Legal Victory For Safari Club International And America's Hunters

[Ridgewalker]

Heading the right direction to benefit conservation of species.

 

[tigris115]

I'll be more excited when permits actually start rolling in. This is a step tho

 

[Royal27]

I'll be more excited when permits actually start rolling in. This is a step tho

It is definitely a step. The question is, will it be a step forward or backwards ?

Remember a couple of years ago when the "case by case" was announced and how all hunters cheered the move from an entire country being approved to an individual animal needing approval ?

Yeah, me neither.

 

[rookhawk]

Okay, time for a fact check here because I was heavily involved in this litigation.

The litigation was a demand that USFWS adhere to the law and immediately review the import permits they had not reviewed for years. (The rule is 60 days to approve/deny)

I spent hundreds of hours working on impact statements, documenting damages, communications with named plaintiffs, and corresponding with attorneys.

At no time, not once, did I ever see/speak/write/hear from any SCI officer, lawyer, advocate, or organization assigned person lending assist to this lawsuit.

The attorney was Mr. Jackson, esq., of Conservation Force. The participating named plaintiffs were DSC, Nation of Namibia, and a dozen other impacted people/orgs/nations.

I’m fairly offended and annoyed by the “great job SCI” comments and the audacity of the SCI credit-stealing press release regarding this suit.

I AM AN SCI member...they did nothing for me or this issue. I am NOT a DSC member, yet they were there corresponding and actively involved on many emails and some phone calls.

SCI was busy kissing Trump’s ass telling influential members and leaders to leave this alone until after the next election, allegedly said from DJT Jr to several people in SCI. Realize the whole issue was made because USFWS was afraid to do anything due to Trump’s tweets on the issue a couple years ago.

Conservation Force, DSC, and the rest of the plaintiffs wisely decided to move forward, not wait for the hope that Trump wins re-election and then decides to reverse his Tweet to allow legal due process to continue as stated in the USFWS memo that is current law/administrative rule.

ALL CREDIT GOES TO CONSERVATION FORCE, SUPPORTED BY DALLAS SAFARI CLUB.

SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL was not actively involved.

 

[sierraone]

Okay, time for a fact check here because I was heavily involved in this litigation.

The litigation was a demand that USFWS adhere to the law and immediately review the import permits they had not reviewed for years. (The rule is 60 days to approve/deny)

I spent hundreds of hours working on impact statements, documenting damages, communications with named plaintiffs, and corresponding with attorneys.

At no time, not once, did I ever see/speak/write/hear from any SCI officer, lawyer, advocate, or organization assigned person lending assist to this lawsuit.

The attorney was Mr. Jackson, esq., of Conservation Force. The participating named plaintiffs were DSC, Nation of Namibia, and a dozen other impacted people/orgs/nations.

I’m fairly offended and annoyed by the “great job SCI” comments and the audacity of the SCI credit-stealing press release regarding this suit.

I AM AN SCI member...they did nothing for me or this issue. I am NOT a DSC member, yet they were there corresponding and actively involved on many emails and some phone calls.

SCI was busy kissing Trump’s ass telling influential members and leaders to leave this alone until after the next election, allegedly said from DJT Jr to several people in SCI. Realize the whole issue was made because USFWS was afraid to do anything due to Trump’s tweets on the issue a couple years ago.

Conservation Force, DSC, and the rest of the plaintiffs wisely decided to move forward, not wait for the hope that Trump wins re-election and then decides to reverse his Tweet to allow legal dud process to continue as stated in the USFWS memo that is current law/administrative rule.

ALL CREDIT GOES TO CONSERVATION FORCE, SUPPORTED BY DALLAS SAFARI CLUB.

SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL was not actively involved.

John Jackson and Conservation Force are and have been the organization to deal with hunters legal events such as this and have been for many years. DSC has slowly but surely came into their own in recent years. I believe that SCI was an important force at one time but am not sure when it was. SCI is close to insolvent now and appears to become less important to hunters rights/issues with each passing day.

 

[rookhawk]

Here’s the filed lawsuits with Named Plaintiffs and USFWS as Defendant.

Contrary to the headline posted with this thread, I see zero mention of SCI or the NRA. I’m a member of both the aforementioned orgs and had zero communications with them on this issue, no CC to their emails, no participation on conference calls.

This is a case of stolen valor in my opinion.

 

[tigris115]

Okay, time for a fact check here because I was heavily involved in this litigation.

The litigation was a demand that USFWS adhere to the law and immediately review the import permits they had not reviewed for years. (The rule is 60 days to approve/deny)

I spent hundreds of hours working on impact statements, documenting damages, communications with named plaintiffs, and corresponding with attorneys.

At no time, not once, did I ever see/speak/write/hear from any SCI officer, lawyer, advocate, or organization assigned person lending assist to this lawsuit.

The attorney was Mr. Jackson, esq., of Conservation Force. The participating named plaintiffs were DSC, Nation of Namibia, and a dozen other impacted people/orgs/nations.

I’m fairly offended and annoyed by the “great job SCI” comments and the audacity of the SCI credit-stealing press release regarding this suit.

