quote:

The holiness of Zim PHs, so often touted on this forum, is a myth. I have run into more than one Zim PH/operator who will do anything he thinks he can get away with to make money.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
To me there are two issues here.

The regulation and the enforcement.

In general, I don't have an issue with tougher regulations of hunting. I do have an issue with noted scofflaws going off and hunting...have a felony related to hunting? Well, I don't give a crap that you can legally own a bow, you should not be allowed to hunt period. If a nation has a problem with their hunting rules, then a reasoned approach to trying to get compliance with CITIES and other rules should be made.

My issue with what happened to lion hunting is that USFWS has been using regulatory rules to push an agenda and they keep doing so. Polar bear have excellent data available, and the Inuit people have wanted the money to help with the bear and protecting them, yet USFWS has a political hot issue of "climate change" that they are using as justification to ignore the scientific data on the bears. They will likely continue to do the same with lion and leopard.

Face it, leopard are a success story for hunting, yet they are trying to utilize something that can obstensively be a reasonable regulation to hamper what brought them back from the brink.

Elephant were also brought back via hunting related conservation in the 80's.

Lion, well, the best scientific data is that off take of older males makes no impact on the populations and all the wild lion range states are implementing a set of regulations that follow this, so that you would think that the USFWS would not be stating things about banning lion hunting in these areas.

I also somewhat expect that canned shooting will find a loophole here, after all, it is agricultural product not a wild animal that is being slaughtered for its hide and other products.

Really, the problem is that USFWS has shown itself to be too much in the hands of a small subset of vocal ideologues and the traditional checks and balances have been removed in the US. It has gotten to the point where no one really trusts the government to be fair... On either side (occupy Wall Street and black lives matter are examples on the left; Trump's campaign rhetoric and the NRA on the right as examples) and while it's a shame, it is also why the country was founded on minimalist government.

Unfortunately, it looks like to get reasonable behavior in this area we need to elect republicans for a couple decades, which historically has not happened since FDR.

Really this whole topic is more political than anything else. The scientists all seem to agree that habitat erosion is the main culprit of wildlife decline, yet they are unwilling to state that and hunting is the single best way of funding habitat conservation publically due to the political leanings of the folks that support their organizations.

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
In related news, eBay and I assume the like, have already adjusted their position on buying and selling of lion rugs/skulls/mounts due to the new listing. It's already happening

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
To me there are two issues here.

The regulation and the enforcement.

In general, I don't have an issue with tougher regulations of hunting. I do have an issue with noted scofflaws going off and hunting...have a felony related to hunting? Well, I don't give a crap that you can legally own a bow, you should not be allowed to hunt period. If a nation has a problem with their hunting rules, then a reasoned approach to trying to get compliance with CITIES and other rules should be made.

My issue with what happened to lion hunting is that USFWS has been using regulatory rules to push an agenda and they keep doing so. Polar bear have excellent data available, and the Inuit people have wanted the money to help with the bear and protecting them, yet USFWS has a political hot issue of "climate change" that they are using as justification to ignore the scientific data on the bears. They will likely continue to do the same with lion and leopard.

Face it, leopard are a success story for hunting, yet they are trying to utilize something that can obstensively be a reasonable regulation to hamper what brought them back from the brink.

Elephant were also brought back via hunting related conservation in the 80's.

Lion, well, the best scientific data is that off take of older males makes no impact on the populations and all the wild lion range states are implementing a set of regulations that follow this, so that you would think that the USFWS would not be stating things about banning lion hunting in these areas.

I also somewhat expect that canned shooting will find a loophole here, after all, it is agricultural product not a wild animal that is being slaughtered for its hide and other products.

Really, the problem is that USFWS has shown itself to be too much in the hands of a small subset of vocal ideologues and the traditional checks and balances have been removed in the US. It has gotten to the point where no one really trusts the government to be fair... On either side (occupy Wall Street and black lives matter are examples on the left; Trump's campaign rhetoric and the NRA on the right as examples) and while it's a shame, it is also why the country was founded on minimalist government.

Unfortunately, it looks like to get reasonable behavior in this area we need to elect republicans for a couple decades, which historically has not happened since FDR.

Really this whole topic is more political than anything else. The scientists all seem to agree that habitat erosion is the main culprit of wildlife decline, yet they are unwilling to state that and hunting is the single best way of funding habitat conservation publically due to the political leanings of the folks that support their organizations.

