require an export permit from the country of origin. Those on Appendix I require both an import and an export permit. Commercial trade in Appendix I species is prohibited. Hunting trophies are not treated as commercial because the hunter’s purpose is personal, not for profit. It is licensed, highly regulated trade that is an expense to the tourist hunter that provides significant funding for the range country’s conservation infrastructure. CITES has long had an interpretive Resolution permitting trophy trade of Appendix I species, Resolution 2.11 (Rev.). The 177 country Parties to CITES have also adopted various Resolutions and Decisions making Recommendations to the Parties supportive of sustainable trade of trophies. Unfortunately, the U.S. does not honor those remedial measures.
To issue an export permit, the exporting country’s authorities must make a biological non-detriment determination that the trade is not detrimental to the survival of that species. In the case of Appendix I listed species, the importing nation must also issue an import permit. The importing country must also make a determination that the “purpose” of the import is not detrimental. That is where most problems arise. Consequently, the Parties have adopted a number of measures to overcome those problems.
The Parties revised Resolution 2.11 to further facilitate hunting trophy trade at the 9th Conference of the Parties. It provides that ordinarily the biological non-detriment findings of the exporting nations should be accepted rather than judgmentally reexamined by the importing country. That CoP also adopted Resolution 9.21 to make it clear that quotas adopted by the Parties as a body at a CoP should be accepted as the required non-detriment finding for both the biological export and importing countries. Such a quota should eliminate the need for any further non-detriment finding.
CITES has adopted species-specific quotas for leopard, cheetah, markhor in Pakistan and black rhino to facilitate the trade of hunting trophies of those species. It has done little good because the USF&WS has not honored the quotas even when the species is not also listed as endangered. It has insisted upon making its own biological non-detriment finding. For example, it took years to establish import of leopard trophies from Mozambique even though there was a CoP leopard quota for that country and the leopard in that country were never thought to be at risk according to CITES records.
CITES has also downlisted some species altogether or with an annotation that the downlisting from Appendix I to II is only for trophy trade. The Canadian wood bison was downlisted for that purpose. Both African elephant and white rhino in some range nations have been conditionally downlisted with an annotation that it is only for trophy trade and all other trade is still on Appendix I. That includes the elephant in Botswana, Zimbabwe, Namibia and RSA. It is imminently clear that the Parties have endeavored to overcome the U.S. CITES import practices. Downlisting with an annotation has worked, hence we expect such downlisting proposals at CoP 15 in March 2009 for Tanzania, Zambia and Mozambique elephant because of the fits the USF&WS has given those countries to have trophies imported. It has not worked when the species is also listed as “endangered” on the United States’ own Endangered Species Act which we will discuss in a moment.
In August 2007, the USF&WS adopted its own administrative CITES regulations in derogation of most of those CITES Resolutions intended to facilitate trade, 50 CFR Parts 10, 13, 17, and 23; Revision of Regulations for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); Final Rule (August 23, 2007). The codification formalizes the USF&WS position and practices that are contrary to the Resolutions aimed at facilitating tourist trophy trade. Those new regulations exclude trophy parts crafted into utilitarian items from trophy treatment; require the Service to make its own biological and management non-detriment finding before issuing an import permit rather than accepting the findings of the export authorities; declare that the U.S. will not honor quotas established by the Parties as non-detriment findings, despite that being the very purpose of the quota system.
I must add that the USF&WS Division of Law Enforcement is extremely autocratic and unforgiving in import inspections. Millions of dollars of trophies are detained, seized and involuntarily forfeited for the smallest unintended clerical errors, even though the legal take and authenticity of the trophy is undisputed.
Under CITES, Parties to the Convention are entitled to have stricter domestic measures. The Endangered Species Act of the United States is such a measure. The USF&WS more restrictively administers the ESA than the USF&WS administers CITES.
The ESA lists species worldwide. Species are listed as “threatened” or “endangered”. Most of the mammals listed under the ESA are foreign. The rub is that such listings don’t provide the benefits for foreign species that they do for U.S. domestic species. It seems to be easy to list a foreign species when there are few cost considerations. Normally the species are listed over the foreign range nation’s objections and in some cases simply because the species status is not known or its status documented to the satisfaction of the USF&WS.
