SCI Keeps Pressure on FWS to Reverse Ban on Elephant Importation
Washington, DC - Yesterday, the House Natural Resources Sub-Committee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs held a hearing on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) policies regarding the importation of sport hunted elephants and other lawful ivory trade. Safari Club International (SCI) was represented by Air Force Veteran Scott O'Grady who highlighted the impact that the importation ban has on conservation in Africa Former Congressman Jack Fields and Itai Hilary Tendaupenyu, principal ecologist of the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority also testified as to the important role that hunting plays in conservation and the devastating effect that the importation ban is having on conservation funding in Zimbabwe.

"Today's hearing before the sub-committee gave hunter-conservationists the opportunity to express how important sustainable wildlife management is in Africa and around the world," said SCI President Craig Kauffman. "SCI is proud of the Members of Congress who understand that funding generated by hunting is absolutely essential to conservation in Africa."

On April 4, 2014 the FWS banned the importation of sport hunted elephants from Tanzania and Zimbabwe. The FWS's decision is having serious impacts on the ability of Zimbabwe and Tanzania to conserve and protect their elephants from poaching. As intended by the FWS, the bans are discouraging U.S. hunters from visiting these countries to hunt elephants. Fewer U.S. hunters result in less hunter-generated funds for elephant conservation and community projects. In Zimbabwe the social and infrastructure programs in the most rural parts of the country will be financially gutted. The loss of hunter revenues will affect over 770,000 families in Zimbabwe. The FWS decision also devastates anti-poaching funding on over 30% of Tanzania's lands and which are managed exclusively by safari hunting companies for wildlife. U.S. hunters represent 60% and 90% of clients in Zimbabwe and Tanzania respectively. Without the financial contributions from U.S. hunters, there will be a vacuum of anti-poaching enforcement which will be filled by those who seek to illegally exploit wildlife.

• Former Congressman and author of the African Elephant Conservation Act of 1989, Jack Fields testified today. He provided an overview of his experience during the 1980's to pass legislation to curtail international poaching while maintaining the existing funding avenues provided by U.S. hunters.

• Air Force Veteran Scott O'Grady's testimony focused on his recent experience traveling and hunting in Zimbabwe. Scott discussed the anti-poaching personnel who were on the ground throughout Zimbabwe, and how those anti-poaching teams were exclusively funded by hunters. He detailed for the committee that without hunter dollars, there was little in the way of economic incentives to conserve wildlife in Zimbabwe.

• Itai Hilary Tendaupenyu is a wildlife ecologist from Zimbabwe's Parks and Wildlife Management Authority. He was able to give highly detailed accounts on Zimbabwe's current wildlife management programs. He also discussed those programs that are being harmed because of the April 4th decision by the FWS.

"Like all of my fellow hunters, I was shocked by the U.S. FWS decision on April 4th. I was even more shocked when I learned that neither Tanzania nor Zimbabwe were contacted by the FWS prior to this financially devastating decision. If other countries could wield such a devastating influence on America's wildlife, then I can only imagine what the response would be here at home. I hope that the U.S. FWS sees the errors of its ways and reopens sport hunted elephant imports so that the countries of Tanzania and Zimbabwe can get their wildlife conservation programs back up and running," concluded Air Force Veteran Scott O'Grady.

About SCI's Strategy to Overturn the Importation Ban: SCI thanks members of the Sub-Committee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs for holding the June 24th congressional hearing to highlight these clear overreaches by the FWS. Safari Club International is leading the effort to reverse the FWS ban on importation of sport hunted elephants from Tanzania and Zimbabwe. Immediately following the announcement on April 4th of the ban, SCI contacted both Tanzania's and Zimbabwe's wildlife management agencies. Within a very short timeline both countries had filed formal complaints through their respective U.S. embassies due to the incredible financial impact the ban would have on their wildlife and their people. SCI members visited their Congressional representatives in force on SCI's May 8, 2014 Lobby Day and encouraged their government officials to request a reversal of the importation bans. As a result of these meetings over 20 Members of Congress signed a "Dear Colleague" letter that letter asking the FWS to immediately reverse their importation ban.

SCI has also filed a lawsuit against the FWS and has been joined by the NRA in this effort. The lawsuit seeks an expeditious reversal of the bans for both countries. The suit's long-term goals are to deprive the FWS of the ability to repeat this tactic for elephant importation from Zimbabwe and/or Tanzania for 2015. In addition, SCI and NRA's suit is intended to prevent the FWS from imposing similar bans for other countries and/or other species.

Collectively, SCI's strategies are the best and most comprehensive actions currently being undertaken by any individual or entity to protect sustainable use conservation in Africa and around the world.

All of today's witnesses will be available for interviews upon request.
Contact: Nelson Freeman, Media@safariclub.org

Thanks for the update Larry. Does anyone have any information on the types of questions asked of the witnesses by the Subcommittee?

