June 9 Advisory Council Meeting Recap (written by Rob Mitchell, Attorney)
The Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking held its third public meeting in Washington DC yesterday, June 9 from 1-5 PM.* Unlike the prior meeting, this one was not recorded on video, so the Council will not be posting video of what happened at this meeting on its website. In this e-mail, I’ll summarize the meeting, emphasizing key points raised along with associated public comments offered to inform or rebut assertions made by the Council and USFWS.
David Hayes, the Council Vice-Chair, explained that the Council was obligated to meet in public and discuss the recommendations they would make to the Presidential Task Force – a.k.a., the White House – at the conclusion of this meeting. Hayes acknowledged that he had a document with 19 recommendations that the Council would propose, and he blamed lawyers for not printing out those recommendations in advance so the public could look at them as the Council discussed them.* Instead, the Council took turns reading the recommendations aloud and then briefly discussing them. After each brief discussion, the Vice-Chair confirmed the “consensus” of the council for each recommendation. This process lasted at least 2 hours.* The full text of all 19 recommendations were posted on the Advisory Council website after the meeting (click here for the text).*
The Council did not discuss the 19 recommendations in order, but they did start with the first recommendation - Take Steps to Increase the Number of Significant Wildlife Trafficking Prosecutions in the U.S. and Seek More Serious Punishment for Such Crimes.* The Council’s John Webb complained that “the United States prosecutes relatively few wildlife traffickers and the penalties imposed for violators are the lowest of all of the 32 so-called “primary offense” categories tracked by the Sentencing Commission.” He said there were only about 100 prosecutions a year, which was down from over 200 prosecutions during “peak years.” He acknowledged that there were major undercover investigations currently underway (under existing law), but said there needed to be more emphasis on prosecution and punishment without offering any evidence that there was any increase or significant illicit ivory trade going on in the United States. Council Member Patrick Bergin (African Wildlife Foundation CEO) emphasized that there needs to be more prosecutions in the United States to “set an example” for other countries where wildlife trafficking is prevalent. The Council indicated*concurrence*with Bergin's statement and advanced to the next recommendation..
The next recommendation (number 3 on their list) was for the Interior Department to Continue To Take Administrative Steps to Tighten and Clarify The U.S. Restrictions On Commercial Trade in Ivory and Rhino Horn.* They continued to characterize trade in pre-ban ivory as a “loophole” that needed to be closed. They also urged USFWS
“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 exhibitions to and from accredited museums, 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.”
The Council clearly wanted to give the impression that it was listening to the ivory community and reacting accordingly.* However, the only changes it appeared to be sensitive to were noncommercial uses of ivory and some lip service paid to antiques.* It was clear that museum interests got to Council Member Cristian Samper, CEO of the Wildlife Conservation Society & former director of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History.* At Samper’s request, the council added the language about fostering “donation (e.g., to a museum), disposal and other options” of ivory that cannot be traded commercially.* As the meeting progressed, it became increasingly obvious that each of the council members sought through these recommendations to secure federal financing and support for measures that would directly benefit each of their agencies and organizations.
The discussion shifted from Enforcement to Legal Reform. They once again recommended amending the law to make wildlife trafficking violations subject to prosecution under
1. The Travel Act, 18 USC 1952
2. The Money Laundering Statute, 18 USC 1956
3. RICO, 18 USC 1961-68 AND
4. The Federal Wiretap Statute, 18 USC 2516
The Wiretap Statue addition was new from the last meeting. The Council added it so USFWS and other investigative agencies had greater power to investigate suspected wildlife traffickers (as if the government needs any more access to law abiding citizens’ private communications)!
The Council also wants Federal Restitution authorities to apply to Wildlife Trafficking Offenses. This was discussed in the Council’s prior meeting, but unlike last time, they conveniently omitted the discussion about how this proposal would result in a slush fund for government agencies and NGOs when the country of origin of a specimen subject to enforcement could not be identified.**
The Council decided at the meeting to send a letter to Senators Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asking them to co-sponsor legislation that would initiate these changes.* It is a safe bet that these two senators have already been working on drafts of this legislation.
