Not African hunting but it is international. I thought many here would find this of interest.

-Bob F.



July 19, 2007, 6:34AM

Houston tycoon finds himself in the cross hairs
Dan Duncan could face felony charges after hunting in Russia from a helicopter

By TOM FOWLER
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

A 2002 big game hunting trip in Siberia could bring big trouble for Houston billionaire Dan Duncan.

The 74-year-old founder of pipeline giant Enterprise Products Partners may face criminal charges following his appearance Wednesday before a grand jury in Houston, where he answered questions about the trip he and other hunters took with Russian guides.

During the trip, Duncan shot and killed a moose and a sheep while riding in a helicopter, a practice Duncan said he did not know was illegal in Russia. Neither animal was considered endangered, he said.

Russian officials were aware of the hunting expedition — Duncan's attorney Rusty Hardin said the guide on the trip is now a top official with the Russian Federation's hunting licensing agency — but there were no complaints or charges filed in that country.

Hardin said prosecutors from Washington, D.C., may use the Lacey Act, a 107-year-old law designed to prevent the interstate and international trafficking of rare plants and animals, to bring felony criminal charges against Duncan. If found guilty he could face jail time, Hardin said.

"What the hell is the U.S.' interest in bringing felony charges here for hunting on Russian soil, where not one single person has complained?" Hardin said Wednesday. "Is this really the best use of our prosecutorial resources?"

Government officials could not be reached for comment Wednesday evening.

Duncan is considered the wealthiest man in Houston and ranks 85th on Forbes' worldwide list of billionaires, with an estimated net worth of $8.2 billion. His wealth comes from his role as chairman of the company that manages Enterprise Products Partners, a midstream energy giant with more than 30,000 miles of natural gas, petrochemical and crude oil pipelines and other facilities.

He made headlines last year with a $100 million gift to Baylor College of Medicine, which named a building in his honor.

A native of Center in rural East Texas, Duncan has been a lifelong hunter who got into hunting exotic big game in the 1970s.

The Safari Club International Record Book, which lists the biggest animals ever legally shot, has 550 entries for him.

Duncan said he shot the moose while flying in a helicopter with his Russian guide. He said he assumed it was legal to take such a shot since local guides and outfitters are usually expected to know the local laws.

"They're like marshals on a golf course who tell you if you can take a penalty shot," Duncan said. "They tell the hunter exactly what he can and cannot do, since none of us can know all the laws of all the different countries."

Duncan had hunted with the guide once before, in the Caucasus Mountains in the 1990s, and on that occasion also shot an animal from a helicopter.

"We admitted from the word 'go' that I shot them from the helicopter," he said. "The whole question is: Did I know it was illegal? I did not."

Duncan said the moose was similar to a moose one would find in Alaska but a bit larger, while the sheep is similar to a Dall Sheep found in Alaska. He said the helicopter was about 10 feet off the ground and 75 to 100 yards away when he hit the moose using a .300 Winchester Magnum rifle.

The moose was flown to a Russian town where the meat was given away, Duncan said.

The moose and sheep busts are at his 5,000-acre exotic game ranch near Bastrop, but are in storage and not on display.

Duncan first heard of a possible investigation about a year ago. A grand jury was convened in Charlottesville, Va., where the outfitter that organized the trip is located, Hardin said.

A second grand jury was convened in Houston most likely because Duncan's trophy heads, along with others shot by the hunting party, arrived in the U.S. through Houston, Hardin said.

Other hunters from the party may also be under investigation, Hardin said, but he declined to identify them.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4980376.html


July 20, 2007 - EDITED TO ADD: Apparently the moderators moved this thread from the African forum, where I posted it originally, to the Asian forum. As I stated at the top, the news item doesn't deal with African hunting but it is international hunting and the Lacey Act affects Americans hunting in Africa (and elsewhere). -Bob F.

I wonder who made the initial complaint to the USFW that the animals were taken illegally.

I guess this means the US authorities are going to start coming after guys who shoot African game from the truck where it is illegal (but widely practiced).

I wonder if thise guy shoots animals in cages too? Hunting from a helo? Thats sporting.