Here was the opening statement from the Chairman:

Opening Statement of
Chairman John Fleming PENNY DODGE
DEMOCRATIC STAFF DIRECTOR
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
on Tuesday, June 24t,\ 2014
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Oversight Hearing on: The Fish and Wildlife Service's "Virtual Ban" On the
Commercial Sale of Elephant Ivory
Good afternoon, Today, the Subcommittee will examine the Fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service) decision to establish a ban on the sale of elephant ivory, to suspend
sport hunted trophies from two African countries and to arbitrarily limit the number of
sport hunted trophies that Americans can legally import into the United States.
It is clear that the rate of illegal killing that African elephants have experienced is
tragic. So, I was pleased to read the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) June 13th press release that the number of
dephants poached in 2013 decreased from the previous two years. According to the
CITES Secretary-General "We are seeing better law enforcement and demand-reduction
efforts across multiple countries".
In order to stop this killing, the world community must work together to stop the
flow of illegal ivory and to provide ivory producing nations with the resources they need
to effectively arrest, imprison or kill the heavily anned and organized poachers.
Based on report to INTERPOL by Dr. Samuel Wasser ofthe University of
Washington, who perfonns the DNA testing on seized ivory, we now know that poachers
are killing over 75 percent of all elephants in about three locations in Africa. According
to Dr. Wasser, "The same locations keep recurring over and over again as the places of
origin of major ivory seizures, suggesting that the number of major hotspots may be far
more limited than previously thought". The international law enforcement community
must target those hotspots.
During the past six months, the Service has issued Director's Order 210, a
revision to that order, and a promise to issue proposed final rules which will establish in
the words of the Director a "virtual ban" on the commercial sale of elephant ivory. Before
establishing such a policy, it is usually important to understand the extent of the problem
you are trying to fix. Regrettably, in this case, the Service has indicated that they do not
know how much elephant ivory is in the United States or even more importantly how
much of it is illegal.
. http://naturalresources,house.gov
It is apparently difficult and expensive to detennine the origin and age of ivory
and, therefore, the Service believes the easiest thing for them is to simply declare that
virtually everything as contraband. And for good measure, the burden will be on the
individual and not the federal government to prove that the ivory items qualify for these
limited exceptions.
Today, we will hear from some of the industries who may be adversely affected
by the upcoming proposed final rules. Hopefully, their suggestions and comments will be
given serious consideration.
Finally, I am interested in hearing whether the Service is prepared to allow
Americans to again import elephant trophies from Tanzania and Zimbabwe. I also want
to know why the Service would even consider establishing a limitation on American
sport hunters when the African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 clearly implies that no
such limitations should be placed and when even the Service admits that sport hunting is
beneficial to elephant conservation. The simple truth is that if wildlife has no economic
value, then there is little, if any, incentive for the people who live in that habitat to
conserve or save them. Some of the proceeds from legal elephant hunting are used to
finance clinics, hospitals, roads, schools and other necessities of life in some of the
poorest villages throughout Southern Africa.

Here is the ZimParks testimony:

