Trophy Hunting and Conservation Science

November 4, 2019 by Andrew Wyatt

photo: Hilton

“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”― Oscar Wilde

Washington, D.C.— Few things stoke the fires of emotion like the idea of endangered species dying unnecessarily. The African lion, one of the most iconic species on the planet, has become a symbol of conservation worldwide. But while Disney’s The Lion King personalizes an anthropomorphic view of animals in the American psyche, the debate on how best to conserve lions and other threatened species is not always consistent with pop culture notions. The science vs emotionalism debate is guaranteed to heat up with the recent introduction of the Prohibiting Threatened and Endangered Creature Trophies Act of 2019 (ProTECT) Act (H.R. 4804) to the U.S. House of Representatives by Texas Democrat, Sheila Jackson-Lee. It has been assigned to the House Committee on Natural Resources.

H.R. 4804 not only seeks to prevent the hunting of lions or any species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), but would undermine captive breeding projects that were exempted from ESA by the Obama Administration; projects that have successfully saved the scimitar-horned oryx, and other endangered hoof stock from extinction— returning them to the African savannah.

“As human-lion contact increases, so does human-lion conflict, resulting in reductions in lion numbers (through poisoning, trapping and shooting) and lack of support for lion conservation among local communities.” ~ IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group

While the debate in Washington regarding the best way to conserve wildlife continues, animal rights groups stoke the fires of emotionalism surrounding H.R. 4804, cultivating an irrational hatred for hunters on social media pages. Despite the rhetorical hyperbole, real conservation deserves a fair understanding of the facts.

All agree that populations of lions have declined significantly. According to a study authored by Professor Stuart Pimm of Duke University in 2012, about 75 percent of Africa’s savannahs and more than two-thirds of the lion population once estimated to live there have disappeared in the last 50 years. There are likely between 32,000 and 35,000 free ranging lions on the African continent today. According to professor Pimm, “massive land-use change and deforestation, driven by rapid human population growth” is the primary reason for the decline of the lion. This same human-wildlife conflict dynamic holds true as the primary threat to other listed species as well.

Sixty percent of big game hunted in Africa are destined for trophy rooms in the United States. Proponents of the ProTECT Act say allowing hunters to export trophies back to the U.S. sends the wrong conservation message. They say lions and other listed species would be best conserved by blocking access to American hunters, thereby reducing pressure on populations.

Jeff Flocken of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) once wrote, “Why should anyone spend money to protect an animal that a wealthy American can then pay to go kill?” Mr. Flocken characterized his argument as common sense, but acknowledged that, habitat loss and human-lion conflict, not hunting, are the primary causes of the lions’ disappearance from Africa.

In August 2019, Science magazine published an open letter, “Trophy hunting bans imperil biodiversity,” led by five scientists from Oxford University’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unit and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and signed by 128 more. The letter stated that hunting has many positive impacts on conservation, and Amy Dickman, one of the letter’s lead authors, appeared on the BBC, where she stated that imposing a complete trophy hunting ban is likely to cause “more animals to die.”

Kitty Block, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), is critical of of the Science letter. She argues that the scientists who signed the letter should be ignored, implying that there is a conflict of interest because some have received conservation dollars derived from hunting interests to help pay for their research. Ms. Block calls the research money a corrupting influence, resulting in what she refers to as, “a web of lies.”

“For years now, trophy hunters have spun a web of lies to tie their ruthless killing of some of the world’s most at-risk animals to fake conservation benefits.”— Kitty Block, CEO HSUS, October 30, 2019

It is absolutely essential that local communities identify the presence of lions and other wildlife as a direct benefit to them. Reducing human-wildlife conflict is critical to conservation success. According to Dennis Ikanda, of the Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute’s Kingupira Research Centre, his country generated $75 million in lion hunting from 2008 to 2011. Opponents of the ProTECT Act assert that trophy hunting is the only thing standing between the lions and extinction. Although those claims may seem counter intuitive, the money generated by hunting is being plowed back into the local economy, into conservation measures, and into protecting lions from poaching. Hunting advocates say the only chance for survival of the lions is management as a valuable and sustainable natural resource.

Although the idea of trophy hunting does not enjoy wide popularity, its value as a pragmatic conservation tool has proven to have great merit. The questions are: 1) will a hunting ban relieve pressure on threatened animal populations? or 2) will public policy ignore scientific evidence, and remove economic incentives necessary to protect valuable wildlife resources?

Animal rights advocates completely dismiss the conservation benefits of hunting. They value protecting individual animals over actions that favor preservation of species. However, a study of trophy hunting by the University of Zimbabwe supports claims of conservation success tied to responsible hunting practices. Peter Lindsey, the lead author of the study, wrote, “trophy hunting is sustainable and low risk if well managed.” Lindsey continued, “Trophy hunting was banned in Kenya in 1977, in Tanzania during 1973–1978, and in Zambia from 2000 through 2003. Each of these bans resulted in an accelerated loss of wildlife due to the removal of incentives for conservation. Avoiding future bans is thus vital for conservation.” When local communities are not incentivized to protect lions they are subsequently killed.

To date there appears to be no clear evidence that would support the premise that banning Americans from trophy hunting would inure conservation benefit to wildlife in Africa. To the contrary, banning hunting could undermine real conservation efforts by diminishing the value of lions and other listed species to local African communities. Remove economic incentives and conservation dollars, and you remove the only thing holding back the tide of human population growth and habitat destruction that is overwhelming the once prolific lion.

“…conservation policy that is not based on science threatens habitat and biodiversity.”— Amy Dickman, University of Oxford

Trophy hunting is by no means a perfect solution, but the IUCN Cat Specialists Group says, “Properly managed trophy hunting was viewed as an important solution to long-term lion conservation.” There will always be some abuse from unscrupulous individuals. But the monetary incentive to mange sustainable populations for hunting is the only protection lions currently have. Removing economic incentive for Africans to conserve lions has been demonstrated to be disastrous. Until a better conservation model proves it’s mettle, responsibly managed hunts are the best chance for lions and other species to survive the human population explosion in Africa.

Andrew Wyatt is a government affairs and policy consultant dedicated exclusively to the wildlife sector. Vitello Consulting for the Win!

Andrew Wyatt and former National Security Advisor John Bolton in the “Green Room” at FOX & Friends

“In an arena known to be dominated by powerful special interest groups, Vitello Consulting has created a niche providing tailored advocacy strategies that are leveling the playing field for wildlife clients on Capitol Hill— And in 2014 we began offering state level advocacy that has negated most of the legislative and regulatory initiatives impacting our clients in state capitols across the country. Please follow The Last Word on Wildlife for insight and analysis particular to the 21st century wildlife sector. If you would like to discuss the advantages of creating a comprehensive business/government affairs strategy, or a more targeted issue campaign, please call or email me.” — Andrew Wyatt

©Andrew Wyatt and The Last Word on Wildlife, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Andrew Wyatt and The Last Word on Wildlife with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. Material posted from guest writers is the sole intellectual property of the author. Please seek permission directly from the author prior to reproducing in whole or in part.

