Feral Jundi

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Fish And Game: Trout Fishing Bounties In Idaho!

The reward breakdown is: 300 of the tags are worth $50 each; 200 are worth $100; 50 are worth $200; 20 worth $500; and 5 are worth $1,000 each.
The competitive aspect is that the tags are invisible to the eye and can’t be detected by a standard metal detector. In order to tell whether a fish is a winner it must be killed and brought into the Idaho Falls Fish and Game headquarters to be checked.
Because the rainbow trout is a sport fish, it cannot be wasted. Anglers can keep the meat and turn in the head if they desire, or they can turn in the whole fish…….

Every lake trout of any size and rainbow trout more than 13 inches long harvested from Lake Pend Oreille pays $15.00!

Talk about cool?  Fishing trout and collecting a bounty for your effort?  lol It doesn’t get any better than that! Plus you get to enjoy the meat and you only have to turn in the head for verification.

So for you anglers out there that are looking for a good trout fishing vacation, try out the South Fork Snake River or Lake Pend Oreille in Idaho. Read both ads for bounties below if you are interested and definitely check out the video they made about why they are doing this. –Matt

IDAHO FISH AND GAME UPPER SNAKE REGION NEWS RELEASE
Idaho Falls, ID
Fish And Game Offers Bounty On Rainbow Trout
Date:March 29, 2010
Contact:Gregg Losinski
(208) 525-7290
Since 1982 Idaho Fish and Game fisheries biologists have been monitoring the numbers of the different types of trout in the South Fork Snake River outside of Idaho Falls.
This monitoring has tracked the effects non-native rainbow trout are having on native Yellowstone cutthroat trout populations. Rainbow trout can interbreed with cutthroats and produce fertile offspring. The resulting generations of hybrids become more and more like rainbows, and less like cutthroats.

(more…)

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Cool Stuff: The New Danger Zone Jobs YouTube Channel!

Legal News: Britain To Give Legal Backing To Armed Guards On Vessels

This is interesting, and this will certainly be a legal nightmare to produce. The reason why is the UK is a signatory of the Paris Declaration and the Second Hague Conference in 1907. Not to mention their local laws that deal with citizens owning and using weapons.

Although there is precedence for Britain to ignore these treaties. During WW 1, they implemented a strategy against German U-boats called ‘Q Ships’.  Or basically they armed merchant vessels to attack the enemy at sea. What made this strategy interesting is that they actually wanted the vessel to look like a defenseless merchant vessel so German U-Boats would attack them. The point is, is this was a violation of these treaties, and that is precedence. (someone please correct me here if I am wrong, but Global Security identified this point as well)

Now is this a revival of a modern day version of Letter of Marque and Reprisal?  It could be, but they probably will not call it that. But it is a license to arm a merchant vessel, and that is significant. The article below also identified Denmark as seeking a similar path of creating an arming license.

It’s kind of like how the US licenses private companies to be armed or provide defense related services abroad via the ITAR and DSP 73. I guess the point is that states will work around the law and treaties, if it is within their best interest to do so. But as the Export Law blog has identified, there are many ‘technical’ obstacles to arming vessels.

My thoughts on the matter is that they might as well revive the Letter of Marque and Reprisal, just because the laws created continue to morph into exactly what the LoM is all about.  It will also give vessels more legal authority to sail and not get screwed with by other countries for being armed. The incident between India and the Danish flagged Danica Sunrise highlights the complexities of being armed on the open ocean, and these vessels need internationally recognized authority to be armed.

A LoM is essentially a license that ‘puts the flag of a country’ on that vessel to do what it is doing. A LoM is also signed by the highest authority of that country and there is law (admiralty law, prize courts) and history (hundreds of years of it’s usage) to support the concept. All other licenses pale in comparison.

The other interesting thought that came to mind is if a vessel had armed guards, could that vessel defend itself against a state sponsored act of piracy or outright attack?  Let’s say China or Iran wanted to detain an armed merchant vessel, seize the loot on the boat and imprison or even kill all the crew.  If the threat was imminent, would a vessel and it’s armed crew have the right to defend itself against such a naval assault?

