I've tried to keep up with the posts on the Zimbabwe/Tanzania elephant situation and apologize if someone else has posted this information elsewhere.

On April 21, I sent the following email to Gavin Shire at USF&W.

quote:

"I am sure you are being inundated with emails in regards to the FWS recent
decision regarding sport-hunted elephant from Zimbabwe and Tanzania, so I
will keep my email short.

Can you point me to the full report that was used to make this decision? I
understand the decision was made based on a lack of sustainable practices
in both countries, and I would like to read the specific text pertaining
to the decision. I presume the report would also indicate the original
source of the concern, if not, could you elaborate on that?"

This morning, I received this email back.

quote:

Thank you for your inquiry. We have received a number of requests for additional information on the science and rationale that support these decisions. To address these requests, we have posted the required ESA and CITES findings to our website. Please click the links below to access a pdf version of these findings.

Zimbabwe- Endangered Species Act enhancement finding

Tanzania- CITES non-detriment finding ;

Endangered Species Act enhancement finding


Regards,

Danielle Kessler
Outreach & Education Specialist
International Affairs Program
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
703-358-2644
www.fws.gov/international

Thought many on the board may be interested to read these reports.

Cheers,


Baxter

I would encourage all with an interest or concern about the USFWS ban on import of elephant trophies take the time to read these reports.

Here is a quick synopsis: For Zimbabwe the USFWS concludes that the population has declined from 84,416 in 2007 to 47,366 in 2012 although they acknowledge that the Zimbabwe government claims the population is 100,000 or higher. The primary issue in Zimbabwe appears to be the lack of reliable survey data on the status of the Elephant population with most information coming from anecdotal reports. Interestingly and disappointingly they note that sport hunting contributes revenue to wildlife conservation activities. They make no attempt to reconcile the problems created by banning this source of funding. They further conclude that a lack of effective governance is limiting the ability to control poaching even though they clearly admit in the memo to the file that they don't have the information to back up the assertion and are simply making their own best guess along with the Zimbabwe government!

Much more information is available for Tanzania. The USFWS concludes that the population throughout Tanzania has fallen from 109,000 in 2009 to <70,000 now. They report that prior assumptions that widespread poaching was limited to the Selous are incorrect and poaching is now occurring country-wide. Here is perhaps the most interesting commentary from that report:

"We recognize that sport hunting as part of a sound wildlife management can provide benefits to wildlife conservation and that sport hunting of elephants is not the primary cause of the decline of elephant populations in Tanzania. However, given the significant decline in the elephant population due to uncontrolled poaching and questionable management and governance, we are concerned that additional killing of elephants, even if legal, is not sustainable and will not support effective elephant population recovery efforts in Tanzania."

So the USFWS acknowledges the benefits of revenues from sport hunting and the wildlife conservation value. However, they appear to then just flip to the emotional argument that sport-hunting is not sustainable and must be stopped. Perhaps they mistakenly believe that stripping the value off the elephant by stopping hunting will somehow motivate the governments to step up anti-poaching efforts. In effect, it truly does appear that the USFWS is gambling that punitive efforts to strip away hunters dollars will motivate the governments of Zimbabwe or Tanzania to implement reforms and put in place effective anti-poaching efforts from some other source of funds! Perhaps they believe that all will just be ok and the governments will have to act to get back the lost hunter dollars.

This sure looks like craziness to me but at least it highlights that the USFWS is at least attempting to consider elephant population status. It sure puts the pressure on Zim Parks and Wildlife or the Outfitters and Hunting community to come up with some valid population estimates and surveys in Zim!

I found it interesting that they state since 2007, in Tanzania, only 50% of the elephant quota had been used, and because the US comprises the majority of those buying licenses, the US hunters are not contributing to the enhancement of the species. Essentially, because not enough elephant are legally taken, not enough money goes back into the program for hunters to be seen as a supporting factor in helping elephant populations.

quote:

@However, given the significant decline in the elephant population due to uncontrolled poaching and questionable management and governance, we are concerned that additional killing of elephants, even if legal, is not sustainable and will not support effective elephant population recovery efforts in Tanzania."

USF&W have very adequately substantiated the reason behind their decision (as far as TZ goes) with the above statement which regrettably reflects the truth!