Even if it wasn't illegal what the hell is the point of hunting any animal from a helicopter? Why would anyone even want to?

Sounds like some (Federal) prick of a laywer, is looking to make a "Name" and get a promotion.

What a crock.

Keith

quote:

Originally posted by ForrestB:
I guess this means the US authorities are going to start coming after guys who shoot African game from the truck where it is illegal (but widely practiced).

What about all of the "Sex changes" by game scouts on zebra, gemsbok..........

Keith

ForrestB:

Well, I guess it would take some of the walking out of elephant hunting for example.

Do you guys have any idea how difficult it is to shoot a moving animal out of a moving chopper?

In case anyone's interested, here's the relevant (I think) portion of the Lacey Act -- how this would apply to hunting in Russia, I have no idea:

AIRBORNE HUNTING ACT
16 U.S.C. § 742j-1, November 18, 1971, as amended 1972.

Overview. The Act, a section of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, prohibits harassing, capturing or killing birds, fish and other animals from aircraft, with certain limited exceptions.

Selected Definitions. Aircraft: any contrivance used for flight in the air. § 742j-1(c).

Prohibitions and Exceptions. The Act imposes fines, imprisonment for up to one year, or both on a person who: while airborne in an aircraft shoots or attempts to shoot to capture or kill any bird, fish or other animal; uses an aircraft to harass any bird, fish or other animal; knowingly participates in using an aircraft for any of these purposes. (See the summary of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 for more information on criminal penalties.)

These prohibitions do not apply to state or federal employees, authorized agents, or persons acting under a license or permit, who are authorized to administer or protect land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life or crops. Each person authorized under a license or permit must report to the issuing authority each calendar quarter the number and type of animals taken. Each state that issues permits must file with the Secretary of Interior an annual report listing permit holders, animals authorized to be taken, the animals actually taken and the reason for issuing the permits. § 742j-1(a) and (b).

Enforcement. The Secretary of Interior is responsible for enforcing this Act and issuing regulations. Authorized Department of the Interior employees who witness a violation of the Act may arrest the violator without a warrant, take the person to an officer or court, execute warrants to enforce the Act, and conduct searches. Any federal judge or magistrate may issue warrants upon probable cause. The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with state fish and wildlife agencies or other authorities to facilitate enforcement of the Act, and may delegate enforcement authority to state law enforcement personnel. § 742j-1(d).

Forfeiture. All animals taken, and all guns, aircraft and other equipment used in violation of this Act, are subject to forfeiture to the federal government. Federal laws relating to the forfeiture of vessels for violation of custom laws apply to forfeitures under this Act. § 742j-1(e) and (f).

Aglifter,

That snippet is for hunting in this country. Actually the pertinent law is the Lacey Act, which applies if hunting from the copter is indeed illegal in Russia.

What follows is exactly why the Lacey Act kicks him if someone poaches a deer in one state and takes it to their home in another state. Absent the transportation across state lines, it would be merely a state wildlife law violation. -TONY

****
Prohibitions on Activities. The Act makes it illegal to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase fish, wildlife or plants taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a federal law, treaty, regulation or Indian tribal law. It also is illegal for a person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce: fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law, state regulation or foreign law; plants taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law or regulation. The Act also makes it illegal to possess within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.: fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law, state regulation, foreign law or Indian tribal law; plants taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law or regulation.

What a mess.

The article indicated that he did not know the practice was illegal in Russia. However, there is no indication anywhere in the article that the practice is in fact illegal in Russia. This raises serious questions in my mind. Assuming the act was legal in Russia (i.e. you can hunt out of a helicopter) how can the US prosecute someone for engaging in a legal act in another country regardless of whether the act would be illegal here? So someone going to another country to receive treatment with experimental drugs could be prosecuted for violating US drug laws even though no act took place on US soil? Even if it was illegal in Russia to hunt out of a helicopter the acts did not take place in the US and I would like to see the section of the Act that says it applies whether the action took place within the jurisidictional boundaries of the US or some other sovereign nation. Regardless of what one thinks about this old man's hunting ethics, this sounds like a total bs politically motivated witch hunt to me.