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:
This effectively kills lion hunting for US citizens. Sure if you want to pay $125K and leave your skin behind and take just pictures you can do that.

But how many hunters will take the risk of paying for a $125K lion hunt, killing a lion and then subjecting their trophies to a complex administrative process to import.


Mike

This kind of thinking seems common with people who "trophy hunt". Which IMO is one of the things wrong with our message. Do we hunt to fill up a trophy room? Or do we do it because we enjoying hunting and traveling to far away places and experiencing new things. If not having a stuffed lion in your den is going to stop you from traveling to Africa to experience the hunt of one. Then maybe you aren't really a hunter. Maybe your just a collector. Of course the reasons behind stopping lion imports are ridiculous but that shouldn't stop anyone from hunting one....

I'll be hunting in Tanzania and Mozambique in the next two years. If anyone is hard up for animals to show off in your trophy room let me know. You can have mine.. .

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:
Also hoping a Trump would get elected and force a change to lion or elephant policy is wishful thinking. To change these rules the entire administrative framework has to be changed. Otherwise you will have inconsistent laws - one frame work for everything USFW does and lions and elephants excluded. Very unlikely that ever happens.

Mike,
USF&w is an executive branch agency und the Secretary of Interior which is a Presidential Cabinet position. Whom better to straighten this broken agency out than Don Trump..."your fired!"

In the immortal words of Yogi Berra: "It ain't over...til is over."

Don't be such a defeatist! Maybe you should spend more time in Texas around Texans.

quote:

A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.8 – Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House

Aaron and I told all that this fight was coming beginning in 2010.

As Wyatt Earp told Ike Clanton..."get in the fight or get away!"

quote:

Lane - hopefully in 2016 or 2017 I will own a place in Texas. Then if nothing else I can rent the place out and quote General Sherman - “If I owned Texas and Hell, I would rent out Texas and live in Hell”

quote:

All the wishful thinking of Trump magically changing the USFW ignores the reality of Clinton, specifically Chelsea Clinton, working her magic on making Big 5 hunting even more difficult for US citizens.

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:
I received this alert from SCI not too long ago. Glad to see them step up:

SCI Membership Alert on the FWS African lion listing

On December 21, 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced a final rule to list African lions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The rule, which was published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2015 lists African lions as two separate subspecies – Panthera leo leo, found in western and central Africa, and Panthera leo melanochaita, found in southern and eastern Africa. Lions in western and central Africa will be listed as endangered, while southern and eastern Africa lions will be listed as threatened. The rule goes into effect on January 22, 2016.

Together with the listing rule, the FWS issued a special “4(d) rule” that will require ESA permits for the importation of threatened lions harvested from eastern and southern Africa. These permits will be required for all lions hunted on or after January 22, 2016. The FWS will need to make enhancement findings before they will issue any such permits. It is not yet clear when or how the FWS will issue these permits or make the required determination that hunting and subsequent importation enhances the survival of the species.

According to the FWS, lions hunted before January 22, 2016 will not need an ESA permit for importation. Hunters should ensure that they document the date when their lion was hunted. This can be with a hunting license, notarized letter, or similar official documentation that proves the lion was harvested before January 22, 2016.

Safari Club International is still in the process of reviewing the 230-page listing rule and will provide further information when our analysis is complete. The final rule and additional information can be found here.

In conjunction with the listing, the Director of the FWS, Dan Ashe, has issued Director’s Order 212, which instructs all FWS employees to deny permits to an individual who previously “has been assessed a civil penalty or convicted of any criminal provision of any statute or regulation relating to the activity for which the application is filed.” This provision has not been objectively defined and the administration could construe it as widely as possible as grounds for permit denial.

SCI President Larry Higgins today expressed his displeasure with the Obama Administration’s final listing rule and rule requiring permits to import lions. “Clearly, the White House is attempting to prevent U.S. hunters from engaging in lion hunting,” said Higgins. “We will look to challenge parts of the rule as appropriate, but this battle will not be resolved quickly. The Administration is imposing restrictions and obstacles that will not help lions, but will block U.S. hunters from participating in sustainable use conservation. Sadly, the rural communities of Africa that embrace hunting as part of their local economies will also suffer with the loss of U.S. hunters. As a result, local communities could lose their incentives to participate in lion conservation and as a result more lions will potentially die from poaching, animal control and retaliatory killings than hunters could ever take.”

