U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–502 PDF 2015

THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE’S PLAN TO IMPLEMENT A BAN ON THE 

COMMERCIAL TRADE IN 

ELEPHANT IVORY 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, 

OCEANS AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 

Serial No. 113–76 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

Vance M. McAllister, LA 

Bradley Byrne, AL 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Katherine M. Clark, MA 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel 

Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, OCEANS 

AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 

JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman 

GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Vance M. McAllister, LA 

Bradley Byrne, AL 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 .............................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

DeFazio, Hon. Peter, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Oregon ............................................................................................................ 4 

Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Louisiana ....................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Lowenthal, Hon. Alan, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Dreher, Robert G., Associate Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ....... 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Fields, Hon. Jack, Former Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas .......................................................................................................... 61 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 63 

Hayes, Hon. David J., Vice Chair, Federal Advisory Council on Wildlife 

Trafficking ..................................................................................................... 55 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 57 

O’Grady, Scott, Retired, United States Air Force .......................................... 73 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 74 

Quinn, Matthew, Quinn’s Auction Galleries .................................................. 69 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 71 

Sheets, Arian M., Curator of Stringed Instruments, National Music 

Museum ......................................................................................................... 65 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 67 

Somerhalder, Ian, President, Ian Somerhalder Foundation ......................... 49 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 51 

Tendaupenyu, Itai Hilary, Principal Ecologist, Zimbabwe Parks and 

Wildlife Management Authority .................................................................. 13 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada, 

Prepared statement of .................................................................................. 86 

American Federation of Violin and Bow Makers, Inc., Prepared statement 

of ..................................................................................................................... 93 

Art and Antiques Trade Group, Prepared statement of ................................ 95 

Association of Art Museum Directors, Prepared statement of ..................... 97 

Christies, Inc., Prepared statement of ............................................................ 99 

CITES Press Release, June 13, 2014, ‘‘Elephant Poaching and Ivory 

Smuggling Figures Released Today’’ ........................................................... 135 

E&E article, June 13, 2014, ‘‘Endangered Species: African Poaching Down 

and Ivory Seizures Up—Report’’ .................................................................. 137 

E&E article, June 25, 2014, by Dylan Brown, ‘‘Wildlife: GOP Lawmakers, 

Witnesses Blast FWS Ivory Ban Proposal at House Hearing’’ ................. 137 

Elephant Database, 2012 Summary totals for Zimbabwe ............................. 134 

Forbes OpEd, June 23, 2014, by Judith McHale and David J. Hayes, 

‘‘It’s All About Saving the Elephants’’ ......................................................... 139 

Huber, Richard L., Letter submitted for the record ...................................... 115 

Humane Society, Prepared statement of ........................................................ 100 

League of American Orchestras and International Conference of Symphony and Opera Musicians, Prepared statement of ................................. 105 

List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s 

official files .................................................................................................... 143 

Page

IV 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record—Continued 

New York Times Op-Ed, March 26, 2014, by Godfrey Harris and Daniel 

Stiles, ‘‘The Wrong Way to Protect Elephants’’ .......................................... 140 

Sotheby’s, Inc., Prepared statement of ........................................................... 112 

Stone, Linda Karst, Prepared statement of ................................................... 114 

Wall Street Journal article, June 23, 2014, by John Leydon, ‘‘Grandma’s 

Cameo Becomes Yard-Sale Contraband’’ .................................................... 141 

Washington Times article, February 18, 2014, by Doug Bandow, 

‘‘Obama’s Ivory-Trade Regulatory Overkill’’ ............................................... 142 

Wasser, Samuel K., Center for Conservation Biology, University of Washington, Letter submitted for the record along with his INTERPOL 

report ............................................................................................................. 121 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE U.S. FISH AND 

WILDLIFE SERVICE’S PLAN TO IMPLEMENT 

A BAN ON THE COMMERCIAL TRADE IN 

ELEPHANT IVORY 

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming, 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Fleming, Young, Duncan, Southerland, 

McAllister; Lowenthal, Shea-Porter, and DeFazio (ex officio). 

Also Present: Representative Daines. 

Dr. FLEMING. The subcommittee will come to order. 

