USFWS Proposed Lion Rule How Does This Affect Me as a Hunter?

AfricaHunting.com

Founder
AH ambassador
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Messages
13,061
Reaction score
9,154
Website
www.africahunting.com
Media
5,597
Articles
321
Safari Club International Frequently Asked Questions about the Recent Fish and Wildlife Service Lion Decision
On October 27, 2014, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) announced its long-awaited decision about whether the African lion should be listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). A summary of its decision and of its potential effects on hunters is provided by Safari Club International (“SCI”) for its members below in a question and answer format. What did the FWS decide?

The FWS decided four things.

First, the FWS decided that the lion is not endangered. Under the ESA, a species is endangered only if it is on the brink of extinction. This decision was a defeat for the anti-hunting groups that had petitioned the FWS to list the lion as endangered.

Second, the FWS decided to propose that the lion be listed as threatened. Under the ESA, a species is threatened if it is not currently on the brink of extinction, but is “likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.” SCI disagrees with this decision because the FWS reached this conclusion notwithstanding the fact that 70% of the lion population lives in what are termed “strongholds” in eastern and southern Africa and the protections afforded by the “strongholds” have kept the lion populations in those areas relatively stable for the last three decades.

Third, the FWS decided that lion hunting is “not … a threat to the species at this time,” and that well-managed hunting can provide important conservation benefits for the lion. According to the FWS, the lion is threatened due to a rapidly increasing human population in Africa, which leads to habitat loss, loss of prey-base, and increased lion-human conflict, usually in the form of killings in retaliation for lion attacks on livestock.

Fourth, the FWS decided to propose what is known as a 4(d) rule for the lion. The rule, if finalized, “will establish a permitting mechanism to allow importation of sport-hunted African lion trophies into the United States provided that they are established as originating from countries with a scientifically sound management plan for the African lion.” The implementation of this rule will be of vital concern to hunters, and SCI will vigorously work to modify it to ensure hunters’ ability to import lions from Africa.

How will the FWS’s decision affect lion hunts booked for 2014 or 2015?

The FWS’s decision will not affect those hunts in any way. The FWS’s decision will affect lion hunts in 2016 and beyond only if the proposed listing as threatened and the proposed 4(d) rule are finalized, which will not occur for at least one year. SCI and SCIF will provide comments to the FWS on both proposals, and will keep you informed of any developments in the rulemaking.

If finalized, how will the 4(d) rule affect the importation of hunted African lion trophies for 2016 and beyond?

If finalized, the 4(d) rule will require a hunter to have a permit from the FWS before he or she can import a lion trophy into the United States. The FWS will issue a permit only if the lion is taken from a country that has an “effective lion conservation program,” as determined by the FWS. The FWS claims that, once it has determined that a country has an effective program, it will be able to process permit applications within 30 to 60 days. However, based upon the experiences of SCI members with the permit application process for the importation of other species, some skepticism is in order.

Has the FWS identified any countries with “effective lion conservation programs”?

No. The FWS claims that it currently lacks the information necessary to make any such identifications, although it acknowledges that “many of the range countries have implemented or will implement best management practices.” “Effective lion conservation programs” will be expected to address: lion population levels and trends, the biological needs of the lion, quotas, management practices, legal protection, local community involvement, and use of hunting fees for conservation.

If hunting is not a threat to the lion, why does the FWS believe a 4(d) rule that regulates the importation of trophies is necessary?

The FWS believes that hunting is a source of significant revenue for the range states, and that by regulating the importation of lion trophies, it will give the range states a strong incentive to develop and maintain “effective lion conservation programs.” SCI and the American public believe that this ecological imperialism is unnecessary and the FWS should be working within the international treaty system instead of acting unilaterally.

How will the FWS’s adoption of a 4(d) rule affect the importation of trophies from lion populations in South Africa hunting preserves?

As far as can be determined at this point, the 4(d) rule will apply to the importation of trophies from captive lion populations. However, the FWS specifically states in the proposed rule that the ESA focuses on conservation of lions in their native ecosystems. SCI is very concerned that FWS will use this rule as an excuse to stop importations from hunting preserves. SCI will be working to modify the 4(d) rule to make sure that lions imported from hunting preserves are not subject to the ESA permitting process.

Has the FWS required permits for the importation of trophies of other threatened species besides the lion?

Yes. The FWS requires a permit to import African elephants, leopards, straight-horned markhors, argali and bonteboks. However, many of these species are permitted under rules that are far more hunter-friendly than the proposed lion rule. SCI will be pushing to modify the lion rule to more closely resemble these other rules.

How can I help as an SCI member?

Donations to the Fighting for Lions Campaign (www.fightingforlions.org) will assist SCI in its efforts to develop comments on the FWS’s proposed listing and proposed 4(d) rule that will insure that the decisions are not finalized, or that, if they are, that the 4(d) rule will be workable and properly recognize the conservation efforts of the range states. SCI will also be working closely with the range states to update and improve their lion conservation programs.



Source: Safari Club International (SCI)
 
"The FWS believes that hunting is a source of significant revenue for the range states, and that by regulating the importation of lion trophies, it will give the range states a strong incentive to develop and maintain “effective lion conservation programs.” SCI and the American public believe that this ecological imperialism is unnecessary and the FWS should be working within the international treaty system instead of acting unilaterally."