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:
I received this alert from SCI not too long ago. Glad to see them step up:

SCI Membership Alert on the FWS African lion listing

On December 21, 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced a final rule to list African lions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The rule, which was published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2015 lists African lions as two separate subspecies – Panthera leo leo, found in western and central Africa, and Panthera leo melanochaita, found in southern and eastern Africa. Lions in western and central Africa will be listed as endangered, while southern and eastern Africa lions will be listed as threatened. The rule goes into effect on January 22, 2016.

Together with the listing rule, the FWS issued a special “4(d) rule” that will require ESA permits for the importation of threatened lions harvested from eastern and southern Africa. These permits will be required for all lions hunted on or after January 22, 2016. The FWS will need to make enhancement findings before they will issue any such permits. It is not yet clear when or how the FWS will issue these permits or make the required determination that hunting and subsequent importation enhances the survival of the species.

According to the FWS, lions hunted before January 22, 2016 will not need an ESA permit for importation. Hunters should ensure that they document the date when their lion was hunted. This can be with a hunting license, notarized letter, or similar official documentation that proves the lion was harvested before January 22, 2016.

Safari Club International is still in the process of reviewing the 230-page listing rule and will provide further information when our analysis is complete. The final rule and additional information can be found here.

In conjunction with the listing, the Director of the FWS, Dan Ashe, has issued Director’s Order 212, which instructs all FWS employees to deny permits to an individual who previously “has been assessed a civil penalty or convicted of any criminal provision of any statute or regulation relating to the activity for which the application is filed.” This provision has not been objectively defined and the administration could construe it as widely as possible as grounds for permit denial.

SCI President Larry Higgins today expressed his displeasure with the Obama Administration’s final listing rule and rule requiring permits to import lions. “Clearly, the White House is attempting to prevent U.S. hunters from engaging in lion hunting,” said Higgins. “We will look to challenge parts of the rule as appropriate, but this battle will not be resolved quickly. The Administration is imposing restrictions and obstacles that will not help lions, but will block U.S. hunters from participating in sustainable use conservation. Sadly, the rural communities of Africa that embrace hunting as part of their local economies will also suffer with the loss of U.S. hunters. As a result, local communities could lose their incentives to participate in lion conservation and as a result more lions will potentially die from poaching, animal control and retaliatory killings than hunters could ever take.”

SCI and all their wisdom is the reason we are dealing with this!

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:
I received this alert from SCI not too long ago. Glad to see them step up:

SCI Membership Alert on the FWS African lion listing

On December 21, 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced a final rule to list African lions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The rule, which was published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2015 lists African lions as two separate subspecies – Panthera leo leo, found in western and central Africa, and Panthera leo melanochaita, found in southern and eastern Africa. Lions in western and central Africa will be listed as endangered, while southern and eastern Africa lions will be listed as threatened. The rule goes into effect on January 22, 2016.

Together with the listing rule, the FWS issued a special “4(d) rule” that will require ESA permits for the importation of threatened lions harvested from eastern and southern Africa. These permits will be required for all lions hunted on or after January 22, 2016. The FWS will need to make enhancement findings before they will issue any such permits. It is not yet clear when or how the FWS will issue these permits or make the required determination that hunting and subsequent importation enhances the survival of the species.

According to the FWS, lions hunted before January 22, 2016 will not need an ESA permit for importation. Hunters should ensure that they document the date when their lion was hunted. This can be with a hunting license, notarized letter, or similar official documentation that proves the lion was harvested before January 22, 2016.

Safari Club International is still in the process of reviewing the 230-page listing rule and will provide further information when our analysis is complete. The final rule and additional information can be found here.

In conjunction with the listing, the Director of the FWS, Dan Ashe, has issued Director’s Order 212, which instructs all FWS employees to deny permits to an individual who previously “has been assessed a civil penalty or convicted of any criminal provision of any statute or regulation relating to the activity for which the application is filed.” This provision has not been objectively defined and the administration could construe it as widely as possible as grounds for permit denial.