The Elephant’s Armageddon: Part II

October 20, 2017 by Andrew Wyatt

top-bg-2 By guest writer— Ron Thomson

I am going to jump in at the deep end and say that if world society carries on the way it is going at the moment, it is going to cause the extinction of the African elephant before the end of the current century. And the poachers are not the ones who are going to kill the species off. The supposed “do-gooders” in the Western World will achieve that milestone long before the poachers could ever do. Practically every elephant conservation proposal the developed world is trying to force on Africa will only exacerbate the elephant’s dire predicament. So – please – let’s consider the issues involved with an open mind and with some good common sense!

First of all, let me assure you that the elephant is NOT a so-called “endangered species” and it is NOT facing extinction. So don’t listen to the propaganda put out by the animal rights NGOs. They broadcast such emotional diatribe purely for the purpose of making money out of a gullible public. You must understand that the animal rights movement is a confidence industry which we will discuss in a later blog. Just remember, however, if you believe animal rights propaganda you have allowed yourself to be duped.

The so-called “endangered species” concept is a fallacy. Wild animals don’t organise themselves at the species level so the endangered “species” ideal has no application anywhere in the science of wildlife management.

A species can be defined as group of animals that share the same physical and behavioural characteristics (they look alike and they act alike) and which, when they breed, produce fertile offspring with the same physical and behavioural characteristic.

The common African Bush elephant – which is the main species we are concerned about – has 150 different populations in 37 countries across Africa. Each population – totally separate from any and all other populations – lives in its own unique habitat; and the environmental conditions that apply to each such population are unique to that population. Some populations live in montane forests; others in grasslands; others in grassland savannahs; others in various kinds of woodlands; others in thick bush; others in swamps; and yet others in deserts. Some occur in areas of high rainfall. Others live in areas of very low rainfall.

A population can be defined as a group of animals of the same species, the individuals of which interact with each other, in continuum, on a daily basis; and which breed only with other animals in the same group.

Some elephant populations in Africa are “SAFE”. This means they occur in good numbers, consistent with the carrying capacities of their habitats. Safe populations are healthy; their habitats are healthy; and they breed well. Such populations require “conservation” management which means they are able to sustain a high level of sustainable utilisation. They should be culled every year in numbers equivalent to the rate of their respective annual increments. This is necessary to make sure SAFE populations do not become “EXCESSIVE”. (See below).

Some populations are “UNSAFE”. They are low in number and not breeding well. Their numbers are declining and the reasons for these bad situations cannot be ascertained or reversed. These animals face possible local extinction. They require “preservation” management – protection from all harm.

Other populations are “EXCESSIVE”. This means their numbers are above (often grossly above) the carrying capacities of their habitats. Most excessive populations are breeding well – adding to the problem of over-population. Their habitats, however, have been trashed over the years and they continue to be degraded annually. Many such habitats are unrecognisable compared to what they looked like 50 years ago. The biological diversities of such habitats are deteriorating all the time; many have suffered the local extinction of both plant and animal species; and a lot more species are seriously threatened. If the numbers of elephants in such populations are not reduced in number – drastically and quickly – the game reserves that support them will become deserts. In many, desertification is already well advanced. Excessive populations require immediate population reduction management.

What I am trying to convey here is that the environmental pressures being exerted on Africa’s 150 different elephant populations are unique to each population. No two are the same; and they are sometimes chalk-and-cheese different. There is no “one size fits all” management application. So Africa’s 150 elephant populations need 150 different management strategies, each one custom-designed to fit the needs of each specific population.

Now we can discuss the “endangered species” concept. Just where, within this conundrum, can this idea fit into the elephant management equation? It can’t – anywhere. The very title – “endangered” – conveys the idea that each and every elephant population in Africa is UNSAFE; that it is declining; that it is not breeding well; and that it should be managed according to the “preservation management” principle ONLY. And preservation management requires that every single elephant should be protected from all harm. And that is clearly not what is required at all.

When the elephant was declared to be an “endangered species” at CITES 1979 – a decision which was pushed through with brutal force by every animal rights organisation in creation – the world actually imposed MIS-management on every SAFE and EXCESSIVE elephant population in Africa. And demanding the MIS-management of an animal species population, under any circumstances, is NOT in the best interests of the species concerned; nor of the habitats that support them; and also not in the interests of maintaining species diversity in their sanctuaries.

It is necessary to record here that most of the “elephant range states” at CITES in 1979 voted against having the elephant placed on the endangered species list (Appendix 1) that year, but their opinions were ignored. Surely the opinions of the elephant management experts who live in the range states in Africa – who know more about elephants and their management needs than anybody else – should have held more water than the opinions of the animal rights organisations that are based in Washington DC, London or Paris? But the animal rightists won the day on that occasion – and they have continued to push their luck at every CITES meeting ever since.

It is because of incidents like this that the animal rightist NGOs – and their fellow travellers in the powerful governments of the First World – are going to cause the demise of the African elephant in Africa.

Ron Thomson, CEO – TRUE GREEN ALLIANCE
http://www.mahohboh.org
http://www.ronthomsonshuntingbooks.co.za
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheTrueGreenAlliance/
Cell: 072 587 1111
Phone: 046 648 1243

Question and answer with Ron Thomson and Andrew Wyatt

AW: Your article implies that African elephants are designated as “endangered species.” They are actually designated “vulnerable” by IUCN. Why is there so much confusion about the designation?
RT: Many in the public domain call elephants an “endangered species”, so that is the preception the public has and the public cannot understand how ANYONE can kill an “endangered species”. Surely when a species is declared to be “endangered” its needs 100 protection? And governments don’t like opposing public perceptions!

AW: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designates African elephants as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act, but not “endangered.” Why is there so much incongruity in the discussion?
RT: Discussion in the public domain with FWS officials, reveals they often speak of species (many species – including the African elephant) as being “endangered” – and they never deny any statement by anyone who proclaims ANY species to be “endangered” when it is not. Officials – including Barack Obama in the USA – regularly referred to elephants as being “endangered.” I suspect they actually welcome the public’s mis-interpretation because it is easier for the officials to drive home their insistence that “their” extra-protection purpose needs radical acceptance.

AW: Why are some populations of elephants listed CITES Appendix I, implying endangered status?
RT: Every animal rights NGO delegate that attends CITES meetings – when talking about the elephant – infers that the convention is dealing with an “endangered species”. And within the CITES debates (which are TOTALLY swamped by animal rightist delegates) they purposefully use no other term than “endangered” – which the media picks up and disseminates into the public domain . And that is, perhaps, understandable. CITES, after all, is an acronym for “Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species“. And when the elephant was placed on the Appendix 1 list of CITES, the media – all over the world – referred to the elephant as being “an endangered species” (which they picked up from the animal rights propaganda). Furthermore, NOBODY corrected that interpretation – not the IUCN; not WWF; & not FWS. That perception cannot now be shaken.. In the public mind – constantly reinforced in all animal rights propaganda – and by the media world-wide – the elephant IS “an endangered species.”

AW: Would you care to continue your clarification regarding the non-uniformity across NGO’s and government entities in referring to elephants as “endangered?”
RT: Sure, I will clarify – but understand that the media’s, the public’s and general governmental perceptions are now so heavily skewed that even my explanation may not be acceptable – even to you! Many people/ organisations have different (their own) interpretations of what constitutes an “endangered species” – which adds to the confusion. In the public mind, however, the term “endangered species” denotes or implies “facing extinction“. And the media’s projection of “endangered species” in wildlife has a lot to with that. So has the animal rightists’ propaganda – which uses the endangered species concept as its main means of stirring up public emotions (and makes them more fraudulently-acquired money than anything else). If you take the trouble to examine every piece of animal rights propaganda that you are exposed to, you will quickly see that “EVERY LIVING THING” is classified by them as being “endangered”.