I AM AN SCI member...they did nothing for me or this issue. I am NOT a DSC member, yet they were there corresponding and actively involved on many emails and some phone calls.

SCI was busy kissing Trump’s ass telling influential members and leaders to leave this alone until after the next election, allegedly said from DJT Jr to several people in SCI. Realize the whole issue was made because USFWS was afraid to do anything due to Trump’s tweets on the issue a couple years ago.

Conservation Force, DSC, and the rest of the plaintiffs wisely decided to move forward, not wait for the hope that Trump wins re-election and then decides to reverse his Tweet to allow legal due process to continue as stated in the USFWS memo that is current law/administrative rule.

ALL CREDIT GOES TO CONSERVATION FORCE, SUPPORTED BY DALLAS SAFARI CLUB.

SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL was not actively involved.

With what you just said, I think DSC deserves your membership.

 

[rookhawk]

With what you just said, I think DSC deserves your membership.

I actually owe them much more than that. I’m wrestling with the notion of trying to start a Chicago chapter if I can find a coalition of the willing.

 

[Royal27]

Okay, time for a fact check here because I was heavily involved in this litigation.

The litigation was a demand that USFWS adhere to the law and immediately review the import permits they had not reviewed for years. (The rule is 60 days to approve/deny)

I spent hundreds of hours working on impact statements, documenting damages, communications with named plaintiffs, and corresponding with attorneys.

At no time, not once, did I ever see/speak/write/hear from any SCI officer, lawyer, advocate, or organization assigned person lending assist to this lawsuit.

The attorney was Mr. Jackson, esq., of Conservation Force. The participating named plaintiffs were DSC, Nation of Namibia, and a dozen other impacted people/orgs/nations.

I’m fairly offended and annoyed by the “great job SCI” comments and the audacity of the SCI credit-stealing press release regarding this suit.

I AM AN SCI member...they did nothing for me or this issue. I am NOT a DSC member, yet they were there corresponding and actively involved on many emails and some phone calls.

SCI was busy kissing Trump’s ass telling influential members and leaders to leave this alone until after the next election, allegedly said from DJT Jr to several people in SCI. Realize the whole issue was made because USFWS was afraid to do anything due to Trump’s tweets on the issue a couple years ago.

Conservation Force, DSC, and the rest of the plaintiffs wisely decided to move forward, not wait for the hope that Trump wins re-election and then decides to reverse his Tweet to allow legal due process to continue as stated in the USFWS memo that is current law/administrative rule.

ALL CREDIT GOES TO CONSERVATION FORCE, SUPPORTED BY DALLAS SAFARI CLUB.

SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL was not actively involved.

I believe you have your lawsuits confused. I don't believe the one that you spent 100s of hours on is the one that was anounced. Unless I'm mistaken the DSC lawsuit is still open and hasn't been ruled on.

This is a similar, but separate suit, to my understanding. And one that I believe was filed prior to the DSC suit.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but the cases numbers certainly don't match.

 

[Royal27]

Here’s the filed lawsuits with Named Plaintiffs and USFWS as Defendant.

Contrary to the headline posted with this thread, I see zero mention of SCI or the NRA. I’m a member of both the aforementioned orgs and had zero communications with them on this issue, no CC to their emails, no participation on conference calls.

This is a case of stolen valor in my opinion.

Thanks for the case. I do believe you're confused though. I'm 99% certain that the DSC case hasn't been ruled on, either initial ruling or a subsequent appellate ruling.

If I'm wrong can you please provide the ruling, since you were heavily involved I'm sure you have easy access to it (I haven't been able to find it) ? It will help us all in our fact check.

 

[wesheltonj]

@rookhawk, that is a different case. I have the link to the SCI case a few post back.

 

[rookhawk]

I believe you have your lawsuits confused. I don't believe the one that you spent 100s of hours on is the one that was anounced. Unless I'm mistaken the DSC lawsuit is still open and hasn't been ruled on.

This is a similar, but separate suit, to my understanding. And one that I believe was filed prior to the DSC suit.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but the cases numbers certainly don't match.

@Royal27 @wesheltonj are correct and I am in error. I apologize for my error. There indeed was a separate lawsuit by NRA and SCI I was not aware of.

So it appears the SCI lawsuit was challenging case-by-case import and the findings against Zimbabwe in particular.

The lawsuit I’m well abreast of is to compel USFWS to take action on case by case evaluations that have not occurred as required for years.

I’m unsure if the former now damages the latter? Does the SCI suit ruling invalidate the premise/legitimacy of USFWS to do case by case evaluations on permit applications received?

I’m unclear why they didn’t enjoin the two suits as neither independently gets at the crux of the matter: USFWS IS SITTING ON APPLICATIONS, not approving or denying them based upon ANY criterion whether in aggregate or case-by-case.

@wesheltonj can you summarize what we actually won if anything with the current ruling?

 

[Hillbilly Marine]

All I can say is that any movement forward is good, no matter how small

 

[Hunting Hitman]

Well I’m extremely happy that we won the case and not the other way around. We all have or know someone who’s trophies have been held hostage by our federal government for no reason at all. Congrats to all who were involved and I hope we can all get back to Africa soon and enjoy that beautiful county. Happy Father’s Day!