Itai Hilary Tendaupenyu
PRINCIPAL ECOLOGIST REPRESENTING THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE ZIMBABWE PARKS AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
Testimony on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Plan to Implement a Virtual Ban on the Commercial Trade in Elephant Ivory and the Consequences of that Policy
Tuesday June24, 2014 2:00P.M.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to share my views on behalf of the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority regarding the recent importation ban imposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on sport-hunted elephants from Zimbabwe.
My name is Itai Hilary Tendaupenyu. I am a Principal Ecologist representing The Director General of the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (“ZimParks”). ZimParks’ mission is to conserve Zimbabwe’s wildlife heritage through effective, efficient and sustainable utilization of natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations and stakeholders. We strive to be the world leader in sustainable conservation.
ZimParks, much like the USFWS, has a mandate to manage the entire wildlife population of Zimbabwe, whether on private or communal lands. Although private landowners may utilize the wildlife on their land, they are still accountable to ZimParks for the welfare of the animals. Mandated with the protection, management and administration of the wildlife of Zimbabwe, ZimParks has a proud history of sound management that endeavours to conserve the unique flora and fauna heritage of Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe welcomes President Obama’s directive that United States Government executive departments and agencies assist foreign nations in building capacity to combat poaching of protected species and the illegal trade in wildlife. Although we agree with the goals of the directive, we do not agree with some of the strategies the USFWS has used to implement the directive. Instead of working with our wildlife management authorities, your FWS has made unilateral decisions and has issued edicts. The National Strategy on Wildlife Trafficking and the Advisory Council should guide international partnerships with nongovernmental organizations, local communities, and the private sector to promote mechanisms that prevent poaching and illegal trade, rather than make decisions without including these important partners. Instead of collaborating with and assisting those who are directly involved with the day-to-day effort to combat illegal wildlife trafficking, the decisions recently made by the United States have undermined Zimbabwe’s conservation efforts and the success of programs like CAMPFIRE, its revenue stream, and its anti-poaching work.
Sport-hunting and the revenue it generates for Zimbabwe and its people play a significant role in the conservation of Zimbabwe’s wildlife. Revenue from sport hunting is paid directly to ZimParks and the Forestry Commission (depending on where the hunting takes place). Revenue is generated from auction bids for the right to hunt on some lands, hunting lease fees (concession fees), trophy fees, and daily rates paid by hunters. Those sources of revenue contribute wholly to the conservation budget of ZimParks and the Forestry Commission. They also contribute to revenue generated on communal lands (see CAMPFIRE discussion
2
below). A significant portion of the revenue from sport-hunting comes from U.S. hunters. Zimbabwe’s elephant conservation efforts and its anti-poaching strategies derive tremendous benefit from these sources.
Hunting often occurs in areas that are too dry for agriculture pursuits and non-hunting tourism. Without hunting, such areas would be prone to poaching due to the absence of human activity. Hunting brings accessibility to such remote areas in terms of roads, airstrips, and water development, thus making the areas economically, environmentally, and socially beneficial.
1.0 Background
On 04 April, 2014, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued a press statement whilst simultaneously informing Zimbabwe of the temporary suspension of all imports of African elephant trophies taken in Zimbabwe during the 2014 hunting season. The USFWS did not send Zimbabwe a request for information about these issues until the very day that they announced the ban. The USFWS in their communication advised that they could not make a positive finding that the importation of elephant sport-hunted trophies would enhance the survival of the species as required under their Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the African Elephant Conservation Act (AECA), both being stricter domestic measures. They also cited lack of current information on the status and management of African elephants within Zimbabwe and that the suspension could be lifted after the Service had received sufficient information.
To date, the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (ZimParks) officially responded on the 7th April2014 to the USFWS addressing all questions that had been raised and supplying a host of pertinent additional information. Meetings have also been held in Washington DC between USFWS officials, ZimParks and representatives of communities (CAMPFIRE), Safari Operators and the private sector from Zimbabwe. The USFWS has now had these materials for six weeks and yet, has made no effort to lift the ban that they based on what they claimed to be a lack of information. Now that they have had adequate time to review the information we provided, Zimbabwe would like to see the ban immediately lifted.
In all our submissions, we have been very clear and consistent about our displeasure with the manner in which this unilateral suspension was handled without prior engagement and notification, lack of transparency and science-based evidence to support this. We believe we have not been respected in all these processes.
Whilst the USFWS alluded to the fact that legal, well-regulated sport hunting, as part of a sound management programme, can benefit the conservation of listed species by providing incentives to local communities and to conserve the species by putting much needed revenue back into conservation, the suspension acts as a contradiction to all this.
2.0 THE STATUS OF AFRICAN ELEPHANT POPULATION IN ZIMBABWE
There are four major elephant geographical ranges in Zimbabwe namely North- West Matabeleland, Mid Zambezi Valley, Sebungwe and South- East Lowveld. These ranges cover different land tenure categories in Zimbabwe which include state protected areas (parks estate and indigenous forest areas) privately owned land and communal lands. Systematic aerial survey and sampling techniques are used to estimate elephant numbers throughout the four
3
