[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE'S PLAN TO IMPLEMENT A BAN ON THE
COMMERCIAL TRADE IN ELEPHANT IVORY
=================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE,
OCEANS AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-76
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
88-502 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
PETER A. DeFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Louie Gohmert, TX Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Rob Bishop, UT Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush Holt, NJ
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rauul M. Grijalva, AZ
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
John Fleming, LA Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Glenn Thompson, PA CNMI
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Niki Tsongas, MA
Dan Benishek, MI Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Jeff Duncan, SC Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Scott R. Tipton, CO Tony Caardenas, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Jared Huffman, CA
Rauul R. Labrador, ID Raul Ruiz, CA
Steve Southerland, II, FL Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Bill Flores, TX Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Jon Runyan, NJ Joe Garcia, FL
Markwayne Mullin, OK Matt Cartwright, PA
Steve Daines, MT Katherine M. Clark, MA
Kevin Cramer, ND Vacancy
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Jason T. Smith, MO
Vance M. McAllister, LA
Bradley Byrne, AL
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, OCEANS
AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Robert J. Wittman, VA Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Glenn Thompson, PA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Jeff Duncan, SC Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Steve Southerland, II, FL Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Bill Flores, TX Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Jon Runyan, NJ Joe Garcia, FL
Vance M. McAllister, LA Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio
Bradley Byrne, AL
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, June 24, 2014........................... 1
Statement of Members:
DeFazio, Hon. Peter, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 4
Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Louisiana......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Lowenthal, Hon. Alan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Dreher, Robert G., Associate Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.................................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Fields, Hon. Jack, Former Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 61
Prepared statement of.................................... 63
Hayes, Hon. David J., Vice Chair, Federal Advisory Council on
Wildlife Trafficking....................................... 55
Prepared statement of.................................... 57
O'Grady, Scott, Retired, United States Air Force............. 73
Prepared statement of.................................... 74
Quinn, Matthew, Quinn's Auction Galleries.................... 69
Prepared statement of.................................... 71
Sheets, Arian M., Curator of Stringed Instruments, National
Music Museum............................................... 65
Prepared statement of.................................... 67
Somerhalder, Ian, President, Ian Somerhalder Foundation...... 49
Prepared statement of.................................... 51
Tendaupenyu, Itai Hilary, Principal Ecologist, Zimbabwe Parks
and Wildlife Management Authority.......................... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
American Federation of Musicians of the United States and
Canada, Prepared statement of.............................. 86
American Federation of Violin and Bow Makers, Inc., Prepared
statement of............................................... 93
Art and Antiques Trade Group, Prepared statement of.......... 95
Association of Art Museum Directors, Prepared statement of... 97
Christies, Inc., Prepared statement of....................... 99
CITES Press Release, June 13, 2014, ``Elephant Poaching and
Ivory Smuggling Figures Released Today''................... 135
E&E article, June 13, 2014, ``Endangered Species: African
Poaching Down and Ivory Seizures Up--Report''.............. 137
E&E article, June 25, 2014, by Dylan Brown, ``Wildlife: GOP
Lawmakers, Witnesses Blast FWS Ivory Ban Proposal at House
Hearing''.................................................. 137
Elephant Database, 2012 Summary totals for Zimbabwe.......... 134
Forbes OpEd, June 23, 2014, by Judith McHale and David J.
Hayes, ``It's All About Saving the Elephants''............. 139
Huber, Richard L., Letter submitted for the record........... 115
Humane Society, Prepared statement of........................ 100
League of American Orchestras and International Conference of
Symphony and Opera Musicians, Prepared statement of........ 105
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 143
New York Times Op-Ed, March 26, 2014, by Godfrey Harris and
Daniel Stiles, ``The Wrong Way to Protect Elephants''...... 140
Sotheby's, Inc., Prepared statement of....................... 112
Stone, Linda Karst, Prepared statement of.................... 114
Wall Street Journal article, June 23, 2014, by John Leydon,
``Grandma's Cameo Becomes Yard-Sale Contraband''........... 141
Washington Times article, February 18, 2014, by Doug Bandow,
``Obama's Ivory-Trade Regulatory Overkill''................ 142
Wasser, Samuel K., Center for Conservation Biology,
University of Washington, Letter submitted for the record
along with his INTERPOL report............................. 121
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE'S PLAN TO
IMPLEMENT A BAN ON THE COMMERCIAL TRADE IN ELEPHANT IVORY
----------
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming,
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Fleming, Young, Duncan,
Southerland, McAllister; Lowenthal, Shea-Porter, and DeFazio
(ex officio).
Also Present: Representative Daines.
Dr. Fleming. The subcommittee will come to order.
The Chairman notes the presence of a quorum.
Good afternoon. Today the subcommittee will examine the
Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to establish a ban on the
sale of elephant ivory, to suspend sport hunting trophies from
two African countries, and to arbitrarily limit the number of
sport hunted trophies that Americans can legally import into
the United States.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Dr. Fleming. 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 elephants poached in 2013
decreased from the previous 2 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 the resources they need to effectively
arrest, imprison or kill the heavily armed and organized
poachers.
Based on a report to INTERPOL by Dr. Samuel Wasser of the
University of Washington, who performs the DNA testing on
seized ivory, we now know that the 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 hot spots may be far more
limited than previously thought. The international law
enforcement community must target those hot spots.
During the past 6 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.
It is apparently difficult and expensive to determine the
origin and the age of ivory and, therefore, the Service
believes the easiest thing for them is to simply declare that
virtually everything is 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 limitation should be placed, and when even the Service
admits that sport hunting is beneficial to the 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.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. John Fleming, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
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 elephants poached in
2013 decreased from the previous 2 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 armed and organized poachers.
Based on a report to INTERPOL by Dr. Samuel Wasser of the
University of Washington, who performs 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 hot spots may
be far more limited than previously thought.'' The international law
enforcement community must target those hot spots.
During the past 6 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.
It is apparently difficult and expensive to determine the origin
and age of ivory and, therefore, the Service believes the easiest thing
for them is to simply declare that virtually everything is 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.
______
Dr. Fleming. I am now pleased to recognize the Acting
Ranking Member for any statement that he would like to make.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALAN LOWENTHAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
our witnesses for appearing today.
Mr. Chairman, in February of 2013, 1 month into the 113th
Congress, the Ranking Member of this Committee wrote to you and
to Chairman Hastings to request an oversight hearing on the
wildlife poaching crisis in Africa. Unfortunately, that request
was not fulfilled, and since then more than 35,000 elephants
and 1,000 rhinoceroses have been killed illegally for their
tusks and their horns.
Elephant ivory and rhino horn is bought. It is smuggled,
and it is distributed by organized criminal enterprises, the
same people who deal in heroin, assault weapons, and forced
child labor. These crime syndicates are supplied with ivory by
a new breed of formidable poachers who are equipped with night
vision goggles, automatic weapons, and sometimes even
helicopters. In some cases these poachers are simply out to
make a few quick dollars, but in other instances more sinister
forces are at work.
The Lord's Resistance Army in Central Africa and Darfur's
Janjaweed are financing their violent insurgencies in part with
ivory profits, and Al-Shabaab, an Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist
group that killed 67 persons last year in Nairobi and 48 people
in another attack just last week in Kenya derive 40 percent of
its revenue from wildlife trade.
Given these troubling facts, I was concerned to see that
the purpose of this hearing appears to be to question one
particular component of the Obama administration's strategy to
deal with the poaching crisis. That is a proposal to tighten
the ban on the import, export and sale of elephant ivory in
order to prevent nefarious actors from using loopholes in the
current system.
While some legitimate concerns have been raised over the
ability to sell and transport musical instruments and antiques
containing ivory, one fact is inescapable. The United States is
the second largest market for ivory, much of which is sold here
illegally.
Earlier this month a Philadelphia art dealer was sentenced
to 2\1/2\ years in prison in order to pay a $150,000 fine for
smuggling recently poached ivory and pawning it off as antique.
This illicit activity has been going on for 9 years and was not
an isolated incident.
The judge in the case correctly noted that poaching funds
criminal gangs operating in Africa. While I know that the Fish
and Wildlife Service has been and will continue working with
stakeholders to allow limited trade in items containing ivory,
we must be cautious. It is too easy under current rules to
disguise recently poached ivory as antique, which in turn
promotes the slaughter of more elephants.
I believe it is not too much to ask legitimate ivory
dealers to take a few additional steps to verify that their
products are bona fide antiques. We do want to be sure that
this verification is thorough though, but the bottom line is
that there is an international poaching epidemic that is
devastating African wildlife, threatening the lives of wildlife
rangers, and creating international security risks that most of
us in the United States cannot even begin to understand.
I would like to address the temporary ban on importing
sport hunted elephant trophies from Tanzania and Zimbabwe.
Based on population data and documented cases of the illegal
killing of elephants, it is clear that both of these countries
have been deeply afflicted by the escalating poaching epidemic.
While nations that have populations of elephants are ultimately
responsible themselves for their own management, the United
States cannot legally allow the importation of elephant
trophies in the absence of clear evidence that the hunting
contributes to the survival of the species.
Given the scale of the current poaching crises and the
uncertainty of what happens to the money that hunters pay host
countries, additional killing of elephants in Tanzania and
Zimbabwe is only adding to the body count.
I applaud President Obama and his administration for taking
decisive steps to combat wildlife traffic, and I look forward
to hearing from our witnesses today about how they can protect
endangered African elephants and rhinos and stem the tide of
poaching that is now reaching a crisis level.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back.
And I believe Mr. DeFazio, the Ranking Member of the whole
Committee, has an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETER DeFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, today we will get a bit of history, which was
new to me and would have a former member talk about that, about
some successful bipartisan effort back in 1988, 1989, the last
time we had a threat, which actually pales in terms of today's
threat to the survival of elephants in the wild in Africa.
And after the Congress came together on a bipartisan basis
back then, the price of ivory tanked to about 5 bucks a pound.
We made it like blood diamonds for a while, and now it is more
than 200 times that. It is about 225 times that.
So some of these terrorist groups, and of course, there was
the incredible slaughter of 300 elephants in 1 day last year
with poisoning, but you know, one elephant can finance a lot of
ammunition for them and other weapons and things for a not
particularly long period of time.
There has to be major action taken by the United States and
major action to motivate other countries to take action. This
rule, you know, it is an extraordinarily broad rule. They are
still refining parts of it, and how are you going to tell what
is legitimate and what is not? It is very problematic.
We are going to have to go after the middle men, the
source, the other major consumers, but we are going to have to
set an example here.
And I just have one little demonstration on how difficult
this all is. This gentleman, if I might call him that, although
he currently has a number, he is a Federal prisoner, a guy
named Victor Gordon, an antique dealer, of course, very
legitimate guy, was sentenced to 2\1/2\ years in prison and a
$150,000 fine, and they found in his collection one ton of
antique/not antique ivory, and this has been dated, and this
all is quite recent. But it has been made to look a bit older.
So this is how difficult the problem is. I mean, I am
hopeful some day we will have a very quick kind of test with
something, a mass spectrometer or something and you can be able
to bring in your ivory, and they will say, ``Oh, yeah, that is
fine. That is old enough,'' and we do not have to have
arbitrary standards.
But this is the problem we are fighting, people like the
current guest of the Federal Government, Mr. Gordon. Hopefully
that sets an example to others who would traffic similarly in
the United States, but we also have major problems overseas
with corrupt governments. There is a lot of money in this and a
lot of corruption follows that, in addition to the violence. We
might hear a little bit about that today.
And I am hoping that steps beyond what we are discussing
today, which needs to be further discussed and refined, can be
taken by the United States which will go to trade sanctions,
meaningful trade sanctions against countries who knowingly,
like China, traffic in these materials, and we have to hit them
hard if we are going to get their attention.
And I think the President has the authority under the Pelly
Act to do that, and I am going to be organizing a letter to ask
him to use that authority, but I am also looking at legislation
to amend the Driftnet Act to also give more authority to use
trade sanctions.
Quite some number of years ago I was involved with some
illegal whaling by Norway, and I was pretty junior then, but I
introduced a bill to sanction them, and it got their attention
very quickly. If we could put together something bipartisan, we
can get the attention, I believe, of some of these countries
that are facilitating the absolute slaughter of elephants.
We are at a point if this goes on for another 4 or 5 years,
we are going to be talking about captive breeding programs for
elephants, in addition to what's also--there's also
environmental depredation, illegal logging that is affecting
elephants, but the slaughter right now is the Number-one issue
we have to deal with, and I hope we can find a way to come
together on that today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. Next I would like
to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Montana, Mr.
Daines, be allowed to sit on the dais.
Hearing no objections, so ordered. We will now hear from
our first panel of witnesses, which includes Mr. Steve Robert
G. Dreher. Is that the correct pronunciation, Dreher? Did I say
that right? OK. Thank you. Associate Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and Mr. Hilary Tendaupenyu. Am I close? OK.
Principal Ecologist, Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management
Authority.
Your written testimony will appear in full in the hearing
record. So I ask that you keep your oral statements to 5
minutes as outlined in our invitation letter to you under the
Committee Rule 4(a).
Our microphones are not automatic. So please press the
button. Make sure the tip of the microphone is close by because
it does not pick up well, and the lights are, of course, very
straightforward. You will be under a green light for the first
4 minutes, yellow light the last minute, and when it turns red,
if you have not finished already, please quickly come to a
conclusion.
Mr. Dreher, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to present
testimony on behalf of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT G. DREHER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH
AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Dreher. Good afternoon, Chairman Fleming and Ranking
Member Lowenthal, Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to
discuss the current wildlife trafficking crisis and its
epicenter, the ongoing mass slaughter of elephants in Africa.
I cannot overstate the urgency of this crisis. If not
halted, it threatens to eliminate wild African populations of
elephants within the next decade. The unprecedented nature of
this threat requires us to act together with the international
community to do everything we can both on the ground in Africa
and in domestic and international markets to reduce the demand
for ivory that fuels the killing.
Spurred by President Obama's executive order, the national
strategy for combatting wildlife trafficking leverages
resources and expertise of the Federal Government to crack down
on poaching and trafficking that is devastating elephants and
many other irreplaceable wildlife species.
As part of this multi-pronged approach, we have taken steps
to increase our ability to disrupt and destroy trafficking
networks and to build the capacity of range states to protect
elephant populations.
And here at home, after careful consideration, we are using
the full extent of our legal authority to implement a near
complete ban on commercial trade in elephant ivory. This is not
just an African or Asian problem. The United States is a major
consumer of ivory and continued commercial trade hampers our
ability to identify and prosecute the criminals who are
trafficking in illegal ivory.
Ongoing criminal investigations and anti-smuggling efforts
indicate that significant amounts of illegally imported
elephant ivory are entering the domestic market, and those
cases demonstrate that the legal ivory trade serves as a cover
for illegal trade.
The basic fact is that it is extremely difficult to
differentiate legally acquired ivory from ivory derived from
elephant poaching. In a recent case that the members of the
committee have just referred to, United States v. Victor
Gordon, our investigation documented the large-scale smuggling
of newly acquired ivory from West Africa disguised deliberately
to pass as old ivory and antique tribal carvings, resulting in
the seizure of over one ton of elephant ivory.
Victor Gordon, the owner of an African art and antique
store in Philadelphia pleaded guilty to smuggling elephant
ivory from Africa via JFK Airport, ivory that he then sold to
buyers as antiques.
The first step we took to restrict commercial trade in
elephant ivory was the issuance of Director's Order 210, which
reaffirmed the African Elephant Conservation Act's moratorium
and the Endangered Species Act definition of ``antique.''
Following the issuance of the Director's Order, we met with
a wide array of stakeholders including individuals and groups
representing antique dealers, auction houses, musical
instrument makers, museums and orchestras. As a result of these
constructive meetings, we revised the Director's Order to
address several of their concerns, allowing a broader class of
non-commercial items to be imported into the United States and
clarifying how we intend to enforce the Endangered Species Act
definition of ``antique'' while still maintaining our goal of
ensuring that the United States is not contributing to the
poaching of elephants and illegal trade in ivory.
We also improved our ability to protect elephants, rhinos
and other CITES listed wildlife by publishing a final rule
revising our CITES regulations. Under this rule, which becomes
effective on June 26, items such as elephant ivory imported for
non-commercial purposes may not subsequently be sold within the
United States.
For African elephant ivory imported prior to 1990 when the
African elephant was listed in CITES Appendix 1 and
international commercial trade was largely prohibited, the
burden is now on the seller to demonstrate that this ivory was
imported prior to this date.
We also plan to revise the Endangered Species Act special
rule for the African elephant. This action, which will include
proposed limitations on the interstate sale of African elephant
ivory will also include a public comment period. Using our
authority under the Endangered Species Act, we will also
propose limiting the number of elephant sport hunted trophies
that an individual can import to two per hunter per year.
The combined result of these administrative actions would
be the elimination of most commercial trade in elephant ivory
in the United States, with certain narrow exceptions. Taking
these measures will affirm and enhance United States leadership
and support diplomatic efforts to encourage consumer nations to
take additional actions to combat illegal trade.
The United States is one of the world's major consumers of
illicit wildlife products, and we must lead by example. I look
forward to working with your subcommittee to address this
urgent issue. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dreher follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Dreher, Associate Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior
introduction
Good afternoon Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and members
of the subcommittee. I am Robert Dreher, Associate Director of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), within the Department of the
Interior (Department). I appreciate the opportunity to testify before
you today to discuss the current wildlife trafficking crisis, which
includes an escalating mass slaughter of elephants in Africa. If it is
not stopped, the world may well lose wild populations of African
elephants forever.
To combat wildlife trafficking, the Service is working toward
implementing a near complete ban on commercial trade in elephant ivory.
Given the escalating threats to African elephants, we believe that a
near complete ban on commercial elephant ivory trade is the best way to
ensure that U.S. domestic markets do not contribute to the decline of
this species in the wild. The United States is among the world's
largest consumers of wildlife, both legal and illegal. It is difficult
to determine the exact market value of black market items such as
illegally trafficked wildlife goods; however, we know that the United
States remains a significant ivory market, and we must continue to be
vigilant to prevent this from masking the illegal ivory trade. By
stopping illegal ivory trade at home and assisting elephant range
states and consumer countries around the world, we can have a
significant positive impact on elephant conservation. These actions
will affirm and enhance U.S. leadership and support diplomatic efforts
to encourage additional efforts to combat illegal ivory trade in
consumer nations.
the poaching crisis and illegal ivory trade
African elephants once numbered in the millions throughout Africa,
but by 1990, uncontrolled hunting for their ivory tusks had driven the
wild population to fewer than 500,000. This rapid population decline
led to a ban on international ivory sales and trade in 1990 through the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES). Following the 1990 ban, populations of African
elephants began to recover in some countries. However, a recent
resurgence of elephant poaching in Africa, is again threatening this
iconic species. Populations of both savannah and forest elephants have
dropped precipitously, and poaching occurs across all of Africa.
Africa's elephants are being slaughtered for ivory at rates not seen in
decades due to increased demand for ivory in consumer countries. Some
of this increase in the demand for ivory is attributed to improved
economic conditions in traditional ivory markets such as China and
other parts of East and Southeast Asia. In these markets, ivory
carvings rate high as a status symbol for economic elites, and as more
Asian consumers have the financial resources to purchase ivory, the
demand for ivory is significantly increasing. Continued poaching at
current rates threatens the existence of elephants in the wild.
Wildlife trafficking was once a local or regional problem, and has
now become a global crisis, as increasingly sophisticated, violent and
ruthless criminal organizations have branched into wildlife
trafficking. What was once predominantly a crime of opportunity
committed by individuals or small groups is now committed by
international criminal cartels that are well structured and highly
organized. These cartels are capable of illegally moving orders of
magnitude more in wildlife and wildlife products. This lucrative
business has been tied to drug and cartels, militant groups, and human
trafficking organizations, all of which are destabilizing influences in
many African nations. These organized criminal enterprises are a
growing threat to wildlife, the world's economy and global security.
There is also a terrible human cost associated with these losses. For
example, during the past few years, hundreds of park rangers have been
killed in the line of duty in Africa.
The United States continues to play a major role as a significant
consumer and transit country for illegally traded elephant ivory, and
we must be part of the solution. At this crucial moment, the United
States has the opportunity to exercise leadership on this urgent issue
and encourage other countries to step up efforts to combat wildlife
trafficking.
u.s. fish and wildlife service's role in addressing wildlife
trafficking
The Service provides key leadership and capacity in addressing
wildlife trafficking. For decades, we have worked in countries across
the globe to conserve imperiled wildlife and address illicit wildlife
trade through our Office of Law Enforcement and International Affairs
program. We have a four-tiered approach to combat wildlife trafficking,
including: law enforcement; technical assistance; CITES; and demand
reduction.
Law Enforcement to Target and Stop Illicit Trade
The Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for enforcing
U.S. laws and treaties that address international wildlife trafficking
and protect U.S. and foreign species from unsustainable trade. Working
with limited budgets and a special agent workforce of 205 agents which
has not grown since the late 1970s, the Service has disrupted large-
scale trafficking in contraband wildlife ``commodities'' that range
from elephant ivory and rhino horn to sturgeon caviar and sea turtle
skin and shell. Service special agents use both overt and clandestine
investigative techniques to detect and document international smuggling
and crimes involving the unlawful exploitation of protected native and
foreign species in interstate commerce.
Since the mid-1970s, the Service has deployed a force of uniformed
wildlife inspectors at major ports of entry across the Nation to check
inbound and outbound shipments for wildlife. These 124 officers ensure
that wildlife trade complies with the CITES treaty and U.S. laws. They
also conduct proactive inspections of air cargo warehouses, ocean
containers, international mail packages, and international passenger
flights looking for smuggled wildlife.
The Service operates the world's first and only full-service
wildlife forensics laboratory--a lab that is globally recognized as
having created the science of wildlife forensics. Guidance from the
lab, for example, provided an easy way for officers in the field to
distinguish elephant ivory from other types of ivory, such as mammoth
or walrus ivory. The Service continues to support a fiscal year 2015
budget request to expand research at our lab to make it easier to
determine the origin or geographic source of illicit wildlife material,
particularly for species threatened by current patterns of illegal
trade. Such work enhances our ability to provide law enforcement and
justice officials with evidence to more effectively prosecute wildlife
crime.
Service enforcement officers and forensic scientists have provided
specialized training to wildlife enforcement counterparts in more than
65 different countries since 2000. These capacity-building efforts have
included teaching criminal investigation skills to wildlife officers
from sub-Saharan Africa at the International Law Enforcement Academy in
Botswana on a yearly or twice-yearly basis.
Wildlife trafficking is increasingly a transnational crime
involving illicit activities in two or more countries and often two or
more global regions. Cooperation between nations is essential to
combating this crime. With assistance from the State Department and
USAID, we have created the first program for stationing Service law
enforcement special agents at U.S. embassies as international attachees
to coordinate investigations of wildlife trafficking and support
wildlife enforcement capacity building. The first attachee began work
in March 2014 in Bangkok, Thailand. We anticipate placing four
additional attachees in key regions by the end of fiscal year 2014,
including Asia, South America, and two in Africa.
One example of the Service's law enforcement efforts in combating
wildlife trafficking is Operation Crash. This Operation is a
continuing, multi-district investigation into all aspects of the
illicit trade in rhino horns led by the Service, Office of Law
Enforcement's Special Investigations Unit and the U.S. Department of
Justice. More than 200 Federal, State, and local law enforcement
officers in 40 States and 10 foreign countries have assisted the
investigators and prosecutors working on Operation Crash. Since
February 2012, 21 individuals have been apprehended and charged with
numerous offenses such as conspiracy, smuggling, money laundering, tax
evasion, and making false documents as well as violations of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Lacey Act. Defendants have been
sentenced to significant terms of imprisonment and the forfeiture of
millions of dollars in cash, gold bars, rhino horn, and luxury vehicles
and Rolex watches. In United States v. Zhifei Li, the ring-leader of a
smuggling scheme was responsible for smuggling more than $4.5 million
worth of illegal wildlife and wildlife products, including 30
rhinoceros horns and carved objects made from rhinoceros horn or
elephant ivory, and was sentenced to 70 months in prison and $3.5
million forfeiture.
Another example is a recent case, U.S. v. Victor Gordon, where our
investigation documented the large-scale smuggling of newly acquired
ivory from West Africa disguised to ``pass'' as old ivory and antique
tribal carvings and resulted in the seizure of over one ton of elephant
ivory. U.S. businessman Victor Gordon, the owner of an African art and
antiques store in Philadelphia, pleaded guilty to smuggling elephant
ivory from Africa via JFK--ivory that he then sold to buyers as
``antiques.'' On June 4, 2014, he was sentenced to 30 months'
imprisonment, to be followed by 2 years of supervised release. As part
of that sentence, the court ordered Gordon to pay a fine of $7,500 and
to forfeit $150,000, along with the approximately one ton of elephant
ivory that was seized by agents from Gordon's Philadelphia store in
April 2009.
Technical Assistance and Grants to Build In-Country Capacity
The Service has a long history of providing technical assistance
and grants to build in-country capacity for conservation of wildlife
species. Through the Multinational Species Conservation Funds, the
Service provides funding in the form of grants or cooperative
agreements to projects benefiting African and Asian elephants, rhinos,
tigers, great apes, and marine turtles in their natural habitats. A
substantial portion of the funding awarded through the Multinational
Species Conservation Funds is invested in projects aimed at combating
wildlife crime through improved law enforcement, anti-poaching patrols,
demand reduction, and economic alternatives. Several of the Service's
global and regional programs, including Africa, Asia, and the Western
Hemisphere, also directly address wildlife conservation efforts,
including combating wildlife crime.
Through the Wildlife Without Borders--Africa Program, a technical
and financial partnership with USAID, the Service has supported the
development of innovative methods to conserve wildlife and fight
wildlife crime in Central Africa, including improvement of
investigations, arrest operations, and legal follow-up. A number of
projects are geared toward building in-country capacity and providing
technical assistance to reduce the poaching of African elephants. The
Service is committed to working with in-country partners to halt and
reverse this trend, most notably in Gabon, where two-thirds of the
forest elephants in Minkebe National Park have been killed since 2004,
a loss of more than 11,000 elephants.
CITES and Illegal Wildlife Trade
CITES, an international agreement among 180 member nations,
including the United States, is designed to control and regulate global
trade in certain wild animals and plants that are or may become
threatened with extinction due to international trade. As the first
nation to ratify CITES, the United States has consistently been a
leader in combating wildlife trafficking and protecting natural
resources. Without regulation, international trade can deplete wild
populations, leading to extinction. The goal of CITES is to facilitate
legal, biologically sustainable trade, whenever possible. But in some
cases, no level of commercial trade can be sustainably supported.
Though a longstanding priority for CITES Parties, the focus on
combating elephant poaching and illegal ivory trade is more intense
than ever before. In March 2013, at the most recent meeting of the
Conference of the Parties (CoP16), eight countries--China, Kenya,
Malaysia, the Philippines, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, and Vietnam--
that were identified as significant source, transit, or destination
points for illegal ivory trade agreed to develop time-bound action
plans to actively address illegal ivory trade.
Also at CoP16, the CITES Parties recognized the importance of
addressing the entire crime chain by adopting several decisions to
ensure that modern forensic and investigative techniques are applied to
the illegal trade in ivory. The CITES Parties agreed to provide more
effective control over domestic ivory markets and government-held
stockpiles, and to promote public awareness campaigns, including supply
and demand-reduction strategies. The decisions agreed upon at CoP16 to
address the elephant poaching crisis were a significant step in the
right direction. The United States played a major role in the
development of these decisions and actions, and is committed to playing
a significant role in their implementation, including ensuring that
countries are held accountable for failure to take meaningful actions
to curb elephant poaching and illegal ivory trade.
Reducing Consumer Demand for Illegal Wildlife Products
Most of the international conservation work funded by the Service
has focused on on-the-ground protection of habitat and wildlife,
including enforcement efforts, with the Service providing approximately
$10 million annually to enhance and support wildlife conservation
throughout Africa and Asia. In addition, the Service supports
government and non-government partners with public awareness and
demand-reduction campaigns in Asian consumer nations.
Over the years, the Service has also worked to educate and inform
U.S. consumers about the role they play in wildlife trafficking and the
impacts of this illegal activity on animal and plant species around the
world. These efforts have ranged from partnering with nongovernmental
organizations on a long-running ``Buyer Beware'' campaign and
commissioning our law enforcement officers to present outreach programs
on wildlife trafficking at the local, State, and national levels, to
using airport billboards and social media to engage the public on this
issue.
Using our extensive network and experience, we are developing a
strategy for the Service's role in addressing consumer demand. This
includes working with the private sector and governments in key
consumer countries, including the United States, to build public
awareness about the impacts of illegal trade on wildlife and the
potential penalties for engaging in such activities. The Service is
also taking other actions to encourage attitudinal and behavioral
shifts, all leading to measurable reductions in demand for illegal
wildlife products.
u.s. ivory crush
As part of our effort to combat illegal ivory trafficking, on
November 14, 2013, the United States destroyed its 6-ton stock of
confiscated elephant ivory, sending a clear message that we will not
tolerate wildlife crime that threatens to wipe out the African elephant
and a host of other species around the globe. The destruction of this
ivory, which took place near the Service's National Wildlife Property
Repository on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge near
Denver, Colorado, was witnessed by representatives of African nations
and other countries, dozens of leading conservationists, and
international media representatives.
This ivory crush sparked a new sense of possibility and
collaboration--that we can work together effectively to halt this
crisis before it is too late. This action signaled the United States'
commitment to combat wildlife trafficking, and was carried out, in
part, to encourage other nations to do the same. Following the U.S.
ivory crush, a number of other governments destroyed most of their
stockpiles of seized ivory, including China, France, Chad, Belgium, and
Hong Kong. We now are in a much better position to work with the
international community to push for a reduction of ivory stockpiles
worldwide, and crack down on poaching and illegal trade.
president's executive order on wildlife trafficking
The Administration recognized that if illicit wildlife trade
continues on its current trajectory some of the world's most treasured
animals could be threatened with extinction. In response to this
crisis, on July 1, 2013, President Obama issued Executive Order 13648
to enhance coordination of U.S. Government efforts to combat wildlife
trafficking and assist foreign governments with capacity building.
The Executive Order establishes a Presidential Task Force on
Wildlife Trafficking charged with developing and implementing a
National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking. The Task Force is
co-chaired by the Department of the Interior, Department of Justice,
and Department of State, and includes a dozen other departments and
agencies. Drawing on resources and expertise from across the U.S.
Government, we are working to identify new approaches to crack down on
poaching and wildlife trafficking and to more efficiently coordinate
our enforcement efforts with interagency and international partners.
The Executive Order also establishes an Advisory Council on Wildlife
Trafficking comprised of individuals with relevant expertise from
outside the Government to make recommendations to the Task Force.
national strategy for combating wildlife trafficking
In accordance with the Executive Order, the Presidential Task Force
produced a National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking. The
National Strategy establishes strategic priorities and guiding
principles to help focus and strengthen the U.S. Government's efforts
to combat wildlife trafficking, and to position the United States to
exercise leadership on this urgent issue. The strategic priorities
include: (1) strengthening the enforcement of laws that protect
wildlife; (2) reducing demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife
products; and (3) working in partnership with governments, local
communities, non-governmental organizations, the private sector, and
others to enhance global commitment to combat wildlife trafficking.
The Service is integrally involved in all of these priorities, but
I would like to highlight a few areas of particular importance in our
efforts to stem illegal wildlife trade.
administrative actions to address the current poaching crisis
The United States has several laws and regulations in place that
can help to address the poaching crisis. African elephants are listed
as threatened under the ESA and are also protected under the African
Elephant Conservation Act (AECA). Nations across the world regulate
trade in this species under CITES. Under these U.S. laws, it is
generally illegal to:
Import African elephant ivory.
Export it without CITES documents.
Buy or sell unlawfully imported African elephant ivory in
interstate commerce.
Asian elephants are listed as endangered under the ESA. Import,
export, and interstate commerce in ivory and other parts and products
are generally prohibited.
Though there is some ivory trade in the United States involving
antiques and legally acquired ivory imported prior to the 1989 AECA
ivory import moratorium, we believe a substantial amount of elephant
ivory is illegally imported and enters the domestic market. It is
extremely difficult to differentiate legally acquired ivory from ivory
derived from elephant poaching. Our criminal investigations and anti-
smuggling efforts have clearly shown that legal ivory trade can serve
as a cover for illegal trade. In addition to the Victor Gordon case
noted above, Service and State wildlife officers seized more than two
million dollars-worth of illegal elephant ivory from two New York City
retail stores in 2012.
Following the release of the National Strategy, the Service has
taken steps toward implementing a near complete ban on commercial trade
in elephant ivory. The first of these steps was the issuance of
Director's Order 210, which re-affirmed enforcement of the AECA
moratorium and addressed how the Service would enforce importation
under the ESA antiques provision.
Following the issuance of Director's Order 210 on February 25, the
Service met with a wide array of stakeholders, including individuals
and groups representing antiques dealers, auction houses, musical
instrument makers, museums, and orchestras. As a result of these
constructive meetings, we revised the Director's Order to address
several of their concerns, allowing a broader class of noncommercial
items to be imported into the United States and clarifying how we
intend to enforce the ESA antiques provision, while still maintaining
our goal of ensuring that the United States is not contributing to
poaching of elephants and illegal trade in ivory.
In addition to the provisions in the Director's Order, we improved
our ability to protect elephants, rhinos, and other CITES-listed
wildlife by publishing a final rule revising our CITES regulations,
including ``use after import'' provisions that limit sale of elephant
ivory within the United States. Under this new rule, which becomes
effective on June 26, 2014, items such as elephant ivory imported for
noncommercial purposes may not subsequently be sold within the United
States. For African elephant ivory imported prior to 1990, when the
African elephant was listed in CITES Appendix I and commercial
international trade was generally prohibited, the burden is now on the
seller to demonstrate that this ivory was imported prior to 1990. These
regulations were previously published as a proposed rule with
opportunity for public comment.
In the coming months, we will also publish a proposed rule to
revise the ESA special rule for the African elephant (50 CFR 17.40(e)).
This action, which will include proposed limitations on the interstate
sale of African elephant ivory, will also include a public comment
period. Using our authority under the ESA, we will also propose
limiting the number of elephant sport-hunted trophies that an
individual can import to two per hunter per year.
The combined result of these administrative actions would be the
elimination of most commercial trade (import, export, and interstate
and intrastate sale) in elephant ivory, with certain narrow exceptions.
Taking these measures will establish U.S. leadership and support
diplomatic efforts to encourage additional efforts to combat illegal
trade in consumer nations. The United States is one of the world's
major consumers of illicit wildlife products, and we must lead by
example. These actions are also consistent with recent CITES
recommendations adopted at CoP16.
Assess and Strengthen Legal Authorities
While the Service is pursuing administrative actions to address the
poaching crisis, the National Strategy also calls on Congress to
consider legislation to recognize wildlife trafficking crimes as
predicate offenses for money laundering. This action would be
invaluable to the Service's law enforcement efforts because it would
place wildlife trafficking on an equal footing with other serious
crimes. It would also provide our special agents with the same tools to
investigate serious crimes that other Federal law enforcement agencies
have. This legislative change would help take the profit out of the
illegal wildlife trade and end the days of wildlife trafficking being a
low-risk, high-profit crime. Strong penalties provide a deterrent and
assist the U.S. Government in unraveling complex conspiracies and
combating trafficking. Offenders facing significant penalties are more
likely to become key cooperating defendants than those facing a light
penalty.
Save the Vanishing Species Semipostal Stamp
The National Strategy recommends continuing the sale of the Save
the Vanishing Species Semipostal stamp. This stamp, which went on sale
on September 20, 2011, has been providing vital support for the
Service's efforts to fight global wildlife trafficking and poaching.
More than 25.5 million stamps have been purchased by the American
public online and at their local post offices, generating more than
$2.5 million for conservation. This money has been used to support 47
projects in 31 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to conserve
elephants, rhinos, tigers, marine turtles, and great apes. These funds
have been leveraged by an additional $3.6 million in matching
contributions--making the stamp a key part of the United States'
efforts to protect wildlife and address the ongoing worldwide epidemic
of poaching and wildlife trafficking.
The continued sale of the Save the Vanishing Species Semipostal
stamp is authorized by legislation enacted by Congress. However, the
requirement to sell the stamp for at least 2 years has expired and the
Postal Service has discontinued the sale of the stamp at this time.
Continuing to sell the stamp would extend an opportunity for the
American public to support wildlife conservation abroad by directly
contributing money to help rhinos, tigers, elephants, sea turtles, and
great apes.
conclusion
I would like to thank the subcommittee for your support of our
efforts to combat wildlife trafficking. I want to leave you by asking
you to consider this moment in history--and the choice we must all make
as human beings and global citizens. We have a chance here, and now, to
build on this National Strategy to ensure a secure future for
elephants, rhinos, and hundreds of other wild plant and animal species.
How will we answer when our grandchildren ask why some of these
magnificent creatures no longer exist in the wild? I want to be able to
tell them that the Service did everything we could to keep these
amazing species from vanishing from our planet. I look forward to
working with your subcommittee to make it a reality.
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today. I would
be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Dreher.
Next the Chair recognizes Mr. Tendaupenyu for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ITAI HILARY TENDAUPENYU, PRINCIPAL ECOLOGIST,
ZIMBABWE PARKS AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
Mr. Tendaupenyu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and your
committee, for affording me this opportunity to testify before
this subcommittee.
I am a principal ecologist here on behalf of the Director
General of the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management
Authority, an organization mandated to manage Zimbabwe's
wildlife heritage.
The suspension of April 4, 2014 by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Services of all imports of African elephant trophies
taken in Zimbabwe during the 2014 hunting season came without
prior notice or engagement with the Government of Zimbabwe and
did not have any scientific basis.
The Service alluded to the fact that legal well regulated
sport hunting as part of a sound management program 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 this.
To establish the status of African elephant in Zimbabwe,
systematic aerial surveys, waterfall and road counts, and
ranger-based data collection and monitoring are used. In the
four major elephant geographical ranges, the Northwest
Matabeleland has an estimated population of 50,000 elephants;
the Mid-Zambezi, 30,000; Sebungwe, 15,000; and the South-East
Lowveld, 12,5000 according to a 2013 aerial survey. The surveys
indicate a stable increasing elephant population.
The ban has huge negative, social and economic impacts in
Zimbabwe. Sixty-seven percent of elephant quota goes to local
communities, and the private sector, 50 percent of which goes
directly to communities. The ban will result in the loss of
income to local communities who are the most vulnerable groups.
The collapse of the hunting industry will result in the
loss of income and employment to supporting services and will
also result in an increased human elephant conflict due to
reduced elephant ranges. Reduced funding for poaching efforts
will result in increased poaching, hence increased decimation
of all live populations.
ZimParks manages 50,000 square kilometers, approximately 13
percent of Zimbabwe, and has a statutory obligation to manage
wildlife conservation beyond state protected areas. It receives
no fiscal funding, and all of its revenue is generated from
sustainable conservation activities and through limited donor
support. The hunting industry contributes 30 percent of annual
revenue generated and is used to fund conservation efforts.
We should note that hunters on the ground also act as a
first line of defense against poaching, through ground
intelligence and surveillance, hence, act as a deterrent to
poaching.
The ban will affect resource protection activities, problem
animal management, fire management, law enforcement, and
environmental education and awareness campaigns.
The Communal Area Management Program for Indigenous
Resources, CAMPFIRE, is a brainchild of ZimParks and is a world
renowned success story. It is a national strategy established
with the primary purpose of helping rural communities to
sustainably manage the natural and cultural resources, derived
income from the resource, and determine how the income will be
utilized.
Fifty-eight out of 60 districts in Zimbabwe participate in
the program. Ninety percent of CAMPFIRE revenue comes from
sport hunting, 70 percent of which is from elephant hunting.
CAMPFIRE income is used for community projects in the
fields of education, health, and other livelihood support
services in rural areas, and meat from sport hunting also
benefits rural communities.
The benefits from sustainable use of wildlife resources
have served to increase the confidence of communities in
wildlife management, thereby improving tolerance and survival
of wildlife species. The guidelines for CAMPFIRE by the
Government of Zimbabwe emphasize that communities must at all
times receive the highest benefits.
Once elephants are no longer economically important to
local communities, those communities will have no incentive to
tolerate elephants and protect them.
Sixty percent of hunters in Zimbabwe are U.S. clients or
citizens. I beg your pardon. The suspension already resulted in
American hunting clients wanting to move their safaris
elsewhere, which will result in loss of income to safari
operators, professional hunters and guides, and also have
downstream effects. It should be noted that the sector
contributes significantly to anti-poaching funding.
Since the Fish and Wildlife Service cited lack of current
information on the status and management of elephants within
Zimbabwe and that the suspension could be lifted after the
Service had received sufficient information, ZimParks
officially responded on April 17, 2014, addressing all
questions that had been raised and supplying a host of
pertinent additional information.
Meetings have also been held between the Service, ZimParks,
CAMPFIRE and safari operators together with the private sector,
and to date no feedback has been received on these engagements.
We strongly urge the Fish and Wildlife Service to reverse
the suspension which clearly has negative impacts to
livelihoods and conservation, and appeal to them to work with
Zimbabwe in strengthening conservation efforts in a
constructive manner. Shutting down the trade is not the
solution. The ban will result in irreparable damage to wildlife
conservation, our heritage and lead to impoverishment of rural
communities.
It will also lead to the reversal of the gains that we have
achieved thus far in conservation.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tendaupenyu follows:]
Prepared Statement of Itai Hilary Tendaupenyu, Principal Ecologist
Representing the Director General of the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife
Management Authority
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 endeavors to conserve the unique flora and fauna heritage of
Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe welcomes President Obama's directive that U.S. 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 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 April 4, 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 April 7, 2014 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 6 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 major geographical ranges in
Zimbabwe. A national aerial survey of large mammals that was last
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 percent 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 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 percent 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 percent 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 49,700 km2 or 12.7 percent 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 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 percent of gross revenue shall go to producer
communities.
(ii) RDCs shall receive a maximum of 26 percent 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 percent of the gross
revenue.
(iv) RDCs also get 15 percent 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 percent 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 percent of CAMPFIRE revenue comes from
sport hunting and it is important to highlight that elephant hunting
contributes more than 70 percent 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 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 percent of hunting clients coming to Zimbabwe every year
are from the U.S. market. Besides direct benefits from safari hunting
such as 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 5-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 defense 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.
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 favorable review of the suspension of the
importation of Zimbabwe's sport hunted elephant trophies taken in 2014.
* Supporting materials are attached as Appendices 4-6.