>>I would like to see the section of the Act that says it applies whether the action took place within the jurisidictional boundaries of the US or some other sovereign nation.<<

See my message above. -TONY

If it was legal in Russia, they have no case.

But from Duncan's comments, I'm guessing it was illegal, even though he MIGHT not have known that.

I don't believe the Lacey Act addresses or pertains to drug treatment in a foreign country. -TONY

Mike Simpson, Duncan's friend and former SCI President was also on this hunt. As was the former Executive Director and former USF&W Regional Director, Tom Riley.

The whole deal was filmed by one of Simpson's sons and was shown at the booth of the outfitter until pulled by Simpson. Riley was forced to resign, partly over this and other issues that came to light.

Paybacks are Hell and when you and your friends piss off too many people you had better have clean underwear on.

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:
If it was legal in Russia, they have no case.

But from Duncan's comments, I'm guessing it was illegal, even though he MIGHT not have known that.
Tony,
I don't believe the Lacey Act addresses or pertains to drug treatment in a foreign country. -TONY

I think it doesn't take much to realize he was only making an example

Example of what? It has absolutely nothing to do with this case, the Lacey Act or wildlife. It's known as a red herring --irrelevant and a diversion from the topic at hand! -TONY

OK, I agree w. have a law that appears to prohibit it... but I'm not comfortable w. the US enforcing laws of other countries... Especially not places like Russia -- they still have, much, of the Soviet legal mess -- it's almost impossible to do anything there, legally, and w. the advent of capitalism, there's now a profession of standing in line, to wait to pay fees/fines/get papers, etc. (What standard of evidence do we use, since there's no Russian conviction? We now decide whether he was guilty under Russian law, in an American court -- whose rule of evidence, etc is used?)

There's a reason why US courts shouldn't recognize foreign law.

No, I wouldn't think it ethical to shoot from a helo. (Wolves, maybe.)

That is not the point. The point is a US court bringing charges against a fellow who supposedly did something in a foreign country that was illegal in that country.

This is crap, plain and simple. If a violation did occur then Russia should be the country preferring charges, not the US.

Who brought it to the attention of the "authorities"? Why him?

Hell, if they authorities ever found about my time(s) at Madame Claudia's, in a country that does not have the sensual arts legal, should i be charged?

This smacks of vendetta, over eager prosecution, and of complete bull shit.

I feel the same way you do in regards to the part about Russia not enforcing its law-- IF that is the case. We really don't know that, though.

As far as the U.S., it IS enforcing the law HERE, not in Russia. That law is the one part of the Lacey Act I posted. It says nothing about someone being arrested, found guilty, etc. where the violation takes place. It merely states, "It also is illegal for a person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce: fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law, state regulation or foreign law;..."

So if in fact, it is illegal to hunt from a helicopter in Russia, and the USWFS has proof that was done, the game was taken illegally -- a violation of a foreign law. Obviously, they KNOW he used the helicopter because he's admitted that.

If it was then imported and/or possessed in the US, it's a violation of the Lacey Act. IOW, they are not going after him for USING the helicopter (Russia's law) but for bringing illegally taken game into this country (U.S. law). -TONY

quote:

Hell, if they authorities ever found about my time(s) at Madame Claudia's, in a country that does not have the sensual arts legal, should i be charged?

Only if you import something in the form of wildlife that you caught there illegally. -TONY

Seems like you guys are missing the point. To me the law seems to imply that if a US citizen goes abroad and takes wildlife illegally and returns to the US with such spoils then he will be prosectued here.

Thank you Outdoor Writer. No points missed.

Even if he did take game from a helicopter, in RUSSIA, this just shows you how LAME-AS$ our government has become. With all the illegal aliens running about, using up tax resources and causing problems, our Feds are chasing a very productive and generous older citizen who went hunting in another country. This is a good use of the People's resources.

How are they going to get the Russians to testify against him??

My point was how do you PROVE that the game was taken illegally? Does this mean that DC is going to start prosecuting hunters for using guns that are under legal minimums in Africa??? Again, without a conviction, what exactly are they going to recognize as being "illegal" -- this could become a HUGE problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
My point was how do you PROVE that the game was taken illegally? Does this mean that DC is going to start prosecuting hunters for using guns that are under legal minimums in Africa??? Again, without a conviction, what exactly are they going to recognize as being "illegal" -- this could become a HUGE problem.

