Relatively good article-
Excerpt-

The mass killing of elephants is tragic. But demand for new ivory, not items legally imported decades or centuries ago, fuels the trade. Governments should penalize poachers and their seller allies—not responsible collectors and dealers who have followed the rules.

Indeed, the administration’s new policy is worse than unfair. They are counterproductive. They will expand the illegal ivory market, divert enforcement resources, and push owners of legal ivory into the illegal trade. Which means more elephants are likely to die. Surely that is not the legacy desired by President Obama.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/do...at-increased-risk/2/

Poaching can never be controlled effectively as long as there is demand with huge profits attached to it. Same issue with tiger & rhino in India. A local villager will risk his life for $100 once a week or even once a month.

Same goes for drugs or people smuggling. The supply end makes the least money while the customer end pays the most.

If China could really tighten its implementation of the laws on ivory, rhino horn & tiger products traffic, the poaching will reduce.

As long as that implementation is lax, I see no hope. I expect extinction of the tiger & rhino in the next 20 years & the elephant in say 40 years. Just a wild guess ..... but it will happen.

quote:

Originally posted by Clan_Colla:
Yes Saeed-
But THAT (controlling poaching)
is the intelligent choice

Please contact subcommittee Members
about the Ivory Ban

http://naturalresources.house....?SubcommitteeID=5063

From: Rob Mitchell [mailto:RMitchell=CorrMitchell.com@mail78.atl11.rsgsv.net] On Behalf Of Rob Mitchell
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 4:25 PM

House Subcommittee to Conduct Hearing about Domestic Ivory Ban

Hearing Scheduled for June 24 before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs

On Tuesday, June 24 at 2:00 PM the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs will conduct a hearing in Washington, DC on "the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Plan to Implement a Ban on the Commercial Trade in Elephant Ivory." There will be a limited number of witnesses, and the subcommittee will call witnesses by invitation only.

Currently scheduled witnesses include Scott O'Grady, Retired AF Captain & author of Return with Honor, and Ian Somerhalder, an actor who runs his own foundation focusing on animal rights.

This is an excellent opportunity to contact the members of Congress involved in the hearing to let them know how futile and destructive the Domestic Ivory Ban will be for African elephants and ivory owners & businesses alike. Committee members include:
• John Flemming (LA04) (Chairman)
• Don Young (AK)
• Rob Wittman (VA01)
• Glenn "GT" Thompson (PA05)
• Jeff Duncan (SC03)
• Steve Southerland, II (FL02)
• Bill Flores (TX17)
• Jon Runyan (NJ03)
• Vance McAllister (LA05)
• Bradley Byrne (AL01)
• Doc Hastings (WA04)
• Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan (N Mariana Islands) (Ranking Member)
• Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (American Samoa)
• Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ06)
• Madeleine Z. Bordallo (Guam)
• Pedro Pierluisi (Puerto Rico)
• Carol Shea-Porter (NH01)
• Alan Lowenthal (CA47)
• Joe Garcia (FL26)
• Peter A. DeFazio (OR04)
The full subcommittee membership, complete with links to contact each member, is at http://naturalresources.house....?SubcommitteeID=5063.

The best strategy is to focus on members with whom you have a connection. If you are a constituent, or if your business is in that member's district, or if you have some other relationship with a member, your letter, e-mail or phone call will mean more than if you have no connection.

Please let us know if you reach out to anyone with the committee and if they respond. We will try to reinforce your contact with these members. As to what you should say, we recommend modelling your communication on the points provided below.



Get The Message to Congress
While USFWS continues to fast-track the Domestic Ivory Ban, we are working to let Congress know:
1. We all want to end poaching of African Elephants and illicit ivory trade, but banning the domestic sale and trade of legal ivory in the United States will not stop poaching or save a single elephant.
2. A Domestic Ivory Ban would unnecessarily hurt owners of antiques and any items containing ivory already legally imported into this country by stripping their value - a taking of BILLIONS of dollars from law-abiding Americans. The ban would criminalize legitimate business owners & job-creators and cause immediate astronomical financial loss.
3. The ban goes against USFWS's longstanding position that almost all ivory in the US has been legally imported and its sale in the US has no impact on poaching in Africa.
4. We need a "Time Out" in this process so the views and concerns of legitimate businesses and innocent ivory owners can be considered in a policy that actually stops elephant poaching.
Contact your Senators and Congressman now to let them know the problems this ban will cause. Find them and their contact information by clicking this link.
Thank you for your support!