Appendix 1: Elephant Range in Zimbabwe
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.001
.epsAppendix 2: Categories and Numbers of Protected Areas in the
Zimbabwe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Protected
Category of Protected Area Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Parks................................ 11
Recreational Parks............................ 16
Sanctuary..................................... 6
Safari Areas.................................. 16
Botanical Reserves............................ 14
Botanical Gardens............................. 3
TOTAL..................................... 66
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix 3: Human and Wildlife Cases for Four Hotspot Districts from
2009 to 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Number of Cases Humans Killed Humans Injured
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Binga............................................... 36 8 0
Mbire............................................... 6 5 1
Hwange.............................................. 289 2 1
Tsholotsho.......................................... 41 0 0
TOTAL........................................... 372 15 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPORTING MATERIALS
Appendix 4: Zimbabwe Professional Hunters and Guides Association
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.002
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.003
.epsAppendix 5: Safari Operators Association of Zimbabwe
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.004
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.005
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.006
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.007
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.008
.epsAppendix 6: Professional Hunters' Association of South Africa
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.009
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.010
.eps__
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Tendaupenyu.
At this point we will begin Member questioning. To allow
all Members to participate and to ensure we can hear from all
of our witnesses today, Members are limited to 5 minutes for
their questions. However, if Members have additional questions,
we can have more than one round and we usually do.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Dreher, how long have you been with the service?
Mr. Dreher. I have been with the Service for just about a
month.
Dr. Fleming. Just about a month. OK. Is there a significant
problem with illegal, that is, I guess, smuggling, illegal
transfer of ivory into the United States?
Mr. Dreher. Yes.
Dr. Fleming. OK. In a statement by your Service--September
2012, Fact Sheet, indicating ``we do not believe that there is
a significant illegal ivory trade into this country.''
Can you explain?
Mr. Dreher. I think we have had since that time substantial
law enforcement evidence of illegal activity coming into the
country.
And let me add, by the way, Mr. Chairman, that I came to
the Service from a position as the Acting Assistant Attorney
General for the Environment and Natural Resources for the
Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice, of
course, prosecutes these criminals.
Dr. Fleming. Right. But to save time here, instead of going
through your resume, the point is: what significant thing has
occurred? What disaster has occurred in the last 2 years?
Mr. Dreher. Well, first the disaster, I think, is the
mounting awareness of the crisis in the killing of elephants in
Africa. What we are seeing in terms of law enforcement, Mr.
Chairman--I do not intend to be evasive--in law enforcement we
are seeing mounting evidence in our law enforcement operations
of substantial illegal importing of ivory into this country.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Now, last month, this is from the Federal
Register. This is last month. ``We do not believe it is
necessary for ensuring the conservation and sustainable use of
the species to retroactively apply current import-export
restrictions to domestic activities involving specimens that
were legally imported prior to the imposition of those
restrictions.''
So, again, 2012 there was not a problem. In fact, I heard
the Acting Ranking Member mention that the United States is the
second most illegally transferred Nation while, in fact, CITES
says in 2013--I am sorry--2014, it is not among the top eight.
In fact, it is not even listed at all.
So why is it that all of a sudden after years of things
being fine in terms of not what is happening in those
countries, in Africa, but what is happening here, the illegal
importation of ivory?
2012, 2013, 2014, no problems. All of a sudden you are here
a month and you say there are huge problems. What has happened
in the last month?
Mr. Dreher. Well, let me again say that I have been
responsible for prosecuting these criminals for much longer
than a month in my role at the Justice Department, but in
answer to your question about what has changed in our
perspective, first, the United States as a government has
recognized the importance of taking all steps possible----
Dr. Fleming. Again, sir, you are not answering my question.
My question is what has changed in recent history. What is new?
Has the crime rate tripled, quadrupled? What has happened
here?
Have your prosecutions--and we will check this--have your
prosecutions increased? Have you sent many more, scores of more
people to prison as a result?
What is different?
Mr. Dreher. Well, as I explained, I think our law
enforcement operations are, in fact, detecting the illegal
import of African----
Dr. Fleming. You think it is. It does not matter what you
think. I want to know what is documented. What is documented
that has happened in the last 2 years to make Fish and Wildlife
say one thing in 2012, that there is no significant problem,
and you all of a sudden, you are here on-line for a month, and
you say there is a significant problem?
What has happened? Tell me what is different.
Mr. Dreher. The evidence we have seen from our law
enforcement operations, which includes, for example, the
prosecution and----
Dr. Fleming. Well, what is it?
Mr. Dreher [continuing]. And incarceration of----
Dr. Fleming. I know you are saying that, but what is the
evidence?
Mr. Dreher. A ton of illegally imported ivory disguised to
look like antiques seized in a case that we have just discussed
before you.
Dr. Fleming. One case.
Mr. Dreher. Two tons of illegally imported ivory seized at
JFK Airport in 2012. These are not the only law enforcement
operations that have shown evidence of illegal import of
disguised ivory into this country.
Our law enforcement officials believe that this is a
significant problem, and we are doing everything we can to
address it.
Dr. Fleming. So as a result of one or two cases of
significant, substantial amounts that you claim today--we have
not seen the evidence of it, documentation of it--you are
saying that we should now deem all owners of ivory, perhaps
owning it for generations in their families, that it no longer
has any value, cannot be transferred to someone else, and that
the burden is on that individual to prove that it is legal
ivory, which is impossible in most cases, because of something
that happened in the last year or so?
Mr. Dreher. If I may remind you, sir, the policy of the
United States expressed in the Endangered Species Act generally
is that trade in endangered species is prohibited, and there
are exceptions to that. We have a special rule for African
elephants. The special rule was adopted many years ago when it
was not as obvious as it is today.
Dr. Fleming. Well, I am out of time. Again, you are not
coming forward with any real information.
I yield to the Ranking Member for questions.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to clarify something. When I talked about in my
opening statement in the past year over 35,000 elephants and
1,000 rhinoceroses have been killed illegally for their tusks
and horns, the issue about where we rank is clearly this. Where
does the United States rank in terms of a market for ivory?
Do not talk about legal-illegal. We are just talking about
a market. Where are we in terms of that world market?
Mr. Dreher. Mr. Lowenthal, I am sorry to say that as with
any kind of illicit trade, it is very difficult to establish
exact dimensions.
Mr. Lowenthal. We are not talking about illicit trade. We
are just talking about market. I believe that we are the market
for ivory. The United States ranks second in the world in terms
of a market for ivory that is sold. Is that true?
Just a moment. We are not talking about illicit. We are
just talking about all ivory.
Mr. Dreher. I cannot confirm that we are second. I can
confirm that we are a very major market for----
Mr. Lowenthal. I can confirm that we are second, Mr.
Dreher. I can confirm that.
Let me go back and talk about why and with just the
understanding of what the underlying problem is because that is
really why we are here. We are not really here just to talk
about, although some of the things that have occurred in the 1-
year ban of ivory, sports elephants from Tanzania and Zimbabwe;
in the 1800s, ladies' hats were made of feathers and they were
made of eagles, hawks and herons. They were very popular, so
popular that their desire or their market almost wiped out
populations of migratory birds in the Western Hemisphere.
In 1918, this Congress passed the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, or MBTA, which implemented a strict ban on the trade of
migratory birds. Populations of these species have rebounded
and there is no demand today for these feathered hats.
Why do you think that MBTA and similar laws like the Bald
and Golden Eagle Protection Act have been so effective?
And do you think it is time to bring protections for
African elephants more in line with the protections that we
provide now for migratory birds?
Mr. Dreher. I think it is certainly true that the
conservation laws that were enacted to protect migratory birds
have been enormously successful. They have been successful both
in immediately restricting trade in wildlife that was
decimating the populations of migratory birds.
They have also been successful, I think, in creating long-
term changes in popular culture and taste. You know, we no
longer see ladies' hats that are of the same even with
artificial bird feather and that sort of thing.
I think that is one of the things that we can attempt to do
here, is to try to both be vigilant in trying to crack down on
the illicit trade in ivory. We can also attempt to send a
message that commercialization of wildlife that leads to its
extinction is not acceptable, and that I think is certainly a
message that we are trying to send here.
We crushed ivory, for example, at the ivory crush out in
Denver, six tons of ivory that had been taken as illegal
imports by law enforcement officials. We crushed that ivory to
send a very clear signal that the ivory was not meant to be
seen as items of value. It was meant to be seen as evidence of
the destruction of wildlife.
Mr. Lowenthal. And the question has also been raised that
these are onerous regulations. I would just like to clarify
that: is it not true that the ivory import ban under the
African Elephant Conservation Act is stricter than what the
Administration is proposing now?
Is it not also true that the Endangered Species Act,
Section 4(d), for African elephant ivory is more lenient than
the rules for trading other types of ivory, and that a revision
of this rule will still be more flexible for importers of
antique ivory than the provisions of the African Elephant
Conservation Act? Is that not true?
Mr. Dreher. That is absolutely true, that the African
Elephant Conservation Act moratorium is absolute. We are
administering it with some sensitivity and flexibility. We are
trying to work closely with stakeholders.
The same is true of the prohibitions of the Endangered
Species Act that would otherwise apply if it were not for a
special rule that we have adopted and which we are proposing to
revise, not rescind, but revise in order to make it more
effective in achieving conservation, but still being sensitive
to legitimate owners of ivory and their needs.
Mr. Lowenthal. Maybe you can tell us then just in my last
question how tightening restrictions on domestic ivory trade
will help reduce the poaching and trafficking crisis that
Africa is facing today.
Mr. Dreher. Well, the major thing driving the poaching is
the illegal trade in very high value artifacts, and it is
disguised in this country and elsewhere around the world as
legitimate ivory trade, reaching very high value. If we can
limit the market and if we can eliminate the ability of the
legal trade to cover and to disguise the illegal trade, it will
help us enormously in terms of reducing the market for this
ivory and in cutting out the economic incentive for these
criminals to kill wildlife.
They are not killing elephants because they hate elephants.
They are killing elephants because they see them as sources of
money, and if we can take the money out of the equation, they
will stop killing elephants.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, and I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Young is recognized.
Mr. Young. I thank the members. I have another meeting I am
chairing.
Mr. Hilary Tendaupenyu; is that correct?
Mr. Tendaupenyu. Tendaupenyu.
Mr. Young. Were you contacted by the Fish and Wildlife,
being as you are the head of the Fish and Wildlife in Zimbabwe?
Mr. Tendaupenyu. When, sir?
Mr. Young. Relative to the suspension.
Mr. Tendaupenyu. No, before that there was no
communication.
Mr. Young. It would seem to me that they would have the
courtesy to at least contact the country which the elephants
are supposedly a problem.
The elephant population is healthy in your country?
Mr. Tendaupenyu. It is actually on the increase, sir.
Mr. Young. The elephant is a consumer of forage and a
destroyer of other property; is it not?
Mr. Tendaupenyu. That is correct.
Mr. Young. And in your opinion, what do you think will
happen if, in fact, this hair-brained idea from Fish and
Wildlife becomes a reality? What do you think will happen to
the elephant herd in Zimbabwe?
Mr. Tendaupenyu. It will result in the decimation of
populations.
Mr. Young. And you base that upon the poaching primarily?
There is no value so they take the elephants for food or what
do you base that on?
Mr. Tendaupenyu. Well, basically we are saying that if we
are no longer able to fund conservation activities and
communities are no longer able to derive benefit from it, it
will be a free-for-all and poaching will increase, and as that
it will result in the decline in our elephant population.
Mr. Young. Well, I hope that some of my colleagues follow
up, sir, because I am disgusted right now with our government
and the Fish and Wildlife Department for putting up a
``fuscade''--I call it a ``fuscade''--for saying this is for
conservation. It is not.
This is to make somebody feel good, Friends of Wildlife,
Defenders of Wildlife, and I can go right down the line. This
will kill elephants. It has happened before.
Mr. Dreher, how do you differentiate between elephant ivory
and walrus ivory?
Mr. Dreher. There are actually tests that we can use
readily in the field to differentiate between them.
Mr. Young. So this will not affect walrus ivory?
Mr. Dreher. No.
Mr. Young. What kind of test do you have?
Mr. Dreher. I believe it is a chemical test, but----
Mr. Young. Well, it says here that you are backing off of
required DNA tests. Now, what are you going to do to test the
two different ivories?
Mr. Dreher. My understanding is it is actually visual
inspection.
Mr. Young. Visual inspection although carved.
Mr. Dreher. And our agents can determine the difference
between then.
Mr. Young. That is horse nosey. If you do not know what
horse nosey is, it is related to the back end of the horse.
Mr. Dreher. I was going to----
Mr. Young. OK. You know this, and the Fish and Wildlife up
there in the State of Alaska, your agency, now has the gall to
make it their interpretation of, in fact, what can be done and
how it can be identified of other species under the Endangered
Species Act, primarily the sea otter. That is an agent that
does not know Shinola.
Now, do you have a standardized test that is going to be in
the field?
Mr. Dreher. My understanding is that our law enforcement
officers can, in fact, determine the difference and are doing
so in the field.
Mr. Young. But your agents cannot tell if ivory is this
year or 10 years old or 50 years old.
Mr. Dreher. No, that we cannot do readily, unfortunately.
That takes a laboratory analysis, and it is expensive, and it
is destructive.
Mr. Young. So I have an ivory pistol, an ivory handled
pistol that is 100 years old, and I want to import it or export
it, and this would preclude me from doing it?
Mr. Dreher. It would depend on your documentation for the
age of the pistol.
Mr. Young. I have no documentation. I inherited it.
Mr. Dreher. You can probably show some evidence of when you
inherited it or when your parents had it. I mean, it is not as
if you----
Mr. Young. I inherited it from my Uncle John, and he had
nothing, but I inherited it. It was in his will, but he's my
uncle. So I can now import or export. It is not going to be
prohibited.
Mr. Dreher. If it is over 100 years old it is an antique
under the----
Mr. Young. Well, how do you tell? You just told me you
could not tell if it was 100 years old.
Mr. Dreher. That is actually going to be the burden that
you will bear, sir.
Mr. Young. Oh, I will bear it, but that means the
government can seize it.
Mr. Dreher. If you cannot document your attempt to import--
--
Mr. Young. There we go, guys. There is the Chairman. Here
we come. Uncle Sam is going to take and say you have to prove
it. You are guilty because we say you are.
That is wrong. That is wrong, and this is not going to save
the elephants.
For those in the audience who think you are saving
elephants, you are going to be killing these elephants. There
is a value when they can be hunted. There is a value when they
can be, in fact, managed. There is a value if you let the
country manage its game.
We are sticking our nose in somebody's business, very
frankly. We are not going to solve a problem you are trying to
seek, and I have been a sponsor of saving the elephants with
conservation for years, but what you are going to do in this
so-called department--the Fish and Game Department has gone
wacky on me--is, in fact, is, in fact, going to fail to save
these elephants. Shame on you.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. DeFazio I believe is next on that side.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think what we need to keep in mind here is we need new
solutions. You know, what worked in 1988, 1989, and the
contributions of sport hunting to these countries was very
valuable. Today a sport hunter with a bolt action rifle is no
longer a deterrent to large groups of crazed militants
slaughtering elephants with automatic weapons and poison.
Times have changed. So we cannot say that sport hunting is
the solution. It is still incredibly valuable to the local
communities and potentially to the nations involved. That is
good. That gives them some incentive, but the other thing was
it was actually a deterrent value because you had people out
there who were similarly armed or maybe with ratty weapons who
were poaching the elephants.
Now it is organized, armed fanatic militants, which really
needs some sort of military or paramilitary response on the
part of some of these governments, and that is perhaps
something to be discussed in another committee at another time
in terms of what the U.S. appropriate role is in facilitating
that.
But we have to stop talking past each other here and we
have to find some viable solutions. We have to find viable
solutions that go to people who have had things in their
families for generations. Mr. Young was his usual dramatic
self, but the point here is that I read of one case where
someone was trying to bring in a piano from Japan. You know,
apparently we have now resolved that issue individually, but
there are problems here with the way this rule was promulgated
and its impact, but we also want to send the strongest message
to the world that we are not going to tolerate this.
Perhaps the gentleman whom I mentioned earlier should have
gotten a longer sentence and a bigger fine, but that is another
issue.
Are we researching a way for a test? I mean, we can carbon
date stuff pretty exactly. We have all sorts of things out
there, you know, a mass spectrometer. Is there not some
researching test that would make it easy for people to prove
age?
Mr. Dreher. We are researching tests. I mean, unfortunately
the ones you mentioned are among the ones that we can draw
upon, and they are destructive and they are expensive. They are
destructive in the sense that they require some sample, some
portion of the item to actually be destroyed in order to
chemically analyze it, and they are not foolproof, but we can
use them effectively to date things.
Right now the tests we are using to date ivory cost us
$1,000 per test, which is not too high when you have a major
criminal prosecution, but it is very high for field agents to
use, and it requires the consent of the property owner to
permit it to be tested because it does involve some sampling.
So there are limits to what we can do. We are,
unfortunately, stuck in our law enforcement effort by our
inability to distinguish readily between fake antique ivory and
real antique ivory, and that has been used around the world and
in this country by the criminals. They know this. They have
whole factories that are set up to do this, to artificially age
ivory, to carve it so that it looks like it is exactly like a
tribal carving from 100 years ago, and then to bring it into
this country.
That is exactly what Victor Gordon was doing. He was
sending instructions back to his factories in Africa, saying
make it look like----
Mr. DeFazio. Where was the factory located?
Mr. Dreher. It was from East Africa. I do not know where
though.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Did the U.S. Government take any action to
pursue that with the government involved, whichever government
it was, to close down this factory?
Mr. Dreher. I am not aware of what we have done with that.
Mr. DeFazio. See, we need to be reaching overseas in a very
strong way, and I mean, that seems to me kind of minimal if we
have finally got a line on an illegitimate factory mass
producing this stuff out there. We should be using every tool
we have to go after that and go after that country and close
that stuff down and doing that around the world in addition to
what I mentioned earlier, which are some trade sanctions
against these countries, that little country and the big
countries that are overtly importing.
I have to say we just have to begin to think out of the box
and come up with a creative solution. I mean, as we sit here
and talk past each other, I think it is four elephants an hour
that are being slaughtered. So we've been here more than an
hour. Four more elephants unless they did another poisoning
today and killed many dozens or hundreds, who knows?
So this is something that begs a solution instead of a
partisan brawl, which is very usual for this committee.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dreher, do you hunt?
Mr. Dreher. I do not, sir.
Mr. Duncan. So I guess you are a fisherman. You trout fish.
You big billfish.
Mr. Dreher. I have fished, yes.
Mr. Duncan. You have been, but are you active in that at
all?
Mr. Dreher. Not today, but I have been.
Mr. Duncan. OK. Are you a member of Ducks Unlimited,
National Wild Turkey Federation, Safari Club International, any
of those conservation organizations?
Mr. Dreher. I am not.
Mr. Duncan. OK. So let me just ask you this. Are you aware
of the role that hunters play in conservation?
Mr. Dreher. I am very aware of it.
Mr. Duncan. OK. Hunters have contributed millions upon
millions upon millions of dollars for conservation efforts to
restore the white tailed deer, the wild turkey, the trout, the
Billfish Association for billfish, and the oceans. Hunters play
a part of conservation.
Let me point out the New York Times article, and I am not
one to tout the New York Times on a regular basis, but the New
York Times had an article, ``The Wrong Way to Protect
Elephants.'' In this article the authors state that ``the new
Obama administration policies would merely cause the price to
balloon and the black market to flourish, pushing up the profit
potential of continued poaching. These new rules proposed by
the Fish and Wildlife Service may well end up doing more harm
than good to the African elephant.''
Why is the New York Times wrong?
Mr. Dreher. I mean I have to say for what it is worth the
approach we are taking for law enforcement in trying to
interdict illegal contraband coming into this country is the
same approach we take for other forms of illegal activity.
Mr. Duncan. Law enforcement is having a hard time in the
African countries doing conservation because they do not have
enough manpower, and this is going to hurt their economic
ability to actually hire more law enforcement officers to
combat poaching.
American hunters traveling to Zimbabwe or Tanzania, other
places, they are actually catching a lot of these poachers out
there in the field, and guess what else they are finding. They
are finding the snares, and they are dismantling the snares and
destroying those because the countries do not have the ability
to hire the number of officers necessary.
The money that goes into the economy from active hunting on
the African Continent supplies the money and the resources for
these countries to have the conservation officers that can
actually do the job. Your policies will do nothing but curb the
ability of American hunters to actually travel to Africa and
provide those dollars that those economies desperately need.
I do not believe there is enough money in the conservation
effort to actually pump into those countries to provide those
dollars and to provide those officers, those conservation
officers.
Would you not agree with me that unless the range states
are effectively able to stop poaching, African elephants will
simply continue their march toward extinction?
Mr. Dreher. I would agree with you.
Mr. Duncan. OK. So we are on the same page there.
In the final analysis, you can close the U.S. market and
destroy the value of millions of legally obtained ivory
products, but unless we stop poaching, it is very unlikely that
those who traffic in these illegal wildlife will simply find
another market. You are already seeing an emerging market in
China.
Will this ban stop poaching of elephants in Africa?
Mr. Dreher. Not by itself, but this ban is only part of the
effort that my Service and that of the U.S. Government is
engaged in to try to combat this problem. This ban is one
important strand of that which involves law enforcement to
crack down on the criminals involved.
When you put someone like Victor Gordon in jail, admittedly
only for 2\1/2\ years, that is a very significant deterrent to
other criminals who are----
Mr. Duncan. Well, let me stop you right there. I will tell
you who you are targeting. I have had numerous cases where
people have lawfully obtained African ivory through hunting
efforts with valid tags and valid transportation permits to
bring them into the country, and they have been jerked around
by this agency trying to bring that ivory in. That is who you
are targeting.
You are not targeting the illegal ivory trade in this
country or the world. You should work with the Government of
China. You should work with the countries that are actually
stockpiling a lot of ivory.
I will tell you what we need to do. We need to work with
countries like Tanzania and Zimbabwe and allow hunting, allow
conservation efforts through hunting, allow more permits and
allow these guys to actually set quotas, allow X number of
elephants to be harvested annually, and allow that money to
actually funnel to the communities that have crops destroyed
because the elephants are destroying homes and crops and
communities. Actually provide the dollars so they can have the
conservation officers out there to stop this poaching.
You are exactly right. Poaching is terrible. The numbers do
not lie at all. But it is not through hunting and it is not
through some, and I will say, asinine ban by the Fish and
Wildlife Service that is politically driven.
Now, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Dreher. I would be happy to respond. I have not so far
been able to respond to any of the allegations.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman has already yielded back.
Mr. Duncan. That was my time. Thank you.
Dr. Fleming. Ms. Shea-Porter.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you very much.
And please feel free to respond.
Mr. Dreher. First I need to say that the Fish and Wildlife
Service fully recognizes the importance and the value of sport
hunting in the history of conservation and in the current
conservation efforts around the world. Sport hunters in this
country have been the backbone of conservation of wildlife in
this country, including the backbone of support of the programs
that the Fish and Wildlife Service administers. They are an
important factor in conservation worldwide.
We have a special situation in the two countries that are
at issue here. That is that under our regulation we must make a
finding that sport hunted trophies or that allowing the import
of sport hunted trophies will enhance the conservation of the
species, and we have been able to make that for a number of
countries. We have no concern with hunting of elephants in
South Africa or in Botswana. Those are countries that have well
regulated programs.
We have significant concerns about Tanzania. The population
of wildlife of elephants in Tanzania is crashing, as has been
recognized by CITES and by world authorities.
There is mounting concern that government authorities in
Tanzania are unable to manage or protect their wildlife, and it
is no longer clear to us that the dollars that American hunters
bring into that country are used in any meaningful way for the
conservation of elephants.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Dreher. OK.
Ms. Shea-Porter. I am glad you cleared that up.
I do have a couple of questions here, and I am sorry. I am
going to make a mistake with your name, Mr. Tendaupenyu.
Could you please tell me first of all who paid for your
trip here?
Mr. Tendaupenyu. The Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management
Authority.
Ms. Shea-Porter. The Zimbabwe government?
Mr. Tendaupenyu. The Parks and Wildlife Management.
Ms. Shea-Porter. OK. Thank you.
And has your population of elephants been going up or down?
Mr. Tendaupenyu. It is actually on the--on the----
Ms. Shea-Porter. Going down. So----
Mr. Tendaupenyu. On the increase, ma'am.
Ms. Shea-Porter. So in spite of the hunting and the
conservation and the income coming in and your management
efforts, your population is dropping.
Mr. Tendaupenyu. No, no, ma'am. The population is on the
increase.
Ms. Shea-Porter. By how much?
Mr. Tendaupenyu. I can give you the figures.
Ms. Shea-Porter. OK. I would like to see those. We will do
another round.
I also want to know, you indicated that you also received
some income from tourism, right? But you did not say what
percent was from eco-tourism. How hard have you worked on that?
And is that something that you see in your future to be able to
perhaps bring more income and help the people in the area and
help protect the elephants?
Mr. Tendaupenyu. OK. Tourism is rather suppressed right
now. So the income realized from that is quite low compared to
that revenue stream that I talked about from----
Ms. Shea-Porter. Do you have an aggressive program for it?
Mr. Tendaupenyu. We are doing our marketing. There is an
aggressive program for that, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Shea-Porter. OK. And what percent of the income that
comes in for your program is from tourism right now?
Mr. Tendaupenyu. I do not have the figures readily
available right now, but those can be available to you, ma'am.
Ms. Shea-Porter. OK. Is that going up or down?
Mr. Tendaupenyu. Tourism figures, slightly on the increase
now in recent years.
Ms. Shea-Porter. On the increase.
Mr. Tendaupenyu. Yes.
Ms. Shea-Porter. All right. So your tourism is on the
increase, and your number of elephants, the population, is on
the increase and you will get back to me about the number.
Mr. Tendaupenyu. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Shea-Porter. OK. Thank you.
And I have a question. Now, you said how many tons of ivory
in 2013?
Mr. Dreher. That we have seized?
Ms. Shea-Porter. Yes.
Mr. Dreher. Well, in the one case we have been talking
about it was one ton of African ivory, new ivory. There was a
seizure of two tons at JFK Airport in 2012.
Ms. Shea-Porter. How many elephants is that?
And can you take a guess of how many elephants are being
killed just for that, not for any other reason, but for the
ivory?
Mr. Dreher. We are converting kilograms into pounds. I am
sorry. We can get back to you with an answer for that, but the
tusks can weigh 100 pounds or 80 pounds. So you have some sense
that there were a large number of individual elephants that had
to have been killed in order to supply three tons.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Right. OK. Thank you for that.
Now, is there some kind of compromise here? You know,
listening to both sides, and by the way, I come from a State
where they hunt and they fish. I live in New Hampshire, and it
does not mean that you do or you do not. That does not make any
statement about what kind of person you are, about whether you
care about the environment or do not care about the
environment. I am not really sure where that questioning was
going, but let me just say that I cannot understand why we
cannot find something that helps, and what would help your
government to continue promoting conservation and still be able
to protect your elephant population?
I cannot understand why it is like either/or when you are
talking to us about your country and your situation in
Zimbabwe. Why is it either/or? Either they have to hunt at a
high level and we have to just stay out of it or from what you
said everything will just fall apart, that the land will be
taken, that the elephants will be killed, that there will be
more mayhem.
I was not really following your argument.
Mr. Tendaupenyu. OK, ma'am. My point was ZimParks does not
rely on the government for funding, and it has to generate its
income from sustainable conservation efforts. We have limited
donor support, and this is from our wildlife. We believe that
wildlife should pay for itself.
And from that, that is where we are looking at that. It
should. The revenue that we want to generate that protects the
wildlife comes from the wildlife itself. That is the principle.
Ms. Shea-Porter. But it seems to me that if you are
experiencing this great loss and this is a treasure for your
country and that you will actually--do you want me to do
another round?
Dr. Fleming. Unfortunately we have another large panel and
then we have a vote in about an hour. So unfortunately, we will
just have to submit questions for the record.
Ms. Shea-Porter. OK, and could I please have the answers to
the questions that I asked?
Mr. Tendaupenyu. Those will be answered.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you. Thank you. I will look forward
to seeing them.
Mr. Tendaupenyu. Yes.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. McAllister, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McAllister. Thanks, Chairman.
First let me just say that I and all of this panel believe
that we should protect the elephants. No one wants to see them
become endangered and not be able to enjoy God's creation that
we all watch wildlife shows, go on safaris and all that.
But when it comes to the question she just asked about the
middle ground, I believe you just said it. The efforts are
working. You said the elephant population is on the rise in
Zimbabwe; is that correct?
Mr. Tendaupenyu. That is correct.
Mr. McAllister. So I mean, it seems like it is working. So
here is the issue I have, and I want to hear from Mr. Dreher on
it.
A few things: one, back in 1978, the amendment to the
Endangered Species Act clearly established an exemption for the
import and export and sale of antique items that are at least
100 years of age. In fact, a former Congressman from my State,
David Treen, stated, ``My proposal was adopted in Committee by
voice vote. All the witnesses at the hearing supported the
concept of exempting antiques since the purpose of the Act is
to protect living species rather than those that lived 150
years ago.''
So here is my question: are you not trying to rewrite the
statute and congressional history?
Mr. Dreher. Congressman, no, not at all. We have, in fact,
recently just clarified the way in which we will interpret and
enforce the antiques exception. We certainly fully recognize
the importance of that exception to the congressional intent
behind the Act.
So there was no restriction here under the ESA that will
affect legitimate antiques that meet the statutory definition.
Congress also passed the African Elephant Conservation Act,
and that imposed an absolute moratorium on the import of
African ivory without regard to age, absolute moratorium on the
import of African ivory. We are administering that in as
flexible a way as we can to recognize legitimate needs, such as
those of householders who are bringing in goods as part of
their household, musical instruments, orchestras, traveling
exhibitions.
But it is Congress in that Act which has banned all imports
without regard to age. Now, we----
Mr. McAllister. But you are putting the proof upon us as
the citizens to prove it is an antique or not.
Mr. Dreher. Well, quite frankly, the proof, the burden is
on us as citizens to prove our ownership of property in many
circumstances, to prove that our claims of exemptions from
income taxes. I mean, it is not unusual that we would expect
someone claiming the benefit of an exemption to prove lawful
possession of an item that is claimed to be exempt.
Mr. McAllister. Correct. Well, I just do not understand why
are we not spending more efforts on going after the poachers,
going after the criminal trafficking syndicates, the terrorist
organizations instead of trying to go after the import and
export of antiques.
I have a few pictures here that kind of explains what you
are going after and what it is going to do, and I got these off
of Sotheby's Web site, and I will give them to the Chairman. It
just shows what little bit of ivory is in some of these
antiques that are being sold, and these are just your everyday
antiques. I mean, we are talking a minimal amount of ivory.
So let me explain what my opinion, what this is going to
do. What you are trying to do is take countries like Zimbabwe
and all and take the ability to govern themselves, the ability
to conserve their animals out of their hands, and what you are
going to do is you are going to create a black market now to
where more new ivory is being poached to create more antiques
like this because the black market sells more than legal
markets ever sell.
I think we should be going after those who are violating
the laws. I agree with Congressman DeFazio. That punishment is
not severe enough for those who are poaching ivory. I think
there ought to be another statute on top of it that says
whenever you try to imitate an antique there is even a more
harsh punishment to go along with the poaching.
I believe there is common ground that we can find, and as
to allow countries that are increasing their elephant habitats,
but yet also make sure that we are making people pay the price
for doing and make sure that we go after these terrorist
organizations that are just slaughtering elephants and that is
by assisting these countries with it.
I do not believe in penalizing people that truly are doing
justice and being honest and making life harder on them to live
in this country and to do just what they enjoy, whether it be
bird watching or antique collecting. That is not what our role
is to do, to make life harder on them.
Our goal is to protect the animals and support other
countries in their ability to protect, and I will let you
answer that, but I appreciate you taking the time to come today
and testifying for us.
Mr. Dreher. Thank you, Congressman.
And I certainly agree with the fact that we need to address
all of those things. We cannot address this wildlife
trafficking crisis without engagement with the range countries
overseas, without trying to reduce consumer demand and also
without trying to build partnerships with foreign countries and
partnerships with interests and stakeholders like the sport
hunting community.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has a very good relationship
with the sport hunting community in this country and cherishes
that. We have shared conservation goals for decades, since the
foundation of the Service.
Dr. Fleming. I am sorry. We are going to have to keep
moving on if we are going to hear from other witnesses.
Mr. Southerland, 5 minutes.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do not even know where to start really. I am astonished.
Mr. Dreher, I am going to direct my comments first to you.
I am amazed. I notice here that you had spent time in the
Justice Department before you came to the Wildlife Service. I
am rather astonished by your belief that it should be the
burden of proof by the American citizens to prove something
that is perhaps in many cases unprovable. You know, I hope that
is not a philosophy that you gained while in the Justice
Department. That is terrifying to think that that might be a
contagious thought process there. But we certainly are seeing
evidence that that might be germinating in other areas
throughout the Justice Department.
I am blown away by people's assertion here that you've got
it all figured out when it comes to our species. We know the
red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico that are being destroyed by
the thousands by artificial reefs being removed from the oil
rigs, idle iron, and really these efforts, this government
could care less about the fish because they just want to make
sure that humans cannot pick up those fish once they have been
destroyed. It has nothing to do with the fish.
I am curious though as to what I am hearing. We talk about
Kenya and Zimbabwe and what is going on, and, sir, I know you
are here. You came a long way obviously to testify. I am most
interested by your comments that your elephant population
through the systems you have in place is on the rise, and I
just want to make sure that that is stated because I think some
on the other side of the aisle just were hoping and praying you
would say that your elephant population is on the decrease. But
yours are, in fact, on the increase, correct?
Mr. Tendaupenyu. They are on the increase.
Mr. Southerland. I find it interesting that Kenya outlawed
hunting in 1973, and yet their herds are absolutely just the
opposite of yours. They are continuing to decline, and Kenya
cannot even protect a 50-year-old bull from being slaughtered
very, very recently.
Tell us, sir. You came over here to testify today. You
know, we have already had Mr. Dreher admit that the Wildlife
Service did not alert your government prior to suspending the
importation of sport hunted elephant trophies from those
countries.
Does it irritate you or do you find it bothersome that our
government, who seems to be swimming outside of its lanes here,
did not even communicate with you?
Mr. Tendaupenyu. Very much so, sir.
Mr. Southerland. Very much so.
Mr. Tendaupenyu. Yes.
Mr. Southerland. OK. Could you expound on that? I mean, do
you feel like we are being a little meddling into something
that is pushed rather by ideology rather than good conservation
practices?
Mr. Tendaupenyu. Indeed, we base our efforts or whatever we
do on scientific evidence, and if it had that scientific
evidence to substantiate, at least it would make sense.
Mr. Southerland. Right. So you're saying that absolutely to
my question and that you need good scientific data, and it
needs to make sense. I know some people cannot perhaps hear
your answers, and I want to make sure that I help get your good
common sense message out because I can tell you in this room on
a weekly basis we see insanity here, insanity.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Southerland. OK? We do. We do. And so we keep talking
about good data. There are people on the other side that could
care less about good data. I can tell you we certainly are not
using good data in the Gulf, and we are making sure that we do
not have good data because we do not want to see what that data
proves because then we would have to make common sense, self-
evident practices that would be good for freedom as well as
good for the stock we claim to care about.
Is there any reason imaginable why the Service did not
reach out to you? Can you imagine any good reason why they did
not do so and give you that professional courtesy?
Mr. Tendaupenyu. No. We actually fail to understand why
that happened.
Mr. Southerland. You fail to understand that.
Well, Mr. Dreher, with the time we have remaining, can you
address----
Mr. Dreher. I would be very happy to.
Mr. Southerland [continuing]. Why he fails to understand?
Mr. Dreher. I would be very happy to.
Mr. Southerland. You all have been rude really.
Mr. Dreher. We asked for information in 2007, and we have--
--
Mr. Southerland. You asked for information.
Mr. Dreher. Yes, and we have been in contact with them
every year since at international----
Mr. Southerland. And contact, did that contact----
Mr. Dreher. Personal, face-to-face contact. There is no
question----
Mr. Southerland. Right.
Mr. Dreher [continuing]. That they understand we had
concerns about their program.
Mr. Southerland. Can you provide that proof to us?
Mr. Dreher. I can and I will be happy to. Let me also say
that we acted based on International Union of Conservation of
Nature data showing that the population of elephants in this
country may have dropped by as much as 50 percent----
Mr. Southerland. Right. And I hope that organization----
Mr. Dreher. So we have very different----
Mr. Southerland. Reclaiming my time, sir, I hope that I do
not have--I hope they do not share your beliefs that the
American people or anybody in this world must prove by
documentation something that they inherited maybe from a
grandfather or great grandfather. What a dangerous, dangerous
belief you have, sir.
I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman's time is depleted.
Mr. Daines, you are recognized.
Mr. Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So I represent the State of Montana, and I can tell you,
lawfully owning firearms is a very important part of our
heritage, including many which would contain pre-ban ivory. The
Director's order, as best we can tell, though well intended was
issued without consideration of law abiding citizens who trade,
sell, or own firearms containing elephant ivory or enthusiasts
for the music and arts who use their ivory containing
instruments to enrich many people's lives.
I think we are all in violent agreement here today that we
want to make sure we stop poaching and protect the African and
Asian elephants. Many of us are active sportsmen and women, and
as Congressman Duncan mentioned, hunting oftentimes is the best
way to preserve a species, and I think we have seen that
example certainly from our witness here today.
But I was made aware recently that the Budapest Orchestra
was coming into JFK Airport here on June 3. Stefan Englert, the
Executive Director of the orchestra, said in an interview that
the ensemble had taken steps to comply with new rules governing
ivory. The orchestra had documentation for each bow, including
photographs, letters from the bow makers stating they contained
no banned ivory.
But even with this documentation the bows were not allowed
to be used. My understanding is that one person in the ensemble
brought two identical bows from the same maker, same materials.
One was allowed to be used; the other was not.
In fact, doing a little further research, in April an
orchestra came from Austria to perform at Carnegie Hall, and
they were stopped from getting their bows through, and it was
through the intervention of the officials of the Carnegie Hall
that at the last minute got the bows through because they were
going to cancel the concerts because of the harassment they
were receiving here in trying to get the documentation, which
they all had, through the system.
Given the limited resources of Fish and Wildlife Service
and the enormous, enormous poaching problem in Africa, is
confiscating bows from the Budapest Orchestra really the best
use of taxpayer dollars? Mr. Dreher.
Mr. Dreher. First, I think for what it is worth, my
understanding is that the issue of importation of artifacts,
musical instruments that contain CITES listed material is one
that has been with us for a long time. I mean, the incidents
you described would have occurred exactly the same way last
year or the year before had they attempted to enter the country
with musical instruments that did not have proper CITES
documentation.
Mr. Daines. They are referencing, by the way, they are
referencing the May 12 edict that came out in the Federal
Register Notice was the issue here coming through JFK.
Mr. Dreher. My understanding is that this was an issue of
CITES documentation, and sort of the unhappy truth is, and we
are trying very hard to be sensitive to the legitimate interest
of musicians, the legitimate interest of orchestras and of
traveling exhibitions. That is, in fact, why we have created
exceptions to what otherwise would be the implementation of an
absolute ban on the import of ivory under the congressional act
to reflect that, but they still need to provide adequate
documentation for CITES, and that has always been an issue in
terms of importing material into the country. There is going to
be a check to see whether they have that.
We are working continually with the interested stakeholders
that you have mentioned to try to figure out ways that we can
respect their genuine needs to be able to perform with and
import into the country for performance purposes instruments
that may contain ivory or other CITES material.
Mr. Daines. Right.
Mr. Dreher. And we will continue to work with them.
Mr. Daines. And we have two examples in the last 90 days,
one in April and one in the first week of June, where renowned
orchestras with what they thought was all the proper
documentation were stopped, nearly canceled the concert at
Carnegie Hall, and through a diving catch here with the
Budapest Orchestra they were able to get through.
But I think this is an example of the concerns we have of
the regulations. They just do not have common sense. They are
going to stop law abiding men and women, American citizens and
citizens coming in perhaps in the performing arts.
The challenge is here of wanting to move forward here in a
common sense fashion. These regulations, I think, seem a bit
arbitrary and difficult to follow and are not going to
ultimately get to the bottom of this, which is, we are trying
to protect and save these African elephants.
Mr. Dreher. I understand your concern, and I understand the
concern about what the highest priority should be. It certainly
is not our highest priority to do this, but we are nonetheless
responsible and the Border and Customs Patrol people are
responsible for monitoring imports into the country.
I do think the underlying issue that we need to grapple
with is that it is precisely the trade in these artifacts,
artifacts made of wildlife that is killing wildlife, and there
are circumstances as you said where sport harvest of wildlife
is an essential part of a well-managed conservation program,
and we recognize that and work closely with folks all the time.
There are other circumstances where the marketing of
artifacts made of endangered species drives them toward
extinction, which is why the general rule under the Endangered
Species Act is there cannot be any trade in endangered species.
Mr. Daines. Just the concern we have, and I will conclude
my questioning here, is just that you have law abiding
musicians and so forth here that are caught right now by these
regulations that are wreaking havoc on law-abiding citizens and
not really getting to the core issue here, which is how do we
stop the poaching and the killing here of these African
elephants illegally.
Thank you.
Dr. Fleming. That concludes the first panel, but before I
release the first panel I want to take a moment of the
Chairman's privilege here for a couple of reasons.
First of all, Mr. Tendaupenyu, you have come a long way,
and I want to be sure that you have a last word with us here
today because I think what you have to say is very important.
But I want to frame the issue carefully for everyone. There
is not a single person on this dais, in this Congress, I
suspect, or in this room that wants anything but the
sustainability of our elephant population. There is no one
here. I mean, we all basically want the same outcome.
Where we differ is in how we apply certain rules and
principles and we receive that outcome. But we have two
problems, really two issues.
Number one is the fact that many people have ivory, ivory
musical instruments, ivory art, other forms of ivory that are
very old. It is simply impossible to have the documentation
necessary. This is not the same as the IRS. When you incur an
expense, you have a paper trail, and you know that that is
going to be a deductible expense. This is not the same thing.
It is not equivalent, and it is inappropriate, in fact, I think
unconstitutional to require someone to be guilty until proven
innocent. And so that is something we have to deal with in an
outright ban.
The other part of this is, and I want to make sure everyone
here is clear on it, the money that is necessary in Zimbabwe to
protect the elephants comes from the hunters themselves. When
the hunters leave, the elephants die. The elephants die why?
Number one, if a herd grows, it runs out of sustainability. It
does not have the habitat. So some are going to starve. Some
are going to go through a painful death.
Mr. Lowenthal. Mr. Chairman, we have another panel, and----
Dr. Fleming. I understand that.
Mr. Lowenthal [continuing]. And we are never going to get
to it.
Dr. Fleming. But I want to be sure that this gentleman, and
as Chairman it is my privilege to do this, and so in terms of
Zimbabwe and the protection of the elephants, what has been
working and increasing the herd has been simply allowing
hunters to take a certain number of trophies and then also
allowing for growth of that herd and then last, of course, the
fact that they protect against the poachers.
