posted 26 March 2015 21:27
The USFWS has approved a permit for the import of a Black Rhino trophy from a hunt (yet to be taken) auctioned at the DSC 2014 convention.
USFWS did the right thing on this.

Service Announces Decisions on Import of Sport-Hunted Trophies to Further Conservation of Rhinos and Elephants
Authorizes Imports with Clear Conservation Benefits, Denies Those Without
March 26, 2015

Contact(s):

Laury Parramore
Laury_parramore@fws.gov
703-358-2541

Based on extensive assessments of the conservation and management programs of black rhinos in Namibia and elephants in Zimbabwe, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has found that the import of two sport-hunted black rhinoceros trophies from Namibia will benefit conservation of the species, while the import of any elephant sport-hunted trophy from Zimbabwe will not. Under the Endangered Species Act, the Service authorizes imports for sport-hunted trophies of elephants and rhinos only when hunting in the country of origin is well-regulated, sustainable and benefits conservation of the species in question.

“United States citizens make up a disproportionately large share of foreign hunters who book trophy hunts in Africa,” said Service Director Dan Ashe. “That gives us a powerful tool to support countries that are managing wildlife populations in a sustainable manner and incentivize others to strengthen their conservation and management programs.”

The black rhino hunts associated with the imports of two sport-hunted trophies are consistent with the conservation strategy of Namibia, a country whose rhino population is steadily increasing, and will generate a combined total of $550,000 for wildlife conservation, anti-poaching efforts and community development programs in Namibia.

Namibia’s Black Rhinoceros Conservation Strategy concentrates on maximizing population growth rates through biological management and range expansion, with an overall goal of increasing Namibia’s black rhino population by at least five percent per year. Under this strategy,

Namibia’s black rhino population more than doubled between 2001 and 2012. Local communities are an integral part of this strategy and receive direct benefits from the presence of black rhinos, thereby providing a disincentive to poaching.

In North America, trophy game hunting has led to the restoration of the white-tailed deer, elk, moose and a number of other species. As the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and other international wildlife management and conservation organizations recognize, well-managed wildlife programs that include limited, sustainable sport hunting can and have provided significant long-term benefits to the populations of many species. By law, the Service cannot and will not allow trophies of certain protected species into the United States that were hunted in any nation whose conservation program fails to meet high standards for transparency, scientific management and effectiveness.

Annually, Namibia’s management plan for black rhinos allows the harvest of five males, a decision that has also been supported by the member countries of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Although these rhinos may still be physically capable of reproducing, they are presumed to be genetically well-represented in the population and their removal may provide the opportunity for younger, less dominant males to reproduce, leading to a possible population increase.

“The future of Africa’s wildlife is threatened by poaching and illegal wildlife trade, not responsible, scientifically managed sport hunting,” said Ashe. “We remain committed to combating heinous wildlife crimes while supporting activities that empower and encourage local communities to be a part of the solution.”


In contrast to Namibia’s exemplary management and conservation program for black rhinos, Zimbabwe’s elephant management plan primarily consists of two outdated documents that lack information on their implementation and the progress made toward meeting stated goals and objectives. Although Zimbabwe has recently made strides in gathering data on its elephant population, it still does not have adequate information to establish scientifically defensible hunting quotas. For 2015, Zimbabwe has set its own export quota for elephant sport-hunted trophies at 500 individuals, but it’s unclear how that number was decided and if biological factors were taken into account.

Due to the inadequacy of information on Zimbabwe’s elephant management program, as well as lingering questions about law enforcement and the use of hunting revenues, a suspension on the import of elephant trophies from Zimbabwe has been in place for trophies taken on or after April 4, 2014. Today the Service announced this suspension extends into 2015 and indefinitely into the future. The Service could reconsider this suspension if information is received that documents that the situation in Zimbabwe meets the criteria established under the ESA.


During a 30-day public comment period on the import of two black rhino trophies hunted in Namibia, the Service received more than 15,000 individual comments and more than 135,000 petition signatures. The Service reviewed each of those comments for scientific or technical information to inform its decision and carefully considered the concerns and perspectives of commenters.

For more information on the decision to authorize the import of two sport-hunted black rhinoceros trophies hunted in Namibia, please refer to: http://www.fws.gov/internation...o-import-permit.html.