100% spot on.
 
Well it will be the end of hunting or legal importation of animals to the USA. Regulations with ignorance will end a lot of great hunting.
 
Once again the US thinks it knows better than everyone else, the big brother syndrome! It just may exterinate the species out of ignorance.
 
I honestly don't feel it will even change with a different president, because political powers play to the masses....and the mass of ruling class by and large will not be in favor of Africa hunting. They may support local deer hunting so their flowers, scrubs and vehicles are okay but they are not in favor of lion and elephant hunting. I quiz people all week long about the subject and by and large....Africa hunters are looked down upon(n)(n)(n)
 
I honestly don't feel it will even change with a different president, because political powers play to the masses....and the mass of ruling class by and large will not be in favor of Africa hunting. They may support local deer hunting so their flowers, scrubs and vehicles are okay but they are not in favor of lion and elephant hunting. I quiz people all week long about the subject and by and large....Africa hunters are looked down upon(n)(n)(n)
We definitely are looked down upon. Non hunters don't often think with logic, just emotions. The steak they are eating for dinner suffered a lot more than an animal taken while hunting. I've had people when I tell them I was in Namibia over the summer ask me if I was worried about Ebola, when I tell them I was farther away from the Ebola outbreak their then here at home, they get all confused. I've talked to people that have thought species such as Lions, Elephants, and Rhinos were extinct. Leave it to emotions, ignorance, and anti-hunting groups to cause Africa's animals to all die of pouching as without the money hunters put into conservation they won't be able to protect them. That 85,000$ rhino hunt protects them a heck a lot more then your petition, 15$ photo safari, or 20$ donation. People don't understand that we, the hunters are the biggest conservationists, we pay the bill to protect the wildlife and get bad mouthed at the same time.

Sorry about the rant.
 
I really hope this doesnt cause any hassels. I have a SA lion/buff hunt in June. I can see "the powers that be" passing some proactive legislation that could cause a real nightmare. I wish the USFW would keep their collective noses out of people's business. Who are they to decide if another country's laws are adequate or not.:mad:
 
I really hope this doesnt cause any hassels. I have a SA lion/buff hunt in June. I can see "the powers that be" passing some proactive legislation that could cause a real nightmare. I wish the USFW would keep their collective noses out of people's business. Who are they to decide if another country's laws are adequate or not.:mad:
I think the USFW can give advice if they see something very wrong but even these countries don't want these bans as it will just cause further harm to the animals and industry. If a Country see's something as fit for itself our USFW should not be able to regulate it from the other side of the Planet.
 
Advise yes, a ban yes if in a warranted circumstance. However, this is ridiculous. Another example of creating a problem where one doesn't exist.
 
Well unfortunately the European nations too are being over whelmed by anti-hunters too. They are trying to shut things down one animal at a time. Frankly, Canada is the only safe haven, unfortunately they have terrible import regulations. Unless you have finished mounts or the skins tanned right, you are asking for trouble.
 
A ban on another countries animals should be a final circumstance for extreme cases such as nation wide eradication of a native species. One question I ask anti-hunters, do you eat meat, steaks etc from the grocery store? If they say yes, any point they have is mute. An animal sent to the feed lot has a more painful and prolonged death than a hunted animal, besides in bad circumstances. Its just they don't see it or hear about it much, as hunting is something they don't enjoy so its easier to attack something they don't relate to. In the wild, animals die from either starvation, predators, or disease. So those few seconds from a bullet is much less pain, plus the adrenaline helps null the pain. The other issue is ignorance, the anti-hunters have the time and an agenda to do, so they are often advertising etc. Besides the occasional NRA commercial their isn't any pro-hunting commercials as we don't have an agenda, other then to protect our rights and the animals which we don't get credit for. As we don't band together to push our beliefs onto others that are based without any intellectual bases. Even if you are not a hunter, those who take an educated and open minded approach see that hunters are the true nature lovers and conservationists. If the anti-hunters took all the money they pumped into lobbying they could create a lot more wildlife refugees, research, and management rather then just playing on emotions to ban hunting, the animals would be much better off. We pretty much pay the whole bill, without us the animal's protections, management, etc would crumble as it would have no funds. Which the anti-hunters don't understand, you need money to keep wildlife refugees open, keep rangers to make sure the animal populations are healthy and sustainable, and keep the animals safe. Teddy Roosevelt, one of the greatest conservationists was a huge hunter. He setup a bunch of the national parks throughout the country, setup protections for the wildlife, etc. But he was a hunter, he probably was the most influential man on wildlife yet he was a hunter. He basically had hunted every species in Africa. The anti-hunters need to shut up, go get jobs, and find something with value to argue about.
 
Last edited:
We are in for a roller coaster ride on this.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
53,618
Messages
1,131,254
Members
92,673
Latest member
ChristyLak
 

 

 

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Impact shots from the last hunt

Early morning Impala hunt, previous link was wrong video

Headshot on jackal this morning

Mature Eland Bull taken in Tanzania, at 100 yards, with 375 H&H, 300gr, Federal Premium Expanding bullet.

20231012_145809~2.jpg
 
Top