US Fish and Wildlife withdraws 17 enhancement findings for elephant and lion

[Royal27]

Nothing? You're kidding? Not being able to return your trophy back to your home country? You call that nothing? Get real and quit being an apologist for USF&W.

I've got to agree with Scott here. To hunt an elephant is still completely and totally legal. Nothing is preventing you from doing that. Now if you chose not to hunt because you can't bring the trinket home, or the hunt is too expensive, or you're recoil shy and don't like big guns, or you think elephants are too sweet and cuddly to shoot, then that is your call, not USFWS. The only thing they stop is importation, not hunting.

I hunted an elephant. And I did it believing I would not get to bring the ivory back. I wanted to hunt, not to import. Would I like the ivory? Of course. But, I didn't want to let my government tell me what I could legally do. HUNTERS make import bans work!

According to Marius of KMG safaris ivory from SA is importable

I've followed this whole thing pretty closely. If getting the ivory home was important to me, which it's not, then I wouldn't agree to an elephant hunt in any country if I didn't have a permit from USFWS in hand before the hunt took place.

 

[Hogpatrol]

@Royal27, We'll have to disagree on this. If the USF&W is preventing the importation of elephant tusks, then they are indirectly controlling that aspect of hunting in a foreign country. Let's take it one step further. If USF&W had ZERO restrictions on the importation of ANY African game, could we both agree they would then have no effect on said hunting and those countries and the free market would operate as they should? Ask the PHs & other interested parties in Africa if they disagree that USF&W is not indirectly controlling the hunting industry and their livelihoods in their countries.
As an aside, when the import ban was instituted, I had a PH who worked Tanzania tell me his company had seven U.S. hunter 100k elephant hunts canceled. Why? USF&W. If that's not controlling a market, and industry and a pastime, I don't know what is.

 

[johnnyblues]

I know this is a slippery slope and @Royal27 and I have disagreed on importation in the past. (still like you though). If it were considered a "trinket" then a lot of members here have lots of trinkets in their homes. I too agree that the USFW is controlling the African hunting market. Thus controlling American hunters in a sense. For me and only me at this present time and my opinion may change in the future, if I can't import my elephant home I will not hunt one. I feel it's important for me to have my well earned trophy in MY HOME. Not sitting in some taxidermy studio in Africa. That's my hard earned dollars that paid for that hunt. I want my trophy. Let's understand my point, I don't disagree with those whose disagree with my point. I just don't want anyone minimizing my opinion. We can all disagree but we must as hunters stand together.

 

[Royal27]

@Royal27, We'll have to disagree on this. If the USF&W is preventing the importation of elephant tusks, then they are indirectly controlling that aspect of hunting in a foreign country. Let's take it one step further. If USF&W had ZERO restrictions on the importation of ANY African game, could we both agree they would then have no effect on said hunting and those countries and the free market would operate as they should? Ask the PHs & other interested parties in Africa if they disagree that USF&W is not indirectly controlling the hunting industry and their livelihoods in their countries.
As an aside, when the import ban was instituted, I had a PH who worked Tanzania tell me his company had seven U.S. hunter 100k elephant hunts canceled. Why? USF&W. If that's not controlling a market, and industry and a pastime, I don't know what is.

Yup - def have to disagree. There is indirect control over almost everything. That's my entire point. I mean if the elephant hunts pre import ban were at the prices they are now there would have been more hunts then, right? Prices were up higher to control the market place. Those dang outfitters were controlling the market, the industry, the pastime!!! How rude!

Anyone who says that USFWS stopped them from hunting elephant is full of crap. It just isn't true. Now if that same person tells me that USFWS stopped them from importing and that's why they didn't go, then they are being honest at least and I respect that totally, but they weren't stopped from hunting.

I also tire of the controlling the market argument. In business, you go where the customers are. One group of customers goes away and a business finds others, or goes out of business. The American piece of the market is the easy way, without having to go develop other markets. Outfitters had better be developing other markets around the world and working to get people to hunt for the pleasure of hunting and not for the trinket. If they sit around and wait for things to go back to the way they were they are going to wait a long time. I believe in controlling what I can, but adapt to the rest.

Oh, and Tanzania caused many of its own issues and that government isn't exactly a pleasure to work with either. It's easy, but not accurate, to blame all of the problems of Tanzania on USFWS.

 

[Royal27]

I know this is a slippery slope and @Royal27 and I have disagreed on importation in the past. (still like you though). If it were considered a "trinket" then a lot of members here have lots of trinkets in their homes. I too agree that the USFW is controlling the African hunting market. Thus controlling American hunters in a sense. For me and only me at this present time and my opinion may change in the future, if I can't import my elephant home I will not hunt one. I feel it's important for me to have my well earned trophy in MY HOME. Not sitting in some taxidermy studio in Africa. That's my hard earned dollars that paid for that hunt. I want my trophy. Let's understand my point, I don't disagree with those whose disagree with my point. I just don't want anyone minimizing my opinion. We can all disagree but we must as hunters stand together.