SCI President Larry Higgins today expressed his displeasure with the Obama Administration’s final listing rule and rule requiring permits to import lions. “Clearly, the White House is attempting to prevent U.S. hunters from engaging in lion hunting,” said Higgins. “We will look to challenge parts of the rule as appropriate, but this battle will not be resolved quickly. The Administration is imposing restrictions and obstacles that will not help lions, but will block U.S. hunters from participating in sustainable use conservation. Sadly, the rural communities of Africa that embrace hunting as part of their local economies will also suffer with the loss of U.S. hunters. As a result, local communities could lose their incentives to participate in lion conservation and as a result more lions will potentially die from poaching, animal control and retaliatory killings than hunters could ever take.”

SCI and all their wisdom is the reason we are dealing with this!

In all fairness only one of the reasons but they do seem to be asleep at the wheel more often than not.

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
In related news, eBay and I assume the like, have already adjusted their position on buying and selling of lion rugs/skulls/mounts due to the new listing. It's already happening

Explain please.

quote:

Nevertheless, with politics and all being what they are, do you really think that Panthera et al would have stuck by us after the s-storm that was Cecil and the current administration looking for things it can stick to those who have a differing world view?

quote:

To all who are being very negative; I think this is a big hurdle, but the fight is certainly not done. Politically, this could all be reversed by an administration that just says we have to aide by a treaty we signed and ratified (CITES). None of this is a law, it is all administrative rules- which can be changed as much at whim as it was placed...

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
The problem I see in undoing these actions later is that it creates a very awkward political situation, one most politicians are reluctant to take on. It is much easier politically to keep something from happening or to do nothing. It is a much more difficult political position to be in to reverse an action already taken . . . particularly if the action involves hunting lions or elephants. Who wants to be the politician that allowed folks to start hunting elephant or lion again when they were prohibited from doing so previously? I am not saying the actions of the USFWS could not be reversed, but the political dynamic is much more difficult to reverse the action than to prevent it in the first instance. Not sure there is going to be a long line of politicians (Trump included Lane) willing to stand up and say I am the person responsible for allowing trophy hunters to hunt animals that most voters feel, rightfully or wrongfully, as being entitled to protection. So a politician takes action to appease a handful of trophy hunters and risks alienating a whole bunch of non-hunters. That is why it is tough for me to be very sanguine that this action or the elephant importation ban are likely to be reversed anytime soon if ever.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
The problem I see in undoing these actions later is that it creates a very awkward political situation, one most politicians are reluctant to take on. It is much easier politically to keep something from happening or to do nothing. It is a much more difficult political position to be in to reverse an action already taken . . . particularly if the action involves hunting lions or elephants. Who wants to be the politician that allowed folks to start hunting elephant or lion again when they were prohibited from doing so previously? I am not saying the actions of the USFWS could not be reversed, but the political dynamic is much more difficult to reverse the action than to prevent it in the first instance. Not sure there is going to be a long line of politicians (Trump included Lane) willing to stand up and say I am the person responsible for allowing trophy hunters to hunt animals that most voters feel, rightfully or wrongfully, as being entitled to protection. So a politician takes action to appease a handful of trophy hunters and risks alienating a whole bunch of non-hunters. That is why it is tough for me to be very sanguine that this action or the elephant importation ban are likely to be reversed anytime soon if ever.

While I agree with every bit of your logic above Mike...Trump and maybe Cruz...is still the best bet at reversing the USF&WS actions.

And if we would get off our asses and get out and educate the public on what Africa is like in reality...we might win some support...and I agree that the NRA is the likely org to help us do that.

quote:

Originally posted by tom ferry:
I will go back to Africa and I will hunt but it wont be a lion hunt and even if I wanted to because of this situation in a few years there may not be enough lions to hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
The problem I see in undoing these actions later is that it creates a very awkward political situation, one most politicians are reluctant to take on. It is much easier politically to keep something from happening or to do nothing. It is a much more difficult political position to be in to reverse an action already taken . . . particularly if the action involves hunting lions or elephants. Who wants to be the politician that allowed folks to start hunting elephant or lion again when they were prohibited from doing so previously? I am not saying the actions of the USFWS could not be reversed, but the political dynamic is much more difficult to reverse the action than to prevent it in the first instance. Not sure there is going to be a long line of politicians (Trump included Lane) willing to stand up and say I am the person responsible for allowing trophy hunters to hunt animals that most voters feel, rightfully or wrongfully, as being entitled to protection. So a politician takes action to appease a handful of trophy hunters and risks alienating a whole bunch of non-hunters. That is why it is tough for me to be very sanguine that this action or the elephant importation ban are likely to be reversed anytime soon if ever.