So I want to give you the opportunity to kind of
encapsulate that and make sure we understand the issue when it
comes to Zimbabwe.
Mr. Tendaupenyu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think in my closing statement I said it exactly as it is.
We are saying that the proceeds from hunting actually
contribute toward the conservation efforts. It also
incentivizes the elephants toward the communities, and once
this aspect is removed, people will no longer treasure these
and, hence, it will lead to increased poaching because less
money goes to conservation, less protection, and this will
result in the decimation of our wildlife populations.
Dr. Fleming. I thank you for that, sir, and as a result we
are not going to have time for a second round. We would love to
have one. So we will ask you to step down and we will ask the
next panel to step up, and we will hear more testimony on this
important issue.
OK. As our panel moves into place, I want to go ahead and
begin introductions because we are limited in time.
First we have today Mr. Ian Somerhalder, President of the
Ian Somerhalder Foundation; The Honorable David J. Hayes, Vice
Chair, Federal Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking; The
Honorable Jack Fields of Texas; Ms. Arian M. Sheets, Curator of
Stringed Instruments, National Music Museum; Mr. Matthew Quinn,
Quinn's Auction Galleries; and Air Force veteran Captain Scott
O'Grady.
Your written testimony will appear in full in the hearing
record. So I ask that you keep your oral statements to 5
minutes as outlined in our invitation letter to you under
Committee Rule 4(a).
I think you have heard the instructions on the microphone.
So we will not go forward with that and dispense with it.
So, Mr. Somerhalder, welcome to the subcommittee, and you
are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF IAN SOMERHALDER, PRESIDENT, IAN SOMERHALDER
FOUNDATION
Mr. Somerhalder. Thank you, Chairman, and good afternoon,
Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Lowenthal, and members of the
subcommittee.
My name is Ian Somerhalder. I am an actor and President of
the Ian Somerhalder Foundation, which is a not-for-profit
organization that is dedicated to empowering, collaborating and
educating with people to help them collaborate and impact the
planet positively and its creatures.
I am grateful to say that I was also just named United
Nations Goodwill Ambassador to their Environmental Programs.
I would like to thank the subcommittee for giving me the
opportunity to speak here today, and I would like to especially
thank Chairman Fleming, who represents my home State of
Louisiana. So thank you, sir.
I am honored to be here, able to speak today to the need
for redoubled efforts to protect rapidly declining populations
of African elephants. I appreciate and admire the work of the
Wildlife Conservation Society, which continues to identify
opportunities for me to have an impact on U.S. Government
conservation actions.
Some of you might remember my last testimony from 3 years
ago when I first had the honor of addressing this subcommittee
in support of Multinational Species Conservation Funds, MSCF.
These funds play a critical role in saving wildlife populations
from many of the world's most iconic species, including the
African elephants, which are the topic of our hearings today,
by supporting programs that control poaching, reduce human
wildlife conflict and protect essential habitats.
The MSCF are due for reauthorization, and I encourage the
subcommittee to take up the bipartisan bills to extend these
important programs. I would also urge the subcommittee to
extend the MSCF semi-postal stamp enabling the public and
empowering them to provide funding for anti-poaching
activities.
So as you all know, I am not a policy expert or a park
ranger. I have been fortunate to have success as a--well, some
success as an actor, and with that comes what I see as a
privilege.
Dr. Fleming. You are too humble.
Mr. Somerhalder. But I see it as a privilege ultimately to
be able to raise awareness about issues that I am passionate
about that need to be raised.
So in my previous testimony I called attention to several
global priority species, but today the plight of the elephant
demands our undivided attention. There is really no word you
can use to describe the situation of elephants in the wild
today. They are simply in crisis.
Quite frankly, there is no way to even overstate how
catastrophic the last few years have been for these elephants
because now they are under threat as they have never been
before by agents of transnational crime rings and terror
organizations who are mutilating helpless animals and murdering
park rangers on a scale not seen since the international ivory
ban went into effect.
The most current studies done by the Wildlife Conservation
Society show that in 2012 alone poachers killed approximately
35,000 African elephants for their tusks, and Central Africa
has lost more than half of their elephants in the last decade.
So at this rate the African forest elephants will be
extinct in 10 years, and the East African Savannah elephants
will be right behind them.
So what will the world look like without elephants? I mean,
I think the question that we should ask ourselves is: how can
we actually justify allowing this species, which is considered
as intelligent as dolphins and great apes, to go extinct?
The situation is dire. Kenya Wildlife Service park rangers
describe the efforts against poachers as a war that they are
losing, and also let me add that there is growing evidence that
organizations like the Lord's Resistance Army and al-Shabaab
fund terrorist attacks, recruitment efforts, guns and
explosives with the proceeds of illegal ivory sales.
There is a silver lining, however. There is ample evidence
that conservation efforts have a significant positive deterrent
effect when protective forces are adequately staffed, trained
and armed. The number of forest elephants, the most threatened
subspecies, are seven times higher when they are protected.
The support of the U.S. governmental agencies, governmental
agencies like Fish and Wildlife Service and USAID, play an
essential role in supporting conservation forces
internationally. Sadly, the United States is also an important
market for wildlife products.
In 1988, this Congress led the world by banning the
commercial ivory trade, and it is time for us to take on the
mantle of leadership once again. Continued vigilance by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is critically important and also
lets the international community know that we are serious, 100
percent serious about eliminating demand for illicit ivory
products.
This is an issue I know that the American public deeply
cares about because when I talk about this on social media, the
retweets and favorites on Twitter number in the tens of
thousands, and on Facebook hundreds and hundreds of thousands.
So we know that this is important to the people.
The outpouring of emotion is strong, and the message is
clear. We, the people, look to you to enforce tough laws and
build global partnerships to address wildlife crimes. As
Jacques Cousteau said, we protect what we love. So on behalf of
the Ian Somerhalder Foundation, I urge the subcommittee to work
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Administration
to quickly move ahead on tightening the ban on commercial ivory
trade so that the United States can once again show its
leadership in saving the African elephant.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to any and all of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Somerhalder follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ian Somerhalder, President, Ian Somerhalder
Foundation
Good morning Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and members
of the subcommittee. I am Ian Somerhalder, an actor and founder of the
Ian Somerhalder Foundation, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to
empowering, educating, and collaborating with people to help them
positively impact the planet and its creatures. I was also recently
named a United Nations Goodwill Ambassador for their environmental
programs.
I would like to thank the subcommittee for giving me the
opportunity to speak here today and I'd like to especially thank
Chairman Fleming, who represents my home State of Louisiana. I am
honored to be able to speak to the need for redoubled efforts to
protect rapidly declining populations of African elephants, wild
habitats and wildlife. I appreciate and admire the field-based and
policy work of Wildlife Conservation Society who continues to identify
opportunities for me to have an impact on U.S. Government conservation
actions.
Some of you might remember my testimony from 3 years ago, when I
first had the honor of addressing this subcommittee in support of the
Multinational Species Conservation Funds (MSCF). These funds play a
critical role in saving wild populations of many of the world's most
iconic species, including the African elephants that are the subject of
today's hearing, by supporting programs that control poaching, reduce
human-wildlife conflict, and protect essential habitat. The MSCF are
due for reauthorization, and I encourage the subcommittee to take up
the bipartisan bills to extend these important programs--H.R. 39 and
H.R. 1329, offered by Mr. Young and Mr. Pierluisi, two highly respected
members of this subcommittee, and H.R. 1328, offered by Congressman
George Miller. I would also urge the subcommittee to pass H.R. 262,
which would extend the MSCF Semipostal Stamp, enabling the general
public to continue to voluntarily provide funding for anti-poaching
activities through purchases of the stamp.
As you all know, I'm not a policy expert or a park ranger. I come
here today as a grateful amplifier representing a vast, global,
interwoven tapestry of voices deeply invested in the future of our
environment and its creatures. Because of our united and unending
reverence for all vessels of life, the threat of ongoing habitat
destruction and wildlife poaching is painfully all too real to us. I
spent my childhood entangled with the raw, majestic ecosystem of rural
Louisiana. From a very young age, my family instilled in me our
obligation to protect this delicate balance. Even beyond that, they
illuminated how there was no distinction between the ecosystem and
myself. What I had perceived as ``outside'' was also inside. When the
Gulf Oil Spill devastated the bayous I know as home, I became aware of
just how true this really is. Refusing to surrender to a harrowing
sense of vulnerability, I united with an international span of
changemakers ready to heal and restore the planet and its creatures.
These changemakers are the IS Foundation family. Armed with compassion
and equipped with a vast array of actionable skills, we knew our
interdependent collaboration was necessary to reconcile both the
environment we see as external as well as within. This understanding of
our environment's ultimately borderless and symbiotic nature is pivotal
to the work of ISF today.
I'm grateful and fortunate to have achieved success as an actor,
and with that comes what I see as the privilege of being able to raise
awareness about issues I am passionate about. As the founder of the Ian
Somerhalder Foundation, I have committed my time and financial
resources to advancing environmental causes, land and wildlife
conservation, animal welfare and the empowerment of our youth. In my
work with oceans, I came across a quotation that rings particularly
true to me by the legendary explorer and documentary filmmaker Jacques
Cousteau, who said, ``People protect what they love.'' It is with that
mindset that I am motivated to share my love and knowledge of the
natural world with the American public and with all of you here today.
In my previous testimony, I called attention to several global
priority species, including tigers, rhinoceroses, marine turtles, and
the great apes. Today, I'd like to focus on the plight of elephants,
both in Asia and Africa.
There's really only one word that can describe the situation of
elephants in the wild today; they are in crisis. The characteristics
that make elephants so iconic around the world--their beauty, majesty,
and power--are precisely what make them so desirable to poachers. Quite
frankly, there's no way to overstate how catastrophic the last few
years have been for elephants. They are now under threat as never
before by agents of transnational crime rings and terrorist
organizations, who are mutilating helpless animals and murdering park
rangers at a scale not seen since the international ivory ban went into
effect.
For these criminals, the black market in illegal ivory is no
different than that of drugs, weapons, and counterfeit goods--it's just
more lucrative. Today, numerous research organizations and nonprofits
report that the illegal wildlife trade is the fourth largest in the
world, more sizable than the trafficking of small arms, diamonds, gold,
and oil. In a study \1\ released by the Stimson Center in January of
this year, illegal wildlife trafficking was estimated to be worth $19
billion. The same study reported that rhino horn (which is considered
analogous to elephant tusks) is now worth about $50,000 per pound, more
than gold or platinum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Berganas, J. (2014) Killing Animals, Buying Arms: Setting the
Stage for Collaborative Solutions to Poaching and Wildlife Crime.
Washington, DC: The Stimson Center. http://www.stimson.org/images/
uploads/research-pdfs/killing_animals_buying_arms_WEB.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a rule of thumb, wildlife is most vulnerable in regions where
the rule of law is weakest. Therefore, it stands to reason that Dr.
Iain Douglas-Hamilton,\2\ Founder of Save the Elephants, testified
before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that Central Africa
has been the most severely impacted by the dramatic increase in
elephant poaching, losing more than half of its elephants in the last
decade. The most current studies done by the Wildlife Conservation
Society show that in 2012 alone, poachers killed approximately 35,000
African elephants for their tusks. At this rate, African forest
elephants will be extinct in another 10 years, and East Africa's
savannah elephants will be right behind them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Douglas-Hamilton, I. (2012) Ivory and Insecurity: The Global
Implications of Poaching in Africa. Washington, DC: Hearing before the
Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we see an elephant, we are inspired with a special sort of
wonder and reverence. They are truly amazing animals. Elephants live in
close-knit families and can only be separated by death or by capture.
When an elephant dies, it is mourned and buried by other members of the
tribe. They are the only mammals besides humans that are known to have
rituals for death. Elephants have been observed responding to the
distress of other humans and animals by protecting them or intervening
in harmful situations. The saying, ``An elephant never forgets,'' has
been backed up by neuroscience, which has identified neural structures
similar to dolphins, humans, and the great apes. Elephants use tools,
exhibit self-awareness, engage in collaborative problem-solving and an
especially talented elephant named Shanthi here at the National Zoo in
DC can even play the harmonica and horn instruments.
What will the world look like without elephants? How can we ever
justify allowing this species, which is considered to be as intelligent
as dolphins and the great apes, to become extinct?
The situation is dire. The aforementioned Stimson Center report,
Killing Animals, Buying Arms, cites Kenya Wildlife Service park rangers
as describing their efforts against poachers as a war that they are
losing. There is growing evidence that organizations like the Lord's
Resistance Army and al-Shabaab fund terrorist attacks, recruitment
efforts, guns and explosives with the proceeds of illegal ivory sales.
Decades of war and instability in Central Africa have created a power
vacuum in which these actors are free to do more or less whatever they
want, from poaching to illegal mining to enlisting child soldiers to
trafficking in sex slaves.
There is no reason for us to give up hope. The desperation and
greed driving elephant poaching and illegal ivory sales can be
reversed. There is ample evidence that funding conservation efforts has
a significant and positive impact in protecting wildlife and the humans
tasked with guarding them. Research by the Wildlife Conservation
Society shows that forest elephant densities, the most threatened
subspecies found in Central Africa, are seven times higher where they
are protected.\3\ Iain Douglas-Hamilton, who I mentioned earlier, also
described the slaughter of elephants and other endangered wildlife as
largely opportunistic, with poachers ``target[ing] the softest
populations . . . mov[ing] from one population to another.'' \4\
Clearly, protective forces act as a deterrent when adequately staffed,
trained, and armed. The support of U.S. governmental agencies like the
Fish and Wildlife Service through the Multinational Species
Conservation Funds and U.S. Agency for International Development play
an absolutely essential role in supporting conservation forces
internationally, from assisting in training eco-guards and supporting
prosecutions to bolstering surveillance of key border crossings and
investigating financial assets and much, much more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Elephant Poaching Crisis: A Call for Action. Washington,
DC: The Wildlife Conservation Society.
\4\ Douglas-Hamilton, I. Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is also reason to hope that we can have an impact on reducing
the demand for ivory and other endangered species products as well. All
the research by governmental and non-profit organizations indicates
that most illegal ivory is sold to the Chinese market. Far from being
dispassionate to the plight of elephants, however, the Chinese
government strictly protects its own forest elephants.\5\ What this
would suggest to me is that there's a fundamental lack of understanding
about the connection between the large-scale poaching of elephants (and
rhinoceroses, for that matter), and the presence of ivory in the form
of trinkets and potions for commercial sale. I see this as a personal
challenge to raise awareness about the incredible costs of wildlife
trafficking, and I hope that U.S. diplomacy will continue to work
toward that goal as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Douglas-Hamilton, I. Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although China may be the biggest market, the United States is also
one of the largest, ranking as high as number two worldwide in some
assessments.\6\ This gives the United States the opportunity to lead
the international community's response to the elephant poaching
crisis--much as it did when this Congress passed the initial U.S. ban
on the commercial ivory trade in 1988. Just a year after passage of
that important legislation, the international community agreed to a
similar ban on the global trade in ivory. The actions of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to tighten the U.S. ban on the commercial trade in
ivory are critically important, not just to ensure that the United
States will no longer be a destination for illegal ivory, but to show
the international community--and China in particular--that the United
States is absolutely serious about confronting the mass poaching of
elephants and is willing to assume the leadership role once again to
shutdown the demand for illicit ivory products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Elephants in the Dust: The African Elephant Crisis. United
Nations Environment Programme, et al. http://www.unep.org/pdf/
RRAivory_draft7.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we do not lead, who will? And if we do not lead now, how much
longer will there still be elephants left to save? When I reach out to
my followers on social media about elephant poaching and wildlife
trafficking, the response is powerful and positive. Retweets and
favorites on Twitter number in the thousands, and the response on
Facebook is in the hundreds of thousands. The outpouring of emotion is
strong, and the message is clear: the American people want decisive and
meaningful action from their government. It's up to you to enforce
tough laws and build global partnerships to promote global enforcement
to address wildlife crimes.
Although I understand that the focus of this hearing is on the
elephant poaching crisis and the ban on commercial trade in ivory, I'd
like to take a moment to talk about a related topic that is under the
jurisdiction of this subcommittee that affects all wildlife, and that
is the vital importance of protecting wild habitats, both at home and
abroad.
Since I last testified before this subcommittee, I've had the
opportunity to travel to parts of the world that are under mounting
pressure from environmental and human threats. In particular, I've
spent significant time over the last year in Africa, where
desertification, agriculture, and urbanization have all played a role
in displacing crucial grassland and forest landscapes that are the home
to thousands of species, large and small.
There are many strategies for pursuing land conservation. Some
organizations focus on protecting land- and seascapes with the greatest
density of biodiversity, which include tropical rainforests, coral
reefs, floodplains, and more. Other organizations focus on managing
land- and seascapes that are the most productive in terms of
agricultural and fishing output or mineral and timber resources.
Regardless of the approach, strong governance structures are
fundamental to protecting habitats and pursuing smart and sustainable
land use management policies.
The plight of Great Ape species worldwide illustrates the
importance of maintaining wild habitats. In Sumatra and Borneo, the
orangutan is considered critically endangered due in large part to the
decimation of tropical forests for logging and agricultural interests,
both legal and illegal.\7\ Their native habitat is increasingly
fragmented by human activity, which results in an orangutan population
that is at the same time more disparate and more concentrated.
Consequently, unusual disruptions like disease, resource scarcity, or
fire have an outsize impact on an already vulnerable population, making
them unable to rebound from adversity. The splintering of a once-large
population due to fragmentation also poses serious problems in
maintaining genetic diversity, which is necessary for the species to
remain strong and vital. Orangutans are not alone in this plight--
gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos are similarly threatened by habitat
disruption.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Orangutans. WWF International. http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/
endangered_species/great_apes/orangutans/.
\8\ Great Apes. WWF International. http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/
endangered_species/great_apes/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a nation, the United States also has an interest in promoting
the political and economic stability of other countries throughout the
world. Habitat conservation must take place in partnership with
economic development, not at odds with it. Coastal communities will
only become more vibrant and prosperous with clean water, unpolluted
beaches, and carefully managed fisheries. At times, conservation
programs are even synonymous with economic revitalization. As Dr. John
Robinson, Executive Vice President of Conservation and Science at the
Wildlife Conservation Society, who testified alongside me in 2011,\9\
said, ``Strengthening the Virunga National Park in the Democratic
Republic of Congo provided jobs for hundreds of rangers during that
nation's long civil war. These rangers both protected mountain gorillas
and their habitat and helped control illegal logging and charcoal
manufacturing that provided revenues to the insurgencies.'' The illegal
exploitation and trade in wildlife and natural resources that fuels
regional conflict and funds militias must be stopped by global
enforcement efforts and proactive large landscape-level conservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Robinson, J.G., (2011) Legislative Hearing on H.R. 50, H.R.
1760, and H.R. 1761. Washington, DC: Hearing before the Subcommittee on
Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs. http://www.gpo.gov/
fdsys/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me raise one more reason for taking a strong stance on
protecting endangered habitats throughout the world. I, like so many
people, have become the person I am today in relation to the natural
world. Growing up in Louisiana left an indelible imprint on who I am as
a person. I would venture to guess that it's the same for many of the
distinguished members of this subcommittee and their constituents,
coming from such incredible natural landscapes as those seen in the
Mariana Islands, Alaska, Guam, Puerto Rico, and each of your districts.
It is my belief that we have a sacred responsibility to be stewards of
the Earth, and especially of those regions whose survival hangs in such
a delicate balance. Ultimately, to restore natural prosperity to these
regions, we will have to invest in holistic solutions. At the IS
Foundation, we are often asked why we don't localize our efforts into
one particular need. Because we view the environment as one
meticulously interconnected organism, we believe interconnected
solutions are what truly create widespread and quantifiable change.
After all, an organization that only focuses on saving endangered
species is losing sight of the habitat restoration, waterway health,
and economic change necessary to holistically fill that need.
I would like to add one more issue for consideration, and that is
the emotional resonance that wildlife and habitat conservation has with
the American people. The bald eagle, the American Bison and the Grand
Canyon are as much icons of our great country as the values of liberty
and justice for all. In my travels and interactions with people around
the world, it has been made more than clear to me that animals like
elephants, tigers, rhinoceroses, sea turtles, and the Great Apes
illuminate the imagination and inspire compassion from all corners of
the globe. The United States has an incredible opportunity to safeguard
the long-term future of endangered species and landscapes while also
investing in the political and economic stability of foreign nations.
On behalf of the Ian Somerhalder Foundation, I urge the
subcommittee to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Administration to quickly move ahead on tightening the ban on
commercial ivory trade so that the United States can once again show
its leadership in saving the African elephant. Thank you, again, for
this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Somerhalder.
And let me give an advisory here. It looks like our votes
will probably be more like 5 o'clock, and I know Mr.
Somerhalder may have an airplane to catch. So you can leave any
time you wish, but we hope you can stay as long as you will.
Mr. Somerhalder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would love to
stay as long as I can. So hurry up, guys.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Fleming. Mr. Hayes, you are recognized, sir, for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID J. HAYES, VICE CHAIR, FEDERAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member Lowenthal, and members of the committee.
My name is David Hayes. I am appearing in my personal
capacity. I am currently a visiting professor at Stanford Law
School. I am also the Vice Chair of the Federal Advisory
Council on Wildlife Trafficking that the President appointed
under his executive order from last July, Executive Order
13648, and as you know, I served as the Deputy Secretary of the
Department of the Interior until last July.
I would like to put today's hearing in a bit of context
first. It is about the crisis that the elephants are facing in
Africa, and it spiked in the last 5 years. Over the last 5
years, we now have a new phenomenon that the intelligence
communities of the United States have confirmed last year, of
organized criminal syndicates orchestrating the killing of
large numbers of elephants. This is different than in the 1980s
when it was more opportunistic killings by smaller bands who
were trying to essentially fund local conflict. This is now
considered to be the fifth largest transnational organized
criminal syndicate in the world, right behind arms, drugs and
human trafficking.
The devastation of the elephants is worrisome enough, as
Ian explained. The numbers are alarming: 35,000 elephants
killed estimated in 2012, another 20,000 just confirmed last
year. At these rates, this is on a base of maybe 400,000
elephants for the continent as a whole. This is unsustainable
in terms of the number of elephants that are being killed.
But in addition to the impact on the elephants, the
connection to organized crime and terrorist groups is
undermining the integrity of governments in Africa; is clearly
funding terrorist groups and militias. The alarm was really
pulled by then Secretary Hillary Clinton who in November of
2012 asked the intelligence agencies to look into this issue.
They reported back about a year later and confirmed the
kind of tides that we are talking about, and that led to the
President issuing an executive order July 1 in Tanzania to
combat wildlife trafficking, and here is what he said.
``Poaching operations have expanded beyond small scale,
opportunistic actions to coordinated slaughter commissioned by
armed and organized criminal syndicates. The survival of
protected wildlife species such as elephants, rhinos, great
apes, tigers, sharks, tuna and turtles has beneficial economic,
social and environmental impacts that are important to all
nations. Wildlife trafficking reduces those benefits while
generating billions of dollars in illicit revenues each year,
contributing to the illegal economy, fueling instability and
undermining security.''
What the President did then is a whole of government effort
to get behind and to solve this true crisis in terms of
wildlife trafficking. He formed a cabinet level task force
under the executive order chaired by Secretary Kerry, Secretary
Jewell, and Attorney General Holder. He directed them to come
up with a national strategy to deal with combatting wildlife
trafficking, and he formed the Advisory Council that I am the
Vice Chair of.
That led to the national strategy document that came out in
February of this year. It is a comprehensive document that
looks to strengthening enforcement on the ground in Africa,
also in strengthening enforcement in the transshipment of these
articles from Africa to demand nations, including the United
States, but especially Asia, and second, reducing demand for
this wildlife, illegally traded wildlife, and third, expanding
international cooperation and commitment.
Now, what the Fish and Wildlife Service is doing here is a
small piece of this comprehensive effort. The piece is directed
at tightening up restrictions on commercial trade in ivory.
Those commercial restrictions are in the law today. As has been
mentioned before, the 1988 Elephant Conservation Act makes
illegal any import of any African ivory since 1989.
When CITES came, because of U.S. leadership, CITES then
came in and confirmed that as a global ban. What has happened
in recent years is that ban had deteriorated, and with the last
5 years and the increased attention by these criminal
syndicates, there is now a flood of illegal ivory moving around
the world. We need to get at it.
The United States simply needs to tighten up the loopholes
and prosecute existing legal requirements. That is what this is
all about.
I will say finally, the Fish and Wildlife Service clearly
can do, I think, a somewhat better job in assuring Americans
that they are not in danger of being prosecuted for owning
ivory and for commercially trading ivory when it fits within,
for example, the antique exemption of an ESA. My understanding
is the Fish and Wildlife Service is beginning a public
rulemaking within 2 months that will provide an opportunity for
the public to provide input and to establish appropriate legal
standards.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayes follows:]
Prepared Statement of David J. Hayes, Vice-Chair, Federal Advisory
Council on Wildlife Trafficking
My name is David J. Hayes. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular
Affairs to discuss actions that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS)
is taking to implement restrictions on commercial trade in ivory and
related issues.
I am testifying today in my personal capacity. I currently am a
Distinguished Visiting Lecturer at Law at Stanford Law School. I also
am the appointed Vice-Chair of the Advisory Council on Wildlife
Trafficking, which the President established under Executive Order
13648 (``Combating Wildlife Trafficking''). As this subcommittee is
aware, I served as the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of the
Interior from the outset of the Obama administration until last July. I
also served as Deputy Secretary in the Clinton administration.
the scourge of ivory trafficking: context for today's hearing
Over the last 5 years, organized criminal syndicates have
orchestrated an alarming surge in the killing of tens of thousands of
elephants for their ivory. An estimated 35,000 elephants were killed
for their ivory in Africa in 2012, and preliminary information
indicates that at least 20,000 additional elephants were killed in
2013.
The devastation of some of Africa's most iconic animals, including
the largest mammals who roam the earth, is cause enough for alarm. But
behind the local villagers who carry out the killings lie sophisticated
criminal syndicates that are reaping billions of dollars in illegal
profits, fueling instability and corruption in African and Asian
nations, and helping arm militias and terrorist groups. The
international criminal menace--which has expanded its trafficking
activities beyond drugs, arms and human trafficking into the newly
lucrative illegal wildlife trade--poses a direct threat to stability
and order in important emerging economies and U.S. trading partners in
Africa and Asia. And these real and present dangers are being fueled by
demand for ivory--a non-essential luxury item.
Over the past 2 years, the world has begun to awaken to the double
threat posed by illegal wildlife traffickers: (1) the cruel killings of
tens of thousands of Africa's most iconic animals and the growing
tragedy triggered by the mass killings, including the fraying of
Africa's deep cultural, environmental and economic linkage and shared
identity with its wildlife; and (2) the corrosive influence that
massive illegal wildlife trafficking is having on important U.S.
interests in Africa and Asia, spawned by the traffickers' unholy
alliances with militias, terrorist groups and corrupt officials.
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first drew attention to
these emerging threats in an important State Department address in
November 2012. She triggered the U.S. intelligence agencies' analysis
and subsequent confirmation of the ties between the criminal syndicates
involved in wildlife trafficking and their connection with militia and
terrorist groups. Simultaneously, leaders in the U.S. Department of the
Interior--which oversees African wildlife programs through its Fish &
Wildlife Service and is the U.S. lead in implementing the international
convention that restricts trade in endangered species (CITES)--also
sounded the alarm within the Administration. More specifically, while
visiting in Tanzania as Deputy Secretary in early 2013 on behalf of
FWS's Africa program, I learned first hand about the mass killings of
elephants in Africa and resuscitation of the illegal ivory trade, and
returned to the United States, committed to work with the White House
and take on the issue.
A few months later, the President used the opportunity of his visit
to Africa to make combatting international wildlife trafficking a
priority for the Administration. See Executive Order 13648 (``Combating
Wildlife Trafficking'') (July 1, 2013). Section 1 of the President's
Order speaks clearly and strongly to the threat that the international
wildlife trafficking scourge poses to U.S. interests. It states:
``The poaching of protected species and the illegal trade in
wildlife and their derivative parts and products (together know
as ``wildlife trafficking'') represent an international crisis
that continues to escalate. Poaching operations have expanded
beyond small-scale, opportunistic actions to coordinated
slaughter commissioned by armed and organized criminal
syndicates. The survival of protected wildlife species such as
elephants, rhinos, great apes, tigers, sharks, tuna and turtles
has beneficial economic, social and environmental impacts that
are important to all nations. Wildlife trafficking reduces
those benefits while generating billions of dollars in illicit
revenues each year, contributing to the illegal economy,
fueling instability, and undermining security. Also, the
prevention of trafficking of live animals helps us control the
spread of emerging infectious diseases. For these reasons, it
is in the national interest of the United States to combat
wildlife trafficking.'' (Emphasis added.)
The President took several concrete steps in his Executive Order to
give teeth to his policy pronouncement, including: (1) the formation of
a cabinet-level Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking (Task
Force)--chaired by Secretaries Kerry and Jewell and Attorney General
Holder; (2) a directive that the Task Force develop and then implement
a National Strategy to Combat Wildlife Trafficking; and (3) the
formation of an Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking to assist the
Administration in developing and implementing the National Strategy.
The President's Executive Order also directed the Task Force to explore
how best to fold wildlife trafficking into the Administration's
previously announced initiative on ``Transnational Organized Crime.''
The Task Force and Advisory Council heeded the President's call
and, on February 11, 2014, the White House released the National
Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking. The National Strategy lays
out an ambitious agenda, identifying three strategic priorities to
guide the U.S. response to the global wildlife trafficking crisis: (1)
Strengthen Enforcement; (2) Reduce Demand for Illegally Traded
Wildlife; and (3) Expand International Cooperation and Commitment. The
National Strategy then builds out 24 key implementation areas under the
three strategic priorities. Adding to the mix, the Advisory Council
took action on June 9, 2014 and formally endorsed 19 specific
recommendations to implement the National Strategy and move forward
with a comprehensive, multi-front war on wildlife traffickers.
fws actions to implement the ban on commercial trade in ivory
As noted above, tightening up existing restrictions on commercial
trade in ivory represents one element of a whole-of-government,
multifaceted effort to combat illegal wildlife trafficking. Ending the
slaughter, corruption and funding of militias and terrorist groups
caused by illegal traffickers required attention on all of the three
strategic priorities identified in the recently released National
Strategy document: (1) Strengthen Enforcement; (2) Reduce Demand for
Illegally Traded Wildlife; and (3) Expand International Cooperation and
Commitment.
That said, restrictions in commercial trade in ivory play an
important role in the overall effort because they focus U.S. and
worldwide consumer attention on the devastating impact that ivory sales
are having on elephant populations and de-glamorize the purchase of
ivory. Restrictions on ivory trade also dramatically shrink the legal
market for ivory products, thereby unmasking the ``cover'' that legal
or pseudo-legal markets now provide for ivory traffickers. Doing so
unleashes enforcement efforts in the United States, and worldwide,
against the movement and sale of ill-begotten ivory.
Previous experience validates the important role that restrictions
on ivory trade can have in striking back at illegal wildlife
traffickers. More specifically, in 1989, the world community responded
to a previous surge in elephant killings in Africa by uplisting
elephants to Appendix I status under the CITES convention and banning
commercial imports and exports of ivory. The 1989 ban had a dramatic
impact. Ivory markets in the United States and Europe collapsed. With
the ban in place, poaching rates declined precipitously and elephant
populations in Africa stabilized at around 600,000 (down from a peak of
1.2 to 1.3 million elephants in the late 1970s). Elephant populations
then remained relatively healthy for nearly 20 years--with greatly
reduced ivory-related killings--until poaching rates began to escalate
rapidly again around 2008, accelerating to today's massive levels of
killings, which are threatening the continued existence of elephants in
the African wild.
A number of factors have come together since 2008 to trigger the
spiking in elephant killings. Two of the most important factors revolve
around erosion of the 1989 ban on commercial trade in ivory. The most
striking undermining of the ivory ban occurred in 1999 and again in
2008, when CITES allowed sales of national stocks of ivory in the hope
that adding more legal ivory into the market on a tightly regulated
basis would moderate demand, bring down prices, and demonstrate that a
regulated ivory market could be successful.
The experiment was a disaster. The introduction of new, legal ivory
undermined the worldwide ban on commercial trade in ivory and provided
cover for illegal syndicates to dramatically increase elephant killings
and sales of illegal ivory. Efforts to track and regulate the legal
ivory that entered the marketplace in 1999 and again in 2008 failed
spectacularly, with China, at one point, being unable to account for a
significant amount of the ivory that it had purchased.
In addition, the weakening of the ban on ivory trade unfortunately
coincided with the rapid rise of a newly wealthy middle and upper class
in Asia which has fueled increased demand for ivory. The potential
market is huge, and the run-up in the price in ivory with no apparent
slowing of demand, indicate that demand for ivory is inelastic. So long
as ivory is available for sale and viewed as an acceptable purchase,
the voracious market will continue to incentivize criminal syndicates
to kill elephants for their ivory in record numbers--threatening the
viability of the species in Africa.
These developments have led experts to agree that elephant killings
will continue at a high rate unless the United States and other nations
double down on the 1989 ban on commercial trade while, at the same
time, launching a sophisticated demand reduction strategy. Parties to
the CITES convention are taking steps in this direction, demanding that
a number of nations that have clearly been violating the 1989 ban--
including China, Vietnam, Kenya and Tanzania, among others--develop
action plans to clamp down on illegal transport and sale of ivory and
rhino horn. CITES' Standing Committee will be reviewing those plans
this summer for their sufficiency.
implementing the ivory ban in the united states
Here in the United States, the initial success of the 1989 ban on
most imports of African elephant ivory also has eroded over time. While
early messaging of the ban prompted many retailers to get out of the
ivory business, loopholes and exceptions in U.S. law, along with lax
enforcement, allowed some commercial trade to continue. The
Administration recognized that U.S. leadership in stopping the dramatic
increase in wildlife killings depends, in part, on tightening up our
own administration of the ban on commercial trade in ivory. That is why
the White House combined the release of the National Strategy on
February 11, 2014, with an announcement that FWS would take
administrative actions to more fully implement a ban on commercial
trade in ivory.
A key point in this regard is that U.S. law already outlaws
virtually all commercial trade in ivory. The cornerstone of U.S.
restrictions on ivory trade is the African Elephant Conservation Act of
1988, 16 U.S.C. 4201 et seq. (AECA). Section 4223 of the AECA makes it
unlawful, as general matter, to import raw or worked ivory that was
illegally exported from an ivory producing country and to import raw or
worked ivory from a country for which a moratorium is in place under
section 4222 of the Act. Under regulations that were promulgated under
the authority of the Endangered Species Act, no downstream commercial
trade is allowed in ivory products that were illegally imported. 50 CFR
17.40(e).
Thus, in accordance with the AECA, when the CITES Appendix-I
listing of the African elephant went into effect in 1990, it
essentially cut off commercial imports and exports of elephant ivory
here in the United States, in addition to the scores of other nations
that adhere to CITES requirements. Under an administrative exception to
the AECA moratorium, the only commercial ivory imports allowed after
1989 were ivory products that qualified as ``antiques'' under the
Endangered Species Act definition. 16 U.S.C. 1539(h).
FWS's recent actions in tightening up the already-in-place
restrictions on commercial trade in ivory are modest.
First, FWS has determined that the exception for antiques under the
ESA, which allows for commercial trade in ivory that meets the ESA
definition of antique, including that it is more than 100 years old,
should not apply to imports that are proscribed under the African
Elephant Conservation Act. This is a common sense change that closes an
importation loophole that has long been at odds with the strong import
ban that Congress adopted in the AECA.
Second, when explaining that it will no longer apply an ``antique''
exception for items containing African elephant ivory that are imported
for commercial purposes, FWS indicated that it intends to clarify the
type of documentation that may be used to verify the provenance of an
item, including the circumstances under which it was imported into the
United States (for example, verifying that the ivory was legally
imported into the United States without restrictions), to allow for on-
going commercial trade which is allowed under current regulations. FWS
will be proceeding with this clarification via a public rulemaking
process that it reportedly intends to initiate soon.
In clarifying of the type of verification needed to establish that
an ivory product can be traded commercially in the U.S. because it
qualifies as ``antique'' ivory under the ESA, the Service will be
following Congress' direction. Congress has made clear that persons who
seek to benefit from exceptions to ESA prohibitions, such as the
``antique'' ivory exception, have the ``burden of proof'' in
establishing the exception. 16 U.S.C. 1539(g).
It is my view that in clarifying the proof needed to establish
legality under the law, FWS should adopt a common sense approach that
offers law-abiding ivory owners reasonable avenues to obtain required
certifications. But the showings must be vigorous enough so as to
prevent fraudulent claims by agents of the sophisticated traffickers
who are making billions from the sale of ivory from freshly killed
elephants. The Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking made a similar
point in adopting and forwarding the following recommendation to the
cabinet-level Task Force in a public meeting held on June 9, 2014:
The Interior Department Should Continue to Take Administrative
Steps to Tighten and Clarify the U.S. Restrictions on
Commercial Trade in Ivory and Rhino Horn
The Advisory Council supports the Administration's efforts to
use available administrative tools to close loopholes and
tighten up the ban on commercial trade on ivory products in the
U.S., consistent with existing law. The Advisory Council urges
the Interior Department's Fish & Wildlife Service to work with
the regulated community and provide non-burdensome permit
approvals for non-commercial import and export of products that
contain ivory (e.g., orchestra instruments that contain ivory;
traveling museum exhibitions, etc.), and for clear and
reasonable burden of proof standards that qualify ivory
products as ``antiques'' that are exempt from the Endangered
Species Act. The Council also urges FWS to identify and foster
donation (e.g., to a museum), disposal and other options that
are available to individuals who possess ivory or rhino horn
products that cannot be traded commercially.
In sum, it is appropriate for FWS to take these modest steps to
clarify what type of commercial trade in ivory is legal, and what is
not. In so doing, FWS is reminding Americans that U.S. law prohibits
almost all commercial trade in ivory and that the law requires
individuals seeking to sell ``antique'' and pre-ban ivory products to
come forward with credible evidence that they qualify for these
exceptions to the general rule. By taking these actions, FWS is not
impacting the right of U.S. citizens to own ivory, or to trade ivory
products if they can make required showings.
In addition to being authorized and appropriate under existing law,
it is important that the United States enforce existing restrictions on
ivory trade in order to ensure that the United States does not provide
a market for the illegal ivory trade that has been spiking, worldwide,
over the past few years.
As a final point, by taking steps to reconfirm and clarify existing
restrictions on commercial trade in ivory, the United States
strengthens its hand in insisting that China and other Asian nations
take similar steps and shut down the rampant illegal trading activity
that has infected their domestic ivory markets. If they do not, the
United States can and should demand that offending nations either get
in line, or suffer the consequences of trade sanctions imposed under
the authority of U.S. law (the Pelly Amendment) or in concert with
other nations, under the CITES treaty. The Advisory Council formally
adopted a specific recommendation along these lines in the meeting that
it held on June 9. The recommendation reads as follows:
The U.S. CITES Delegation Should Aggressively Advance the
President's Agenda to Combat Illegal Wildlife Trafficking
The Advisory Council recommends that the Task Force work
closely with the U.S. delegation to the upcoming CITES Standing
Committee (SC) meeting, and other CITES-related activities, and
ensure that: (1) the United States is represented at an
appropriately high level; and (2) the U.S. delegation
aggressively advances the President's agenda to combat illegal
wildlife trafficking. In particular, the Advisory Council
recommends that the United States' CITES delegation work with
other member states to hold countries accountable for the
implementation of their CITES obligations--both recognizing
positively when countries have made significant progress, and
taking action when they have not. The U.S. also should consider
imposing trade sanctions under U.S. law (e.g., the Pelly
Amendment) when trading partners are persistently violating
CITES or other anti-trafficking requirements.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony to the
subcommittee.
______
Dr. Fleming. Congressman Fields, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JACK FIELDS, FORMER REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Fields. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Fleming, Mr.
Lowenthal, Mr. Young, my former leader, it is a real honor to
be here today. My name is Jack Fields. I am a former Member,
serving 1980-1996 from the State of Texas. I was co-author of
the African Elephant Protection Act of 1988, and today I
represent no one other than myself, although I would like to
think I represent all the Members who voted for that Act, both
current and former.
And I want to comment just a moment about that Act because,
Mr. Chairman, when I heard you speak just a moment ago, to me
you really focused this in a way that it really should be, the
framing that the real problem is the poacher, as did you, Mr.
Lowenthal; that if we are all sincere about doing something
about the sustainability of the African elephant, we need to
focus on the poacher. We need to focus on the countries that
allow the importation of illegally taken ivory. I mean, that is
where our focus should be.
And I say that in the context that I did that very thing
with Tony Beilenson, a former Member, liberal Democrat from
California, great friend of mine, great legislator. For those
of you on the Democrat side of the aisle, you should be so
proud that you were represented by someone like that, a great
gentleman, great intellect, great integrity.
And Tony and I came from different cultures, different
philosophies, but we found a commonality in that we wanted to
see the African elephant preserved. So we started
conversations, and we had conversations with groups that were
against hunting. We had conversations with groups that were for
hunting, and we decided that we were going to put collateral
issues aside, and I suggest to you today that this issue
regarding ivory is a collateral issue. I suggest to you this
issue regarding the ban of importation of ivory from Tanzania
and Zimbabwe, that is collateral.
If you are really looking at trying to preserve the
elephant population, to me the long and short of it is you
should look on the market demand side. You should see who is
making the money, follow the money, chase the money.
And when Tony and I came up with the legislation that
became the Elephant Protection Act of 1988, we went beyond just
the passage of that legislation. If we had stopped there, we
would have made a monumental mistake. The first thing we did
after the passage, we had a meeting with Secretary Jim Baker,
who was then Secretary of State, and said, ``There is a real
problem in Japan. Forty percent of the world's ivory is being
consumed in Japan for the hanko, their signature stamp''.
Well, lo and behold, when Secretary Baker met with the
Japanese, the Japanese decided to adhere to CITES. So all of a
sudden, 40 percent of the world's demand was dried up.
The second thing we did, we went and met in the Members'
dining room with the Ambassador for Great Britain because at
that time Great Britain had governing authority over Hong Kong.
We said there is a real problem. We would hope that you would
adhere to CITES, put the noose around Hong Kong, which the
British did.
Then we found that the ivory was being smuggled into China.
So we thought we were on a roll. We had been successful
regarding Japan. We had been successful regarding Hong Kong. We
will meet with the Chinese Ambassador. When we met with the
Chinese Ambassador, he said, ``Mr. Congressman, you made a big
mistake. There is no post ivory in our country.''
Tony and I disagreed. We introduced a piece of legislation
that would have denied China $150 million in fishery exports.