How about the 45 minute movie that was taken and the Moose horns with the bullet holes from the top?

The question isn't did they do it but does the US have a right to try them for a crime they committed in a Foreign Country when they weren't charged there?

quote:

Originally posted by reddy375:
Seems like you guys are missing the point. To me the law seems to imply that if a US citizen goes abroad and takes wildlife illegally and returns to the US with such spoils then he will be prosectued here.

you are exactly right!! it is against US law to do what he did, whether he knew it or not. i seem to recall from reading somewhere that ignorance of a law is no legal justification for breaking it. another major issue will evolve as SCI is forced to deal with this. their bylaws clearly state that ALL animals listed in the record book shall be taken in a legal and "sporting" manor. that is clearly not the case here. will they delete only these 2 entries or will they take the bull by the horns and impose other sanctions. Mr. Duncan is a major contributor/benefactor to SCI. any guesses as to what they will do?

What a loser! Shooting from a helicopter - why? So he could have another entry in SCI's books? Personally, I'd like to see his name erased from all entries in SCI. A financial fine would be nothing to a guy with such wealth. But, his pride and prestige would take a beating.
I don't know all of SCI's rules on what constitutes 'legal' taking of game (and don't really care) but I'd have to assume from an ethical hunting perspective that SCI wouldn't exactly condone killing of animals from aircraft for the pursuit of having their names etched in their books.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefin:...

Welcome back! Now get some pictures posted.

Some lawyer trying to make a name for himself is really pushing this case.
I think is is downright ridiculus that the guy is charged for an event that happened on foreign soil.
I'd better tell all my New Zealand mates to go into hiding. These guys have shot thousands, (yes, thousands ) of red deer, thar and chamois from choppers.
Only a few years ago, Aussie National Parks officers culled hundreds of brumbies from the Kosciusko National Park using choppers
Malcolm

Personally, legalities aside, I think this prick deserves everything he gets. I'm guessing he was not shooting game animals from a chopper for culling or population control purposes, but rather to get another high scoring critter on the wall. What did he tell his friends on his return from Russia... "you wouldn't believe how hard the hunt was..."?!!?!?

I find it hard to defend sport hunting generally when some wanker kills game from a chopper, under a spotlight or in a cage. Its lame to use the "I didn't know it was illegal" line for what he has done. I don't need to be a lawyer to know that the most basic level of fair chase disappears when you chase game with a chopper.

As Malcolm mentioned, in New Zealand and Australia, thousands of animals are shot from the air for culling purposes and this needs to be done for conservation purposes. No one can claim however, that this type of shooting is hunting.

Its a poor day for sport hunting when hunters see no wrong with what he has done. This guy's actions only gives the bunny huggers more ammunition to use again hunting.

Well, I just had a hell of a time finding this thread again. I didn't realize they had moved Russia to Asia?? The map makers will no doubt go crazy when they find out.

Okay, guys I'm snowed under with a couple article deadlines, so this will be the last comment I make on this.

Aglifter,

The only proof the U.S needs to prosecute Duncan under the Lacey Act is exactly what Gator has cited -- the video and Duncan's own admission that he indeed hunted from helicopter where doing so is ILLEGAL. The U.S. is not prosecuting him for using the helicopter, per se; it is prosecuting him for bringing illegally taken game INTO THIS COUNTRY!

Note the wording of the Lacey Act contains nothing to indicate a person has to be cited, indicted and found guilty of a wildlife violation where it occurred. The feds merely have to prove the game was ILLEGALLY taken, regardless of what happens in the place it was actually killed.

So then what comprises illegally taken?

It's simple: AS SOON AS someone pulls the trigger and kills game in violation of the law in that venue, it becomes an illegally taken critter. It doesn't become legally taken game if no one catches and prosecutes that person; it will ALWAYS remain an illegally taken animal regardless.

So let's look at a hypothetical:

Joe Sixpack and his buddy, both U.S. citizens, go the BC on a moose hunt. On the way home, they spot a 9' grizzly heading into the woods. They park, follow the bear, Joe kills it and his buddy takes video. Then they also take a few hero pix with a still camera. Neither of them have a grizz license, but they manage to smuggle the hide across the border anyway.