And that's the honesty I was talking about. I have no issue of and fully support that decision, which to me is very different than saying "I can't hunt one."

I've got plenty of trinkets in my house too, but that's exactly what they are, trinkets, albeit very treasured ones.

One more comment on the market and maybe I will express my opinion more clearly than I did. USFWS isn't controlling the market. It's controlling the hunters, who allow themselves to be controlled, through importation. We all make a choice.

 

[Hogpatrol]

OT, but another step up on the government control of our lives. Cancer warning mandated for Starbucks coffee drinkers.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43594645

 

[Pheroze]

One more comment on the market and maybe I will express my opinion more clearly than I did. USFWS isn't controlling the market. It's controlling the hunters, who allow themselves to be controlled, through importation. We all make a choice.

Come on. Any trade restriction, tariff or prohibition is designed to deter the consumer to change the market. That's how it works. There is always choice. I can choose to work around it, or even choose to break the law of the item if illegal, like alcohol during prohibition. But there's no denying the purpose is to limit consumption. If PETA was in charge they would have enacted the exact same import restriction. Because they want to influence consumption and they do that by influencing the consumer.

 

[IdaRam]

Sorry, I don’t mean to intrude on the conversation taking place already. But, there are also people such as myself who are being influenced in the other direction as well. To GO HUNT ELEPHANT, because we can afford to. Whereas I might not have been able to otherwise. I am in the other boat. I can be completely happy with replica tusks or no “trophy” at all. Just the hunt and pictures as the trophy. I think over time if imports don’t happen, probably more people will decide to just go hunt for the experience.

USFWS isn't controlling the market. It's controlling the hunters, who allow themselves to be controlled, through importation. We all make a choice.

Spot on!

 

[Hogpatrol]

We need an attorney on this board to define de facto in the legal and practical sense.

edit. Wife says I must go out and feed the animals.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Sorry, I don’t mean to intrude on the conversation taking place already. But, there are also people such as myself who are being influenced in the other direction as well. To GO HUNT ELEPHANT, because we can afford to. Whereas I might not have been able to otherwise. I am in the other boat. I can be completely happy with replica tusks or no “trophy” at all. Just the hunt and pictures as the trophy. I think over time if imports don’t happen, probably more people will decide to just go hunt for the experience.

Spot on!

That's your choice and it's a valid one. So is mine. If I'm spending five figures for tusks, I want them in my trophy room. I wouldn't spend fifty bucks to hunt a tusker and leave the ivory.

 

[Royal27]

Come on. Any trade restriction, tariff or prohibition is designed to deter the consumer to change the market. That's how it works. There is always choice. I can choose to work around it, or even choose to break the law of the item if illegal, like alcohol during prohibition. But there's no denying the purpose is to limit consumption. If PETA was in charge they would have enacted the exact same import restriction. Because they want to influence consumption and they do that by influencing the consumer.

Oh I'm not denying that limiting the consumption isn't the idea. It most certainly is. I'm arguing that HUNTERS are the ones who support the import ban and make it successful. Not USFWS, not PETA, not President Trump, but HUNTERS.

 

[wesheltonj]

We need an attorney on this board to define de facto in the legal and practical sense.

edit. Wife says I must go out and feed the animals.

The definition is a about 50 years old, but the best I could do today for a free copy of Blacks Law Dictionary.

DE FACTO. In fact; actually; indeed; in reality. Ridout v. State, 161 Tenn. 248, 30 S.W.2d 255, 257, 71 A.L.R. 830. Thus, an office, position or status existing under a claim or color of right such as adeputy county clerk. Heron v. Gaylor, 49 N.M. 62, 157 P.2d 239, 241; deputy clerk of court. State v. Brandon, 186 S.C. 448, 197 S.E. 113, 115; cor- porate office. In re Hillmark Associates, D.C.N. Y., 47 F.Supp. 605, 606; corporation, Municipal Bond & Mortgage Corporation v. Bishop's Harbor Drainage Dist., 133 Fla. 430, 182 So. 794, 797; Ebeling v. Independent Rural Telephone Co., 187 Minn. 604, 246 N.W. 373; court, Marckel Co. v.Zitzow, 218 Minn. 305, 15 N.W.2d 777, 778; de- positary, School Dist. No. 1, Itasco County, v. Af- ton, 173 Minn. 428, 217 N.W. 496, 499; deputy sher- iff, Malone v. Howell, 140 Fla. 693, 192 So. 224, 227; fire district commissioner, Petition of Board of Fire Com'rs of Columbia-Litchfield Fire Dist,. Sup., 29 N.Y.S.2d 605, 619; grand jury, McDonald v. Colden, 181 Misc. 407, 41 N.Y.S.2d 323, 327; guardian, State ex rel. Symons v. East Chicago State Bank, 106 Ind.App. 4, 17 N.E.2d 491, 494; judge, Annoni v. Bias Nadal's Heirs, C.C.A.Puerto Rico, 94 F.2d 513, 515; officer, Eaker v. Common School Dist. No. 73 of Butler County, Mo.App., 62 S.W.2d 778, 783; police officer, People ex ref. Mitchell v. Armspach, 314 Ill.App. 573, 41 N.E.2d 781; trustee, In re Wohl's Estate, 36 N.Y.S.2d 926,. 930.