The Chairman notes the presence of a quorum. 

Good afternoon. Today the subcommittee will examine the Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s decision to establish a ban on the sale of elephant ivory, to suspend sport hunting trophies from two African 

countries, and to arbitrarily limit the number of sport hunted trophies that Americans can legally import into the United States. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Dr. FLEMING. It is clear that the rate of illegal killing that 

African elephants have experienced is tragic. So I was pleased to 

read the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 

of Wild Fauna and Flora, CITES, June 13th press release, that the 

number of elephants poached in 2013 decreased from the previous 

2 years. According to the CITES Secretary General, ‘‘We are seeing 

better law enforcement and demand reduction efforts across multiple countries.’’ 

In order to stop this killing, the world community must work together to stop the flow of illegal ivory and to provide ivory producing nations the resources they need to effectively arrest, 

imprison or kill the heavily armed and organized poachers. 

Based on a report to INTERPOL by Dr. Samuel Wasser of the 

University of Washington, who performs the DNA testing on seized 

ivory, we now know that the poachers are killing over 75 percent 

of all elephants in about three locations in Africa. According to Dr. 

Wasser, the same locations keep recurring over and over again as 

the places of origin of major ivory seizures, suggesting that the 

number of major hot spots may be far more limited than previously 

thought. The international law enforcement community must target those hot spots. 

2 

During the past 6 months, the Service has issued Director’s 

Order 210, a revision to that order, and a promise to issue proposed final rules, which will establish, in the words of the Director, 

a ‘‘virtual ban’’ on the commercial sale of elephant ivory. Before establishing such a policy, it is usually important to understand the 

extent of the problem you are trying to fix. Regrettably in this case, 

the Service has indicated that they do not know how much elephant ivory is in the United States or, even more importantly, how 

much of it is illegal. 

It is apparently difficult and expensive to determine the origin 

and the age of ivory and, therefore, the Service believes the easiest 

thing for them is to simply declare that virtually everything is contraband, and for good measure, the burden will be on the individual and not the Federal Government to prove that the ivory 

items qualify for these limited exceptions. 

Today we will hear from some of the industries who may be adversely affected by the upcoming proposed final rules. Hopefully 

their suggestions and comments will be given serious consideration. 

Finally, I am interested in hearing whether the Service is prepared to allow Americans to again import elephant trophies from 

Tanzania and Zimbabwe. 

I also want to know why the Service would even consider establishing a limitation on American sport hunters when the African 

Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 clearly implies that no such 

limitation should be placed, and when even the Service admits that 

sport hunting is beneficial to the elephant conservation. 

The simple truth is that if wildlife has no economic value, then 

there is little, if any, incentive for the people who live in that habitat to conserve or save them. 

Some of the proceeds from legal elephant hunting are used to finance clinics, hospitals, roads, schools and other necessities of life 

in some of the poorest villages throughout Southern Africa. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, OCEANS AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

Good afternoon, today, the subcommittee will examine the Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s (Service) decision to establish a ban on the sale of elephant ivory, to suspend sport hunted trophies from two African countries and to arbitrarily limit the 

number of sport hunted trophies that Americans can legally import into the United 

States. 

It is clear that the rate of illegal killing that African elephants have experienced 

is tragic. So, I was pleased to read the Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) June 13th press release that 

the number of elephants poached in 2013 decreased from the previous 2 years. According to the CITES Secretary-General ‘‘We are seeing better law enforcement and 

demand-reduction efforts across multiple countries.’’ 

In order to stop this killing, the world community must work together to stop the 

flow of illegal ivory and to provide ivory producing nations with the resources they 

need to effectively arrest, imprison or kill the heavily armed and organized poachers. 

Based on a report to INTERPOL by Dr. Samuel Wasser of the University of 

Washington, who performs the DNA testing on seized ivory, we now know that 

poachers are killing over 75 percent of all elephants in about three locations in 

Africa. According to Dr. Wasser, ‘‘The same locations keep recurring over and over 

again as the places of origin of major ivory seizures, suggesting that the number 

of major hot spots may be far more limited than previously thought.’’ The international law enforcement community must target those hot spots. 

