B
bach2yoga
Guest
U.S. MAY EXPAND ACCESS TO ENDANGERED SPECIES
Date: 031013
From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
By Shankar Vedantam, Washington Post Staff Writer, October 11, 2003
The Bush administration is proposing far-reaching changes to
conservation policies that would allow hunters, circuses and the pet
industry to kill, capture and import animals on the brink of
extinction in other countries.
Giving Americans access to endangered animals, officials said, would
feed the gigantic U.S. demand for live animals, skins, parts and
trophies, and generate profits that would allow poor nations to pay
for conservation of the remaining animals and their habitat.
This and other proposals that pursue conservation through trade
would, for example, open the door for American trophy hunters to kill
the endangered straight-horned markhor in Pakistan; license the pet
industry to import the blue fronted Amazon parrot from Argentina;
permit the capture of endangered Asian elephants for U.S. circuses and
zoos; and partially resume the trade in African ivory. No U.S.
endangered species would be affected.
Conservationists think it's a bad idea. "It's a very dangerous
precedent to decide that wildlife exploitation is in the best interest
of wildlife," said Adam Roberts, a senior research associate at the
nonprofit Animal Welfare Institute, an advocacy group for endangered
species.
Killing or capturing even a few animals is hardly the best way to
protect endangered species, conservationists say. Many charge that the
policies cater to individuals and businesses that profit from animal
exploitation.
The latest proposal involves an interpretation of the Endangered
Species Act that deviates radically from the course followed by
Republican and Democratic administrations since President Richard M.
Nixon signed the act in 1973. The law established broad protection for
endangered species, most of which are not native to America, and
effectively prohibited trade in them.
Kenneth Stansell, assistant director for international affairs at the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said there has been a growing
realization that the Endangered Species Act provides poor countries no
incentive to protect dying species. Allowing American hunters,
circuses and the pet industry to pay countries to take fixed numbers
of animals from the wild can help protect the remaining animals, he
said.
U.S. officials note that such trade is already open to hunters, pet
importers and zoos in other Western nations. They say the idea is
supported by poor countries that are home to the endangered species
and would benefit from the revenue.
Officials at the Department of Interior and Fish and Wildlife, who
are spearheading many of the new policies, said the proposals merely
implement rarely used provisions in the law.
"This is absolutely consistent with the Endangered Species Act, as
written," said David P. Smith, deputy assistant secretary at the
Department of Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. "I think the
nature of the beast is such that there are critics who are going to
claim some kind of ulterior motive."
Animal welfare advocates question the logic of the new approach,
saying that foreign countries and groups that stand to profit will be
in charge of determining how many animals can be killed or captured.
Advocates also warn that opening the door to legal trade will allow
poaching to flourish.
"As soon as you place a financial price on the head of wild animals,
the incentive is to kill the animal or capture them," Roberts said.
"The minute people find out they can have an easier time killing,
shipping and profiting from wildlife, they will do so."
The proposals also trigger a visceral response: To many animal
lovers, these species have emotional and symbolic value, and should
never be captured or killed.
The Endangered Species Act prohibits removing domestic endangered
species from the wild. Until now, that protection was extended to
foreign species. Explaining the change, Stansell said, "There is a
recognition that these sovereign nations have a different way of
managing their natural resources."
Indeed, many of the strongest advocates for "sustainable use"
programs - under which some animals are "harvested" to raise money to
save the rest - have been countries that are home to various
endangered species. Foreign trade groups and governments have tried
for years - mostly in vain - to convince the United States that
animals are no longer in limited supply, or that capturing or killing
fixed numbers would not drive a species to extinction.
That could change after Oct. 17, the end of the public comment period
on one proposed change.
The proposal identified several species:
- Morelet's crocodile, an endangered freshwater crocodile found in
Mexico, Guatemala and Belize. Its skin is prized by U.S. leather
importers.
- The endangered Asian elephant of India and Southeast Asia. The
declining population in U.S. breeding programs "has raised a
significant demand among the [U.S.] zoo and circus community," the
proposal said.
