quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
...I believe the hunter just loses his trophy.

Would this be the right thing to do? What is everyone's opinion?

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
...I believe the hunter just loses his trophy.

Would this be the right thing to do? What is everyone's opinion?

I believe the hunter should be able to keep the trophy after all the lion is dead. Maybe loss of the the privilaedge of getting a new lion license for 5 years or somehting like that.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Bwanamich:

quote:
Originally posted by ledvm:
...I believe the hunter just loses his trophy.



Would this be the right thing to do? What is everyone's opinion?


I believe the hunter should be able to keep the trophy after all the lion is dead. Maybe loss of the the privilaedge of getting a new lion license for 5 years or somehting like that.

J. Lane Easter, DVM
DRSS

No doubt, the above is a more rational "penalty", particularly for something that cannot be proven. Although, keep in mind, If the hunter is penalized, It must be because something was done illegally, and If he imported that trophy into the States, they would be commiting a Lacey Act Violation, oh, what a tangled web we weave...

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
...I believe the hunter just loses his trophy.

Would this be the right thing to do? What is everyone's opinion?

I believe the hunter should be able to keep the trophy after all the lion is dead. Maybe loss of the the privilaedge of getting a new lion license for 5 years or somehting like that.

There are certainly hunters that go on more than one Lion hunt, successful or not. But I think there are more that would only go for one successful Lion hunt. If the hunter gets the trophy a five year ban would not account for much of a penalty IMHO

It may seem harsh to lose the trophy but if you actually want the 6 year rule inforced then that would be the proper action.

In Alaska if you shoot a 49 1/2 inch Moose in a 50 inch area you are SOL. You took an illegal animal and you will pay the price. It certainly makes you count brow tines more than guess a width.

quote:

It may seem harsh to lose the trophy but if you actually want the 6 year rule inforced then that would be the proper action.

In Alaska if you shoot a 49 1/2 inch Moose in a 50 inch area you are SOL. You took an illegal animal and you will pay the price. It certainly makes you count brow tines more than guess a width.

There is a substantial difference here, the 49 1/2" moose can be measured and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, the 5 or 6 year old lions age cannot.

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:

quote:

It may seem harsh to lose the trophy but if you actually want the 6 year rule inforced then that would be the proper action.

In Alaska if you shoot a 49 1/2 inch Moose in a 50 inch area you are SOL. You took an illegal animal and you will pay the price. It certainly makes you count brow tines more than guess a width.

There is a substantial difference here, the 49 1/2" moose can be measured and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, the 5 or 6 year old lions age cannot.

Could be true Brad but just like making the call on the Moose before a tape is placed on it I think if I were Lion hunting in TZ with the 6 year old rule I would probably not shoot anything that didn't look like it was in an extended care facility.

quote:

Could be true Brad but just like making the call on the Moose before a tape is placed on it I think if I were Lion hunting in TZ with the 6 year old rule I would probably not shoot anything that didn't look like it was in an extended care facility.

Understood, would this not make it more attractive to hunt elsewhere, like Zambia?

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:

quote:

Could be true Brad but just like making the call on the Moose before a tape is placed on it I think if I were Lion hunting in TZ with the 6 year old rule I would probably not shoot anything that didn't look like it was in an extended care facility.

Understood, would this not make it more attractive to hunt elsewhere, like Zambia?

Zambia is likely soon to follow...but likely with a 5 year old rule.

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:

quote:

Could be true Brad but just like making the call on the Moose before a tape is placed on it I think if I were Lion hunting in TZ with the 6 year old rule I would probably not shoot anything that didn't look like it was in an extended care facility.

Understood, would this not make it more attractive to hunt elsewhere, like Zambia?

What a marvelous idea. I think I'll do it this June.

So far just 3 opinions; 2 for the export of a non-suitable trophy and 1 against.

Q:- So if a non-suitable trophy (i.e. a lion deemed under 6 by the authorities) is allowed to be exported by a US client, are they prosecutable by the Lacey Act?

Here is my opinion - A client should be allowed to export his non-suitable trophy if they so wish. However, the authorities should inform the client that his lion was deemed under 6 with a short educational note on the potential consequences of that action. At the same time, Hunting orgs such as RW, CIC and SCI are to be notified courteously with the intention that such a trophy will not be considered for entry into a trophy record book.

I am not an attorney, have not played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...so take this FWIW!

It seems to me that if the TZ government allowed export and did not deem the "hunter" in violation of a law...the Lacey Act would not kick in.

Will check on that. Perhaps "Blanco County" or "Safari Lawyer" might chime in and opine???

quote:

Here is my opinion - A client should be allowed to export his non-suitable trophy if they so wish. However, the authorities should inform the client that his lion was deemed under 6 with a short educational note on the potential consequences of that action. At the same time, Hunting orgs such as RW, CIC and SCI are to be notified courteously with the intention that such a trophy will not be considered for entry into a trophy record book.

Mich,
Your above plan seems logical and rational to me...but...I believe it should also be coupled with the loss of the ability to purchase a lion license/hunt for a significant period of time as well...to keep the hunter from just going back and shooting a new trophy that can be recognized. I think this will lessen the likelihood for someone to roll-the-dice on a marginal animal.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I am not an attorney, have not played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...so take this FWIW!

It seems to me that if the TZ government allowed export and did not deem the "hunter" in violation of a law...the Lacey Act would not kick in.

Will check on that. Perhaps "Blanco County" or "Safari Lawyer" might chime in and opine???

I'm not a lawyer either but it seems that the client would have broken the law for shooting a non suitable lion (under 6) but is still being allowed to keep the trophy once the penalties have been paid for?

I vote "No" on permitting the hunter to import an unsuitable lion trophy. A non-importation rule would add "teeth" to the regulations, if you'll pardon the pun.

Both the lion hunter and his PH - and I would say even the outfitter - should have skin in the game.

If a hunter knows that he will not be allowed to import a trophy deemed unsuitable, he will be inclined to educate himself about the best means of aging lions in the field.

He will also be inclined to have a frank discussion with his outfitter and PH at the outset of his safari. Who should rightly have to pay the trophy fee for a lion that is deemed shootable by the PH, but later deemed unsuitable by the authorities? The hunter? The PH? The outfitter? Should it be paid 50-50 by the hunter and the outfitter?

These are interesting questions to me. My sense is that the hunter should have to pay at least something - after all, he pulls the trigger. And he should not be able to import an underaged lion trophy.

These rules, coupled with the PH sanctions already in the regulations, would strengthen the disincentives to the taking of young and unsuitable lions.

Lion hunters will be very careful about accepting a PH's recommendation under such regulations, and will hold back unless the trophy is pretty close to a sure thing.

Andrew Holmberg once wrote that he never even had to think about trophy quality when guiding hunters. That was because he disregarded anything questionable. Anything he recommended shooting was an obvious trophy, the quality of which fairly screamed "SHOOT ME!"

I like that standard, but these days it would mean coming home empty handed from many a lion hunt. Hunters need to know, understand and accept that, for the good of the game.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I am not an attorney, have not played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...so take this FWIW!

It seems to me that if the TZ government allowed export and did not deem the "hunter" in violation of a law...the Lacey Act would not kick in.

Will check on that. Perhaps "Blanco County" or "Safari Lawyer" might chime in and opine???

I'm not a lawyer either but it seems that the client would have broken the law for shooting a non suitable lion (under 6) but is still being allowed to keep the trophy once the penalties have been paid for?

Mich,
If this is the case...the hunter would be subject to prosecution in US by USF&W under the Lacey Act.