Who knows, but as it stands now, a merchant vessel being attacked by a country could be viewed as a company versus a state, and less like an act of war. If that company has arming authority through a license, then how does that work in such an example presented? It is an interesting question, but as we allow shipping to be armed, these kinds of scenarios will present themselves. In this case, if ships are to be armed, then these possible scenarios should be covered by laws and licenses, and international treaties should be made or modified.  Hence why I go back to the LoM, because it has such historical precedence throughout the world.

The other point that needs to be addressed is the rules for capture or enemy prisoners. Because what if the guards on a vessel fire upon a skiff with pirates, and their boat starts sinking?  Or the pirates just give up and surrender to the vessel for some reason. Or a wounded pirate is the last survivor on a boat, and asks to be given care?  What about prisoners?  There should be a mechanism in place that allows for the detention of pirates, and the legal processes an armed merchant vessel must follow for that detention.  Perhaps video cameras on ships would be a good thing to have, just to legally protect the ship in a court of law when these pirates are detained and charged. The way I envision this is that video tape, witnesses, and GPS coordinates for where the incident took place, would be some excellent tools for a vessel to have in order to help protect themselves legally and to help in the prosecution of pirates. Without provisions like this, then in essence the whole ‘catch and release’ game continues.

And like with the early privateers, unless they have an incentive to detain prisoners, they will not be that enthused to take them. Do we want armed guards of a vessel to be in a position to ‘turn away’ pirates that are surrendering to them, just because it is not profitable or legal to do so? Or the ships insurance or budget does not provide for the care or detention of prisoners. For those of you who are students of ‘offense industry‘ you will recognize quickly what I am getting at here. At present, there is no offense industry in place to capture prisoners and reduce the number of pirates that continue to ravage the shipping industry. There is only ‘defense industry’, which only profits from the continuation of piracy. Reducing the number of pirates through culling or capture is not a main focus of defense industries.

Also, to be technical, the terms of the treaties signed have more significance between all the parties that ratified the thing. The main threat to shipping is pretty much from Somali pirates, so the LoM’s to be issued would be against folks who come from a failed state. (Somalia is not a signatory of these treaties either.) But of course I am simplifying this, and any legal eagle out there could probably find some portion of the treaties or international law that would still prevent the LoM being used against pirates. If any lawyers or readers have any legal input on where this will go, or what this will potentially look like if they create an arming license, let us know in the comments. –Matt

Edit: On a side note, JLT has been itching to fire up their private navy, and legal authority is what they have been seeking.

Britain To Give Legal Backing To Armed Guards On Vessels
May 16, 2011
Britain is preparing to give firm legal backing to the deployment of armed guards on UK-flag ships.
Legislation is being drawn up that will formally accept the use of private security personnel on ships sailing through waters where pirates are active.
Although many ships are known to have armed protection, including a considerable number operated by UK-based companies, the legal position remains uncertain. Both the shipowners who employ armed personnel and the guards themselves could, technically, be in breach of the law.
The UK is now poised to remedy that situation, changing the law where necessary to ensure shipowners whose vessels have firearms on board are not at risk of prosecution. The British government is thought to be one of the first to promise statutory changes. Denmark has taken similar action
“We have to accept [piracy] is happening, but if a UK-registered ship has armed security on board, I must make sure the legislation is fit for purpose,” UK shipping minister Mike Penning told Lloyd’s List.

(more…)

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Industry Talk: The UAE Contracts With Erik Prince To Raise An Army–To Deal With Iran!

So this is what Mr. Prince was up to in the UAE?….and what a project! Lookout French Foreign Legion, here comes the UAE’s first Foreign Legion/PMC hybrid built by Erik Prince. (Vinnell Arabia eat your heart out. lol) There are many things here to talk about, so let’s get started with some of the stuff that jumped out at me.

First, the creation of this force was so that it can be used to deal with Iran, or whatever national interests of the UAE. The Iran angle is smart, because that makes a lot of folks in the west happy. (which could explain why there isn’t much ado from the US about this) It sounds like a blended work force of foreign forces (Americans, South Africans, Colombians, etc.) and Emirates troops, all answering to the laws of the UAE and to the Deputy Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. Part PMC  and part Foreign Legion. But legally, here is a snippet from the contract:

Article 17
Compliance with the Laws, Regulations and Bylaws
The Second Party undertakes to comply with all the laws, regulations and bylaws in force in the State, and all provisions of the Decision of the Deputy Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces referred to hereinabove shall apply to this Contract, provided that the general legal principles in force in the State concerning contracts and contracting methods of the administration shall apply to any matter regarding which there is no specific provision in the said Decision or in this Contract.