Two years later, Joe and his wife are in a nasty divorce battle. Joe's wife calls the USFWS and tells them about the bear episode. She provides them with the video and pix, both showing the dates they were taken.

With PROBABLE cause, USFWS agents then get a search warrant for Joe's house and confiscate the life-size mount of the bear before Joe can get rid of it. They then will go about the actual investigation.

They will likely first call the BC Ministry of Environment to see if Joe had purchased a BC bear license. They will search the records for the paperwork Joe would have had to fill out at the border if he had LEGALLY killed and brought the hide into the U.S. Lastly, they will probably contact the guide the hunters were REQUIRED to use for the moose hunt just in case he MIGHT have been involved.

I'm guessing by this time Joe will be admitting his bear was illegally taken, since none of the above will verify the killing of the grizz was legal.

So next step is to charge him under the Lacey Act with IMPORTING ILLEGALLY TAKEN wildlife into the U.S. USFWS does NOT charge him for killing the bear without a license, hunting without a guide, etc., which is not its call to make. Those charges would be brought by the Canadian authorities IF they decide to do so.


Malcolm,

Hunting from a helicopter is NOT against the law in NZ, thus any game killed that way is NOT illegally taken -- the caveat that kicks in under the Lacey Act when game is imported into the U.S.

The laws in different states/countries are what determine when game is legally taken or not. A person can legally kill a bear over bait in one state in the U.S and can't do that in another. So if someone violates the no baiting law where such is in force, he violated the state law and would be cited for hunting over bait by the state agency IF he is caught while still in that state.

BUT...if he isn't caught and then transports that bear across state lines, he just violated the Lacey Act, which would charge him with interstate transportation of ILLEGALLY taken wildlife -- NOT for the act of hunting over bait. Of course, they will need to still PROVE he killed the bear illegally. -TONY

Also,

Apparently "Hunter Formerly Known As Texas Hunter" had already posted this story as well. see the thread :

Dan Duncan in hot water? also in the Asian forum.

-Bob F.

Mr Duncan should get bonus points for killing game from a chopper. From what I unserstand those choppers used in Russia to transport hunters shake and bump around so bad most pasangers are constantly praying for their safe return to the ground. It would seem to be more difficult shooting from the unstable chopper than from a proper rest or even from the off hand position. Get the F*ck off your hollier than thou horses.

Aside from Duncan's statement that he didn't know it was illegal to hunt from a helicopter in Russia, does anyone know the answer to the question of whether it "is" in fact illegal to hunt from a helicopter in Russia?

July 20, 2007

Houston billionaire's hunting raises questions


By TOM FOWLER
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

Dan Duncan may not have known it was against the law to hunt from a helicopter in Russia, but some say the Houston billionaire should have.

Duncan, 74, appeared before a grand jury in Houston this week to answer questions about a 2002 hunting trip he took in Russia where he shot a moose and a sheep from a helicopter.

Duncan told the Chronicle he believed he was within the law because his Russian guide instructed him to take the shots.

It wasn't until he was recently contacted by U.S. investigators that he learned the practice was illegal in Russia and that by bringing the trophy heads back to the U.S., he violated a law here known as the Lacey Act.

But some believe the executive with pipeline giant Enterprise Products Partners shouldn't have used the assistance of the aircraft when making the shot anyhow.

"Hunting from aircraft has long been prohibited in the U.S. So I'd think any experienced hunter from the U.S. would know it's illegal elsewhere," said Michael Bean, an attorney and chairman of the wildlife program for Environmental Defense in Washington, D.C.

Rusty Hardin, Duncan's attorney, said in a statement the case being built against his client is a waste of taxpayer time and money.

"The problem for the government is you have to know it's illegal and Dan Duncan did not," Hardin said. "It's further proof of how dangerous it is to let prosecutors from Washington travel the country without adult supervision."

A Department of Justice spokeswoman declined comment.