major geographical ranges in Zimbabwe. A national aerial survey of large mammals that was lastly conducted in 2001, estimated the elephant population to be 88 123. Partial surveys that have been done over years through aerial surveys, waterhole and road counts as well as ranger based data collection and monitoring show an increasing trend in elephant populations in Zimbabwe. A national aerial survey for large mammals to determine the current population of elephants is planned for the 2014 dry season with funding from Paul G. Allen through an NGO “Elephants Without Borders” based in Botswana.
3.0 ELEPHANT DISTRIBUTION IN ZIMBABWE
The distribution of elephants in terms of geographical ranges Zimbabwe is shown on Appendix 1.
3.1 North West Matabeleland
This area constitutes the range for the largest elephant sub-population in Zimbabwe occupying the Hwange -Matetsi Complex including several Forest Areas as well as Hwange and Tsholotsho communal areas. Based on national survey conducted in 2001, the elephant population for this area is now estimated to be 50 000.
3.2 Mid-Zambezi Valley
The elephant sub-population in the area occupies the Parks and Wildlife Estate between Lake Kariba and Kanyemba. Based on national survey conducted in 2001, the elephant population for this area is now estimated to be 20 000.
3.3 The Sebungwe
This area forms part of the elephant range and unlike other populations in Zimbabwe is largely closed, being isolated by Lake Kariba and surrounded by human settlements. Based on a survey conducted in 2006, the elephant population for this area was estimated to be 15 000.
3.4 The South-East Lowveld
This area forms part of the elephant range covering Gonarezhou National Park, Save Valley Conservancy, Bubye Valley Conservancy and the surrounding communal lands. Based on aerial surveys done in 2013, the elephant population for this area was estimated to be 12 500.
4.0 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SUSPENSION FOR ZIMBABWE
The Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority was stunned by the unilateral decision by the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) to suspend imports from elephant trophies hunted in Zimbabwe for the year 2014. This decision was taken without prior written notice or engagement with the Government of Zimbabwe. The suspension of imports of hunting trophies from Zimbabwe will have huge negative social and economic impacts on the national and local economies. Approximately, 67% of the annual elephant export quota is allocated to local communities and private sectors with more than half of this going to local communities. Sport hunting takes place in Safari Areas falling under the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, Indigenous Forest Areas managed by the Forestry Commission, the Communal Lands where the Communal Areas Management
4
Programme of Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) occurs and the Private Game Farms and Conservancies.
The CAMPFIRE programme has created expanded wildlife range. However, its collapse through the ban will reverse this situation and create increased human and wildlife conflict since the buffer for human and wildlife conflict would have been removed and ultimately there will be increased illegal off take in the core range. This move will certainly impact on wildlife conservation, the economy, community livelihoods and the effects of this ban are explained below;
4.1 Impacts of Suspension on the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority
The principal and most important form of utilization of elephants in Zimbabwe is safari or trophy hunting. Suspension on imports from elephant trophies hunted in Zimbabwe for the year 2014 and their products has adverse impact on the economic development by destroying the safari hunting industry which is anchored on a few key species of which the elephant is included. Since inception, the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority has not been receiving any funding from the Fiscus or Central Government budget to fund day to day operational activities. The Authority currently generates its income for funding operations from sustainable conservation practices including sport hunting which contributes 30% of the total income. The Authority is expected to raise enough financial resources and mobilize other resources for wildlife conservation within and outside state protected areas. The consequences of this ban will be deteriorating infrastructure and equipment due to resource constraints and increased illegal harvesting of the natural resources due to limited funding for resource protection and reduced community benefits through the CAMPFIRE programme. The Parks and Wildlife Act Chapter 20:14 as amended legally defines six categories of Protected Areas under the jurisdiction of the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (Appendix 2). The six categories are National Parks, Safari Areas, Recreational Parks, Botanical Reserves and Gardens and Sanctuaries which in total cover about 13% of the country (5 million hectares).
The Authority has also a statutory obligation to manage wildlife conservation outside state protected areas and this entails undertaking functions such as problem animal control, fire management, law enforcement, environmental education and awareness campaigns, as its contribution to safeguarding our natural heritage, public safety and security, food security, etc. The costs of all these activities are borne by the Authority without any financial benefits at a time when the Authority is expected to be financially viable.
The Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE), a brainchild of the Authority (then Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management) is a national strategy that was established with the primary purpose of helping rural communities to sustainably manage their natural and cultural resources, derive income from the resource and determine how the income would be utilized. Out of Zimbabwe’s total land area of 390,757 km2, CAMPFIRE manages about 49,700km2 or 12.7% of the country. CAMPFIRE manages for purposes of both wildlife conservation and other natural resources in areas with mostly rural communities. The basic premise of CAMPFIRE is that financial incentives are critical to the conservation and sustainable use of the country’s wildlife and other natural resources. Natural resources in communal lands are communally owned. CAMPFIRE was designed as the answer to the management of this communally owned resource and an intervention that would prevent a chaotic situation derived from an open
5
access regime. The demise of this community based natural resource management programme will therefore reverse the achievements of this programme.
4.2 Impacts of Suspension on the CAMPFIRE programme
