Withdrawal of ESA listed Species

wesheltonj · Mar 4, 2018

Saw this posted elsewhere. Better get them out while you can!

https://www.fws.gov/internatio...-hunted-trophies.pdf

BRICKBURN · Mar 4, 2018

Screen Shot 2018-03-04 at 9.09.45 AM.png

Screen Shot 2018-03-04 at 9.09.57 AM.png

BRICKBURN · Mar 4, 2018

"The referenced findings are no longer effective...... However, the service intends to use these findings as appropriate.."

Is this how you ignore a judicial ruling?

Royal27 · Mar 4, 2018

BRICKBURN said:
"The referenced findings are no longer effective...... However, the service intends to use these findings as appropriate.."

Is this how you ignore a judicial ruling?

Could be.

I can read this letter in a very positive or very negative manner.

wesheltonj · Mar 4, 2018

BRICKBURN said:
"The referenced findings are no longer effective...... However, the service intends to use these findings as appropriate.."

Is this how you ignore a judicial ruling?

That was only a partial victory in the lawsuit, remember in CITES the importing countries can impose regulations/restrictions greater then the exporting country. The good news is it's a case by case bases, and not a complete ban. Now you may never be able to make the case but at least you have a chance.

Shootist43 · Mar 4, 2018

I'm totally confused. Please will someone considerably more erudite than me please translate this document. Can the named species be inported? YES or NO If so, does it make any difference when the animals were taken?

Royal27 · Mar 4, 2018

Shootist43 said:
I'm totally confused. Please will someone considerably more erudite than me please translate this document. Can the named species be inported? YES or NO If so, does it make any difference when the animals were taken?

Short answers below as I see it. The long answers are of course much more complex, with plenty of if/then statements...

Can they be imported? Maybe, time will tell.

Does it make a difference where and when they were shot. Most likely.

Shootist43 · Mar 4, 2018

What happened to YES or NO?

This reminds me of an old saying " if you cannot convince them with facts, perhaps you can baffle them with Bull Sh**"

Royal27 my comment isn't directed at you but rather the author of the document in question.

Royal27 · Mar 4, 2018

Shootist43 said:
What happened to YES or NO?

This reminds me of an old saying " if you cannot convince them with facts, perhaps you can baffle them with Bull Sh**"

Royal27 my comment isn't directed at you but rather the author of the document in question.

I know. No worries.

YES or NO is a very bad answer for any government entity or representative to give as it makes it harder to flip flop when the wind blows a different direction!

Conservation Force · Mar 4, 2018

Conservation Force Bulletin: New Motions in Suits Challenging the Positive 2017 Elephant and Lion Enhancement Findings

More animal extremists have joined the suits to set aside the Zimbabwe lion and elephant enhancement findings, and all have filed motions for summary judgments citing the SCI/NRA case as the legal precedent for their motions that a full APA “rulemaking” is necessary for an enhancement finding (positive or negative).

As we wrote a few months ago, in November 2017, two sets of animal extremist plaintiffs filed separate lawsuits to invalidate the FWS enhancement findings authorizing lion and elephant trophy imports from Zimbabwe that were made in October and November 2017, respectively.

As we wrote last month, on December 22, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion in SCI and NRA’s challenge to the 2014 and 2015 FWS suspension of elephant trophy imports from Zimbabwe. The Circuit Court held that the 2014 and 2015 enhancement findings were invalid because they did not follow the rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Under the APA, an agency must prepare and publish notice of a proposed rulemaking, give the public an opportunity to comment, and address the comments in a final, published rule. (The process normally takes nine months to over a year, depending on the agency’s workload and the volume of comments received.) Both SCI/NRA and the intervening animal extremists argued in favor of the full rule making requirement and both claimed victory. The appellate court sent the case back to the district court, which will direct the FWS to initiate a rulemaking procedure if the FWS wishes to reimpose the trophy import suspension for 2014 and 2015. In the new cases, the extremists want that decision to be applied to other enhancement findings.

The animal extremist plaintiffs are now seeking to incorporate the holding from the D.C. Circuit into their lawsuits, to further challenge the positive 2017 findings under the APA.

In the first suit, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued the FWS and the FWS Director and the Department of Interior and Secretary of Interior to challenge the positive findings for both elephant and lion trophy imports. The complaint alleges mismanagement and corruption in Zimbabwe and alleges that the enhancement findings were arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the APA. It initially requested that the enhancement findings be declared void on these grounds, and that the court declare it would be illegal to issue any permits pursuant to the positive findings. These claims were of little concern, but new claims have been added.