Russian laws prohibit hunting with any motorized vehicles, said Sergei Shushunov, a Chicago-area pediatrician who leads hunting trips in Russia a few times a year through his side business, Russian Hunting Agency. That means hunters can't fire from helicopters or even from the back of trucks driving along a road.

"But I'm aware that some guides in more remote areas where there's less supervision will break the rules," Shushunov said. The notion of officials looking the other way is not out of the question either, he said.


Greg Rodriguez, president of Global Adventure Outfitters, a hunting travel company in Sugar Land, and president of the Gulf Coast Chapter of Safari Club International, said he knows several of the people involved in Duncan's case and that "not one would have knowingly violated the laws of any country.

"In every instance, they were instructed by their guide, who they hired for his knowledge of local game, hunting methods, and laws, to pull the trigger," Rodriguez said. "As far as I know, the Russians, on whose soil these incidents occurred, don't have a problem with this."

Rodriguez said Duncan's case should be about the law, not personal ethics.

"I would not hunt game animals from a helicopter, but I know people who have and they are all fine folks," Rodriguez said. "Unfortunately, they are beyond the age where their bodies will take them up the mountain. I would rather see these people enjoy their golden years in the field and see their money put to work preserving precious wildlife than see them put to pasture because their standards don't measure up to those of someone who hasn't walked a day in their shoes."

Hunters actually help preserve certain animal populations by creating an economic incentive for locals to not wipe out animals they consider predators of their livestock or a source of food, Rodriguez said.

"In both instances, the money spent by visiting sportsmen is the only incentive indigenous people have to conserve wildlife," he said.

When countries ban hunting, wildlife populations end up suffering worse at the hands of poachers, he said. Kenya has seen its rhino and elephant populations decimated by poaching after it ended hunting.


The law that may be used against Duncan, the Lacey Act, is one of the most widely used federal laws when it comes to fighting wildlife crimes, Bean said.

It was passed in 1900 to help state officials bring charges against poachers who killed animals in one state in order to sell them in another. It has been amended repeatedly over the years to include a wider range of animals and plant life. It evolved to include illegal actions taken overseas as a way to discourage the international trade of endangered species and the introduction of invasive species.

The maximum penalty is $20,000 and/or five years of imprisonment for a felony violation and $10,000 and/or one year in prison for a misdemeanor violation of the law. In 1981, the standard of proof was lowered from "knowingly and willingly" to just "knowingly," in theory making it easier to prove someone broke the law.

"The law is most commonly invoked against commercial importers of exotic animals," Bean said, such as companies that acquire parrots abroad illegally for sale in the U.S. "But it's not uncommon for it to be used against individual hunters."

quote:

Originally posted by EB:
Aside from Duncan's statement that he didn't know it was illegal to hunt from a helicopter in Russia, does anyone know the answer to the question of whether it "is" in fact illegal to hunt from a helicopter in Russia?

It is illegal.

Duncan has hunted in Russia 35-40 times in the last 20 years. Does anyone really believe he didn't know it was illegal?

What about Mike Simpson, Past President of SCI? What about Tom Riley, Past Regional Director of USF&W and former Executive Director of SCI? Didn't they know it was illegal either?

Give me a break.

Gator1, are you Mr Duncan's booking or travel agent? You seem to know a great deal about his hunting. Just out of curosity do you know all the game laws of the world or even your own state. Let me know the next time you plan on walking on water I would like to see you in action.

Regardless of whether one agrees with the ethics of the issue (I don't know Mr. Duncan, maybe his mobility is limited) or not, the feds are going to have a helluva time proving he "knowingly" violated the Lacey Act which is the standard of proof for conviction. Indeed, IMO, his actions, that is videoing and then publicly showing the tape of the shootings and admitting that he did it are going to serve well in his defense.

My guess, he'll plead "nolo" and give up the heads but with his money he might fight and will probably beat it.

Finally, the prosecutor could better spend his time finding and deporting illegal aliens of which there are probably at least a few hundred thousand in Houston, they "knowingly" violated the Lacey act by importing illegal wildlife, depending on your definition of wildlife into the US.

The whole thing stinks of political payback. It is a crock.

I would posit that almost ALL Americans that go to Mexico and shoot whitewings violate the Lacey Act by bringing back in some of their doves.