Import of hunting trophies of species listed as threatened are statutorily protected from import restriction in all but one instance, a special rule governing argali. Species listed as endangered can be imported when the agency finds that it enhances the survival or recovery of the species, but the Service has made that finding in only one instance: it permits import of bontebok hunting trophies from the Republic of South Africa that are taken on ranches registered in RSA’s bontebok conservation program. Recently, the USF&WS failed to adopt a policy that would have permitted import of trophies in select cases as a conservation tool for endangered species when it was found to be a net benefit to the survival of the species and part of the foreign nation’s conservation strategy for the species. The agency claims the effort was killed by the Bush Administration at the highest level.
The decision not to adopt the more up-to-date policy was made because concern for political fallout from activist constituents was greater than the interest of the species and the expert advice of the agency. The species that could benefit and the management authorities in foreign countries and indigenous peoples don’t vote in the United States.
In historical perspective, the African leopard was the first problem of significance. It was not importable into the U.S. until a successful campaign downlisted sub-Saharan leopard from “endangered” to “threatened” under the ESA.
When the African elephant was uplisted to CITES Appendix I, the USF&WS would not issue the required import permits. Worse, it treated the processing of the import permit application as a “low priority.” Suit had to be filed to establish import of elephant from Namibia, RSA and Tanzania. The USF&WS end-rounded that success under CITES by adopting a special regulation under the ESA (it is “threatened” under the ESA) that requires proof of enhancement as if it were listed as endangered. This has to be treated as politically driven because the taking of so few adult males is not biologically significant. South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe have found it advantageous to have their elephant downlisted to Appendix II for trophy purposes, but Tanzania, with the second largest elephant population, has periodic import problems in the United States. Tanzania, Mozambique and Zambia have prepared downlisting proposals with a trophy annotation to surmount that U.S. import problem at CoP 15 in March, 2010. The USF&WS would not allow import of elephant from Mozambique even though the quota allocation was limited to two elephant per year in a renowned community development project.
At CoP 8 in 1992, Namibia was given a trophy quota of 250 per annum for its cheetah to help facilitate trophy trade with the express idea it would help create tolerance by the local people. 95% of the cheetah live on private lands and are dependent upon the good will of those landowners. It was a conservation strategy supported by the IUCN Cat Specialist Group. The icing on that conservation cake was that the hunting community took an active part in implementing the conservation strategy. Dr. James Teer was engaged to meet with the USF&WS, then travel to Namibia to establish an agreement that would further enhance the survival of cheetah. An “enhancement agreement” was struck in which more than 100 private landholders agreed to treat cheetah as a game species rather than vermin, charge as much for their take as for lion and leopard, and ensure the tourist hunter contributed an extra $1,000 dedicated exclusively for cheetah conservation (potentially $250,000 per year). There was no capital fund like it or equal to it in the world. The hunting community also contributed to the cost of the completion of a National Strategic Action Plan that was completed by the Vice Chair of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group and remains the state-of-the-art example to this day.
Tens of thousands of dollars were poured into cheetah conservation in Namibia. The creation of a predator committee of NGOs and government and the appointment of a Predator Coordinator in the Wildlife Department all arose from the effort. The effort and effect would take volumes to describe. Though promised over and over again, the USF&WS denied the import permits and even denied an ESA downlisting petition. At one point, the Service made a positive CITES non-detriment determination required for CITES Appendix I species (independently of the CoP-established quota), but because of political policy it never could make the “enhancement” finding required by the ESA. The USF&WS authorities finally admitted its practices and policy were not in the best interest of the species, but they could not get the political approval from above to change the longstanding practice of not finding “enhancement” under the ESA. After more than 10 years, the program has unraveled then folded and only remnants of the effort remains. The $1,000 donations turned into written pledges conditioned upon and to be paid only upon import approval instead of upon take, and even the leadership of NAPHA abandoned the effort. When the Bush Administration was unwilling to pay the political price of approval, the USF&WS literally asked that the pending permits be voluntarily withdrawn. When they were not, the Director in February 2009 denied the initial import permit applications that had been pending since 1994 – 15 years. That was the final nail in the coffin.
