The DC Court of Appeals just ruled that the Obama administration improperly implemented the ban on importing big game trophies from Africa. Here's why that matters.
Earlier this year, the Trump administration announced it would roll back the Obama administration's ban on importing big game hunting trophies from certain African countries. Not surprisingly, critics of the President pounced, arguing that the change was heartless and bad policy. People on social media pointed to the fact that the president's son, Donald Trump Jr., is an avid hunter who would directly benefit from the policy change. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) even compared the administration's policy change to reversing the ban on child molestation (really)."PETA has been challenging this policy for years and will continue to do so until the government recognizes that selling a threatened animal’s life to raise money for 'conservation' is like selling a child on the black market to raise money to fight child molestation."Sportsmen and conservationists alike applauded the change, arguing that it would funnel much needed resources to organizations protecting these vulnerable species on the ground. Public backlash was significant, however, ultimately forcing President Trump to hit the brakes and block the regulatory change from moving forward until he could personally review all the details. Now, a new Appeals Court ruling is going to make that much more complicated.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling last week, declaring that the Obama administration had improperly implemented its trophy import ban. The three-judge panel found that the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) should have gone through the extensive process of proposing a regulation, inviting public comment and making the regulation final as the law requires. The Obama administration did not follow this process, weakening its regulation.
However, the judges stopped short of overturning the regulation entirely. Instead, they ruled that even though the regulation was improperly devised and implemented, the Trump administration must follow the process when reversing it.
President Trump is currently reviewing the proposed rule change, with a final decision likely coming soon. While the President has to consider the public outcry, many conservationists are still urging him to reverse the Obama-era ban. We wanted to flesh out some of the arguments that are being made behind the scenes as the final decision over this regulation is debated.
In 2014, the Obama administration enacted a ban on the importation of many different types of hunting trophies from Africa. The goal was to deter American hunters from hunting threatened and endangered species or contributing to corrupt and mismanaged wildlife programs. When the Trump administration originally announced its decision to reverse the ban, a Department of Fish and Wildlife spokesperson explained the reasoning.
"Legal, well-regulated sport hunting as part of a sound management program can benefit certain species by providing incentives to local communities to conserve those species and by putting much-needed revenue back into conservation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the hunting and management programs for African elephants in Zimbabwe and Zambia will enhance the survival of the species in the wild."That last sentence is important. The ban is being lifted for trophies harvested in these two countries because it has been determined that the countries' conservation and wildlife management programs are working efficiently. Many do not understand just how much a big-game hunt costs in Africa. It is not uncommon for permitting alone to cost more than $40,000 for an elephant hunt (not including airfare). This revenue primarily goes towards wildlife management programs. Guides then bring the hunter to the oldest, sickest animal on the reservation. Usually, these elephants, rhinos, or lions are too old to reproduce and are actually intimidating younger males out of reproducing with the pack's females. After these aged animals are killed, they are harvested. The meat, bones, and hides go to local villages. Hunters are typically only allowed to keep the animal's head to mount as a trophy.
United States hunters spend an estimated $217 million on big game hunts in Africa. Banning the importation of trophies not only reduced funding for African wildlife conservation programs, but it has also been connected to hurting the very species that bans attempt to protect. Some of this revenue is directed towards biodiversity programs, which are crucial to the long-term survival of these species. Not only do big game hunts remove sterile, aging animals from populations, but the revenue also allows wildlife organizations to breed animals specifically for biodiversity. On top of that, a reduction in American big game hunts would mean less food and resources for local villages, which have come to rely on this revenue stream to survive.
The biggest critique of big game hunts in Africa is that the money raised does not always reach the wildlife and conservation programs. This is true. Many countries have had big game hunting programs that are plagued by corruption and mismanagement. Where big game hunting is actually found to be hurting wildlife conservation, it should absolutely be discouraged. However, both Zimbabwe and Zambia were identified as countries with wildlife programs deserving of support.
A competent wildlife conservation strategy focuses on data, not just emotions. As appalling as the sight of a lion or elephant hunt may be, these hunts are actually quite beneficial to maintaining the species. By all means, when big game hunting programs in Africa are discovered to be corrupt or mismanaged, the United States should develop regulations to dissuade hunters from participating in them. But when these programs are successful, it makes little sense to implement bans on trophy imports, lest we end up hurting the very endangered species that we are intending to help.
What do you think? Is the decision to lift the ban on importing elephant hunting trophies a good or bad idea? Let us know in the comment section below!