3 

During the past 6 months, the Service has issued Director’s Order 210, a revision 

to that order, and a promise to issue proposed final rules which will establish in 

the words of the Director a ‘‘virtual ban’’ on the commercial sale of elephant ivory. 

Before establishing such a policy, it is usually important to understand the extent 

of the problem you are trying to fix. Regrettably, in this case, the Service has indicated that they do not know how much elephant ivory is in the United States or 

even more importantly how much of it is illegal. 

It is apparently difficult and expensive to determine the origin and age of ivory 

and, therefore, the Service believes the easiest thing for them is to simply declare 

that virtually everything is contraband. And for good measure, the burden will be 

on the individual and not the Federal Government to prove that the ivory items 

qualify for these limited exceptions. 

Today, we will hear from some of the industries who may be adversely affected 

by the upcoming proposed final rules. Hopefully, their suggestions and comments 

will be given serious consideration. 

Finally, I am interested in hearing whether the Service is prepared to allow 

Americans to again import elephant trophies from Tanzania and Zimbabwe. I also 

want to know why the Service would even consider establishing a limitation on 

American sport hunters when the African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 clearly 

implies that no such limitations should be placed and when even the Service admits 

that sport hunting is beneficial to elephant conservation. The simple truth is that 

if wildlife has no economic value, then there is little, if any, incentive for the people 

who live in that habitat to conserve or save them. Some of the proceeds from legal 

elephant hunting are used to finance clinics, hospitals, roads, schools and other necessities of life in some of the poorest villages throughout Southern Africa. 

Dr. FLEMING. I am now pleased to recognize the Acting Ranking 

Member for any statement that he would like to make. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALAN LOWENTHAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

our witnesses for appearing today. 

Mr. Chairman, in February of 2013, 1 month into the 113th 

Congress, the Ranking Member of this Committee wrote to you and 

to Chairman Hastings to request an oversight hearing on the wildlife poaching crisis in Africa. Unfortunately, that request was not 

fulfilled, and since then more than 35,000 elephants and 1,000 rhinoceroses have been killed illegally for their tusks and their horns. 

Elephant ivory and rhino horn is bought. It is smuggled, and it 

is distributed by organized criminal enterprises, the same people 

who deal in heroin, assault weapons, and forced child labor. These 

crime syndicates are supplied with ivory by a new breed of formidable poachers who are equipped with night vision goggles, automatic weapons, and sometimes even helicopters. In some cases 

these poachers are simply out to make a few quick dollars, but in 

other instances more sinister forces are at work. 

The Lord’s Resistance Army in Central Africa and Darfur’s 

Janjaweed are financing their violent insurgencies in part with 

ivory profits, and Al-Shabaab, an Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist 

group that killed 67 persons last year in Nairobi and 48 people in 

another attack just last week in Kenya derive 40 percent of its revenue from wildlife trade. 

Given these troubling facts, I was concerned to see that the purpose of this hearing appears to be to question one particular component of the Obama administration’s strategy to deal with the 

poaching crisis. That is a proposal to tighten the ban on the import, 

4 

export and sale of elephant ivory in order to prevent nefarious actors from using loopholes in the current system. 

While some legitimate concerns have been raised over the ability 

to sell and transport musical instruments and antiques containing 

ivory, one fact is inescapable. The United States is the second largest market for ivory, much of which is sold here illegally. 

Earlier this month a Philadelphia art dealer was sentenced to 

21⁄2 years in prison in order to pay a $150,000 fine for smuggling 

recently poached ivory and pawning it off as antique. This illicit activity has been going on for 9 years and was not an isolated incident. 

The judge in the case correctly noted that poaching funds criminal gangs operating in Africa. While I know that the Fish and 

Wildlife Service has been and will continue working with stakeholders to allow limited trade in items containing ivory, we must 

be cautious. It is too easy under current rules to disguise recently 

poached ivory as antique, which in turn promotes the slaughter of 

more elephants. 

I believe it is not too much to ask legitimate ivory dealers to take 

a few additional steps to verify that their products are bona fide 

antiques. We do want to be sure that this verification is thorough 

though, but the bottom line is that there is an international poaching epidemic that is devastating African wildlife, threatening the 

lives of wildlife rangers, and creating international security risks 

that most of us in the United States cannot even begin to understand. 