- The Asian bonytongue, a valuable aquarium fish, found in Indonesia,
Thailand and Malaysia.
- The straight-horned markhor, an endangered wild goat in Pakistan
distinguished by corkscrew-shaped horns. According to the proposal,
"allowing a limited number of U.S. hunters an opportunity to import
trophies from this population could provide a significant increase
in funds available for conservation."
John R. Monson, a New Hampshire trophy hunter and former chairman of
that state's Fish and Game Commission, said the program would help
preserve rare animals. In 1999, Monson applied for a permit to shoot
and import a straight-horned markhor. He was turned down.
Monson said the money he has spent hunting trophies - including a
leopard from Namibia and a bontebok antelope from South Africa - has
funded conservation programs.
Monson is president-elect of Safari Club International, a national
hunting advocacy group. He agreed to an interview only in his personal
capacity.
Safari Club International gave $274,000 to candidates during the 2000
election cycle, 86 percent of it to Republicans. It also spent $5,445
printing bumper stickers for the Bush presidential campaign. Monson
has made a variety of contributions himself, including $1,000 to the
Bush for President campaign.
Teresa Telecky, former director of the wildlife trade program at the
Humane Society, blamed lobbying by Safari Club International and other
special interest groups for a "sea change" in conservation policy.
"The approach of this administration is it is all right to kill
endangered or threatened species or capture them from the wild so long
as somebody says there would be some conservation benefit," she said.
Stansell said conservation goals, not lobbying, drove the proposals,
which he said evolved through previous administrations.
Still, the application of "sustainable use" has never been so broad.
Last November, the United States reversed its long-held position and
voted to allow Botswana, Namibia and South Africa to resume trade in
their ivory stockpiles. Stansell said the sales, which have not yet
begun, will support elephant conservation.
But Susan Lieberman, former chief of the Scientific Authority at the
Fish and Wildlife Service and now director of the species program at
the World Wildlife Fund, said legal trade in ivory always triggers
illegal poaching. "Money doesn't always mean conservation," she added.
"To me, the theme is allowing an industry to write the rules, which is
a Bush administration pattern."
Smith, the administration official, said permits would be issued only
after foreign countries showed they had strong conservation programs.
"There is nothing else we have as a country to force other countries
to conserve their wildlife, other than being paternalistic and saying
'no, no, no,' " he said.
In another "sustainable use" proposal, the Fish and Wildlife Service
announced in August a precedent-setting exemption to the Wild Bird
Conservation Act, which was signed into law in 1992 by President
George H.W. Bush. The policy would allow importation of the blue
fronted Amazon parrot from Argentina. The agency is reviewing public
comment.
The prized parrots sell for several hundred dollars apiece. Stansell
said Argentina, which approached Fish and Wildlife with the proposal,
would allow the capture of about 10 nestling parrots from five nests
in every 250 acres of parrot habitat.
With export taxes of $40 to $80 per bird, a 250-acre area would
generate $400 to $800 per year to support conservation. Stansell
conceded that cutting down forest habitat and selling timber would
generate far more money for landowners, but said the Argentine
government concluded that owners would prefer sustainable returns from
selling the birds.
Conservation biologists said Fish and Wildlife made poor estimates -
or no estimates - about how many parrots would be left.
"It's an extraordinarily bad idea," said Jamie Gilardi, director of
the World Parrot Trust, a conservation group that has filed opposition
to the plan in a letter signed by 88 international biologists. "The
quotas are based on poor or inadequate science - and the
sustainability issue is simply not addressed at all."
The Fish and Wildlife Service's parrot proposal cited scientific
estimates by Enrique Bucher, a top Argentine parrot biologist, in
determining how many birds could be safely captured. But in a
telephone interview from the University of Cordoba in Argentina,
Bucher said his research actually showed the U.S. proposal was poorly
conceived and lacked scientific oversight.
"It's a very romantic idea, but in practice I do not know any
positive examples," he said, referring to "sustainable use" plans.
"The assumption that local communities will have the organization and
altruism to put the money into long-term protection of the environment
where you have terrible economic forces pushing for deforestation is a
little naive."