On January 19, 2018, CBD and NRDC amended their complaint. They added four new plaintiffs—Humane Society International, The Humane Society of the United States, Born Free USA, and an individual, Ian Michler of the anti-canned hunting documentary “Blood Lions.” The amended complaint also added two new claims. These claims allege that the FWS failed to follow proper rulemaking procedures under the APA and should have published the positive 2017 elephant and lion enhancement findings for public comment before finalizing them. The complaint cites the D.C. Circuit’s decision in the SCI/NRA case.

On February 6, the CBD-NRDC plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment (i.e., a final ruling) on the two new claims. They argue that the 2017 elephant and lion enhancement findings were “rulemakings” because they are generally applicable and forward-looking. They argue the findings are generally applicable because they apply to every hunter who files an import permit application for an elephant or lion trophy with the FWS. For each applicant, the enhancement findings satisfy the enhancement requirement. Therefore, the findings are not case-by-case adjudications, but are general rule pronouncements.

The plaintiffs argue that the findings have future effect (even though they are in part “backdated” to apply from January 2016 through December 2018) because the findings constrain the FWS’ decision on the enhancement factor of a permit application. The findings are “pronouncements of how FWS will address all the trophy import permit applications it receives,” because it will check off “enhancement” as being satisfied. The plaintiffs argue that they are injured from the FWS’ failure to propose and publish the lion and elephant enhancement findings and accept public comments because there was a chance that the FWS would have changed its position after receiving public comments. The plaintiffs point to the 2014-2015 suspension of elephant trophy imports from Zimbabwe and statements made in the 2015 final rule listing the lion across Africa as evidence that they could have changed the FWS’ mind.

Similarly, in November 2017, Friends of Animals (FoA) and the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force (ZCTF) sued Secretary Zinke and the FWS to enjoin application of the positive enhancement finding authorizing the import of elephant hunting trophies from Zimbabwe. The FoA-ZCTF complaint focuses on elephants and does not challenge lion trophy imports. The plaintiffs initially alleged violations of the APA, but in mid-December they added a specific claim for failure to provide rule making notice and an opportunity to comment under the APA. On January 12, 2018, FoA and ZCTF filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the FWS’ alleged failure to provide notice and the opportunity to comment. Like the CBD-NRDC plaintiffs, FoA and ZCTF argue that the positive 2017 enhancement finding authorizing elephant trophy imports should have been published in the Federal Register, and that the public should have been given an opportunity to comment before the positive finding was finalized. These plaintiffs also argue the FWS cannot stop publishing notice of elephant enhancement findings in the Federal Register without also going through an APA rulemaking process.

In each suit, the federal defendants (FWS/DOI) have moved for an extension of their time to oppose the plaintiffs’ motions. The extension was granted in the FoA-ZCTF suit, and the extension motion is pending but is likely to be granted in the CBD-NRDC suit. (The same judge is assigned to both cases, and it would not make sense to grant an extension in one case and not the other.) However, all proceedings are generally stayed in these cases pending the court’s issuance of a mandate following the SCI-NRA case. Simply put, the appellate court directed the lower court to enter an order consistent with the appellate court’s ruling. The lower court now needs to issue that order. It will ultimately determine how broadly or narrowly to construe the D.C. Circuit’s decision. The FWS has requested permission to file a brief with the district court to explain its views on the breadth of the D.C. Circuit’s decision. That motion is still pending, and it is unclear right now whether the district court will grant it.

What does all this legal posturing mean for hunters? Basically, it means that permitting is slowed way down. If the plaintiffs succeed, the 2017 enhancement findings allowing imports will be in the same position as the 2014 and 2015 elephant findings that suspended imports—the positive findings will be declared void for failure to follow the required procedure. In theory, that means the positive, 1997 enhancement finding will control. In theory, that means import permits for elephant trophies from Zimbabwe should issue freely, but lion trophies would be on hold. However, whether the FWS will rely on that 1997 finding is unclear. It is more likely that if the plaintiffs succeed in having the 2017 findings declared void, the FWS will handle import permit applications for both elephant and lion on a case-by-case basis. It will slow down the process but keep it inching along.

By the time this article goes to print, Conservation Force and others will have moved to intervene in both cases to defend the 2017 enhancement findings and to challenge the plaintiffs’ alleged claims. We have strong arguments to differentiate the 2014-2015 import suspension, which existed at a time when no import permit was required and came out of nowhere after 17 years, from the 2017 findings, which are based on extensive information provided by Conservation Force and Zimbabwe’s wildlife authority, including extensive information provided in support of specific permit applications. We are optimistic the court will grant our motion, and the plaintiffs’ claims will be dismissed. We will keep readers updated on developments in the litigation.