We held a hearing, not in this room, but just down the hall.
The room was populated by journalists from China, and all of a
sudden the Chinese Ambassador came back after that hearing and
said, ``Believe it or not, we found a problem and we are going
to adhere to CITES.''
The price of ivory, the net effect, the price of ivory at
that point was $100 per pound. It dropped to almost zero.
Poaching became almost nonexistent, and those countries that
had good elephant conservation programs like Zimbabwe, like
Tanzania, their elephant populations began to grow. Today you
have an elephant population in Zimbabwe, as an example, that is
twice what the local habitat can actually sustain.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the remainder of my
testimony for the record but just close with this. You have a
tremendous amount of power, you and Mr. Lowenthal, and I was
very intrigued by what Mr. DeFazio said. I mean, it sounds to
me like there is a real opportunity for those of you who are
sincere and want to do something to sustain the population of
African elephants to work together and shine that spotlight on
the people who are the bad actors, to follow the money and
examine sanctions, examine legislation that prevents exports to
this country.
You know, most countries cannot stand that type of global
spotlight, and I encourage you to do that, and I encourage you
to get as much information as you can from our government, from
international entities and come forward with a bipartisan
collaborative process that really does work.
What has been presented by Fish and Wildlife, in my
opinion, will not work. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fields follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jack Fields, Former Member of Congress
from the State of Texas
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 U.S.
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 percent 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 percent 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. 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/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 spotlight 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 spotlight 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 Wankie National Park where
I have visited over 10 times, sport hunting brings in over
$575,000 per year, with 80 percent of that number staying
in the local community. By contrast, the photographic lodge
in that area brings in $30,000/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 million 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 drill 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; and
4. 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 spotlight--globally embarrass those host
governments, pass sanctions, deny imports from their respective
countries.
Mr. Chairman, I hope you will hold additional hearings--shine the
spotlight. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this subject
which is very dear and personal to me.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Congressman Fields.
Next, Ms. Sheets, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to
present testimony on behalf of the National Music Museum.
STATEMENT OF ARIAN M. SHEETS, CURATOR OF STRINGED INSTRUMENTS,
NATIONAL MUSIC MUSEUM
Ms. Sheets. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my
name is Arian Sheets, and I am Curator of Stringed Instruments
at the National Music Museum in Vermillion, South Dakota.
Thank you for your invitation to appear today to discuss
how the Fish and Wildlife Service's proposed ban on ivory sales
would adversely impact musical instruments, musicians, and the
museum community.
By way of background, the National Music Museum was founded
on the campus of the University of South Dakota on July 1,
1973. Our collection of more than 15,000 American, European and
non-Western instruments are among the most inclusive in the
world. The collection includes many of the earliest, best
preserved, and historically most important musical instruments
known to survive.
About one-third of the instruments in our collection are
American made, and many, both from this country and abroad are
what might be called vintage instruments, that is, less than
100 years old.
I will focus my remarks today on how ivory was used in
musical instruments after the early years of the 20th century
and how the proposed ban would adversely affect these cultural
icons.
In the area of stringed instruments with which I am most
familiar, for example, C.F. Martin & Company of Nazareth,
Pennsylvania, used small amounts of ivory in almost all of its
guitars, starting with the company's founding in 1833. By 1918,
Martin had stopped using ivory for bindings, bridges, bridge
pins, and friction peg tuners. Martin continued to use ivory
for saddles and nuts until approximately 1970, well before the
elephant ivory was essentially banned.
The ivory saddles and nuts weigh only a few grams each and
account for less than 2 percent by weight of the entire
instrument. Yet that is enough to make the entire instrument
illegal for commercial sale under the Fish and Wildlife
proposal. Most other U.S. manufacturers did not use ivory to
the same extent.
Ivory was also used in very small amounts in the crafting
of violin bows, though usage had generally stopped by the early
1980s, replaced with mammoth ivory and synthetic material. An
ivory bow tip generally required only about a gram of
unfinished ivory. Bow makers designed the head of the bow
around the physical properties of the ivory tip, which gives
the delicate bow head proportion, strength and proper balance.
Even though ivory use stopped more than 30 years ago, many
musicians, including famous artists, still perform with these
old but not antique bows. Replacing tips with non-ivory
material while possible is fraught with dangers, not least of
which is the accidental destruction of the bow while removing
the tip plate, which is a risky procedure.
With regard to pianos, ivory was used as a veneer about one
millimeter in thickness covering keys until better plastic
technology developed in the 1930s and 1940s. For example,
Steinway & Sons, a leading American piano manufacturer, stopped
using ivory on its keys in the mid-1950s.
Many high-end European piano makers continued using ivory
until 1989, including Boesendorfer, whose instruments are found
in many concert halls. These fine pianos can be worth well more
than $100,000 and are vital tools for concert artists and also
the venues that hold them.
Ivory was rarely used as a decorative material on pianos,
but came into use as a superior material for key tops in the
18th and 19th centuries due to its easy workability and
resistance to wear. While ivory may be preferred by some
pianists because it absorbs perspiration and minimizes
sticking, it is also more susceptible to chipping and cracking,
requiring repair.
Finally, ivory was used in some woodwind instruments, such
as clarinets, oboes and bassoons, but, again, in small amounts.
To recap, musical instruments never used large amounts of
ivory and whatever ivory use there was was abandoned long ago
for a variety of reasons. The Fish and Wildlife Service's
proposed ban on further importation and domestic sale of ivory
would have a profound and adverse impact on many. For example,
the ability of the National Music Museum to add to its
collections would be severely impaired. Like most museums, we
rely on donations and purchases to enhance our collection.
While I am not a tax expert, it would seem to me that if
ivory cannot be sold, instruments containing ivory would be
deemed to have no value and, therefore, no deduction for their
donation might be available.
If sales are banned, we could no longer go into the
commercial marketplace to purchase exceptional instruments with
this material. Additionally, if the ban devalues objects made
with ivory, it affects our ability to obtain insurance which is
necessary for the transportation and loan of museum objects. I
would respectfully request that the subcommittee urge Fish and
Wildlife to create an exemption.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sheets follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arian Sheets, Curator of Stringed Instruments,
National Music Museum
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Arian Sheets
and I am Curator of Stringed Instruments at the National Music Museum
in Vermillion, South Dakota. Thank you for your invitation to appear
here today to discuss how the Fish and Wildlife Service's proposed ban
on ivory sales would adversely impact musical instruments, musicians
and the museum community.
By way of background, the National Music Museum was founded on the
campus of the University of South Dakota on July 1, 1973. Our
collection of more than 15,000 American, European and non-Western
instruments are the most inclusive in the world. The collection
includes many of the earliest, best preserved and historically most
important musical instruments known to survive. About one-third of the
instruments in our collection are American-made and many--both from
this country and abroad--are what can be called ``vintage''
instruments, that is, less than 100 years old.
I will focus my remarks today on how ivory was used in musical
instruments after the early years of the 20th century and how the
proposed ban would adversely affect these cultural icons.
In the area of stringed instruments with which I am most familiar,
for example, C.F. Martin & Co. (Nazareth, PA) used small amounts of
ivory in almost all of its guitars starting with the company's founding
in 1833. By 1918, Martin had stopped using ivory for bindings, bridges,
bridge pins and friction pin tuners. Martin continued to use ivory for
saddles and nuts until approximately 1970, well before elephant ivory
was essentially banned. Martin guitars containing ivory range from
relatively low-level instruments which may sell today for $1,500,
according to retail sources, to highly desirable models which can bring
as much as $350,000. The ivory saddles and nuts weigh only a few grams
each and account for less than 2 percent by weight of the entire
instrument, yet that is enough to make the entire instrument illegal
for commercial sale under the FWS proposal. Most other U.S.
manufacturers did not use ivory to the same extent.
These instruments, like those from other manufacturers or artisan
luthiers, are sought after because of their tonal quality and
craftsmanship, and not because they contain ivory.
Ivory was also used in very small amounts in the crafting of violin
bows, though usage had generally stopped by the early 1980s, replaced
with mammoth ivory and synthetic material. An ivory bow tip generally
required about 1 gram of unfinished ivory.
Bow makers designed the head of the bow around the physical
properties of the ivory tip, which gives the delicate bow head
protection, strength and proper balance. Even though ivory use stopped
more than 30 years ago, many musicians, including famous artists, still
perform with these old, but not antique, bows. Replacing tips with non-
ivory material, while possible, is frought with dangers, not the least
of which is the accidental destruction of the bow while removing the
tip plate, which is a risky procedure.
With regard to pianos, ivory was used as a veneer (about 1
millimeter in thickness) covering keys, generally until better plastic
technology developed in the 1930s and 1940s. For example, Steinway &
Sons, a leading American piano manufacturer, stopped using ivory on its
keys in the mid-1950s. Tracking instrument age and ivory use by other
U.S. manufacturers is extremely difficult, since almost all of the
dozens of manufacturers which once operated in this country ceased
production long ago; only a small handful of U.S. piano producers
remain. Many high-end European piano makers continued using ivory until
1989, including Boosendorfer, whose instruments are found in many
concert halls. These fine instruments can be worth well more than
$100,000 and are vital tools for concert artists and venues.
Ivory was rarely used as a decorative material on pianos, but came
into use as a superior material for key tops in the 18th and 19th
centuries, due to its easy workability and resistance to wear. While
ivory may be preferred by some pianists because it absorbs perspiration
and minimizes key ``sticking,'' it also is more susceptible to chipping
or cracking, especially at the ends, and is prone to discoloration over
time, sometimes requiring repair.
But the ``bottom line'' is that, like other instruments, ivory has
not been used in piano manufacture for decades.
Finally, ivory was at one time used in some woodwind instruments,
such as clarinets, oboes and bassoons, but again in small amounts as
turned rings and section dividers. Woodwind manufacturers have not used
ivory in many decades.
To recap, musical instruments never used large amounts of ivory and
whatever ivory use there was long ago abandoned for a variety of
reasons. While only about 5 percent of the National Music Museum's
collection contains ivory, many thousands of guitars, violin bows,
pianos and woodwinds which do contain ivory are still in use today by
amateurs and professional musicians, and are owned and acquired legally
in the past by many American families. Higher-value historical
instruments, including those desirable for exhibition, use, and
preservation, are more likely than average to contain ivory by virtue
of its excellence as a working material.
The Fish and Wildlife Service's proposed ban on further importation
and domestic sale of ivory would have a profound and adverse impact on
many. In most cases, current owners of objects containing ivory lack
documentation of the import of the ivory into the United States, which
could act to effectively ban the sale of even antique objects which
have been in this country legally for decades or centuries.
For example, the ability of the National Music Museum to add to its
collection would be severely impaired. Like most museums, we rely on
donations and purchases to enhance our collection. While I am not a tax
expert, it would seem to me that if ivory cannot be sold, instruments
containing ivory may be deemed to have no value and therefore no
deduction for their donation might be available. And if sales are
banned, we could no longer go into the commercial marketplace to
purchase exceptional historical instruments with this material.
Additionally, if the ban devalues objects made with ivory, it affects
our ability to obtain insurance, which is necessary for the
transportation and loan of museum objects.
Individual musicians, whether amateur or professional, could not
purchase replacement instruments containing ivory, nor would they be
able to sell instruments that are no longer needed. These instruments
are essential ``tools of the trade'' for both full-time and part-time
musicians. Because instruments are hand-crafted and uniquely matched to
the performance needs of musicians, they represent substantial personal
investments that are critical to performance success. Musicians
generally do not purchase instruments because of their ivory content;
the presence of ivory is generally only incidental to the overall
quality and playability of an individual instrument.
While on the subject of individual musicians, I would also note
that the abrupt imposition of a Fish and Wildlife Service order in mid-
February has caused confusion and concern among individual musicians
and organized groups such as orchestras. While museums may have in
place procedures to comply with the often-complex permitting
requirements required by FWS, many individuals and groups are in need
of a more transparent, simpler process for obtaining the necessary
permits to travel with their instruments and perform internationally.
Another area of particular concern to our museum is our ability to
transport historical objects containing ivory for national and
international exhibitions. While we understand the permitting process
for CITES-listed species, the new proposal may make it impossible to
loan many instruments to institutions outside of this country. It is
also not clear whether domestic loan would be possible. And at least
one major piano moving company had recently indicated it will not
accept ivory-containing instruments for transport, further hampering
loan possibilities.
Music is an essential element of our cultural heritage and
individual instruments can be played for decades, or even hundreds of
years. Banning the sale of certain high-quality vintage musical
instruments will, in my view, impair the future of music in the culture
of the United States.
I would respectfully request that this subcommittee urge the Fish
and Wildlife Service to create an exemption from any sales ban for
musical instruments or products containing only a small amount of
ivory.
Thank you again for the invitation to appear here today. I would be
happy to answer any questions.
______
Dr. Fleming. Ms. Sheets, your written testimony will be in
full in the record. So we appreciate it.
Ms. Sheets. OK.
Dr. Fleming. I want to make sure that we get a chance for
questions here.
Next Mr. Quinn.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW QUINN, QUINN'S AUCTION GALLERIES
Mr. Quinn. ``The United States shall seek to reduce the
demand for illegally traded wildlife both at home and abroad
while allowing legal and legitimate commerce involving
wildlife.'' That is what the President said in the executive
order Mr. Hayes referenced.
So Chairman Fleming and Ranking Member Lowenthal, I thank
you and the other committee members. I thank you for having me
today.
My name is Matthew Quinn. I am with Quinn's Auction
Galleries in Falls Church, Virginia. We are about 6 miles from
here, and we routinely offer products that contain ivory or are
made of ivory for members of the community as they are dealing
with the loss of a loved one or throughout that process.
I am here today to help explain the impact of where this
would go. I started with that quote because I knew that when
the President's team that drafted that, they did it with
intent. It was carefully crafted, and the funny thing is I have
yet to see the words ``while allowing legal and legitimate
commerce involving wildlife'' to show up in any document put
out by the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Advisory Task Force,
the Council or anywhere. I have looked, I have looked, and I
have looked, and even in Mr. Hayes' testimony a minute ago I
did not hear the words ``allowing legal and legitimate
commerce.'' I think we have moved a bit too fast.
My job as I work with people across the country and
primarily in this area is to help maximize value. On the 25th
of February when the Director's Order 210 was issued, that job
became extremely difficult.
I want to start and talk a little bit about a couple of
stories that can maybe best represent where this would happen.
My first one is a woman by the name of Helen Mang. Her and her
husband traveled the country, traveled the world, and they
collected an object called netsuke. You can see it on the image
here. This is one example.
They had 1,100 pieces that they had collected over a 50-
year period. I do not know when they bought their last one
exactly, but they were buying in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s. When
she died I think 2 years ago in January, she was a few months
shy of her 100th birthday.
We offered this for sale one day. She had initially
approached us to begin to sell that because she was running out
of money to pay for her health care. She had managed numerous
assets, and when it came down to it, this was her last piece
that she had brought to the table, and we began to offer that
for her, and we did generate an awful lot of money.
Most of these pieces were exclusively 18th and 19th
century. The fact of the matter is we have been a collector
society in American since World War II, before World War II,
but certainly after World War II. People collected objects.
They collected Hummels, coins, stamps, you name it. I am sure
many of us have, and a lot of those objects included ivory.
Ivory was absolutely no exception.
One of the things that I have included in my testimony, and
I would encourage you to go and read it, is a document put
together by Lark Mason. Lark Mason is a New York auctioneer and
an associate of mine, a good friend, and he is very
knowledgeable in the industry. He has put together this
document that really details how many pieces are out there, and
it is in the hundreds of millions.
He states today that there are probably between five and
seven million pianos containing ivory out there in America
still, and if we do not go through the promotions and have
proper research analysis and oversight, if we move forward the
way things have been, millions of unknowing Americans will be
affected.
The next photo I am going to show you is actually a
document of the Mang's collection. If you look at this we see
items, numbers, dates. On the far right side we see when they
bought it. It has actually been cut off a little bit. It will
be included in your packet. It shows all of the information.
This is unbelievable documentation for a collector.
Yet it would not meet the criteria of what Fish and
Wildlife has proposed. It would be hard to find someone that
would have better.
Let us go on to the next one if we could. This is an ivory
portrait miniature. This is signed and dated in Philadelphia in
1795 by a member of the Peale family, some of the most noted
artists in America, that piece signed and dated. I do not know
when it came in. I do not know if it actually came in prior to
1795 when it was painted in Philadelphia. So those are things
we have to look at.
So let us go on to the next one here, which is a teapot.
This has two little, tiny white pieces on the right side. Those
pieces are ivory, and those should be noted. That 1861 teapot
from Baltimore under certain regulations would have been
illegal.
I will note that revised Director's Order 210 allows for
some of this, and we are working together to try to figure this
out, but we are not there yet, and I encourage your
involvement.
The next thing I want to point to is Mrs. Heather Foley
agreed to accompany me, and I have a physical teapot that I
will ask Marc to pass around if he can, if that is possible.
Thank you.
And you can actually see those objects, and you can take a
look at that from a point of reference. I have been working
with Heather and her husband Tom to sell their collections.
You see the pot in front of me? This one also has ivory in
it.
My last note I want to close with is the December 16
Advisory Council meeting. There is a statement that says,
``From a business perspective, the Council noted a total ban
would be the easiest administrative solution notwithstanding
the Fifth Amendment question.''
And I note the word ``easiest.'' I did not realize the
easiest was the appropriate way to manage public policy, and I
doubt that this Congress or Administration does either.
I know it is difficult to identify this stuff. I know it is
difficult to identify the age. There is a group of items that I
would encourage you to look at that we do not have time to pass
around. Look at those and see how difficult it is.
Thank you so much for having me, and I look forward to
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Quinn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew Quinn, Quinn's Auction Galleries, Falls
Church, Virginia
``. . . 1. (d) the United States shall seek to reduce the
demand for illegally traded wildlife, both at home and abroad,
while allowing legal and legitimate commerce involving
wildlife.''
--The President of the United States, Executive Order 13648, July 5,
2013
Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to address this
subcommittee today. My name is Matthew Quinn of Quinn's Auction
Galleries in Falls Church, Virginia. The second part of the statement I
just read above, which was carefully crafted by the White House, has
somehow gotten lost or ignored. What I am about to share with you today
hopefully will enlighten you on the harsh impact on the American people
of the Administration's proposed comprehensive ban on the sale of
ivory. The magnitude of the impact on the American people is far more
reaching than one might think, I am quite certain it will impact the
majority of all Americans and certainly most of us in this room.
While many throughout the antiques, art and auction trade share my
views in this testimony, I speak to you today representing only my
firm, Quinn's Auction Galleries, and my clients. Quinn's Auction
Galleries has served the greater Capital Area for nearly 20 years
assisting individuals dealing with the loss of a loved one or just the
need to sell items. Sometimes we work with families that desperately
need the money, and other times we simply help our customers sell items
that they can no longer use. We work diligently to make sure that we
can maximize the value to the seller. As so often happens, most of the
families we work with have some sort of ivory, or other product from an
Endangered Species Act regulated wildlife, in their home. I have worked
closely with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) agents to stay
within the law, and that task became extremely complicated on February
25, 2014, with the issuance of USFWS Directors Order 210.
I would like to share with you a couple of customer stories that
illustrate the devastating impact of these government actions that
carry unintended consequences.
A few years ago I had the genuine privilege to work with Mrs. Helen
Mang. She was 99 years old and sharp as a tack. I sat in her room at
the care facility she was living in and heard marvelous stories of her
and her husband's travels throughout the world collecting these little
Japanese carvings called Netsuke. She would talk about one; where she
got it, what she paid for it, and practically what direction the wind
was blowing when she described it. It was their passion, their
collection and their investment for the future. Helen and Jack were not
unlike many Americans who choose to diversify their financial portfolio
with collectible objects. Enclosed is a copy of the sale catalog for
her collection of over 1,100 pieces of Japanese carvings where more
than half were either made entirely of ivory or had some sort of ivory
in them. There came a time when she looked to sell her collection to
assist with some of the vast expenses of care in her nursing facility.
Sadly, she didn't live to see her collection sold, and this sale was a
great memoriam to her and Jack's life. If this outright ivory ban moves
forward as suggested by USFWS and the President's Advisory Council,
then the Mang's collection--which was predominantly 18th & 19th century
and completely legally acquired and held for decades--would be without
much value. Japanese Netsuke are tiny pieces of Japanese culture carved
out of one of the most precious materials they knew at the time. The
picture attached shows one such carving. Helen purchased this piece
from a Washington, DC dealer on October 1, 1953, for $55. It was made
in the 18th century in Japan in the Kyoto area as indicated by carving
and subject. When this one item was sold, you will see on the sample
page of this very meticulous collector spreadsheet that even all the
information that she has collected would not satisfy the ``antique
exemption'' standards that have been proposed by some of the Federal
rule changes.
Americans have collected Netsuke and other pieces containing ivory
for many decades. Following World War II, America was very much a
collector society, and it was popular to collect things like Hummel
figurines, collector's plates, coins, stamps and so many other items.
Items containing ivory were no exception, and it was completely legal
in 1945 . . . 50 . . . 60 and 1970! I have attached a document
assembled and written by Lark Mason, a prominent New York fine art and
antiques auctioneer, and submitted to the State of New York. His
document estimates that the nearly 4 million Americans stationed in
Japan during the middle of the 20th century brought back between 1.5
million and 2.5 million objects containing some measure of ivory. Mr.
Mason's document is impressive and worthy of a good read. He cites that
there are between 5 million and 7 million pianos alone with ivory keys
in the United States, and hundreds of millions of total objects
estimate in America today.
Without proper research, analysis, thorough review and oversight,
such quick administrative actions such as the proposals put forth by
USFWS will adversely impact millions of unknowing Americans, including
my customers.
To illustrate the matter more tangibly, I have included several
pictures of objects that most people do not realize have ivory in them,
and that they were made in America hundreds of years ago. The first is
a portrait miniature. It is about 3 inches tall and was painted in
Philadelphia in 1795, and is signed and dated. From the picture you can
see that the value of this object is indeed based on the artistry of
James Peale, one of the most important families in American art
history, and its painting on ivory would render it of no value if this
ban moves forward. Mr. Mason's document also estimates that as many as
3 million to 5 million portraits like this exist today. Virtually all
but some tourist copies were made over 100 years ago, and the copies
were done long before the Endangered Species Act was enacted.
The next picture that you see is a teapot made in 1861-1868 in
Baltimore, Maryland. It is also signed and dated, as all silver
products are. Upon close inspection, you will see two small white
pieces that are ivory. In this case they serve as insulators to keep
the heat from the hot coffee or tea from reaching the silver handle.
Teapots like this number in the hundreds of millions globally, and Lark
Mason's conservative estimates suggest that there are 10 million plus
tea sets left in the United States, despite the recent spike in the
price of silver that has led to millions being melted for their silver
content.
While we are on teapots, I have asked that Mrs. Heather Foley join
me today at the hearing. I have been working with Heather and her
husband Tom, while he was alive, to assist them in selling some
property. She graciously agreed to attend today, as she understands the
burden such a ban can have on the American people. Heather brought with
her a teapot that she and her mother bought over 40 years ago in Egypt.
It also has ivory insulators. I will pass it around for you to see more
closely. I will also reference as part of this testimony her letter to
the Advisory Council that I presented with my testimony for the record
at the Advisory Council's March 20th meeting in Arlington, Virginia.
In addition, I have brought with me a teapot that was made by Georg
Jenson in the Cosmos pattern. I will pass this one around as well. This
teapot is signed and dated with marks that date it from 1945-1977. I am
told from Georg Jensen that they discontinued using ivory in the late
60s; however, to this day they still use Mammoth tusks in their
production.
This leads me to my next point.
In the Advisory Council minutes from the December 16, 2013,
meeting, in a paragraph spanning pages 4-5, it states: ``From a
business perspective, the Council noted that a total ban would be the
easiest administrative solution, notwithstanding the 5th amendment
question.''
Easiest? I didn't realize that ``easiest'' was the appropriate way
to manage public policy, and I doubt the Congress or the Administration
does either. One of the reasons that the Advisory Council appointed by
the President said ``easiest'' is because of the immense difficulty in
determining what species of ivory might be used and how old it is. I
know from experience that it would be equally difficult for enforcement
officers to determine the differences between Marine Ivory, Carved
Antler, Bone, Vegetable ivory or even Bakelite and other plastics. I
will pass around a few samples that are labeled for your inspection. We
surely would not consider banning all of these substances in order to
take the ``easiest'' path.
The art and antiques trade routinely handle the variety of
substances that I describe above and are trained to tell the difference
with relative ease. We are accustomed to the various carving
techniques, quality, the subtleties of each substance, and the types of
materials that objects have been made with over the past centuries. We
are in fact here to, and happy to, help government regulators and
policymakers with these complex issues.
I strongly believe that no legitimate antique dealer, appraiser, or
auctioneer supports the elephant poachers, and we all realize that this
is in fact a global problem that needs to be addressed. However, I am,
on behalf of my trusted colleagues in the trade, asking that this
committee and the U.S. Congress halt this rulemaking process and
consider reasonable solutions so that any final policy's impact on the
American people can be fully considered. We must work harder to find a
solution to both protect the elephants and the American people, which
are not mutually exclusive. That is why I am here today and why I stand
ready to help and preserve ``. . . legal and legitimate commerce
involving wildlife.''
Thank you for your time and for your consideration of my business
and consumer viewpoint. I look forward to responding to any questions
you might have.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Quinn, for your testimony.
Next up an Air Force combat veteran, a hero from the
Bosnian conflict, Scott O'Grady.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT O'GRADY, RETIRED, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
Captain O'Grady. Thank you, Chairman Fleming and Ranking
Member Lowenthal and other members here today, for the
opportunity to testify before the subcommittee.
My name is Scott O'Grady. I am an Air Force veteran, and I
am a conservationist. I passionately believe that we all have a
unique responsibility to conserve wild places and wild species.
I am a member of many U.S. based conservation
organizations, including Safari Club International. SCI has
over 50,000 members worldwide, and through its affiliated
organizations, they represent an additional seven million
hunter conservationists.
I was asked to be here today because I have recently hunted
elephant in Zimbabwe. It was an amazing experience. From this I
have the first-hand experience to accurately describe what it
takes to manage wildlife sustainably in the rural and
economically depressed regions of Africa.
This year on April 4, the hunter conservationist community
was shocked by a decision of the Fish and Wildlife Service to
immediately ban all U.S. importation of sport hunted elephants
from Zimbabwe and Tanzania. This decision is devastating to the
wildlife management in Africa.
First I would like to state clearly that hunters are
conservationists. In the United States over 15 million American
hunters pay for the bulk of conservation funding. American
hunters play the same role in Africa.
Poaching, on the other hand, is an abhorrent activity that
everyone condemns. No one despises poaching more than the
hunter conservationist. Having now traveled to Africa to hunt
on five extended safaris, I can provide a unique perspective on
how anti-poaching is conducted in the vast wilderness of
Africa. African government agencies that are responsible for
wildlife management are financially dependent on hunters,
primarily U.S. hunters. In Zimbabwe, U.S. hunters represent
roughly 60 percent of their clients, and in Tanzania U.S.
hunters represent nearly 90 percent of clients.
With the money generated from sport hunters, the government
agencies are able to pay for anti-poaching patrols on millions
of acres that otherwise would be devoid of law enforcement
personnel. The private businesses and outfitters that manage
much of the wild lands of Zimbabwe and Tanzania employ scores
of anti-poaching patrols to privately supplement the government
personnel.
Safari hunting businesses in Tanzania manage roughly 30
percent of the entire country for wildlife. Lands in Southern
and East Africa have three main uses: first, subsistence
farming, which has very little economic value; second, herding
for cattle and goats, which generates about a dollar per
hectare; and then, third, wildlife hunting, which generates
around $7 to $10 per hectare.
Every time a U.S. hunter is dissuaded from traveling to
Africa to hunt by government regulations, the acres where they
would have hunted will likely be converted away from the
wilderness and into economic activities like farming and
pastoralism. Wildlife is the biggest loser in this equation,
and wildlife will be viewed as a pest when it has no value.
The Fish and Wildlife Service's ban imposed on U.S. hunters
is a poor policy decision in regards to wildlife conservation
in Africa. This ban has caused a significant breach of
confidence with the African communities who live and work with
their wildlife and with the U.S. hunters who help pay for the
management of that wildlife.
On May 8 I had the opportunity to address Fish and Wildlife
Service leadership about their decisionmaking process. I asked
what science they had justifying their decision, but the
response was an anemic, ``We have no scientific
justification.''
The Fish and Wildlife Service must immediately reconsider
their decision and allow importation of sport hunted elephants
from Zimbabwe and Tanzania. The ban on importation into the
U.S. de-funds wildlife management in their countries. Without
U.S. hunters in the field, there will be a vacuum in which only
poachers profit.
I would like to thank the committee for their time today on
this important issue. I hope to see an immediate reversal of
this policy because it is causing immediate damage to sound
wildlife conservation efforts in Africa today.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Grady follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott O'Grady, Air Force Veteran
Thank you Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and other
members of the Subcommittee for Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and
Insular Affairs, for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Scott O'Grady. I am an Air Force Veteran and I am a
conservationist. I passionately believe that we all have a unique
responsibility to conserve wild places and wild species. I am a member
of many U.S. based conservation organizations including Safari Club
International. SCI has a membership of over 50,000 worldwide
conservationists and through its affiliated organizations across North
America, Europe, and Africa they represent an additional 7 million
hunter-conservationists. The Safari Club International Foundation hosts
an annual conference in Southern and East Africa. This conference
brings together representatives of numerous African governments,
professional hunters, and community leaders to share best practices in
sustainable conservation. The responsibility to develop sustainable
wildlife management programs that protect wildlife habitat and ensure
financial stability for communities living with wildlife is a serious
task that requires serious consideration. As a conservationist I am
proud to see the U.S. Congress hosting this hearing today to discuss
vitally important issues of species conservation in Africa.
On February 25, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued
Director's Order 210. The Director's Order includes new staff
guidelines that will impact hundreds of thousands, if not millions of
unsuspecting U.S. citizens. Director's Order 210 prohibits the
importation of antique ivory, as defined by the Endangered Species Act,
for commercial purposes. Before Director's Order 210, Americans could
import items that contain ivory that were at least 100 years old for
commercial purposes. Under Director's Order 210, that is now illegal.
Many businesses will greatly suffer due to this change. Director's
Order 210 also seems to place a heavier burden on individuals that
already own antique ivory and want to sell it. Many Americans own
antique jewelry, pianos, musical equipment, firearms, knives, and
furniture that contain ivory. Under Directors Order 210, these U.S.
citizens can now be prosecuted for simply trying to sell a family
heirloom if they do not have sufficient documentation proving it is at
least 100 years old. Other than paying to have the item professionally
appraised, the Fish and Wildlife Service has not told the American
public what is sufficient to prove that their possessions meet the
antique exemption. Under Directors Order 210, these U.S. citizens can
now be prosecuted for simply trying to sell a family heirloom. The
policies of Director's Order 210 provide no benefit to anti-poaching
efforts in Africa.
On April 4, 2014 the hunter-conservationist community was shocked
by a decision of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to immediately ban
all U.S. importation of sport hunted elephants from Zimbabwe and
Tanzania. Neither the hunting community nor the wildlife management
authorities of Zimbabwe and Tanzania received any warning of the abrupt
importation ban.
For Zimbabwe, the FWS relied on a lack of information to impose the
ban, rather than concrete current information about the status of
elephants and anti-poaching efforts in the country. Shockingly, the FWS
did not even ask for this necessary information until after it shut
down elephant importation. What little information the FWS did examine
was outdated and inaccurate. And despite the fact that the FWS was well
aware that hunting revenues provide the sole source of funding for
Zimbabwe's wildlife management authority, the FWS nevertheless deprived
its sister agency of the resources necessary to conserve elephants and
fight poaching.
For Tanzania, the FWS's failure to communicate with Tanzania's
wildlife management authority before making the decision to impose the
ban violates a 2009 Memorandum of Understanding signed by
representatives of our government and the government of Tanzania. The
ban also fails to recognize Tanzania's efforts and successes in
battling against elephant poaching.
Instead of helping Zimbabwe and Tanzania fight illegal trafficking
and conserve their elephant populations, these bans undermine their
efforts, deprive them of the resources they need to protect their
elephant populations, and diminish the value of these animals to anyone
except poachers. The damage that our government has done with these
bans grows greater every day.
I was particularly shocked by this decision. I had recently
returned from a 3-week safari in Zimbabwe, and I can personally attest
that their elephant population is not only robust, but is exceeding the
land's carrying capacity. By eliminating hunters like myself from the
landscape of Zimbabwe and Tanzania, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
is doing a disservice to the communities and individuals who work with
wildlife in these countries. Without the consistent spending from
international hunters, the ability for communities to plan for their
future is in doubt. While on my hunt, I was joined by representatives
from the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Authority and by the Forestry
Commission. Their responsibility was to make sure that my hunt, just
like every other hunt, followed the letter of the law appropriately.
These agency representatives were also there to oversee that anti-
poaching efforts were in place. I personally witnessed anti-poaching
units in the field patrolling the areas where I was on safari. Without
the funding from hunting safaris the anti-poaching patrols would not
exist and the result would be rampant poaching. The Zimbabwe Parks and
Wildlife Authority and the Forestry Commission rely upon funding each
year from safaris to pay for anti-poaching resources. One year without
this funding would shut down their operations. The results will be
catastrophic to the protection of the elephants, other wildlife, the
ecosystem and the economic impact to the local communities if the U.S.
FWS continues down its current path.
My safaris were the fulfillment of a life-long dream. I used my
savings to pay for the safaris knowing the importance of my finances
contributing to the conservation of the local wildlife and economy. The
cost of my two safaris for a total of 30 days was US$75,000. Of this,
$27,000 was for government elephant fees, $4,500 for Concession fees,
$2,000 for Taxes, $300 for other tags and permits, plus $5,000 for
gratuities and other costs for travel. My direct financial contribution
ensures that wildlife in Zimbabwe has more value than just meat on the
table, or worse--elephants seen as a pest species.
This year my projected income is less than what I spent on the
safaris. But I know the money I spent maintains elephant conservation
efforts in Zimbabwe and it was absolutely worth the cost. My personal
contribution continues to add value to the overall elephant population
in Zimbabwe so that Zimbabwe's agencies and local communities can
sustain their anti-poaching efforts.
The FWS ban is causing elephants to have less and less financial
value. Safari operations will cease to exist and the anti-poaching
resources provided by those companies, paid for by U.S. hunters, will
also cease. The result will be an open season for poachers, who
unlawfully and indiscriminately kill anything for food and money.
The American hunter is not the problem. Instead the American hunter
is a part of the solution to protecting and preserving African elephant
populations. The FWS ban was instituted without the good faith of
working with their colleagues in Africa. It was made without
consideration for the real impacts on the communities throughout these
two countries who will be forced to convert land away from wildlife to
less economically viable uses. It was made with the deliberate act of
keeping American hunters, the primary financial institution for anti-
poaching in the dark. This ban is focused on eliminating the greatest
resource for elephant conservation efforts, which is the American
hunter. The ban should be immediately lifted and current scientific
wildlife data should be reviewed for proper ecosystem management.
I would like to thank all the committee members for your attendance
today and for your willingness to understand a very complicated
situation in remote areas of Africa. In the United States over 15
million American hunters and 30 million American target shooters pay
for the bulk of conservation funding from which all U.S. citizens enjoy
an improved outdoors. American hunters play this same role in Africa. I
implore you to reverse this ban immediately, rely upon sound scientific
wildlife management and the role of American hunters to wildlife
conservation and anti-poaching efforts in Africa.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. O'Grady.
We are now at the question and answer period. I now
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Ms. Sheets, could you describe for us the impact of the
Director's order, Fish and Wildlife Service's plan on your
museum? What impact is this going to have?
Ms. Sheets. Well, the immediate impact is, of course, that
we will no longer be able to commercially acquire instruments
containing ivory particularly from overseas. Constantly
historic instruments are coming up to auction.
In the past we have raised money to purchase instruments.
That would be impacted. There is also the lack of clarity on
commercial value if the sale of these objects is forbidden.
Most of our acquisitions at this point are through
donation, and our donors receive a tax deduction for that. So
that would be impinged.
Also we have to acquire commercial insurance in order to
loan objects. If there is no commercial value, we are not able
to acquire that insurance potentially, and that impacts
especially our overseas loans. We have the potential to loan
objects containing ivory for educational purposes overseas.
That would be endangered.
So certainly not just ivory possession, but possession of
other very historical, very valuable things would be devastated
and would in some cases yield something very valuable to having
almost no value.
Ms. Sheets. That is true, and these objects are part of our
history. We wish we could go back in time and change the fact
that they killed elephants to make them, but we cannot.
Dr. Fleming. Well, if 100 years ago they knew that this
rule was going to come out, maybe they would have created some
sort of certification or documentation, but obviously that was
not foreseeable.
Mr. Quinn, do you support a de minimis requirement in the
regulations?
Mr. Quinn. I think a de minimis requirement is part of what
needs to happen, and that ultimately has to be maybe more
narrowly defined. Is it a percentage? Is it an amount? I think
we have to work to figure that out.
As we look at objects like the teapot I brought and Mrs.
Foley's teapot, you know, those objects--this one has a date
mark from 1945 to 1977. Mrs. Foley, she acquired with her
mother in Egypt 45 years ago. So those are not antiques.
So how do we begin to look at those and to make sure that
the assets of the American people are protected? I think a de
minimis is a key part of that when it comes to certain types of
objects. These are the ones that typically have more value, and
I think we need to look at that.
It has to be done in conjunction with an antique exemption.
I do not think it can be done alone.
Dr. Fleming. Right. And Captain O'Grady, you seem to have a
lot of passion about hunting and sportsmanship and so forth,
and you made a comment that I completely agree with, and that
is who would have more of an invested interest in conservation
than hunters themselves; the same for fishermen. I would love
to hear your comment on that.
Captain O'Grady. Yes, sir. That is why this issue of a ban
on the importation only applying to U.S. hunters is so dear to
my heart, because it is going to have the reverse effect. It is
going to actually be the cause if it is kept in place for the
decimation of the African elephant because it is going to take
the greatest conservationists for the African elephant out of
the equation, and that is the American hunter who is the front
line defense, boots on the ground, stopping the poaching.
One of the greatest things that I was able to experience
while I was in Zimbabwe in March this year in four national
forests on African safari for elephant was to see that my
funding was going to anti-poaching, with anti-poaching patrols
in the field day and night camped out, protecting the area
where I was on safari. To know that I was a part of that
conservation effort was very enriching.
Dr. Fleming. So by stopping legal hunting and legal
importation, then what is in effect happening is that the
actually opposite effect of that desired, which is to lose
elephants.
Now, finally a quick question for Mr. Hayes. Since you were
a political appointee with the Obama administration and worked
with Secretary Jewell, why do you believe that no
representatives from an ivory producing country or state or
territory, a professional hunting association, an auction
house, a music company, museum director, a sport hunting
organization, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, is on the
Advisory Committee or Advisory Council, are not on that? All of
these different interest groups it would appear should be and
yet they are not.
Mr. Hayes. Mr. Chairman, I had left the Department in early
July, and the decisions about who should be appointed to the
Advisory Council were made in September. I had no involvement
in those decisions.
Dr. Fleming. If you were there, would you have suggested
that they should?
Mr. Hayes. I think the effort, as explained in the
executive order was to get experts involved on the council, and
for example, the Deputy Council of eBay, which previously was a
major seller of ivory, is on the Council.
Dr. Fleming. I am running out of time.
Mr. Hayes. Sure.
Dr. Fleming. But I listed those organizations. Would you
agree or not agree they should be on there?
Mr. Hayes. I do not think you can put everybody on an
Advisory Council. I think the key thing is for the Advisory----
Dr. Fleming. How about just one of those? Would you have
agreed with just one of them?
Mr. Hayes. It depends on who it is, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. OK. My time is up.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have listened to this wide range first in the panel and
in the first panel and discussions among members, and I am
trying to come to grips with why we are here and what have I
learned and what are the critical issues and what do we agree
upon and what do we not agree upon and what should we be
working on.
It seems to me that what we all have in agreement and the
core fundamental issue is that we are here to talk about the
sustainability of the population of elephants, especially
African elephants. We are engaged or what is happening is that
we must engage in certain things to ensure the sustainability
because without it the elephant will become extinct or
potentially could become extinct. That is the first thing.
Second is that poaching has changed; that what we have
talked about in the past about poaching, now poaching has
become an operation of organized criminal element and not
individuals, although there is probably some of that, too, and
terrorist organizations of such a magnitude that they engage
with helicopters, high tech equipment, that the very nature of
poaching has changed.
The third issue is that there is a national strategy that
the President and the Administration is trying to put forward
that builds upon already existing legislation that has already
been out there, and the question is, and there are a lot of
things that we agree upon and do not, and I want to find out
what those critical issues are.
One is that hopefully I want to find out whether we all
agree upon that prohibiting the commercial import of African
elephant ivory is in our Nation's and in the elephant's best
interest, the sustainability part of this strategy. Is that
true or not?
Second is, are we going to prohibit the commercial export
of elephant ivory. That is a critical issue. Are we going to
restrict domestic resale of elephant ivory, except under
certain kinds of conditions, and that is bona fide antiques,
and that raises another question of what is an antique. How do
you identify anything as an antique? Is it truly an antique?
Whose responsibility is that?
That is what we should be discussing and those are critical
issues, but the issue is unless it's an antique, we have to
come to agreement we are not going to allow the commercial sale
of, and domestic.
Another one is sports hunting. It does not seem to me the
issue is really whether sports hunting is good or bad. We know
sports hunting is a practice that is going on and, you know,
whatever it is we are going to maintain it. The question is
should we put limits on the amount of sports trophies that come
back, and we are proposing two. Is that a fair limit?
And the other one is why is there not a ban. Why is there a
1-year suspension of sports hunting elephants to come into the
country from Tanzania and Zimbabwe? It is only 1 year, through
the year 2014, and it is because the Fish and Wildlife Service
has suspended it for 1 year because they say there are
questionable management practices and a lack of law enforcement
there and weak governance.
The question is: as we move forward into 2015, can that be
corrected? That is the issue. And will those two countries have
the same restrictions that everyone else has? And the question
before us is: are those reasonable kinds of things? Should we
be saying two per year of sports hunting trophies that can come
into the country?
And how do we decrease the demand for ivory products in
this? And how do we go after those in a meaningful way who have
been criminals? Should we increase the penalties for this?
Those I think are the critical issues. I do not think
spending all the time on whether something is an antique or not
here or getting on is really the critical issue or pro- or
anti-sports hunting. That is not the issue.
The issue is are these reasonable kinds of standards that
will help to sustain the population. That is what it is all
about. So to me those are the things I think this committee
needs to deal with, and I thank everyone for bringing us this
information.