For more information on the decision to continue the suspension on the import of sport-hunted elephant trophies hunted in Zimbabwe, please refer to: http://www.fws.gov/internation...-hunted-trophies.pdf.

Well Shit...


Jeff

Disappointing but not surprising. It was a political decision to start with and nothing has changed in the politics to expect a different decision. Roll on 2016.

I really think those with political clout need to work on the USFWS budget. That will get their attention.

Based on what I have seen in Zim over the past 25 years, I would say that the National Parks wildlife management programs have taken a decidedly downward turn. Especially when compared to pre-independence days. Perhaps Zim needs to get its act together!


465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I really think those with political clout need to work on the USFWS budget. That will get their attention.

Not likely. They do not even have the balls to work on the budget for HSE regarding immigration, Obamacare, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Based on what I have seen in Zim over the past 25 years, I would say that the National Parks wildlife management programs have taken a decidedly downward turn. Especially when compared to pre-independence days. Perhaps Zim needs to get its act together!


465H&H

I Would agree 100%.

I first went in 1988. It was a paradise. Places that were fantastic are now barren wastelands in many cases.

Regardless, only an idiot would not realize that there is an overpopulation if elephants in Zim.

What does this mean for Tanzania, if anything? Refresh me, but weren't imports from there banned as well?

Tanzania has no realistic chance of the import ban being lifted in the foreseeable future.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Tanzania has no realistic chance of the import ban being lifted in the foreseeable future.

Jeff

That might not be true.

Didn't the original ban expire 12/31/14? If that is correct, the ban may be lifted for TZ. I didn't see a word about it in this release.

Am I missing something?

500 elephants out of a population of 83000 and they are worrying about that. Well we will see what will happen now as rumors have it that Zim parks are planning on shipping more baby elephant to zoos to try recover cost from lost trophy fees due to the ban. Our parks are broke and need the money so will try get it any possible way.

http://www.huntingreport.com/c...ion_force.cfm?id=353



Dateline: Tanzania - Don’t Blame the Victim, Don’t Punish the Elephant – Conservation Force Argues the Tanzania Suspension at FWS
Written By John J. Jackson III, Conservation Force Chairman & President
(posted March 2015)

By Regina Lennox, Conservation Force Staff Attorney


On Monday, February 2, 2015, Conservation Force met with Dan Ashe, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), to argue our appeal of the denials of three 2014 import permits for elephant trophies from Tanzania and our Requests for Reconsideration of these denials. (SCI's related suit was recently dismissed for failure to first follow this administrative route.)

The oral argument was presented in the Interior Department Building. John Jackson led the argument, and I provided back-up data as needed. Director Ashe was an active participant and asked questions throughout. He was joined by five FWS representatives: Director of International Affairs Bryan Arroyo, Division of Management Authority (DMA) Chief of Permits Tim Van Norman, Division of Scientific Authority (DSA) Branch Chief of Consultation and Monitoring Pam Scruggs, DSA Biologist Mary Cogliano, and DMA Biologist Laura Noguchi. He was also joined by Mr. Russell Husen of the Department of the Interior Solicitor's Office. Ms. Noguchi took notes on the argument.

Below is a short report highlighting our points and summarizing questions asked by Director Ashe. It is not meant to be a transcript of the 80 minute argument.

Summary


Coming into the meeting/oral argument, Conservation Force developed a nuanced theme. Our refrain was "don't blame the victim (Tanzania) and don't blame the elephant." We pointed out that Tanzania had experienced unprecedented, demand-driven poaching starting in early 2010, the magnitude of which caught the country by surprise, like a "perfect storm." We continually reviewed the actions Tanzania has taken and continues to take to fight the poaching. We emphasized the positive results so far.

We also focused on the counter-productiveness of the trophy import suspension. The ban jeopardizes the elephant by cutting off hunting revenue and "boots on the ground" which are essential to Tanzania's conservation strategy. We tried to impress upon Director Ashe that our appeal was not about loss of hunting opportunity, but the hunting was critical to elephant conservation. We also noted that other U.S. agencies, particularly USAID, pledged $40 million+ to Tanzania for 2014 and beyond. With other agencies giving money to Tanzania, it makes no sense for FWS to contradictorily block the generation of critical income.