All this renders public acceptance of “REALITY” almost impossible – and the REALITY is that no species is “threatened with extinction” until its VERY LAST POPULATION is declining and the reasons for the decline cannot be arrested. The northern white rhino is a good candidate for what represents a REAL endangered species – with only four individuals still alive (three females and one male – and the male is beyond breeding). REALITY is that even official and august bodies like the IUCN, WWF and USF&WS TALKabout “endangered species”. The USF&WS even enacts a law called the “Endangered Species Act” (ESA) – when, in fact, the concept of “endangered species” has no application at all within the general principles and practices of Wildlife Management (a.k.a. {eroneously} “CONSERVATION”) – except in those very rare examples such as the current sad status of the Northern White Rhino. So the USF&WS is guilty of perpetuating the myth, too.

All these official “acceptances” of the endangered species concept leads the public away for REALITY. And this is NOT just a game of semantics. I wish it were! With respect to Africa’s elephants we are actually talking about the practical survival management of the species – the elephant; the survival of whole ecosystems (Africa’s national parks); and the survival of the bulk of Africa’ s current wildlife species diversity (plants AND animals). The survival of all these things – depends not only on stopping the poaching, but ALSO (perhaps more-so, in the case of southern Africa) upon Africa’s EXCESSIVE elephant populations being drastically REDUCED in number. In southern Africa every single one of the elephant populations – HALF of today’s entire extant elephant numbers – fall into the category of being EXCESSIVE. And they need to be urgently reduced in number (for the sake of the elephant; for the sake of Africa’s National Parks; and for the sake of the maintenance of Africa’s wildlife species diversity). THIS is REALITY.

Now how is such a “best practice” management programme going to be possible when everybody in creation believes in the concept of “endangered species”. If only people would start believing in the fact that wildlife cannot be “managed” at the species level; only at the population level; and that a species’ (ANY species) many populations comprise those that are SAFE, UNSAFE and EXCESSIVE, would the general public begin to understand the wisdom and principles of wildlife management. And they have to understand that every single one of Africa’s elephant populations need to managed separately according to their individual environmental circumstances. When the “endangered species” ideal is applied to the elephant in Africa it results in MIS-management – which is the last thing Africa needs. It is the last thing that the elephant needs – the total protection of ALL populations of elephants on the entire continent irrespective of what their true population status is.

Everyone needs to be led into the very serious understanding that Africa’s national parks were set aside to preserve the integrity of the national parks’ biological diversities. THAT is the parks’ Number ONE wildlife management objective. And THAT should be everybody’s priority consideration! As much as I love Africa’s elephants, I love Africa’s biological diversity more. The parks were NOT set aside for the uncontrolled proliferation of elephants – and the whole world needs to understand this. In many of Africa’s national parks (especially in southern Africa) too many elephants are destroying the very reason why the national parks were set aside in the first place. And explaining all THIS is the whole purpose of me sending those blogs to you in the first place.

It is very clear to me that the whole world is demanding of Africa that it maintains elephants in numbers that its national parks simply CANNOT sustainably support. Excessive elephant populations cannot be maintained indefinitely. Sooner rather than later, the park ecosystems will collapse. And when they do crash the massive elephant herds we see in these game reserves today, will crash with them. And in one drought year, the world will lose tens of thousands of elephants – BECAUSE they have been “over-protected”. And they will lose billions of plant and animal species BECAUSE world society has not allowed Africa’s national parks to be properly managed. The reality is that southern Africa is carrying far too many elephants already – and the effects of what amounts to terrible and prolonged mis-management are already becoming manifest. South Africa’s Kruger National Park, for example, has lost MORE THAN 95 percent of its vitally important top canopy trees because it has been carrying far too many elephants for far too long; and the damage continues unabated. Even if you are not a biologist; not an ecologist; and not a qualified wildlife manager – but just an ordinary intelligent member of society – the ultimate disaster that looms must be obvious.

So, if the public really wants to save Africa’s elephants, I propose that – instead of creating a huge furore every time an elephant is killed by a hunter – or culled by a game ranger – that the general public start petitions to raise funds for the purchase of extra land in Africa where elephants can be maintained in symbiotic harmony with Africa’s rural people. Symbiotic harmony means the elephants will be “used” sustainably for the benefit of Africa’s rural communities – because THAT is the ONLY way to secure a future for elephant in Africa into posterity.

The Elephant’s Armageddon: Part I

October 12, 2017 by Andrew Wyatt

elephants sunset

By guest writer— Ron Thomson

This an eleventh-hour appeal for common sense to prevail in the ongoing and controversial international debate surrounding what management strategy is deemed best for the African elephant. Just as the Christian bible or the Islamic Qur’an cannot be written on the back of a postage stamp, however, so the details of elephant conservation cannot be expounded in a single short article. This, therefore, is the first of a series of blogs that will reveal the facts surrounding this – for Africa – vitally important topic. I promise you only one thing – I will tell you the truth. I intend to tell you “what is” without fear or favour.

What credentials do I have to qualify me to write such an important series? That is an important question so let’s get its answer out of the way at the outset.

I am a 78 year old white African who has spent his entire life in the service of Africa’s wildlife. I began my career, age 20, in 1959 when I attested into the Rhodesian (now Zimbabwean) Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management. I served in that department for 24 years, rising through the ranks to become the Provincial Game Warden-in-charge of Hwange National Park – the country’s premier tourism destination and big game sanctuary. I qualified as an ecologist; became a member of the Institute of Biology (London); and was registered as a Chartered Biologist for the European Union for 20 years.

Throughout my career I was deeply involved with the hands-on management of all Africa’s big game animals and I worked closely with some of the continent’s greatest and most accomplished full-time wildlife scientists. I pioneered and perfected the capture of black rhinos in the Zambezi Valley (1964 – 1970) – hunting on foot; approaching every rhino that I darted, alone, with only a capture gun in my hands; and I successfully translocated 140 of these pugnacious beasts, releasing them into the relative safety of the country’s national parks. For those of you who know about such things, you may be interested to know that my average darting range, in the heavy Zambezi valley thickets, was between 6 and 13 yards.

Throughout my service, I hunted elephants extensively – crop-raiders; man-killers; veterinary fence breakers; agricultural installation nuisances; to stop the advance of the tsetse fly into the country’s commercial farming areas; and to variously help feed the Batonka people after they had been forcibly evacuated from their ancestral homes on the banks of the Zambezi river following the creation of Lake Kariba. I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed my dangerous big game hunting adventures but I never hunted for trophies. I hunted elephant because it was my job, as a government game ranger, to do so.

I was the officer-in-charge – and chief hunter – of the elephant population reduction programme in the Gonarezhou National Park (1971 & 1972) when, for urgent management reasons, we reduced the numbers of elephants in that park from 5000 to 2500; during which operation I perfected new, humane and more efficient elephant culling techniques.

I left Zimbabwe in 1983 under duress, when Mr Mugabe replaced all the colonial civil servants with veterans of his recent War-of-Liberation. I was prepared to stay and help the new Zimbabwe develop; but I was not wanted!