I don't have any specific questions more. I have been
educated. I do not think we have come to consensus. I do not
think we are too far apart. I think there are certain small
issues on--and I know others will say they are not small in
terms of we are hurting the sports hunter--I do not think that
is the issue. The issue really is, is this a legitimate number,
the number two. That is what is being proposed, and then in the
future should this 1-year suspension be lifted.
And the same thing is how do you demonstrate something is
an antique.
And with that I thank the Chair for holding this committee
hearing and for educating me.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the Acting Ranking Member. Thank you
for your comments.
Mr. Young is recognized.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the panel.
You know my frustration. You have been in the audience with
the Fish and Wildlife. Like I said, they have been sort of like
the guy that grows pot. He has been using his own product. This
does not make sense.
But Congressman Fields, thanks for your testimony. I was
one of the co-sponsors with you of the 1988 Act. Did you ever
envision that this law would be used to destroy the economic
value of millions of items legally acquired by Americans over
the years?
Mr. Fields. Absolutely not.
Mr. Young. It was never the intent, was it?
Mr. Fields. Never discussed.
Mr. Young. OK. What was the purpose of the Act in your
memory for the sport hunted trophy exemption?
Mr. Fields. Well, this was, as I mentioned a moment ago,
collaborative. We worked both sides of the aisle. We worked
with all stakeholders, and we all determined that sport hunting
was biologically neutral and that the insignificant take had no
effect on the sustainability of the elephant population.
Mr. Young. OK. What would be the impact upon programs like
CAMPFIRE, which is very vital?
Mr. Fields. Well, and it decimates it. If I could, let me
respond just in a way to Mr. Lowenthal because I think your
questions were very well framed, and I would like to have an
opportunity to talk with you more.
Mr. Young. Do not use too much of my time with Mr.
Lowenthal.
Mr. Fields. Just one quick example.
Mr. Young. OK.
Mr. Fields. Because the question was: can 1 year really
make a difference? One year can make a dramatic difference, and
let me talk about Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe. I am very
familiar with that area.
There are about $525,000 a year generated through sport
hunting the African elephant. Eighty-five percent of that goes
into the local community. That is a gigantic sum of money for
that one area for 1 year.
And if we are not careful, what the Fish and Wildlife
Service has proposed converts the elephant from having economic
value to being something that was referred to a moment ago as a
protein source, that has a value in addition to the tusk.
Mr. Young. OK. I just hope somebody else heard that.
Mr. Fields, Congressman, do you find it curious that the
Administration did not request an increase in the funding of
Fiscal Year 2015 for the African Elephant Conservation Fund?
After all, this fund has been the only contiguous source of
money sent to Africa by ivory producing countries to stop
poaching.
Mr. Fields. Well, in the past 26 years, 467 projects have
been funded to the tune of about $31 million. So the answer is,
yes, I am surprised.
Mr. Young. Well, again, it shows the hypocrisy of this
whole situation. We have a Fish and Game department that is,
again, like smoking wacky weed, you know, and they are coming
out saying this is going to stop the elephant decline, and yet
they did not request any money to stop really the poaching.
You hit it right on the head. Follow the money, the
poaching, not from this country. I think it is going to be very
harmful.
And, Mr. Fields, we all want to save the African elephant.
Like I say, I have been sponsoring that bill and there have
been others, and I am all for it, and to help to eliminate
poaching would be an excellent start. Nevertheless, please tell
me how you think destroying the value of an ivory chess set
which is 75 years old would save an elephant in Africa.
Mr. Fields. Well, it would not, and as I suggested a moment
ago, to me that is collateral. I think what has been discussed
about the poacher, what has been discussed about the countries
that allow poached ivory to enter their borders, those are the
two enemies. I mean that, if you are really sincere about
preserving the elephant, preserving a sustainability in the
herd is to go after the poacher and to go after the countries
that allow the poached ivory to come in.
Go after the market side. Follow the money.
Mr. Young. Yes, and it goes back to a de minimis type of
ivory and that teapot. I sit here and I think, ``What are they
thinking?'' Mr. Ash says, ``Oh, no, that is now illegal,'' that
little teapot, the one you've got that little piece of ivory
in.
I just cannot imagine what they are thinking because this
is not going to help. I go back to my original statement. I
have a pistol with an ivory handle on it, if you want to call
it, and it is old. I do not know where in the hell the ivory
came from. I cannot document it, and the value of the weapon is
the age of the weapon plus the ivory grips, and if I lose the
ivory grips, the pistol will lose all of the value.
That is a taking. That is against the Constitution as far
as I am concerned. We can argue all they want. This is a
classic example of an agency, again, that does not know what
they are doing trying to appease a few people that do not know
what they are doing, and I suggest respectfully, Mr. Chairman,
let us listen to those countries that are directly involved.
They are trying to evolve and save the animals through good
conservation, not some bunch of interest groups that have this
guise of ``I want to save the elephants.''
I thank the panel, too. I was listening to the lady with
the museum. We will talk about that later because it does
decrease the value. You will have a hard time maintaining your
museum.
Thank you.
Dr. Fleming. Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had to go to my office, but I was listening as I was also
meeting with people. It was a little weird, but they forgave
me. At least they got half of my brain.
And I observed that both Mr. Hayes and Representative
Fields were on a fairly common theme in terms of actions that
we could take nationally, internationally that follow the money
and sanction those countries where we are seeing this flow.
Maybe first Mr. Hayes and then Representative Fields. I
mean, as I see it, we could currently use Pelly; is that not
correct?
Mr. Hayes. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. DeFazio. Has there been any discussion by this
commission or group, Your Honor, about recommending that?
Mr. Fields. The Advisory Council just had a public meeting
on June 9 and recommended that if necessary, the Administration
should look at using the Pelly Amendment to bring sanctions
against countries that are not honoring the CITES import-export
restrictions that were set in place now more than 20 years ago.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. But when do we reach the ``if necessary''
point?
Mr. Hayes. Well, there is an important meeting that CITES
is having this summer in which eight countries that have been
singled out as having particularly poor exporters and domestic
markets for ivory that appear to be clearly in violation of
CITES, including China, Vietnam and others. There will be
discussion about the action plans they have put on the table.
And so we think it is appropriate for the----
Mr. DeFazio. And Pelly can go beyond just a like sanction.
It can go to other imports or imports from those countries.
Mr. Hayes. Yes.
Mr. DeFazio. So if we just threaten a whole bunch of junk
coming from China or all of the televisions that we are getting
from them since we do not make them anymore, it might get their
attention.
Mr. Hayes. Yes. I think it actually has to have a
connection with wildlife, but in the past the connection has
been----
Mr. DeFazio. Yes.
Mr. Hayes. But I defer to you on that, Congressman.
Mr. DeFazio. We have to investigate that, and I am trying
to clearly authorize that.
Representative Fields?
Mr. Fields. Mr. DeFazio, I think you are absolutely
correct. You were out of the room when I spoke relative to your
statements earlier and also what Chairman Fleming said. The two
of you have an unbelievable bully pulpit, and I just know from
our experience in 1988 and 1989 when we asked the Chinese
Ambassador to come and meet with us and then we had follow-up
subsequent meetings, I do not think anything is going to happen
with one meeting, and I do not think necessarily two meetings.
I think you have to look at everything that is available to you
in terms of options that you can exercise, whether they are
sanctions, whether they are pieces of legislation.
Most countries cannot stand in that glare, in that
spotlight, and I have every confidence in you and Chairman
Fleming being able to make a real difference.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. And Vietnam, I know we have already
done a letter on the rhino, but they are also on this list, are
they not? Yes, and they are desperately trying to be part of
the trans-Pacific partnership. I think we could also direct a
congressional letter to our Special Trade Representative Froman
to say, ``Well, if they keep this up, you should not even
consider them,'' you know, some things that might get their
attention.
There was something else mentioned while I was out that
related back to the teapot and some other things, and I do not
know whether or not we do not have Fish and Wildlife up here,
but your familiarity Mr. Hayes and with the group you are
serving on, this discussion of a de minimis exemption, it just
seems to me that would narrow the universe so much, and I am
trying to think of an analogy.
And it is really hard to come up with an analogy, but I was
thinking about one thing. It is like we have a problem in this
country with legal drugs being used illegally. We are not
banning the legal drugs. We have tried to put a higher level of
restrictions on how they are dispensed and how they are
prescribed, but they are still pretty readily available. We
have not gone to the point of, you know, where we seem to be
going.
Would some sort of de minimis exemption, I mean, if you
could take one of those things I picked up as heavy as it is,
which is part of a tusk and you are talking about small pieces
of ivory, it would be like 10,000 rings or whatever, you know?
Mr. Hayes. From my perspective, Congressman, I think that
we have to have a common sense approach to what I believe, as
Congressman Fields said, are ancillary issues, and I hope that
the Fish and Wildlife Service will come forward in their
rulemaking where they are going to better define what kind of
expectations there are for burden of proof, for example, et
cetera; that there are common sense approaches that allow for
the continued trading of pre-ban imported materials and the
continued trading of antiques, the bona fide antiques.
The law allows both types of trade to continue.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. OK. Well, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. We are going to have a vote soon, but I think
we can still squeeze both in. So Mr. McAllister, you are
recognized.
Mr. McAllister. Thank you, Chairman.
Well, first let me just say I think we are all in agreement
that the number one goal is to protect the sustainability of
the African elephant, and, Congressman Fields, I just have a
few questions directly for you because I definitely like the
way that you take on the subject, cut through all of the B.S.,
and let us fix the problem and then the rest will be collateral
and it will fix itself.
So the first question I have for you is: in your opinion
will banning the domestic sale and trade of legally owned pre-
ban ivory help end the poaching and illicit trade?
Mr. Fields. No.
Mr. McAllister. What steps do you think the United States
should take to help those foreign nations to combat poaching?
Mr. Fields. Well, the African Elephant Protection Act has a
mechanism to fund, you know, programs and projects, which I
mentioned a moment ago, 26 years, 467 projects, $31 million,
but again, to me money is not going to solve it, and when you
think about the poacher, how do we get to those poachers?
Unless we have boots on the ground, we are not going to get
to the poacher. We really have to go to the market side and,
again, the bully pulpit that you guys have, the options that
are available to you, and I think it is not a one-shot affair.
I think you have to be consistent and dogged, but you put the
spotlight on the country with the bad actors or the countries
that are the bad actors.
And also I might say I would not be surprised if there is
not state-sponsored in some form or effect, and I have no
personal knowledge, of the poaching.
Mr. McAllister. I guess would that be the same as the steps
we should take to help end the international illicit trade of
the ivory, too?
Mr. Fields. Excuse me?
Mr. McAllister. I said I guess you would answer the same
way for the steps that we should take to end the international
illicit trade in ivory as well as the poaching, the same?
Mr. Fields. I think, again, it sounds too simple, but you
have to follow the money and go to where the money is, and
again, whether it is a sanction or a piece of legislation or
global condemnation, something has to be done to get the
attention of the people who are the bad actors, the national
bad actors.
Mr. McAllister. And as a retired Member of Congress
concerned about poaching in Africa, is this an effective use of
the taxpayer dollars in your opinion?
Mr. Fields. Are you talking about the Fish and Wildlife
proposal? I personally do not think it is going to work, and I
think in countries like Zimbabwe and Tanzania, it, first of
all, is a slap in the face of these countries that they were
not consulted.
It takes the money out of the local community, which the
elephant is no longer protected by the community, but becomes a
meat source, and it has a commodity, the ivory. You know, it
takes away the money that supports jobs in these very poor
areas. It makes no sense whatsoever, and again, in terms of the
antique ivory, to me that is collateral. It does nothing to
preserve the current African elephant population.
Mr. McAllister. Well, I appreciate all of you all coming. I
would just like to say to you, Congressman Fields, and to you,
Mr. O'Grady, thank you for your service in government and for
the military and any others that may have served. I appreciate
you taking your time today to come and visit with us.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Shea-Porter.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you.
After listening to this back-and-forth for more than an
hour, I am still wondering exactly why each person is holding
the position without bending at all. For example, I do not
really understand, Congressman Fields. You said just go after
the poacher; follow the money; go after the poacher. But
haven't we been doing that?
I mean, you started that and thank you for the legislation.
Mr. Fields. And also Tony Beilenson.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Yes, but since then we have come to face
much larger challenges, and when we talk about all those who
are making money and using it for terrorist operations or
whatever they are doing with that, and a real stronger criminal
element, why do you think we can (a) follow the poacher--
apparently we cannot or we have not been able to--and what
exactly are you talking about in order to stop this?
I am pretty certain that these governments do not want this
either, this illegal poaching. So you said, well, highlight and
try to embarrass the country. But haven't we already tried
that?
Mr. Fields. Well, it worked. When we did this, the price of
ivory went from $100 a pound down to virtually nothing, and I
am going to have to give you my best guess because I am not
really current and privy to security information, but I think
perhaps we have not had our eye on the ball. We have not been
as focused.
I think you alluded, as did Mr. Lowenthal and others, that
the poaching element is much more organized today, much better
funded, which to me--and, again, I have on personal knowledge--
but it makes me wonder if some of the poaching is not state-
sponsored.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Exactly.
Mr. Fields. And I think when you look at where the ivory is
going, obviously there is someone there making money. Somehow
that is intrinsic in that particular society, and I know from
our experience that until we actually got very specific with a
country, China, and said to them, ``You have a problem,'' and
we were told there was no problem and we came back and
introduced legislation, put the spotlight on, had the hearing,
that is when----
Ms. Shea-Porter. But clearly this is not working anymore,
and the basic problem is that we do not have enough elephants,
that the elephants are dying, and so I listen to the hunters. I
listen to the concerns about the economy and thinking there
does not seem to be much room for compromise there, and then I
also would like to talk to Mr. Hayes about this because you
mentioned the number of elephants that died just in the past
couple of years, and it is horrific.
What percent are killed illegally, number one?
And what would you suggest? And tell me more about the
panel and what the recommendations are because while what
worked very well then does not seem to be working now.
What would be different? Why do you believe that this would
work?
Mr. Hayes. First, Congresswoman, in answering your first
question, the estimates of 35,000 and then 20,000 over the last
2 years are elephants that are killed for their ivory illegally
by poachers.
There is a very effective representation of the relative
number of elephants that are dying of natural causes versus
poaching, and in much of Central Africa and East Africa you see
that the killings are far, far more than would be expected
through natural death.
In terms of what is the situation today, I agree 100
percent with Congressman Fields. The ban that took place in
1989, because of Congressman Fields' legislation, was
incredibly effective and the markets crashed and the value went
way down and poaching as a result went way, way down. And it
stayed down relatively speaking over the next 20 years or so.
It has really spiked in the last 5 years, and for a couple
of reasons. No one knows for sure why, but there are a couple
of obvious factors.
One is CITES made a mistake and put on the market some
national stocks of ivory and created an ambiguity about all of
a sudden now the ban that was really quite complete based on
the African Conservation Act became, well, now there is good
ivory. So it was cover, as Mr. Dreher explained, for the
illegal sale of ivory.
The other thing is the rise of a middle class in China and
Asia and the consumerism associated with that and those
combinations, and I think the U.S. and the world took their eye
off the ball as well.
Many of the recommendations are really along the lines of
demand reduction, just as Congressman Fields has said, and
follow the money and try to get the kingpins that are involved.
The good thing about the syndicates is that it is not
necessarily the small poacher that is in the village that is
causing the problem. It is the big time operators.
We know how to deal with that globally and efforts are
underway under the transnational organized crime initiative.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Can you deal with that and still protect
the right that we have heard from others talking about their
musical instruments, talking about their antique business?
Mr. Hayes. Certainly.
Ms. Shea-Porter. And talking about a certain amount of
hunting. Is there a balance there?
Mr. Hayes. Certainly. I mean, I agree 100 percent with
Congressman Fields that the antique ivory issue, the musician
issue, we should be able to work through these issues, and the
hunting issue, there is no question that in some countries the
hunting is tremendously helpful.
Right now in Tanzania, I do not know the situation in
Zimbabwe, but we know that in Tanzania the elephant populations
are declining precipitously.
Ms. Shea-Porter. OK. Thank you.
Dr. Fleming. OK. The gentlelady's time is up.
And we now have a vote, and we are out of time. Before
closing, I would again like to thank all of our witnesses for
the participation in this important hearing.
I also would like to have unanimous consent to include in
the hearing record the INTERPOL report by Dr. Samuel K. Wasser;
a statement by Sotheby's, testimony of Christie's; a statement
of Art and Antiques Trade Group; a statement by the Association
of Art Museum Directors; a statement of Art and Antiques Trade
Group; a statement by Ms. Linda Karst Stone of Kerrville,
Texas; an article by a Mr. Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute;
and an article that appeared in yesterday's Wall Street Journal
entitled ``Grandma's Cameo Becomes Yard Sale Contraband.''
And without objection, so ordered.
There is no question that each of us believes that the
illegal killing of elephants must stop. I remain hopeful that
the Fish and Wildlife Service will listen to reason and not
criminalize millions of Americans who legally own ivory.
In the final analysis, simply closing the U.S. market and
prohibiting the import-export, interstate and intra-state sale
of elephant ivory will not save elephants in the ivory
producing states. It might make us feel better, but traffickers
do not care whether their illegally obtained wildlife is sold
in Beijing, Hong Kong, Saigon or Washington, DC.
I also remain unconvinced that treating Grandma's ivory
broach, Uncle Bob's Steinway piano, or cousin John's vintage
Martin guitar with ivory pegs, all of which were legally
acquired many years ago, as contraband will do anything to save
or conserve wild elephants today.
I want to thank Members and staff for their contributions
to this hearing.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Prepared Statement of Raymond M. Hair, Jr., International President,
American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada
On behalf of the 80,000 members of the American Federation of
Musicians of the United States and Canada (AFM) and the International
Conference of Symphony and Opera Musicians (ICSOM), a Players'
Conference within the AFM representing over 4,000 musicians in over 51
major symphony and opera orchestras throughout the United States, I
want to thank Subcommittee Chairman John Fleming and Minority Committee
Member Alan Lowenthal for holding the June 24, 2014 oversight hearing
on the plan of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to implement
a ban on the commercial trade in elephant ivory. The ban has a laudable
goal: to shut down the illegal trade in ivory that fuels African
elephant poaching. The AFM supports conservation efforts and the fight
against illegal poaching and illicit trade in African elephant ivory.
However, the USFWS Director's Order 210--both as originally issued
on February 25, 2014 (the Order), and as modified on May 14, 2014 (the
Amended Order)--has had and will continue to have the most severe of
negative and unintended consequences on musicians, culture and the
music industry, without advancing the goals of the elephant ivory ban,
reducing illegal ivory trade or diminishing elephant poaching in Africa
because of its restrictions on musical instruments.
Although elephant ivory was once used in small amounts in the
manufacture of some musical instruments, this has not been the case for
decades. However, thousands of musicians now own musical instruments
that lawfully contain small amounts of elephant ivory. These musicians
did not buy their instruments for the de minimis amounts of ivory they
contain, but for their acoustic and handling properties unrelated to
ivory per se. The use and sale of these musical instruments does not
fuel the illegal ivory trade.
But the Amended Order nevertheless imposes severe restrictions on
musicians' ability to perform internationally with these instruments,
and will erode the instruments' economic value, causing great harm to
our musical culture as well as great economic harm to our Nation's
musical artists. Although the Amended Order sought to correct problems
created by the Order's restrictions on the ability of musicians to
travel with their instruments, it fails to provide a clear, practical
and reliable system for permitting such travel.
The AFM submits this written testimony for the record in order to
show, first, that musical instruments containing small amounts of ivory
simply should be exempted from the ivory ban, and second, that at a
minimum, the application of the Amended Order and any new rules
regarding musical instruments should be held in abeyance until clear,
reliable and non-burdensome means of compliance are worked through with
stakeholders.
the afm and its universe of stakeholders
The AFM is the largest labor organization in the world representing
professional musicians, and possibly the oldest, having been founded in
1896. The AFM represents musicians in such diverse workplaces as motion
picture and sound recording studios, live theaters, symphony, opera and
ballet orchestras, hotels, lounges, tours and every other sort of venue
large and small. The AFM has also represented the legislative and
policy interests of working musicians since at least 1907, when
operetta composer Victor Herbert was asked and appeared before Congress
in support of copyright reforms on behalf of composers and the AFM. The
AFM is firmly committed to raising industry standards and placing the
professional musician in the foreground of the cultural landscape and
relevant policy debates.
AFM members comprise the broadest imaginable universe of performing
musicians. We perform as jazz, classical, folk, country, rhythm and
blues, world music, Latin, Asian, salsa, samba, polka, hip-hop and rock
artists in over 200 affiliated locals throughout the United States and
Canada. We are found in the professional ranks of major and regional
symphonic, operatic and ballet orchestras, musical theater pits, major
motion picture sound studios, night clubs, city music festivals, and
traditional city-community concert and drum-and-bugle style bands. We
teach in schools, universities and private studios, thus training new
generations of artists.
Contrary to popular misconceptions, most musicians are neither rich
nor celebrities, nor is ours a life of effortless play. We have natural
talent, but only hard work and practice will hone our art. Full-time
jobs in music are rare. Most professional musicians struggle to earn a
decent living, and a successful musician is likely to be a person of
extraordinary musical gifts earning, at best, a modest, middle-class
livelihood.
For professional musicians, our musical instrument is a crucial
tool of the trade, and more--it is our voice. A musician chooses his or
her instrument with the utmost care for sound, playability and personal
suitability, and then practices and performs on it until the instrument
is an extension of the musician's artistic self. Musicians' instruments
may range in value from $1,000 to $10,000,000; for most musicians it is
a major investment, and its economic value is as crucial to the
musician's future economic well-being as its acoustic quality is
crucial to his or her artistic expression. I cannot emphasize too
strongly the importance of instruments to musicians and the music
industry: professional musicians depend on their instruments to earn a
living and give voice to their artist expression, student musicians to
learn their art, and amateur musicians to express themselves in their
homes and communities.
AFM members recognize the dignity of work and the value artists and
supporters of the arts place on that work. With the execution of every
musical note, we strive for perfection in both practice and
performance. We know that perfection demanded by our commitment to the
art can only be achieved through our instruments.
musical instruments containing de minimis amounts of ivory should be
exempt from the ban
At the June 24, 2014 oversight hearing, Ms. Arian Sheets, Curator
of Stringed Instruments at the National Music Museum, provided the
subcommittee with clear testimony that while 20th century instrument
makers used small amounts of elephant ivory (often less than 1 gram) in
certain musical instruments, elephant ivory has not been used in the
manufacture of musical instruments for decades. Thus, the contemporary
manufacture of musical instruments neither provides a market for
illegally traded ivory nor fuels the African elephant poaching that
feeds that illegal market.
It is also clear that the continued existence, sale and use of
thousands of what Ms. Sheets calls ``vintage'' instruments that contain
small amounts of elephant ivory from earlier decades, when such use was
lawful, also does not feed the illegal ivory market nor encourage
elephant poaching. As I explained above, musicians select instruments
for the quality of the instrument's tone and the highly individualized
sense of the instrument's suitability for artistic talent and desires.
We do not select instruments for the minimal amounts of elephant ivory
they may contain; ivory is irrelevant to the musical value of the
instrument. Bluntly stated, musical instruments are not bought and sold
for ivory, and in the wake of all the furor that erupted over the Order
and the Amended Order, the AFM is unaware of any evidence that the
import, export, interstate sale or intrastate sale of musical
instruments has any effect on illegal ivory trafficking or elephant
poaching.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Indeed, the USFWS has acknowledged that precluding the movement
of musical instruments containing CITES pre-Convention or antique ivory
``would not benefit elephant conservation'' and such movements ``do not
contribute to poaching and illegal trade.'' USFWS Moves to Ban
Commercial Elephant Ivory Trade Questions and Answers, http://
www.fws.gov/international/travel-and-trade/ivory-ban-questions-and-
answers.html, see answer to ``Why not impose a complete ban on all
import, export and domestic sale?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AFM understands that the difficulty facing the USFWS is that of
determining which vintage instruments contain lawfully obtained, pre-
Convention elephant ivory, and which, perhaps, do not. But the approach
taken in the Order and the Amended Order, which put an impossible
burden on ordinary citizen-musicians to ascertain and document the
provenance of the small amounts of ivory in their instruments--which
were never purchased for their ivory in the first place, and about
which sufficient documentation may be impossible to obtain--puts an
extraordinary hardship on musicians with no countervailing benefit for
wildlife conservation. Musicians are terrified to take their
instruments on tour to foreign engagements, for fear of confiscation
upon return to the United States, no matter what steps they have taken,
because the permitting process is full of obstacles and may be
impossible to fulfill with certainty. Middle-class musicians can ill
afford for their instruments--which represent a major investment for
them--to lose value because they cannot be sold in inter- or intra-
state commerce. And these harms will have an adverse effect on the arts
generally, from symphony, opera and ballet orchestra institutions to
ethnic ``world music'' groups (and groups performing in every genre
imaginable) to the viability of foreign cultural exchanges.
In light of the fact that the practice of inserting small amounts
of elephant ivory in musical instruments ended decades ago, the lack of
evidence that travel, use and sale of musical instruments with small
amounts of ivory has any ill effect on wildlife conservation, and the
harms with which the Amended Order will burden musicians in particular
and the arts generally, the AFM believes that musical instruments
should be exempted from the Amended Order.
the application of the amended order and any new rules on musical
instruments containing small amounts of elephant ivory should be held
in abeyance pending establishment of clear, reliable and non-burdensome
means of compliance
If musical instruments containing small amounts of elephant ivory
are not to be completely exempted from the application of the Amended
Order and other conservation regulations, their application should, at
a minimum, be deferred until the USFWS (and any other relevant
government agencies) have consulted with stakeholders in the music and
arts communities and reached agreements upon clear, reliable and non-
burdensome methods of compliance.
In his testimony during the June 24, 2014 oversight hearing, David
J. Hayes, Vice-Chair of the Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking,
noted that the Advisory Council had ``urge[d] the Interior Department's
Fish & Wildlife Service to work with the regulated community to provide
non-burdensome permit approvals for non-commercial import and export of
products that contain ivory (e.g., orchestra instruments that contain
ivory; traveling museum exhibitions, etc.), and for clear and
reasonable burden of proof standards that qualify ivory products as
``antiques'' that are exempt from the Endangered Species Act.''
But to date, the application of the Amended Order has been unclear,
unreliable, and burdensome. Musicians of all types--those who tour as
musicians employed by orchestra institutions, those who tour in their
own small groups or as solo performers in all types of musical genres,
and those who simply own vintage instruments and fear their loss or
devaluation--have suffered from uncertainty that hurts the arts and
does nothing for wildlife conservation.
The Order
Immediately upon issuance of the February 25, 2014 Order, the
American music industry was thrown into turmoil. It is no exaggeration
to say that AFM musicians in the United States and Canada experienced
panic at the thought that under the immediate enforcement provisions of
the Order, they faced the possible confiscation of their instruments
containing small amounts of ivory upon returning from foreign tours,
and had no clear idea and no government guidance regarding how to
comply with the Order to avoid such extreme results. The AFM worked
hard to untangle the new rules regarding travel in and out of the
country, but there upon issuance of the Order there was no one central
government source of reliable answers to the myriad of confounding
questions raised by the Order and its immediate enforcement.
The AFM and other organizations were able to assist two major U.S.
symphony orchestras whose players, all members of AFM Locals in Boston
and New York, were already scheduled to travel overseas within a few
months. But it was impossible meet the needs of the many non-orchestral
musical groups who were booked to perform overseas and had no guarantee
that they would be able to return safely with their musical
instruments--because it was impossible to determine up-to-date,
conclusive and accurate directions about how to navigate customs and
immigration with instruments containing small amounts of ivory. There
were some indefensible confiscations of instruments that may have been
related to African ivory, and the uncertainties surrounding the Order
allowed rumor and misinformation to spread through the music industry
like wildfire.
The AFM became convinced that complications would continue unless
and until musical instruments either were exempted from the Order, or
were subjected to clear, reliable and non-burdensome rules. As I wrote
to President Obama, ``the language in the Order creates insurmountable
obstacles that the average citizen musician cannot navigate due to the
lack of a One-Stop government site that provides necessary guidance.''
(See attached letter to President Obama dated April 4, 2014.) I wrote a
similar letter to the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional
Hispanic Caucus and Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, to
advise them the Order likely would adversely impact diverse musical
cultural constituencies, including groups that travel with special
indigenous non-traditional musical instruments that may contain ivory.
(See attached letter to the Congressional caucuses dated April 4,
2014.) In that letter, I requested and recommended the exemption of
musical instruments from the Order until such time as USFWS issued an
orderly plan that would allow artists to smoothly traverse the system
assuring guaranteed, safe importation of their valued musical
instruments through customs and immigration upon return.
Last but certainly not least, the AFM and partner organizations met
with the USFWS to urge that the needs of the music community could and
should be met without any harm to wildlife conservation.
The Amended Order
Due to considerable pressure brought about by the AFM and its
national music partners, the USFWS issued the Amended Order on May 15,
2014. Though we welcomed the Amended Order's expansion of the date
related to sales and trade of musical instruments, the Amended Order
did not go far enough to mitigate the burdens and harms caused by
including musical instruments containing small amounts of ivory within
the purview of the elephant ivory ban. The following are only some of
the ongoing problems under the Amended Order and potential new
regulations.
The Burden of Proof and the Lack of Clarity Surrounding
Applications for CITES Certificates
The Amended Order allows the import/export (i.e., foreign tours and
returns to the United States) of musical instruments containing worked
elephant ivory that was legally acquired and removed from the wild
prior to February 26, 1976 (the date that the African elephant was
listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species (CITES)), and not sold since February 25, 2014. This would
cover an enormous number of musical instruments, except for the
following critical practical problem: the burden of proving that the
minimal amount of ivory in a musical instrument was taken from the wild
pre-CITES is often impossible to meet. Numerous instruments, including
many of the finest examples that are prized by musicians for their
playing qualities, were crafted with small amounts of ivory long before
CITES existed. Violin bows, for example, are often extremely old. None
of these instruments, and very few others, would have been provided
with documentation regarding their ivory content, most especially
because the instruments were never valued for the minimal amounts of
ivory they might contain but only for their ability to produce
sounds.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Indeed, it is not only difficult for musicians to determine or
document the ivory (or lack thereof) in their instruments. The AFM
understands that there is at least one documented case of an instrument
being confiscated by U.S. officials because it was suspected to contain
elephant ivory, when it fact it contained none.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simply put, it is unreasonable to impose a burden of proof upon
citizen-musicians that simply cannot be met, particularly given the
lack of connection between musical instruments and the illegal ivory
trade.
If the USFWS persists in believing that musicians should be
required to make some showing regarding the likely source of any ivory
in a musical instrument (though a showing far short of proving
provenance where proof is impossible), the showing that should be
required to obtain a CITES certificate (or other ``musical passport'')
must be informed by practical reality, determined in conjunction with
musicians and experts on musical instruments, and accompanied by clear,
consistent and reliable guidance and directions (including to
enforcement officials)--before it is enforced. At present, even with
the issuance of a new musical instrument permit number 3-200-88,
appropriate government ``required'' documentation needed to prove the
source of any ivory in the instrument is unclear.
Resolution of Economic Issues Relating to Seizures of
Legally Purchased Musical Instruments
The AFM understands that fines have recently been levied on
confiscated musical instruments and their component parts, with no
system in place to reimburse affected artists whose instruments may
eventually be deemed to be perfectly lawful.
There is currently no system in place to reimburse musicians for
the value of lawful instruments that are damaged or destroyed in
inspection or enforcement efforts. Musical instruments are fragile, and
instruments suspected of being in violation of regulations may be
damaged or destroyed if inspected and mishandled by non-experts. As an
economic matter, regulations must provide for compensation in such
circumstances. As a practical matter, regulatory language must be
developed in cooperation with musicians and instrument experts to
ensure that it appropriately protects valuable instruments during any
physical inspection.
Preventing Devaluation of Musical Instruments
As I described above, musical instruments are major investments for
working musicians and music students. Regulations that prevent the sale
of musical instruments containing minimal amounts of African elephant
ivory will do nothing to prevent the illegal ivory trade, but will
radically reduce the economic value of musical instruments, threatening
the livelihoods, capital investment, and future retirement of
musicians, as well as preventing a new generation of musicians from
benefiting from some of the finest musical instruments in existence.
This is a most serious problem, not only for individual musicians, but
for the music and arts community as a whole, and must be addressed.
Insufficient Number of Ports of Exit and Re-Entry to the
United States
At time of the issuance of the Amended Order until now, the USFWS
made no effort to accomplish targeted, effective public education
regarding the need, under the Amended Order, to exit and enter the
United States through designated ports. Moreover, citing cost
prohibitions during our meetings, the USFWS would not consider
expanding the number of ports available to musicians re-entering the
United States with affected musical instruments. These problems must be
rectified. And, as noted above, reliable techniques for distinguishing
African elephant ivory from other materials must be developed, and safe
procedures for the handling and protection of musical instruments must
be developed with instructions clearly filtered down to enforcement
officials.
International Inquiries
I have written at length about American musicians, but AFM and non-
AFM Canadian musicians cross daily into the United States, and there is
no clarity regarding the documentation they now need to bring their
musical instruments into the United States. New regulations now imposed
by the U.S. government have added additional layers to the travel
procedures Canadian musicians follow, which already include immigration
verification, work permits, and the Canadian government requirement for
musicians to obtain an ATA Carnet, just to name a few. Similarly,
international musicians committed to perform in the United States,
often as part of important cultural exchanges, suffer from uncertainty
regarding requirements and their ability to obtain appropriate CITES
documentation.
Conclusion
In addition to thanking the subcommittee for its attention to this
critical issue, I would also like to thank officials of the USFWS for
their continued responsiveness to the concerns of the music community.
But as the consideration of these issues continues, the AFM urges
Congress, the Administration and the USFWS to take to heart the plight
of the working musician and the music industry at large.
In this regard, it is worth noting that musical instrument makers
and the music industry generally have been leaders, not followers, in
the conservation of wildlife, given the fact that they discontinued the
use of ivory in musical instruments decades ago. Many musical
instruments lawfully containing small amounts of elephant ivory remain
in use, and they have extraordinary artistic and financial value to
musicians and the arts. The AFM believes that a full moratorium for
musicians and their instruments should be placed on the application of
the Amended Order and any other new rules to musical instruments,
either permanently, or, at a minimum, until such time all issues are
resolved in conjunction with stakeholders and clear final guidelines
and documentation are published on the USFWS Web site.
Attachments
Attachment 1
American Federation of Musicians
of the United States and Canada,
New York, NY,
April 4, 2014.
Hon. Barack Obama, President of the United States,
The White House,
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20500.
Re: Meeting Request--Professional Musicians and African Ivory
Dear President Obama:
Please permit me to introduce myself. I am the International
President of the American Federation of Musicians of the United States
and Canada, (AFM) an AFL-CIO labor union founded in 1896 and recognized
by the Department of Labor as one of the oldest unions in the United
States. For more than 117 years, the union has served as the principal
representative for professional musicians both at the bargaining table
and in government and federal affairs. On behalf of 80,000 professional
musicians, I write to request a meeting with you to discuss
reconsideration and possible rescission of restrictive and what we feel
is punitive language in Director's Order No. 210 issued by the United
States Department of the Interior--United States Fish and Wildlife
Service on February 25,2014.
Mr. President, while the AFM joins you and the rest of the world in
the preservation and protection of endangered wildlife species from
poachers and unscrupulous dealers in the African ivory trade, Order No.
210 hurts musicians by immediately implementing new and extremely
restrictive rules on musicians who tour and travel internationally and
who represent the best of American art and culture. The Order's sudden
release has created ``a chilling effect'' on the travel and touring
schedules of musicians who have contracted with international concert
vendors and in certain cases, with representatives of foreign
governments.
We are joining with prominent AFM artists such as B.B. King and
others to raise the point that Section 2 b (4) of the Director's Order
singles out musicians and their priceless working tools by placing
highly restrictive travel requirements with musical instruments
containing in most cases de minimis parts of African elephant ivory.
The Order would in effect subject any artist returning from
international engagements to detention, confiscation and possible
destruction of priceless musical instruments that may be placed in the
hands of officials who have no knowledge about how to handle them.
Most importantly, the AFM believes the language in the Order
creates insurmountable obstacles that the average citizen musician
cannot navigate due to the lack of a One-Stop government site that
provides necessary guidance. With no published guidance from USFWS and
no ability for a musical constituency here in the United States that
easily surpasses one million affected artists, organizations like mine
are inundated with telephone calls and emails from members asking for
solutions that the government has not provided. There is no central
website designed to answer citizens' questions, no hotline for those
traveling in the immediate future, no expedited permit processing, and
no directive to U.S. Customs and Immigration Officers who are charged
with immediate execution of enforcement about how to manage encounters
with musicians returning from travel who are not aware of this new
Order.
In closing, we have reached out to Members of Congress and asked
for their help with this matter. We have indeed received interest and
some support and look forward to the opportunity to meet with you, Mr.
King, and if possible members of various Members of Congress to devise
a more complete resolution to problems created by Director's Order No.
210.
Thanking you in advance for your consideration, I am,
Sincerely and respectfully yours,
Raymond M. Hair, Jr.,
International President.
Attachment 2
American Federation of Musicians
of the United States and Canada,
New York, NY,
April 4, 2014.
Hon. Marcia Fudge, Chair,
Congressional Black Caucus,
2344 Rayburn HOB,
Washington, DC 20515.
Hon. Judy Chu, Chair,
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus,
1520 Longworth HOB,
Washington, DC 20515.
Hon. Ruben Hinojosa, Chair,
Congressional Hispanic Caucus,
2262 Rayburn HOB,
Washington, DC 20515.
Re: American Federation of Musicians--African Elephant Ivory--Meeting
with President Obama
Dear Congressional Caucus Chairs:
I am writing to ask your assistance with a critical issue that has
affected the entire music industry, particularly musicians you
represent. Respectfully, the matter requires immediate attention.
On February 25,2014 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the
auspices of the Department of the Interior released Director's Order
No. 210 outlining new, stepped-up enforcement requirements for import,
export and travel with items containing African elephant ivory. Section
2 b (4) specifically carves out and places new travel limitations on
musical instruments. The harmful effects of Order No. 210 are being
felt throughout the music industry particularly among musicians with
instruments that were legally acquired prior to February 26, 1976.
The American Federation of Musicians of the United States and
Canada (AFM) is not arguing the merits of the ivory ban, just the
effects of the Director's Order. As the representative of 80,000
professional musicians in the United States and Canada, it is our
obligation to point out that what appears to be a specific yet targeted
focus on valuable musical instruments containing de minimis amounts of
elephant ivory is simply punitive. The Order has caused concerns for
musicians throughout our industry who travel abroad and who fear they
will have no recourse should enforcement actions by U.S. Border agents
take place upon reentry into the United States. Stakeholders should
have time and the ability to comment on the merits of the Order and any
new rules within our respective industries and professional
communities.
Hundreds of thousands of professional musicians, college students,
and fine musical instrument collectors who for decades have owned rare
and antique musical instruments have been swept up in the sudden
negative effects of this Order and what may eventually become a rule.
Musicians who travel daily with valuable work tools, student musicians
who attend major universities, colleges and conservatories, and high
school students in every community in the United States and its
territories who own instruments legally acquired before 1976, have been
singled out. Many who do not follow the Federal regulatory process will
have absolutely no way of knowing how to travel and securely reenter
the United States without having priceless instruments detained,
confiscated and possibly destroyed at customs entry points around the
United States.
The American Federation of Musicians along with scores of other
national arts groups are pushing for a carve-out of musical instruments
legally owned by American musicians and instrument collectors.
We ask that the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Asian
Pacific American Caucus, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus weigh in
on this issue with a letter to President Obama with an eye toward
rescinding the musical instrument segment of the Order.
I will also forward information about our issue regarding
promulgation of an overdue rule for musical instruments as carryon
baggage and our work with Secretary Foxx's staff.
Thanking you in advance for the Caucus' help.
Sincerely yours,
Raymond M. Hair, Jr.,
International President.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Federation of Violin and Bow Makers,
Inc.
The American Federation of Violin and Bow Makers represents violin
and bow makers from throughout North America. The art of violin and bow
making represents a body of knowledge that has been handed down for
centuries. The Federation's mission is to enhance public understanding
and appreciation of historical violins and bows, the making of new
instruments, as well as conservation and restoration of historical and
modern instruments. The Federation works closely with many other
musical industry organizations, including the International Pernambuco
Conservation Initiative, the Violin Society of America, the
International Society of Violin and Bow Makers, the League of American
Orchestras, the American Federation of Musicians, the National
Association of Music Merchants and the Recording Academy, to increase
awareness of resource conservation issues crucial to the future of
music.
The Federation appreciates the opportunity to present comments to
the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs as
it provides oversight regarding the African elephant ivory ban.
The ban poses a dilemma to the stringed instrument world. The
Federation supports without reservation the President's goal of
combating wildlife trafficking and conserving African elephants. The
Federation remains deeply concerned, however, that if the scope of the
ban is not properly tailored, it will produce the unintended
consequence of harming our Nation's artistic and cultural heritage.
Unlike some objects containing ivory, musical instruments are
indispensable tools of the trade for makers, dealers and musicians. A
musician's instrument is highly personal, integral to the sound and
performance quality the musician is trying to achieve, and often
represents a very substantial personal financial investment. Hand
crafted and unique, many instruments are among our culture's most
highly prized artistic, cultural, historical and educational objects.
Approximately 25-30 years ago bow makers, who number approximately
50 in the United States, learned about the plight of elephants and
stopped using elephant ivory. Since that time, bows have been made
using mammoth ivory or other substitutes. When bows were in the past
made using elephant ivory, the quantities were extremely small--
approximately 1 gram was used to shape a quarter gram tip. With
approximately 350 bows made each year domestically, the tusks from one
elephant, therefore, could have supplied several thousand tips over
many years.
Bow tips are functional: they grip horsehair, provide balance and
protect the bow's delicate pernambuco tip. Musicians, however, do not
purchase bows for their ivory. They purchase them for their overall
artistic and acoustic qualities and may very well not be aware that a
tip is made of ivory. The existence of elephant ivory in older bow
tips, therefore, has never been a driver of trade and does not today
contribute to a bow's value or, at a higher level, help drive up the
cost of elephant ivory globally.
Today, a very large universe of lawfully made, sold, and purchased
bows containing elephant ivory are being played throughout the country
and the world by professional, amateur, and student musicians. These
bows are also being studied, exhibited, bought, and sold by instrument
makers, dealers, and musicians. The Director's Order and news of future
rule-making has created a broad perception among owners of these bows
that they should immediately replace their lawful elephant ivory tips
or risk seizure at international borders, possible forfeiture, and
professional disaster.