Rob Mitchell


Elephant Protection Association is a non-profit social welfare organization in accordance with IRC 501(c)(4). Donations are not deductible as charitable contributions on federal taxes.

Our mailing address is:
Elephant Protection Association
1035 W Bristol Rd
Warminster, PA 18974

Bans worked wonders on the illegal/illicit drug trade

Ya know, I have been thinking about the BRILLIANT legally hunted ivory ban from Tanzania and Zimbabwe by USW&W....if hunters keep hunting and harvesting legal ivory and it is retained in Africa....how long do you think it will take for it to be stolen and sold to the illicit ivory trade....by the honorable Govt's of various African Countries....or common thieves??!! HUMMMM!!

Oh Boy EDDY. You and Nakihunter hit it square on the nail.
I agree, hunting ele and leaving ivory in Africa ( cannot be sold or taken back to US ) then what is the point of hunting tuskers in the first place besides paying huge trophy fee for something that is really not yours? I know, lots of people say " pics, experience, replicas, etc. but I don't think that cuts it.
I don't see hunters flocking to Canada to hunt Polar bears.
I wonder who would go whitetail hunting to neighboring state, pay non resident price and then be told " Can't take the meat or horns with you, sorry, just take pics and you can make replica of the horns. "
How many of us would go in the first place?
My answer - none of us. We would just laugh.

This ban is a very, very tough subject

My bet- if the ban isn't over turned, and I am hopeful due to its ineffectiveness and knee jerk reaction to a bigger problem, we will see hunts and trophy fees decline in TZ and Zim because there is little market where you can't take your ivory home....where it is safe and OUT of the ivory trade!

Time will tell....

Cheers,

Last day to contact the sub-committe members

There was a op ed in the WSJ today that discussed how stupid this ban is.

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060001788



ENDANGERED SPECIES:
Lawmakers sought help for elephant hunters after ivory crackdown
Kevin Bogardus, E&E reporter
Greenwire: Monday, June 23, 2014



The Fish and Wildlife Service's crackdown on the ivory trade has led to lawmakers relaying their constituents' haggles over elephant hunting and piano keys to the Obama administration.

Some have sought reprieve from the ban at the Interior Department as African safaris and family heirlooms have become suspect in federal authorities' eyes.

In a May 8 letter obtained by Greenwire under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) told Interior Secretary Sally Jewell about how the ivory ban was scrambling a constituent's hunting plans.

"[Redacted] entered into a contract to legally hunt a bull elephant in Zimbabwe just prior to the [FWS] announcement and stands to lose a significant amount of money from non-refundable costs incurred for a trip later this fall," Harkin wrote in the letter.

"He asks that some accommodation be made for those hunters who were under contract prior to" that announcement, the senator said.

In the constituent's letter attached to Harkin's missive, he asked that hunters be allowed to import back elephant trophies won from hunts planned before the FWS action. He also noted that he has already spent $6,971.40 in nonrefundable costs for the Zimbabwe trip.

In response to Harkin, a FWS official said allowances couldn't be made for individual hunters who made safari plans after the announcement since that could undermine the ivory ban.

The White House announced earlier this year that it would ban the commercial trade of elephant ivory to combat wildlife trafficking (E&ENews PM, Feb. 11). Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been supportive of that effort and have even looked to strengthen enforcement tools (Greenwire, March 21).

"The commercial ivory ban is being initiated because the legal ivory market has created cover for traffickers," said Gavin Shire, a FWS spokesman, in an email to Greenwire.

"Distinguishing new ivory from old is almost impossible without sophisticated (and expensive) tests, and so the only way to ensure that new (illegal) ivory is not entering the market is to effectively close down that market," Shire said.

Shire noted that "trophy hunting can be a benefit to elephant populations if it is appropriately managed" but FWS believes Tanzania hasn't appropriately managed its elephant hunting while Zimbabwe has failed to provide enough documentation to make a determination.