I emigrated to South Africa in 1983 where I served as Chief Nature Conservation Officer for Ciskei (one year); and then Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Management Board of Bophuthatswana (three years). And I operated as a professional hunter for three years. Soon, thereafter, I began writing books (x 14 now) about Africa’s wildlife management issues – and articles in outdoor magazines about such controversial issues as the need to cull, or not to cull, elephants. For the last 28 years I have earned a living as an investigative wildlife journalist.

I explain all these things to emphasize my point that I have vast hands-on experience in the management of Africa’s elephants – and other big game animals; that I have biological/ecological training and experience; and that I am amply qualified to write this blog and the ones that follow. And I have been actively engaged in all these matters for the last 58 years.

I love Africa’s wildlife, particularly its elephants and black rhinos, and I am distraught in the knowledge that the fate of all these wonderful animals now rests, de facto, in the hands of uninformed and incompetent NGOs, and interfering governments in the First World – who see only what they want to see of the complex wildlife management and humanitarian issues involved. And they, more often than not, miss the point by a mile; the NGOs fabricate untruths in their propaganda; and thereby, they make hundreds of millions of US dollars out of their gullible publics. These people – from Prince William in Buckingham Palace to the supporters of the planet’s most pernicious animal rightist NGOs – are now making demands on Africa (through organisations like the US Fish & Wildlife Service, CITES and the European Parliament ) to apply solutions to Africa’s elephant poaching problems that are only going to make matters worse.

The elephants of Africa need common sense to prevail. They will not survive without it. My next several blogs will reveal to you a great many realities about Africa and its elephants – information that you have never heard nor believed possible. Nobody can make a rational decision about anything unless and until they are in possession of all the facts about it. Considering the needs of Africa’s elephants and their management is no exception. I intend to provide you, therefore, with all the pertinent facts in the next several blogs. So look forward to the next blog that will be coming soon.

Big Cat Public Safety Act: USFWS v. USDA

April 10, 2017 by Andrew Wyatt

UPDATED June 29, 2017

On March 30, 2017 the Big Cat Public Safety Act (H.R. 1818) was introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives. Proponents of H.R. 1818 laud it as a bi-partisan effort to “prohibit private ownership of captive lions, tigers, and other big cats in the US.” — in other words, pets. However, this characterization appears not only disingenuous, but it is duplicative, as most states already prohibit the ownership of big cats as pets. If passed as written, the primary impact of H.R. 1818 would not be on pet owners, but on zoos and sanctuaries that are not ideologically aligned with animal rights advocates espousing historical anti-captive wildlife sentiments.

Usurping the Animal Welfare Act
In a joint press release animal rights groups claimed H.R. 1818 would strengthen the Captive Wildlife Safety Act (CWSA). The CWSA is the 2003 Lacey Act amendment mandating interstate transport of big cats be limited to facilities licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and their registered agents. This amendment was consistent with the primary directive of the Lacey Act— to combat “trafficking” in “illegal” wildlife. The Lacey Act was never intended to regulate animal welfare. That is the dominion of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). However, H.R. 1818 seeks to expand the authority of the Lacey Act empowering U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to regulate “animal welfare” and “legal” wildlife; points of law already established under the AWA, and administered by USDA through the licensing and inspection of qualified facilities.

Dan Ashe, former Director of FWS under the Obama Administration and current CEO of the AZA, has long maintained working relationships with animal rights proponents of the Big Cat Public Safety Act, particularly Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), as well as the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW).

Dan Ashe, CEO of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums— © Greg Nash

Three previous iterations of H.R. 1818 have been shopped around Capitol Hill since at least 2012. While touting public safety concerns, all have failed to get even a hearing because they are transparent attempts to establish the inequitable ideology of animal rights into the law. Previous versions of the Big Cat Public Safety Act offered an exemption to zoological facilities accredited only by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), a trade association favored by bill proponents for instituting animal rights policies into their accreditation. These same proponents, led by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), have been engaged in an ongoing smear campaign against any zoo or aquarium not accredited by the AZA.

H.R. 1818 would continue to favor AZA, although no longer exempting them by name. The exemption is accomplished through a bit of “slight of hand,” calling for a USDA exemption, but then qualifying the exemption with a laundry list of AZA/HSUS negotiated policies inserted into the bill language. These qualifications effectively usurp authority from the AWA, placing it under the authority of the Lacey Act.

By writing animal rights policy into the Lacey Act, H.R. 1818 seeks to rewrite a broad swath of USDA animal welfare regulations by doing an end run around the AWA. These animal rights groups hope to supersede USDA regulations they were unsuccessful in changing through the administrative process by pushing legislation at the House Natural Resources Committee with lawmakers unfamiliar with animal welfare issues. If H.R. 1818 were to pass as written, FWS, without any experience regulating captive wildlife, would administer and enforce the new regulations.

H.R. 1818- Big Cat Public Safety Act:
Section 3 Prohibitions, (e) Captive Wildlife Offense, (2) Limitation on Application, paragraph (1)(A), subparagraphs i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii and viii, presumes to rewrite and supersede an area of established law pertaining to the “animal welfare” of “legal” wildlife already regulated by USDA under authority of the Animal Welfare Act, while maintaining a de facto exemption for AZA zoos.

Public Safety or Animal Rights?
Proponents of H.R. 1818 cite an incident in Zanesville, Ohio in 2011 as an example of why this bill is needed. However, while tragic, Ohio recently past legislation addressing the issues. Most states already strictly regulate the possession of big cats. South Carolina just passed a ban on big cats as pets in this legislative session.

Ironically, most of the accidents with big cats, lethal and otherwise, have occurred at AZA zoos that would be exempted from this legislation; most notably, San Francisco Zoo in 2007 when a tiger killed a patron and injured two others— and more recently, Palm Beach Zoo in 2016 when a tiger killed a zookeeper. There are only a small handful of states that don’t strictly regulate big cats. Ohio now has some of the strictest regulations in the country. Outside of AZA accredited facilities, a death from a big cat hasn’t been recorded since 2003.

At the end of the day, animal welfare is not under the purview of the Lacey Act. The Lacey Act was designed to address wildlife trafficking. Further, FWS is not equipped to administer animal welfare regulations. Undoubtedly, funding for this unprecedented and duplicative overreach will be difficult to appropriate under the current administration. Proponents of the Big Cat Public Safety Act have misled bill sponsors and committee members. There is no crisis looming. The Big Cat Public Safety Act is not about public safety. It is about picking favorites and eliminating zoos and aquariums that will not voluntarily adopt the policies of the animal rights movement.

Compromise
With the help of Dan Ashe and the AZA, HSUS and IFAW are attempting to build political support for a hearing on H.R. 1818 before the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee. After years of failure petitioning USDA to institutionalize their ideology under the guise of public safety, these animal rights groups hope to have success by changing their tact and selling their brand of “public safety” to lawmakers at Natural Resources unfamiliar with animal welfare issues.