Recently, for example, a bow maker replaced the tip of a 30-year-
old bow of high value. He reported that, although he was able to do the
job without damaging the bow's wooden stick, the bow would never play
the same. The great pity is that the sacrifice of this and many other
bows' artistic and historic qualities will do nothing to save African
elephants.
The Federation urges the government to adopt a surgical, evidence-
based approach to targeting and restricting activity, so that limited
enforcement resources are expended where they will yield conservation
benefit. The Federation is not aware of any evidence demonstrating a
relationship between elephant poaching, wildlife trafficking and
musical instrument making. Absent such evidence, the Federation
believes the Government should refrain from imposing any new
restrictions on the trade in musical instruments containing de minimis
quantities of legally obtained ivory.
The Federation was encouraged that the revised Director's Order 210
issued last month incorporated common-sense improvements, such as
removing the limit on non-commercial importation of instruments
containing ivory and sold after 1976. Imposing the same limit on
instruments sold after February 2014, however, seems arbitrary and
destined in the future to impose an unfair burden on musicians, bow-
makers, and dealers without a clear, countervailing conservation
benefit. Similarly, the Federation agrees with the Director's decision
to eliminate the requirement that antiques need to have entered through
authorized ports. The Federation believes that the antique definition
should be revised further to simply require that an instrument be 100
years old. Moreover, we note that, when determining a musical
instrument's artistic and cultural value, the distinction between
antiques and non-antiques is illusory--bows younger than 100 years old
may have superior qualities.
With more proposed rules coming out later this year, there is
currently a great state of confusion and anxiety within the music
community. A noticeable shift toward greater enforcement of CITES and
Endangered Species Act permitting requirements, the roll out of a new
musical instrument passport followed by the African elephant ivory ban
has produced tremendous uncertainty about the steps needed to comply
with U.S. and foreign laws and applicable burdens of proof. The
Federation urges U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to immediately provide
the music industry with clear, one-stop, easy-to-access online guidance
that will aid compliance. The Federation also believes that scheduling
the release of forthcoming proposed rules concurrently rather then in
sequence would help to minimize confusion.
The music industry wants to understand how to comply with all
applicable laws and it wants to support a targeted, common sense
approach to protecting African elephants. If musicians, instrument
makers, and dealers cannot enter the United States with the instruments
they depend on without fear of seizure; and if musicians, makers and
dealers cannot buy and sell the antique and non-antique instruments
needed in order for music to develop and the highest levels of quality
to be achieved, we risk imposing serious and unnecessary hardship on a
substantial economic sector and undermining a tradition of cultural
activity that has earned the United States a global reputation as a
home of artistic excellence.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of William G. Pearlstein and Michael J. McCullough,
Art and Antiques Trade Group
We represent the Art and Antiques Trade Group (the ``Trade
Group''). The Trade Group consists of the Art and Antique Dealers
League of America,\1\ the National Antique and Art Dealers Association
of America,\2\ the Antiques Dealers' Association of America,\3\ the
Appraisers Association of America,\4\ and the British Antique Dealers'
Association.\5\ These associations represent the interests of the small
businesses that deal in fine and decorative art objects of cultural
significance. Collectively, they represent approximately 500 dealers
and 700 appraisers in the United States and United Kingdom. Our
auctioneers include Bonhams, Doyle, Heritage, iGavel, Keno Auctions,
Skinner and Stair). They are among the leading auction houses in the
fine and decorative arts. We believe that the Trade Group collectively
represents the majority of the trade in the United States and United
Kingdom in antique fine and decorative art objects and includes the
leading experts in the field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Art and Antique Dealers League of America (the ``League'')
has 93 member firms in United States. More about the League may be
found at http://www.artantiquedealersleague.com.
\2\ The National Antique and Art Dealers Association of America
(``NAADAA'') has 39 members across the United States. More about the
NAADAA may be found at http://www.naadaa.org.
\3\ The Antiques Dealers' Association of America (``ADA'') has 102
member firms in the United States. More about the ADA may be found at
http://www.adadealers.com.
\4\ The Appraisers Association of America (``AAA''), the premier
national association of personal property appraisers of fine and
decorative arts, has over 700 member firms in the United States. More
about the AAA may be found at http://www.appraisersassociation.org.
\5\ British Antique Dealers' Association (``BADA''), the trade
association for the leading antique dealers in Britain, has 348
members, of which seven are located in the United States. More about
BADA may be found at http://www.bada.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The plight of the elephant is of great concern to the Trade Group,
and we deplore the lack of focus this issue has received in the past.
We applaud the leadership shown by the Administration and this
subcommittee on the issue of regulating the trade in elephant ivory.
The Trade Group's members have routinely worked with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (the ``Service'') with regard to import/export
permitting and enforcement matters. They understand the difficult task
given to the Service to enforce the Nation's wildlife laws. In
furtherance of the National Strategy for Combatting Wildlife
Trafficking, the Art and Antique Trade Group has offered to work with
the Service and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation
to create a public-private partnership and institute best trade
practices. Our goal is to facilitate a transparent, lawful market in
ivory objects that are reliably certified as bona fide antiques, and
block the illegal traffic in uncertified, poached materials that lack
permits.
We respectfully ask the subcommittee to consider the following
concerns:
The Antique Exception under the ESA
We expressed concern that Director's Order No. 210, as originally
issued in February 2014, had linked the ``antiques exception'' to the
``designated port requirement'' (under Section 1339(h) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (``ESA'')), thus clouding
the trade in pre-1982 antique imports and U.S. made antiques.
We asked the Service to consider decoupling the antique exception
from the designated port requirement, and made three essential
arguments: (i) seasoned experts in the fine and decorative arts trade
can reliably distinguish genuine antiques from fakes, forgeries and
fresh ivory; (ii) the trade in certified antiques does not drive demand
for low-grade objects that incorporate poached ivory; and (iii) any
``de minimis'' requirement for antique ivory would be unworkable,
unenforceable, and make the ``antiques exception'' unavailable for most
of the antique objects in the trade.
After considering the concerns raised by our representatives and
other stakeholders, and in light of the legislative history of the
antique exception, the Service issued Amendment 1 to the Director's
Order in May 2014 (the ``Amended Order''). As you know, the Amended
Order provides that the Service, in its enforcement discretion, will
not enforce the designated port requirement against bona fide antiques
imported prior to 1982 and articles that were created in the United
States and never imported. The Service takes the view that the limited
exception for the trade in reliably certified antiques does not
contribute to the demand for freshly poached ivory. In his testimony to
the Senate Subcommittees on African Affairs and East Asian and Pacific
Affairs on May 21, 2014, Director Ashe added that a ``de minimis''
requirement would be unworkable and unenforceable.
Imports of Certified Antiques
In light of the rationale underlying the Amended Order, we believe
that there is a strong case:
to create an import CITES requirement for the importation
of bona fide antiques containing worked elephant ivory and
those previously exported under permit being returned; and
to create an expert advisory panel to assist the Service
in reviewing import and export CITES permit applications.
The ESA Preempts Contrary State Regulation
Section 6(f) of the ESA provides in relevant part that:
``Any State law or regulation which applies with respect to the
importation or exportation of, or interstate or foreign
commerce in, endangered species or threatened species is
void to the extent that it may effectively . . . (2)
prohibit what is authorized pursuant to an exemption or
permit provided for in this Act or in any regulation which
implements this Act.''
New York State has recently passed a bill that purports,
among other things, to limit the trade and transfer of
objects containing ivory, mammoth or rhinoceros to 100-
year-old antiques that include not more than a ``de
minimis'' amount (in this case 20 percent) by volume of
such materials. Other States, such as New Jersey, have
enacted or may soon enact similar ``de minimis''
legislation or outright bans on the trade in antique ivory.
The ``de minimis'' limit and other features of the New
York bill impermissibly conflict with, and effectively
negate, the antiques exception under the ESA. They place
New York law (and other contrary State laws) squarely at
odds with express Federal law and Congressional policy.
We respectfully request that Congress require the Service
to emphasize in its final rules regarding the Amended Order
the preemptive effect of the antiques exception on contrary
State law.
An Ivory Ban Would Have a Significant Adverse Effect on the U.S. Art
Market
In the United States, the total number of quality fine art
objects individually worth over $10,000 is relatively
small, probably totaling in the hundreds of thousands. The
number of decorative art objects is much higher, probably
totaling in the range of 400,000,000 or more. We estimate
that approximately 5 percent of these enter into commerce
each year, for a total of around 20,000,000 objects,
consolidated into 1.5-2.5m transactions.
Most items sold at auction, in tag sales or house sales
enter into the marketplace one time each generation.
Assuming the items offered total around 1,500,000-2,500,000
each year and this number is replicated each year over 30
years, then the total objects entered into commerce in this
period would total between 30,000,000-50,000,000 objects.
Because these materials were incorporated into and used to
create rare and precious objects, the values of objects
that contain these materials are high. Many collectors
stand to be severely hurt by a ban or effective ban of
antique objects made of or containing these materials.
A conservative estimate is that 20,000,000-30,000,000 U.S.
citizens will be affected and suffer significant loss. More
will be affected by burdens of paperwork and regulatory
compliance. The loss of value, lost sales, and compliance
costs will certainly cost American citizens a total in the
tens of billions of dollars each year.
The less tangible cost will be cultural, stigmatizing huge
numbers of works of art, many that are unique cultural
treasures, because these incorporate a material that is
today viewed differently than in the past. This loss is
incalculable.
See Appendix A for an overview of the trade in fine and
decorative art objects containing antique ivory.
Our goal is to facilitate a transparent, lawful market in ivory
objects that are reliably certified as bona fide antiques, and block
the illegal traffic in uncertified, poached materials that lack
permits. We hope to continue our dialog with the Service and this
subcommittee to facilitate this goal.
______
Prepared Statement of Association of Art Museum Directors
i. introduction
The Association of Art Museum Directors (the ``AAMD'') is a
professional organization consisting of approximately 240 directors of
major art museums in North America. The purpose of the AAMD is to
support its members in increasing the contribution of art museums to
society.
The AAMD supports the efforts of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(``FWS'') and the international community to address the threats to
wildlife, including elephants, in a responsible and measured approach.
Museums have a significant role to play, particularly as educators and
communicators. At the same time, museums have a responsibility to
protect, conserve, and display works of art that represent the
creativity of the human spirit. That creativity expresses itself in
many mediums and in the past, quite legitimately, through works that
include elements of species that are now endangered or threatened.
The implementation of a complete ban on the commercial trade in
elephant ivory would deal a severe blow to museums in carrying out
their primary responsibility of protecting, conserving, displaying and
sharing works of art from all ages in all mediums. Art museums in the
United States \1\ (individually, a ``U.S. Art Museum'') have a long
history of complying with CITES and national laws designed to protect
endangered and threatened species, such as the Endangered Species Act,
which for decades have allowed U.S. Art Museums responsibly to acquire,
exhibit and make direct loans of legally acquired artwork containing
elements of elephant ivory, and other endangered or threatened species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The AAMD is not in a position to speak on behalf of all museums
in the United States, but there does not appear to be a compelling
reason not to make this exception applicable to any museum that meets
the definition in 45 CFR Sec. 1180.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FWS Director's Order 210 (``Director's Order''), not only
through its specific prohibitions, but also through the resulting
confusion within the art world, has had a significant negative impact
on the ability of U.S. Art Museums to carry out their mission.
Specifically, two vital components of museum activities have been
impacted; the ability of U.S. Art Museums to acquire new works and the
ability of U.S. Art Museums to take part in exchanges of international
exhibitions and direct loans with foreign lenders.
ii. areas of concern
A. Acquisitions: A major concern for U.S. Art Museums is their
ability to continue to acquire works of art that contain elements of
raw or worked African elephant ivory whether by purchase, gift or
bequest both domestically and abroad. Additions to an art museum's
permanent collection are done through a rigorous process known as
accessioning, whereby the museum not only acquires a work of art, but
commits to its long-term care and conservation. Only rarely are works
ever removed from the permanent collection. As a result, acquisition by
a U.S. Art Museum effectively removes these items from the trade and
allows them to be studied, researched and displayed for the benefit of
the public, scholars and students. Unfortunately, actions by the FWS
have limited the ability of U.S. Art Museums to accept donations and
acquire works of art containing African elephant ivory.
1. Donations: U.S. Art Museums acquire approximately 80 percent
of their collection through generous donations that allow the American
public to see works that many museums could never afford to purchase.
Currently, there is confusion about whether an individual in lawful
possession of a work of art containing raw or worked African elephant
ivory may donate that work to a U.S. Art Museum and take a tax
deduction or if this donation would constitute a post-February 25, 2014
transfer for financial gain or profit. Under the Director's Order, if a
work has been transferred for financial gain or profit after February
25, 2014, there would be a bar to import of the item to the United
States. As a result, such a work would be ineligible for loans outside
the United States because the work could not be returned to the U.S.
Art Museum.
When a donor donates a work of art, often worth hundreds of
thousands of dollars, and takes a tax deduction, even at the highest
marginal bracket, the donor is still, on a net basis, giving away more
than half of the fair market value of the donated work. The FWS should
clarify that a donor may take a tax deduction for a gift to a U.S. Art
Museum and that doing so does not create a post-February 25, 2014 gain
event, provided that the donor does not receive any substantial benefit
in exchange (as defined by the Internal Revenue Service).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As set out in Revenue Procedure 90-12, 1990-1 C.B. 471, and
Revenue Procedure 92-49, 1992-1 C.B. 987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, if an object that was legally purchased after February
25, 2014 were to be donated to a U.S. Art Museum, whether or not the
donor takes a tax deduction, the museum that accepts such a gift could
not loan the object to a foreign exhibition or make a direct loan to a
foreign museum because the work was involved in a commercial
transaction after February 25, 2014 and, therefore, could not be re-
imported to the United States to be returned to the U.S. Art Museum.
The FWS should add an exception for purchases legally made after
February 25, 2014 and donated to a U.S. Art Museum in addition to
clarifying that the donation is not a financial gain or profit
transaction occurring after February 25, 2014, as discussed above.
2. Acquisitions Abroad: \3\ The new criteria limiting the ability
of U.S. Art Museums to import items containing African elephant ivory
lawfully acquired abroad are too narrow and severely limit the ability
of museums to fulfill their mission. The Director's Order has made
illegal the importation for commercial purposes of works of art
containing ivory, most importantly for U.S. Art Museums including those
containing ivory that is at least 100 years and often centuries old. As
a result, while foreign markets continue to function with great works
of art containing ivory sold on a regular basis, those works can no
longer be acquired by U.S. Art Museums. Rather, they become part of
foreign private or public collections and are lost to the American
public. This is not an issue of recently acquired ivory. Art museums
buy works of art--not ivory. They buy those works based on rigorous
scholarship and research. When a museum determines to acquire, for
example, a medieval reliquary carved from ivory or a Greek plaque of a
warrior from 1400 B.C., the museum's identification of the object as
medieval or as ancient Greek means, by definition, that the ivory it
contains is centuries old and, therefore, presents no threat to the
current plight of elephants. U.S. Art Museums should be permitted to
continue to acquire these works--antiques as defined by statute--and to
import them into the United States for the benefit of the public in the
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This paper does not address the proposed ban on commercial
sales in the United States as others will undoubtedly address that
issue, but the AAMD does support a continued, carefully regulated
United States market for verifiable antiques containing ivory.
B. Exhibition and Direct Loans: The ability to move works of art
containing ivory in and out of the United States in connection with
exhibitions abroad and exhibitions in the United States and direct
loans to and from foreign lenders and borrowers is essential to the
mission of museums. The Director's Order, not only through its specific
prohibitions, but also through the resulting confusion within the art
world, has had a significant negative impact on the ability of U.S. Art
Museums to create, organize, effectuate or participate in international
exhibitions and to make or receive direct loans of objects containing
African elephant ivory. Foreign lenders are reluctant to loan such
works of art to U.S. Art Museums because of concern that the works will
not be returned. U.S. Art Museums are concerned about lending to
foreign venues for fear that the works will not be able to be re-
imported into the United States.\4\ There is no indication that any of
this movement in the past has been illegal or inappropriate and, at
least in the experience of AAMD, these loans have routinely been made
in full compliance with CITES and other applicable laws. The procedures
for these loans should not change from the rules and regulations
applicable to such loans prior to February 25, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ While the terms re-exported and re-imported are often used, and
are used in this paper, to describe a work of art that is going out of
and coming back in to the United States or coming into and going back
out of the United States, they are, under certain circumstances, a
misnomer, as they imply previous movement across U.S. borders, whereas
in fact, works made in the United States may never have been previously
removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of the non-commercial import and export of a work of
art containing African elephant ivory, the work should be permitted to
be imported and exported and re-imported and re-exported, provided that
a U.S. Art Museum certifies to the FWS that the work:
1. is more than 100 years old, based on certified documentation of
ownership, qualified appraisal, or other accepted methods
of proving an object's provenance;
2. is reasonably believed to include African elephant ivory;
3. has not been repaired or modified with any part of any such
species on or after December 28, 1973; and
4. was either legally imported prior to September 22, 1982 or
thereafter entered through a port designated for import of
ESA antiques or was created in the United States and never
imported.
iii. conclusion
While AAMD supports the efforts of the FWS to curtail the illegal
wildlife trade and protect endangered and threatened species, including
the elephant, a complete ban on commercial trade in African elephant
ivory would have dramatic and far reaching implications for the U.S.
Art Museum community and severely impair museums' ability to fulfill
their mission. Restricting the trade in illegally acquired African
elephant ivory should not deny to the public of the present the work of
artists of the past.
The Director's Order addresses not only the FWS' plan to implement
a ban on commercial trade in elephant ivory, but many additional limits
on commercial and noncommercial activities involving elephant ivory,
rhinoceros horn, and parts and products of other species listed under
the Endangered Species Act. The AAMD has concerns about the numerous
implications of the Director's Order and other actions proposed by the
FWS which significantly impact the ability of museums to fulfill their
mission, however, as this hearing is strictly on the plan to implement
a ban on commercial trade in elephant ivory, the AAMD has not addressed
its other concerns in this statement. The AAMD would be glad to provide
a more comprehensive statement regarding its concerns with the FWS'
actions generally to the extent it would be helpful to the Subcommittee
on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs.
______
Prepared Statement of Christie's, Inc.
Christie's appreciates the opportunity to submit comments to the
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs.
Christie's unequivocally condemns the slaughter of elephants for
illegal elephant ivory. We understand that the slaughter of elephants
today is at such a pace as to endanger seriously the entire species. We
believe we have a role to play stopping the poaching of elephant ivory
and the illegal trade in contemporary ivory works that results and we
take our responsibilities in this respect very seriously.
Our primary task is to ensure that Christie's does not sell any art
containing illegal contemporary ivory. To this end, we do not ever sell
``unworked'' tusks, regardless of their age. We do, however, sell
antique objects of cultural and artistic importance, some of which
include elephant ivory as a material. These antique works of art
include items as diverse as 18th century furniture, objects of virtue,
ancient sculpture, Japanese netsuke, Old Master paintings and frames,
musical instruments as well as 18th century silverware. These historic
works of art were crafted long ago when the elephant population was not
under threat and are completely unrelated to current illegal elephant
ivory trade, which is driven largely by the appetite for contemporary
religious, tourist and trophy pieces, none of which are sold by
Christie's.
In selling these historic cultural and artistic objects which
incorporate ivory, Christie's is careful to abide by all global,
Federal and State laws designed to protect elephants and prevent the
sale of illegally obtained contemporary ivory. In particular, we have
obtained licenses from both the relevant Federal and NYS regulatory
agencies to offer for sale antique items containing ivory. We also have
implemented a comprehensive training program taught by the Legal
Department to teach our specialists and administrators the legal
requirements needed to import, export and sell antique objects
containing ivory. This program is held several times annually to ensure
that all relevant employees are fully knowledgeable about the legal
requirements surrounding the sale of antique objects containing ivory.
Even more important than our licensure or training programs is our
rigorous vetting program through which any item believed possibly to
contain ivory is subjected. Our goal is to ensure that no objects that
pass through our hands are the product of poaching. In order to
determine the age and type of ivory in items offered for sale,
Christie's vets each item as follows: (a) Every item that may possibly
contain ivory is examined by an expert to determine whether the
material in question constitutes ivory, synthetic ivory, other animal
bone, or some other material and to help ascertain it's age; (b) our
specialists request and review provenance documentation to help
pinpoint the age and country of origin of the object in question; (c)
our specialists also examine the aesthetics of the object to ascertain
an object's country of origin, date, and type of ivory, based on their
knowledge of art history and trade routes over time; (d) our
specialists also study each object to make sure that the normal wear
and tear, coloring and other details commonly associate with an antique
object of that type are present; and (e) finally, our specialists look
for any indications of restoration and then work to ensure that any
ivory used to restore the object also comply with international,
Federal and State laws and regulation. In short, Christie's maintains
stringent due diligence for all objects that may contain ivory in order
to ensure that they fully comply with all legal requirements.
By setting such a high standard of compliance, Christie's not only
intends to provide a good example within the art market regarding the
sale of antique ivory objects but also serves as an educational
resource for its clients. As we undergo the vetting process, we use
that opportunity not only to explain what we are doing to our clients
but the reasons why we are have put this vetting process in place. By
helping our clients to understand the complexity of and risks
associated with ivory objects, we enable them to make smart choices not
only with us but when purchasing from others. Educated clients in turn
undercut the market support for illegal ivory.
Despite Christie's multiple efforts to support the limited market
for antique objects containing ivory against the contemporary trade in
illegal ivory, some still seek a total ban on the sale of commercial
ivory. We think that stance ignores how well Christie's and other
reputable market players meet the strict legal standards associated
with the sale of antique objects containing ivory. Additional
enforcement efforts rather than a more extensive ban would curtail the
illicit trade.
Moreover, there are significant collateral costs to a total ban on
the sale of ivory. Many pre-19th century objects of artistic and
cultural importance contain ivory, and a large portion of those contain
only a de minimis amount. For instance, many 18th century wood tables
contain limited amounts of in-laid ivory, certain Old Master paintings
are painted on ivory canvases, many silver tea sets have ivory handles,
antique musical instruments have ivory parts and the list goes on.
These items can make up sizable portions of the collections of many
museums. Even if museums were exempted from compliance with a complete
ban, the ban would render this part of their collections valueless
because there would be no market in which they could sell or trade
these items. Likewise, it would render valueless the pieces in the
hands of private collectors.
Some of those collectors will have spent millions of dollars to
purchase their antique objects containing ivory. Others may have
inherited them or purchased them for much less money. Some may want to
sell their antique ivory objects in order to purchase other items while
others may want to sell these items in order to fund their child's
college education or renovate their home. In all cases, these private
owners counted on their objects to retain value. However, a complete
ban will eliminate any value to these items, no matter how distant in
time from current poaching or minute in amount the ivory is. We believe
a strict, safe, limited market can be continued for these antique
objects containing ivory that will permit them to retain value for
their good faith purchasers.
______
Prepared Statement of Teresa M. Telecky, Ph.D., Director, Wildlife
Department, Humane Society International
The Humane Society of the United States (The HSUS) and its global
affiliate, Humane Society International (HSI), together constitute one
of the largest animal protection organizations in the world. We thank
Chairman Fleming and members of the committee for the opportunity to
submit written testimony.
Just a few weeks ago, one of Kenya's largest and most iconic
elephants, Satao, was killed by poachers with a poisoned arrow. The
tragic death of Satao sparked mourning, outrage and condemnation across
the globe. Images of his mutilated face and body--his majestic, long
tusks gone--send a powerful signal that we are racing against time to
save elephants from the ongoing slaughter for their ivory. It also
epitomizes the ruthless poaching fueled by worldwide demand, including
here in the United States, for ivory trinkets, statutes, decorative
items and trophies.
The best way to stop the slaughter of elephants for their ivory and
the march of the elephants toward extinction is to close ivory markets
around the world, including by ending the import, export and domestic
sale of elephant ivory in the United States.
Therefore, The HSUS and HSI strongly support the Administration's
efforts to protect elephants by reducing the significant ivory market
in the United States, and we appreciate efforts by the U.S. Congress to
highlight the elephant poaching crisis, including this hearing today
and the February 26 hearing by Chairman of the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs, Congressman Ed Royce, on ``International Wildlife
Trafficking Threats to Conservation and National Security.'' The
Chairman, committee members and witnesses highlighted a wide range of
devastating impacts of wildlife trafficking, especially trafficking of
ivory from recently poached elephants that go beyond the extinction of
elephants and the cruelty inflicted on the poached animals. The impacts
also include threats to the national security of the United States.
The Obama administration's Executive Order on Combatting Wildlife
Trafficking issued last year, and the release of the National Strategy
for Combatting Wildlife Trafficking earlier this year, demonstrated the
U.S's firm resolve to address the international poaching crisis that is
affecting not only elephants but rhinos, tigers and a host of other
species. We strongly commend the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
for following up on the Order and Strategy by issuing a series of
Administrative Actions ratcheting down on elephant ivory import, export
and interstate commerce, to the extent allowed by law. In particular,
HSUS and HSI strongly support the prohibition on importation of all
African elephant ivory for commercial purposes, including antique
ivory, and the moratorium on the importation of sport-hunted trophies
of elephants from Tanzania and Zimbabwe. We are looking forward to
reviewing proposed rules currently being developed by the USFWS and we
urge the Service to promulgate the strongest regulations possible under
law, that do not contain loopholes or exemptions that would create
enforcement challenges.
The actions of the Administration are steps in the right direction,
as the U.S. has a crucial role to play in stemming the illegal ivory
trade. It might surprise many that the United States is the second
largest market for ivory after China. According to a 2008 report,\1\
``Ivory Markets in the USA,'' a total of 24,004 ivory articles were
found for sale in 654 outlets in 16 towns and cities visited in the
United States. New York had by far the most ivory for sale, followed by
California and Hawaii. New York City had at least 11,376 items for
sale. Hawaii had 23 outlets selling at least 1,867 items.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Martin, E., and D. Stiles. 2008. Ivory Markets in the USA. Care
for the Wild International and Save the Elephants. West Sussex, UK and
London, UK. http://www.savetheelephants.org/files/pdf/publications/
2008%20Martin%20&%20Stiles%20Ivory%20Markets%20in%20the%20USA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The authors found that:
Nearly one-third of the items appeared to have been
crafted after 1989 when the international ban on the ivory
trade under the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species (CITES) took effect, making their
importation illegal.
Inspection of pieces (mainly of Chinese origin) in shops
suggested that many figures, netsukes, and jewelry items
were recently made. Some African items also looked recently
made.
In Hawaii, close to 90 percent of the items for sale were
found to be of unknown or illegal origins.
Over 40,000 worked ivory items, including personal
effects, were legally imported to the United States from
1995-2007. Previous studies found that ivory workshops in
Asia and Africa produce fake antiques. Thus, even the
imported worked ivory into the United States that seems old
could be recently made.
The U.S. legally imported some 3,530 tusks and about 2,400
raw ivory pieces between 1990 and 2005 and some of this
material was illegally sold into the commercial market.
Federal and State authorities rarely inspect shops or
Internet sites for illegal raw or worked ivory.
Some contraband gets past Customs and there are no
effective internal ivory transport and retail market
controls.
Research conducted by The HSUS and HSI in June and July 2013 on
Hawaii's and New York's online ivory marketplaces found them vibrant
yet unregulated. For instance, the Web site that sold the largest
number of ivory products in Hawaii, over 800 items in total, attempts
to demonstrate the legality of the ivory by posting on the Web site
ivory import permits from the 1980s that do not contain information
needed to match items on the list to items that are offered for sale.
Several other vendors state that their ivory was legally imported but
do not provide documentation matching the ivory they offer for sale.
None of the 1,153 ivory articles offered for sale online in Hawaii can
be judged with confidence to be legal.
An earlier investigation \2\ in 2002 by The HSUS of ivory markets
in the United States found:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Humane Society of the United States. 2002. An Investigation of
Ivory Markets in the United States. The Humane Society of the United
States. Washington, DC, USA. http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/
Ivory_Trade_Report.pdf.
Ivory sellers who offed to provide fraudulent documents to
investigators indicating that elephant ivory was mammoth
ivory, that new ivory was old ivory, or that recently
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
imported ivory was imported a long time ago.
These markets are supplied, at least in part, by illegal
imports from Hong Kong of ivory objects carved in China.
Those in the ivory business offered tips about how best to
smuggle ivory into the United States, including placing
small ivory items in their luggage in a certain manner to
avoid detection by x-ray machines and importing through
U.S. ports, such as Alaska, where there are few USFWS
inspectors.
There is no real disincentive to smuggle ivory into the
United States. Although large-scale smugglers can be fined
and imprisoned, small-scale smugglers are usually only
required to forfeit the ivory objects.
While the United States has laws and regulations pertaining to
ivory trade, they are confusing and riddled with loopholes exploited by
those involved in the international and domestic ivory trade. This also
leads to consumer confusion about what is legal and what is not. The
result is a flourishing, poorly regulated domestic ivory market in the
United States.
In the United States, the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species (CITES) is implemented through the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). CITES bans the international commercial trade in
both Asian and African elephant ivory. However, there are exceptions to
this rule. Generally, any ivory possessed prior to July 1, 1975 is
``pre-Convention'' and can be traded internationally for commercial
purposes. Sport-hunted elephant trophies can be exported and imported
but not for commercial purposes. It is important to note that CITES
does not address domestic trade in ivory.
In addition to CITES rules governing international trade, the ESA
also has its own rules governing international trade as well as
domestic interstate trade. Under the ESA, the Asian elephant is listed
as ``endangered'' and the African elephant as ``threatened''. This
means that, in general, it is illegal to import, export or sell Asian
elephant ivory between States. However, African elephant ivory legally
imported to the United States prior to January 20, 1990 (when the 1989
CITES ivory trade ban became effective) may be sold on the domestic
market. Furthermore, import, export and interstate sale of ivory that
is ``antique'' (more than 100 years old) are allowed.
The other law of relevance is the African Elephant Conservation
Act, which banned the importation of raw and worked African elephant
ivory on June 9, 1989. The ban does not include sport-hunted elephant
trophies.
Finally, some jurisdictions within the United States have laws that
can affect the legality of the sale of ivory. California banned the
sale of ivory, although this law appears not to be enforced. Recently,
both New York and New Jersey banned the sale of ivory although in New
York there are some very limited exceptions.
To summarize, it is legal to import, export and sell on the U.S.
domestic market certain types of elephant ivory depending on the age of
the ivory, the date the ivory was acquired or imported, and whether the
ivory is from an Asian or African elephant. These variables are
difficult for the public to comprehend and challenging for authorities
to implement and enforce.
The difficulty of enforcing these laws cannot be overlooked. Ivory
is a term that can refer to the tusks of Asian or African elephants, or
the tusks of extinct mammoths (dug up from the frozen tundra of Siberia
or Alaska), or the teeth of hippos, walrus, sperm whale, narwhal,
warthog or boar. Only experts, using special equipment, can sometimes
tell the difference between Asian and African elephant tusks, or
between elephant and mammoth tusks. Even then, it is not always
possible to tell the difference between ivories of these closely
related species. The fact that ivory carvings can be made from other
mammals, including extinct ones that are not regulated by international
or domestic laws, offers an easy means for smugglers to circumvent
legal requirements by simply claiming elephant ivory carvings to be
those of another species.
An example of the enforcement problems surrounding ivory is
illustrated when the USFWS seized ivory carvings imported from Hong
Kong. The subject was importing 56 ivory carvings (mainly ``netsukes''
which are small ivory carvings of animals or people) in his luggage,
and told the wildlife inspector that they were all mammoth ivory and
did not require a permit. He had receipts from a Hong Kong shop where
he had purchased the items, stating that they were ``mammoth'' tusk
carvings. The carvings were sent to the USFW's National Fish and
Wildlife Forensics Laboratory to be tested. Out of the 55 carvings
tested, 10 were made from ivory from African or Asian elephants (these
items were seized), while another 6 carvings were made from extinct
elephant ivory from mammoths or mastodons. However, the majority of the
carvings could not be determined with accuracy to be either elephant
ivory or mammoth ivory. In fact, 29 carvings were made from ``elephant
ivory of an indeterminate source.'' Furthermore, 10 of the carvings
were found to be ``carvings made from dentine (ivory) of an
indeterminate source,'' presumably meaning that it could not be
determined even from which type of the animal the ivory originated. If
one of the most advanced wildlife forensics laboratories in the world
has difficulty distinguishing between ivories, and thus between
potentially legal or illegal items, it is almost impossible to expect
the average ivory buyer to be able to do so.
Numerous high-profile and large-scale seizures during the last few
years show that our market is a fertile ground for smuggled ivory.
According to Interpol's rule of thumb only 10 percent of contraband is
seized. This suggests that for every major seizure of illegal ivory in
the United States, many more illegal items were smuggled into the
United States. Once these illegal ivory items cross our borders, there
is no effective control mechanism to stop their circulation in the
markets.
Below are a few examples of recent significant ivory seizures:
In 2012, an investigation by the Manhattan District
Attorney, the USFWS and New York State Department of
Environmental Conservations agents led to the confiscation
in Manhattan's diamond district of roughly a ton of ivory
trinkets which filled 72 banker boxes, representing
approximately tusks of 100 slaughtered elephants. The
seized goods were worth 2 million dollars.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.manhattanda.com/press-release/da-vance-announces-
guilty-pleas-dealers-selling-illegal-elephant-ivory.
An ongoing investigation since 2012 by the USFWS, dubbed
``Operation Crash'',\4\ in collaboration with the
Department of Justice has made 17 arrests and 9 convictions
concerning wildlife crimes. One conviction involves a
transnational criminal network that smuggled rhino horns
and elephant ivory collectively worth more than 4.5 million
dollars. Ringleader of the network, Zhifei Li, was
sentenced to 70 months in prison on May 27, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.fws.gov/home/feature/2014/3-31-14-Operation-Crash-
Overview.pdf.
On June 4, 2014, a Philadelphia art dealer, Victor Gordon,
who pleaded guilty for smuggling African elephant ivory,
was sentenced to 30 months in prison.\5\ One ton of
elephant ivory was seized from Gordon's Philadelphia store
in April 2009. According to a National Geographic article,
Gordon instructed his West African co-conspirator, ``how to
alter receipts and to dye the material to make it appear
old.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.justice.gov/usao/nye/pr/June14/2014June4.php.
\6\ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AuA8-
_Dd25sJ:news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140604-victor-gordon-
ivory-trafficking-philadelphia-operation-scratchoff-usf-ws-forest-
elephants-gabon/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us.
The USFWS' ``Operation Scratchoff'', which targets
smuggling of elephant ivory from Africa to the United
States, discovered various ways traffickers use to avoid
detection. For instance, ``shipments were accompanied by
fraudulent shipping and customs documents identifying their
contents as African wooden handicrafts or wooden statues.
The ivory itself was painted to look like wood; covered
with clay; or hidden inside wooden handicrafts, such as
traditional African musical instruments.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Eye on Ivory, Investigations & Inspections'', USFWS, http://
www.fws.gov/le/pdf/Elephant-Ivory-Investigations.pdf.
The lack of effective controls along the trade routes, combined
with the difficulty of distinguishing legally acquired ivory from ivory
of recently poached elephants, are exploited by unscrupulous dealers to
launder illicit ivory into our marketplace. The USFWS has remarked that
``criminal investigations and anti-smuggling efforts have clearly shown
that legal ivory trade can serve as a cover for illegal trade.'' \8\ In
a January hearing of the New York State Assembly Committee on
Environmental Conservation, assistant director of the Office of Law
Enforcement at USFWS, William Woody testified that law enforcement
agents ``struggle to identify the age of the ivory they find for sale,
which determines its legality.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ http://www.fws.gov/international/pdf/factsheet-ivory-crush-
qa.pdf.
\9\ http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140116/
PROFESSIONAL_SERVICES/140119890/citys-illegal-ivory-trade-threatens-
elephants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only logical conclusion, therefore, is that there must be a ban
on ivory sales in the United States if we are to eliminate our role in
the poaching and possible near-term extinction of elephants. While we
strongly support the Administration's efforts to ratchet down on the
ivory trade, existing laws do not go far enough. We urge Congress to
urgently establish a ban, without exceptions, on import, export, and
domestic sale of elephant ivory.
As the Nation's largest animal protection organization, The HSUS'
concern regarding the ivory trade is first and foremost the cruelty of
poaching inflicted on the elephants. Because one-third of the tusk is
attached to the skull of the animal, poachers brutally hack off the
face of the elephant to obtain the tusk. Poachers kill entire elephant
families, including its youngest members as long as they have tusks.
Elephant babies, who do not have tusks that have emerged, are left as
orphans unable to fend for themselves and often die if not rescued by
humans in time.
Poachers are getting increasingly ruthless. In Zimbabwe in July
last year, poachers poisoned water holes with cyanide and killed more
than 300 elephants. Other animals, such as lions, vultures, and so on,
also died from drinking from the same water sources or from feeding on
the poisoned elephant carcasses. In March 2013, 89 elephants, including
33 pregnant females and 15 calves, were slaughtered in Chad.\10\ A year
before in February 2012, poachers killed nearly 450 elephants in
Cameroon for their ivory.\11\ The Central African region bears the
brunt of the poaching crisis. It is estimated that the population of
forest elephants in Central Africa declined by 62 percent between 2002
and 2011.\12\ The African elephant population has declined by an
estimated 50 percent over the last 40 years with approximately 470,000
animals left in 38 range countries. The Asian elephant is endangered;
its population has also been reduced by half compared to the beginning
of the 20th century with less than 50,000 left in 13 range countries.
Data indicates that in 2012 at least 35,000 African elephants were
killed to supply the global ivory trade, close to 100 every day. If the
poaching rate persists, African elephants could be extinct in a few
decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``Poachers Behind March Slaughter of 89 Elephants Captured in
Chad'', ICCF. http://www.iccfoundation.us/
index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=494:poacher-behind-march-
slaughter-of-89-elephants-captured-in-chad&catid=72:2013&Itemid=373.
\11\ http://news.discovery.com/animals/elephant-poaching-cameroon-
120229.htm.
\12\ ``Devastating Decline of Forest Elephants in Central Africa'',
PLOS One, March 4, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is also a human toll behind elephant poaching. During the
last decade, over a thousand park rangers across the world have been
killed by poachers while on duty. The loss of park rangers has a ripple
effect across local communities because they are mothers, fathers,
aunts and uncles; they are bread winners; and they are community
members. These wildlife rangers are underpaid, outnumbered and
outgunned by poachers. As the Secretary General of CITES pointed out,
``the massive scale of poaching reflects a new trend that we are
detecting across many range states, where well-armed poachers with
sophisticated weapons decimate elephant populations, often with
impunity.'' \13\ Lives of wildlife rangers are increasingly put in
danger literally every time, if not every day, when they fulfill their
job duties of protecting elephants from poachers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ http://www.cites.org/eng/news/pr/2012/
20120228_elephant_cameroon.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ivory is dubbed ``white gold'' because of the lucrative profits
ivory sales generate. A pound of raw ivory costs $1,300 today.\14\ Some
say that carved ivory can sell for $60,000 for 10 kilograms.\15\ The
handsome financial rewards of the ivory trade have attracted Africa-
based armed militia and terrorist groups. Ivory has become the new
``blood diamond'' in Africa that provides an economic bloodline to
these criminal and terrorist syndicates. According to an investigation
by the Elephant Action League (EAL), Somalia-based Al-Qaeda affiliate,
Al Shabaab, trades up to three tons of ivory every month and derives a
substantial amount of its funding from the ivory trade. EAL estimated
that profits from the ivory trade support about 40 percent of Al-
Shabaab's operations.\16\ Indicated by the International Criminal court
for war crimes and crimes against humanity, Joseph Kony and his Lord's
Resistance Army have turned to elephant poaching to sustain their
nefarious activities. The Washington-based anti-genocide organization,
Enough Project, in a report released in June 2013, ``Kony's Ivory,''
found that ``LRA leader Joseph Kony has ordered his fighters to bring
him elephant tusks. Eyewitnesses report that the LRA trades tusks for
much-needed resources such as food, weapons, and ammunition, and other
supplies.'' \17\ Lured by money, Sudan's Darfur genocide perpetrator,
Janjaweed, have been engaged in elephant poaching. Riding on horseback,
and heavily armed, members of Janjaweed repeatedly crossed borders into
protected parks in Cameroon and Chad to butcher elephants for their
tusks. Profits generated by the ivory trade are much like the blood or
conflict diamond that funded insurgency and prolonged the protracted
conflicts in the African content. It is also easy money and
untraceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/02/world/asia/an-illicit-trail-
of-african-ivory-to-
china.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1382464974-wCE0VI1v2lNFACwuMh5K
4A.
\15\ ``Elephant slaughter escalates as illegal ivory market
thrives'', by Animal Welfare Institute, https://awionline.org/awi-
quarterly/2013-winter/elephant-slaughter-escalates-illegal-ivory-
market-thrives.
\16\ http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/campaigns/elephant-
campaign/elephant-campaign-how-africas-white-gold-funds-the-alshabaab-
militants-9102862.html.
\17\ ``Kony's Ivory'', Enough Project, June 3, 2013, http://
www.enoughproject.org/reports/konys-ivory-how-elephant-poaching-congo-
helps-support-lords-resistance-army.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The involvement of African rebel groups and Al-Qaeda terrorist
network in elephant poaching and the illegal ivory trade elevated the
stakes as well as the urgency. Stemming the ivory trade is no longer
just about saving the elephants, but also about stopping the cash-flow
from the ivory trade for these groups, and protecting U.S. national
security interests in the region.
The United States alone cannot solve the elephant poaching crisis.
Many argue that the problem lies with China or other Asian countries
but we cannot deny the fact that the United States has a sizable ivory
market that contributes to the flourishing of the illegal ivory trade.
The world is looking to the United States for leadership, to fight
these terrorists and save the elephants. But to have credible
leadership, we must first address our own significant market for ivory.
Efforts reducing our demand for ivory, such as the impending USFWS
regulations to prohibit domestic ivory trade, are a clear and bold
demonstration of our commitment to combating the illegal ivory trade.
By taking a further step, by Congress enacting a ban on import, export
and sale of elephant ivory, we could ensure that illegal ivory, ivory
from newly poached elephants that funds terrorism and destabilizes
Africa, will have no place in our country.
U.S. actions matter and our leadership on this issue is paramount.
Soon after the United States crushed six tons of seized ivory in Denver
last year, China, France, Belgium and Hong Kong destroyed their seized
ivory stockpiles, thereby sending the message far and wide that buying
ivory is equivalent to elephant death and the world's governments are
not going to stand for it. International coordination and solidarity
from the international community, especially from major ivory consuming
countries, is imperative to stop the demand and thus to stop the
killings. Our diplomatic efforts in convincing major consuming
countries, such as China, to reduce their ivory demand would be most
effective and credible if we can tell them unequivocally that the
United States has a ban on the sale of ivory, and that we urge them to
join us and do the same.
