quote:

Originally posted by SafariSean:
For those pros out there that didn't get included in my what's app message there is no zero nadda chance of any repeal until 2021. Bad news but all should be aware of the truth. Good news leopards will be safe until 2021.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by SafariSean:
For those pros out there that didn't get included in my what's app message there is no zero nadda chance of any repeal until 2021. Bad news but all should be aware of the truth. Good news leopards will be safe until 2021.

For a variety of reasons, I suspect this is correct. First, the ham-handed manner in which it was handled by Trump makes it extremely difficult for him to back away from it at this point. Two, the Administration is up to its eyeballs with other issues including policy issues like immigration and their regular diet of self-created problems. Three, the Department of the Interior is embarking on a major internal reorganization, a plan that has attracted many critics. Hard to see how in this environment doing something on elephant and lion trophy imports is going to be either a priority or a political hit worth taking.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
Here is one thing we should propagate:

The ban on importation of lions and elephants is racism at its best: these countries are not breaking the law, but rather following the rules spelled out by CITES. What the US Govt is essentially saying is that they know better how to manage the wildlife in Africa better than Africans. How can that be anything but racist?

You and I need to share some scotch.

It is on my bucket list

Straight up or with a cube of ice?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Andrew you are trying to apply logic and reason to a matter that is being addressed politically. Give it up. To me this should be a simple matter. The United States is a party to the CITES Convention. As a party to CITES we should make our views and position known to the Convention and then be prepared to accept the ultimate determination by the Convention. If we are not prepared to do this, we should withdraw from CITES. To do otherwise is disrespectful. Why CITES listens to anything we have to say is a mystery to me since it is clear that we have no respect for the international body. Our problem is that we like to give lip service to being a responsible member of the international community and to working with other countries to address global issues when in truth and fact we feel that we know what is best for everyone else in terms of dealing with their problems. Pretty darn arrogant.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
Here is one thing we should propagate:

The ban on importation of lions and elephants is racism at its best: these countries are not breaking the law, but rather following the rules spelled out by CITES. What the US Govt is essentially saying is that they know better how to manage the wildlife in Africa better than Africans. How can that be anything but racist?

You and I need to share some scotch.

It is on my bucket list

Straight up or with a cube of ice?

Straight up in a nice tumbler

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Andrew you are trying to apply logic and reason to a matter that is being addressed politically. Give it up. To me this should be a simple matter. The United States is a party to the CITES Convention. As a party to CITES we should make our views and position known to the Convention and then be prepared to accept the ultimate determination by the Convention. If we are not prepared to do this, we should withdraw from CITES. To do otherwise is disrespectful. Why CITES listens to anything we have to say is a mystery to me since it is clear that we have no respect for the international body. Our problem is that we like to give lip service to being a responsible member of the international community and to working with other countries to address global issues when in truth and fact we feel that we know what is best for everyone else in terms of dealing with their problems. Pretty darn arrogant.

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Herald:
So from a credible source in USFWS- There was a meeting with the White House yesterday about USFWS matters since a budget had been set. There was not a lot to come out of it as official decisions, but the gist was that lions, elephants and bontebok are still on hold. Leopards and argali sheep will have CITES permits issued and signed through 2017.

Certainly not looking good as most have said...

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Andrew you are trying to apply logic and reason to a matter that is being addressed politically. Give it up. To me this should be a simple matter. The United States is a party to the CITES Convention. As a party to CITES we should make our views and position known to the Convention and then be prepared to accept the ultimate determination by the Convention. If we are not prepared to do this, we should withdraw from CITES. To do otherwise is disrespectful. Why CITES listens to anything we have to say is a mystery to me since it is clear that we have no respect for the international body. Our problem is that we like to give lip service to being a responsible member of the international community and to working with other countries to address global issues when in truth and fact we feel that we know what is best for everyone else in terms of dealing with their problems. Pretty darn arrogant.

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Herald:
So from a credible source in USFWS- There was a meeting with the White House yesterday about USFWS matters since a budget had been set. There was not a lot to come out of it as official decisions, but the gist was that lions, elephants and bontebok are still on hold. Leopards and argali sheep will have CITES permits issued and signed through 2017.

Certainly not looking good as most have said...

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Herald:
So from a credible source in USFWS- There was a meeting with the White House yesterday about USFWS matters since a budget had been set. There was not a lot to come out of it as official decisions, but the gist was that lions, elephants and bontebok are still on hold. Leopards and argali sheep will have CITES permits issued and signed through 2017.

Certainly not looking good as most have said...

Mirror's my source's comments as well.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The idea is that if one kills an animal listed pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act (signed into law by Nixon) that is the violation of a US Federal law for purposes of prosecution under Lacey.

The "law" being broken under the scenario is the Endangered Speices Act. The law of host country would be not be relevant.

Again, the import issue also disarms the argument that killing these animals is sustainable and beneficial to wildlife because the US Government has made a determination that killing an animal from such country does not benefit the species.

Numbers be shot with a cannon, such position by US administration is enough for open minded non-hunters to stop the discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by DonW28:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The idea is that if one kills an animal listed pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act (signed into law by Nixon) that is the violation of a US Federal law for purposes of prosecution under Lacey.

The "law" being broken under the scenario is the Endangered Speices Act. The law of host country would be not be relevant.

