W
hen it comes to wildlife
management, the United States
leads the world in sustainable
harvest and has created the
most successful model on the planet.
Regulated hunting, which began with the
start of the 20th Century, has resulted
in the proliferation of game in North
America. Yet, with every new legislative
cycle, including at this very moment,
we have more regulation introduced,
and much of that is driven by those who
want nothing more than to end hunting.
In 1900, the first federal law
protecting wildlife was passed. Known
as the Lacey Act, it enforced civil and
criminal penalties for the illegal trade
of animals and plants. Today, it also
regulates the import of any species
protected by international or domestic
law and prevents the spread of invasive,
or non-native, species.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, under the Lacey Act, it is
unlawful to import, export, sell, acquire,
or purchase fish, wildlife or plants that
are taken, possessed, transported, or
sold: 1) in violation of U.S. or Indian law,
or 2) in interstate or foreign commerce
involving any fish, wildlife, or plants
taken possessed or sold in violation of
State or foreign law.
The law covers all fish and wildlife and
their parts or products, plants protected
by the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES) and those
protected by state law. Commercial
guiding and outfitting are considered to
be a sale under the provisions of the act.
In 1975, CITES became the only treaty
to ensure that international trade in
plants and animals does not threaten
their survival in the wild. There are 182
countries and the European Union that
belong to CITES.
The U.S. carries out the requirements
of CITES through the Endangered
Species Act, and in partnership with
federal and state agencies, industry
groups and conservation organizations.
Regular reports are required that contain
information on legislative and regulatory
changes, as well as law enforcement,
permitting, communications, and
administrative matters.
In short, the U.S. works diligently to
protect wildlife within its borders, as well
as around the globe. The North American
Model of Wildlife Conservation, which
sportsmen overwhelmingly fund, ensures
plentiful game populations and healthy
ecosystems, as well as law enforcement,
biological studies and habitat
enhancement, while the Lacey Act and
CITES provisions safeguard threatened,
endangered or otherwise at-risk species
across state and international borders.
So one has to wonder why there’s a
rash of legislation at the federal and
state level pertaining to the import
and possession of legally hunted game
from overseas. All scientific evidence
from nearly 200 countries supports
the sustainable hunting of species
from specific countries, all permitting
processes are strictly adhered to and all
importations declared and overseen by
international law supported by science.
The simple answer is: none of it is
about protecting species from illicit
wildlife trafficking, but rather it’s just
a ploy to end lawful, regulated and
sustainable hunting.
Currently, a powerful House Committee
Chairman is trying to eliminate lion and
elephant hunting, ban importation of
species that could be endangered or
threatened in the future (or even simply
proposed for listing by a group), and
eliminate input from stakeholder groups
that support conservation and hunting.
House Resolution 2245, sponsored by
Congressman Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ),
chairman of the House Natural Resources
Committee.
Congressman Grijalva is a past
recipient of the Humane Society of
the United States’ (HSUS) Humane
Champion Award and has received a
perfect score from HSUS every year
since 2005. He is a frequent carrier of
HSUS-authored animal-rights legislation.
This is federal legislation that would
subject the entire nation to the animal-
rights movement’s agenda. This is
something that is currently taking place
and needs to be stopped. Sportsmen
need to contact their members of
Congress and ask them to vote NO on
HR 2245.
Making a move at the federal level is
bold. Most animal-rights legislation is
pushed at the state level, and import and
possession bans are no exception. We’ve
seen similar legislation in New York,
Connecticut, New Jersey and California.
In fact, legislation making the
importation or possession of the African
Big Five species a felony failed to
pass before the New York legislature
recessed for the remainder of the year.
Senate Bill 4235 and Assembly Bill
7556, which would make felons out of
law-abiding hunters, will remain alive
and can still move when the legislature
reconvenes, likely next year. The recess
provides New York sportsmen time to
educate legislators and to prepare for
when they return next year.
As a deer, elk or waterfowl hunter,
you might wonder just what the Lacey
Act, CITES, the ESA and African-game
importations have to do with anything
you care about and choose to hunt.
But, think about this: if anti-hunting and
animal-rights activists can make it illegal,
at the federal or state level, to import
specific species across state lines, or
even to merely possess the hides, horns
or skulls, what’s stopping them from
a piecemeal approach to ending the
transportation and possession of native
species across state lines?
While import bans focus on African game
now, the transport of domestic species
across state lines could be the next step.
SPORTSMEN’S MONTHLY
11