I would like to address the temporary ban on importing sport 

hunted elephant trophies from Tanzania and Zimbabwe. Based on 

population data and documented cases of the illegal killing of elephants, it is clear that both of these countries have been deeply afflicted by the escalating poaching epidemic. While nations that 

have populations of elephants are ultimately responsible themselves for their own management, the United States cannot legally 

allow the importation of elephant trophies in the absence of clear 

evidence that the hunting contributes to the survival of the species. 

Given the scale of the current poaching crises and the uncertainty of what happens to the money that hunters pay host countries, additional killing of elephants in Tanzania and Zimbabwe is 

only adding to the body count. 

I applaud President Obama and his administration for taking decisive steps to combat wildlife traffic, and I look forward to hearing 

from our witnesses today about how they can protect endangered 

African elephants and rhinos and stem the tide of poaching that is 

now reaching a crisis level. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields back. 

And I believe Mr. DeFazio, the Ranking Member of the whole 

Committee, has an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETER DEFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, today we will get a bit of history, which was new 

to me and would have a former member talk about that, about 

5 

some successful bipartisan effort back in 1988, 1989, the last time 

we had a threat, which actually pales in terms of today’s threat to 

the survival of elephants in the wild in Africa. 

And after the Congress came together on a bipartisan basis back 

then, the price of ivory tanked to about 5 bucks a pound. We made 

it like blood diamonds for a while, and now it is more than 200 

times that. It is about 225 times that. 

So some of these terrorist groups, and of course, there was the 

incredible slaughter of 300 elephants in 1 day last year with poisoning, but you know, one elephant can finance a lot of ammunition for them and other weapons and things for a not particularly 

long period of time. 

There has to be major action taken by the United States and 

major action to motivate other countries to take action. This rule, 

you know, it is an extraordinarily broad rule. They are still refining 

parts of it, and how are you going to tell what is legitimate and 

what is not? It is very problematic. 

We are going to have to go after the middle men, the source, the 

other major consumers, but we are going to have to set an example 

here. 

And I just have one little demonstration on how difficult this all 

is. This gentleman, if I might call him that, although he currently 

has a number, he is a Federal prisoner, a guy named Victor 

Gordon, an antique dealer, of course, very legitimate guy, was sentenced to 21⁄2 years in prison and a $150,000 fine, and they found 

in his collection one ton of antique/not antique ivory, and this has 

been dated, and this all is quite recent. But it has been made to 

look a bit older. 

So this is how difficult the problem is. I mean, I am hopeful some 

day we will have a very quick kind of test with something, a mass 

spectrometer or something and you can be able to bring in your 

ivory, and they will say, ‘‘Oh, yeah, that is fine. That is old 

enough,’’ and we do not have to have arbitrary standards. 

But this is the problem we are fighting, people like the current 

guest of the Federal Government, Mr. Gordon. Hopefully that sets 

an example to others who would traffic similarly in the United 

States, but we also have major problems overseas with corrupt governments. There is a lot of money in this and a lot of corruption 

follows that, in addition to the violence. We might hear a little bit 

about that today. 

And I am hoping that steps beyond what we are discussing 

today, which needs to be further discussed and refined, can be 

taken by the United States which will go to trade sanctions, meaningful trade sanctions against countries who knowingly, like China, 

traffic in these materials, and we have to hit them hard if we are 

going to get their attention. 

And I think the President has the authority under the Pelly Act 

to do that, and I am going to be organizing a letter to ask him to 

use that authority, but I am also looking at legislation to amend 

the Driftnet Act to also give more authority to use trade sanctions. 

Quite some number of years ago I was involved with some illegal 

whaling by Norway, and I was pretty junior then, but I introduced 

a bill to sanction them, and it got their attention very quickly. If 

we could put together something bipartisan, we can get the attenVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:10 Apr 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\02 FISHERIES, WILDLIFE\02JU24 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88502.TXT DARLEN
6 

tion, I believe, of some of these countries that are facilitating the 

absolute slaughter of elephants. 