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

@However, given the significant decline in the elephant population due to uncontrolled poaching and questionable management and governance, we are concerned that additional killing of elephants, even if legal, is not sustainable and will not support effective elephant population recovery efforts in Tanzania."

USF&W have very adequately substantiated the reason behind their decision (as far as TZ goes) with the above statement which regrettably reflects the truth!

And I would almost guarantee you that there is no way in hell the elephant population is 70,000 in Tanzania right now!

After reading the USFW documents, I personally was struck by how much was unsaid.

In essence, they did a pretty good job of saying that there is strong anecdotal evidence of elephant decline throughout Tanzania, and some hard evidence of it in the Selous and the west. Lord knows, after my trip there in 2012, I will not doubt that the elephant numbers are down drastically in the south, although my one person experience is again anecdotal.

They also basically said that there was anecdotal evidence of elephant poaching in the parks in Zim, and they were unhappy with Zim's scientific work.

They then said that in essence, the major source of funding (which they appeared to concede), while insignificant in offtake (again, that they appeared to concede), could not be supported in either country because of the overall loss of numbers due to poaching.

I don't follow their logic train, except that "we want you to run things this way..." that gives further credence to the ugly American syndrome.

For pete's sake, Zim's BROKE! they can't even utilize their own currency... How do they expect Zim to fund first world scientific surveys with a third world economy? Especially since the politicians over there are siphoning off cash from the hunting sector for their own purposes.

Tanz, while they have a reason to do what they are saying, would seem to me to be too rapid and harsh. The US just cut a major chunk of elephant conservation funding without giving a country that has been trying to abide by their dictates a chance to fix things without really pooching the whole system. They gave no indication as to what expectations they have of "progress" on the issue that will result in the return of importation.

Aside from our bureaucratic system trying to run the show, and being a little less than forthcoming about expectations (after all, what made 2013 so much worse than 2012- so that now all of the sudden they act this way-) I can understand the international community's frustration with the African governments and their rather lax enforcement of anti corruption laws, but is this the actions of a partner or a bully?

Tanzania seems to have their act together in that they are not lying to themselves about what is going on, and hopefully will act on this information. Zim knows what will make USFWS happy (at least supposedly), and now needs to see if they are capable of doing it.

One thing I do wonder about though is what is considered acceptable elephant numbers in these areas? That seems to be something no one talks about, and even in my limited travels, I have seen large areas in both countries that look like they suffered from excessive elephant activity (as the letter that Zig had posted earlier seems to be pointing out) and while they have been poached hard, does that mean that they are now about where carrying capacity is? I don't know, but the letter seemed to indicate they have been overpopulated for some time.

If SCI really wants to do something significant to change the ruling then I would suggest that they fund a scientifically administered elephant population count in Zimbabwe. For a hundred thousand dollars or so, it could be done.

465H&H

I have to agree.
Get the number on the ground in Zim and Tanz and then you have a valid argument with USFWS

My opinion is that these reports give us a great insight as to what specific factors need to be addressed to combat this and future decisions by F&W. Screaming 'it's not fair' or 'it's stupid,' without countering with specific data that show WHY it's stupid, will get us nowhere. If we can't show where F&W have made a mistake, then we can't argue they HAVE made a mistake.

This is no small matter though, it takes a hell of a lot of money and time to make a case against so formidable an entity.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
If SCI really wants to do something significant to change the ruling then I would suggest that they fund a scientifically administered elephant population count in Zimbabwe. For a hundred thousand dollars or so, it could be done.

465H&H

100% correct.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
After reading the USFW documents, I personally was struck by how much was unsaid.

In essence, they did a pretty good job of saying that there is strong anecdotal evidence of elephant decline throughout Tanzania, and some hard evidence of it in the Selous and the west. Lord knows, after my trip there in 2012, I will not doubt that the elephant numbers are down drastically in the south, although my one person experience is again anecdotal.

They also basically said that there was anecdotal evidence of elephant poaching in the parks in Zim, and they were unhappy with Zim's scientific work.

They then said that in essence, the major source of funding (which they appeared to concede), while insignificant in offtake (again, that they appeared to concede), could not be supported in either country because of the overall loss of numbers due to poaching.