The balance of the Council’s presentation and recommendations dealt with getting other agencies and private entities on board with their plan, building a marketing campaign, and specific measures to “reduce demand.”* Examples are
⦁ Get DOD to offer equipment and training to fight poachers & disrupt trade
⦁ Involve UN, other diplomatic efforts, and other transnational crime efforts in wildlife trafficking issues
⦁ Involve private sector entities like auction houses and search engines in “voluntary codes of conduct to fight wildlife trafficking”
⦁ Tailor marketing campaigns (including social marketing) to discourage commercial ivory use and other wildlife trade
⦁ Suck up money from all available sources, including philanthropists, and assert government control over how the money is spent to better direct the use of resources in accordance with the government’s strategy
For more specifics, you should review the recommendations as stated on their website.*
Next Steps
The Council intends to present these recommendations immediately to the Task Force (White House). They expect the Administration to consider the recommendations and act upon them. Near term, they hope to see action in August to coincide with a scheduled meeting with African nations in Washington. This is likely when USFWS would like to publish its changes to 50 CFR 17.40(3), the Special Rule for African Elephants under the Endangered Species Act, and it is through that regulation that they would likely implement changes to ban domestic trade of ivory. (Note: publication would be followed by a public comment period, so regulations would not be final/enforceable until after that period, if at all).
Public Comments
I counted 24 different presenters, 15 of which were critical of the ivory ban in varying degrees.* Because of the number of speakers, they only had 2 minutes each, and some were cut off abruptly.
The first speaker was from the Clinton Foundation expressing support for the Council and acknowledging that many members on the Council were members of the Foundation.* The speaker didn’t want to leave any doubt about Hillary Clinton’s involvement in this effort.
Edmund Davidson (Knife Maker), Ana Seidman (Safari Club Legal Counsel), Denise Nelson (Antique Appraiser), Doug Ritter (Knife Rights), Heather Noonan (League of American Orchestras), Jeffrey Klotz (Netsuke Owner), John Leydon (Cane Collector), Linda Karst Stone (Scrimshander), John Bennet (Amer Fed of Violin & Bow Makers), Matt Eckert (Deputy Director Conservation for SCI), Michael Green (Amer Inst of Pipe & Organ Builders), William Perlstein (for Antique Dealers), Rob Mitchell (Me),Joe Kirsten (Netsuke Collector) and CAMPFIRE all spoke.* Sandra Brady tried to present comments on behalf of David Warther who had been given permission to speak and could not attend, but the Council denied her the chance to present Warther’s statement.
I was able to capture statements from Sandra Brady, Linda Karst Stone and me on my iPhone. I have not had a chance to review the video and suspect that only the audio will be useable. In the future I’ll use what I can to convey a sense of what transpired at the meeting.
For a link to all of the written comments that were sent to the Advisory Council prior to the meeting, click here.
I’m not going to summarize each of the presentations against the ivory ban. Each emphasized in different ways that
⦁ The proposed ivory ban does not stop poaching in Africa
⦁ The ban imposes crippling losses on people who have legally traded in ivory and/or whose businesses depend on legal ivory already in the US or is tradable internationally under existing law
⦁ The ban and related efforts are likely to exacerbate poaching in Africa by ignoring local realities with communities that host elephant populations
⦁ The ban is already responsible for destruction of culturally significant items and threatens greater destruction of a wide range of items and music for no good reason
*
Of particular note, Communities Area Management Programme For Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE), a highly respected conservation group from Zimbabwe, was given the final 10 minutes to make a presentation to the Council. While CAMPFIRE was focused on the harm that USFWS’s recent suspension of sport-hunting elephants in Africa would cause for conservation efforts, their presentation dovetailed extremely well with what prior speakers said about the ineffectiveness of a domestic ivory ban on poaching activities. CAMPFIRE emphasized the dominant role that sport hunting elephants brings to local African communities, and without that activity, local communities would not have the resources nor the interest in stopping elephant poaching.* The worst thing that could be done to elephant populations is to eliminate the commercial value of elephants to people in Africa.* Without scientifically based conservation measures, both elephants and people in Africa will suffer dire consequences. Likewise, the arbitrary devaluation or ban of ivory hurts everyone, including the elephants.