While I agree with every bit of your logic above Mike...Trump and maybe Cruz...is still the best bet at reversing the USF&WS actions.

And if we would get off our asses and get out and educate the public on what Africa is like in reality...we might win some support...and I agree that the NRA is the likely org to help us do that.

Lane even your fantasy candidate trump will not stand up and support repealing the ban on elephant hunting. After the picture from mother jones you like to post became public he distanced himself from his sons - supports their activities does not understand why they do it.

If you think any politician is going to step into the land mine of trophy hunting elephants and lions and make it part of any political platform we are being delusional.

Hunting elephants and lions has gone from a legal but socially questionable activity to now being for all purposes illegal (import of trophies) and social questionable/unacceptable. If you think any politician will jump on the bandwagon of elephant and lion hunting ask yourself why you don't post pictures of yourself cutting dead elephant tails on your social media accounts? It's bad for business and even worse for political campaing. Even trump with the bat sh@t crazy comments won't step into this minefield.

Once these things get on the books they are very tough to repeal - cheetah, moz elephants ect - they never come off. Getting them on is tough and getting them off is tougher. Why Dr. Palmer and Cecil was a wet dream for the antis. But now we hear nothing from if it's legal do it crowd - laws change their are not written in stone. Offend enough people with questionable behavior and there will be legal and political ramifications.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
The problem I see in undoing these actions later is that it creates a very awkward political situation, one most politicians are reluctant to take on. It is much easier politically to keep something from happening or to do nothing. It is a much more difficult political position to be in to reverse an action already taken . . . particularly if the action involves hunting lions or elephants. Who wants to be the politician that allowed folks to start hunting elephant or lion again when they were prohibited from doing so previously? I am not saying the actions of the USFWS could not be reversed, but the political dynamic is much more difficult to reverse the action than to prevent it in the first instance. Not sure there is going to be a long line of politicians (Trump included Lane) willing to stand up and say I am the person responsible for allowing trophy hunters to hunt animals that most voters feel, rightfully or wrongfully, as being entitled to protection. So a politician takes action to appease a handful of trophy hunters and risks alienating a whole bunch of non-hunters. That is why it is tough for me to be very sanguine that this action or the elephant importation ban are likely to be reversed anytime soon if ever.

While I agree with every bit of your logic above Mike...Trump and maybe Cruz...is still the best bet at reversing the USF&WS actions.

And if we would get off our asses and get out and educate the public on what Africa is like in reality...we might win some support...and I agree that the NRA is the likely org to help us do that.

Lane even your fantasy candidate trump will not stand up and support repealing the ban on elephant hunting. After the picture from mother jones you like to post became public he distanced himself from his sons - supports their activities does not understand why they do it.

If you think any politician is going to step into the land mine of trophy hunting elephants and lions and make it part of any political platform we are being delusional.

Hunting elephants and lions has gone from a legal but socially questionable activity to now being for all purposes illegal (import of trophies) and social questionable/unacceptable. If you think any politician will jump on the bandwagon of elephant and lion hunting ask yourself why you don't post pictures of yourself cutting dead elephant tails on your social media accounts? It's bad for business and even worse for political campaing. Even trump with the bat sh@t crazy comments won't step into this minefield.

Once these things get on the books they are very tough to repeal - cheetah, moz elephants ect - they never come off. Getting them on is tough and getting them off is tougher. Why Dr. Palmer and Cecil was a wet dream for the antis. But now we hear nothing from if it's legal do it crowd - laws change their are not written in stone. Offend enough people with questionable behavior and there will be legal and political ramifications.

Mike

Mike,
You forget one simple fact in your analysis. These are NOT laws voted on by congress and ratified by Presidential signature. They are executive branch agency rules. It does not take spending any political capital to appoint a hunting friendly Secretary of Inerior and then bring them into the Oval Office and tell them to begin reversing the mentality at USF&W. It can be done under the radar just as all the anti-hunting policy has been implemented.

