free trade in animals

[Eubulides <paraconsistent@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

[or is it free mobility for different species of labor power?]


U.S. May Expand Access To Endangered Species

By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 11, 2003; Page A01


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 U.S. 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 the service 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 naïve."