The negative NDF was flawed - hunting in Tanzania was (and is) sustainable


Our first set of points focused on flaws in the negative February 21, 2014 non-detriment finding (NDF) and its October 7 follow-up, which responded to Conservation Force's May 15, 2014 Request for Reconsideration and July 24, 2014 Supplement. The DSA made its NDFs without ever requesting Tanzania's own non-detriment finding. Not having requested this finding from Tanzania, FWS failed to rely on the "best available" information, and skipped over the customary practice and protocol for such proceedings. Moreover, Conservation Force emphasized that concern about Tanzania's limited hunting offtake is unsupported. Taking into account the apparent decline in the Selous and the Ruaha Rungwa reflected in 2013 surveys, Tanzania's elephant population is still above 64,000. All else being equal, that number is the third largest population in Africa, and 34% larger than the importable elephant populations of South Africa (22,889) and Namibia (25,018) combined. Yet Tanzania's reduced CITES export quota of 100 pairs of tusks is lower than South Africa's (150) and similar to Namibia's (90). In its "Questions and Answers" explaining the trophy import suspension, FWS has stated that it "does not have conservation concerns with the sport hunting of African elephants in Namibia, South Africa, or Botswana." So, how can it have concerns with Tanzania's far lower take-to-population ratio (0.156%) compared to South Africa's or Namibia's?

To further ensure the sustainability of hunting offtake, Tanzania is unique in imposing a "two-tiered" quota. It limits total offtake to a quota and additionally requires trophies to meet strict size limits which were raised in 2014 - at the same time the quota was lowered from 200 to 100 pairs of tusks, in part to address FWS concerns.

We also informed Director Ashe of the "multiplier" effect of elephant hunts. Elephant may only be hunted on 21-day safaris. The success rate for taking an elephant is not especially high: the average number taken from 2011-13 was only 41 per year. In 2014, only 7 elephant were taken. That offtake has a little to no effect on the population growth rate. But hunters pay game, license, daily conservation, and other fees for a 21-day safari. This revenue has far-reaching benefits that far outweigh the limited take. And on an elephant safari, a hunter will typically take other excess game during the 21 days. This generates additional fees that directly pay for management and anti-poaching activities. The hunting is not an "additive" loss; it "saves far more elephant than it takes."

The poaching was unprecedented … but so was the response


Tanzania has a long history of fighting elephant poaching. It lost elephant in the 1970s/1980s, but it won the battle against poaching then and saw its population rebound. However, in 2010, poaching spiked to a never-before-seen level. These poachers were - and are - more motivated, armed and supplied than ever. Carter Roberts, WWF CEO, has said, "We face an unprecedented poaching crisis," and the WWF website reports, "In more than 50 years of conservation, we have never seen wildlife crime on such a scale." This is not Tanzania's fault. Tanzania is the victim.

Tanzania responded to the crisis. Among other things, in 2010, the government launched five anti-poaching operations. In 2011 and 2012, it launched Operations Okoa Tembo I-III. In 2012, the SPANEST project began in the Ruaha Rungwa and reduced poaching by 56% in its first year. Also in 2012, the government revised WMA regulations to provide greater incentives to communities living with wildlife to combat poaching and protect wildlife as assets. It also restored Benson Kibonde as Chief Warden of the Selous Game Reserve. And in 2013, in Operation Tokomeza, Tanzania's military launched a major assault on poachers. The results of the 2013 Selous survey indicate that these efforts worked, and the number of "fresh" carcasses (younger than 18 months) was < 5% of the total number of elephant carcasses counted. Although poaching had been a major problem, it was greatly cut in the past 18 months. The poaching was already turned around before the U.S. trophy import suspension.