We are at a point if this goes on for another 4 or 5 years, we 

are going to be talking about captive breeding programs for 

elephants, in addition to what’s also—there’s also environmental 

depredation, illegal logging that is affecting elephants, but the 

slaughter right now is the Number-one issue we have to deal with, 

and I hope we can find a way to come together on that today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields back. Next I would like to 

ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Montana, Mr. 

Daines, be allowed to sit on the dais. 

Hearing no objections, so ordered. We will now hear from our 

first panel of witnesses, which includes Mr. Steve Robert G. 

Dreher. Is that the correct pronunciation, Dreher? Did I say that 

right? OK. Thank you. Associate Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and Mr. Hilary Tendaupenyu. Am I close? OK. Principal 

Ecologist, Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority. 

Your written testimony will appear in full in the hearing record. 

So I ask that you keep your oral statements to 5 minutes as outlined in our invitation letter to you under the Committee Rule 4(a). 

Our microphones are not automatic. So please press the button. 

Make sure the tip of the microphone is close by because it does not 

pick up well, and the lights are, of course, very straightforward. 

You will be under a green light for the first 4 minutes, yellow light 

the last minute, and when it turns red, if you have not finished already, please quickly come to a conclusion. 

Mr. Dreher, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to present testimony on behalf of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT G. DREHER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Mr. DREHER. Good afternoon, Chairman Fleming and Ranking 

Member Lowenthal, Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of 

the subcommittee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss the current wildlife trafficking crisis and its epicenter, the ongoing mass slaughter of elephants in Africa. 

I cannot overstate the urgency of this crisis. If not halted, it 

threatens to eliminate wild African populations of elephants within 

the next decade. The unprecedented nature of this threat requires 

us to act together with the international community to do everything we can both on the ground in Africa and in domestic and 

international markets to reduce the demand for ivory that fuels the 

killing. 

Spurred by President Obama’s executive order, the national 

strategy for combatting wildlife trafficking leverages resources and 

expertise of the Federal Government to crack down on poaching 

and trafficking that is devastating elephants and many other irreplaceable wildlife species. 

As part of this multi-pronged approach, we have taken steps to 

increase our ability to disrupt and destroy trafficking networks and 

to build the capacity of range states to protect elephant populations. 

7 

And here at home, after careful consideration, we are using the 

full extent of our legal authority to implement a near complete ban 

on commercial trade in elephant ivory. This is not just an African 

or Asian problem. The United States is a major consumer of ivory 

and continued commercial trade hampers our ability to identify and 

prosecute the criminals who are trafficking in illegal ivory. 

Ongoing criminal investigations and anti-smuggling efforts indicate that significant amounts of illegally imported elephant ivory 

are entering the domestic market, and those cases demonstrate 

that the legal ivory trade serves as a cover for illegal trade. 

The basic fact is that it is extremely difficult to differentiate legally acquired ivory from ivory derived from elephant poaching. In 

a recent case that the members of the committee have just referred 

to, United States v. Victor Gordon, our investigation documented 

the large-scale smuggling of newly acquired ivory from West Africa 

disguised deliberately to pass as old ivory and antique tribal carvings, resulting in the seizure of over one ton of elephant ivory. 

Victor Gordon, the owner of an African art and antique store in 

Philadelphia pleaded guilty to smuggling elephant ivory from 

Africa via JFK Airport, ivory that he then sold to buyers as antiques. 

The first step we took to restrict commercial trade in elephant 

ivory was the issuance of Director’s Order 210, which reaffirmed 

the African Elephant Conservation Act’s moratorium and the 

Endangered Species Act definition of ‘‘antique.’’ 

Following the issuance of the Director’s Order, we met with a 

wide array of stakeholders including individuals and groups representing antique dealers, auction houses, musical instrument 

makers, museums and orchestras. As a result of these constructive 

meetings, we revised the Director’s Order to address several of 

their concerns, allowing a broader class of non-commercial items to 

be imported into the United States and clarifying how we intend 

to enforce the Endangered Species Act definition of ‘‘antique’’ while 

still maintaining our goal of ensuring that the United States is not 

contributing to the poaching of elephants and illegal trade in ivory. 