Financial benefits from sustainable use have served to increase the confidence of communities in wildlife management, thereby improving tolerance and survival of wildlife species. Safari hunting is the key driver for Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE). Safari hunting benefits from large communal areas that are close to wildlife protected areas, have low density human populations and are set aside as concession areas leased for the purpose of sport hunting activities. CAMPFIRE was operationalized through the giving of Appropriate Authority status (AA) to the Rural District Councils. In the Parks and Wildlife Act of 1975 (Amendment of 1982), the AA is bestowed on the land holder and the RDC is the land holder in communal lands. Communities are only land occupiers under the jurisdiction of the RDC. Fifty eight out of sixty districts in the country participate in CAMPFIRE.
The Guidelines for CAMPFIRE issued by Government of Zimbabwe underline the fact that CAMPFIRE is a community programme and based on this understanding stipulate that, communities must at all-time receive the highest benefits. The guidelines also stipulate that if RDCs fail to deliver to the communities there is the need to have the AA status reviewed and or withdrawn.
In this regard the guidelines stipulate the following:
(i) Not less than 55% of gross revenue shall go to producer communities.
(ii) RDCs shall receive a maximum of 26% of gross revenue for the purpose of managing the Appropriate Authority status on behalf of the communities. This entails law enforcement, monitoring and capital development for wildlife.
(iii) The CAMPFIRE Association shall receive 4% of the gross revenue.
(iv) RDCs also get 15% of gross revenue. This is to cover overhead costs.
In CAMPFIRE areas, a significant portion of the revenue generated from sport hunting is re-invested in wildlife conservation. It is noteworthy that revenue from elephant hunting contributes approximately 60% of total earnings by Rural District Councils annually. On average, US$1.5 million per year in net income directly benefits local communities. This income is derived from the lease of sport hunting rights to safari operators. A lesser proportion of income is generated from tourism leases on communal land, and other natural resources management activities. Up to 90% of CAMPFIRE revenue comes from sport hunting and it is important to highlight that elephant hunting contributes more than 70% of CAMPFIRE’s annual revenue. If hunting is no longer an economically viable form of land use, communities will choose pastoralism and unviable agriculture, which reduces habitat available for elephants. Taking space away from elephants means more human and elephant conflict and as a result, more retaliatory killing of elephants, poaching and collusion with poaching syndicates. Local communities will only find an incentive to protect elephants if they can derive economic value from such a resource.
The ban will negatively affect Zimbabwe’s efforts to meet the United Nations Millennium Development Goals through poverty reduction and rural development. The CAMPFIRE programme heavily relies on elephant trophy hunting for sustainable wildlife conservation. Apart from funding conservation, CAMPFIRE income is used, for community projects in the
6
fields of education, health and other livelihood support services, in rural areas. Other benefits from elephant hunting include meat which is availed to rural communities providing the much needed protein in communal areas. The ban on elephant trophy imports into USA will result in reduced benefits flow to local communities in Zimbabwe (through the CAMPFIRE program). With the diminishing wildlife value, local communities may not support any conservation efforts and instead human-wildlife conflicts will be heightened and more wildlife land might be turned into other land use options that are deemed profitable by communities.
Human and elephant conflict has been on the increase in most of the areas adjacent to the major elephant range. Appendix 3 indicates the extent of human-elephant conflict in four hot spot districts for the period 2009 to 2011.In addition to the loss and injury to human life, communities adjacent to wildlife areas suffer the following;
 Destruction of crops which affects both the quality and quantity of harvests and impacting negatively on food security;
 Destruction of property;
 Depletion of water sources;
 Destruction of water infrastructure;
 Reduced grazing land;
 Restricted access to essential commodities such as firewood;
 Loss of opportunities to carry out other activities due to time spent guarding crops and property.
The strongest and most efficient way to combat illegal trafficking of wildlife and wildlife products in communal areas is to provide local communities with the incentive to participate in the war against poaching. Furthermore, the best way to engage communities is to increase the value of wildlife above the value of these animals to poachers and to the illegal trafficking trade. Once elephants are no longer economically important to local communities, those communities will have no incentive to keep elephants and protect them.
5.3 Impact on the Private Wildlife Sector
The local safari hunting industry, constituted by a healthy balance of indigenous and non-indigenous players will have huge losses in revenue as the hunts for the 2014 season had already been marketed. More than 50% of hunting clients coming to Zimbabwe every year are from the US market. Besides direct benefits from safari hunting such a cash and employment, indirect benefits arise from the multiplier effect in downstream activities such as taxidermists, dipping and packing companies, freight companies, ivory manufacturers etc. The annual CITES export quota for Zimbabwe is a maximum of 500 elephants (or 500 pairs of tusks). Between 2005 and 2009 total hunting receipts peaked $360 125 327 over the five year period (Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe figures). This translates to an average of $72 025 065 per year. Of the total hunting revenue in the country, elephant hunting contributes in excess of USD$ 14 million every year. Furthermore, sport hunters are the first line of defence and the most important factor in ground intelligence, surveillance and a deterrent to poaching. It is therefore clear that the collapse of the hunting sector will have a negative impact on conservation efforts.
7
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Elephant sport hunting and hunting in general in Zimbabwe contributes significantly to the national economy and should therefore be promoted. It has been demonstrated that the elephant as one of the Big Five, is the backbone for the hunting industry in the country. Hunting is therefore crucial to the flow of revenue for conservation and all the benefits to communities in terms of employment, community projects and protein. The aggregate effect of elephant hunting to communities is the reduction of poverty and improved living standards. In light of this, we strongly appeal the USFWS to reconsider the policy of banning the commercial trade in elephant ivory taking note of the serious negative consequences of such a policy. Zimbabwe earnestly looks forward to a favourable review of the suspension of the importation of Zimbabwe’s sport hunted elephant trophies taken in 2014.