Namibia has the largest and best-managed cheetah population in the world. Even the Cheetah Conservation Fund supported the limited hunting. That country still has a robust population but the potential of the conservation hunting and all associated benefits has failed to be realized. The ESA listing could have been utilized as a positive tool as intended by its authors. Instead, as administered, it is a barrier. No one is being held responsible or accountable for what happened in this instance.
The markhor in the Torghar Hills Conservation Project in Pakistan is another example. It is a world-renown, award winning program that has restored those markhor from 200 to more than 2,000 through conservation hunting. At CITES CoP 10, the Parties created a quota for the markhor to facilitate the export-import of the trophies. The Pakistan authorities stated at that CoP that denial of the quota would deny the species the “single most effective conservation tool at our disposal.” The problem has been that population is a straight-horned Suleiman markhor that the USF&WS has listed as “endangered.” The IUCN and Project Leader filed a downlisting petition in 1999 with the USF&WS which made an initial (90-day) finding that the downlisting may be warranted. The Service published with that finding that “[a]llowing a limited number of U.S hunters from this population could provide a significant increase in funds available for conservation and would provide a nexus to encourage continuation and expansion of the project into other areas.” The Service has not completed that downlisting and worse, the species has been denied the automatic 5-year review due all listed species because it is supposed to be under review already. Recently, a suit has been filed to compel that downlisting after the necessary 60-day notice of intent to sue was sent. Instead of downlisting the species, the Service has raised the defense that after six years the statute of limitations prevents any legal action. The downlisting petition may have to be filed again.
Applications for import permits have also been filed but they have not been processed. Response to a Freedom of Information Act request has indicated that the USF&WS had not made a CITES Appendix I non-detriment finding, much less an enhancement finding necessary under the ESA. Permit applications have been filed since at least 2000, but none have seen the light of day.
The loss of potential is more quantifiable in this case than in many others. Permit me to explain. Some years the project has not been able to market their nominal CITES quota, which they could if U.S. hunters could import their trophies. Even more telling is the difference in price of the markhor hunts from areas where markhor trophies are importable. In 2007, after more than a decade of effort, the hunting community was able to get approved import of a few flare-horned markhor from Pakistan. Those were listed on Appendix I, but not the ESA. The approval still took years because the USF&WS would not honor the quota set by the Parties at a CoP. Instead, it had to make its own finding and insisted upon making a biological non-detriment finding instead of the simpler finding required by CITES for trade in Appendix I trophies that the purpose of the import was not detrimental. In fact, it initially denied the import permit application. When approved after administrative appeals, the price of the trophies climbed from $45,000 to $150,000 per hunt. The next year, three hunts were sold to U.S. hunters at a total price of $450,000. That is more than three (3) times the price that Torghar area markhor continue to sell for at $45,000 per hunt.
The USF&WS has published that “[s]ince the Service cannot develop recovery plans for foreign species, priorities…must by necessity take into account the conservation programs of other countries….” In that same Federal Register Notice which stated that an ESA listing “may have potential conservation detriment for some species” and “[c]ertainly, the United States should endeavor, when possible, to recognize the conservation programs of foreign countries when based on sound science….with regard to foreign game species, fees from trophy hunters can, in some cases, provide economic incentives for landowners to maintain healthy population of game animals…[a] large percentage of international hunters are Americans who might invest in the hunting program if the species…import was permitted.” Politically, the Service has not been able to do what it knows is right and the hunting community has been ill-advised not to make an issue of it.
Despite openly coming to realize the downside of listing foreign species on the ESA and the political inability to administer the ESA responsibly, the USF&WS continues to list foreign species. The threatened listing of all polar bear in the world is the most recent example. In this instance, the listing triggered a provision under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of the U.S. that prohibits import of all ESA listed marine mammals (the bear is classified as a marine mammal). The Service acknowledged the conservation benefits of the hunting in Canada, yet listed the bear over the objection of Canada, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. It responded to the concern expressed by the select independent Peer Review Group it assembled that listing might obstruct the import of trophies by acknowledging the success of the program, but that under the ESA it could not take that into account or even consider “the efficacy of the listing” towards the bear’s conservation. The Agency listed the bear knowing it would obstruct the conservation strategy and would not provide benefits. The furor of the moment prevailed.

Aaron and others, excuse my ignorence, but if the uplisting does pass, how would this affect importation into Canada? do you know?

I don't think it would unless Canada decided to take further action like the US.

Brett

As I see it, assuming CITES allow a sport hunting quota as they usually do, the only practical difference for most, if not all countries excluding the USA is that the hunter will need to apply for a CITES import permit in exactly the same way as they do for sport hunted Elephant & Leopard etc.

Regarding the USA and the CF statement that Aaron so kindly posted: The statement itself doesn't seem to address the Lion situation specifically at all. What it does do is address what I see as the somewhat bizzarre attitude of USF&WS in general. They've always been a rule unto themselves but it strikes me (from that (CF) statement) that they seem to get worse every year.

It strikes me that USF&WS haven't actually said that if the upgrade takes place (and as I've said before, I have my doubts it will) they'll either ban imports or adopt their previous policy of requiring a study to see if the import permission will benefit the species...... but I guess it's fair to say that they may well adopt that policy.

To me, that's an issue that needs to be challenged in court by American hunters because it's an unfair and unrealistic requirement......... but I'm not a lawyer and know bugger all about (esp) American (human rights?) law. That said, it is the land of the free and all that. so I'd have thought if citizens of any country could defeat the requirement and whip USF&WS into line, it'd be the Americans. I guess it'd take a very wealthy and determined hunting organisation to take it on though.

All that said it strikes me that someone needs to wring a statement out of USF&WS one way or another because until that arrives, no-one quite knows for certain what their attitude and/or requirements will be.

I note that Mozambique comes up in the statement and has also come up on this and probably other threads. As I see it, Mozambique seems to be viewed with an additional degree of scepticism by USF&WS (perhaps understandably?) because they were caught with their hands in the till just prior to the Elephant trade ban and (rightly or wrongly) I'd bet that scepticism won't disappear in the foreseeable future........ but (IMO) that doesn't necessarily mean that the same scepticism will be applied to Africa in general and this Lion upgrade in particular. Time will tell I guess.

Anyway, FWIW, and it probably isn't worth much, that's my take on it.

Steve - Sometimes you just gotta read between the lines! The uplisting of the LION will effect its import status according to the CF bulletin. Take it from someone who has spent the last 2 years fighting a law-suit with USF&WS over my Polar Bear importation. They bureaucratic B.S., that they use to beat around the bush is mind-blowing, and quite frankly in my opinion, exactly why they do not do as you suggest, which is spell it out in black & white. If they did that, they would not have a loop-hole to slip through, when denying said permits.

Aaron

I reckon you could well be right but I'm astounded that none of the large hunting organisations (singly or en mass) or even your democratic representatives have taken them on before now.

I guess if no-one questions their right to play God then the situation will continue and American hunters will just have to live with the situation until such time as something changes.

I still don't consider it a foregone conclusion that the upgrade will happen and believe a lot of countries will vote against it but that doesn't alter the fact that they're also buggering about with other (mostly non African) species and that situation alone strikes me as extremely unfair.

Steve - JJ and CF have been fighting and suing the USF&WS for years, sometimes productive, and sometimes not. Its truly unbelievable what they do, and what they get away with. They know better about wildlife related issues than any other agency in the world, just ask em, they'll tell ya.

I agree, its not a fore-gone conclusion that the UP-Listing will happen, but I am trying to help raise awareness so that if it does, we aren't all sitting around saying, "Damn, what just happened?" Yesterday alone I received 8 different e-mails from JJ just on this issue. I see lots of response from other "Conservation Groups" throughout the world. Many who make recommendations to the countries that have a "vote". Many of those recommendations are not favorable to our cause, and I am hopeful that folks will continue to support CF in its fight, and hopefully donate some money to the cause as well.

Aaron Neilson
Global Hunting Resources