We also improved our ability to protect elephants, rhinos and 

other CITES listed wildlife by publishing a final rule revising our 

CITES regulations. Under this rule, which becomes effective on 

June 26, items such as elephant ivory imported for non-commercial 

purposes may not subsequently be sold within the United States. 

For African elephant ivory imported prior to 1990 when the 

African elephant was listed in CITES Appendix 1 and international 

commercial trade was largely prohibited, the burden is now on the 

seller to demonstrate that this ivory was imported prior to this 

date. 

We also plan to revise the Endangered Species Act special rule 

for the African elephant. This action, which will include proposed 

limitations on the interstate sale of African elephant ivory will also 

include a public comment period. Using our authority under the 

Endangered Species Act, we will also propose limiting the number 

of elephant sport hunted trophies that an individual can import to 

two per hunter per year. 

The combined result of these administrative actions would be the 

elimination of most commercial trade in elephant ivory in the 

8 

United States, with certain narrow exceptions. Taking these measures will affirm and enhance United States leadership and support 

diplomatic efforts to encourage consumer nations to take additional 

actions to combat illegal trade. 

The United States is one of the world’s major consumers of illicit 

wildlife products, and we must lead by example. I look forward to 

working with your subcommittee to address this urgent issue. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dreher follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT DREHER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND

WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

INTRODUCTION

Good afternoon Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and members of the 

subcommittee. I am Robert Dreher, Associate Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), within the Department of the Interior (Department). I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify before you today to discuss the current wildlife trafficking 

crisis, which includes an escalating mass slaughter of elephants in Africa. If it is 

not stopped, the world may well lose wild populations of African elephants forever. 

To combat wildlife trafficking, the Service is working toward implementing a near 

complete ban on commercial trade in elephant ivory. Given the escalating threats 

to African elephants, we believe that a near complete ban on commercial elephant 

ivory trade is the best way to ensure that U.S. domestic markets do not contribute 

to the decline of this species in the wild. The United States is among the world’s 

largest consumers of wildlife, both legal and illegal. It is difficult to determine the 

exact market value of black market items such as illegally trafficked wildlife goods; 

however, we know that the United States remains a significant ivory market, and 

we must continue to be vigilant to prevent this from masking the illegal ivory trade. 

By stopping illegal ivory trade at home and assisting elephant range states and consumer countries around the world, we can have a significant positive impact on elephant conservation. These actions will affirm and enhance U.S. leadership and 

support diplomatic efforts to encourage additional efforts to combat illegal ivory 

trade in consumer nations. 

THE POACHING CRISIS AND ILLEGAL IVORY TRADE

African elephants once numbered in the millions throughout Africa, but by 1990, 

uncontrolled hunting for their ivory tusks had driven the wild population to fewer 

than 500,000. This rapid population decline led to a ban on international ivory sales 

and trade in 1990 through the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Following the 1990 ban, populations of 

African elephants began to recover in some countries. However, a recent resurgence 

of elephant poaching in Africa, is again threatening this iconic species. Populations 

of both savannah and forest elephants have dropped precipitously, and poaching occurs across all of Africa. Africa’s elephants are being slaughtered for ivory at rates 

not seen in decades due to increased demand for ivory in consumer countries. Some 

of this increase in the demand for ivory is attributed to improved economic conditions in traditional ivory markets such as China and other parts of East and Southeast Asia. In these markets, ivory carvings rate high as a status symbol for 

economic elites, and as more Asian consumers have the financial resources to purchase ivory, the demand for ivory is significantly increasing. Continued poaching at 

current rates threatens the existence of elephants in the wild. 

Wildlife trafficking was once a local or regional problem, and has now become a 

global crisis, as increasingly sophisticated, violent and ruthless criminal organizations have branched into wildlife trafficking. What was once predominantly a crime 

of opportunity committed by individuals or small groups is now committed by international criminal cartels that are well structured and highly organized. These cartels are capable of illegally moving orders of magnitude more in wildlife and wildlife 

products. This lucrative business has been tied to drug and cartels, militant groups, 

and human trafficking organizations, all of which are destabilizing influences in 

many African nations. These organized criminal enterprises are a growing threat to 

wildlife, the world’s economy and global security. There is also a terrible human cost 

associated with these losses. For example, during the past few years, hundreds of 

park rangers have been killed in the line of duty in Africa. 