UNT2007 · Mar 4, 2018

Conservation Force said:
Conservation Force Bulletin: New Motions in Suits Challenging the Positive 2017 Elephant and Lion Enhancement Findings

More animal extremists have joined the suits to set aside the Zimbabwe lion and elephant enhancement findings, and all have filed motions for summary judgments citing the SCI/NRA case as the legal precedent for their motions that a full APA “rulemaking” is necessary for an enhancement finding (positive or negative).

As we wrote a few months ago, in November 2017, two sets of animal extremist plaintiffs filed separate lawsuits to invalidate the FWS enhancement findings authorizing lion and elephant trophy imports from Zimbabwe that were made in October and November 2017, respectively.

As we wrote last month, on December 22, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion in SCI and NRA’s challenge to the 2014 and 2015 FWS suspension of elephant trophy imports from Zimbabwe. The Circuit Court held that the 2014 and 2015 enhancement findings were invalid because they did not follow the rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Under the APA, an agency must prepare and publish notice of a proposed rulemaking, give the public an opportunity to comment, and address the comments in a final, published rule. (The process normally takes nine months to over a year, depending on the agency’s workload and the volume of comments received.) Both SCI/NRA and the intervening animal extremists argued in favor of the full rule making requirement and both claimed victory. The appellate court sent the case back to the district court, which will direct the FWS to initiate a rulemaking procedure if the FWS wishes to reimpose the trophy import suspension for 2014 and 2015. In the new cases, the extremists want that decision to be applied to other enhancement findings.

The animal extremist plaintiffs are now seeking to incorporate the holding from the D.C. Circuit into their lawsuits, to further challenge the positive 2017 findings under the APA.

In the first suit, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued the FWS and the FWS Director and the Department of Interior and Secretary of Interior to challenge the positive findings for both elephant and lion trophy imports. The complaint alleges mismanagement and corruption in Zimbabwe and alleges that the enhancement findings were arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the APA. It initially requested that the enhancement findings be declared void on these grounds, and that the court declare it would be illegal to issue any permits pursuant to the positive findings. These claims were of little concern, but new claims have been added.

On January 19, 2018, CBD and NRDC amended their complaint. They added four new plaintiffs—Humane Society International, The Humane Society of the United States, Born Free USA, and an individual, Ian Michler of the anti-canned hunting documentary “Blood Lions.” The amended complaint also added two new claims. These claims allege that the FWS failed to follow proper rulemaking procedures under the APA and should have published the positive 2017 elephant and lion enhancement findings for public comment before finalizing them. The complaint cites the D.C. Circuit’s decision in the SCI/NRA case.

On February 6, the CBD-NRDC plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment (i.e., a final ruling) on the two new claims. They argue that the 2017 elephant and lion enhancement findings were “rulemakings” because they are generally applicable and forward-looking. They argue the findings are generally applicable because they apply to every hunter who files an import permit application for an elephant or lion trophy with the FWS. For each applicant, the enhancement findings satisfy the enhancement requirement. Therefore, the findings are not case-by-case adjudications, but are general rule pronouncements.

The plaintiffs argue that the findings have future effect (even though they are in part “backdated” to apply from January 2016 through December 2018) because the findings constrain the FWS’ decision on the enhancement factor of a permit application. The findings are “pronouncements of how FWS will address all the trophy import permit applications it receives,” because it will check off “enhancement” as being satisfied. The plaintiffs argue that they are injured from the FWS’ failure to propose and publish the lion and elephant enhancement findings and accept public comments because there was a chance that the FWS would have changed its position after receiving public comments. The plaintiffs point to the 2014-2015 suspension of elephant trophy imports from Zimbabwe and statements made in the 2015 final rule listing the lion across Africa as evidence that they could have changed the FWS’ mind.

Similarly, in November 2017, Friends of Animals (FoA) and the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force (ZCTF) sued Secretary Zinke and the FWS to enjoin application of the positive enhancement finding authorizing the import of elephant hunting trophies from Zimbabwe. The FoA-ZCTF complaint focuses on elephants and does not challenge lion trophy imports. The plaintiffs initially alleged violations of the APA, but in mid-December they added a specific claim for failure to provide rule making notice and an opportunity to comment under the APA. On January 12, 2018, FoA and ZCTF filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the FWS’ alleged failure to provide notice and the opportunity to comment. Like the CBD-NRDC plaintiffs, FoA and ZCTF argue that the positive 2017 enhancement finding authorizing elephant trophy imports should have been published in the Federal Register, and that the public should have been given an opportunity to comment before the positive finding was finalized. These plaintiffs also argue the FWS cannot stop publishing notice of elephant enhancement findings in the Federal Register without also going through an APA rulemaking process.