I don't follow their logic train, except that "we want you to run things this way..." that gives further credence to the ugly American syndrome.

For pete's sake, Zim's BROKE! they can't even utilize their own currency... How do they expect Zim to fund first world scientific surveys with a third world economy? Especially since the politicians over there are siphoning off cash from the hunting sector for their own purposes.

Tanz, while they have a reason to do what they are saying, would seem to me to be too rapid and harsh. The US just cut a major chunk of elephant conservation funding without giving a country that has been trying to abide by their dictates a chance to fix things without really pooching the whole system. They gave no indication as to what expectations they have of "progress" on the issue that will result in the return of importation.

Aside from our bureaucratic system trying to run the show, and being a little less than forthcoming about expectations (after all, what made 2013 so much worse than 2012- so that now all of the sudden they act this way-) I can understand the international community's frustration with the African governments and their rather lax enforcement of anti corruption laws, but is this the actions of a partner or a bully?

Tanzania seems to have their act together in that they are not lying to themselves about what is going on, and hopefully will act on this information. Zim knows what will make USFWS happy (at least supposedly), and now needs to see if they are capable of doing it.

One thing I do wonder about though is what is considered acceptable elephant numbers in these areas? That seems to be something no one talks about, and even in my limited travels, I have seen large areas in both countries that look like they suffered from excessive elephant activity (as the letter that Zig had posted earlier seems to be pointing out) and while they have been poached hard, does that mean that they are now about where carrying capacity is? I don't know, but the letter seemed to indicate they have been overpopulated for some time.

Dr.Butler,
The Tanzania ele poaching problem has been common knowlege now for close to 10 years. The problem is definitely country wide but it has been massive in the Selous.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
If SCI really wants to do something significant to change the ruling then I would suggest that they fund a scientifically administered elephant population count in Zimbabwe. For a hundred thousand dollars or so, it could be done.

465H&H

As SCI members (at least some on here), I would suggest that we work on this exact issue because without a scientifically valid population estimate to put hunting offtake and poaching (or PIKE) as the USFWS calls it into context all the lobbying and complaining in the world is worth very little.

Perhaps this is a time where SCI and DSC could work together to raise the money to do a proper study. This is not rocket science and it is not that expensive, it just takes organization and training and most importantly of all, scientific credibility with properly documented methods.

This would be a far better use of funds than asking Congress to get involved with an issue that the USFWS has identified as a scientific concern about population trends.

quote:

Originally posted by hunt99:

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
If SCI really wants to do something significant to change the ruling then I would suggest that they fund a scientifically administered elephant population count in Zimbabwe. For a hundred thousand dollars or so, it could be done.

465H&H

As SCI members (at least some on here), I would suggest that we work on this exact issue because without a scientifically valid population estimate to put hunting offtake and poaching (or PIKE) as the USFWS calls it into context all the lobbying and complaining in the world is worth very little.

Perhaps this is a time where SCI and DSC could work together to raise the money to do a proper study. This is not rocket science and it is not that expensive, it just takes organization and training and most importantly of all, scientific credibility with properly documented methods.

This would be a far better use of funds than asking Congress to get involved with an issue that the USFWS has identified as a scientific concern about population trends.

The scientific support is mandatory. However by the time your fantasy organization takes flight we will all be playing golf. It's time to get real. I have battled NOAA for several years over fishing closure. They operate under the premise of "best available science". Feel free to read SEDAR 15 -19. I have. It is flawed and it is bullshit, but it takes YEARS to establish accurate research that refutes these assertions. I have the State of Florida on my side against the feds and progress is slow and halting.

So while the rebranding broader approach has merit you can wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up faster.

I have been embroiled in the polar bear crap for 6 years. The longer this goes on the harder it will be to reverse.

Instead of wringing my hands and pontificating that some one should do something, I am going to DC and continue to support Conservation Force. After that we will see.

We still need an organization that unites all hunters under one flag, but the meter is running.

I guess the old adage applies. If your not with us, your against us.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:


Instead of wringing my hands and pontificating that some one should do something, I am going to DC and continue to support Conservation Force. After that we will see.