*
Thus concluded the meeting.
The Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking held its third public meeting in Washington DC yesterday, June 9 from 1-5 PM.* Unlike the prior meeting, this one was not recorded on video, so the Council will not be posting video of what happened at this meeting on its website. In this e-mail, I’ll summarize the meeting, emphasizing key points raised along with associated public comments offered to inform or rebut assertions made by the Council and USFWS.
David Hayes, the Council Vice-Chair, explained that the Council was obligated to meet in public and discuss the recommendations they would make to the Presidential Task Force – a.k.a., the White House – at the conclusion of this meeting. Hayes acknowledged that he had a document with 19 recommendations that the Council would propose, and he blamed lawyers for not printing out those recommendations in advance so the public could look at them as the Council discussed them.* Instead, the Council took turns reading the recommendations aloud and then briefly discussing them. After each brief discussion, the Vice-Chair confirmed the “consensus” of the council for each recommendation. This process lasted at least 2 hours.* The full text of all 19 recommendations were posted on the Advisory Council website after the meeting (click here for the text).*
The Council did not discuss the 19 recommendations in order, but they did start with the first recommendation - Take Steps to Increase the Number of Significant Wildlife Trafficking Prosecutions in the U.S. and Seek More Serious Punishment for Such Crimes.* The Council’s John Webb complained that “the United States prosecutes relatively few wildlife traffickers and the penalties imposed for violators are the lowest of all of the 32 so-called “primary offense” categories tracked by the Sentencing Commission.” He said there were only about 100 prosecutions a year, which was down from over 200 prosecutions during “peak years.” He acknowledged that there were major undercover investigations currently underway (under existing law), but said there needed to be more emphasis on prosecution and punishment without offering any evidence that there was any increase or significant illicit ivory trade going on in the United States. Council Member Patrick Bergin (African Wildlife Foundation CEO) emphasized that there needs to be more prosecutions in the United States to “set an example” for other countries where wildlife trafficking is prevalent. The Council indicated*concurrence*with Bergin's statement and advanced to the next recommendation..
The next recommendation (number 3 on their list) was for the Interior Department to Continue To Take Administrative Steps to Tighten and Clarify The U.S. Restrictions On Commercial Trade in Ivory and Rhino Horn.* They continued to characterize trade in pre-ban ivory as a “loophole” that needed to be closed. They also urged USFWS
“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 exhibitions to and from accredited museums, 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.”
The Council clearly wanted to give the impression that it was listening to the ivory community and reacting accordingly.* However, the only changes it appeared to be sensitive to were noncommercial uses of ivory and some lip service paid to antiques.* It was clear that museum interests got to Council Member Cristian Samper, CEO of the Wildlife Conservation Society & former director of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History.* At Samper’s request, the council added the language about fostering “donation (e.g., to a museum), disposal and other options” of ivory that cannot be traded commercially.* As the meeting progressed, it became increasingly obvious that each of the council members sought through these recommendations to secure federal financing and support for measures that would directly benefit each of their agencies and organizations.
The discussion shifted from Enforcement to Legal Reform. They once again recommended amending the law to make wildlife trafficking violations subject to prosecution under
1. The Travel Act, 18 USC 1952
2. The Money Laundering Statute, 18 USC 1956
3. RICO, 18 USC 1961-68 AND
4. The Federal Wiretap Statute, 18 USC 2516
The Wiretap Statue addition was new from the last meeting. The Council added it so USFWS and other investigative agencies had greater power to investigate suspected wildlife traffickers (as if the government needs any more access to law abiding citizens’ private communications)!
The Council also wants Federal Restitution authorities to apply to Wildlife Trafficking Offenses. This was discussed in the Council’s prior meeting, but unlike last time, they conveniently omitted the discussion about how this proposal would result in a slush fund for government agencies and NGOs when the country of origin of a specimen subject to enforcement could not be identified.**
The Council decided at the meeting to send a letter to Senators Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asking them to co-sponsor legislation that would initiate these changes.* It is a safe bet that these two senators have already been working on drafts of this legislation.
The balance of the Council’s presentation and recommendations dealt with getting other agencies and private entities on board with their plan, building a marketing campaign, and specific measures to “reduce demand.”* Examples are
⦁ Get DOD to offer equipment and training to fight poachers & disrupt trade
⦁ Involve UN, other diplomatic efforts, and other transnational crime efforts in wildlife trafficking issues
⦁ Involve private sector entities like auction houses and search engines in “voluntary codes of conduct to fight wildlife trafficking”
⦁ Tailor marketing campaigns (including social marketing) to discourage commercial ivory use and other wildlife trade
⦁ Suck up money from all available sources, including philanthropists, and assert government control over how the money is spent to better direct the use of resources in accordance with the government’s strategy
For more specifics, you should review the recommendations as stated on their website.*
Next Steps
The Council intends to present these recommendations immediately to the Task Force (White House). They expect the Administration to consider the recommendations and act upon them. Near term, they hope to see action in August to coincide with a scheduled meeting with African nations in Washington. This is likely when USFWS would like to publish its changes to 50 CFR 17.40(3), the Special Rule for African Elephants under the Endangered Species Act, and it is through that regulation that they would likely implement changes to ban domestic trade of ivory. (Note: publication would be followed by a public comment period, so regulations would not be final/enforceable until after that period, if at all).
Public Comments
I counted 24 different presenters, 15 of which were critical of the ivory ban in varying degrees.* Because of the number of speakers, they only had 2 minutes each, and some were cut off abruptly.
The first speaker was from the Clinton Foundation expressing support for the Council and acknowledging that many members on the Council were members of the Foundation.* The speaker didn’t want to leave any doubt about Hillary Clinton’s involvement in this effort.
Edmund Davidson (Knife Maker), Ana Seidman (Safari Club Legal Counsel), Denise Nelson (Antique Appraiser), Doug Ritter (Knife Rights), Heather Noonan (League of American Orchestras), Jeffrey Klotz (Netsuke Owner), John Leydon (Cane Collector), Linda Karst Stone (Scrimshander), John Bennet (Amer Fed of Violin & Bow Makers), Matt Eckert (Deputy Director Conservation for SCI), Michael Green (Amer Inst of Pipe & Organ Builders), William Perlstein (for Antique Dealers), Rob Mitchell (Me),Joe Kirsten (Netsuke Collector) and CAMPFIRE all spoke.* Sandra Brady tried to present comments on behalf of David Warther who had been given permission to speak and could not attend, but the Council denied her the chance to present Warther’s statement.
I was able to capture statements from Sandra Brady, Linda Karst Stone and me on my iPhone. I have not had a chance to review the video and suspect that only the audio will be useable. In the future I’ll use what I can to convey a sense of what transpired at the meeting.
For a link to all of the written comments that were sent to the Advisory Council prior to the meeting, click here.
I’m not going to summarize each of the presentations against the ivory ban. Each emphasized in different ways that
⦁ The proposed ivory ban does not stop poaching in Africa
⦁ The ban imposes crippling losses on people who have legally traded in ivory and/or whose businesses depend on legal ivory already in the US or is tradable internationally under existing law
⦁ The ban and related efforts are likely to exacerbate poaching in Africa by ignoring local realities with communities that host elephant populations
⦁ The ban is already responsible for destruction of culturally significant items and threatens greater destruction of a wide range of items and music for no good reason
*
Of particular note, Communities Area Management Programme For Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE), a highly respected conservation group from Zimbabwe, was given the final 10 minutes to make a presentation to the Council. While CAMPFIRE was focused on the harm that USFWS’s recent suspension of sport-hunting elephants in Africa would cause for conservation efforts, their presentation dovetailed extremely well with what prior speakers said about the ineffectiveness of a domestic ivory ban on poaching activities. CAMPFIRE emphasized the dominant role that sport hunting elephants brings to local African communities, and without that activity, local communities would not have the resources nor the interest in stopping elephant poaching.* The worst thing that could be done to elephant populations is to eliminate the commercial value of elephants to people in Africa.* Without scientifically based conservation measures, both elephants and people in Africa will suffer dire consequences. Likewise, the arbitrary devaluation or ban of ivory hurts everyone, including the elephants.
*
Thus concluded the meeting.