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
The problem I see in undoing these actions later is that it creates a very awkward political situation, one most politicians are reluctant to take on. It is much easier politically to keep something from happening or to do nothing. It is a much more difficult political position to be in to reverse an action already taken . . . particularly if the action involves hunting lions or elephants. Who wants to be the politician that allowed folks to start hunting elephant or lion again when they were prohibited from doing so previously? I am not saying the actions of the USFWS could not be reversed, but the political dynamic is much more difficult to reverse the action than to prevent it in the first instance. Not sure there is going to be a long line of politicians (Trump included Lane) willing to stand up and say I am the person responsible for allowing trophy hunters to hunt animals that most voters feel, rightfully or wrongfully, as being entitled to protection. So a politician takes action to appease a handful of trophy hunters and risks alienating a whole bunch of non-hunters. That is why it is tough for me to be very sanguine that this action or the elephant importation ban are likely to be reversed anytime soon if ever.

While I agree with every bit of your logic above Mike...Trump and maybe Cruz...is still the best bet at reversing the USF&WS actions.

And if we would get off our asses and get out and educate the public on what Africa is like in reality...we might win some support...and I agree that the NRA is the likely org to help us do that.

Lane even your fantasy candidate trump will not stand up and support repealing the ban on elephant hunting. After the picture from mother jones you like to post became public he distanced himself from his sons - supports their activities does not understand why they do it.

If you think any politician is going to step into the land mine of trophy hunting elephants and lions and make it part of any political platform we are being delusional.

Hunting elephants and lions has gone from a legal but socially questionable activity to now being for all purposes illegal (import of trophies) and social questionable/unacceptable. If you think any politician will jump on the bandwagon of elephant and lion hunting ask yourself why you don't post pictures of yourself cutting dead elephant tails on your social media accounts? It's bad for business and even worse for political campaing. Even trump with the bat sh@t crazy comments won't step into this minefield.

Once these things get on the books they are very tough to repeal - cheetah, moz elephants ect - they never come off. Getting them on is tough and getting them off is tougher. Why Dr. Palmer and Cecil was a wet dream for the antis. But now we hear nothing from if it's legal do it crowd - laws change their are not written in stone. Offend enough people with questionable behavior and there will be legal and political ramifications.

Mike

Mike,
You forget one simple fact in your analysis. These are NOT laws voted on by congress and ratified by Presidential signature. They are executive branch agency rules. It does not take spending any political capital to appoint a hunting friendly Secretary of Inerior and then bring them into the Oval Office and tell them to begin reversing the mentality at USF&W. It can be done under the radar just as all the anti-hunting policy has been implemented.

Why was Cheetah not removed one day by the republican administration or Moz elephant or Polar Bear added.

The administrative law process is complex. There is a reason why Obama administration did not add lion or elephants day 1. Both these restrictions have foundations in complex rule making - requirements from African governments of proper game management ect.

These administrative laws don't get repealed on the quite cause there are much broader ramifications for all administrative rule making across many more important issues than lion or elephant hunting.

Why these rules are complex to implement and even more complex to repeal.

Hope a republican administration repeals these rules is wishful thinking. A republican administration would definitely help slow the implementation of new rules. But I don't think lion and elephant rules get changed till African governments get their house in order - poaching control. wildlife management, corruption in hunting industry ect.

Mike

quote:

Believe it or not mate we need to make an income.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

So far, what has been proposed MAY change little except to cut back the number of folks looking at a Lion hunt in the next year or two- If USFWS looks at this as if the country has a 6 year rule, and treats it like Leopard more or less, it may be a bureaucratic issue with a $100 piece of paper. I hope that is all it is. Yes, there could be some issues for folks who have run afoul of the game laws and are listed with the multistate violation registry...but I suspect this number is quite small. Most of us obey the game laws.

quote:

Originally posted by Use Enough Gun:
According to Ashehole you wouldn't be able to get an import permit for ANYTHING.

quote:

Originally posted by Use Enough Gun:
According to Ashehole you wouldn't be able to get an import permit for ANYTHING.

quote:

Originally posted by Use Enough Gun:
Frostbite: That he is. What you see is what you get. He came and spoke at SCI's wildlife legal seminar a few years back and what a condescending dick. He had a gaggle of fully uniformed USFWS officers with him and they sat in front of me. He smugly informed us at that time that big changes were coming to ele hunting and he knew what they were but he was not going to discuss them with us. Then he went on to lecture us about the fact that we needed to be involved in anti-poaching. He was clueless and eventually John Jackson challenged him on some issues and made him look like the total ass that he was. You could feel a whole mood change come over the room from one of listening to one of anger, disgust and defiance. I believe that he hates hunters.