"Therefore we decided to suspend the import of trophies from both countries from April 4 for the remainder of the calendar year," Shire said, with FWS planning to reassess again next year.

Some have fretted about being caught up in the government's dragnet. Documents obtained under FOIA by Greenwire show that members of Congress have passed on those worries to Interior and FWS with one constituent arguing the ban hurts the resale value of his antique ivory collection.

"If I cannot sell under some more reasonable restriction, it seems to me that you will be taking most of the value of our collection," said one message shared with Rep. Vicky Hartzler's (R-Mo.) office. "What do you recommend that I do: Contact my congressional delegation? Voter [sic] Republican and ask that the DOI budget be reduced? Or both?"

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) passed along to Interior a letter from a piano technician that said "this crazy new rule" could make it difficult to sell older instruments that still had ivory keys.

"I see no reason we should ban the trade of already produced, antique ivory in our country. It seems flat-out silly," the technician wrote.

In his own letter, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) warned Jewell to tread carefully when combating poachers to avoid saddling those not trading in illegal ivory with "a needless bureaucratic hassle."

FWS has heard those concerns and last month exempted musicians from the ban who have been worried that their instruments could be confiscated when they travel abroad (Greenwire, May 16). The agency has also authored a rule on ivory imports.

Some groups have not been swayed by the modification and are still seeking more changes from the administration on the ban.

Heather Noonan, vice president of advocacy for the League of American Orchestras, said the group supports conservation efforts but is worried if musicians can secure the proper paperwork to transport their instruments.

"Our first concern is building a reliable system that can be navigated. That permit system has not been built yet," Noonan said. "What that means for a musician now is there is too much uncertainty when it comes to traveling with the tools of their trade."

Noonan added the group is "working primarily with the administration" and "we are hoping as they issue rules on the use of ivory, that they put into place a process that allows musicians to use their instruments."

Safari Club International, a hunter rights' group, had its members come to Washington last month to lobby Congress on the ban. They pushed lawmakers to sign onto a "dear colleague" letter to FWS Director Daniel Ashe asking the agency to rescind its decision to ban imported elephant trophies.

"Your decision will do nothing to prevent poaching in Africa," the letter says. "It is largely the hunting concession operators who protect their lands from poaching and this decision directly impacts their income meaning less dollars on the ground for anti-poaching."

Nelson Freeman, a Safari Club spokesman, said FWS's actions had gone too far.

FWS "should not be in the business of defining various classes of citizens that are or are not allowed to own private property," according to Freeman.

Twitter: @KevinBogardus | Email: kbogardus@eenews.net

The WSJ story today said UFWS could not institute an outright ban without involving congress, so they created a ban that has a few difficult to meet exceptions. Congress should be pissed.

Why do we never see the majority dealer countries, mainly Asian, taking a serious stand against illegal trade in ivory and rhino horn? Just like gun control here in the USA; blame the law abiding citizen for owning guns every time a murder is committed. They always punish the innocent. Make it a capital offense to traffic, buy or deal in poached ivory/rhino horn with the death penalty implemented within 30 days and watch the rats scatter. LDK

unfortunately, the 'RATS" are well heeled Chinese beaurocrats/politicians/upper class looking for an organic Viagra/cancer/hangover cure

WELL, just mind the law like OBUMMER doesn't!!

"Leaks" out of US Fish and Game indicate the ban will be imposed by executive order as early as OCT 1, 2015.

[Comment period ends 28 Sept 2015 on the "proposed" regulations.]

As indicated above- leaks suggest enforcement planned for as early as October.


IMO-- it appears -Obama end runs congress yet again-

Example from US GOV site-


I have an elephant head with tusks that my father killed in 1949. Will I be able sell it across state lines?

No. Under the proposed revisions to the African elephant 4(d) rule, you would not be able to sell the tusks. Ivory imported as a sport-hunted trophy that does not meet the criteria for an ESA antique cannot be sold.

This has not been the case in the past- 1976 was the prior date.

Many had considered 1989 as the date.

Please send your comments-


The proposed rule will publish in the Federal Register on July 29, 2015 and be open for public comment for 60 days. FWS will review and consider all comments received by September 28, 2015 before publishing a final rule. Please go to www.regulations.gov, docket no. FWS–HQ–IA–2013–0091.