Again, the import issue also disarms the argument that killing these animals is sustainable and beneficial to wildlife because the US Government has made a determination that killing an animal from such country does not benefit the species.

Numbers be shot with a cannon, such position by US administration is enough for open minded non-hunters to stop the discussion.

I'm not an attorney but I don't think African elephants and other species that may or may not be endangered outside the U.S. are listed in the U.S. Endangered Species Act per se. If they are then I think you would simply be charged under that ESA for the killing ($50K and one year imprisonment for willfully taking an endangered species) and not the Lacey Act. Try killing a few bald eagles and the Lacey Act will be the least of your concerns. So you have two separate acts (among many more state, federal, national and international).

I think Saeed pointed out that the ruling that came out, and I tend to agree, is banning the importation of lions and elephants not the hunting of same. Not saying it can't happen, but if the USFWS was going to try and take a huge stretch with the Lacey Act then I think guys hunting Polar Bears would have already been charged. And it has never happened.

This decision is going to hurt Zim. and Zambia enough without us totally stopping non-import hunting for fear of being charged under a law that has never been used for this purpose.

Regards,

Don

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I am not certain, but did someone once post that CITES specifically allows the US to make its own determination.

I have read the brown hyena is listed as an endangered species per the Endangered Species Act.

What we need is an Attorney General opinion, but the next Attorney General could ignore and write his own opinion allowing prosecutions. Without an AG opinion nothing is really stopping a Federal District Attorney from making his political bones.


I do not want to be the test case.

All that said, Yes it is a scare tactic. But this is how things happen. You think up a novel application of the law, and see if the Courts agree.

Is anybody certain this Administration will not make a gun control push. My point is President Trump or any Administration should not be trusted.

quote:

Originally posted by SafariSean:

quote:

Originally posted by DonW28:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The idea is that if one kills an animal listed pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act (signed into law by Nixon) that is the violation of a US Federal law for purposes of prosecution under Lacey.

The "law" being broken under the scenario is the Endangered Speices Act. The law of host country would be not be relevant.

Again, the import issue also disarms the argument that killing these animals is sustainable and beneficial to wildlife because the US Government has made a determination that killing an animal from such country does not benefit the species.

Numbers be shot with a cannon, such position by US administration is enough for open minded non-hunters to stop the discussion.

I'm not an attorney but I don't think African elephants and other species that may or may not be endangered outside the U.S. are listed in the U.S. Endangered Species Act per se. If they are then I think you would simply be charged under that ESA for the killing ($50K and one year imprisonment for willfully taking an endangered species) and not the Lacey Act. Try killing a few bald eagles and the Lacey Act will be the least of your concerns. So you have two separate acts (among many more state, federal, national and international).

I think Saeed pointed out that the ruling that came out, and I tend to agree, is banning the importation of lions and elephants not the hunting of same. Not saying it can't happen, but if the USFWS was going to try and take a huge stretch with the Lacey Act then I think guys hunting Polar Bears would have already been charged. And it has never happened.

This decision is going to hurt Zim. and Zambia enough without us totally stopping non-import hunting for fear of being charged under a law that has never been used for this purpose.

Regards,

Don

I am certain under this administration there will be no prosecution for hunting endangered or threatened species outside of the USA that are legal under CITES but there is NO WAY we can know how a democrat run admin will look at this.

I can 100% guarantee that the last administration considered doing it. And a HRC administration was planning to do it. I was shown internal memos discussing it.

We need a constitutional amendment that safeguards CITES and that will prohibit politicians from using conservation as a political tool. CITES is the authority on wildlife around the world and we as a nation are signatory and should strictly adhere to the guidelines they implement and not allow a bunch of Washington bureaucrats use any of this to their benefit on either side of the isle.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
What is APMIP?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I may be wrong but I do not believe the Lacey Act can be used against anyone unless they have broken the laws in the country where they were hunting and/or the US. A lawful hunt in an African country does not result in a Lacey Act violation simply because the animal cannot be imported.

Larry,
A lot of people think this. But read the Lacey Act. If the animals are listed as endangered under The Endangered Species Act of the USA...it can possibly be used to prosecute them just for hunting them. It has never been used in this manner...thus no case law for it. But the letter of the law allows for it.

Being included on some "info" during the run up to the lion up-list...I have seen memos speaking and advocating for such by prosecutors.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Andrew you are trying to apply logic and reason to a matter that is being addressed politically. Give it up. To me this should be a simple matter. The United States is a party to the CITES Convention. As a party to CITES we should make our views and position known to the Convention and then be prepared to accept the ultimate determination by the Convention. If we are not prepared to do this, we should withdraw from CITES. To do otherwise is disrespectful. Why CITES listens to anything we have to say is a mystery to me since it is clear that we have no respect for the international body. Our problem is that we like to give lip service to being a responsible member of the international community and to working with other countries to address global issues when in truth and fact we feel that we know what is best for everyone else in terms of dealing with their problems. Pretty darn arrogant.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
It could be good news or bad news.

Honestly, I agree with some of what they are saying . Populations of say lions are not uniform throughout say Zimbabwe. The BVC should be allowed a quota. Some areas perhaps should not due to much lower populations. I get that .

I have inquiries out to people who will know.