9 

The United States continues to play a major role as a significant consumer and 

transit country for illegally traded elephant ivory, and we must be part of the solution. At this crucial moment, the United States has the opportunity to exercise leadership on this urgent issue and encourage other countries to step up efforts to 

combat wildlife trafficking. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE’S ROLE IN ADDRESSING WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING

The Service provides key leadership and capacity in addressing wildlife trafficking. For decades, we have worked in countries across the globe to conserve imperiled wildlife and address illicit wildlife trade through our Office of Law 

Enforcement and International Affairs program. We have a four-tiered approach to 

combat wildlife trafficking, including: law enforcement; technical assistance; CITES; 

and demand reduction. 

Law Enforcement to Target and Stop Illicit Trade 

The Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for enforcing U.S. laws and 

treaties that address international wildlife trafficking and protect U.S. and foreign 

species from unsustainable trade. Working with limited budgets and a special agent 

workforce of 205 agents which has not grown since the late 1970s, the Service has 

disrupted large-scale trafficking in contraband wildlife ‘‘commodities’’ that range 

from elephant ivory and rhino horn to sturgeon caviar and sea turtle skin and shell. 

Service special agents use both overt and clandestine investigative techniques to detect and document international smuggling and crimes involving the unlawful exploitation of protected native and foreign species in interstate commerce. 

Since the mid-1970s, the Service has deployed a force of uniformed wildlife inspectors at major ports of entry across the Nation to check inbound and outbound shipments for wildlife. These 124 officers ensure that wildlife trade complies with the 

CITES treaty and U.S. laws. They also conduct proactive inspections of air cargo 

warehouses, ocean containers, international mail packages, and international passenger flights looking for smuggled wildlife. 

The Service operates the world’s first and only full-service wildlife forensics laboratory—a lab that is globally recognized as having created the science of wildlife 

forensics. Guidance from the lab, for example, provided an easy way for officers in 

the field to distinguish elephant ivory from other types of ivory, such as mammoth 

or walrus ivory. The Service continues to support a fiscal year 2015 budget request 

to expand research at our lab to make it easier to determine the origin or geographic source of illicit wildlife material, particularly for species threatened by 

current patterns of illegal trade. Such work enhances our ability to provide law enforcement and justice officials with evidence to more effectively prosecute wildlife 

crime. 

Service enforcement officers and forensic scientists have provided specialized 

training to wildlife enforcement counterparts in more than 65 different countries 

since 2000. These capacity-building efforts have included teaching criminal investigation skills to wildlife officers from sub-Saharan Africa at the International Law 

Enforcement Academy in Botswana on a yearly or twice-yearly basis. 

Wildlife trafficking is increasingly a transnational crime involving illicit activities 

in two or more countries and often two or more global regions. Cooperation between 

nations is essential to combating this crime. With assistance from the State Department and USAID, we have created the first program for stationing Service law enforcement special agents at U.S. embassies as international attache ́s to coordinate 

investigations of wildlife trafficking and support wildlife enforcement capacity building. The first attache ́ began work in March 2014 in Bangkok, Thailand. We anticipate placing four additional attache ́s in key regions by the end of fiscal year 2014, 

including Asia, South America, and two in Africa. 

One example of the Service’s law enforcement efforts in combating wildlife trafficking is Operation Crash. This Operation is a continuing, multi-district investigation into all aspects of the illicit trade in rhino horns led by the Service, Office of 

Law Enforcement’s Special Investigations Unit and the U.S. Department of Justice. 

More than 200 Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers in 40 States and 

10 foreign countries have assisted the investigators and prosecutors working on 

Operation Crash. Since February 2012, 21 individuals have been apprehended and 

charged with numerous offenses such as conspiracy, smuggling, money laundering, 

tax evasion, and making false documents as well as violations of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) and Lacey Act. Defendants have been sentenced to significant 

terms of imprisonment and the forfeiture of millions of dollars in cash, gold bars, 

rhino horn, and luxury vehicles and Rolex watches. In United States v. Zhifei Li, 

the ring-leader of a smuggling scheme was responsible for smuggling more than 

$4.5 million worth of illegal wildlife and wildlife products, including 30 rhinoceros 

10 

horns and carved objects made from rhinoceros horn or elephant ivory, and was sentenced to 70 months in prison and $3.5 million forfeiture. 

