Commentary:
By Michael Rogers
While the poaching of any wild animal is despicable, the illegal killing of such big game animals as elephants and rhinoceroses is especially reprehensible because many of these species are endangered and must be protected.
The global community of hunters and conservationists are united in the desire to eliminate ways big game poachers can profit from illicit black market sales of ivory from tusks and rhino horns, prized in certain cultures.
For the past decade, the conservationist hunting organization, Safari Club International Foundation (SCIF), has awarded tens of thousands of dollars to land conservancies in Africa to fund rangers, aircraft trail cameras, telemetry equipment and other tools to thwart poachers.
One of our partners, the Chiredzi River Black Rhino Charitable Trust, uses funds provided by SCI to promote its anti-poaching activities through the deployment of Game Scouts (anti-poaching rangers) that patrol the conservancy.
In Tanzania, vital support from SCI ensures that the Friedkin Conservation Fund has the resources to conduct surveillance flights, covering more than 9 million acres of protected areas with micro-light aircraft.
These efforts, funded and supported by hunters and hunting, represent serious and effective ways to protect Africa’s majestic animals.
The United States and other industrialized nations can also play a critical role by finding ways to dry up the market for big game animals, especially the illegal ivory and rhino horns trade.
California already has weighed in on this issue. In 1976, the state passed its own law regarding ivory transactions and under California Penal Code 6530, it is illegal to import, posses with intent to sell, or sell any elephant part, with the exception for elephants parts imported prior to June 1, 1977.
There also exists strong federal law and administrative actions that deal with ivory; it is already illegal to import ivory into the United States for commercial purposes. These laws were first put in place in 1900 and were modified by a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Director’s Order on February 11, 2014.
Given this body of law, it is surprising that Speaker Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego) and Senator Richard Lara (D-Bell Gardens) have just introduced Assembly Bill 96 “to protect elephants and rhinos from poachers” by ending “the sale of or trade of ivory and rhino horns.”
The bill would do no such thing. As currently drafted, AB 96 would create a nightmare for Californians and result in innumerable unintended consequences:
· Own an antique piano with ivory keys? You could not sell it.
· Have a family heirloom with ivory inlays? You could not pass it down to family members.
· Are you a charitable foundation seeking to generate funds through an estate sale that includes items containing ivory? Forget it.
These are just a few of the scenarios that could result if AB 96 becomes law. While this is presumably not what the authors have in mind, the statute would be enforced that way given the wording of the bill.
AB 96 also fails to comprehend the substance of an independent study funded and produced by one of the bill sponsors. After New York City, the study found that Los Angeles and San Francisco were the next likely largest markets for illegal ivory, most of which was believed to come from Asia.
After an exhaustive search of ivory sellers in both the cities, the study identified 77 vendors who sold ivory products in Los Angeles and 30 in San Francisco. This marked a significant decline since 2006 – Los Angeles saw a 69 percent drop; in San Francisco the decline was 44 percent.
The authors of AB 96 should be commended for trying to do their part in protecting elephants and rhinos. But they need to do so in the most meaningful way possible by enforcing existing laws and better policing the trade in illegal ivory being brought into California through air or sea shipments from China, Hong Kong, Japan, and Thailand. Instead of placing further restrictions on trade in decades old ivory, legislators (both state and federal) should find ways to support the hunting community’s efforts to discourage and apprehend poachers in the field.
In its present form, AB 96 can be compared to using an elephant gun on a mouse. The measure is a symbolic, academic exercise that will do nothing to end poaching in foreign countries. Unless amended, AB 96 would amount to little more than ineffective legislative overkill. It would have no effect on stopping poaching in other countries and would simply drive the illegal ivory trade further underground. Only lawful citizens would be affected.