The testimony of former Congressman Jack Fields (the all caps was how it was shown on the subcommittee website):

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JACK FIELDS
JUNE 24, 2014
CHAIRMAN FLEMING AND RANKING MEMBER SABLAN, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY BEFORE YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE THIS AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS JACK FIELDS, I AM A FORMER MEMBER OF CONGRESS, REPRESENTING THE EIGHTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS FROM 1980-1996 AND ONE OF THE CO-AUTHORS OF THE AFRICAN ELEPHANT PROTECTION ACT OF 1988. TODAY, I REPRESENT NO ONE OTHER THAN MYSELF, ALTHOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT I REPRESENT ALL MEMBERS, FORMER AND CURRENT, WHO SUPPORTED THE AFRICAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION ACT OF 1988.
THE AFRICAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION ACT OF 1988 WAS TRULY A BIPARTISAN PIECE OF LEGISLATION COSPONSORED BY TONY BEILENSON, A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT FROM CALIFORNIA, AND ME, A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN FROM TEXAS. FOR THOSE OF YOU ON THE DEMOCRAT SIDE OF THE AISLE…YOU WOULD HAVE HAD A GREAT DEAL OF RESPECT FOR TONY BEILENSON AS A REAL GENTLEMAN…HE WAS A LEGISLATOR’S LEGISLATOR---HE HAD A KEEN INTELLECT…UNMATCHED SINCERITY AND INTEGRITY…AND HE HAD A PASSION TO SAVE THE AFRICAN ELEPHANT.
AND, WHILE TONY AND I CAME FROM DIFFERENT CULTURES…AND, REPRESENTED DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES…WE BOTH REALIZED THAT WE HAD TO DO SOMETHING TO STOP THE POACHERS WHO WERE DECIMATING THE ELEPHANT HERDS OF AFRICA…SO, WE FOCUSED ON OUR COMMONALITIES RATHER THAN OUR DIFFERENCES.
WE BROUGHT TOGETHER A DISPARATE GROUP OF STAKEHOLDERS…WE MET AND ENGAGED WITH THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, THE AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND, AND OTHER GROUPS WHO DID NOT SUPPORT SPORT HUNTING…AND, WE MET WITH THE HOUSTON SAFARI CLUB, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL, THE DALLAS SAFARI CLUB AND OTHER GROUPS WHO DID SUPPORT SPORT HUNTING.
THE RESULT OF THESE MEETINGS WAS THE CREATION OF A BIPARTISAN GROUP WHO PUT ALL COLLATERAL ISSUES ASIDE TO FOCUS ON SAVING THE AFRICAN ELEPHANT…AND RECOGNIZING THAT THE POACHER AND THE COUNTRIES WHO DID NOT ADHERE TO CITES AND WHO ALLOWED POACHED IVORY INTO THEIR BORDERS…THESE WERE OUR ENEMIES.
OUR BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS RESULTED IN THE AFRICAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION ACT OF 1988 WHICH REMARKABLY PASSED BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE BY VOICE VOTE.
THE AFRICAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION ACT OF 1988 DID SEVERAL IMPORTANT THINGS:
1. IT STOPPED THE IMPORTATION OF CARVED IVORY INTO THIS COUNTRY
2. IT HAD A FINDING THAT SPORT HUNTING WAS BIOLOGICALLY NEUTRAL AND HAD NO IMPACT ON SUSTAINABLE POPULATIONS OF ELEPHANTS
3. IT REWARDED THOSE COUNTRIES WHO HAD GOOD CONSERVATION PROGRAMS AND ADHERED TO THE RULES ESTABLISHED BY CITES
BUT, TONY AND I DID NOT STOP WITH THE PASSAGE OF THE LEGISLATION---WE FELT THAT THE LEGISLATION WAS THE FOUNDATION AND GAVE US CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO GO AFTER THE REAL ENEMY…THE POACHER…AND THAT THE BEST WAY TO STOP THE POACHER WAS TO DRY UP THE “MARKET/DEMAND” SIDE OF THE EQUATION.
SO, WE BEGAN A SERIES OF VERY IMPORTANT MEETINGS TOGETHER AS A TEAM---AND, I THINK WE WERE A GOOD TEAM…TONY, AS A DEMOCRAT REPRESENTED THE MAJORITIES IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE, AND, AS A REPUBLICAN, I HAD ASSETS IN PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN’S ADMINISTRATION.