DE FACTO GOVERNMENT. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof. Wortham v. Walker, 133 Tex. 255, 128 S.W.2d 1138, 1145.

From the LAW Dictionary on line

In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which exists actually and must be accepted for all practical purposes, but which is illegal or illegitimate. In this sense it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful. legitimate, just, or constitutional. Thus, an officer, king, or government de facto is one who is in actual possession of the office or supreme power, but by usurpation, or v.-ifiirespect to lawful title; while an officer, king, or governor de jure is one who has just claim and rightful title to the office or power, but who has never had plenary possession of the same, or is not now in actual possession. 4 Bl. Comm. 77, 78. So a wife de facto is one whose marriage is voidable by decree, as distinguished from a wife de jure, or lawful wife. 4 Kent, Comm. 30. But the term is also frequently used independently of any distinction from de jure; thus a blockade de facto is a blockade which is actually maintained, as distinguished from a mere paper blockade. As to de facto “Corporation,” “Court,” “Domicile,” “Government,” and “Officer,” see those titles. In old English law. De facto means respecting or concerning the principal act of a murder, which was technically denominated factum. See Fleta, lib. 1, c. 27,

TLD Example: His popularity and the work he did on behalf of the community caused people to refer to him as the town’s de facto mayor much to the chagrin of the duly elected officials.

 

[IdaRam]

That's your choice and it's a valid one. So is mine.

Agreed.

 

[johnnyblues]

That's your choice and it's a valid one. So is mine. If I'm spending five figures for tusks, I want them in my trophy room. I wouldn't spend fifty bucks to hunt a tusker and leave the ivory.

Gotta respect that. Today that about sums up my stance. Tomorrow......

 

[johnnyblues]

Oh I'm not denying that limiting the consumption isn't the idea. It most certainly is. I'm arguing that HUNTERS are the ones who support the import ban and make it successful. Not USFWS, not PETA, not President Trump, but HUNTERS.

I don’t know about that buddy. IMO your walking a thin line on that theory.

 

[wesheltonj]

. . . . If I'm spending five figures for tusks, I want them in my trophy room. I wouldn't spend fifty bucks to hunt a tusker and leave the ivory.

I agree that most folks want them in their home and I would too. But in the end, when we cross the "River Jorden" will they be worth the 5 figures to your loved ones? Most likely not and especially my loved ones. It's the experience of the hunt not the trinket in the long run that matters (the short run maybe the trinket). And when my time comes I just hope my loved ones don't sell everything for what I said it cost.

 

[johnnyblues]

I agree that most folks want them in their home and I would too. But in the end, when we cross the "River Jorden" will they be worth the 5 figures to your loved ones? Most likely not and especially my loved ones. It's the experience of the hunt not the trinket in the long run that matters. And when my time comes I just hope my loved ones don't sell everything for what I said it cost.

I’ve always assumed my trophies will wind up in a dumpster upon my demise. But in the mean time if I’m going to shoot some sort of big game trophy I want it in my trophy room. I’m traveling great distances spending lots of money ( my wife would love if I found a new hobby) I’d like not only the experience but my “ trinket”.

 

[Hogpatrol]

I agree that most folks want them in their home and I would too. But in the end, when we cross the "River Jorden" will they be worth the 5 figures to your loved ones? Most likely not and especially my loved ones. It's the experience of the hunt not the trinket in the long run that matters (the short run maybe the trinket). And when my time comes I just hope my loved ones don't sell everything for what I said it cost.

Roger that, especially my rifles! As far as what happens to the trophies. Don't even want to go there. I would hope they'd go someplace where they could be used for education.

 

[Royal27]

I don’t know about that buddy. IMO your walking a thin line on that theory.

Oh I think I'm getting very close to the quick for some, but I'm on solid ground

whether it offends someone or not.

At the risk of offending even more folks I think the real issue is that many don't like admitting that collecting is more important to them than the experience of hunting, or helping to fund conversation.

And again, there is nothing wrong with being a collector first.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Come on. Any trade restriction, tariff or prohibition is designed to deter the consumer to change the market. That's how it works. There is always choice. I can choose to work around it, or even choose to break the law of the item if illegal, like alcohol during prohibition. But there's no denying the purpose is to limit consumption. If PETA was in charge they would have enacted the exact same import restriction. Because they want to influence consumption and they do that by influencing the consumer.

Of course the gov't is attempting to control the market, actually to shut it down. But it's not the same as prohibition. Prohibition was intended to keep you from drinking and was made criminal to do so. USFWS to my knowledge has no jurisdiction over foreign countries. Therefore while they can try to do what the can to influence you to not hunt elephants, they can't stop you from doing so. That is a choice you make free of the threat of going to prison for doing so.

Is it effective what they're doing? Yes it is, but not without the consent of the would be elephant hunter.