Lions and Ivory
from The Fishing Wire
In life, Cecil was a popular member of the lion population of Zimbabwea’s Hwange National Park. In his suspicious killing by a noted United States hunter, he’s become a lightning rod for controversy. The hunter faces possible poaching charges, although he has maintained his innocence, blaming the professional hunters who ok’d him to shoot the lion.
And two major hunting and wildlife groups, Safari Club International and the Dallas Safari Club, wasted no time weighing in yesterday on the controversy. DSC, the first to respond, called on the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to investigate the matter, especially into possible violations of American Wildlife Laws. It also supported the Safari Operators Association of Zimbabwe’s taking actions against its members who violate wildlife laws.
“DSC abhors poaching,” their statement reads (you can both statements in their entirety in today’s news section), commends the swift action of Zimbabewan authorities and supports the prosecution of convicted poachers to the fullest extent of the law.”
Safari Club International found itself in the uncomfortable position of both the hunter and professional being SCI members. But the organization didn’t hesitate to take decisive action in regards to both or to make it clear they supported strong actions when it comes to poaching.
“SCI has imposed immediate emergency membership suspensions of both the involved hunter and his guide/professional hunter,” their statement reads, “and they will remain in place pending the outcome of an investigation.”
“Safari Club International condemns unlawful and unethical hunting practices,” their statement continues, “SCI supports only legal hunting practices and those who comply with all applicable hunting rules and regulations, and SCI believes that those who intentionally take wildlife illegally should be prosecuted and punished to the maximum extent allowed by law.”
With that, two of the major groups representing hunters – especially trophy hunters- took what was an unquestioned stance against poaching-or the appearance of impropriety, since the full details into the death of Cecil aren’t known. And their decisive actions should help reinforce the idea that hunters aren’t some sub-species of human being, intent on wiping out wildlife across the globe in search of trophy animals.
Nothing could be further to the truth when it comes to the true biological facts of trophy animals- they’re generally beyond their prime when it comes to reproduction or contributions to their species’ survival- and in some cases, like last year’s hotly-protested black rhino hunts, the elderly bulls were actually detriments to the survival of their species. Hopefully, the strong statements and action on behalf of SCI, will help open some eyes to the facts, not the emotion of the matter of hunting.
In another matter, however, it’s the action that confirms the intent. The intent of the administration is to kill the ivory trade in the United States- all of it. After delaying a proposed regulation for a year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has published their proposal for ivory in the Federal Register.
It is, in the words of Knife Rights chairman Doug Ritter, “as bad as expected.” The rule would hit legal owners of ivory- meaning knife owners, knifemakers, scrimshaw artists, and suppliers -hard making a few very narrow exceptions into what is otherwise a total ban on ivory trade -legal or otherwise.
According to the Knife Rights release (again, you can read it in today’s News Section) the ban is based on three premises- all false:
1) Elephant poaching is increasing…when CITES says poaching numbers have been falling since 2011 due to increased enforcement of anti-poaching laws.
2) Large amounts of illegal ivory are being imported into the US, driving the poaching increases…both CITES and U.S. data show that illicit ivory imports into the U.S. are insignificant- both name the Chinese as the demand fueling poaching
3) By banning American ivory trade, the Chinese consumer will abandon his cultural affinity for ivory…when the Chinese demand for illicit ivory is completely independent of the U.S. trade -or demand. The ban seeks to stop trade in decades-old, legally owned, domestic ivory.
As Knife Rights points out, USFWS Director Dan Ashe has stated the goal of the regulation is to implement a near complete ban on the domestic commercial trade of ivory. The federal government lacks the authority to stop trade in states, it seeks to stop any trade across state lines.
As Ritter explained, “there is no evidence this ban would save a single elephant in Africa, but it will take millions of dollars in value from honest Americans.”
So what can we do? Contact our Congressional delegations and tell them they should co-sponsor the African Elephant Conservation and Legal Ivory Possession Act of 2015 to protect honest U.S. ivory owners while providing additional conservation and anti-poaching efforts in Africa.