The article below also had a quote from international trade lawyer Susan Kovarovics. I would certainly hope that if this Foreign Legion hybrid is within the best interest of the US, that they would have provided ITARs or similar blessings to Prince or any of the American trainers participating in this.  I kind of look at it like the Vinnell Arabia contract that has been going on for years in Saudi Arabia training the SANG.  But Susan is the expert here:

Susan Kovarovics, an international trade lawyer who advises companies about export controls, said that because Reflex Responses was an Emirati company it might not need State Department authorization for its activities.
But she said that any Americans working on the project might run legal risks if they did not get government approval to participate in training the foreign troops.

The contract is also very interesting in that it has a ‘Performance Bond’, which is a great thing to have in a contract. I have been pushing for similar performance bonds for US contracts, much like our early privateers were bonded before they were given a license. R2 had to put up ‘ten percent of the contract value’ as a bond. My fuzzy math says that is close to 53 million dollars! Quite the incentive to do well, and just imagine a modern military operating with a similar contract mechanism? lol

The amount of money this contract is worth and time period of it is also listed in the contract and stated in the article below. Here it is for anyone that is curious:

Contract Period June 2010 – May 2015
Total Cost $529,166,754.13

If Reflex Responses Management Consultancy LLC or R2 can deliver on this first test battalion, it sounds like the UAE is prepared to expand on the thing. The contract goes up to May of 2015, so a lot can happen between now and then.

Now as far as what they will be used for, who knows?  The article below says that this legion could be used to take a few islands off the coast and keep them out of Iranian hands? That this force could also be a deterrent to deal with Iran, which I think that is the real reason why the US would be ok with such a set up. Here is a quote on some of the possible tasks of this force:

Corporate documents describe the battalion’s possible tasks: intelligence gathering, urban combat, the securing of nuclear and radioactive materials, humanitarian missions and special operations “to destroy enemy personnel and equipment.”
One document describes “crowd-control operations” where the crowd “is not armed with firearms but does pose a risk using improvised weapons (clubs and stones).”
The foreign military force was planned months before the so-called Arab Spring revolts that many experts believe are unlikely to spread to the U.A.E. Iran was a particular concern.

Here is the part of the article that talks specifically about Iran. Pretty wild, and this kind of operation is certainly offensive in nature if they do it:

Although there was no expectation that the mercenary troops would be used for a stealth attack on Iran, Emirati officials talked of using them for a possible maritime and air assault to reclaim a chain of islands, mostly uninhabited, in the Persian Gulf that are the subject of a dispute between Iran and the U.A.E., the former employees said. Iran has sent military forces to at least one of the islands, Abu Musa, and Emirati officials have long been eager to retake the islands and tap their potential oil reserves.

Finally there is the future of this project, and more importantly, what Prince envisions. This is where the Foreign Legion turns into a hybrid type force.  It would be like Secopex training and providing logistics for the FFL, and offering the training facility to other private or government forces. Here is the quote:

But by last November, the battalion was officially behind schedule. The original goal was for the 800-man force to be ready by March 31; recently, former employees said, the battalion’s size was reduced to about 580 men.
Emirati military officials had promised that if this first battalion was a success, they would pay for an entire brigade of several thousand men. The new contracts would be worth billions, and would help with Mr. Prince’s next big project: a desert training complex for foreign troops patterned after Blackwater’s compound in Moyock, N.C.

So will R2 be opening it’s doors for training to the world, much like how BW operated in the US?   If true, I could see something like this becoming a multi-billion dollar project for Prince and company. Just because it would be located in the middle east and cater to all the OPEC nations.  That is a pretty wealthy neighborhood to cater too, and this will be one to watch in the coming years. Also, if anyone at R2 or Thor Global Enterprises would like to add anything to the discussion, please feel free to do so in the comments or contact me directly. When these two companies actually set up an online website, I will make the edits. At this time, I have not been able to find anything other than a listing at IDEX 2011. (hint–if you guys are having a hard time recruiting enough folks for the project, then at the least you should have a website and recruitment page) –Matt

Edit: I would also like to mention that Eeben Barlow has reacted severely to this article because of the reporter’s false and libellous statements about Executive Outcomes. EO did not ‘stage coups attempts’, and the New York Times should do the right thing and make an edit or publish a separate correction to the article. Hell, if the reporters below would have actually took the time to contact Eeben on his blog or read some of his posts, he has actually stopped coups in the past and has been vehemently opposed to them.