We have talked the talk and now we must walk the walk. The threat
of extinction facing elephants waits for no one while poachers and
traffickers continue their slaughter and despicable activities
unabated. The time for a total ban on the U.S. domestic ivory markets
is now.
I thank you for your time and consideration of this matter that is
crucial to the survival of the elephants, to the stability of the
African continent, and to the national security interests of the United
States.
______
Prepared Statement of Jesse Rosen, President and CEO, League of
American Orchestras and Bruce Ridge, Chair, International Conference of
Symphony and Opera Musicians
The League of American Orchestras, founded in 1942, and chartered
by Congress in 1962, is the national arts service organization of
approximately 800 orchestras across the United States--all 501(c)(3)
nonprofit charitable organizations--representing thousands of
administrators and musicians working daily to deliver orchestral music
to audiences worldwide. The International Conference of Symphony and
Opera Musicians (ICSOM), founded in 1962, represents over 4,000
musicians from 52 major symphony orchestras throughout the United
States, with the mission to promote a better and more rewarding
livelihood for the skilled orchestral performer and to enrich the
cultural life of our society. Our organizations are also active
participants in the wider international cultural exchange community,
partnering with The Recording Academy, Chamber Music America, the
American Federation of Violin and Bow Makers, the National Association
of Music Merchants, and the Performing Arts Alliance.
Every day, thousands of U.S. professional musicians, students, and
private individuals use musical instruments in public performances,
private events, educational pursuits, and for personal enjoyment.
Musicians who make their living performing with these tools of the
trade live in cities and towns, large and small, in every corner of the
United States, and contribute to the economic strength, civic vitality,
and educational vibrancy of the communities in which they live.
International artists from beyond our country's borders are frequently
invited to perform for U.S. audiences--alongside U.S. musicians--
multiplying the diverse array of offerings available to listeners. In
ongoing international cultural and diplomatic endeavors, U.S.
orchestras, small ensembles, and soloists tour internationally to
perform for audiences across the globe. In the course of their careers,
working musicians nationwide make a considerable investment in the
highest quality musical instruments available to them and count on
their instruments to enable them to attain their musical skills,
advance their careers, and supply extraordinary musical experiences to
audiences.
A great many musicians, particularly string players, perform with
legally crafted and legally purchased musical instruments that contain
small amounts of elephant ivory. Ivory may be found in an array of
string, wind, percussion, and brass instruments. The policies recently
adopted and soon to be proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
regarding the travel and sales rules for musical instruments will have
a profound impact on the cultural vibrancy and economic activity of
musicians in the United States, and will significantly alter the
environment for international cultural activity.
We appreciate this opportunity to go on record related to the
impact of recent proposals to ban commercial activity related to
African elephant ivory. In addition to concerns related to anticipated
upcoming regulatory action to limit future sales of existing musical
instruments, we offer comments here regarding the immediate impact of
new policies now in place that limit international travel with these
musical instruments.
The music community is fully committed to the goals of wildlife
conservation and combatting illegal trade in ivory and other protected
species. Following the issuance of the February 25, 2014 U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Director's Order 210, we have been informing musicians
of the threat to African elephant populations, assembling the only
existing comprehensive guidance for musicians attempting to navigate
the new rules for travel with instruments, and responding to numerous
daily inquiries and reports from individuals and groups--in the United
States and across the globe--attempting to travel with existing,
legally crafted musical instruments that contain small amounts of
African elephant ivory and other protected species material. While we
are grateful for the expansion of instruments eligible for travel under
the revised Director's Order issued on May 15, serious barriers to
international cultural activities remain.
A reliable system has not been built to support travel with
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)
permits. Musicians that conclude a permit is required encounter an
array of obstacles when attempting to simply travel to use the tools of
their trade.
Clear, species-specific public guidance regarding the many
layers of CITES and domestic requirements in the United
States and internationally simply is not available in a
format easily accessible to musicians. Musicians and
cultural institutions are struggling to assess and document
the endangered species content of musical instruments,
which were legally crafted decades, and even centuries ago.
Because these instruments were purchased, not for their
protected species material, but for their unique artistic
qualities, and considering a great many of them were
crafted before CITES came into existence, very few
instruments were accompanied by species-specific
documentation at the time of purchase. In most cases, it is
impossible for musicians to produce original records
confirming the material used in instruments, leaving them
to pursue appraisals and expert affidavits, with no
assurance as to whether such documentation will be
acceptable. Some musicians unable to answer the threshold
question as to whether the content of their musical
instruments includes protected species material are
obtaining permits out of necessary caution, raising their
own burden, and raising the impact on permitting and
enforcement authorities. While the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has publicly stated that it can use visual
inspection to distinguish African elephant ivory from
other, non-protected material found in musical instrument
parts as small as the tip of a bow, musicians have a high
degree of fear that even contemporary instruments made with
non-protected material are currently at risk of
confiscation.
The required U.S. permit application procedures are
entirely new and not clearly communicated to musicians.
Over the past 4 months, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
has been very responsive to the small number of initial
applications for 3-year musical instrument passports, and
has provided exemplary public service, responding to
inquiries quickly and comprehensively. However, the
application forms for passports were not complete, leaving
orchestra applicants, for instance, to retrofit existing
forms intended for use by ``circuses and traveling animal
exhibitions.'' A new form for applying for 3-year permits
has only just been completed in the United States, and the
process for using it is as-yet untested. It is unclear
whether U.S. Fish and Wildlife will have the capacity to
process the potential volume of permit applications it
would receive under a fully implemented permit system.
The extremely limited designated U.S. port locations and
hours of operations available for inspecting and
credentialing permits are insufficient to support the
volume of travel undertaken by professional musicians,
students, and others participating in an array of
international cultural activity. At present, only nine U.S.
ports have inspectors available to process permits for
musical instruments that contain both plant and animal
material (e.g., stringed instruments containing Brazilian
rosewood and ivory). Lengthy port inspection procedures on
departure and arrival, for individuals and groups simply
transporting musical instruments for use internationally,
are an immense barrier to compliance with the underlying
permit procedures. Musicians also require formal assurances
that their fragile instruments will not be in harm's way
when undergoing inspection and that instruments will be
safe from damage or destruction if erroneously confiscated.
International CITES authorities are not sufficiently
prepared to issue multi-year musical instrument passports,
and the process for recognizing U.S.-issued documents is
uncertain. European CITES countries, for instance are
taking the time required to fully consider the impact on
their stakeholders before implementing a musical instrument
passport process. U.S.-based musicians attempting to use
U.S.-issued permits internationally are encountering
confusion and delays that disrupt time-sensitive travel.
In addition to the inconsistencies related to
international CITES permit procedures, the lack of clarity
regarding the added U.S. domestic rules for traveling with
endangered species material presents insurmountable
obstacles for many international artists attempting to
travel to perform for audiences in the U.S. and alongside
U.S. musicians. Well-meaning foreign musicians attempting
to comply with permit requirements have had their
instruments detained because they unintentionally missed a
step in the process or were unaware of the additional U.S.
domestic rules for travel with instruments.
Our organizations will continue to inform musicians of the rules
for travel with musical instruments, and we will partner with our
colleagues in the instrument-making community to help musicians better
identify and document the material contained in their musical
instruments. We believe that conservation goals and international
cultural activity will be more fully supported when the United States
takes the following additional actions:
Immediately issue clearer guidance tailored for musicians
preparing to come into compliance with existing CITES and
domestic permitting rules and enforcement procedures.
Fully coordinate implementation and enforcement procedures
among the Transportation Security Administration,
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
streamline treatment of musical instruments.
Communicate with international CITES authorities to pursue
harmonizing U.S. musical instrument passport procedures
with international permitting and enforcement protocols
wherever possible.
Remove the limitation on entering or re-entering the
United States with musical instruments purchased after
February 25, 2014, which contain African elephant ivory.
Implement a ``personal effects'' exemption that would
allow legally crafted and legally purchased musical
instruments to be transported through non-designated ports
without undergoing lengthy inspection procedures. This
policy change would restore opportunities for international
cultural exchange and enable extremely limited enforcement
resources to be redirected to genuine threats to wildlife
conservation.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's ``Ivory Ban Questions and
Answers'' includes the following statement (emphasis added).
Why is the Service allowing limited imports for non-commercial
purposes to continue, but restricting the commercial
importation of antiques made from African elephant ivory?
The United States is a market for objects made from African
elephant ivory, which drives increasing poaching of wild
elephants. The Service has determined that it must take every
administrative and regulatory action to cut off import of raw
and worked elephant ivory where that importation is for
commercial purposes. Allowing imports for law enforcement and
scientific purposes is in line with the Service's mission to
help conserve African elephants and stop trafficking in African
elephant ivory. The other limited exceptions allow movement
into the United States of legally possessed African elephant
ivory that predates the listing under the Convention on the
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES) for personal use as part of a household move or
inheritance, musical performances, and traveling exhibitions.
Each of these types of import must meet specific criteria. And
unlike the commercial antiques trade, none of these types of
imports has been used by smugglers to ``cover'' trafficking in
newly poached ivory.
Given that the use of musical instruments does not contribute to
trafficking in poached African elephant ivory, we firmly believe that
policies that protect the future use of musical instruments should be
expanded. We submit the attached document, Protecting the Use and
Ensuring the Preservation of Musical Instruments, as supporting
material, which includes comprehensive facts about the limited,
historic use of ivory in musical instruments. Notably, the document
demonstrates that there is not a demand for new ivory in the use of
crafting new musical instruments.
In partnership with the broader music community, we will be engaged
in ongoing opportunities for public comment, and will participate in
future Federal rulemaking procedures related to travel with musical
instruments--and domestic sales of instruments--to seek opportunities
for future generations of musicians to have access to existing,
culturally significant instruments of unparalleled quality. We thank
the committee for this opportunity to seek urgently needed near-term
solutions that meet conservation goals while supporting international
cultural activity.
Attachment
Protecting the Use and Ensuring the Preservation of Musical Instruments
The undersigned organizations urge Congress and the Administration
to take the following steps to protect international and domestic
cultural activity while supporting essential endangered species
conservation efforts:
Restore opportunities for international travel with
legally crafted, legally purchased musical instruments that
contain endangered species material.
Maintain the legal sale of existing, legally crafted
musical instruments that contain small amounts of African
elephant ivory.
Support African elephant conservation by focusing U.S.
enforcement resources on efforts that genuinely combat
illegal trade and trafficking in African elephant ivory,
rather than banning travel with and sale of legally crafted
and legally purchased musical instruments.
As part of a broader effort to combat illegal trade in African
elephant ivory, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has ordered
sweeping enforcement procedures related to the Endangered Species Act
and the African Elephant Conservation Act and is drafting new
regulatory limitations. Thousands of musicians use musical instruments
containing small amounts of African elephant ivory that were legally
crafted decades ago and legally purchased--not for their ivory content,
but for their impeccable sound and artistic value. The new USFWS
measures have severe consequences on international and domestic
cultural activity.
On February 25, 2014, new strict limits immediately took effect for
international travel with instruments that contain African elephant
ivory, preventing travel with instruments that were legally purchased
after 1973. In response to urgent appeals from the music community,
USFWS revised Director's Order 210 on May 15, 2014, saying that
noncommercial movement of musical instruments ``do(es) not contribute
to poaching or illegal trade.'' However, the revised Order still
prohibits traveling musicians from returning to the United States with
instruments legally purchased after February 25, 2014 and heightens
implementation of international permit requirements that are nearly
impossible to navigate.
USFWS will next issue proposed regulations that will also
effectively ban domestic sales of existing, legally crafted instruments
that contain African elephant ivory.
The new and forthcoming rules will unfairly render many musical
instruments that were legally made, bought, and sold impossible to use
internationally, illegal to resell, and effectively valueless in their
existing condition. The majority of these instruments are irreplaceable
culturally and artistically, and they are essential to a musician's
sound. Ivory has generally not been used for decades to create new
musical instruments. USFWS has not explained how the commercial sale of
existing musical instruments contributes to elephant poaching and the
illegal trafficking in ivory.
The music community is fully committed to the goals of wildlife
conservation and combatting illegal trade in ivory and other protected
species. We are asking the Administration to use its regulatory
authority and enforcement discretion to craft a reasonable solution
that protects the domestic and international use of musicians' tools of
their trade, and preserves historical and legally made instruments now
and for future generations to come.
Alternate ROOTS National Alliance for Musical
Theatre
American Federation of
Musicians of the United
States and Canada National Association of Music
Merchants
American Federation of
Violin and Bow Makers National Performance Network
Association of Performing
Arts Presenters OPERA America
Chamber Music America Performing Arts Alliance
Dance/USA The Recording Academy
Fractured Atlas Theatre Communications Group
International Conference of
Symphony and Opera
Musicians (ICSOM) Violin Society of America
League of American
Orchestras
Facts about Ivory in Musical Instruments
Many musicians perform with instruments crafted decades, and even
centuries, ago that contain small amounts of African elephant ivory.
Most frequently found in bows and acoustic guitars, ivory may also be
found in other string instruments, wind instruments, keyboards, brass,
and certain percussion instruments.
There is today no market for unworked or raw African elephant ivory
within the musical community. Bow makers and other artisans stopped
using elephant ivory decades ago. The trade and use of musical
instruments is not a source of illegal trafficking in elephant ivory.
The use and re-sale of instruments does not increase demand for
ivory products or drive ivory value. Instruments are not purchased for
their ivory content, but rather for their impeccable overall quality
and tonal attributes that enable their owners to perform to their very
best abilities. Unlike many other commodities, musical instruments are
hand crafted and unique; no two are exactly alike in the way that they
feel and sound. This helps account for their high cultural and
historical value.
Ivory material is not easily replaced without risk of irreparable
damage to the instruments. Attempts at re-tipping bows, for instance,
can result in the loss of historical bow wood and the bow's unique
balance and artistic quality. The art and tradition of instrument
making, part of our cultural heritage, will be undermined if antique
and pre-act ivory are removed from bow tips and guitars in a blanket
and indiscriminate manner to comply with the new and forthcoming rules.
The preservation of these historical instruments is essential to the
study of the art of crafting instruments, now and in the future.
These instruments are essential tools of the trade. Because
instruments are hand-crafted and uniquely matched to the performance
needs of musicians, they are very often quite expensive and represent
substantial personal investments for musicians. Most musicians do not
have suitable substitute instruments for use in place of instruments
that contain ivory.
The use, preservation, and sale of instruments are inextricably
bound. The vast majority of musicians, artisans, and dealers are
individuals or small businesses. Museums, institutions, and other
collectors, public and private, will no longer be able to acquire
instruments, impoverishing U.S. collections, which culturally enrich
the public. All depend on the ability to transfer instruments. If
instruments cannot be sold, music as we know it will not survive and
musical collections, which provide the basis for learning, will be
frozen in place.
Facts about Travel with Instruments
Under the original February 25, 2014 Director's Order 210
[Administrative Actions to Strengthen U.S. Trade Controls for Elephant
Ivory, Rhinoceros Horn, and Parts and Products of Other Species Listed
Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)], instruments containing African
elephant ivory were not allowed to enter the U.S. if the instruments
had been purchased after February 26, 1976. In response to urgent
appeals from the music community, USFWS amended Director's Order 210 on
May 5, 2014 to slightly ease the restrictions on musical instruments.
Under the latest version of the rules, a musical instrument that
contains African elephant ivory may only be brought into the U.S. if
the instrument meets all of the following criteria: the African
elephant ivory contained in the instrument was legally acquired prior
to February 26, 1976; the instrument has not subsequently been
transferred from one person to another person for financial gain or
profit since February 25, 2014; the person or group traveling with the
instrument qualifies for a CITES (the Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) musical instrument
certificate; and the musical instrument containing African elephant
ivory is accompanied by a valid CITES musical instrument certificate or
an equivalent CITES document. These limitations apply to musical
instruments that contain either antique or newer ivory.
While widening the scope of instruments eligible for travel across
U.S. borders is a step in the right direction, many serious questions
and concerns remain. It is unclear at this time what documentation will
be sufficient to prove that an instrument was purchased prior to
February 25, 2014 or that the ivory in the instrument was acquired
prior to February 26, 1976. Instruments legally purchased after early
2014 that contain African elephant ivory will be banned from entering
the U.S., even if the instruments are entering the U.S. purely for
personal or professional use.
A reliable system has not been built for obtaining CITES passports
and navigating complicated enforcement procedures at U.S. ports of
entry and departure, and across the globe. The costs, uncertainty, and
risks associated with attempting to travel with permits are a barrier
to international cultural activity. While rules the requiring permits
for travel with instruments have existed for nearly 40 years, they have
never been widely implemented, and a complete structure has not been
put into place to facilitate compliance.
The permit process, customs enforcement procedures, and rules for
compliance with the ban are opaque and incomplete, creating a high risk
of erroneous seizure and forfeiture of musical instruments. African
elephant ivory used in older instruments can be very difficult to
distinguish from mammoth or non-endangered ivory types. The CITES
musical instrument passport concept is new and the permit procedures
are not yet fully developed. Only nine U.S. ports are available for
travel with instruments that contain ivory and protected wood species.
The use of U.S. permits in foreign countries is untested. Innocent
mistakes at Customs will result in the disproportionate penalty of
forfeiture. Immediate solutions are needed to avoid erroneous,
potentially destructive, and professionally crippling seizures of
instruments.
These travel limitations put the livelihood and international
reputation of musicians at risk. International artists perform for U.S.
audiences, U.S. musicians tour internationally to perform across the
globe, and individual amateur and professional musicians frequently
travel abroad to perform as soloists and smaller ensemble members.
International performances have been planned years and months in
advance of the new travel rules. It is simply impossible for musicians
to fulfill their engagements without their instruments.
Current and emerging rules related to travel with instruments that
contain endangered species material are not clearly or effectively
communicated by U.S. authorities to the vastly diverse communities of
U.S. and foreign artists that travel across borders. There is no one-
stop federal resource to communicate new orders and rules, leaving
musicians not institutionally connected at risk of becoming unfairly
ensnared in customs enforcement. Tens of thousands of musicians with
unique cultural backgrounds residing in the United States, and those
who live in diverse American communities and perform as professional
and semiprofessional musicians, run a great risk of never hearing about
new rules. The unmet need for mass communication and distribution of
new rules, along with instructions particularly in non-English
languages, presents a particular threat to artists in these diverse
communities.
Instrument and bow makers who travel internationally with
instruments simply to exhibit them or for educational purposes, and
without intention to sell them, could find their instruments and bows
subject to seizure simply because they otherwise engage in commercial
activity by profession.
If musical instruments are confiscated and/or destroyed,
significant financial hardship may ensue. Such seizures could very well
spell the end of employment and make it impossible for musicians to
participate in opportunities within artistic cultural centers, clubs,
and educational training organizations.
Conservation goals will be better supported by focusing U.S.
enforcement resources on the root of the elephant ivory trafficking
problem, not on legal international cultural activity undertaken by
musicians. Members of the Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking
publicly stated on March 20, 2014 their intent to focus on the ``bad
guys'' fueling and fulfilling demand for new ivory products. Musicians,
bow makers and restorers, and institutions and private collectors of
historical and legally made bows are not contributing in any way to
increased demand for illegally traded ivory.
Facts about the Production, Sale, and Re-Sale of Instruments Containing
Ivory
The music community is not seeking to craft new instruments using
African elephant ivory. After the 1976 CITES listing of African
elephant ivory, and the 1989 implementation of the African Elephant
Conservation Act, U.S. bow makers and restorers, guitar makers, and
piano manufacturers in the United States stopped using elephant ivory
and turned to mammoth ivory and other non-endangered material as a
plentiful substitute.
These instruments were legally crafted decades ago. Until the CITES
listing of African elephant ivory in 1976, hundreds of thousands of
handmade bows, acoustic guitars, and other instruments produced over
many decades, and even centuries, were made with small amounts of
ivory. For example, violin bows often contain a thin ivory tip, with
dimensions of approximately .6 millimeters x 10 millimeters x 23
millimeters. An average bow tip weighed .2-.25 grams and required 1
gram of unfinished ivory. In 1970, when trade in elephant ivory was
legal, an average elephant tusk weighed 26 pounds, meaning that ivory
from one elephant could have produced over 23,000 bow tips. The head of
the bow was designed around the physical properties of the ivory tip,
which gives the delicate bow head protection, strength, and proper
balance. Many acoustic guitars used small amounts of ivory as saddles
or nuts, typically amounting to no more than 1 percent of the
instrument's weight.
Existing instruments that were legally crafted, sold, and purchased
should remain in use. Although elephant ivory has not been used in the
making of new instruments in decades, tens of thousands of instruments
containing small amounts of elephant ivory are today being played and
carried throughout the United States and the world by professional,
amateur, and student musicians. These instruments should be available
to future generations of musicians as well as instrument makers, who
look to historical examples as essential educational references for
their work.
It will be extremely difficult for many vintage instruments to be
designated as antiques eligible for an exemption under the proposed
rules. In order to qualify as an antique eligible for import, export,
and interstate sale, an instrument must not only be 100 years old, but
must have entered the U.S. via one of 13 authorized ports, even though
such designated ports did not exist until 1982. Even if the port-entry
requirement is relaxed in the proposed regulations, other problems
remain. Instruments that have been repaired or modified with any
endangered species since 1973 are also not eligible for designation as
antiques. Otherwise qualifying antiques also will not be eligible for
exemption if purchased after February 25, 1976. Non-antique vintage
instruments would be banned from import and domestic sale under the
USFWS proposal.
July 2014
______
Prepared Statement of Sotheby's, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we appreciate the
opportunity to submit testimony for the record of the Oversight Hearing
on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Plans to Implement a Ban on
Commercial Trade in Elephant Ivory.
Sotheby's has been uniting collectors with world-class works of art
since 1744. We are the oldest company listed on the New York Stock
Exchange (BID) and committed to conducting our business with the
highest level of integrity and transparency and to supporting an
ethical art market. Sotheby's was the first participant in the art
market to establish a global Compliance & Business Integrity
Department, which oversees the development and maintenance of programs
and policies designed to facilitate Sotheby's ongoing compliance with
all applicable laws, rules and regulations governing our worldwide
operations, including those related to endangered species.
Sotheby's deplores the illegal slaughter of elephants and other
endangered wildlife and has long supported various conservation
organizations. For example, Sotheby's CEO hosted the premiere screening
of The National Geographic Special, ``Battle for the Elephants,'' and
we have played a significant role in The Big Egg Hunt events in both
London and New York, which benefited an organization dedicated to
protecting Asian elephants. We strongly support conservation efforts,
including further restrictions on the illegal trade in objects made
with illegally sourced ivory. We succor the President's initiative to
end wildlife trafficking to curb poaching of elephants and stand ready
to assist with policy education. We support efforts to ensure that only
reputable, transparent and responsible sellers are allowed to sell
ivory objects, efforts to increase scrutiny of individual objects being
offered and increased penalties for those who illegally sell ivory.
However, we are concerned that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Director's
Order 210 could eliminate the sale and import of antique ivory, which
would negatively impact the art market across the country including
Sotheby's, museums and other art purchasers.
There are long-existing Federal and State laws that contain
significant restrictions on the importation, exportation and sale of
ivory. Compliance with these laws requires multiple layers of licensing
and substantial background research in order to determine whether the
ivory may legally enter the United States and/or whether it may be
legally sold. Auction houses like Sotheby's are noted for the quality
and thoroughness of the information we provide to determine the
legitimacy of the ivory we seek to sell. It is this track record and
transparency of auction houses and other compliant actors that ensures
that only legitimate antiques remain in commerce, in the hands of
private collectors, museums, and the public at large. We cannot
understate the cultural value and education that antiques provide
society and we urge the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (``USFWS'') to
produce a predictable, common-sense regulatory regime that will ensure
generations of Americans can enjoy antiques from all regions of the
world. Specifically, we fear that Order 210's prohibition of antique
imports with ivory serves no policy purpose and worse impedes the
United States' ability to lead by example with a rigorous commercial
standard for cultural objects containing wildlife . Furthermore,
isolating the United States from cultural treasures based on present
day atrocities does nothing to remedy the problem. We urge the
President and stand by him to educate the world on the importance of
protecting today's wildlife, but banning antique sales does not
accomplish our shared objective.
There has long been a statutory exemption in the United States
Endangered Species Act (``ESA'') to allow the import, export and sale
of antique items containing endangered material, i.e. those over 100
years old. There is an economically significant and important trade in
antique art and artifacts (including furniture, sculpture, cultural
objects and musical instruments) that were legally created more than
100 years ago that have been collected, exhibited and traded throughout
history. The exemption is important to museums, art collectors, and
legitimate art market participants, and is in the public interest.
Museums, for example, need to retain the ability to acquire and/or
transfer art work, created long ago, that contains endangered material
so they may refresh and curate their collections; similarly,
individuals who legally collected or inherited artifacts made long ago
with plant and animal material should not be deprived of the highly
regulated legitimate marketplace that currently exists, and which
facilitates movement of art to and from public and private collections.
Director's Order 210, dated February 25, 2014 implemented several
new enforcement policies that could effectively eliminate the antique
exemption in the ESA and not allow the sale or import of antique ivory
in the United States. For example, the Order re-interpreted the
definition of ``antique'' to require that the piece had been imported
through designated ports after such ports were designated in 1982.
After hearing from the antiques trade and other interested parties,
USFWS conceded that the new requirements were unworkable and issued an
Amended Director's Order on May 15, 2014. That Amendment removes the
import requirement for items that are already in the United States. We
applaud the USFWS for being responsive, however other concerns remain.
First, although the amended Director's Order appears to take steps
toward allowing the continued market for antique items containing
ivory, the language of the Order and associated documents is vague and
thus leaves room for wide latitude in how USFWS will enforce it and
future regulations. For example, between February and May (the issuance
of the first and amended Director's Orders), although the sale and
export of antique African elephant ivory was legally permitted, the
USFWS effectively blocked it by requiring proof as to the type of ivory
that was impossible to obtain. As Director Ashe continues to refer to
their desire for a ``near total ban'' on the trade of ivory, it remains
to be seen what type of substantiation the Service will require to
prove the age of an object or the species it contains.
Second, the Director's Order changes the requirements for
establishing the age of property containing endangered material,
calling into question whether USFWS will accept affidavits from
Sotheby's specialists--some of the foremost in their respective fields.
By requiring that a qualified appraisal be given by a person who is not
an employee of ``any business that is a party to the transaction,'' the
Director's Order appears to say that USFWS will not accept the expert
opinions of Sotheby's highly skilled specialists concerning the age of
the objects consigned to Sotheby's for sale simply because Sotheby's is
involved in the transaction. While ``independent'' experts make sense
in some contexts, it makes no sense here, as there is no one better
placed to make this expert determination than the very people with
extensive commercial experience, knowledge and expertise with the
particular property--whether furniture, silver, musical instruments or
American revolutionary items. Moreover, Sotheby's and our specialists'
interests in correctly identifying the age of an object are perfectly
aligned with USFWS's interest in doing the same. If an object is not an
antique as determined by a Sotheby's specialist, it is effectively a
modern reproduction. Since Sotheby's guarantees the objects that we
sell, any mistake as to the age of an object could have serious
financial and reputational repercussions. Thus, we urge the Director to
focus efforts on vetting the qualifications and integrity of the
experts and not on their independence, given that it is not realistic
to require experienced sellers and buyers to obtain appraisals from
their competitors. We also note that opining as to the age of an object
is different from identifying the plant or animal material. Sotheby's
typically relies on outside animal specialists with appropriate
training and expertise in species identification to identify the animal
material. The regulation should require the right expert to make the
various identifications and age determinations, and Director's Order
210 does not do so.
Third, Director's Order 210 bans commercial imports of items
containing African elephant ivory, regardless of their age. We are not
aware of any documented or substantiated connection between the trade
in antiques crafted with ivory before it was protected and present day
poaching and illegal trafficking. In contrast, it is certain that
banning the import of antique objects crafted with ivory will bring
real, measurable harm to U.S. collectors and institutions. Since there
is a clear and statutorily mandated exception for antique items, that
exception should apply also to the import of such objects when done
according to law.
Finally, there were many important objects, including highly
designed, artistic furniture (such as pieces created at Emile-Jacques
Ruhlmann), created in the 1920s-1940s using African elephant ivory
legally acquired well before the elephants were protected under CITES
and the ESA. The trade in such objects has long been permitted under
the Special Rules for African elephant ivory. However, the new
documents issued by the USFWS reflect their intent to amend the Special
Rule to eliminate the ability to trade in these very old and important
objects.
The USFWS proposal produces significant unintended consequences and
criminalizes important cultural commerce activities that benefit many
audiences. We urge this committee to ensure that the antique exemption
be preserved and to exercise careful oversight of the Director's Order
and the upcoming regulatory process related to ivory policies.
______
Prepared Statement of Linda Karst Stone, Kerrville, Texas
My name is Linda Karst Stone. I am proud to be an American
Scrimshaw artist, self-employed for over 37 years, pay my taxes, vote
and earning a living. I love my work. I have never hunted an elephant
and the one thing that everyone here can agree on is that the
magnificent elephants need to be protected. I owe my very livelihood to
the ivory producing animals of our planet.
I have worked with ivory all my life, most of it recycled. I do not
expect everyone to like what I do but I also represent 37 years of
collectors who found what I create worthy of their investments. Not one
piece would have the paperwork this ban would require, changing my
life's work into worthless objects. I was not lazy in keeping paperwork
or giving it. None was required which is why the USFWS plans to shift
the burden of proof onto the seller. They know none exists and that
enforcement would be overwhelming so they intimidate lawful collectors
with the RICO, travel and LACY acts, wire taps and Felony charges.
Some believe all ivory is blood ivory. That is a lie. Poachers are
talking over because some people oppose a legal ivory market that would
take away the poachers incentive and the terrorist's money. If legal
ivory was available it would find a market. We are handing out billions
of dollars to impose our views onto Africa. We are giving charity to
governments that does not reach its target. We all know this is
complicated, over 35 range countries, some of them that cannot even
protect their children and are not concerned with poachers. Others have
more elephants than the land can support.
This law:
Is an Overwhelming ``taking'' of legal personal property,
without just compensation protected by the constitution
with a stated mission to send a message to poachers who
will not care
Ignores the supreme court 1st amendment protecting
``viewpoint Neutrality''
Reverses the long standing premise of American law that we
are ``innocent until proven guilty''
Unlawfully rules over intrastate commerce
Arrogantly forces our views onto Africa without their
input and over their objections
Creates an impossible enforcement issue that will affect
millions of dollars of taxable income
Spends tax dollars for an advertising campaign to make
ivory owners so unpopular that they will turn in their
valuable heirlooms to an agency that decided to put 6 tons
of ivory through a rock crusher. Money that could have
raise millions to fight poachers and encourage conservation
Ignores that fact that elephants do die of old age and
that ivory could fund the elephants salvation
Uses misleading numbers of poached animals as confirmed in
the MIKE report, 20,000 not 35,000; http://www.cites.org/
eng/
elephant_poaching_and_ivory_smuggling_figures_for_2013_relea
sed
Ignores current prosecutions made under existing laws that
do need to be better enforced
Bans ivory that has already been banned for import and
export for over 25 years
Most importantly it will not save one living elephant from
being killed in Africa
There are success stories in Africa like South Africa, Tanzania and
Zimbabwe. They have the answers, they live with the elephants. We
should listen to them or we will watch them stop investing in the herds
and extinction will be eminent. In a TED talk, Conservationist John
Kasaona from Namibia explained how they turned poachers into
protectors. He said, ``Conservation will fail if it doesn't work to
improve the life of local communities.'' The solution lies in their
hands. This law would impede all their best efforts.
Please stop this unworkable assault of American rights.
______
Richard L. Huber,
New York, NY 10024,
June 20, 2014.
Hon. John Fleming, Chairman,
House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Re: Oversight Hearing on ``The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Plan to
Implement a Ban on the Commercial Trade in Elephant Ivory,''
June 24, 2014--Comments Submitted for the Record
Dear Chairman Fleming:
I am writing you in reference to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) Plan to Implement a Ban on Commercial Trade in Elephant Ivory in
the United States, contained in Director's Order 210, dated February
25, 2014, articulated in the meeting of the Advisory Council on
Wildlife Trafficking held March 20, 2014 and contained in the revised
Director's Order 210, dated May 15, 2014.
My wife and I are collectors of Iberian Colonial art and have been
so for some 40 years. A subset of the objects included in this category
is Hispano-Philippine & Indo-Portuguese pieces of ivory religious
sculpture. By definition, all are pre-1820 (the effective end of both
the Spanish and Portuguese colonial periods). We have frequently lent
objects from our collection to leading U.S. museums. The Philadelphia
Museum of Art held an exhibition of our collection last year on which a
beautiful catalogue was published. Exhibit A attached hereto contains a
representative sample of photographs.
We have imported at least a dozen such objects over the last few
years. We have always chosen to import them legally and have had much
experience with FWS in the process. This has almost always been a
painful experience, between obtaining the CITES documents from the
designated authority in the exporting country to having virtually every
single piece physically examined by an FWS inspector. This frequently
includes the retention of brokers or facilitators which obviously makes
the whole process more expensive. Indeed, the topic of FWS enforcement
is a hot subject for discussion amongst major museum directors, since
they all have their own ``horror stories'' about some 16th century
Japanese scroll that happens to have small ivory finials on the scroll
rod, or a 15th century Spanish chest with inlays, or a medieval German
chest with ivory drawer knobs.
No one I know disputes in the slightest the importance of enforcing
the Endangered Species Act. As a matter of fact, my wife and I are
strong supporters of the Act; she is a trustee of the Nature
Conservancy, my father spent his whole professional career with the
U.S. Forest Service and was head of wildlife management for the Forest
Service in the Pacific Northwest when I was in high school. But I and
many others question the way FWS does the job, particularly in an
environment where government at all levels is being encouraged to
operate more intelligently and efficiently.
Does the FWS really think that the Metropolitan Museum of Art, or
the Brooklyn Museum, or the Philadelphia Museum of Art (we happen to
know the directors and many curators at all three institutions), would
ever remotely consider violating the Endangered Species Act? To me,
this is inconceivable--and a similar level of trust should be afforded
to private collectors who have a proven record of legal compliance and
commitment to both the protection of endangered species and the
preservation of genuine antiques. I am a retired Chairman and CEO of a
Fortune 100 company and I am proud of the business reputation that I
built over 50 years. As mentioned above, we have imported many objects
which have required FWS approval over the years. Perhaps the time of
FWS inspectors could be more efficiently employed elsewhere in the vast
scope of regulation which the Agency is tasked with enforcing.
To completely ban, de facto, as FWS does, the importation of
antique ivory items to ``enhance'' the enforcement of the Endangered
Species Act would be similar to banning driving because a small
percentage of drivers get behind the wheel when they are intoxicated.
Sure, banning all driving would stop drunk driving, but at a huge
cost--and of course would never be contemplated. However, this is
exactly what the FWS ban on ivory imports would do.
I believe that we have skilled people in enforcement functions
instead of machines so that they can think. It is really not that hard
to distinguish between genuine CITES documents and falsified ones; even
an untrained eye can certainly distinguish a 17th century Indo-
Portuguese religious carving from a recently fabricated Chinese ivory
trinket. Exhibit B attached hereto shows the obvious differences.
Once again I say mindless bureaucracy! I am of the strong opinion
that our government's elephant conservation efforts would be better
served by taking much of the budget currently used for domestic
enforcement and sending it to Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda to hire more
game wardens. More aggressively pursuing the real source of the problem
would be considerably more effective than playing valueless games with
American citizens who would struggle under the FWS proposed rule to
meet documentary requirements that are impossible to comply with.
Let's face it: the United States is an extremely low risk country
for violations of the Act. There is no tradition of semi-mystical
reverence for ivory or ivory carvings as is the case in China, India
and several other Asian countries. These countries are the recipients
of the vast majority of smuggled raw ivory, and I doubt if the U.S.
represents even 1 percent of the total.
Instead of wasting time, energy and money harassing owners of
legitimate antique ivory by imposing impossible documentary demands, I
would suggest making all reputable museums self-enforcing agents of the
FWS. Simple documents could be filed for each antique export or import,
which could be periodically audited by FWS, if that were deemed
necessary. I would go further and deputize such institutions to do the
same for registered collectors of antique ivory objects.
I would commend to this subcommittee, indeed to Congress itself
that the FWS can continue to restrict and prohibit the illegal trade of
African elephant ivory in the United States with methods that encourage
the cooperation of all reputable actors. Better cooperation among
responsible parties will have substantial results--far more so than
trying to effect a complete ban on antique cultural articles by
criminalizing the trade in the United States with new documentation
requirements that are inordinately expensive and impossible to comply
with by even the most well-meaning and law-abiding antiques collector.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Huber.
EXHIBIT A
Three Centuries of Iberian Colonial Art (c. 1500-1800)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.023
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.024
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.025
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.026
.epsEXHIBIT B
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.027
.eps__
Center for Conservation Biology,
University of Washington,
Seattle, WA.
Hon. Peter DeFazio, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman DeFazio:
Thank you for your participation in the House Natural Resources
Committee hearing on the African elephant ivory trade held on June 24,
2014.
As you know, the hearing was introduced by first citing a recent
report from the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES) Secretariat on the number of elephants killed last
year in the illegal trade. That was followed by a description of a
report I prepared for INTERPOL on poaching hot spots across Africa.
Given how my INTERPOL report was described at the hearing, I am
concerned that its findings were misunderstood and that this
misunderstanding could jeopardize acceptance of the report and its
recommendations for action. A copy of the report is attached for your
information.
The INTERPOL report describes the results and implications of an
investigation my laboratory has been conducting since 2004. We use DNA
analyses of large seizures (* 0.5 tons) of African elephant ivory made
in Africa and Asia to determine the locations of the major poaching hot
spots in Africa. These analyses can reliably determine the origin of a
large seizure to within 300 km (180 mi) of its true origin. Our work is
conducted in collaboration with INTERPOL, the United Nations Office on
Drugs and Crime (UNODC), CITES Secretariat, World Customs Organization
and World Bank. We also collaborate with United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) Office of Law Enforcement, and that
collaboration recently led to the successful conviction in Togo of the
largest ivory dealer in West Africa.
Our findings to date suggest that the majority of large ivory
seizures are derived from a fairly small number of locations across
Africa. If this pattern persists, it offers an effective strategy to
thwart this Transnational Organized Crime (TOC) that is consistent with
the UNODC 2010 report: The globalization of crime: A transnational
organized crime threat assessment. As the UNODC report argues, the
elaborate networks that enable TOCs to operate make TOCs particularly
difficult to contain. Thus, the most effective way to combat TOCs is to
make their networks inoperative. Our project aims to provide the
intelligence needed to achieve that by identifying and directing
concerted law enforcement efforts to the major poaching hot spots in
Africa. We hope that such law enforcement efforts will stop the major
flows of ivory from entering these networks and thus choke this illegal
trade at its source. This may also be the most effective way to
urgently stop the unsustainable slaughter of elephants that continues
across Africa.
By definition, major poaching hot spots supply many tons of ivory
into the illegal trade repeatedly across years. Such hot spots can only
provide that much ivory if they contain many thousands of live
elephants and present a relatively low risk of apprehension for
poachers. Few remaining places in Africa can still provide that. We
believe that is why the same major hot spots keep appearing repeatedly
in our analyses, and this also makes them slow to change. These same
features are what makes the above mentioned law enforcement strategy
feasible. The locations of recent large ivory seizures provide some of
the best predictors of areas that continue to experience the heaviest
poaching, and the small number of these major hot spots is what makes
their containment possible.
I was very proud to hear my report used to introduce the June 24
hearing. However, the following statement gave me concern that its
important findings were misunderstood: ``Based on a report to INTERPOL
by Dr. Samuel Wasser of the University of Washington, who performs 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.''
My report did indicate that the majority of large ivory seizures
analyzed to date came from a small number of locations across Africa
and recommended that these poaching hot spots be immediately targeted
by law enforcement. However, in no way did the report suggest that 75
percent of all elephants were being killed in just 2-3 locations across
Africa. To the contrary, the report emphasizes that a primary objective
of our ivory tracking program is to analyze a more representative
number of ivory seizures so we can be confident that we have identified
all current major ivory poaching hot spots in Africa. Once identified,
the majority of those hot spots would also need to be targeted to
successfully choke this TOC at its source. If all goes as planned, we
hope to have all of the current major poaching hot spots identified
within the next 12 months.
I am concerned that the apparent misunderstanding of my INTERPOL
report at the June 24 congressional hearing, oversimplified one of the
few effective strategies to significantly thwart this TOC. While it is
vital to target the major poaching hot spots prescribed in that report,
those few areas are certainly not the only ones that need to be
targeted to stop the slaughter of elephants. Finally, of all the hot
spots our analyses have identified to date, the worst hot spot by far
is the game reserves in southern Tanzania. I did not hear that point
brought out at the hearing, and I wanted to be sure you were aware of
it, as it provides strong justification for the USFWS decision to
prohibit importations of ivory trophies from that country.
Thank you for your understanding and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Samuel K. Wasser, Ph.D.,
Director, Center for Conservation Biology,
Professor, Department of Biology,
Endowed Chair in Conservation Biology.
Attachment
Report to INTERPOL on DNA Assignment of Large Ivory Seizures
by Samuel K Wasser, Ph.D., Center for Conservation Biology, University
of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Executive Summary
Since 2005, the Center for Conservation Biology has been
collaborating with INTERPOL to identify the major elephant poaching
hotspots across Africa. We developed a DNA reference map for forest and
savanna elephants across the continent and use this to assign origin to
genotyped ivory seizures that constitute large seizures of * 0.5 tons.
The report clearly identifies two current major hotspots. The most
significant hotspot is in SE Tanzania, including the Selous Game
Reserve, with recent infusion into Ruaha National Park, along with the
adjacent Nyasa Game Reserve in northern Mozambique. The second current
hotspot is in the TRIDOM area of Central Africa, especially in NE Gabon
and NW Congo-Brazzaville. A third hotspot was also identified in Zambia
but no longer appears to be current. Our work continues to search for
additional hotspots. However, there is little doubt that the two areas
we identified as the most important current hotspots warrant immediate
law enforcement action aimed at shutting these areas down.
Introduction
Transnational organized crime (TOC) has placed considerable
challenges on law enforcement agencies, partly due to the complexities
of the networks that enable them to operate. Over the past decade,
wildlife crime has emerged as among the top four or five TOCs, partly
due to their high profit margin and low risk or apprehension and/or
prosecution. The problem is compounded by wildlife being a relatively
non-renewable resource, where losses can be associated with
considerable, long-lasting environmental damage. The illegal elephant
ivory trade has rapidly escalated in this environment, particularly
since 2006. Insurgents have capitalized on this trade to support their
operations and line their pockets, further compounding the problem. We
may now be losing more than 10 percent of Africa's elephant population
annually. Given the key roles that elephants play in the ecosystem,
this has created a considerable urgency to stop the killing.