Yet Tanzania has not cut its pace. In 2014 alone, among other things, it has:

· Reinstated and ramped up revenue retention in the Selous Game Reserve (fees stay in the Selous)
· Added 501 scouts: 172 are deployed in the Selous in addition to 300 "volunteer wardens" (paid for by hunting operators)
· Added 51 4x4 vehicles, including 8 from the Wildlife Conservation Foundation of Tanzania (WCFT, an NGO founded and supported by hunters)
· Patrolled 422,523 man-days and 339 aerial hours
· Added 5 helicopters and other aircraft, including one micro-light plane donated by WCFT
· Initiated the Tanzania Wildlife Authority (TAWA), which will directly capture the hunting/operating revenue (of course, reduction in revenue handicaps it)
· Trained hundreds of staff, including 50 intelligence officers and 40 at ports/ airports
· Created a National Task Force on intelligence and investigation
· Created a National Strategy to Combat Poaching and Illegal Wildlife Trade supported by a UNDP-administered basket fund, which has generated over $91 million in pledges including $51 million from Germany and $40 million from the U.S. (in the past eight months about $225 million in pledges)
· Held two international summits (May and November)
· Ramped-up operator anti-poaching and community development support, including over $1 million from one operator alone (see below) and another documented $1.1 million more from other elephant area operators

All these actions have shown real results. According to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, poaching incidents decreased by 85% in 2014 compared to 2013. And for the first time since 2004, the Proportion of Illegally Killed Elephant (PIKE) was at or below 0.5 for every site in Tanzania. In other words, Tanzania had the poaching crisis under control well before FWS imposed the trophy import suspension, and it continues to combat the unusual, demand-based poaching at a breakneck pace. So why punish them with an export ban?

Export and the purposes of import are not-detrimental


As we argued to Director Ashe, Tanzania's 2014 non-detriment finding acknowledged challenges facing its elephant population. But it reported on the "mitigation measures" Tanzania has taken, such as halving its export quota. Based on a review of all the data and offsetting challenges and mitigation, the Tanzania scientific authority concluded: "The low level of offtake generated by trophy hunting is not detrimental to the survival [of elephant…] and the amount of revenues generated by this low level of offtake are of critical importance for the conservation of the species."

Under CITES Res. 2.11 (rev.), the DSA should have accepted this finding (had they asked for it). Like Tanzania, FWS should have considered both the "adverse or beneficial" effects of offtake, including "any off-setting benefit for the conservation of the species in the wild" under its own regulations, 72 F.R. 48402. When the limited offtake of 7 elephant is balanced against the conservation revenue and activities, CBNRM incentives, and anti-poaching support generated by safari hunting, the absence of any detriment - and the enhancement to the species - is clear.

Hunting benefits elephant through revenue generation, CBNRM incentives, and anti-poaching

As we argued to Director Ashe, DMA defined "enhancement" in the import permit denial letters. "Enhancement" was defined as "activities that provide a direct benefit to the species being hunted … [which] could include the use of revenue generated by the hunt to support conservation projects or to manage the species… [or activities that] improve human-wildlife conflicts, anti-poaching efforts, or habitat conservation."

Safari hunting provides all these types of benefits. Safari revenue underwrites the conservation and elephant management system. It currently makes up over 90% of the funds for the Tanzania Wildlife Protection Fund. Funding for the new TAWA will also come from user fees, including hunting license, block and concession, and daily conservation fees. TAWA is a parastatal, which means the fees will go directly to its coffers, with no "middleman." In other words, TAWA's ability to effectively conserve wildlife is directly related to the revenue generated from user fees, which means it is directly related to the health of the hunting industry. It will fail without elephant and lion revenue.

Similarly, Tanzania has re-established the Selous Revenue Retention System. Under this system, at least 50% of hunting revenue generated in the Selous game reserve must be retained and spent there. 85% of Selous revenue comes from safari hunting. According to Chief Warden Kibonde, Tanzania has "freed the elephants" in the Selous from poachers by ramping up patrol scouts and volunteers, time spent on patrol, and patrol vehicles and other equipment. All because of hunting.

In our argument, in addition to benefits in protected concession and reserves, we quantified the benefits that hunting generates for WMAs (Wildlife Management Areas). Relying on a 2012 WWF report, we emphasized to the Director that growth of WMAs in Tanzania largely depends on safari hunting. Of the existing 17 WMAs, 13 earn hunting revenue, including annual block fees up to $60,000. WMA guidelines were revised in 2012, and the revisions improved the sharing of revenue down to local communities. Those improvements caused an additional 21 communities to apply for WMA status. These 21 WMAs make up 4% of Tanzania's land mass, and this will be additional wildlife habitat and will expand migration corridors. These communities seek WMA status in large part to take advantage of a greater share of hunting revenue. The correlation between safari hunting revenue, habitat preservation, and CBNRM is clear.

