court and that's how they've come to this court and we appreciate the opportunity to have these matters heard together because there is some overlap but i think there's also some important distinctions here and you know get back to that point you know i really want to be clear that the agency here is it is arguing through a march memo that it can make endangered species act enhancement findings and convention on international trade in endangered species are citing not that human findings through due occasion core you're taking are you taking the position that it was illegal been issued without regard to safari was for the agency to push you through informal to periodic review and updating of findings and said that that was done by rule and that supports the notion that at least since one thousand nine hundred and seventy the countrywide findings had to be made by rule but you don't make that argument you would hear to it or not and do you think it's significant in support of the position that you're clarifying now i think what's far more across the board to countries what was it would that have been illegal wrong we're going to go ahead and continue to use these across the board countrywide findings doing and what our record shows that you are not answering the hypothetical because the answer is it would have been probably illegal to do that and that some by way of demonstrating the findings were dead because they did not they were the facts legislative rules they didn't go through f the agency did what i guess if thought was a guide and the circuit said no actually that's a rule so when you want to work with that you have to go through notice in combat and the question is have do we have any case where in that situation where they hadn't gone through notice and comment but should have the things that they then have on their books has to be dismantled by notice and comment rather than them saying oh gosh we thought it was a guy never mind we'd rather do this case by case so i just i know there's a long question but i guess and it's another way of asking what and judge superman were discussing which is if we disagree with you that this kind of determination because this country well because it relies on these broad general determinations about circumstances  country if we disagree with you that they always necessarily have to be done by rule but on a clean slate might have been done through perma five permanent then the question is do you still have a claim that the agency's decision to back off from what the circuit has told it is the rule must be done through notice and comment that in that case there were parts of the rules that were declared illegal but not all and the agency throwing out the rule threw out the good parts as well and rather than doing that the agency really invasion that ruling and decided to do something else and that is exactly the circumstances that lives are the agencies obligation to engage and notice and comment out how the agency need to do to take it out of the status of the circuit which is it's a rule and say we want to go back to the world that george zimmerman is describing where we have a a rule but it hasn't been procedurally validated in the way that would make it operative as a rule and that because of that character the agency needs to dismantle it through notice and comment even though it didn't build it and comment that that's what feels different to me here and i think that's right and i think that system how is it going to make findings under the essay and site is going forward that's an important question that absolutely for purposes of fairness and for informed decision making requires public involvement but then to as the agency that once the court has held this is a legislative role which ever we're talking about the two thousand and seventeen or the prior ones then can it be treated as something other these you know that that that the service is suddenly holding a lot of legislative rules that it needs to you know start from there and figure out whether it's going to dismantle them or you know build the foundation that they need to be is applied to education as opposed to will making isn't a thing you have to make it the value that you have to show is that the formal shift from a countrywide finding  specific findings is something on which there isn't a title meant to notice and comment on my missing something yeah yeah i think and that's and that's a separate argument that you know judge pillared i mean on the on the one hand we argue that the withdrawal of these rules six you know it says in there that the service needs to make a determination that the killing of this trophy animal will enhance the survival of the species you know that that is a perspective determination that that use of the language willingham is you know is important service is not allowed to make these backward looking determination that you know ok yes this you know this applicant attorney but i think you know under this routine in some cases that you know it could be before an animal is killed but in other cases it will be after an animal skilled and i think you know to get back to he can import the does not affirm well not not not necessarily judge judge silverman unless i think unless he believes that he can import that animal back to the united states in the in the under the knowing that he cannot import the remains of that animal back into the united states but i think on you know under the current regime you know there's there's i'm there's uncertainty and and parties so under the current regime established by by the march memo the service is only going to be looking at information submitted by the trophy hunters and there's no there's no effective way for other interested parties to when the service makes you determine a sions it's looking not only at information from the country it's looking at information in the in the permit applications that receipt which could include information about where the funding organization that sort of sponsored this fund the level of quota in in each country where they are and the number of funds that have occurred that year and so the service is required to look at each application individually and although it's true that applications that look exactly the same i get the same result there's nothing that says that the permitted you to cation is improper simply because the agency reach the same result each time looking at the validity of each of those permit determinations that require looking at the information that was before the service ok could you address your friends argument about the significance of the of the march memo they argue that  a countrywide findings on file and those are the sorts of findings before the court in safari club service makes these enhanced and determinations for all sorts of permit adjudications for for example before it and so as a result it retains a lot more nimble to respond to information it receives from interested parties and also in the course of those gum or government to government discussions and when it receives information indicating that a one that the service plans to follow at this point because it's not making rules but the fish and wildlife services web site includes the phone numbers and e mail addresses of the people responsible for making these sorts of determinations for all of those offices and the truth is that these organizations regularly participate and provide information to the fish and wildlife service and that's clear in their pleadings and they'll be no less able to do that now than they were before and a supposedly disagree parties both interested in promoting hunting and also parties who are interested in opposing it how i'm sorry how would you respond to this angle to a characterization of the the planned approach going forward that there is still a countrywide determination same as the service that that information remains why the information about the status of hunting programs and countries like the bad way are not affected by the fact that the service is no longer proceeding by rule  mr hung up the timing of how these programs would have a little bit little bit unclear to me so the whole this whole case is not moot even though we're talking about two thousand and seventeen partly because the twenty seven didn't have a definite end date but then there's also this two thousand and fifteen rule are there proces that people killed in two thousand and fifteen that are in some warehouse somewhere or it's not just they're going to have the ability to import these trophies but a number of people also might hunt the trophies and then keep them in storage in the country where they were hunted and then seek permits to bring those countries to bring those trophies back but the fact that the service might be issuing permits or making determinations for hunts that might occur in the future doesn't make the different determinations or rule making where they are made and in the course of one program and apply really got our government doesn't regulate honey and zimbabwe we only regulate the return of the trophy think you have to respectfully disagree the st one is i think it would be very difficult for non hunters to go into court on an individual and  can go and not worry that there will be an outright ban on importing these animals into the u s i mean i think another effect of the march memo is that by withdrawing use these  i have a hard time believing you sure that if we challenge reason and findings that the government will will not argue that we lack standing because we're only you know we're only challenging the killing of one