Fortunately, the Center for Conservation Biology, working largely
in collaboration with INTERPOL, has developed intelligence-gathering
methods aimed at identifying the major African elephant poaching
hotspots across Africa, with the ultimate goal of targeting those areas
for future law enforcement. This approach may also serve as a model for
attacking TOCs in general.
We developed unique genetic methods to determine the origin of
large ivory seizures. These origin assignments are accurate to within
260 km of the seizure's actual origin, from anywhere in Africa. At
least two lines of evidence strongly suggest that the origin
assignments of large ivory seizures (* 0.5 tons) are highly reliable
predictors of the most significant current poaching hotspots. (1) The
vast majority of ivory in single seizures tends to come from the same
localized area(s), poached repeatedly over time. Thus, poachers appear
to be targeting the same locations to meet their quota. (2) 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. This makes sense since, by
necessity, hotspots are areas that have enough elephants to supply
multiple tons of ivory repeatedly over multiple years, where the risk
of apprehension to poachers is also low. Relatively few remaining
elephant populations have those characteristics, limiting both the
number of hotspots and the speed with which hotspots change over time.
These combined features make the origin of large ivory seizures highly
predictive of future poaching hotspots, offering a powerful forensic
tool for targeting the highest risk areas for future poaching. Properly
applied, this information could focus law enforcement on the most
significant poaching hotspots across Africa, potentially choking the
networks, at their source. This approach could provide a highly
efficient, cost-effective way to tackle TOC, simultaneously serving as
a model for attacking TOCs in general.
The figures below illustrate these points. They show the origins of
13 large ivory seizures analyzed since the inception of our program, 11
of which were conducted in direct collaboration with INTERPOL. They
reveal three major hotspots: The first major hotspot we identified was
in Zambia (Figure 1), but may no longer be current. The second and by
far the biggest current hotspot is in the Selous Game Reserve and
neighboring parks in SE Tanzania along with the adjacent Nyassa Game
Reserve in northern Mozambique (Figures 2-6). The third major and still
current hotspot is in Gabon and Congo-Brazzaville, especially in the
TRIDOM area in NE Gabon and NW Congo (Figure 7). Results also show how
the transit but not the source locations have changed over time.
Zambia
In 2002, the largest ivory seizure since the 1989 ivory ban was
seized in Singapore in a joint operation by INTERPOL, LATF and Zambia
and Malawi Wildlife Authorities. The 6.5 ton seizure was shipped from
Malawi, transiting Durbin, South Africa before being seized in
Singapore. The seizure contained 531 very large tusks and 42,000
hankos. The ivory was sampled by INTERPOL and LATF and sent to our lab
for analysis in 2006. The majority of tusks (Figure 1a) and hankos
(data not shown) were assigned to Zambia. Documents recovered at the
Malawi ivory carving factory where the samples were shipped indicated
19 other shipments with the same modus operandi (MO). In 2005, another
6 tons were seized in the Philippines, again with the same MO. However,
the tusks were stolen from their storage area before they could be
analyzed. In 2006, a joint operation by INTERPOL, LATF and the CITES
Secretariat recovered another shipment with the same MO. That shipment
was used in a controlled delivery, cut short and seized in Singapore.
Our lab determined that those tusks also originated in Zambia (Figure
1b). No subsequent seizures from this area has since been recovered,
leading us to speculate that this area no longer constitutes the major
poaching hotspot that it was in the past.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.011
.epsFigure 1. DNA assignment results of two large ivory seizures,
respectively made in Singapore during 2002 and 2006. Each black circle
indicates the median assigned location of a separate tusk in the
seizure. The red crosses indicate the respective locations of savanna
reference samples using to make the assignments. Since the ivory was
initially determined to be from savanna elephants, only savanna
elephant reference samples were used to make these assignments. The
black arrows represent the transit routes. The curved red arrows point
to the assigned origin of the ivory.
Southern Tanzania/Northern Mozambique
In 2006, Tanzania exported 11 tons of ivory seized within a 1.5
month period. The first two seizures (3 tons and 2.2 tons) were made,
one day apart, in Taiwan. The third seizure (2.6 tons) occurred 4 days
later in Hong Kong, and the fourth (2.8 tons) 1 month later in Japan.
The first three seizures were all genetically assigned to the Selous
Game Reserve in SE Tanzania and the adjacent Nyassa Game Reserve in
northern Mozambique (Figure 2). Japan refused to provide their seized
ivory for these analyses. However, many of the tusks had Swahili
writing on them, also suggesting an East African origin.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.012
.epsFigure 2. DNA assignment results from three ivory seizures,
shipped from Tanzania within a 5-day period in 2006. Each black circle
indicates the median assigned location of a separate tusk in the
seizure. The orange and green crosses indicate the respective locations
of savanna and forest reference samples. The ivory was initially
determined to be from savanna elephants. Thus, only savanna elephant
reference samples were used to make these assignments. The black arrows
represent the transit routes. The curved red arrows point to the
assigned origin of the ivory. The picture in the bottom is from a
fourth seizure shipped out of Tanzania the following month. We were not
given the samples to assign. However, the photo shows Swahili writing
on the tusk, further indicating East African origin.
In 2009, Tanzania shipped 14 tons of ivory seized between March and
August in Vietnam (9 tons) and the Philippines (5 tons). All of these
tusks had similar MOs. We did not acquire those seizures at the time.
However, the Philippines recently crushed their ivory stockpiles and
provided us samples from these seizures prior to carrying out the
crush. Two of these seizures were among the 5 tons seized in 2009.
Those seizures were assigned to the Selous Game Reserve in SE Tanzania
and the adjacent Nyassa Game Reserve in northern Mozambique (Figure 3).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.013
.epsFigure 3. DNA assignment results of two large ivory seizures,
respectively made in the Philippines in 2009. Each blue circle
indicates the median assigned location of a separate tusk in the
seizure. The orange crosses indicate the respective locations of
savanna reference samples using to make the assignments. Since the
ivory was initially determined to be from savanna elephants, only
savanna elephant reference samples were used to make these assignments.
The black arrows represent the transit routes. The curved red arrows
point to the assigned origin of the ivory.
In August 2010 and May 2011, Kenya made two seizures with similar
MOs of 1.5 and 1.3 tons respectively. These two seizures also came from
Tanzania (Figure 4, but with two notable differences. They were from
widely dispersed, versus highly concentrated areas, across Tanzania,
following a pattern more consistent with stockpiled ivory and, for the
first time, the Tanzania-derived contraband was transited out of Africa
from a country other than Tanzania. Perhaps coincidentally, these
seizures occurred just following Tanzania's failed petition to sell
their stockpiled ivory at the CITES COP15 (March 2010), when all eyes
were on them.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.014
.epsFigure 4. DNA assignment results of two large ivory seizures,
respectively made in the Kenya during August 2010 and May 2011. Each
blue circle indicates the median assigned location of a separate tusk
in the seizure. The red crosses indicate the respective locations of
savanna reference samples using to make the assignments. Since the
ivory was initially determined to be from savanna elephants, only
savanna elephant reference samples were used to make these assignments.
The black arrows represent the transit routes. The curved red arrows
point to the assigned origin of the ivory.
There has been a lot of recent speculation on militias poaching
ivory to support their regimes by trading ivory directly for arms. This
was partly fueled by a rapid increase in ivory smuggled from Kampala,
Uganda to Mombassa, Kenya prior to being shipped to Asia. Since 2011,
17 tons of ivory was seized in Mombassa after transiting Kampala, with
13.5 tons seized in 2013. Militias in eastern DRC were believed to have
been the perpetrators. In May, 2012, 359 tusks were seized in Sri Lanka
after transiting Kampala and being shipped out from Mombasa. INTERPOL
sent a rapid response team to Sri Lanka to sample those tusks and sent
them to our lab for analysis. Once again, the ivory came from the
Selous Game Reserve and Ruaha National Park, both in SE Tanzania with
some potential spill over into the adjacent Nyassa Game Reserve in
northern Mozambique (Figure 5).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.015
.epsFigure 5. DNA assignment results of the Sri Lanka ivory
seizure, May 2012 (southern Tanzania). Each black circle indicates the
median assigned location of a separate tusk in the seizure. The orange
crosses indicate the respective locations of savanna reference samples
used to make these assignments. Since the ivory was initially
determined to be from savanna elephants, only savanna elephant
reference samples were used to make these assignments. The black arrows
represent the transit routes. The curved red arrows point to the
assigned origin of the ivory.
In June 2013, 781 tusks were seized in Malawi, implicating a high
level officer from the Tanzania military. This seizure is also alleged
to involve the same dealer responsible for the 1.8 tons of ivory seized
in the house of a Chinese national in Dar es Salaam in November 2013.
INTERPOL worked with NCB in Malawi and Tanzania to sample the Malawi
seizure. The tusks varied widely in size, but included some very large
samples (>1.6 m in length). The tusks also had four different types of
writing on them: 1 = Blue writing, 2 = Green writing, 3 = Red writing,
4 = ``777'' written in Red.
DNA analyses revealed that all of the tusks were from savanna
elephants. The overall assignment of the 65 samples that amplified DNA
suggest they were derived from an area spanning SE Tanzania and
northern Mozambique, with the largest concentration likely derived from
the Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania and the Nyasa Game Reserve in
northern Mozambique, and a possible second distribution slightly more
north spanning Ruaha National Park/Mikumi National Park/northern Selous
Game Reserve (Figure 6).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.016
.epsFigure 6. Group assignment of savanna elephant tusks from the
June 2013 Malawi seizure. Each tusk assignment in the overall group
assignment is indicated by a blue circle. Orange crosses represent the
savanna reference samples locations used to make the group assignments.
Separating the analyses into their four separate groups suggested
that these groups represent at least three different groups of
poachers/dealers (Figure 7A-D). The distribution of poached ivory in
groups 1 (blue writing) and 2 (green writing) spanned the entire range
where poaching occurred (i.e., were similar in distributions to the
overall pattern seen in Figure 6). However, groups 3 (red writing) and
4 (777 written in red) appear to be distinct. Group 3 was more
concentrated in the northern part of the overall distribution, on the
Tanzania side, whereas group 4 appears to be more concentrated in the
southern part of the distribution, on the Mozambique side. The combined
results suggest that at least three separate groups of poachers/dealers
contributed ivory to this overall seizure.
Based on these seizures, there is no doubt that SE Tanzania is the
most significant major poaching hotspot in Africa. The transit
locations have progressively moved outside of Tanzania, but the source
has remained firmly within Tanzania, bleeding the largest protected
area in Africa of its enormous natural elephant population.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.017
.epsFigure 7. Separate group assignments of savanna elephant tusks
from the June 2013 Malawi seizure, based on the color of ink and
specific writing on the surface of the tusks: A. Group 1 = blue writing
on outside of tusks; B. Group 2 = green writing; C. Group 3 = red
writing; D. Group 4 = ``777'' written in red. Each tusk assignment in
the sub-group assignment is indicated by a colored circle. Orange
crosses represent the savanna reference samples locations used to make
the group assignments.
Gabon/Congo-Brazzaville
In 2006, a seizure was made in Hong Kong when a container was X-
rayed and found to have a false compartment containing 4 tons of ivory.
The tusks in this seizure were very large tusks, on average. The
container was shipped from Cameroon. However, our analyses assigned the
ivory to an area covering central Gabon and Congo-Brazzaville,
potentially overlapping the elephant rich TRIDOM area of NE Gabon and
NW Congo (Figure 8a). Documents uncovered at the dealers home in
Cameroon revealed at least 12 similar shipments, with the same 3
containers returning to Cameroon carrying used tires for resale. The
next two returning containers were searched, and found to also have
false compartments. Scraps of ivory recovered from the compartments of
these two containers were also assigned to the same area as the 4 ton
seizure (data not shown).
In July 2103, Hong Kong seized 1,148 tusks, after transiting Togo.
Unlike the previous seizure, these tusks were remarkable in that they
were all very small in size (1.0-1.5 kg on average), suggesting they
came from small elephants. Those tusks were once again assigned to the
TRIDOM area of NE Gabon and NW Congo-Brazzaville (Figure 8b),
suggesting this area to have undergone considerable poaching pressure
over time.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.018
.epsFigure 8. DNA assignment results of two ivory seizures made in
Hong Kong during 2006 and 2013. Each black circle indicates the median
assigned location of a separate tusk in the seizure. The green crosses
indicate the locations of forest reference samples. The ivory was
initially determined to be from forest elephants. Thus, only forest
elephant reference samples were used to make these assignments. The
black arrows represent the transit routes. The curved red arrows point
to the assigned origin of the ivory.
On January 22 and 29, 2014, Togo authorities seized nearly 4 tons
of ivory in Lome, Togo, en route to Vietnam. INTERPOL sent a rapid
response team to Togo to sample the seizures for DNA analyses. The
samples were imported into the United States by the USFWS under an
``Lo'' CITES designation and sent to the Center for Conservation
Biology (CCB) for DNA assignment.
When INTERPOL arrived in Togo, the two seizures were already merged
with no way to separate them. Since it was suspected that the two
seizures were actually part of the same shipment, the January 22 and 29
seizures were treated as one, with a total of 200 samples collected
from the entire shipment according to previously established protocols.
Of these, 86 samples reached the inclusion criterion of amplifying DNA
at 10 or more of the 16 loci examined. Of these, 79 samples were from
forest elephants and 7 from savanna elephants.
The forest elephant samples were largely from the TRIDOM area,
including NE Gabon, NW Congo-Brazzaville, and SW Cameroon, including
also the Dzanga Sanga area of CAR. A few samples in that cluster may
also have come from Central DRC. There was also a second cluster of
eight samples that had a West African origin, concentrated in the
western part of Cote d'Ivoire (Figure 9).
Four of the savanna elephant samples came from SW Chad and perhaps
Cameroon, with one additional sample from CAR and two from Tanzania.
The two samples from Tanzania are noteworthy because they suggest a
potential connection between dealers operating in eastern and western
Africa.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.019
.epsFigure 9. Assignment of: (a) forest and (b) savanna elephant
tusks seized in Togo, January 2014. Each blue circle represents the
assignment of one forest or savanna elephant tusk. Green and orange
crosses respectively represent forest and savanna elephant reference
samples used to make the assignments.
The above results suggest the emergence of another major and still
current elephant poaching hotspot in Africa, this one involving the
last remaining healthy population of forest elephants in the TRIDOM
area of Central Africa.
Current Plan
Our program had a slow start, obtaining only a small portion of all
seizures made between 2006 and 2010. Countries were reluctant to hand
over their seizures and the vast majority of the seizures we acquired
were at the bequest of INTERPOL. Publication of our results (Wasser et
al 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009) and presentations at CITES COPs eventually
raised awareness of the value of this method. By COP16 held in Thailand
last March, it was clear that the remaining elephants in Africa were
being poached at a scale not seen since the ivory ban and this could
drive the remaining African elephants to near extinction in the next
decade. In response, the parties unanimously passed resolution 16.83,
urging all countries making large ivory seizures to rapidly turn them
over to an established laboratory for origin assignment. At that same
meeting, ICCWC requested our lab to lead the origin assignments and for
the first time, we are acquiring large numbers of seizures on a
frequent basis. Indeed, we are now positioned to identify all major
current poaching hotspots in Africa by mid-2015. We already have firm
commitments from the seizing countries to acquire 31 (in orange) of the
39 large ivory seizures documented between 2011 to present. Ten of
those seizures (in boxes) have already been sampled and shipped to our
lab, eight of which have already been analyzed this year (Table 1).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.020
.epsTaking Action
We are now working on a plan to make these results actionable, by
cooperative law enforcement efforts that target these major hotspots.
Our goal is to focus initial actions on the two largest, current
hotspots, beginning with southern Tanzania and then the TRIDOM area of
NE Gabon/NW Congo-Brazzaville. If successful, this will pave the way to
bring down all the major hotspots we hope to identify over the next 12
months, offering the real opportunity to choke this burgeoning
transnational crime at its source.
Supporting Literature
Wasser SK, A Shedlock, K Comstock, E Ostrander, B Mutayoba, M Stephens.
2004. Assigning African elephant DNA to geographic region of origin.
Applications to the ivory trade. Proceedings National Academy of
Sciences 101: 14847-1485.
Wasser SK, C Mailand, R Booth, B Mutayoba, ES Kisamo, B Clark, M
Stephens. 2007. Using DNA to track the origin of the largest ivory
seizure since the 1989 trade ban. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 104(10): 4228-4236.
Mailand C, SK Wasser. 2007. Isolation of DNA from small amounts of
elephant ivory. Nature Protocols 2: 2228-2232.
Wasser SK, WJ Clark, O Drori, ES Kisamo, C Mailand, B Mutayoba, M
Stephens. 2008. Combating the illegal trade in African elephant ivory
with DNA forensics. Conservation Biology 22: 1065-1071.
Wasser SK, B Clark, C Laurie. 2009. The Ivory Trail. Scientific
American July, 2009.
Wasser SK, et al. 2010. Elephants, ivory and trade. Science 327: 1331-
1332.
______
2012 Data from Elephant Database
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.021
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8502.022
.eps__
Elephant Poaching and Ivory Smuggling Figures Released Today
CITES--PRESS RELEASE--June 16, 2014
Poaching levels remain alarmingly high at over 20,000. More large ivory
seizures in Africa than Asia for the first time
Geneva, 13 June 2014--Over 20,000 African elephants were poached
across the continent in 2013 according to a report released today by
the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Although the sharp upward
trend in illegal elephant killing observed since the mid-2000s, which
had peaked in 2011, is levelling off, poaching levels remain alarmingly
high and continue to far exceed the natural elephant population growth
rates, resulting in a further decline in elephant populations across
Africa.
The report also shows a clear increase in the number of large
seizures of ivory (shipments over 500 kg) made in 2013, before the
ivory left the African continent. For the first time, the number of
such seizures made in Africa exceeded those made in Asia. Just three
African countries--Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda--accounted for 80% of
those seizures. Large-scale ivory seizures are indicative of
transnational organized crime being involved in the illicit ivory
trade.
``Africa's elephants continue to face an immediate threat to their
survival from high-levels of poaching for their ivory and with over
20,000 elephants illegally killed last year the situation remains dire.
Due to the collective efforts of so many, we also see some encouraging
signals, but experience shows that poaching trends can shift
dramatically and quickly, especially when transnational organized crime
is involved,'' said John E. Scanlon, Secretary-General of CITES.
Southern Africa continues to hold the lion's share of Africa's
elephants, holding close to 55% of the known elephants on the
continent. Eastern Africa holds 28% and Central Africa 16%. In West
Africa, less than 2% of the continent's known elephants are spread over
13 countries.
Poverty (measured by infant mortality rates) and weak governance
(measured by law enforcement capacity and corruption levels), together
with demand for illegal ivory in consuming nations are three key
factors linked to higher poaching levels.
Overall poaching numbers were lower in 2013 than in 2012 and 2011--
but they continue to exceed 20,000. The report warns that poaching
levels will lead to continuing declines in the African elephant
population.
The report identifies monitored sites where poaching is increasing
(33% of monitored sites), including Dzanga Sangha (Central African
Republic), as well as those sites where a decline in poaching has been
observed (46%), such as Zakouma National Park (Chad). Some populations
of elephants continue to face an immediate threat of local extinction.
The report containing the latest figures (2013) from the CITES
Monitoring Illegal Killing in Elephants (MIKE) programme and the
Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) will be discussed at the 65th
meeting of the CITES Standing Committee taking place in Geneva from 7
to 11 July 2014.
The monitoring data from the field is unique and it is the most
comprehensive global survey of any of the 35,000 CITES-listed species.
It is collected by law enforcement patrols and other means, who try to
establish the cause of death and other details, every time a carcass is
found. CITES then collates and analyses this data thanks to funds
provided by the European Union.
Commenting on the scope of the report, Julian Blanc, responsible
for the MIKE programme, said: ``We are monitoring 30 to 40% of the
elephant population, through a peer reviewed process that gives us the
best available global estimates on the illegal killing of elephants. We
hope to expand this coverage to improve on our estimates. We are
supporting countries that do not have the capacity or the funds to
monitor MIKE sites and are seeking further support for field rangers.''
In March 2013, based on the findings of ETIS, CITES identified
eight countries (Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, China, Malaysia, The
Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam) as the most heavily implicated in
the illegal ivory trade chain as source, transit or destination
countries. CITES took decisions at that time requesting all eight
countries to develop and implement National Ivory Action Plans to
tackle the elephant poaching and smuggling crisis.
These decisions are being translated into a wide-range of actions
and initiatives--improved protection in the field, stronger Customs
controls, better use of modern technologies and forensics--such as DNA
testing and isotopes, strengthened legislation and policies, targeted
investigations and more prosecutions, new public awareness campaigns,
the destruction of confiscated ivory stockpiles, and the allocation of
dedicated funding to combat wildlife crime.
``We are seeing better law enforcement and demand-reduction efforts
across multiple countries, as well as greater political and public
attention to this unfolding crisis and CITES decisions and compliance
processes underpin the global effort,'' said Scanlon.
``The momentum generated over the past three years must now
translate into deeper and stronger efforts to fight these crimes on the
front line, where it is needed most--from the field, to Customs, to
illicit markets, and only then can we hope to reverse the devastating
poaching trends of the past decade,'' added Scanlon.
Several conferences held since CITES Parties met in 2013, including
in Gaborone, London and New York, have further contributed to securing
high-level political support across all continents.
The CITES Standing Committee next month will assess the eight
countries National Ivory Action Plans, and will discuss the next steps
to stop illegal ivory trade, including whether additional countries
should develop National Ivory Action Plans.
The Committee will also consider the roll out of a wide-range of
enforcement-related decisions taken by CITES in March 2013 on other
species being pressured by illegal trade, including rhinos, Asian big
cats, rosewood, pangolins, freshwater turtles and tortoises, great
apes, and snakes, as well as a study of the legal and illegal trade in
wild cheetahs.
______
Endangered Species: African Poaching Down and Ivory Seizures Up--Report
EE news.net--June 13, 2014
Poaching of African elephants in 2013 decreased from the previous
two years, but some populations are still threatened with local
extinction, according to international wildlife regulators.
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora reported that more than 20,000 elephants were poached
last year, but for the first time, Africa seized more large shipments
of smuggled ivory than Asia.
``We are seeing better law enforcement and demand-reduction efforts
across multiple countries, as well as greater political and public
attention to this unfolding crisis,'' said John Scanlon, secretary-
general of CITES.
Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda constituted 80 percent of the seizures.
The countries are among eight nations that CITES required to create
plans to curb ivory smuggling.
Even though total poaching numbers were down on the continent, the
practice increased last year in the Central African Republic.
Eastern Africa is home to 28 percent of the continent's elephants,
and the majority--55 percent--live in southern Africa.
1996-2014 E&E Publishing, LLC
______
Wildlife: GOP Lawmakers, Witnesses Blast FWS Ivory Ban Proposal at
House Hearing
E&ENews.net
June 25, 2014
By Dylan Brown, E&E reporter
With stuffed elephants donated by conservation groups lining
lawmakers' desks, everyone at a House Natural Resources subpanel
hearing yesterday agreed that African elephants could be driven to
extinction within a decade if something is not done about poaching
driven by demand for ivory.
``The plight of the elephants demands our undivided attention,''
said Ian Somerhalder, ``Vampire Diaries'' star and president of his own
foundation dedicated to environmental issues, during his testimony.
All present said it is necessary to undermine the illicit ivory
trade, which has become a billion-dollar funding source for
international crime syndicates, militias and terrorist groups in Africa
and Asia, where ivory is seen as a status symbol.
The international side of the equation appeared settled.
Domestic issues, however, especially the Fish and Wildlife
Service's proposed commercial ivory ban, generated disagreement and
prompted strong criticisms from Alaska Rep. Don Young (R) and other
Republicans.
``For those in the audience who think you're saving elephants,
you're going to be killing these elephants,'' Young said.
The United States remains the second-largest market for ivory in
the world, but how much of it is illegal remains unclear, said FWS
Associate Director Robert Dreher.
Echoing the concerns of sportsmen, musicians and auction houses
worried that the ban, which eliminates commercial imports and restricts
exports to all but verified antiques containing ivory, would have a
detrimental effect on the value of ivory owned by millions of
Americans, Young and other members of his party castigated FWS and
lambasted the ban as another federal regulatory overreach, arguing that
the ban would unfairly put the burden of proof on American owners to
prove their ivory was not the product of poaching.
``Uncle Sam is going to say you have to prove it, you're guilty
because we say you are. That is wrong, and this is not going to save
the elephants,'' Young said.
With many older instruments containing ivory, National Music Museum
stringed instruments curator Arian Sheets testified about musicians'
concerns over the effect of the ban on older, valuable instruments like
ivory-keyed pianos and some guitars. Montana Republican Steve Daines
pointed out earlier this month that violin bows belonging to the
Budapest Festival Orchestra were seized temporarily at John F. Kennedy
International Airport.
According to fellow panelist Matthew Quinn of Quinn's Auction
Galleries, museums and auction houses could essentially see the
devaluation of great swaths of items--hundreds of millions, he
estimated. Many Americans looking to sell grandma's ivory figurine
collection would be out of luck.
``Such quick administrative actions . . . will adversely impact
millions of unknowing Americans,'' Quinn said in his written testimony,
arguing that the guidelines laid out by the FWS are far too rigorous
for cases in which people have little to no documentation of items.
Impact of FWS Ban on Hunting
The ban's effect on hunting also raised Young's hackles.
``There is a value when they can be hunted; there is a value when
they can in fact be managed; there is a value when you let a country
manage its game,'' he said.
According to letters obtained by Greenwire under the Freedom of
Information Act, sportsmen have been in representatives' ears about the
restrictions on importing elephant trophies (Greenwire, June 23).
Elephant hunts that cost upward of $10,000 in countries like Zimbabwe
were stamped out by the ban, Dreher said, due to questionable
management practices and weak governance in some African nations.
Republicans touted Zimbabwe, one of the few nations that opposed
the 1989 international ivory trade ban, as a model for using hunting
revenue and management to benefit impoverished people.
``The simple truth is that if wildlife have no economic value,
there is little if any incentive for people who live in that habitat to
conserve or save them,'' said subcommittee Chairman John Fleming (R-
La.).
At the hearing, Itai Hilary Tendaupenyu, principal ecologist for
the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, said the United
States failed to notify his government prior to making a decision on
the ban. He said hunting revenue is critical to Zimbabwe's economy,
with approximately 67 percent of proceeds going to local communities.
Furthermore, he said, Zimbabwe's elephant population is actually
increasing thanks to hunting.
Democrats asked to see the data, but International Fund for Animal
Welfare President Azzedine Downes said the evidence for hunting being a
boon for local communities simply doesn't exist.
``It's a great sound bite, but there is no evidence to really back
it up,'' he said. ``One person comes and shoots an elephant . . . the
money goes to the safari company, to the people who issued the permit,
and what does the community get? Literally a carcass.''
Downes doesn't buy the argument that the domestic ban isn't
necessary, because he says it targets the demand fueling poaching.
``I think people would like people to think that, that it's not
going to have any impact. It's not about dry regulations; it's actually
about preventing elephants from being killed--demand drives it,'' he
said. ''You have a piece of ivory? You have to make a decision: the
elephant or this? There are losers, but it's worth it.''
Both sides agreed on one other thing: Figuring out the age of ivory
is a fool's errand.
Testing requires destroying part of the ivory, and criminals are
adept at making new ivory look old.
Allan Thornton, president of the nonprofit Environmental
Investigation Agency, who also testified at a Democratic press
conference preceding the hearing, said allowing ivory that was
harvested pre-ban to be traded gives criminals a loophole large enough
to drive a truck through.
Downes agreed: ``If someone on the street has to figure out `Is
this piece legal or illegal?' it won't work.''
Conservationists applauded the ban as an indication that the United
States is taking the lead on the issue. Essentially, Crawford Allan,
senior director of TRAFFIC, a partnership between the World Wildlife
Fund and the International Union for Conservation of Nature, said it
gives the United States the high ground from which to influence other
countries.
``Let's not lose sight of the main prize here . . . and the fact
that it's like a catalytic knock-on effect around the world,'' Allan
said.
Three hours after it was scheduled to start, the end of the healing
was marked by bipartisan calls to refocus on that main prize: saving
elephants.
How that will be done remains to be seen, but while he said he
didn't believe FWS's ban would be effective, former Texas Rep. Jack
Fields implored his former colleagues to work together to attack the
root of the problem. Fields suggested they hark back to the passage of
the original 1989 ban he helped pass.
'We decided that we were going to put collateral issues aside . . .
if you're really looking at trying to preserve the elephant
population,'' he said.
______
It's All About Saving The Elephants
Forbes Op-Ed
June 23, 2014
Guest Post Written By Judith McHale and David J. Hayes
Doug Bandow recently published an opinion piece in Forbes in which
he argues that the President is fighting the elephant poaching crisis
by targeting U.S. citizens who own ivory. He asserts that the
Administration's policy is all about ideological politics, rather than
actually ``fight[ing] poaching.'' (Italics in original.) He could not
be more wrong.
Contrary to Mr. Bandow's inference, the Administration's anti-
poaching strategy is not proceeding on the backs of U.S. citizens and
it is all about, in fact, fighting poaching. Unmentioned by Mr. Bandow,
the President's Executive Order on Combating Wildlife Trafficking,
issued last July, and the follow-up National Strategy document issued
by his cabinet last February, lays out a comprehensive strategy that
takes the fight directly to the poachers and the organized and
sophisticated criminal syndicates that are behind them. The threat is
an extremely serious one, both because the syndicates are devastating
economically and culturally important elephant, rhino and other iconic
wildlife populations, but also because this lucrative criminal activity
is fueling instability and corruption, and strengthening armed militias
and terrorist groups.
Picking on one aspect of a multi-dimensional, comprehensive
strategy, Mr. Bandow argues that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is
engaged in a misguided and pointless exercise in restricting domestic
commercial trade in ivory. He fails to note, however, that U.S. law
already restricts commercial trade in ivory. The current restrictions
flow from a 1989 U.S. import ban under the African Elephant
Conservation Act, followed by a global ban on commercial import and
export of ivory established by the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 1990 to protect
elephant populations that were under enormous poaching pressure at the
time. These actions took hold and worked, shutting down vibrant ivory
markets in the U.S. and Europe. Without an easily accessible market,
the massive killings of elephants declined precipitously in the early
1990s.
In the last few years, unfortunately, the ban on commercial trade
in ivory has deteriorated under the weight of lax enforcement,
misguided ``one time'' sales of national ivory stocks, and other
loopholes. Coincidentally, new markets for ivory in China and Southeast
Asia have opened up and the world is now experiencing a dangerous spike
in wildlife killings and related organized criminal activity.
Because the U.S. remains an important market for ivory--albeit not
the largest market--it is appropriate for FWS to clarify what type of
commercial trade in ivory is legal, and what is not. FWS is taking
steps to remind Americans that U.S. law prohibits commercial imports of
ivory and trade in ivory or ivory products that entered the United
States illegally. The agency also is seeking to clarify what type of
evidence must be provided to satisfy the ``burden of proof'' that U.S.
law puts on individuals who are seeking to sell ``antique'' and pre-ban
ivory products.
Ivory owners in the U.S. can continue to own ivory, of course, and
trade it if they can make required showings. We agree with Mr. Bandow
that in clarifying the proof needed to establish legality under the
law, FWS should adopt a common sense approach that offers law-abiding
ivory owners reasonable avenues to obtain required certifications. But
the showings must be vigorous enough so as to prevent fraudulent claims
by agents of the sophisticated traffickers who are making billions from
the sale of ivory from freshly-killed elephants.
As a final point, by taking steps to reconfirm and clarify existing
restrictions on commercial trade in ivory, the U.S. strengthens its
hand in insisting that China and other Asian nations take similar steps
and shut down the rampant illegal trading activity that has infected
their domestic ivory markets. If they do not, the U.S. can and should
demand that offending nations either get in line, or suffer the
consequences of trade sanctions imposed under the authority of U.S. law
(the Pelly Amendment) or in concert with other nations, under the CITES
treaty.
Ms. McHale is Chair, and Mr. Hayes is Vice-Chair, of the Wildlife
Trafficking Advisory Council.
______
The Wrong Way to Protect Elephants
The New York Times--Op-Ed Article
By Godfrey Harris and Daniel Stiles--March 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.
What these regulations will also do is make the import, export and
interstate sale of almost any object with African elephant ivory
virtually impossible. Anyone who owns any antique African elephant
ivory--whether it is an Edwardian bracelet inherited from a grandmother
or an ivory-handled Georgian silver tea set owned by an antiques
dealer--will be unable to ship or sell it without unimpeachable
documentation that proves it is at least 100 years old, has not been
repaired or modified with elephant ivory since 1973, and that it
arrived in the United States through one of 13 ports of entry.
The story of the Steinway underscores the complexity, rigidity and
absurdity of these rules. The piano was salvaged years ago by Ben
Treuhaft, a professional piano technician. When his wife took an
academic job in Japan, he shipped the piano along with their other
household possessions to Tokyo. They moved to Scotland after the
Fukushima nuclear accident three years ago, leaving the piano in
storage in Japan to be shipped later. Now Mr. Treuhaft is ready to
return the piano to the United States and place it in the hands of a
friend who planned to display it at her piano shop.
But the piano remains in Japan. It lacks the paperwork necessary to
clear customs in the United States because Mr. Treuhaft failed, when he
shipped the piano abroad, to obtain the required export permit
identifying the ivory keys and the piano's provenance. In the past, the
government might have exercised some discretion over Mr. Treuhaft's
oversight. But no more. Moreover, to meet the personal-use exception
for an import, the piano would have to be shipped back as part of a
household move, and he wants to send it to a friend.
So the piano that Steinway says is its oldest known upright is
stuck in Japan.
Of course, Mr. Treuhaft is not the only one who is or will be hurt
or inconvenienced by this draconian order from the Fish and Wildlife
Service, or the new rules that the administration seeks to impose.
Musicians already complain of a burdensome process and months-long
delays in securing permits to take their instruments containing ivory
abroad. And collectors, gun owners and antiques dealers say they have
been blind sided by the proposed rules, which will effectively render
their African elephant ivory pieces worthless unless they can meet the
extremely difficult standards necessary to sell them.
We suggest a different approach. We should encourage China, where
much of the poached ivory ends up, to start a detailed public education
campaign that underscores the damage done to elephant populations by
the illegal trade in ivory. We also need more aggressive enforcement of
anti-poaching efforts in Africa. And we should figure out a way to
manage the trade in raw ivory to protect elephants. For instance,
several years ago, ivory stockpiles owned by several African countries
were sold in a series of United Nations-approved auctions in an effort
to undercut illegal ivory trafficking. The proceeds went to elephant
conservation efforts. This is a better approach than destroying these
stockpiles, as the United States did last fall to six tons of ivory.
Leaving Mr. Treuhaft's piano in Japan will not save African
elephants. But it will further endanger them and diminish the lives of
those who recognize and value the role of ivory in history and culture.
Godfrey Harris directs the Political Action Network of the
International Ivory Society, and Daniel Stiles is a wildlife trade
consultant.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on March 27, 2014, on page A31
of the New York edition with the headline: The Wrong Way to Protect
Elephants.
2014 The New York Times Company
______
Grandma's Cameo Becomes Yard-Sale Contraband
How will a government ban on selling or trading antique ivory help save
endangered elephants?
Wall Street Journal--Op-Ed Article
By John Leydon, June 23, 2014
On June 26 countless antiques, musical instruments and other
objects made from ivory or decorated with it will be effectively banned
by the federal government from sale or trade within the U.S. Coupled
with tough new international import-export restrictions, the value of
these objects, once in the hundreds of millions of dollars, will
evaporate.
The expressed aim of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to
discourage the ivory trade and protect endangered African elephants,
though it is difficult to discern how that effort is aided by
attacking, say, collectors of Victorian or Art Deco treasures.
To avoid having the ban termed a ``blanket prohibition,'' which
would require congressional legislation, the Fish and Wildlife Service
has granted a ``regulatory exception'' that covers a minuscule number
of ivory-laden objects that can meet its elaborate requirements. In
addition to proving that a particular object is at least 100 years old,
its owner must possess official paperwork showing that it was imported
to America before 1990, or legally thereafter, and provide unspecified
evidence that the object has not been repaired or modified since
December 1973. In other words, the bar has been set so high by the Fish
and Wildlife Service that very few items will qualify, and then only at
great expense and months of research and bureaucratic wrangling.
The message is clear to those who possess ivory-detailed objects
including clarinets, canes, pistols, crucifixes, timepieces, chess
sets, cameos, guitars, mahjong sets, pianos or furniture: You own it,
you're stuck with it. The objects shortly will be worthless and
uninsurable by government decree, and the IRS is unlikely to allow you
to write it off as an investment loss, no matter how much you or your
family paid for it--a few hundred dollars at an estate sale or $20,000
at Christie's.
The impracticality of monitoring every flea market, auction and
estate sale in the country will force the Fish and Wildlife Service to
selectively enforce the new regulations. Worse, many buyers and
sellers--from hobbyists to professionals--may be unaware that they will
be vulnerable to confiscation, fines and arrest for violating the new
regulations.
When the Fish and Wildlife Service does step in to prosecute owners
and confiscate the ivory goods, it will be doing so in the misguided
belief that it is helping to save endangered elephants in Africa by
demonizing all ivory, no matter the vintage. As someone who collects
ivory-detailed walking canes and who counts himself as a dedicated
environmentalist, I think the government is overreaching by creating
this new criminal class.
If you see the increasingly common signs saying ``Support the
Ban,'' remember that the new federal rule is not directed against the
brutal mercenaries and terrorist organizations whose present-day
poaching is endangering the last remaining members of a magnificent
African species. The domestic ban is aimed indiscriminately at you or
your family or your neighbors, and at heirlooms, collections and
investments.
Conservation organizations and lovers of cultural treasures must
work together to stop the tragedy unfolding in Africa by supporting
forceful interdiction efforts. A first step toward encouraging such a
sensible alliance might be for Congress to impose a time-out on the
Fish and Wildlife Service, delaying the implementation of its misguided
ban and giving thoughtful people who understand its impact, and its
folly, more time to weigh in.
The House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular
Affairs is scheduled to meet Tuesday to discuss the domestic ivory ban.
Let's hope our elected representatives can bring some sense to the
discussion and reverse this new and faulty regulation.
Mr. Leydon, a retired telecom executive, is a member of the
International Society of Cane Collectors and a staunch supporter of
international wildlife conservation organizations.
______
Obama's Ivory-Trade Regulatory Overkill--Turning Antique Collectors
into Criminals will Boost the Black Market
The Washington Times
By Doug Bandow--February 18, 2014
The Obama administration is preparing to treat virtually every
antique collector, dealer and auctioneer in America as a criminal. In
the name of saving elephants, the administration is effectively banning
the sale of all ivory objects, even if acquired legally decades ago.
Doing so will weaken conservation efforts and enrich those engaged
in the illegal ivory trade.
Elephants are being killed in Africa. Under the Convention on the
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, only
ivory from before 1989 can be sold. Unfortunately, ivory-sale
prohibition has not stopped the slaughter.
The greatest demand for new ivory comes from Asia. Most ivory in
America arrived legally, many years ago. The owners followed the rules
as they invested hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in
art objects.
Until now, the rules were simple and sensible. Ivory imported
legally--that is, prior to 1989 or after 1989 with convention
certification--could be sold. Older ivory usually can be identified by
coloring, stains, style, wear, quality, subject and more. Most of the
older work simply isn't replicated today.
Moreover, the burden of proof fell on the government, which had to
prove that an individual violated the law to convict him of violating
the law. That's the way America normally handles both criminal and
civil offenses.
However, in mid-February the administration issued what amounted to
a ban on ivory sales. In practice, virtually every collector, dealer,
auctioneer and other person in America is prohibited from selling ivory
items--even if acquired legally, owned for decades, and worth hundreds
or thousands of dollars.
Every flea market, junk shop, estate sale, antique store, auction
showroom and antique show is at risk of raids, confiscations and
prosecutions.
First, no imports are allowed, not even of antiques, which before
could be brought to America with a convention certificate.
Second, all exports are banned, except antiques (defined as more
than a century old) in what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says are
``exceptional circumstances.''
At best, the administration is raising the administrative and cost
burdens of exporting to countries that already limit ivory imports to
items with appropriate documentation. Or the new rule may restrict the
sale of items previously allowed, thereby hindering Americans in
disposing of their legal collections.
Third, interstate transactions are prohibited, except for antiques.
Explains Fish and Wildlife: ``Sellers of antiques in interstate
commerce must prove through documented evidence that items qualify as
bona fide antiques.'' Unfortunately, such evidence rarely exists. Thus,
the sale of almost all ivory across state lines is effectively banned.
Fourth, intrastate commerce, said the agency, is ``prohibited
unless seller can demonstrate item was lawfully imported prior to''
1990, when the international ban took effect.
But how does someone ``demonstrate'' when, say, a gift from his
parents was imported? Without such proof, the item is not marketable--
even though brought to America legally.
By any standard, the administration rule is grossly unfair to
thousands of Americans. Why is the administration penalizing the law-
abiding?
The U.S. officials complained about the difficulty in
distinguishing ivory imported legally and illegally. No doubt, banning
everything eases enforcement, but the policy fails to distinguish
between guilt and innocence.
Moreover, much older ivory, given its manifold unique
characteristics, is easily distinguishable from new work.
The illegal ivory supply also is small compared with that of legal
ivory. Rather than ban the latter in an attempt to limit the former,
the government should concentrate resources on aiding African countries
in protecting their elephants, better interdicting illegal imports, and
identifying sellers who specialize in new ivory.
In fact, targeting owners of legal ivory will perversely undermine
such enforcement efforts. Making most ivory in America illegal will
vastly expand the ivory black market and dramatically dilute
enforcement resources.
Ivory commerce will continue, only more often underground. More
objects will privately pass among dealers and collectors, never
reaching public view.
The interstate ban, too, will be flouted. Owners also may hand-
carry items to other nations without similar restrictions. Moreover,
documentation will be faked.
Collectors and dealers will turn to those already participating in
the illegal market, helping criminals expand their networks and
increase their profits. Finally, overtaxed federal Fish and Wildlife
agents may prefer to go after easy targets, such as local antique flea
markets, rather than secretive smugglers.
If the administration does not withdraw its rules, Congress should
overturn this unfair attack on the law-abiding. Washington should
penalize poachers and their seller allies--not collectors and dealers
who have followed the rules.
The administration's new regulations will divert enforcement
resources, and push owners of legal ivory into the illegal trade,
meaning more elephants are likely to die.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former
special assistant to President Reagan.
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
--Lark Mason Associates, April 2014, ``The Scope of the Antique
Ivory and Endangered Species Market in the United States''
--Carolina Clavier Collection, ``Historical stringed keyboards
from the beginning of their construction through the middle of
the 19th century''
[all]