Edit: 05/20/2011 Finally the NYT’s makes a correction. Hopefully an apology is sent as well. Here it is:

NYT Corrections
Published: May 18, 2011
FRONT PAGE
An article on Sunday about the creation of a mercenary battalion in the United Arab Emirates misstated the past work of Executive Outcomes, a former South African mercenary firm whose veterans have been recruited for the new battalion. Executive Outcomes was hired by several African governments during the 1990s to put down rebellions and protect oil and diamond reserves; it did not stage coup attempts. (Some former Executive Outcomes employees participated in a 2004 coup attempt against the government of Equatorial Guinea, several years after the company itself shut down.)

Edit: 5/29/2011- Eeben has posted a reaction to the correction, and you can find that here.

Edit: 6/7/2011- Here is another correction that the NYT’s has had to make. Very interesting.

New York Times
June 7, 2011
Correction
An article on May 15 about efforts to build a battalion of foreign mercenary troops in the
United Arab Emirates referred imprecisely to the role played by Erik Prince, the founder
of the security firm Blackwater Worldwide. He worked to oversee the effort and recruit
troops. But Mr. Prince does not run or own the company Reflex Responses, which has a
contract with the government of the U.A.E. to train and deliver the troops, according to
the company president, Michael Roumi. An article on May 16 repeated the error.

 

R2 Logo

Secret Desert Force Set Up by Blackwater’s Founder
By MARK MAZZETTI and EMILY B. HAGER
May 14, 2011
ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — Late one night last November, a plane carrying dozens of Colombian men touched down in this glittering seaside capital. Whisked through customs by an Emirati intelligence officer, the group boarded an unmarked bus and drove roughly 20 miles to a windswept military complex in the desert sand.
The Colombians had entered the United Arab Emirates posing as construction workers. In fact, they were soldiers for a secret American-led mercenary army being built by Erik Prince, the billionaire founder of Blackwater Worldwide, with $529 million from the oil-soaked sheikdom.

(more…)

Friday, May 13, 2011

Industry Talk: Five More Companies Awarded IDIQ Contracts For 10 Billion Dollar CJPS (CIVPOL) Program

I wanted to put this up because I have received several notes from guys who have been approached for work with CJPS.  And hence, this latest news is why the companies have been actively recruiting for this stuff recently. Hell, between this, maritime security and WPS, experienced security contractors are certainly becoming a hot commodity.

What is cool with these contracts is that some of them do not require you to be a former police officer. They have protective details and various other support functions required by the program.  So definitely check out the companies below and research their career sections if you are wanting to get into some of this work. Definitely ask around at the forums if you want to know more about the project/company.

Also, there is no telling what company will go where, and this is IDIQ stuff. But the synopsis does list a few of the countries this program is active in. Here is the quote: “Program countries/areas include Afghanistan, Haiti, Iraq, Kosovo, Lebanon, Liberia, Sudan, and the West Bank.” And seeing how much money this program is getting, I imagine they will be recruiting for awhile.  If anyone has anything to add, please feel free to do so in the comments section. –Matt

CJPS Full Scope Award
Solicitation Number: SAQMMA10R0079-CJPS-Full-Scope
Agency: U.S. Department of State
Office: Office of Logistics Management
Location: Acquisition Management
Solicitation Number: SAQMMA10R0079-CJPS-Full-Scope
Notice Type: Award Notice
Contract Award Date: May 10, 2011
Contract Award Number: SAQMMA11D0047-SAQMMA11D0048-SAQMMA11D0049-SAQMMA11D0050-SAQMMA11D0081
Contract Award Dollar Amount: 10,000,000,0001
Contractor Awarded Name:
DynCorp International
Justice Services International
MPRI An L3 Company
PAE Government Services
Civilian Police International
(INL on Feb. 15 had awarded the first round of contracts to four other vendors: BlueLaw International, Bering Strait Orion Management Joint Venture, Team Crucible, and Navigator Development Group. Link to post here.)
(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress