Dr. Grandy, welcome.

STATEMENT OF JOHN GRANDY, VICE PRESIDENT, WILDLIFE AND HABITAT PROTECTION, THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, DC; ACCOMPANIED BY TERESA TELECKY

Dr. GRANDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, it's a pleasure for me to be here today representing The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society International, and our more than 2.5 million members and constituents nationwide. I'm also pleased to present today to the committee a report which we have just done on the alarming growth of the American trophy hunting industry and to have with me Dr. Teresa Telecky, who is the principal author of that report.

We have a disgraceful problem in this country that threatens the heart and soul of our national commitment to conservation and animal protection. Our citizens are destroying wildlife at a phenomenal rate, not because we are living in poverty and are forced to eke out an existence by killing wildlife for food, but for the most frivolous purposes-because we are wealthy and can afford to pursue and kill them as trophies and hang their heads on our walls.

To the HSUS it is a disturbing and embarrassing fact that America is the world's largest market for wildlife, a market that has almost single-handedly brought populations of many animal species to the brink of extinction. For over 20 years the Endangered Species Act has appropriately restricted the importation to the United States foreign species listed as endangered or threatened. However, as described in our attached report on the trophy hunting industry, even the relatively few species listed under the Endangered Species Act can be and are imported by the hundreds under certain exemptions.

Among the major findings of our report are:

In 1993 46,582 animals, representing over 250 species, were killed by American trophy hunters and imported to the United States, an increase of 71 percent since 1990. Among those are such animals as zebras, baboons, wart hogs, ostriches, African leopards, African lions, and giraffes.

Also, in 1993 1,322 animals, representing 35 endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, were killed by American trophy hunters and imported to the United States, an increase of 83.6 percent since 1990. Endangered and threatened animals that were imported as trophies in 1993 included 416 African elephants, 346 leopards, 229 lechwe, 100 bontebok, and 64 Hartmann's mountain zebras.

Mr. Chairman, the fact is that even under the current Endangered Species Act, too many foreign, endangered and threatened species are allowed to come into this country every year. Exemptions in the ESA language and the interpretation of the ESA by the Fish and Wildlife Service have already made the importation, to the United States, of trophies of endangered and threatened species easy.

For example, did you know, Mr. Chairman, that it cost only $25 to get a permit to import an elephant or a leopard and that it can take as little as 3 days to get such a permit from the Fish and

Wildlife Service? We are aware that four foreign nationsZimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, and Malawi-along with foreign and domestic organizations that promote wildlife exploitation, are advocating that the ESA should not provide protection for foreign species at all or that the permitting system for the importation of foreign, threatened, and endangered species should be simplified.

There is, for example, a proposal to amend section 10 of the ESA to grant wildlife importers a 10-year general import permit. This proposal, Mr. Chairman, for reasons I've explained in detail in my statement, is as ludicrous as it is destructive in both content and scope. As proven by the startling number of foreign, endangered and threatened species that are allowed to be imported under the current ESA, we do not need to change the law to allow imported animals from these nations.

The aforementioned four southern African nations have claimed that the importation of foreign species to the United States should not be addressed by the ESA, and that instead CITES alone should govern. However, as you know, Mr. Chairman, CITES allows stronger domestic measures. This is a stronger domestic measure. This is a judgment related to our national ethics and what activities we will condone.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, federally-funded projects overseas should not be allowed to directly or indirectly undermine the ESA or CITES. However, it has come to our attention that one government agency, the Agency for International Development, is subsidizing trophy hunting of elephants. This is a scandalous and detrimental situation and is a waste of taxpayer's money. Indeed, CAMPFIRE and ADMADE programs in Zimbabwe and Zambia respectively that are presumably based on local people selling wildlife to trophy hunters, benefit far less from trophy hunting than they have from U.S. taxpayers who are subsidizing this at an average rate of $2 million per year.

This is a scandal. Our citizens, apart from the special interest represented by the safari clubs or similar groups, have no interest in promoting or supporting trophy hunting in foreign nations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've included a set of detailed recommendations, which should be obvious from the content of my remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. All right, Dr. Grandy, thank you very much for your input.

Now Ms. Ginette Hemley, director of the International Wildlife Policy, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC.

Welcome.

STATEMENT OF GINETTE HEMLEY, DIRECTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE POLICY, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND Ms. HEMLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I am Ginette Hemley, director of the International Policy at the World Wildlife Fund. WWF is the largest private conservation organization working internationally to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats. We are currently supporting conservation efforts in more than 70 countries and are privileged to support programs in the two nations represented on the panel

ил

22

today. World Wildlife Fund has worked extensively with CITES since the treaty's inception and provides both technical and financial support to member nations and their CITES programs.

I would like to address some of the issues, the key issues that have already been discussed, and respond to some of the points made by previous speakers:

First, we appreciate the opportunity to hear some of the concerns voiced by our southern African colleagues over the Endangered Species Act and the United States' implementation of CITES. World Wildlife Fund recognizes that Namibia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa in particular have in many ways been pioneers in wildlife conservation, building programs that rely in part on wildlife use and international trade to provide important income for rural communities, particularly through controlled sport hunting. We recognize the value of these programs and have actively supported them.

Mr. Chairman, in looking at the complex problems of international wildlife trade, I have to say that if all we had to worry about was resolving the issues in southern Africa, our tasks would probably be relatively easy. We are very sympathetic to the need to make sure that effective conservation programs are not undermined by excessive regulation in the United States. But the international wildlife trade and all its associated problems and threats to species is much broader than just southern Africa. In addressing the concerns of these particular countries, which we should do, we must not undermine the important conservation benefits the Endangered Species Act provides for endangered and threatened species in other parts of the world.

The robust market forces of our vast economy here in the United States, the world's largest wildlife market, has wreaked havoc for many foreign species through uncontrolled trade in the recent past, from large mammals, to exotic birds, reptiles, and other forms of wildlife with commercial value. We know how the wildlife trade works. It often occurs in sudden cycles-trends can change very quickly and species that are naturally rare or vulnerable to over exploitation can experience rapid demise. Many countries in Latin America, Asia, and parts of Africa have enacted very strict wildlife export laws as a result of these trade threats. The Endangered Species Act has brought enforcement authority and commerce restrictions that have in fact helped many of these countries enforce their own wildlife protection laws by providing important safeguards against illegal and detrimental trade. The ESA helps provide the teeth to make CITES, the international conservation convention, work. The law enforcement record of the Fish and Wildlife Service shows ample evidence of the benefits to foreign countries of ESA actions affecting species that slipped through protection barriers of their native countries.

Just 2 days ago, after a 15-month investigation, for example, enforcement agents in New York apprehended an individual for transporting and selling illegally imported skins from the critically endangered snow leopard, in violation of the ESA. Although the species is also covered by the strictest protections of CITES and is prohibited from export in all of its native countries, it was the

interstate commerce restrictions of the Act that allowed for the individual's arrest and for this smuggling ring to be broken up.

The Endangered Species Act provides for trade control measures that do go beyond CITES, but this is explicitly allowed for in the convention. It is in fact the normal practice of most trading countries, including other major markets like many of the European Union nations. A number of countries have in fact gone well beyond the CITES mandate by prohibiting most wildlife imports and exports. The United States has, in our view, struck an appropriate balance. The ESA is strong, but it is also flexible.

I should also mention here, sir, that it's important to keep in mind that much of the wildlife trade as a whole, which is a multibillion dollar business, occurs outside of the purview of both CITES and the ESA. It is a very small segment of the trade that is covered by regulations. Most of it is largely unregulated.

Most of the concerns surrounding the international provisions of the ESA, as discussed today, relate in our view to administrative matters associated with just a handful of species, specifically the African elephant, the leopard, the Nile crocodile and perhaps one or two others, principally species that are important in sport hunting. Some have argued that the ESA has unduly restricted trade in these species, but I think it's important to look at the trade facts to understand just what those restrictions may or may not be.

