AHC#1 Elephant Ban Debacle

<<< Click on a cover to

view a previous article

<<< Click on a cover to

view a previous article

<<< Click on a cover to

view a previous article

The Elephant Ban Debacle

The Elephant Trophy Import Ban – What Does The Future Hold?

By I J Larivers

Press Release

Service Suspends Import of Elephant Trophies from Tanzania and Zimbabwe

April 4, 2014

Contacts:

Gavin Shire

703-346-9123

gavin_shire@fws.gov

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today announced a suspension on imports of sport-hunted African elephant trophies taken in Tanzania and Zimbabwe during calendar year 2014. Questionable management practices, a lack of effective law enforcement and weak governance have resulted in uncontrolled poaching and catastrophic population declines of African elephants in Tanzania. In Zimbabwe, available data, though limited, indicate a significant decline in the elephant population. Anecdotal evidence, such as the widely publicized poisoning last year of 300 elephants in Hwange National Park, suggests that Zimbabwe’s elephants are also under siege.

Given the current situation on the ground in both Tanzania and Zimbabwe, the Service is unable to make positive findings required under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Endangered Species Act to allow import of elephant trophies from these countries. Additional killing of elephants in these countries, even if legal, is not sustainable and is not currently supporting conservation efforts that contribute towards the recovery of the species.

The decision to suspend the import of sport-hunted trophies from Tanzania and Zimbabwe applies to elephants taken in 2014. The Service will reevaluate this suspension for calendar year 2015 or upon receipt of new information that demonstrates an improved situation for elephants in these countries.

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 to conserve the species and by putting much-needed revenue back into conservation. At this time, the Service does not have conservation concerns with African elephant sport hunting in Namibia, South Africa, or Botswana; though it should be noted that Botswana is not currently open to sport hunting.

For more information, please visit:

www.fws.gov/international/perm...hunted-trophies.html

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated professionals, and commitment to public service. For more information on our work and the people who make it happen, visit www.fws.gov

In April of 2014, conspicuously close to the start of the hunting season in southern Africa, the US Fish and Wildlife Service announced that American sport hunters would, until further notice – the 2014 calendar year was stipulated, but as we are now comfortably into 2015 and no further announcement has been forthcoming - not be able to import elephant trophies that were hunted in Zimbabwe and Tanzania.

They listed “questionable management practices, a lack of effective law enforcement, uncontrolled poaching and weak governance” as key factors which had in their words brought about “catastrophic population declines” of African elephant.

One of the first aspects of the ban that was questioned was its timing. Why not at the onset of 2014? Before the convention season, before hunts had been booked and paid for in good faith? At first, it seemed that this was possibly another form of economic sanctions, certainly against Zimbabwe, from an administration in Washington that has proved itself to be far from transparent and open. But of course, there was a bigger picture.

Firstly, Tanzania and Zimbabwe are two completely separate countries which face different challenges in their governance and relations with the rest of the world.

In Tanzania, for example, the arrests of several high-ranking conservation officials on corruption charges underscored the fact that in that country management practices were in part questionable, and if the gamekeeper has turned poacher then of course there will be a lack of effective law enforcement. In Zimbabwe, there is a vigorous approach to wildlife crimes taken by the Investigations Branch of the National Parks and Wildlife Management Authority in liaison with the Zimbabwe Republic Police’s CID Minerals and Border Control Unit, and individuals found trafficking in ivory and rhino horn are liable to a mandatory nine year prison sentence upon conviction. Those actually encountered poaching face being shot on sight in terms of a presidential order dating from 1984. So far, so good, but in recent years a number of cabinet ministers have been implicated in poaching and trafficking in rhino horn and ivory, and of course these people are untouchable. As they are the de facto bosses of the National Parks and police officers doing the enforcement it calls into question just who might avoid prosecution.

Possibly the biggest thorn in Zimbabwe’s side was the disastrously ill-timed poisoning of over a hundred elephant in the country’s flagship Hwange National Park during the year. Activists, among them the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force, erroneously inflated the actual numbers, and the international media swallowed the exaggerated figures hook line and sinker, but the damage had been done.

OK, in Africa, law enforcement is problematical. It’s not like in America, where there is accountability – though if you read Marc Reisner’s Game Wars the challenges Zimbabwean and Tanzanian authorities are facing today is not unlike those faced by the USF&WS in, say Louisiana not so long back. If they can’t be overcome, they can at least be managed.