If proponents truly wanted only to stop pet ownership of big cats, the solution would be quite simple— amend the H.R. 1818 with a straight forward USDA exemption— without all of the qualifications that make it a de facto AZA exemption. The fact is, the USDA already regulates all legitimate zoos and aquariums regardless of trade association affiliation. Requiring USDA licensing would end the practice of keeping big cats as pets and legitimate non-AZA zoos would not be penalized or coerced into a choice between trade associations. Additionally, this compromise avoids using the Lacey Act to usurp the integrity of the Animal Welfare Act. Without an equitable amendment, zoos and aquariums across the country will likely oppose the Big Cat Public Safety Act.

Landmark Victory for USARK in Python Ban Lawsuit

April 8, 2017 by Andrew Wyatt

“Scales” of Justice prove true for Herpetoculture

Washington DC— April 7, 2017. The United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit in the case of the United States Association of Reptile Keepers v. Ryan Zinke, Secretary of The Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Humane Society of the United States and Center for Biological Diversity, ruled in favor of USARK on the question of Lacey Act authority to prohibit interstate transport of species listed as “injurious” under the Lacey Act. The court held that, “the government lacks authority under the shipment clause to prohibit shipments of injurious species between the ‘continental’ States.”

What does all of this mean?
The way has now been cleared to legally resume trade of the Burmese python, North African python, South African python, reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, Beni anaconda, green anaconda and yellow anaconda within the “continental United States.” However, it appears that injurious species cannot be transported into the District of Columbia. The shipment clause specifically references the “continental United States,” “Hawaii,” the “Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,” and “any possession of the United States”, and the “District of Columbia” as distinct designations. In the court’s opinion the “District of Columbia” is an expressly separate designation from the “continental United States,” and specifically identified as prohibited in the shipment clause. In conclusion, it appears that there will be no legal transport into Washington, DC without the appropriate permits.

Congress defined the phrase “continental United States” in a statute enacted by the same Congress in the year before the 1960 addition of the shipment clause. See Pub. L. No. 86-70, § 48, 73 Stat. 141, 154 (1959); see also 1 U.S.C. § 1 note. Under that definition, “[w]henever the phrase ‘continental United States’ is used in any law of the United States enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act, it shall mean the 49 States on the North American Continent and the District of Columbia, unless otherwise expressly provided.”

Keep in mind that all nine constrictor snakes continue to be listed as injurious under the Lacey Act. This is the real problem. Interstate transport is now allowed, but likely only temporarily. The original intent of the Lacey Act amendments of 1960 was to allow zoos and research facilities the opportunity to work with listed species to import and transport across state lines with a new permit system. Previously, import and transport of listed species was completely prohibited. However, the shipment clause of the Lacey Act was poorly written, leaving it vulnerable to a clarification in the courts that now allows “injurious wildlife” to be transported across state lines. Most in conservation, academics, ranching and farming disagree that it is a good idea to transport “injurious wildlife” from state to state– remember, the injurious list was comprises the most dangerous alien invaders; snakeheads, mongoose, zebra mussels, fruit bats, etc. Constrictor snakes were only recently added. This legal victory buys time for the reptile industry to find more permanent legal remedy to a listing process that was arbitrary and capricious. The “science” was fudged at every turn in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, Information Quality Act, and the peer review process.

Categorical Exclusion: CatX
Additionally, in 2015, in an unprecedented move, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service empowered itself to shortcut the rule making process under the Lacey Act in order to more easily declare injurious wildlife listings, making way for mass listing of species. Known as CatX, this rule has negatively impacted herpetoculture, and the pet trade by removing scientific justification from the listing process. This led to the listing of 201 salamander species in 2016, prohibiting the import and interstate trade of captive bred specimens. However, the ruling by the court on the authority of the Lacey Act to prohibit interstate transport now opens the way to resume trade of listed captive bred salamander species in the continental U.S., removing CatX’s teeth as a blunt force instrument to prohibit captive breeding programs on American soil. Listed species may be exported. However import without permit is a felony.

http://www.troutmansanders.com/george-y-sugiyama-joins-troutman-sanders-washington-dc-office-03-21-2012/

George Sugiyama, former Chief Minority Counsel, Senate EPW ~ Troutman Sanders

History of the USARK Lawsuit
In 2011, as then-CEO of the U.S. Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK), I led the fight against the listing of nine constrictor snakes as injurious under the Lacey Act. During the course of many visits to Capitol Hill, I met with George Sugiyama, Chief Minority Counsel for the Senate Environmental and Public Works (EPW) Committee. Mr. Sugiyama suggested to me, that in his legal opinion, FWS under the Lacey Act, did not have the authority to restrict interstate transport of species listed as injurious. I loved the simplicity of his argument and directed USARK’s counsel to further research and vet the idea. Subsequently, we hatched a plan, and created a blueprint for a lawsuit challenging the FWS’ authority to regulate interstate transport. The architects of the lawsuit were George Sugiyama, Joan Galvin and myself.

I spent most all of 2012 lobbying the USARK Board of Directors to move forward with the lawsuit. USARK finally filed that lawsuit against then-Interior Secretary Sally Jewell (USARK v. Jewell et al.) in the Federal District Court of Washington, DC in December of 2013— 11 months after I resigned from the organization. In the end it doesn’t matter why they waited. The point is, USARK did file the lawsuit, my strategy proved to be the correct one as illustrated by the court, and herpetoculture gets a huge victory that could resonate for years!

The Injurious Wildlife listing under the Lacey Act, for the moment, can not be used as the weapon it once was against domestic herpetoculture in the United States.

Congratulations USARK and the Reptile Nation for a job well done!
Working on behalf of USARK Joan Galvin, Shawn Gehan, David Frulla, Paul C. Rosenthal, Richard Stanley, and an anonymous legal contributor all played crucial roles in bring this lawsuit to fruition. In addition there have been countless volunteers and fundraisers that contributed and funded this unprecedented success that has been 9 years in the making. It has been my honor and privilege to play my part. My sincerest thank you to USARK and the entire Reptile Nation in this monumental victory for herpetoculture!

Happy Birthday USARK! — Many people don’t know, even the current officers of USARK, but USARK was founded as a trade association dedicated to the interests of herpetoculture on April 5, 2008 in Chicago, specifically to fight the Python Ban. The founding principal was Andrew Wyatt, formerly the founder and president of the North Carolina Association of Reptile Keepers (NCARK). The co-founders of USARK included Mack Robinette, Lou Sangermano, Ralph Davis, Doug Price, Sherry Tregembo, Jeff Ronnie, Warren Booth, Shawn Heflick, Brian Sharp, and Dan and Colette Sutherland. This group would become the USARK Board of Directors electing Wyatt as president and CEO in April 2008. April 5, 2017 was USARK’s Birthday. Happy Birthday to a young and successful trade association.

Andrew Wyatt is a government affairs and policy consultant that works exclusively in the wildlife sector.

“Wildlife issues are highly charged and contentious. I specialize in articulating clear policy ideas and getting them in front of key decision makers. Please follow ‘The Last Word on Wildlife’ for insight and analysis particular to the 21st century wildlife sector. If you would like to discuss the potential advantages of creating a comprehensive business/government affairs strategy, or a more targeted issue campaign, please call or email me.” ~ Andrew Wyatt

© 2017 Andrew Wyatt and The Last Word on Wildlife. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Andrew Wyatt and The Last Word on Wildlife with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Burmese Python: Dragon of the Everglades

February 11, 2016 by Andrew Wyatt

burmese-pythons-everglades-invasive-species_31112

South Florida Burmese Python

The 2016 Python Challenge™ is moving at a record pace in south Florida. Sponsored by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), the controversial python hunt, ostensibly to remove invasive snakes from the Everglades, produced a disappointing tally of only 68 snakes after 30 days of hunting in 2013. With cooler temperatures in south Florida, 100 pythons have already been taken in 2016. Hunters have capitalized on greater snake visibility as pythons bask openly in the sun to retain warmth. But is the hunt, slated to finish on Valentines Day, really for conservation or just a publicity stunt?