The application of special rules under the ESA for the elephant and leopard, for example, in practice are in many ways less strict than CITES. The United States imports more products from these species than any other country in the world. În the last 2 years, for example, we imported at least 200 trophies of African elephants, and most of those came from Zimbabwe. A similar rule for leopards allowed for at least 600 trophies of leopards to be imported into the United States from about 10 African countries during the last 2 years.

These rules, in our mind, demonstrate the flexibility under the Act for allowing imports of certain threatened species when such trade serves conservation purposes, such as in the countries represented here today, while at the same time maintaining safeguards against detrimental trade. It is important to remember that wildlife conservation and trade control capabilities vary enormously among countries, and these differences are not always recognized or addressed through the CITES process.

There is little question that most southern African countries have good programs, but I can tell you that the situation in other parts of the world-in west and central Africa, for example is a completely different story.

In sum, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the Endangered Species Act is sufficiently broad but appropriately flexible to implement the requirements of CITES, as well as to provide protection for foreign species not covered by the convention. These provisions should be maintained. There is, in our view, no need to change the Act to address the specific but important issues raised by our African guests here today. At the same time, implementation of the Act and its CITES measures, including accommodation of the needs some foreign countries and species, could and should be improved. This goal could be achieved in part by harmonizing the CITES and ESA list

to better follow the international standards set by the convention. This might be achieved, for example, through the establishment of a trigger of an automatic review when a CITES listing change takes place after the biannual conferences of the parties.

Another area where this goal could be achieved would be through broader and more regular consultations with the foreign countries that have specific problems, and where the United States market is important for their conservation programs.

We recognize that these actions may require an adjustment of priorities at the Fish and Wildlife Service because of tight budgets and staffing, but we do believe they are important, as we have heard today, and should be undertaken.

Thank you.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Ms. Hemley, thank you very much.
Let me ask our panelists a few questions:

Mr. Cilek, I know in the conversations I've had with representatives of The Peregrine Fund at times their expression of real frustration with the permitting process-in fact I remember at one point-and this was not you who said this-but there was a situation where you simply could not get a permit and so in frustration really the attitude expressed was, then keep your permit and we'll just stop the program. Yet, here is a conservation group dedicated to the recovery of species.

I understand that things sometimes are so difficult that the species we're trying to save actually are in danger, and I'm thinking of the one example. Do I understand that you actually had an eagle die while you were waiting for a permit from the Fish and Wildlife Service, died because it was held in captivity as opposed to being released, as you had hoped to do?

Mr. CILEK. Well, it was a harpy eagle that we were trying to import from Venezuela, I believe, or Ecuador-I'm not sure and we got the permit from Venezuela very quickly and we were delayed in the United States from getting the permit. The bird remained in Venezuela or Ecuador, wherever it was, and while we were waiting for the permit, it died before we could get it in. It was going to be one of our breeding birds, and actually I think we found that bird tied to a boat motor of some kid's boat. So the Venezuelans were happy to let us have it. It had a broken wing and couldn't be released into the wild anyway but it was a perfect breeding bird, and it didn't make it.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. What would have prevented that? I mean, what would keep an agency from saying, yes, bring this bird here? Mr. CILEK. I think that the laws are very difficult for them to work through and the work load that they have, just the number of permits that they have to deal with. It's just insurmountable. So they, quite frankly, are understaffed and overworked and need relief, and the relief we've suggested is put the burden on us. Give us a permit and if we don't do things properly, then take it away. Senator KEMPTHORNE. As a follow-up to that, you've stated that rather than requiring individual permits, you've suggested that organizations involved in conservation be provided with a blanket permit. Is that what you're suggesting?

Mr. CILEK. Exactly. There are a lot of laws that are involved here, and we don't want just one permit for each law. Give us one