In each suit, the federal defendants (FWS/DOI) have moved for an extension of their time to oppose the plaintiffs’ motions. The extension was granted in the FoA-ZCTF suit, and the extension motion is pending but is likely to be granted in the CBD-NRDC suit. (The same judge is assigned to both cases, and it would not make sense to grant an extension in one case and not the other.) However, all proceedings are generally stayed in these cases pending the court’s issuance of a mandate following the SCI-NRA case. Simply put, the appellate court directed the lower court to enter an order consistent with the appellate court’s ruling. The lower court now needs to issue that order. It will ultimately determine how broadly or narrowly to construe the D.C. Circuit’s decision. The FWS has requested permission to file a brief with the district court to explain its views on the breadth of the D.C. Circuit’s decision. That motion is still pending, and it is unclear right now whether the district court will grant it.

What does all this legal posturing mean for hunters? Basically, it means that permitting is slowed way down. If the plaintiffs succeed, the 2017 enhancement findings allowing imports will be in the same position as the 2014 and 2015 elephant findings that suspended imports—the positive findings will be declared void for failure to follow the required procedure. In theory, that means the positive, 1997 enhancement finding will control. In theory, that means import permits for elephant trophies from Zimbabwe should issue freely, but lion trophies would be on hold. However, whether the FWS will rely on that 1997 finding is unclear. It is more likely that if the plaintiffs succeed in having the 2017 findings declared void, the FWS will handle import permit applications for both elephant and lion on a case-by-case basis. It will slow down the process but keep it inching along.

By the time this article goes to print, Conservation Force and others will have moved to intervene in both cases to defend the 2017 enhancement findings and to challenge the plaintiffs’ alleged claims. We have strong arguments to differentiate the 2014-2015 import suspension, which existed at a time when no import permit was required and came out of nowhere after 17 years, from the 2017 findings, which are based on extensive information provided by Conservation Force and Zimbabwe’s wildlife authority, including extensive information provided in support of specific permit applications. We are optimistic the court will grant our motion, and the plaintiffs’ claims will be dismissed. We will keep readers updated on developments in the litigation.

What can you tell us about this recent development that is not in the article?

sandman0921 · Mar 4, 2018

Mr. Jackson,

In addition to the voiding of all positive enhancement findings going back to 1997, would this include SA and Namibia as well?

I have also seen some speculation that because of this ruling, potentially EACH permit application will have to prove “enhancement” and also be subject to the public comment period thus potentially exposing each hunters name to the public as well. In your reading of the ruling, do you feel this to be the case, or is that not being interpreted correctly?

Either way, I am very thankful to have you and an organization like Conservation Force arguing the case for hunters and hunting. Your task is not an enviable one, but your efforts are very much appreciated by this hunter. I am a current donor to Conservation Force and will continue to donate because your group is one of the handful of hunting and conservation groups that takes the fight to the “antis” in a very reasoned and logical manner. Thanks so much for all you are doing and keep up the good fight.

sestoppelman · Mar 4, 2018

The way I read this is, is for those animals requiring an import permit from the US before hunting, you make your application and you takes your chances. It does sound to me as though they just kind of threw their hands in the air and went uh, well whatever, case by case, based on whatever criteria they are going to use at that time. May be a good thing depending on info on the ground at the time and place. It sounds better than a blanket NO you cant.

steve ahrenberg · Mar 4, 2018

It seems to me, the "tactic" here is to frighten potential Elephant and Lion hunters off with the threat of being "outed." The international hunting community saw what happened to the "dentist" over Cecil the Lion. I don't believe for one minute, that this is a coincidence. Most guys who can put the coin together to go shoot Lions and Elephants can figure out they don't want to be drug through the mud.

I've stated in the other thread in the African hunting forum, there isn't a single solitary American politician that would risk re-election over defending the hunting of Lions and or Elephants. If there are even 10,000 international hunters nationally, that isn't a big enough demographic to risk standing up for.

Scare tactics, pretty effective.

Steve

PHOENIX PHIL · Mar 4, 2018

steve ahrenberg said:
It seems to me, the "tactic" here is to frighten potential Elephant and Lion hunters off with the threat of being "outed." The international hunting community saw what happened to the "dentist" over Cecil the Lion. I don't believe for one minute, that this is a coincidence. Most guys who can put the coin together to go shoot Lions and Elephants can figure out they don't want to be drug through the mud.