1. OUR FIRST MEETING WAS WITH JIM BAKER WHO AT THAT TIME WAS SECRETARY OF STATE---WE MADE A CASE THAT 40% OF THE WORLD’S IVORY WAS BEING CONSUMED BY THE JAPANESE---SECRETARY BAKER AGREED TO INTERVENE WITH THE JAPANESE WHO VERY QUICKLY STOPPED THE IMPORTATION OF IVORY INTO THEIR COUNTRY---A TREMENDOUS VICTORY TO DRY UP 40% OF THE WORLD’S MARKET.
2. NEXT, TONY AND I MET WITH THE BRITISH AMBASSADOR…BECAUSE AT THAT TIME THE BRITISH GOVERNED HONG KONG---WE MET IN THE MEMBER’S DINING ROOM---TO OUR SURPRISE, THE BRITISH AGREED TO BAN THE IMPORTATION OF IVORY INTO HONG KONG---ANOTHER GREAT VICTORY---MORE DEMAND WAS DRIED UP!
3. THEN, WE LEARNED THAT THE IVORY WAS BEING SHIFTED INTO CHINA FROM HONG KONG…SO, WE ASKED FOR A MEETING WITH THE CHINESE AMBASSADOR…WHO TOLD US THAT NO POACHED IVORY WAS IN CHINA…TONY AND I DIFFERED WITH THE AMBASSADOR AND ASKED THAT CHINA STOP THE IMPORTATION OF POACHED IVORY AND ADHERE TO CITES…WE WERE TOLD THAT CHINA WAS NOT A PROBLEM…WHICH RESULTED IN TONY AND I INTRODUCING LEGISLATION DENYING THE CHINESE $150 MILLION IN FISHERY EXPORTS INTO THE UNITED STATES…WE HELD A HEARING ON THIS BILL…AND THEN WE WERE TOLD THAT THE
CHINESE HAD FOUND A PROBLEM AND THAT IT WAS BEING CORRECTED AND THAT THEIR COUNTRY WOULD ADHERE TO CITES. ANOTHER GREAT VICTORY FOR THE AFRICAN ELEPHANT AND DEFEAT FOR THE POACHER. SADLY, IN THE CASE OF CHINA, HOWEVER, THAT VICTORY WAS NOT A PERMANENT ONE.
SO, WHAT WAS THE NET RESULT OF OUR LEGISLATION COUPLED WITH OUR EFFORTS TO DRY UP THE MARKET/DEMAND? THE PRICE OF IVORY DROPPED FROM APPROXIMATELY $100.00/LB TO ALMOST NOTHING…POACHING BECAME ALMOST NON-EXISTENT…AND, IN THE COUNTRIES WHICH HAD GOOD CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, THERE WAS A GROWTH IN THEIR ELEPHANT POPULATIONS.
SO, WHY DO I TAKE SO MUCH TIME REMINISCING ABOUT THE PAST? BECAUSE IF YOU ARE SINCERE IN WANTING TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE ELEPHANT POPULATIONS IN AFRICA, WHICH I THINK, YOU ARE… THEN YOU WOULD WANT TO HEAR WHAT TONY AND I LEARNED FROM AN EXHAUSTIVE PROCESS WORKING WITH ALL STAKEHOLDERS---TO HEAR ABOUT WHAT CONGRESS PASSED BACK IN 1988---AND TO HEAR WHAT AFFECTED THE POACHER, OUR “ENEMY”---WHICH IS DRYING UP THEIR MARKETPLACE…STOPPING THE DEMAND FOR POACHED IVORY GLOBALLY…AND, IF NEED BE, SHINING THE SPOT LIGHT ON THOSE COUNTRIES WHO ARE BAD ACTORS…THOSE COUNTRIES WHO ALLOW POACHED IVORY INTO THEIR BORDERS. LET ME ASSURE YOU THAT MOST COUNTRIES CANNOT WITHSTAND NOR AFFORD TO HAVE THIS TYPE OF SPOT LIGHT SHONE ON THEM.
SO, IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE KNOW WORKS IN STOPPING THE POACHER AND DRYING UP THE GLOBAL MARKETPLACE FOR POACHED IVORY…IS THE PROPOSAL BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE FISH AND WILDLIFE…GOOD POLICY…THE RIGHT ACTION TO PROTECT THE AFRICAN ELEPHANT IN ZIMBABWE AND TANZANIA? I SUGGEST TO YOU THE ANSWER IS A “RESOUNDING NO”! THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS:
1. NOT CONSULTING WITH ZIMBABWE AND TANZANIA BEFORE THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PROPOSAL---QUITE FRANKLY IS INSULTING TO THESE TWO COUNTRIES---ZIMBABWE AND TANZANIA HAVE BEEN LEADERS IN CONSERVATION POLICIES REGARDING THE AFRICAN ELEPHANT---IT IS THEIR CITIZENS WHO HAVE THEIR CROPS TRAMPLED---THEIR CHILDREN CHASED…THEIR FENCES AND HOMES KNOCKED DOWN.
2. DENYING THE IMPORTATION OF LEGALLY TAKEN SPORT HUNTED IVORY WITHIN THE QUOTA FILED WITH CITES FOR THESE TWO COUNTRIES CONVERTS THE ELEPHANT FROM AN ANIMAL PROTECTED BY LOCAL CITIZENS---TO AN ANIMAL THAT IS VIEWED AS A SOURCE OF PROTEIN AND IVORY TO BE POACHED. IN ZIMBABWE, WHERE I HAVE THE MOST FAMILIARITY, AND IN THE AREA OF WANKE NATIONAL PARK WHERE I HAVE VISITED OVER TEN TIMES…SPORT HUNTING BRINGS IN OVER $575,000.00 YEAR, WITH 80% OF THAT NUMBER STAYING IN THE