I can’t speak for Tanzania when it comes to wildlife management, but Zimbabwe certainly has the infrastructure to get it right. The present National Parks and Wildlife Authority is certainly not what its predecessor the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management was back in the 1920s through the 1980s, as a lot of the qualified personnel such as Dr Willie Nduku and Dr Rowan Martin have sought greener pastures, and that sort of expertise is the essence of good management. In fact, the whole concept of “authorities” as currently embraced by the Zimbabwe government is ill thought-out and flawed. We have authorities administering our municipal water supplies, which are sporadic. We have authorities administering our electricity grid, which is sporadic. Why think that making any government department self-funding will make it better? Or even as good? Yes, they will be self-funding, but at the end of the day much of that funding will still find its way back into the state coffers and the emphasis will be on making money rather than service delivery. The recent comment by the governor of Masvingo province “We don’t care about wildlife. We want cash.” Kind of sums it up. But the infrastructure is there, and can be resurrected.

Zimbabwe’s main problem, though it boasts one of the better wildlife departments in Africa and the best professional hunters and guides – at least as far as training and accreditation goes – is that it has had very dodgy relations with the amorphous entity “The West” ever since the euphemistically-named land reform program was begun at the beginning of the millennium. We’re the international bad boy of Africa. And the trouble with being the bad boy is that eventually, when no one wants to play with you anymore, you start to revel in your badness. It becomes a badge of honour. “I’ll do whatever I like”.

So, one of the first predictable reactions by the Zimbabwe government to the ivory import ban was something along the lines of “How can ‘The West’ tell us what to do?” With emphasis on aggrieved indignation. Of course the US Fish and Wildlife Service was never trying to tell the Zimbabwe government what it could and could not do. I am happy to accept that the US Fish & Wildlife Service made a decision, based on the lack of requested information forthcoming from Zimbabwe, that it could no longer be certain that sport hunting for elephant was not deleterious to the elephant population. That decision was clearly not based on empirical scientific evidence, but more on that later. So, it was telling its own citizens what they could and could not do. Very possibly as an expedient in some hidden political agenda.

Now, before I get tarred, feathered, and hung drawn and quartered for my blasphemy, of course I don’t believe that elephant trophy hunting in Zimbabwe or Tanzania is in any way endangering the species. Just the opposite. Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE program is the leading light in encouraging rural Africans to look after their own wildlife heritage, because they are benefitting from it. It has as its nucleus sport hunting. Professional hunters and outfitters are increasingly becoming the front line in the anti-poaching wars. Elephant populations are far from threatened largely because of sport hunting and the revenue it generates. You know that and I know that, but the crux of the matter is the information that Zimbabwe was willing to share with The United States. Or lack thereof.

Zimbabwe’s elephant population is probably just under 60,000. Initially, the Zimbabwe government claimed figures in excess of 100,000. Lesson: good fiction should always be credible. This highlighted the fact that proper censuses were way out of date and played into the hands of the anti-hunters. 50,000, or even 40,000 elephant are still way in excess of Zimbabwe’s carrying capacity - all you have to do is listen to Ron Thomson to figure that out.

Ron, a career wildlife manager with twenty four years’ service in Rhodesian and then Zimbabwean national parks has basically taken the ban apart piece by piece in his excellent report “A General Overview on Zimbabwe’s Elephant Populations and the Conditions of the Habitats That Support Them”.

Ron’s first point is that the USF&WS has stated that elephant populations in Zimbabwe are on the decline, but itself admits that this is based on sketchy data. In other words, on what information was the statement made – the inflated claims by activists that 300 elephant were poisoned in Hwange and other subjective sources? Ron argues convincingly, using statistical evidence, that even if 300 elephant had been poisoned in Hwange it was a one off occurrence and the numbers of elephants continue to increase within the park.

Ron goes on to further argue that, in his words, Zimbabwe’s national parks are “grossly over-stocked” with elephant, and that as a result irreparable damage is being done to the various ecosystems concerned.

In view of Ron’s well thought-out conclusions, the USF&WS has no credible reason to believe that Zimbabwe’s elephant numbers are in decline, or that they are in any way in need of “recovery”. Zimbabwe has only itself to blame for the fact that it was not forthcoming with population numbers and statistics as requested by USF&WS, but the US Fish and Wildlife Service can hardly justify basing such far-ranging conclusions on such arbitrary data as that fed to the press by activists.

