The Accurate Reloading Forums
A victory for hunters!! "3 species" update....Oryx, Addax, & Dama Gazelle
19 March 2014, 20:22
Eland SlayerA victory for hunters!! "3 species" update....Oryx, Addax, & Dama Gazelle
Today marks a wonderful accomplishment in the exotic game industry!! The burdensome and irrational federal regulations that were being applied to the hunting and management of privately owned herds of Scimitar Horned Oryx, Addax, and Dama Gazelle have been officially lifted today!! This is a great achievement for the animals themselves....and will ensure the propagation of these species for years to come. None of this would have been possible without the great folks at the Exotic Wildlife Association. We owe them a huge "THANK YOU".
We were up against a large and extremely well-funded group of animal rights activists in this battle, and the fact that we were able to actually win truly shows the dedication of landowners. Kudos to everyone who helped contribute to this great victory.
I have been fortunate to hunt Addax and Oryx in the past, and hope to add Dama Gazelle to the list in the near future. Long live the 3 species!! It's about time something logical came out of Washington.
19 March 2014, 20:44
StonecreekGreat news. Can you provide a reference where we can read the new regulations?
19 March 2014, 20:47
Singleshot03Great news and beautiful trophies. One of these days I hope to hunt them and others.
Jim
19 March 2014, 20:53
Eland SlayerYou can view the official ruling on the Federal Register website here:
https://www.federalregister.go...ion-that-excludes-us19 March 2014, 20:54
impala#03Excellent!! I had heard this was going to happen, I just did not know when. I saw a few Addax last November when hunting in the Brackettville area. Beautiful animals, hope to hunt them some day.
20 March 2014, 03:32
Brian ClarkBeautiful Addax Wade!!!!
20 March 2014, 06:16
graybirdExcellent news! I, too, need only the dama to complete the three.
Graybird
"Make no mistake, it's not revenge he's after ... it's the reckoning."
Finally something good from the Feds!!!!!
.
20 March 2014, 22:03
matt uThis is Good News for the Animals,Landowners,and Hunters.
Thanks to the Exotic Wildlife Association.
20 March 2014, 23:35
Topgun 30-06Finally some friggin common sense coming out of DC!!! I'll bet that hugger broad that got this whole thing changed a couple years is pissed now that it has been reversed!
quote:
I'll bet that hugger broad that got this whole thing changed a couple years is pissed now that it has been reversed
Yep! And I'll also bet that she ain't done yet!
.
25 March 2014, 02:20
Idaho SharpshooterI got a plan. My wife and I had talked about making a trip to Africa together next summer, but she is not big on being there in the blind baiting Leopard. Of course, it's a draw.
I got with my PH and he is going to allot their next Leopard permit for me.
Mamma says to just go hunt Eland and Scimitar Horned Oryx in Texas this fall and save the $$$$ difference for the Leopard.
Rich
Rich- Was it me I'd save the Eland for Africa and maybe do the Oryx and a Dama or Addax in Texas.......you can still hunt Eland where they belong. You would get to keep the meat here in Texas though.....
.
25 March 2014, 04:05
joesterTexas eland steaks, grilled rare, at your own home...Mmm-Mmm. But Africa is also a magical place! Happy hunting.
25 March 2014, 04:27
Eland SlayerUnfortunately, I heard today that "Friends of Animals" has already filed a new lawsuit against this ruling.
I hope the judge reviews the case and tells them to shove it up their collective rears....but who knows? This isn't over yet.
25 March 2014, 21:06
StonecreekSince the new rule was adopted pursuant to a provision of the general appropriations bill and not an amendment to the Endangered Species Act it is on somewhat shaky ground, but it will stand unless and until overturned. Although the merit of the case to overturn the rule will be strictly one of legal technicality, the ensuing litigation will provide both sides some further opportunity to make their respective cases as to what is in the interest of the species in question.
As I recall, the pro-hunting side "won" the original case in terms of what is most beneficial to the species, but the judge felt that there was no legal grounds in statute on which to deny the plaintiff. The fact that Congress has now acted, even if in a technically deficient manner, to reinforce the pro-hunting argument makes the plaintiff's burden somewhat heavier. And the fact that the agency responded to Congressional direction without questioning its legal authenticity arguably also indicates that the agency's view favors hunting as a management tool which is in the interest of propagating the species. Taken together, Congress' view along with the agency view will make a plaintiff's argument on technical legal issues much less persuasive.
But there is a worst case scenario for the endangered animals: 1. Their populations have fallen significantly since the 2012 rule due to ranchers simply turning them loose and animals falling prey to various hazards outside of their previously restricted habitat (auto collisions, illicit shooters, etc.) 2. Ranchers with remaining populations may react by selling all they possibly can to shooters "while it's still legal", thus making for even smaller herds. 3. The plaintiffs subsequently prevail and reverse the legal hunting, at which time the decimated herds are once again "persona non gratia" with the landowners and many are once again turned out to perish. Not a pretty scene. Let's hope for better.
25 March 2014, 21:13
ShackIn the world of the vegan rights fanatics, they see this latest suit in the same light as a last minute stay of execution for a condemned convict...and they'll keep it up until and unless the day comes when the courts put out an order to their clerks offices to refuse to accept more of their paperwork for filing.
..and deep down they're really waiting for Hillary...and hoping they can stall it til then.
25 March 2014, 21:29
Eland Slayerquote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Since the new rule was adopted pursuant to a provision of the general appropriations bill and not an amendment to the Endangered Species Act it is on somewhat shaky ground, but it will stand unless and until overturned. Although the merit of the case to overturn the rule will be strictly one of legal technicality, the ensuing litigation will provide both sides some further opportunity to make their respective cases as to what is in the interest of the species in question.
As I recall, the pro-hunting side "won" the original case in terms of what is most beneficial to the species, but the judge felt that there was no legal grounds in statute on which to deny the plaintiff. The fact that Congress has now acted, even if in a technically deficient manner, to reinforce the pro-hunting argument makes the plaintiff's burden somewhat heavier. And the fact that the agency responded to Congressional direction without questioning its legal authenticity arguably also indicates that the agency's view favors hunting as a management tool which is in the interest of propagating the species. Taken together, Congress' view along with the agency view will make a plaintiff's argument on technical legal issues much less persuasive.
But there is a worst case scenario for the endangered animals: 1. Their populations have fallen significantly since the 2012 rule due to ranchers simply turning them loose and animals falling prey to various hazards outside of their previously restricted habitat (auto collisions, illicit shooters, etc.) 2. Ranchers with remaining populations may react by selling all they possibly can to shooters "while it's still legal", thus making for even smaller herds. 3. The plaintiffs subsequently prevail and reverse the legal hunting, at which time the decimated herds are once again "persona non gratia" with the landowners and many are once again turned out to perish. Not a pretty scene. Let's hope for better.
Good commentary....
However, I do want to remind folks that, even when the animals were under regulation....the animals could still be hunted, but the landowners had to qualify and apply for federal permits (two types: one for breeding and one for culling/hunting). Even though it was possible for landowners to obtain the permits, many simply chose not to due to the over burdensome regulations...and not wanting the feds to have access to their property and hunting operations (who can blame them?)
In all honesty, the Endangered Species Act is long over due to be re-written. These animals are just the tip of the iceberg, and I believe many other species would benefit greatly from a revision of the Act.