LOCAL COMMUNITY…BY CONTRAST, THE PHOTOGRAPHIC LODGE IN THAT AREA BRINGS IN $30,000.00/YEAR FOR THE LOCAL COMMUNITY. AND, THIS IS JUST ONE AREA OF ZIMBABWE. SPORT HUNTING, FOR THE COUNTRY OF ZIMBABWE, BRINGS IN BETWEEN $15 AND $20 MILLLION EACH YEAR.
3. BY STOPPING SPORT HUNTING WHICH IS BIOLOGICALLY NEUTRAL, THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER EFFECTS:
A. EMPLOYMENT IN THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES GOES DOWN---THE SUPPORT STAFF DO NOT HAVE JOBS…WHICH CREATES THE WRONG TYPE OF INCENTIVE FOR LOCAL PROTECTION OF THE ELEPHANT---THE ELEPHANT BECOMES VIEWED AS A PROTEIN SOURCE RATHER THAN AN ANIMAL WHICH GENERATES REVENUE FOR THE OVERALL BENEFIT OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY
B. BY TAKING THE PROFESSIONAL AND SPORT HUNTER OUT OF AN AREA LIKE WANKIE…WHICH IS MORE VAST AND REMOTE…THAN YOU AND I CAN IMAGINE…TAKES OUT THE EYES AND EARS OF THOSE WHO WORK WITH THE UNDERSTAFFED AND UNDERFUNDED NATIONAL PARKS SERVICES OF THESE COUNTRIES---THERE ARE FAR FEWER PEOPLE PROTECTING THE ELEPHANT HERDS…THIS ONE FACT ALONE MAKES IT EASIER FOR POACHERS TO OPERATE
C. MANY OF THE SPORTING GROUPS SUPPORT WATER PROJECTS FOR THE ELEPHANTS---I KNOW OF ONE PRIVATE COMPANY IN ZIMBABWE, ON THEIR OWN, WHO DRILLS WATER WELLS WITHIN THE NATIONAL PARK, NOT THE HUNTING AREAS, TO PROTECT THE ELEPHANT HERDS WHICH HAVE BEEN DEVASTATED BY A HISTORICALLY BAD DROUGHT…
SO, THE PROPOSAL OF THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BEFORE US TODAY:
1. INSULTS HOST COUNTRIES LIKE ZIMBABWE AND TANZANIA
2. KILLS JOBS IN RURAL, SUBSISTENCE COMMUNITIES
3. REMOVES THOSE WHO WORK WITH THE NATIONAL PARKS SERVICES IN ZIMBABWE AND TANZANIA FROM REMOTE AREAS, THUS MAKING IT EASIER FOR POACHERS TO DECIMATE ELEPHANT HERDS
4. AND, IT TAKES THOSE WHO ARE ON THE FRONT LINE HELPING PRESERVE ELEPHANT POPULATIONS IN THIS TIME OF HISTORIC DROUGHT OUT OF THE AREA
SO, IF THIS IS THE RESULT…IS THIS GOOD POLICY? WELL THOUGHT OUT?
AND, ONE ADDITIONAL COMMENT ON THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE’S PROPOSAL WHICH HAS A STATED GOAL OF ESTABLISHING A “VIRTUAL BAN” ON THE COMMERCIAL SALE OF ELEPHANT IVORY…WHEN WE WROTE
THE MORATORIA PROVISIONS OF P.L. 100-478, THE FUNDAMENTAL GOAL WAS TO STOP THE SHIPMENT OF IVORY FROM THOSE RANGE STATES WHO FAILED TO HAVE A SOUND AND EFFECTIVE ELEPHANT CONSERVATION PROGRAM. THIS LANGUAGE WAS NEVER INTENDED TO DESTROY THE VALUE OF LEGALLY OBTAINED IVORY PRODUCTS. THESE ITEMS, WHICH MAY CONTAIN A SMALL AMOUNT OF IVORY, INCLUDES FIREARMS, GUITARS, JEWELRY, PIANOS, VIOLINS, AND OTHER CULTURAL ARTIFACTS WHICH HAVE HISTORIC AND INTRINSIC VALUE. THESE ITEMS AND PRODUCTS HAVE NO CONSERVATION VALUE TO THE 400,000 WILD ELEPHANTS IN AFRICA BY PREVENTING THEIR SALE.
I SUGGEST THAT YOU ASK THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE TO REVIEW THEIR PROPOSAL…AND, ASK THE QUESTIONS: DOES THIS PROPOSAL PROTECT/ENHANCE THE ELEPHANT POPULATIONS IN AFRICA…DOES THIS PROPOSAL CREATE THE RIGHT INCENTIVES FOR COMMUNITY PROTECTION OF THE ELEPHANT…DOES THIS PROPOSAL MAKE IT EASIER TO POACH AND SMUGGLE IVORY?
I SUGGEST TO BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE…SEEK INFORMATION FROM OUR GOVERNMENT…GLOBAL ENTITIES…ON WHERE THE POACHED IVORY IS BEING TAKEN TODAY. WHO MAKES THE MONEY FROM POACHED IVORY? FOLLOW THE MONEY.
AND, THEN I SUGGEST THAT YOU WORK WITH THOSE HOST GOVERNMENTS TO STOP THE IMPORTATION OF POACHED IVORY WITHIN THEIR BORDERS…AND, IF SUCH A GOVERNMENT TURNS A DEAF EAR…THINK OF ALL THE WEAPONS AND OPTIONS IN YOUR ARSENAL…SHINE THE SPOT LIGHT…GLOBALLY EMBARRASS THOSE HOST GOVERNMENTS…PASS SANCTIONS…DENY IMPORTS FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES…
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HOPE YOU WILL HOLD ADDITIONAL HEARINGS…SHINE THE SPOT LIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY ON THIS SUBJECT WHICH IS VERY DEAR AND PERSONAL TO ME.