* * *
(c) 2003 The Washington Post Company
Date: 031013
From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
By Shankar Vedantam, Washington Post Staff Writer, October 11, 2003
The Bush administration is proposing far-reaching changes to
conservation policies that would allow hunters, circuses and the pet
industry to kill, capture and import animals on the brink of
extinction in other countries.
Giving Americans access to endangered animals, officials said, would
feed the gigantic U.S. demand for live animals, skins, parts and
trophies, and generate profits that would allow poor nations to pay
for conservation of the remaining animals and their habitat.
This and other proposals that pursue conservation through trade
would, for example, open the door for American trophy hunters to kill
the endangered straight-horned markhor in Pakistan; license the pet
industry to import the blue fronted Amazon parrot from Argentina;
permit the capture of endangered Asian elephants for U.S. circuses and
zoos; and partially resume the trade in African ivory. No U.S.
endangered species would be affected.
Conservationists think it's a bad idea. "It's a very dangerous
precedent to decide that wildlife exploitation is in the best interest
of wildlife," said Adam Roberts, a senior research associate at the
nonprofit Animal Welfare Institute, an advocacy group for endangered
species.
Killing or capturing even a few animals is hardly the best way to
protect endangered species, conservationists say. Many charge that the
policies cater to individuals and businesses that profit from animal
exploitation.
The latest proposal involves an interpretation of the Endangered
Species Act that deviates radically from the course followed by
Republican and Democratic administrations since President Richard M.
Nixon signed the act in 1973. The law established broad protection for
endangered species, most of which are not native to America, and
effectively prohibited trade in them.
Kenneth Stansell, assistant director for international affairs at the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said there has been a growing
realization that the Endangered Species Act provides poor countries no
incentive to protect dying species. Allowing American hunters,
circuses and the pet industry to pay countries to take fixed numbers
of animals from the wild can help protect the remaining animals, he
said.
U.S. officials note that such trade is already open to hunters, pet
importers and zoos in other Western nations. They say the idea is
supported by poor countries that are home to the endangered species
and would benefit from the revenue.
Officials at the Department of Interior and Fish and Wildlife, who
are spearheading many of the new policies, said the proposals merely
implement rarely used provisions in the law.
"This is absolutely consistent with the Endangered Species Act, as
written," said David P. Smith, deputy assistant secretary at the
Department of Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. "I think the
nature of the beast is such that there are critics who are going to
claim some kind of ulterior motive."
Animal welfare advocates question the logic of the new approach,
saying that foreign countries and groups that stand to profit will be
in charge of determining how many animals can be killed or captured.
Advocates also warn that opening the door to legal trade will allow
poaching to flourish.
"As soon as you place a financial price on the head of wild animals,
the incentive is to kill the animal or capture them," Roberts said.
"The minute people find out they can have an easier time killing,
shipping and profiting from wildlife, they will do so."
The proposals also trigger a visceral response: To many animal
lovers, these species have emotional and symbolic value, and should
never be captured or killed.
The Endangered Species Act prohibits removing domestic endangered
species from the wild. Until now, that protection was extended to
foreign species. Explaining the change, Stansell said, "There is a
recognition that these sovereign nations have a different way of
managing their natural resources."
Indeed, many of the strongest advocates for "sustainable use"
programs - under which some animals are "harvested" to raise money to
save the rest - have been countries that are home to various
endangered species. Foreign trade groups and governments have tried
for years - mostly in vain - to convince the United States that
animals are no longer in limited supply, or that capturing or killing
fixed numbers would not drive a species to extinction.
That could change after Oct. 17, the end of the public comment period
on one proposed change.
The proposal identified several species:
- Morelet's crocodile, an endangered freshwater crocodile found in
Mexico, Guatemala and Belize. Its skin is prized by U.S. leather
importers.
- The endangered Asian elephant of India and Southeast Asia. The
declining population in U.S. breeding programs "has raised a
significant demand among the [U.S.] zoo and circus community," the
proposal said.
- The Asian bonytongue, a valuable aquarium fish, found in Indonesia,
Thailand and Malaysia.