But perhaps in all the confusion of the fray - with activists trying to influence the various authorities and keep the ground they seem to have gained, professional hunters and outfitters reeling from a blow that has cost them materially and professionally, sport hunters outraged at their treatment at the hands of Big Brother, and the Zimbabwe government trying to regain some manner of political stability – we have all overlooked maybe the most significant question of all. That of whether or not the indigenous rural peoples of Africa have any say whatsoever over the way their wildlife resources are used.

They are the ones at the forefront of the battle to conserve Africa’s wildlife, because they are the ones who live with it on a daily basis. They are the ones who occasionally fall prey to the odd marauding lion, elephant or buffalo. They are the ones whose crops suffer problem animal damage when they are living literally a subsistence existence off the land. They are the ones who made initiatives like Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE program internationally heralded successes. And they are the ones who have been left out of the whole equation.

In Zimbabwe, the government owns the wildlife, all wildlife. But the government is ensconced in the relatively well-developed environs of the capitol Harare and often out of touch with the needs of its rural people. It is often so consumed with its own Machiavellian intrigues that it doesn’t realise how out of touch it is. And sometimes it doesn’t really care, unless there is money to be made, such as with the proposed export of elephants to the United Arab Emirates and China.

So, owning the wildlife, the government is outraged when an agency such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service attempts to “interfere” in its utilisation of wildlife. American hunters are not happy about being told where they can and cannot import trophies from and of course African PHs bemoan the loss of revenue and credibility. The rural population is simply viewed as collateral damage.

An excellent video on the import ban, The Elephant and the Pauper: The Ivory Debacle has just been brought out by Zig Mackintosh in conjunction with the Hunter Proud Foundation and John Jackson III of Conservation Force, two of the ones on the frontlines in the legal challenges to the ban. This movie addresses the origins of the problem, how it is affecting the various parties involved, and also how the rural African populations fit into the Grand Scheme of Things. More importantly it offers suggestions and solutions. Here it is:

So no, we all know that if anything sport hunting is protecting Zimbabwe’s elephants, but the ban was in large part due to Zimbabwe playing the bad boy and refusing to cooperate with USF&WS before it was too late.

Because the ban was based on inadequate information supplied – let’s not quibble over who; Zimbabwe didn’t cooperate with requests for information so the USF&WS blindly accepted the delusions of the activists over things like the “300” elephant supposedly poisoned in Hwange and the “66% decline over the past five years” in the elephant population is Tanzania’s Selous National Park – it was all our faults, so let’s just get on with it and see if we can’t move forward.

It didn’t take long for Safari Club International to file a lawsuit against the USF&WS over the ban. The argument is that a large portion of the revenue derived from hunting is channelled back into conservation, and that the elephant populations are not in danger in these two countries.

So the question now is what does the future hold? Zimbabwe, at least, has worked actively to fill in the gaps in its own elephant population figures, and it has enlisted the assistance of internationally renowned experts like Dr Rowan Martin to advance its case. Its law enforcement initiatives have become more vigorous and the cautious CW at this point seems to be that the ban on elephant trophy imports from Zimbabwe will be lifted in 2015 – if, and it’s a big if – the decision to include Zimbabwe was not wholly political. If that was the case, the situation has not improved.

I tend to go with this feeling, though I am not clear at all in my mind about what will happen in Tanzania.

So, watch the video, and along with those of us on the ground here, hope for the best for the hunters, the conservators, and especially the African elephant, who really has the most to lose from the ban.

An example of this is a project that was initiated by a sport-hunter through Living Waters. In the Maitengwe area 24 village wells were sunk and equipped and 18 in Tsholotsho, each well costing $ 10 000. To find out more about Living Waters click on this link.

These amounts may not seem much to the average American but to poor villages living on the frontline with wildlife, it is a lot of money. The average family incomes are less than $500 per year. These are the same people that will either report or support the Chinese sponsored poachers when they come back to town after the sport-hunting operators move out. Last year in the aftermath of the poisoning incidents they exposed the poachers and that led to the arrests of most of them. In the absence of sport hunting generated revenues there is little doubt what they will do next time.

Another critical benefit of the sport hunting of these 35 elephant produces 70 tons of read meat per annum for the local communities. This equates to 1.3 tons per week for these communities that eat protein on average one meal per week.

The San people who were displaced from Hwange National Park when it was created are totally reliant on trophy hunted elephant meat for survival. Without it they would be totally destitute.