Raising the specter of giant pythons in the Everglades has become a media pastime in Florida. Clearly the appetite for this farfetched story is not easily sated. Lauded as some kind of invasive dragon devouring endangered wildlife and family pets alike, the Burmese python has become the stuff of folklore and myth: a modern day Jaws. A myth promulgated by environmental groups, invasion biologists and the press. Pythons being slain by champions eager to battle dark denizens for the ecological life of the Everglades has become a symbolic narrative that politicians have adopted and regurgitated for their own political purposes.

There is no denying that there are tens of thousands of Burmese pythons in the Everglades, but that’s far fewer than the 100’s of thousands touted by the likes of U.S. Senator Bill Nelson or Dan Ashe of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. While pythons are certainly eating rabbits, rats, feral cats and an occasional small gator, what many people don’t realize, is that pythons don’t eat every day like a warm blooded predator. They may only eat a handful of times per year; hardly the “resource hogs” depicted by some biologists.

“Cold temperatures killed thousands of pythons in the Winter of 2009-2010. Numbers appear to be rebounding, but pythons are not being found as readily as they were. The population peaked in Summer of 2009 with highs estimated to be 30,000- 40,000 pythons.” — Shawn Heflick, Biologist and star of NatGeo WILD’s: The Python Hunters

Another part and parcel of the myth is the notion that pythons have no natural predators in the glades. Nothing to temper an unabated population growth, a notion that is patently false. Any biologist worth his salt can tell you, there are dozens of potential predators for pythons in south Florida. Baby pythons are extremely vulnerable to hawks and eagles, wading birds, predatory fish, raccoons, feral hogs, feral cats, not to mention the apex predator of the Everglades, the American alligator, which preys even on adult pythons.

The exaggeration of every detail surrounding the presence of pythons in the glades further clouds the facts. For a variety of reasons the press and the pundits seem invested in demonizing the python. The press loves the idea of a giant snake in the glades “eating everything in its path.” Clearly the public has a morbid fascination with snakes that kindles a primal fear. Environmentalists and agency personnel see opportunity to increase funding for invasive, and or endangered species research not stimulated by less sensational problems. Ambitious biologists seem to bank on decades of pythons study and research in their future. Politicians vilify the snake as a threat that can only be overcome with the appropriation of billions in Everglades restoration dollars. It is a rich issue with a handout for nearly everyone.

“… many are content to chase the ‘Burmese Dragon’ around south Florida like Don Quixote chasing windmills.” — Andrew Wyatt

But the reality is this: Burmese pythons are a relatively low rung on the ladder of serious problems facing the Everglades. They have become a red herring, a distraction, and a scapegoat from more fundamental problems that are either too contentious or too difficult to deal with. Instead of addressing issues surrounding big sugar, pollution, water flow or other more pervasive invasive species threats, many are content to chase the ‘Burmese Dragon’ around south Florida like Don Quixote chasing windmills.

Hunting invasive pythons, although not without merit, is not being pursued in earnest. The National Park Service (NPS) will not allow pythons to be hunted at the epicenter of the population in the Everglades National Park (ENP). Ironically, the NPS appears to be protecting those pythons in order to preserve a study group for ongoing research. For the hunts to be effective, they should be conducted in the ENP in an open and ongoing basis. For now, hunts are restricted to state lands around the periphery of the park, and are limited to 30 days every few years.

Vendors selling snakeskin wallets and belts at the 2016 Python Challenge™

The actual 2016 Python Challenge™ takes on an air more commensurate with a rattlesnake round-up or a reality TV show, than an environmental clean-up. It attracts colorful characters from all over the country to ‘hunt’ the dreaded pythons. Vendors have booths and sell t-shirts, snakeskin wallets and belt buckles. There’s funnel cake and BBQ. FWC is omni-present “educating” the public about the dangers of large pythons, how to identify them, wrangle them, and how to report them. But one has to wonder if the purpose is conservation or carnival.

While some concerns regarding invasive pythons are legitimate, the dramatic characterization placing pythons at the center of all of the Everglades ecological troubles is way overblown. Efforts to reduce the population via the Python Challenge are ineffective and disingenuous. Python population will never be significantly reduced unless the hunt is conducted at the epicenter of the invasion in the heart of the ENP. Allowing an open season within the park is the only way to actually reduce numbers through hunting. This ‘Dragon’ hunt can hardly be seen as anything but a side show, while the decline of the Everglades goes on with or without the Burmese python circus.

Andrew Wyatt is a government affairs and policy consultant working exclusively in the wildlife sector. He formerly served as the CEO of the United States Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK) where he twice testified before congress as an expert on python issues. Andrew has been interviewed on National Public Radio, by Bloomberg and by The New York Times.

Black Rhino Hunt: Conservation Controversy

November 18, 2014 by Andrew Wyatt

One Black Rhino May Help Save All Of The Rest

How hunting a critically endangered black rhino will greatly benefit conservation of the species.

Last January the Dallas Safari Club (DSC), auctioned off a permit issued by the government of Namibia to hunt a black rhino. Namibia is legally permitted by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) to sell five permits for the hunting of adult male black rhinos each year. The Namibian government has identified a small number of individual black rhinos that may be hunted that are old, incapable of breeding and pose a threat to other younger animals.

A prominent hunter and conservationist, Corey Knowlton, submitted the winning bid of $350,000 at the auction and subsequently applied to FWS for a permit to import the trophy into the US. DSC plans to donate the entire proceeds of the auction to benefit conservation of the black rhino species (Diceros bicornis).

The debate over the value of a black rhino hunt that would raise $350,000 for rhino conservation efforts in Namibia has heated to the boiling point once again. The question of whether the US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) will issue a permit to import a black rhino trophy into the US is at the forefront of this debate. Anti-hunting animal rights groups that vehemently oppose the hunt are using the power of their grass roots followers to pressure FWS to deny issue of the permit.

Reports from the Namibian government suggest that an older non-breeding male rhino that is disruptive to the herd, will be selected. It is important to note that this rhino will likely be culled regardless of whether FWS issues the import permit or not. If the permit is denied DSC plans to refund Mr. Knowlton’s winning $350,000 bid. If that happens, the rhino’s life will not be saved, and the conservation efforts in Namibia will not receive the $350,000.

According to FWS spokesman Gavin Shire, FWS is ‘applying “extra scrutiny” to Knowlton’s request because of the rise in poaching.’ By all accounts, although there was a rise in the numbers of poached white rhinos in South Africa, the overall population of black rhinos has been on the rise for a number of years.