 

[tigris115]

So when will this ruling on trophy import vetting be official? Because once everything opens up post-COVID, this will be a great boon for American hunters who can now go to all sorts of places for hunting.

 

[rookhawk]

So when will this ruling on trophy import vetting be official? Because once everything opens up post-COVID, this will be a great boon for American hunters who can now go to all sorts of places for hunting.

I'm asking @Royal27 and @wesheltonj for clarification. I don't believe the current ruling opens the doors to anyone getting their permits approved because a judge hasn't ordered USFWS to follow the law and approve/reject the backlog of import permits sitting for years. It appears the ruling on the existing suit was related to what data sources USWFS should use as criterion to accept/reject applications.

What I don't know is did the ruling that just happened break/damage/ruin the pending applications that all used data to persuade the USWFS to evaluate the permits on a "Case by Case" basis? I could use some help reconciling the ruling versus the un-reviewed permit applications that used the case-by-case criterion hoping to get an approval.

 

[Royal27]

I'm asking @Royal27 and @wesheltonj for clarification. I don't believe the current ruling opens the doors to anyone getting their permits approved because a judge hasn't ordered USFWS to follow the law and approve/reject the backlog of import permits sitting for years. It appears the ruling on the existing suit was related to what data sources USWFS should use as criterion to accept/reject applications.

What I don't know is did the ruling that just happened break/damage/ruin the pending applications that all used data to persuade the USWFS to evaluate the permits on a "Case by Case" basis? I could use some help reconciling the ruling versus the un-reviewed permit applications that used the case-by-case criterion hoping to get an approval.

I've already stated my opinion on the SCI case. I think the jury is still out, pardon the pun, as to whether this ruling is good, bad, or indifferent.

Time will tell....

 

[wesheltonj]

I'm asking @Royal27 and @wesheltonj for clarification. . . ..

(1) A win is a win. (Of course, when "[t]he district court dismissed the conservation organizations’ challenges for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim" the outcome is fairly well determined.

(2) "As the Center and its members put it, the move to case-by-case determinations will require them to expend more time and resources tracking permit decisions in hopes of commenting on and influencing them." What it boils down too is, these groups will have to challenge each application instead of all application as a group. That will cost them a lot more money. That does not mean you are going to get your permit, it just means that your permit can be individually challenged by those groups instead if they have an "Interest" in your permit. This of course, could mean that your permit just became much more expensive.

(3) My two cent for what its worth. Others may read it differently.

 

[rookhawk]

(1) A win is a win. (Of course, when "[t]he district court dismissed the conservation organizations’ challenges for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim" the outcome is fairly well determined.

(2) "As the Center and its members put it, the move to case-by-case determinations will require them to expend more time and resources tracking permit decisions in hopes of commenting on and influencing them." What it boils down too is, these groups will have to challenge each application instead of all application as a group. That will cost them a lot more money. That does not mean you are going to get your permit, it just means that your permit will be individually challenged by those groups instead. This of course could mean that your permit just became much more expensive.

Point 2 is an excellent summary, @wesheltonj

I had *thought* that with the exception of Oribi and Black Faced Impala, the applications were not placed in the Federal Register for comment by the public? For example, if you tried to import an Oribi the whole world knows you killed one and you can surely expect pipe-bombs in your mailbox as your name is listed forever in the Federal Register EVEN IF you get the permit. For lion, elephant, leopard, etc, I thought the jurisdiction was internal to USFWS without public oversight or comment on your application that has your home address on it?

I'm not an attorney, so my interpretation may be wrong, but I thought the NRA/SCI lawsuit decision linked was in effect this premise:

Antis wanted to debate the overall criterion of studies (e.g. Study by Anti's for Zimbabwe in its totality) so they could reject all import permits simply by funding/citing a huge study and saying "no amount of harvest of X species animal from Y country is supported by science", thus the USFWS would deny all applications in that category. The antis are whining at the case-by-case basis scenario because they'd have to hire a team to battle YOU and your individual permit personally saying "No, in January, in the Okavango Delta, there are not enough Bull Elephant and all your data is inferior to our data we present to USFWS specific to your individual permit for your individual animal".

That's what I read out of the verdict. What I don't understand is whether the antis get the opportunity to comment and dispute/fight for your individual permit on a case-by-case basis. If they do, they've won, because 90% of people will not submit the information that results in the anti's knowing what they took, where they took it, and where they live because they will most likely be harmed by domestic terrorists.

 

[wesheltonj]

Point 2 is an excellent summary, @wesheltonj . . . What I don't understand is whether the antis get the opportunity to comment and dispute/fight for your individual permit on a case-by-case basis. If they do, they've won, because 90% of people will not submit the information that results in the anti's knowing what they took, where they took it, and where they live because they will most likely be harmed by domestic terrorists.

(1) That's not decided in the case, but i suspect they will if they can get an "interest" in your application, otherwise how are they, going to get enough information on the species as a whole to make their arguments.

(2) All these decisions keep lawyers employed. (2a) Looking back I guess I should have took Administrative law in School, then I could live in the "Beltway" being fully employed.