We also described to the Director one example of operator anti-poaching support. Operator Eric Pasanisi and his entities contributed over $914,000 to anti-poaching in 2012/2013, and increased this contribution to over $1 million in 2014. Mr. Pasanisi voluntarily pays the salaries of 100 Selous volunteer wardens to augment the ranger presence, and donates rations, equipment, vehicles, a micro-light airplane, and more. Although we only had time to describe one example in detail, we emphasized to the Director that all hunting operators perform anti-poaching patrols and contribute anti-poaching funds, equipment, etc. A reduction in operator revenue - through acts like the import suspension - takes boots off the ground. That is the opposite of what FWS intended or what anyone wants in a country that faces the unprecedented, demand-driven poaching.

Finally, we pointed out to Director Ashe that the Scientific Division's October 7 NDF acknowledged a list of successes Tanzania achieved, including formation of TAWA (which will be primarily funded by hunting revenue), strengthening WMAs (which will depend to a large part on hunting revenue), and expanding law enforcement capacity (which was paid for with hunting revenue), among others. Apparently DMA, the sister authority to DSA, did not consider these benefits in making the enhancement determination. If it had taken these benefits into account, it is hard to understand how a negative determination could be made. Accordingly, we emphasized that a new enhancement determination is necessary.

Permit denial deprives elephant of enhancement

In conclusion, we provided Director Ashe with a list of losses that will grow if the trophy import suspension remains in effect. Among other things, we pointed to reductions in operating and retention revenue; reductions in voluntary operator contributions and operator anti-poaching patrols; reductions in government incentives; reduction in community/WMA conservation incentives; crippling of the new TAWA; and the punishment of the elephant instead of punishing the poachers. And we quoted the conclusion of an UNESCO/IUCN Reactive Monitoring Mission undertaken in 2013. In evaluating the Selous Game Reserve's (SGR) continued status as a World Heritage Site, the mission concluded:

… the current situation of the African Elephant in SGR has triggered some debate on the appropriateness of commercial (sic) trophy hunting. Given the substantial contribution of hunting revenues to the management and conservation of SGR the banning of commercial (sic) hunting in SGR would be ill-advised and counter-productive in the view of the mission.

Likewise, we emphasized to Director Ashe that a continued FWS trophy import suspension is ill-advised and counter-productive. It "jeopardizes" much needed revenue. It has already affected available revenue (the small offtake of 7 undoubtedly results from an inability to import), and will only do more damage the longer it remains in place. We urged Director Ashe to align FWS with the U.S. agencies who have partnered with Tanzania, such as USAID, rather than standing at odds with them.

Partial Summary of Q&A

Director Ashe asked questions throughout the presentation. Among other things, we explained the difference between the NDF and the DMA enhancement finding, and the difference between the DSA's NDF and Tanzania's NDF. This question arose in part because we noted that DSA ignored protocol in making its NDF without asking for or considering Tanzania's own finding.

Director Ashe asked if hunting continues in Tanzania, and if other wildlife are hunted besides elephant. We re-iterated the multiplier effect of 21-day safaris required for elephant hunting. Many more elephant are hunted than taken, but license and trophy revenue is generated from the extra days mandated and hunters who take other abundant game while in the bush.

When we were describing the example of operator contributions, Director Ashe suggested the import suspension caused operators to step up their contributions. We agreed that it added urgency to anti-poaching efforts; however, Tanzania and its operators were already acting in 2010 and intensifying efforts in 2012 and 2013 as they realized the extent of the poaching siege. FWS cannot take credit for Tanzania's successes.

Director Ashe rhetorically asked when a hunted population experiences a decline in the U.S., don't wildlife authorities shut down hunting. But we disagreed. "Not necessarily." When the duck population declines by tens of millions we don't reduce the quota, much less close the season entirely. The hunting is not the cause and is a net benefit. We don't jeopardize the 13 million acres of wetlands Ducks Unlimited has saved merely because of a decline. We cited an expert report that the worse the poaching, the less relevant the hunting offtake becomes mathematically, but the more important the hunting is to survival and recovery, which hunting accelerates (Rowan Martin).

The Director also asked if Tanzania could be "blindsided" by a poaching perfect storm. We said yes, but once Tanzania confirmed the poaching they conducted military operations in 2010! But the scope of the poaching was unexpected, and a few military maneuvers were not enough to stop it, as in the past. As we explained to Director Ashe, because efforts that had worked in the past did not work in the present, Tanzania needed - and initiated - an unprecedented response and anti-poaching strategy. In the past 6-8 months Tanzania has raised hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance while FWS is "choking" its core funding. No one should blame Tanzania for ivory demand-driven poaching the likes the world has never experienced before.

The Director also now has the benefit of Tanzania's voluminous response to questions FWs sent to Tanzania many months after the suspensions that should have been requested before the suspension. Now FWS has better information, i.e. the "best available information" to properly make sound non-detriment and enhancement determinations in its two respective divisions, DMA and DSA, for 2014 and, of course, for 2015. The final determination for 2014 and 2015, we suspect, will await the pending report on the extensive 2014 aerial surveys, which we expect in a few weeks.

What is abundantly clear is that under the USFWS's decision the animal they are ostensibly seeking to protect, the elephant, will be the real loser. Surely they understand that, they must just not care.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Tanzania has no realistic chance of the import ban being lifted in the foreseeable future.

Jeff

That might not be true.

Didn't the original ban expire 12/31/14? If that is correct, the ban may be lifted for TZ. I didn't see a word about it in this release.

Am I missing something?

My understanding is TZ numbers are so hammered there is no way they are going to allow imports.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
What is abundantly clear is that under the USFWS's decision the animal they are ostensibly seeking to protect, the elephant, will be the real loser. Surely they understand that, they must just not care.

All politics! USFWS is more like the Walt Disney Company..........


.

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


USFWS questions and answers, Zimbabwe & Tanzania.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Tanzania has no realistic chance of the import ban being lifted in the foreseeable future.

Jeff

That might not be true.

Didn't the original ban expire 12/31/14? If that is correct, the ban may be lifted for TZ. I didn't see a word about it in this release.

Am I missing something?

My understanding is TZ numbers are so hammered there is no way they are going to allow imports.

Jeff

I agree but that notice made no mention of TZ.

As I understand Larry, USFWS takes the position that under a special rule applicable to elephant under the Endangered Species Act they have to make an affirmative determination that “the killing of the animal whose trophy is intended for import would enhance survival of the species.” That determination was not made in 2014 for Tanzania and Zimbabwe. So regardless of the "ban" and the expiration of the ban at the end of 2015, USFWS is of the view that absent an enhancement determination by them, trophies cannot be imported. Presumably that explains why the USFWS was not in any great rush to do something for 2015 after December 31. I am not an Endangered Species Act expert by any stretch of the imagination, but the foregoing is my understanding.

I leave for Zim on Sunday, am obviously not happy about this, but I will not let it ruin my trip. Mike, does this mean that you will never get to import the ivory from the bull you shot this year or is it possible that in the future it might be allowed? For now I will take lots of pictures (assuming I am successful on a bull) and measurements and be content with replicas.

I have no idea, but like you I am not going to let actions by some pinheaded group of bureaucrats ruin my day or my hunt. Maybe I will give the tusks to Buzz to put beside his fireplace at home. I sort of view going on the hunt anyway as being the ultimate way to provide a one-fingered salute to the USFWS.

+1

I have one of the last legally imported elephants out of Tanzania and was looking forward to hunting elephant again this October. Guess it's still a wait and see. There is plenty to hunt, just was hoping for elephant.

quote:

Originally posted by Mark Vallaro:
500 elephants out of a population of 83000 and they are worrying about that. Well we will see what will happen now as rumors have it that Zim parks are planning on shipping more baby elephant to zoos to try recover cost from lost trophy fees due to the ban. Our parks are broke and need the money so will try get it any possible way.

I am not sure that was the point

Both Zimbabwe and Tanzania have rampant poaching - more so in Tanzania of course.

I hate it when hunting is targeted by governments, at the same time giving very little for the eradication of poaching, which is the real problem.

I have to wonder if the decision to sell the baby elephants had anything to do with this?

I sort of doubt it Larry. The reality of the situation is that this was done in 2014 to appease animal rights groups. The agency then set about gathering information to support the result they wanted to obtain. It was never about the facts . . . if their decision hinged on having facts, they would have solicited information before even instituting the ban in the first place. What has happened to change the politics since April 2014? Nothing. The change in Congress does not scare the USFWS because they are just pawns of the Administration. So they conclude in 2015 that, guess what, they were right all along. Shocking, not. I am sure they would/could recite all sorts of things in support of their position, including the sale of the baby elephants, but the reality is that is all eye wash in my view.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I sort of doubt it Larry. The reality of the situation is that this was done in 2014 to appease animal rights groups. The agency then set about gathering information to support the result they wanted to obtain. It was never about the facts . . . if their decision hinged on having facts, they would have solicited information before even instituting the ban in the first place. What has happened to change the politics since April 2014? Nothing. The change in Congress does not scare the USFWS because they are just pawns of the Administration. So they conclude in 2015 that, guess what, they were right all along. Shocking, not. I am sure they would/could recite all sorts of things in support of their position, including the sale of the baby elephants, but the reality is that is all eye wash in my view.

150% correct and this started with the lion issue!

I tried to point out this narrative back then.

This is obama throwing the leftist a bone...or really...just letting them have their way to keep them drinking the Kool-aid.

If Sportsmen really want to help their situation...they had better get out and support the GOP in the 2016 presidential bid...USFW is an executive branch pawn.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I sort of doubt it Larry. The reality of the situation is that this was done in 2014 to appease animal rights groups. The agency then set about gathering information to support the result they wanted to obtain. It was never about the facts . . . if their decision hinged on having facts, they would have solicited information before even instituting the ban in the first place. What has happened to change the politics since April 2014? Nothing. The change in Congress does not scare the USFWS because they are just pawns of the Administration. So they conclude in 2015 that, guess what, they were right all along. Shocking, not. I am sure they would/could recite all sorts of things in support of their position, including the sale of the baby elephants, but the reality is that is all eye wash in my view.

Further to a broad point you make Mike. This is there is no real oversight in these glutted goverment beaurucracies. IRS, ATF, USFWS, DHS, FBI... They all have their own culture, momentum and institutional memory. Elected talking heads come and go, but the Alphabets endure.

Jeff

The report does state that the Wildlife Department has not presented the requisite documentation.

We maybe pointing fingers in the wrong direction?

By all accounts Zambia has been awarded a healthy quota of elephant.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
The report does state that the Wildlife Department has not presented the requisite documentation.

We maybe pointing fingers in the wrong direction?

By all accounts Zambia has been awarded a healthy quota of elephant.

I would not agree with this statement. I was in Washington DC last year for SCI's lobby day and met Zimbabwe's Wildlife ministers. They in fact were the only country that sent a diplomatic corp to meet with USFWS. They had closed door meetings with USFWS directors to no avail. Zim is desperate to put this right.But when the deputy director of USFWS is addressing the SCI attendee's and is telling us the bullshit line that legally sport hunted elephant tusks are being used as a cover for massive imports of illegal ivory, you know the deck is stacked against you. Yes I was there. Yes this was recorded

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I sort of doubt it Larry. The reality of the situation is that this was done in 2014 to appease animal rights groups. The agency then set about gathering information to support the result they wanted to obtain. It was never about the facts . . . if their decision hinged on having facts, they would have solicited information before even instituting the ban in the first place. What has happened to change the politics since April 2014? Nothing. The change in Congress does not scare the USFWS because they are just pawns of the Administration. So they conclude in 2015 that, guess what, they were right all along. Shocking, not. I am sure they would/could recite all sorts of things in support of their position, including the sale of the baby elephants, but the reality is that is all eye wash in my view.

Further to a broad point you make Mike. This is there is no real oversight in these glutted goverment beaurucracies. IRS, ATF, USFWS, DHS, FBI... They all have their own culture, momentum and institutional memory. Elected talking heads come and go, but the Alphabets endure.

Jeff

So very true!

Until we get people friendly administration,we are so screwed.
I agree, the oversight of all these departments is a joke

I sent my Senator here an Email explaining my problems with the continued ban.

I got a phone call from one of his aides outlining what Congress is considering doing to reverse some of these attempts at legislation by bureaucratic fiat.

One response is to actually find out the specific individuals/departments at FWS usurping Congress' Constitutionally Mandated powers and either discuss a budget reduction that would have the effect of requiring a significant layoff of personnel; or removing the authority to make such decisions regarding any area pertaining to "Sport Hunting".

The Polar Bear Ban got the ball rolling a year ago.

Email your crew, it has to start with us. And, look what it has accomplished at ATF and for B. Todd Jones career at the Fed level.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
What is abundantly clear is that under the USFWS's decision the animal they are ostensibly seeking to protect, the elephant, will be the real loser. Surely they understand that, they must just not care.

The problem is that to those who believe firmly that hunting is the problem causing animal species to decline, it makes emotional sense to restrict or ban sport hunting. Logic enters in to the equation, but it is flawed logic stemming from a premise that hunting is bad, therefore it must be at fault. I suspect that there are those in FWS who operate from such flawed logic and who make such decisions based upon that faulty premise. Facts do not enter in, only emotion.

quote:

Originally posted by muttleysgone:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
What is abundantly clear is that under the USFWS's decision the animal they are ostensibly seeking to protect, the elephant, will be the real loser. Surely they understand that, they must just not care.

The problem is that to those who believe firmly that hunting is the problem causing animal species to decline, it makes emotional sense to restrict or ban sport hunting. Logic enters in to the equation, but it is flawed logic stemming from a premise that hunting is bad, therefore it must be at fault. I suspect that there are those in FWS who operate from such flawed logic and who make such decisions based upon that faulty premise. Facts do not enter in, only emotion.

USFWS knows full well from the models in the US that sport hunting dollars helps animal populations.

I am afraid that in this instance...USFWS is being used as nothing more than a political pawn.

quote:

The Polar Bear Ban got the ball rolling a year ago.

Rich

Try 7 years ago....

http://www.huntingreport.com/c...nt_issue.cfm?id=1507



Andrew,

Have you heard anything about U.S. hunters being allowed to import Zambia ivory?

Thank you.


Elephant Hunting Reopens, Imports Remain Uncertain
(posted February - 2015)

By Barbara Crown

Still in Zambia, it appears that ZAWA has reopened elephant hunting! We know of at least one operator who has received a permit for one elephant and is expecting a second. Additional permits are said to have been issued to various game ranches. While that is good news, US hunters should be aware that, although US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) allowed the importation of elephant trophies in 2012, that does not mean they will automatically allow elephant taken in 2015 to be imported. The Service will have to make another non-detriment finding for Zambia's elephant....

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

This is obama throwing the leftist a bone...or really...just letting them have their way to keep them drinking the Kool-aid.

If Sportsmen really want to help their situation...they had better get out and support the GOP in the 2016 presidential bid...USFW is an executive branch pawn.

Give the "blame Obama" card a rest. The USFWS routinely screwed us during the Bush administration as well. I will say this again, the real solution here is to vote with your feet. If you can afford to regularly hunt elephant, you can get yourself a cabin in Canada, a condo in Mexico, or a nice apartment in Europe where you can stash unimportable trophies. Then it's probably a good idea to send the USFWS (and your senators/representatives) nice letters with your foreign property tax bills attached noting how your investment decisions (and their revenue stream) have been impacted by their backward policies. Simple petitions and letters are pretty impotent substitutes for generating the sting of lost money in a government official.

quote:

Originally posted by Kathi:
http://www.huntingreport.com/c...nt_issue.cfm?id=1507



Andrew,

Have you heard anything about U.S. hunters being allowed to import Zambia ivory?

Thank you.


Elephant Hunting Reopens, Imports Remain Uncertain
(posted February - 2015)

By Barbara Crown

Still in Zambia, it appears that ZAWA has reopened elephant hunting! We know of at least one operator who has received a permit for one elephant and is expecting a second. Additional permits are said to have been issued to various game ranches. While that is good news, US hunters should be aware that, although US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) allowed the importation of elephant trophies in 2012, that does not mean they will automatically allow elephant taken in 2015 to be imported. The Service will have to make another non-detriment finding for Zambia's elephant....

Not sure.

quote:

“United States citizens make up a disproportionately large share of foreign hunters who book trophy hunts in Africa,” said Service Director Dan Ashe. “That gives us a powerful tool to support countries that are managing wildlife populations in a sustainable manner and incentivize others to strengthen their conservation and management programs.”

"That gives us a powerful tool ..." This statement by Director Ashe pisses me off more than any other of his that I've heard.