“Thanks to successful conservation and anti-poaching efforts, the total number of black rhinos has grown…” ~ World Wildlife Fund (WWF)

Anti-hunting groups have long argued that hunting and poaching are indistinguishable. However, it is clear that this is a position driven by ideology. The reality is that hunting is legal and supports conservation. Poaching is a criminal activity that undermines conservation. What is unclear from the FWS statement, is how an unrelated rise in poaching arbitrarily dictates “extra scrutiny” toward the issuance of an import permit for a legal rhino hunt.

“Hunting isn’t conservation” ~ Jeffrey Flocken, North American regional director for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)

Additionally, animal rights groups argue that money spent on hunting in Africa never reaches local communities or conservation, but according to a report from TRAFFIC, the organization that works with the WWF, IUCN, and CITES to track the international trade of wildlife, US hunters spend $11 million annually in Namibia on controlled, legal hunts. Further, if allowed by the US government, the $350,000 proceeds from this one single hunt would go exclusively to black rhino conservation in Namibia.

Those that are opposed to hunting are predisposed to object to any hunting based conservation model. Ideology aside, there is no doubt that millions of dollars are injected into the Namibian economy every year as the direct result of hunting. For FWS to deny issuing an import permit based on misinformation and pressure from special interests, would not only be a disservice to processing a legitimate permit application, but it would block $350,000 earmarked for black rhino conservation efforts.

“Sport hunting of Namibia’s black rhino population will strongly contribute to the enhancement of the survival of the species…” ~ World Wildlife Fund

Yesterday on the IFAW Facebook page, the animal rights organization was exhorting their followers to “Save One Black Rhino” by pressuring FWS to deny import permits. The fact remains that the rhino in question will likely be culled regardless of the decision of FWS. Wouldn’t it be better to allow Mr. Knowlton to hunt the rhino and import the trophy so that the auction money can go to rhino conservation? Preventing Mr. Knowlton’s hunt will accomplish only one thing: it will prevent black rhino conservation in Namibia from receiving a $350,000 donation. All real conservation happens at the species level. The survival of critically endangered black rhinos should not be held hostage to special interest politics.

Andrew Wyatt is a government affairs consultant that works exclusively in the wildlife sector.

“Endangered species conservation and other wildlife issues are highly charged and contentious. I specialize in working with clients to employ campaign style tactics to change hearts and minds on vital issues in the wildlife sector. Please follow The Last Word for insight and analysis particular to the 21st century wildlife sector. If you would like to discuss the potential advantages of running a targeted issue campaign, and/or a comprehensive government affairs strategy, please call or email me.” ~ Andrew Wyatt

© Andrew Wyatt and The Last Word, 2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Andrew Wyatt and The Last Word with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Wrong Way to Protect Elephants

March 27, 2014 by Andrew Wyatt

Reblogged from The New York Times.

Making legal trade illegal and turning good citizens into criminals will make it easier for FWS to make cases against Americans here at home, but it fails to address the hard work of catching poachers and real criminals that are determined to kill every living elephant. ~Andrew Wyatt

The New York Times | The Opinion Pages |OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS
By GODFREY HARRIS and DANIEL STILESMARCH | 26, 2014

THE year was 1862. Abraham Lincoln was in the White House. “Taps” was first sounded as a lights-out bugle call. And Steinway & Sons was building its first upright pianos in New York.

The space-saving design would help change the cultural face of America. After the Civil War, many middle-class families installed them in their parlors. The ability to play the piano was thought to be nearly as important to the marriage potential of single ladies as their skill in cooking and sewing, signaling a young woman’s gentility and culture.

The keys on those pianos were all fashioned from the ivory of African elephants. And that is why one of these uprights, the oldest one known to survive, in fact, is stuck in Japan.

The director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service recently issued an order prohibiting the commercial importation of all African elephant ivory into the United States. (Commercial imports had been allowed in some instances, including for certain antiques.)

The Obama administration is also planning to implement additional rules that will prohibit, with narrow exceptions, both the export of African elephant ivory and its unfettered trade within the United States.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has said that these new rules will help stop the slaughter of elephants. But we believe that unless demand for ivory in Asia is reduced — through aggressive education programs there, tougher enforcement against the illegal ivory trade and the creation of a legal raw ivory market — these new American regulations will merely cause the price to balloon and the black market to flourish, pushing up the profit potential of continued poaching.

In short, these new rules proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service may well end up doing more harm than good to the African elephant.

Terrorists, Tusks and the Ivory Crush

March 18, 2014 by Andrew Wyatt

photo: US Fish & Wildlife Service

Today ivory sells on the black market for about $1500US per pound. Al-Shabab, a Somali splinter cell of al Qaida, raises $600,000 per month from poaching activities. Local African warlords and international crime syndicates fund their own violent and illegal activities through ivory poaching. Any reduction in the supply of legal ivory to growing middle class markets in China will skyrocket prices for illegal supplies, with profit margins for terrorist groups, warlords and criminals escalating correspondingly.

Recently the Obama administration announced that US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) would promulgate a rule that would ban ivory sales in the United States. Government agencies around the world have postured with high profile ivory crushes and burns from China to the United States and Kenya. Even Prince William wants to crush the Royal ivory collection in the UK. This week the Administrations’ Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking will meet to discuss their strategy to enact a rule ending legal trade in the US. But will destroying stockpiles of ivory and criminalizing legal trade really stop ivory poaching in Africa? There is no evidence to support that belief.

“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.” ~Thomas Sowell

While seemingly noble, these measures are largely symbolic and are likely to drive the price of ivory up by creating scarcity. Markets are driven by supply and demand. When the supply is reduced and the demand continues or increases, prices move up. Even the perception of scarcity puts upward pressure on markets. This is all Economics 101, and it applies equally to legal and illegal markets.

The face of ivory poaching in Africa

Propaganda in support of the ivory crush theory suggests that eliminating the world’s stock piles of ivory and criminalizing legal trade works to discourage black-market trade; that somehow legal trade provides cover for illegal trade. The opposite effect is far more likely. Without a significant decrease in the demand for ivory, scarcity, even perceived scarcity, will likely drive the price for illicit ivory to all time highs. Black-market trade will become more lucrative than ever. Criminals will be emboldened by the world’s inability to protect elephants in Africa, nor implement a workable strategy to reduce demand in ivory markets.

Instead of crushing valuable stockpiles of ivory in a grand symbolic gesture, sell the ivory in legal markets and use the money for elephant conservation. This is not about writing symbolic checks that are the fodder of photo ops and behind the scenes corruption– but about putting beans and bullets directly on the ground to be used by the rangers who need them. We should use money from legal ivory sales for the recruitment and training of additional personnel, outfit them with the equipment they need, and deploy them to fight sophisticated poaching rings. Crushing ivory out of existence only increases it’s value on the black market.

Ivory poaching is funding international terrorism. Making it more difficult and more dangerous to kill elephants, while educating the Chinese to the realities of ivory trade, will mitigate the flow of money from ivory to terrorist activities.

Al-Shabab makes $600,000 per month on poaching and employs child soldiers

Money from legal ivory sales could fund educational programs targeting the Chinese middle class.

Making legal trade illegal and turning good citizens into criminals will make it easier for FWS to make cases against Americans here at home, but it fails to address the hard work of catching poachers and real criminals that are determined to kill every living elephant.