Jeff

Been there (several times), done that (but will continue), and got the T-shirt (which is a lot like your handful of shit). Kind of like kissing your sister...but as the old saying goes...better than no kiss at all.

I just say let's add something to the play look other than fullback up the middle. I am ready for a reverse halfback pass...or at least a pass of some sort.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

@However, given the significant decline in the elephant population due to uncontrolled poaching and questionable management and governance, we are concerned that additional killing of elephants, even if legal, is not sustainable and will not support effective elephant population recovery efforts in Tanzania."

USF&W have very adequately substantiated the reason behind their decision (as far as TZ goes) with the above statement which regrettably reflects the truth!

And I would almost guarantee you that there is no way in hell the elephant population is 70,000 in Tanzania right now!

What is a more accurate guesstimate?

quote:

Originally posted by Demonical:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

@However, given the significant decline in the elephant population due to uncontrolled poaching and questionable management and governance, we are concerned that additional killing of elephants, even if legal, is not sustainable and will not support effective elephant population recovery efforts in Tanzania."

USF&W have very adequately substantiated the reason behind their decision (as far as TZ goes) with the above statement which regrettably reflects the truth!

And I would almost guarantee you that there is no way in hell the elephant population is 70,000 in Tanzania right now!

What is a more accurate guesstimate?

Selous - 13,000
Ruaha/Rungwa - 20,000
Taringire - 3,000
Serengeti - 1,000
Rest of country 5000-10,000

That's my 2 cents

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
The scientific support is mandatory. However by the time your fantasy organization takes flight we will all be playing golf. It's time to get real. I have battled NOAA for several years over fishing closure. They operate under the premise of "best available science". Feel free to read SEDAR 15 -19. I have. It is flawed and it is bullshit, but it takes YEARS to establish accurate research that refutes these assertions. I have the State of Florida on my side against the feds and progress is slow and halting.

So while the rebranding broader approach has merit you can wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up faster.

I have been embroiled in the polar bear crap for 6 years. The longer this goes on the harder it will be to reverse.

Instead of wringing my hands and pontificating that some one should do something, I am going to DC and continue to support Conservation Force. After that we will see.

We still need an organization that unites all hunters under one flag, but the meter is running.

I guess the old adage applies. If your not with us, your against us.

Jeff

I am going to disagree with this assessment as it pertains to Zimbabwe. They have a long record of scientifically valid population estimates from past fixed-winged aerial surveys. These surveys were designed by a Phd with impeccable credentials in ungulate survey methodology. I don't believe any of these surveys have been done in the last ten years but I may be wrong. The methodology is there as are some of the experienced people that ran these surveys.

The usual time for surveying elephants was in the dry season, Oct, Nov. Dec. If they started now it could be organized and done by this winter and the results compared to past surveys. USFS would in all probability accept those results.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
The scientific support is mandatory. However by the time your fantasy organization takes flight we will all be playing golf. It's time to get real. I have battled NOAA for several years over fishing closure. They operate under the premise of "best available science". Feel free to read SEDAR 15 -19. I have. It is flawed and it is bullshit, but it takes YEARS to establish accurate research that refutes these assertions. I have the State of Florida on my side against the feds and progress is slow and halting.

So while the rebranding broader approach has merit you can wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up faster.

I have been embroiled in the polar bear crap for 6 years. The longer this goes on the harder it will be to reverse.

Instead of wringing my hands and pontificating that some one should do something, I am going to DC and continue to support Conservation Force. After that we will see.

We still need an organization that unites all hunters under one flag, but the meter is running.

I guess the old adage applies. If your not with us, your against us.

Jeff

I am going to disagree with this assessment as it pertains to Zimbabwe. They have a long record of scientifically valid population estimates from past fixed-winged aerial surveys. These surveys were designed by a Phd with impeccable credentials in ungulate survey methodology. I don't believe any of these surveys have been done in the last ten years but I may be wrong. The methodology is there as are some of the experienced people that ran these surveys.

The usual time for surveying elephants was in the dry season, Oct, Nov. Dec. If they started now it could be organized and done by this winter and the results compared to past surveys. USFS would in all probability accept those results.

465H&H

465 is 100% correct!