Prior to the launching of this successful CAMPFIRE program in this area more elephants were shot on problem animal control (crop-raiders that annihilate the villages only source of food) for zero return than are sport hunted today.

Hunting companies started pumping water in Hwange Park in 2002 because the Zimbabwean Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management (DNPWM) were no longer able to keep the pumps going because of a financial crisis. Since then hunters have kept tens of thousands of elephants alive, principally in the southern quarter of the park.

Through the servicing and maintenance of pumps and waterholes by the hunting operators, 8000 elephant are provided with water. At the end of the dry season each year 130,000 US gallons of water are pumped to the surface per day to sustain the elephant and the other wildlife species.

The Maitengwe dam also provides water to all of the wildlife in the Sibanini area of the park once all of the natural waterholes have dried up inside the park. Every year repairs to the dam have to be carried out because of the intense pressure that is placed on the dam by elephant and other wildlife species as well as the local community cattle. The hunting safari operators carry out these repairs.

The Rural district councils realize $ 525 000 per annum from trophy fees from the sustainable sport hunted elephant quota. There is one photographic lodge in the area which generates $ 30 000 per year in revenue for the council. By next year there will be three photographic lodges which should increase this total to $ 100 000 which is still well short of the $ 500 000 realized through trophy elephant hunting.

The closing of elephant hunting for US hunters through the ban of the importation of trophy hunted ivory will not stop the poaching of elephant and the actions of the FWS are totally irresponsible and in fact extremely dangerous. The minimal poaching that occurs, and the taking of 35 trophy elephant a year pales into insignificance to the real problems that Hwange and indeed the whole of Zimbabwe faces and that is the over-population of elephant.

The History of Hwange National Park

It is important to understand the history of Hwange National Park to realize how the present circumstances have arisen.

When Ted Davidson, the first Warden of the park, arrived in 1922 he realized that the provision of water was going to be the key factor. By July every year, in all but exceptionally wet seasons, most of the water had dried up and water-dependant game were forced to leave the park. And move into conflict with a rapidly increasing human population around the Park. The elephant population at that time was between 500-1000.

Most of Hwange National Park is flat and sandy, with little run-off during the rains; consequently there are no permanent rivers that flow year-round and very few small water- courses.

There are, however, numerous natural pans formed over thousands of years by animal activity. These pans are seasonal, only filling with the arrival of the rains. The game park sits above a network of fossil riverbeds containing vast amounts of water and so a program to sink boreholes near established pans and pump water into them was started.

Windmills were erected to pump water into the pans but as wildlife populations flourished in particular elephants, they became unable to sustain the demand of the increasing water dependent animal populations.

During the 1950's and 60's the introduction of diesel engines to supplement the windmills in pumping water into the pans improved the situation dramatically. Year round water soon had an effect on game migration, too.

By 1980 elephant populations had reached 25 000 and the sustainability of the system exceeded as woodlands and other herbivore species collapsed.

The present estimate of Hwange's elephant population ranges between 25 000 and 40 000. There is some debate as to the actual number but it is irrelevant. There is very clearly a massive overpopulation when seen in the context of limited food supplies within range of available surface water.

During the drought of 2012 large numbers of elephant died of starvation within Hwange National Park. The meat from these animals rotted in the bush as the natural scavengers could not deal with the amount.

Click this link to watch a trailer of the movie 'Grey Matters' which highlights the crisis.

So we are faced with a farcical situation with a starving elephant population on one side of the fence and on the other one of the poorest communities in the world being denied revenue from the utilization of a natural resource because of a perceived but inaccurate concern for the wellbeing of a single animal species that is actually in a state of overpopulation.

Quite simply, the ecosystem of this part of Africa cannot sustain these elephant numbers. For FWS to declare that sport hunting within the communal lands neighbouring Hwange is having a detrimental effect on this population is ludicrous and without any scientific basis as is the charge that the illegal off take of elephant within Hwange National Park is of the same gravity to that of the Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania.

Zig Mackintosh.

www.ospreyfilming.com

www.hunterproud.com

https://www.facebook.com/HuntGeo

studio@ospreyfilming.com

We are moving forward with our challenge to the 2014 Zimbabwe importation ban and are watching for the FWS’s decision on importation from both countries for 2015. If the FWS does not lift the bans, we will consider whether we should amend our current suit or file new litigation to challenge the 2015bans. Please continue to watch out for SCI Litigation Alerts, e-mail communications and Crosshairs for updates on this important case.