- The straight-horned markhor, an endangered wild goat in Pakistan
distinguished by corkscrew-shaped horns. According to the proposal,
"allowing a limited number of U.S. hunters an opportunity to import
trophies from this population could provide a significant increase
in funds available for conservation."
John R. Monson, a New Hampshire trophy hunter and former chairman of
that state's Fish and Game Commission, said the program would help
preserve rare animals. In 1999, Monson applied for a permit to shoot
and import a straight-horned markhor. He was turned down.
Monson said the money he has spent hunting trophies - including a
leopard from Namibia and a bontebok antelope from South Africa - has
funded conservation programs.
Monson is president-elect of Safari Club International, a national
hunting advocacy group. He agreed to an interview only in his personal
capacity.
Safari Club International gave $274,000 to candidates during the 2000
election cycle, 86 percent of it to Republicans. It also spent $5,445
printing bumper stickers for the Bush presidential campaign. Monson
has made a variety of contributions himself, including $1,000 to the
Bush for President campaign.
Teresa Telecky, former director of the wildlife trade program at the
Humane Society, blamed lobbying by Safari Club International and other
special interest groups for a "sea change" in conservation policy.
"The approach of this administration is it is all right to kill
endangered or threatened species or capture them from the wild so long
as somebody says there would be some conservation benefit," she said.
Stansell said conservation goals, not lobbying, drove the proposals,
which he said evolved through previous administrations.
Still, the application of "sustainable use" has never been so broad.
Last November, the United States reversed its long-held position and
voted to allow Botswana, Namibia and South Africa to resume trade in
their ivory stockpiles. Stansell said the sales, which have not yet
begun, will support elephant conservation.
But Susan Lieberman, former chief of the Scientific Authority at the
Fish and Wildlife Service and now director of the species program at
the World Wildlife Fund, said legal trade in ivory always triggers
illegal poaching. "Money doesn't always mean conservation," she added.
"To me, the theme is allowing an industry to write the rules, which is
a Bush administration pattern."
Smith, the administration official, said permits would be issued only
after foreign countries showed they had strong conservation programs.
"There is nothing else we have as a country to force other countries
to conserve their wildlife, other than being paternalistic and saying
'no, no, no,' " he said.
In another "sustainable use" proposal, the Fish and Wildlife Service
announced in August a precedent-setting exemption to the Wild Bird
Conservation Act, which was signed into law in 1992 by President
George H.W. Bush. The policy would allow importation of the blue
fronted Amazon parrot from Argentina. The agency is reviewing public
comment.
The prized parrots sell for several hundred dollars apiece. Stansell
said Argentina, which approached Fish and Wildlife with the proposal,
would allow the capture of about 10 nestling parrots from five nests
in every 250 acres of parrot habitat.
With export taxes of $40 to $80 per bird, a 250-acre area would
generate $400 to $800 per year to support conservation. Stansell
conceded that cutting down forest habitat and selling timber would
generate far more money for landowners, but said the Argentine
government concluded that owners would prefer sustainable returns from
selling the birds.
Conservation biologists said Fish and Wildlife made poor estimates -
or no estimates - about how many parrots would be left.
"It's an extraordinarily bad idea," said Jamie Gilardi, director of
the World Parrot Trust, a conservation group that has filed opposition
to the plan in a letter signed by 88 international biologists. "The
quotas are based on poor or inadequate science - and the
sustainability issue is simply not addressed at all."
The Fish and Wildlife Service's parrot proposal cited scientific
estimates by Enrique Bucher, a top Argentine parrot biologist, in
determining how many birds could be safely captured. But in a
telephone interview from the University of Cordoba in Argentina,
Bucher said his research actually showed the U.S. proposal was poorly
conceived and lacked scientific oversight.
"It's a very romantic idea, but in practice I do not know any
positive examples," he said, referring to "sustainable use" plans.
"The assumption that local communities will have the organization and
altruism to put the money into long-term protection of the environment
where you have terrible economic forces pushing for deforestation is a
little naive."
* * *
(c) 2003 The Washington Post Company