We should utilize the groups that have the most at stake in elephant conservation. Hunting groups, gun and equipment manufacturers, and NGO’s. They all need to step up to the plate and play a larger role in preservation of the species they value. Protecting elephants as a resource that will be available for future generations should be a common goal of all of these interest groups. The focus needs to be on leveraging relationships on the ground in Africa, and empowering small specialized projects that get equipment, supplies, manpower and training where they are needed most. We should be using the legal sale of confiscated ivory to fund putting boots on the ground to undercut poaching.

Additionally, a larger effort needs to go into educating middle class ivory consumers in China. Again, NGO’s funded in part by legal sales of ivory could create a model for education– essentially an “issue campaign” to change the hearts and minds that currently have such an appetite for ivory and a steadfast superstition that tusks grow like human fingernails.

If we insist on going down the primrose path of symbolic conservation gestures that actually aggravate the situation, while wasting what could be irreplaceable conservation dollars from ivory stockpiles, we fail. We will never address the fundamentals of supply and demand. Our current course will make it so lucrative and easy for criminals and terrorists to continue their activities that elephant populations could be pushed to the brink.

Funding for elephant conservation is limited. Criminalizing legal trade of ivory at home is foolish, ineffective and distracts from actual conservation. We are running out of time for the usual tortured process of political posturing and the stroking of egos. We need to get resources on the ground and limit markets in short order. Elephants died for the ivory being crushed. Should their deaths be for naught? Use the money from legal sales of ivory to protect the future of elephants for generations to come. Stop the ivory crush.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The ivory crush and other wildlife issues are highly charged and contentious. I specialize in working with clients to employ campaign style tactics to change hearts and minds on vital issues in the wildlife sector. Please follow The Last Word for insight and analysis particular to the 21st century wildlife sector. If you would like to discuss the potential advantages of running a targeted issue campaign, and/or a comprehensive government affairs strategy, please call or email me. ~ Andrew Wyatt

Punch and Counter Punch: Does Lacey Act Have Authority Over Interstate Transport?

February 27, 2014 by Andrew Wyatt

Reblogged from the US Herpetoculre Alliance.

“The reptile keepers trade association has filed suit against DOI Secretary Sally Jewell and US Fish and Wildlife Service, challenging among other things, the authority of the Lacey Act to limit interstate transport of Injurious Wildlife. The government has now entered a motion to dismiss. It will be intersting to see if the reptile keepers will be able to amend their pleading and survive this preliminary action.” ~ Andrew Wyatt

USARK v. Sally Jewell et al. Part One: Procedural Posture

Posted on February 25, 2014 by Erika Walsh

The US Herpetoculture Alliance is receiving a lot of inquiries regarding the complaint filed by the United States Association of Reptile Keepers on December 18, 2013 against Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, and US Fish and Wildlife Service challenging the Constrictor Rule to the Lacey Act. We are not involved in the litigation and are not consultants on the litigation. However, we are glad that USARK has taken affirmative action on behalf of herpetoculture to challenge what we agree is a completely aribitrary and capricious rulemaking.

This will be a series of blogs intended to help clarify the proceedings for non-lawyers. These blogs are not intended as legal advice; we are simply reporting on the case progression and offering opinions as we see the issues.

Procedural Posture: Where do we stand?

What is the Constrictor Rule? On March 12, 2010, the US Fish & Wildlife Service (“FWS”) proposed a rule to add nine large constrictors to the list of injurious species under the Lacey Act. On January 23, 2012, Defendants enacted a partial rule, adding four of the nine species (Burmese python, North African python, South African python, and yellow anaconda) to the injurious list. The Constrictor Rule prohibits not only importation, but all interstate transport of the four species of large constrictors. Defendants have yet to act on the remaining five constrictors, but it appears that a finalization of the Constrictor Rule to add additional species is imminent.

USARK files its lawsuit.

What is USARK asking for?

USARK filed a complaint for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment. This means that they are asking the Court to enter an order stating:

That in issuing the Constrictor Rule, Defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”);
That the Defandants lack legal authority to ban interstate transportation and commerce in the listed species because the ban on interstate transportation and commerce of injurious species is through administrative rule making and exceeds the expressed language of the Lacey Act;
That the Defendants enactment of the Constrictor Rule is ultra vires (meaning beyond their powers) and contrary to law;
Enjoining (barring) Defendants from applying the Constrictor Rule;
That FWS be required to prepare a lawful environmental impact statement and rational basis for any new rule proposed; and
Awarding USARK its costs and attorneys’ fees.

USARK is not seeking monetary damages in its action for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment. This means that if USARK were to win, the provisions set forth above are what it has requested in its prayer for relief. That is what USARK is asking for from the Court.

USARK’s arguments.

USARK argues that FWS was arbitrary and capricious in its enactment of the Constrictor Rule under NEPA and APA.

NEPA argument. USARK alleged that Defendants failed to follow NEPA’s statutory requirements in that FWS did not prepare an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) and that its environmental analysis (“EA”) was inadequate.

APA argument. The APA provides a right of review to persons adversely affected by an agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute.

USARK is claiming that in prohibiting interstate transport of the four species of constrictor snakes, FWS has exceeded its authority under the statutory provisions of the Lacey Act.
It also argues that Defendants failed to provide reasoned bases for the enactment of the Constrictor Rule.

The Motion to Dismiss

Once a complaint is filed, the defendants have a proscribed amount of time in which to respond or otherwise plead. In this case, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. A motion to dismiss is a predictable response. It is the first volley from a defendant to see if they can get rid of a case due to pleading defects or other bars to a cause of action.

Defendants brought their Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

FRCP 12(b)(1) states that a case should be dismissed when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter.

FRCP 12(b)(6) allows a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (pleading deficiencies).

Defendants first attack USARK’s standing to bring the complaint. In very general terms, standing is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. There are some nuances that fall under the umbrella of standing. Here, Defendants claim that USARK lacks prudential standing as well as constitutional standing.

Without getting into a lengthy legal discussion on standing, Defendants make a good argument about USARK’s lack of standing and Herp Alliance believes that the USARK complaint will be dismissed without prejudice on the basis of standing.

This is not a fatal flaw. It means that there are marks of haste in the USARK complaint and it was not drafted as carefully as it could have been. If the Court dismisses the Complaint without prejudice, USARK will be given leave to amend its Complaint in order to cure its pleading defects. The net result is that some time and money are wasted but USARK will likely be given a “do-over” for at least its actions under the APA, but only under NEPA if it can allege facts that establish that it has an environmental interest .

Defendants next argue that the statute of limitations has run on USARK’s challenge to the interstate transport issue because the regulation was established in 1965 and USARK is now time barred. Herp Alliance believes that this argument is nonsensical and Defendants will not prevail on this argument.

Finally, Defendants argue that Count IV is duplicative of Counts I, II and III, which it likely is.

Conclusion

Herp Alliance believes that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part. As a result, we believe that USARK’s Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice and USARK will be granted leave to amend its complaint to cure the deficiencies that exist in the original pleading.

The net result is some lost time and money on attorneys’ fees without yet getting to the merits of any claim that can be asserted by USARK once its complaint is properly pled. At this point, it is premature to conjecture as to Defendants’ responses to USARK’s substantive allegations because their Motion to Dismiss is technical and not a response to the factual allegations in USARK’s Complaint.

The Last Word on Wildlife

21st Century Government Affairs Solutions for the Wildlife Sector

Tag Archives: US Fish & Wildlife Service