Below is one of the reports that we have submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service in connection with their decision to ban the importation of sport hunted ivory from Zimbabwe and Tanzania for 2014. For those of you who are concerned, please circulate to promote awareness of the actual situation on the ground.

Please note that the movie "Grey Matters" is NOT an Osprey production.

Report on Elephant Numbers in Zimbabwe

Submitted to FWS

The banning of the importation of sport-hunted ivory into the USA.

The United Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) states that the poisoning of 300 elephant in Hwange National Park validates Zimbabwe’s elephant poaching issues. The actual number was between 120- 130 as per a report from Mr. Collin Gillies who is the chairman of the Matabeleland Branch of Wildlife and Environment, Zimbabwe. If the service is prepared to accept this false information as fact, it calls into question the validity of the rest of its intelligence.

All the cases of poisoned elephant were actually found by professional hunters. Thys De Vries in the Josibanini area of Hwange and Pete Fick in the Ngamo forestry area and the Maitengwe area. Had these professional hunters not been in the field, and the only viable hunting in these areas is elephant hunting, red flags would not have been raised.

The poachers from that poaching incident were hammered, 4 groups were caught and only a few individuals from each group escaped but they are known and will be on the run forever. All others arrested were sentenced to jail terms of more than 5 years. The poisoning has not occurred again since the arrest of these poachers. The successful and effective response appears to have worked at least for the short term. The hunting operations on the boundaries of the park are a very effective deterrent to poaching operations. If they are forced to leave there will be nobody to monitor the situation.

The Hwange National Park has the largest population of elephant in Zimbabwe. The park’s longest boundary is also the southern most boundary of the biggest elephant population in the world i.e. KAZA (the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area http://www.kavangozambezi.org) This boundary is with the Tsholotsho and Maitengwe communal areas.

The sport-hunting quota of elephant from the three hunting areas (Maitengwe, Tsholotsho north and Tsholosho south) is between 30 -35 per annum. This number has been the consistent annual off-take in these areas for nearly 20 years - it is sustainable.

The financial value of this sport hunted quota that fits within the CITES approved quota administered by DNPWM can be quantified in 3 ways:

1. Trophy fees paid to District Councils average $ 15 000 per elephant multiplied by 35 gives a total of $ 525 000. This actually constitutes 95% of their total CAMPFIRE income from tourism and wildlife.

Of this total, 85% goes straight back into ward and village level projects. Their impact is huge as an example a typical twin classroom blocks for 70-80 students costs in the region of $ 50 000 each to build.

2. An equivalent amount of money is generated through daily rates into the local economy by hunting safari operations in the form of staff salaries, foodstuffs, transport, diesel, the purchase of thatching grass from local people, the hiring of casual labor for road-clearing and other maintenance work.

3. The amount of philanthropic dollars from sport-hunters who visit the area almost matches that again on a per annum basis.

Elephant Importation Ban - Litigation Update

December 26, 2014

On December 26th, SCI and NRA received good and bad news in our efforts to challenge the ongoing importation bans on sport-hunted elephants from Zimbabwe and Tanzania. The D.C. federal district court issued a ruling on several motions that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had filed to try to dismiss our claims.

We received very good news about our Zimbabwe elephant claims. The court ruled in SCI and NRA’s favor on our ability to proceed with our challenges to the Zimbabwe importation bans — both to the ban announced on April 4, 2014 and the decision to continue the ban that the FWS announced on July 23, 2014. The FWS fought particularly hard to have our claims against the April 4, 2014 decision dismissed because they know that they will have the most difficult time defending their conduct in making their abrupt decision to ban importation despite lacking adequate evidence to do so. The Court refused to allow the FWS to sweep this conduct under the rug. The ruling cleared the way for SCI’s Litigation team to move forward to present our case on why the FWS acted illegally in shutting down importation from Zimbabwe without a sufficient basis for doing so.

Unfortunately, the court’s ruling on our Tanzania claims was not favorable. The judge took the position that because importation from Tanzania requires a permit, the only ones who can sue to challenge the ban are those who apply for permits, have their applications denied and unsuccessfully participate in the FWS’s lengthy permit appeal process. The court rejected SCI’s and NRA’s arguments that, instead of disputing the denial of an individual permit, we challenged the underlying decision upon which all importation applications would be measured and that submission to the permit process would be a futile exercise. The court dismissed our Tanzania importation ban challenges. SCI’s Litigation team is currently considering whether we should or can seek an immediate appeal of the Tanzania ruling.