The title is the Question !

Which ivory ban? State, Federal, international?

George

From Zim and Tanz it has not changed. USFW will not allow the import of ivory. You can see their rationale here:

http://www.fws.gov/internation...hunted-trophies.html


If the ivory was taken in Zim before April 4, 2014 you can bring it in.

Good luck.

Are there suits on federal courts to abolish the ban and are they still pending?

http://www.huntingreport.com/c...ion_force.cfm?id=387



Proposed New Elephant Import Regulations
Written By John J. Jackson III, Conservation Force Chairman & President
(posted November 2015)

The US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) has proposed its new elephant import regulations arising from the President's Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking. Conservation Force and allied organizations including Dallas Safari Club, Houston Safari Club and others opposed two of the regulations that will, if adopted as proposed, restrict and burden import of elephant hunting trophies.

The first new restriction is a proposal to limit the import of elephant trophies to two per year. USFWS explained that a number of hunters take more than two each year in sport hunts that are in the nature of culls or part of problem animal control. We opposed this limit as not being conservation-based or smart law enforcement. There are legitimate reasons and occasions for a hunter to take more than two elephant in a year, whether it be multiple safaris, self-defense during a hunt, or a legitimate means of reducing elephant-human conflict where appropriate. Whatever the reason, it is lawful trade, not trafficking. Most importantly, we pointed out that USFWS should not want the ivory tusks of those elephant to be left or traded within the country where the hunt occurred. That would likely promote unlawful use and contribute to trafficking. They may fall into the wrong hands. It is best that those lawfully acquired tusks and elephant parts be imported, rather than limit import into the United States.

The second new restriction is a proposal to require import permits for elephant trophies taken in Zimbabwe, Namibia, Botswana (if reopened) and South Africa. These elephant have been downlisted by the CITES Parties to Appendix II with a special annotation that explicitly allows for hunting trophy trade. Appendix II trophies do not require import permits and never have. The proposal is to require the permits under the ESA's enhancement requirement. This does not make sense, as noncommercial import of Appendix II species only listed as threatened under the ESA are exempted from regulatory permitting by the ESA's own text. But USFWS claims there are compelling reasons to override that exemption.

Of course, we opposed these new permits and the lawfulness of the enhancement requirement itself. USFWS states a permitting requirement would give hunters an opportunity to administratively appeal negative enhancement findings like the recent negative enhancement finding for import of elephant from Zimbabwe. We pointed out that the administrative appeal process delays access to court until the process is completed, and USFWS is notorious for taking years to complete permits and administrative appeal processes.

We also pointed out the years of work by developing countries to downlist their elephant to eliminate the USFWS's permitting impasse. If a new permitting rule is adopted as proposed, USFWS will insulate itself from suits like that of SCI over the suspension of Zimbabwe elephant trophy imports. SCI's suit over the suspension of Tanzania's Appendix I elephant imports was dismissed by the Court for being premature for not completing the administrative appeal process, while that concerning Zimbabwe's Appendix II elephant was not dismissed because there was no administrative process to first complete. (The proposal does not mention the SCI suits, but it seems unlikely that USFWS was not considering these suits when it evaluated the effect of the proposed permit for import of Appendix II elephant.)

Of course, there will be mistakes in the import permitting paperwork, so more trophies will be treated as contraband and seized by USFWS Law Enforcement and statistically treated as trafficking. Hunters will have to be alert to have the import permits, to ensure they have not expired before import, and to confirm that the permit applications are completed correctly.

http://www.courthousenews.com/...ant-hunting-suit.htm


Courthouse News Service Courthouse News
Service Courthouse News Service Wednesday, July 01, 2015Last Update: 2:18 PM PT

Old Emails Won't Help Elephant Hunting Suit
By RYAN ABBOTT

WASHINGTON (CN) - A federal judge blocked hunting enthusiasts from relying on emails that they claim show regulatory protocol errors behind the ban on importing elephant carcasses from Zimbabwe.
Safari Club International and the National Rifle Association brought the lawsuit last year after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service suspended the importation of elephant trophies of sport-hunted elephants from Tanzania and Zimbabwe.
The groups echoed these claims in a new federal action filed in the same D.C. court Tuesday, but the new case omits claims regarding Tanzania, ostensibly because the U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, dismissed those counts last year.
In a new ruling on the original case published Monday, Lamberth had harsh words for the group's emphasis on certain documents it claims will help their case.
"Plaintiffs seek to supplement the record in this case concerning elephant imports with what is now a thirteen-year-old email about leopard imports," Lamberth wrote. "The email's passing reference to elephant imports is not concrete evidence that the agency considered the email in deciding whether to suspend elephant imports in 2014."
Safari Club and the NRA had also made much of a second email concerning the carrying capacity of elephants in Zimbabwe, suggesting that the elephant population is approximately 88,000 instead of the previously believed population of 45,000.
Lamberth refused to admit this either, finding it "not necessary for effective judicial review."
""While a court may admit extra-record evidence when an agency fails to examine all relevant factors ... no bad faith nor improper behavior is alleged here," the opinion states.
Judge Lamberth dismissed the claims regarding Tanzania in 2014 because Tanzania elephants are protected under the treaty known as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
Unlike the Tanzanian elephants described in that treaty's first appendix, Zimbabwe elephants are listed under Appendix II, meaning that hunters do not need a permit to kill the animals.
The hunters latest lawsuit notes that "U.S. hunters had been able to hunt African elephants in Zimbabwe and import their sport-hunted elephants into the United States" for decades.
"This hunting and importation supported elephant conservation by increasing the value of African elephants for local communities, discouraging poaching for ivory and/or food, and providing financial resources for elephant protection," the complaint states.
The complaint also claims that "a hunter's inability to import his or her legally sport-hunted African elephant deprives the hunter of a valuable element of the hunting experience."

My neighbors in Harare break into applause (literally) when the power comes back on after a 12-hour cut. They should be roaming the streets with pitchforks and torches. That's where we're heading with all this. First you can do something anytime you want. Then it's banned and you can't do it at all. Then you are allowed to do it on Thursday mornings and you're happy because you can do it again.