I've stated in the other thread in the African hunting forum, there isn't a single solitary American politician that would risk re-election over defending the hunting of Lions and or Elephants. If there are even 10,000 international hunters nationally, that isn't a big enough demographic to risk standing up for.

Scare tactics, pretty effective.

Steve

Agreed. But the end goal of the anti's is to stop hunting. If you're willing to forego the import, you can still go hunting without having to be publicly flogged by the anti's.

rinehart0050 · Mar 4, 2018

I wonder how much a storage unit in Canada costs...

enysse · Mar 5, 2018

I wonder how much a storage unit in Canada costs...

I know what mean LOL, but the storage fees add up $$$$$.

PeteG · Mar 5, 2018

enysse said:
I know what mean LOL, but the storage fees add up $$$$$.

Im sure i can find a place for you in Zambia to store your stuff...

Then you'd have a good reason for regular visits (hunts)

sestoppelman · Mar 5, 2018

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tr...on-case-by-case-basis/ar-BBJUhOx?ocid=DELLDHP

Trump to consider elephant trophy imports on 'case-by-case' basis

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced last week that it will now consider all permits for importing elephant trophies from African nations on a "case-by-case basis," breaking from President Trump's earlier promises to maintain an Obama-era ban on the practice.

In a formal memorandum issued on Thursday, FWS said it will withdraw its 2017 Endangered Species Act (ESA) findings for trophies of African elephants from Zimbabwe and Zambia, "effective immediately."

The memo said "the findings are no longer effective for making individual permit determinations for imports of sport-hunted African elephant trophies."

In its place, FWS will instead "grant or deny permits to import a sport-hunted trophy on a case-by-case basis."

FWS said it will still consider the information included in the ESA findings, as well as science-based risk assessments of the species' vulnerability, when evaluating each permit request.

The service also announced it is withdrawing a number of previous ESA findings, which date back to 1995, related to trophies of African elephants, bontebok and lions from multiple African countries.

The decision to withdraw the FWS findings followed a D.C. Circuit Court decision in December that found fault with the initial Obama-era rule, which banned importing elephant hunting trophies from Zimbabwe.

"In response to a recent D.C. Circuit Court's opinion, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is revising its procedure for assessing applications to import certain hunted species. We are withdrawing our countrywide enhancement findings for a range of species across several countries," a spokesperson for FWS said in a statement. "In their place, the Service intends to make findings for trophy imports on an application-by-application basis."

A federal appeals court ruled at the end of last year that the Obama administration did not follow the right procedures when it drafted its ban on the imports. The court also said the FWS should have gone through the extensive process of proposing a regulation, inviting public comment and making the regulation final when it made determinations in 2014 and 2015 that elephant trophies cannot be brought into the country.

The agency used the same procedures as the Obama administration for its ESA determination in 2017 that led to reopening African elephant imports to the U.S. in November.

At the time, a FWS spokesperson said the reversal "will enhance the survival of the species in the wild."

Following the fall announcement to overturn the ban, the Trump administration faced immense backlash, which played a role in leading the president to denounce elephant hunting and promise to re-establish the ban.

Trump in February called the administration's initial decision to overturn the Obama-era ban "terrible."

In an interview with British journalist Piers Morgan, Trump said he had decided to officially turn the order around.

"I didn't want elephants killed and stuffed and have the tusks brought back into this [country] and people can talk all they want about preservation and all of the things that they're saying where money goes towards well, money was going in that case, going to a government which was probably taking the money, OK?" Trump said.

Despite the president's tweets and interviews, however, FWS and the Interior Department remained tight-lipped as to the status of the ban. Numerous requests for information to FWS from The Hill over several months were referred to Interior and left unanswered.

"The president has been very clear in the direction that his administration will go," the FWS spokesperson said of the new memorandum. "Unfortunately, since aspects of the import permitting program for trophies are the focus of ongoing litigation, the Department is unable to comment about specific next steps at this time."

Nine days before FWS added the reversal to the Federal Register, the Interior Department announced that it was establishing an International Wildlife Conservation Council to "advise the Secretary of the Interior on the benefits that international recreational hunting has on foreign wildlife and habitat conservation."

The council will hold its first meeting next week on March 16.

Withdrawal of ESA listed Species

wesheltonj

Attachments

BRICKBURN

BRICKBURN

Royal27

wesheltonj

Shootist43

Royal27

Shootist43

Royal27

Conservation Force

UNT2007

sandman0921

sestoppelman

steve ahrenberg

PHOENIX PHIL

rinehart0050

enysse

PeteG

sestoppelman

Attachments

Members online

Forum statistics

Proudly sponsored by

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Buffalo Hunt with Henry Griffiths Safaris $10000

Share this page