Another example is a recent case, U.S. v. Victor Gordon, where our investigation 

documented the large-scale smuggling of newly acquired ivory from West Africa disguised to ‘‘pass’’ as old ivory and antique tribal carvings and resulted in the seizure 

of over one ton of elephant ivory. U.S. businessman Victor Gordon, the owner of an 

African art and antiques store in Philadelphia, pleaded guilty to smuggling elephant 

ivory from Africa via JFK—ivory that he then sold to buyers as ‘‘antiques.’’ On June 

4, 2014, he was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by 2 years 

of supervised release. As part of that sentence, the court ordered Gordon to pay a 

fine of $7,500 and to forfeit $150,000, along with the approximately one ton of elephant ivory that was seized by agents from Gordon’s Philadelphia store in April 

2009. 

Technical Assistance and Grants to Build In-Country Capacity 

The Service has a long history of providing technical assistance and grants to 

build in-country capacity for conservation of wildlife species. Through the Multinational Species Conservation Funds, the Service provides funding in the form of 

grants or cooperative agreements to projects benefiting African and Asian elephants, 

rhinos, tigers, great apes, and marine turtles in their natural habitats. A substantial portion of the funding awarded through the Multinational Species Conservation 

Funds is invested in projects aimed at combating wildlife crime through improved 

law enforcement, anti-poaching patrols, demand reduction, and economic alternatives. Several of the Service’s global and regional programs, including Africa, 

Asia, and the Western Hemisphere, also directly address wildlife conservation efforts, including combating wildlife crime. 

Through the Wildlife Without Borders—Africa Program, a technical and financial 

partnership with USAID, the Service has supported the development of innovative 

methods to conserve wildlife and fight wildlife crime in Central Africa, including improvement of investigations, arrest operations, and legal follow-up. A number of 

projects are geared toward building in-country capacity and providing technical assistance to reduce the poaching of African elephants. The Service is committed to 

working with in-country partners to halt and reverse this trend, most notably in 

Gabon, where two-thirds of the forest elephants in Minkebe National Park have 

been killed since 2004, a loss of more than 11,000 elephants. 

CITES and Illegal Wildlife Trade 

CITES, an international agreement among 180 member nations, including the 

United States, is designed to control and regulate global trade in certain wild 

animals and plants that are or may become threatened with extinction due to international trade. As the first nation to ratify CITES, the United States has consistently been a leader in combating wildlife trafficking and protecting natural 

resources. Without regulation, international trade can deplete wild populations, 

leading to extinction. The goal of CITES is to facilitate legal, biologically sustainable 

trade, whenever possible. But in some cases, no level of commercial trade can be 

sustainably supported. 

Though a longstanding priority for CITES Parties, the focus on combating elephant poaching and illegal ivory trade is more intense than ever before. In March 

2013, at the most recent meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP16), eight 

countries—China, Kenya, Malaysia, the Philippines, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, 

and Vietnam—that were identified as significant source, transit, or destination 

points for illegal ivory trade agreed to develop time-bound action plans to actively 

address illegal ivory trade. 

Also at CoP16, the CITES Parties recognized the importance of addressing the entire crime chain by adopting several decisions to ensure that modern forensic and 

investigative techniques are applied to the illegal trade in ivory. The CITES Parties 

agreed to provide more effective control over domestic ivory markets and government-held stockpiles, and to promote public awareness campaigns, including supply 

and demand-reduction strategies. The decisions agreed upon at CoP16 to address 

the elephant poaching crisis were a significant step in the right direction. The 

United States played a major role in the development of these decisions and actions, 

and is committed to playing a significant role in their implementation, including ensuring that countries are held accountable for failure to take meaningful actions to 

curb elephant poaching and illegal ivory trade. 

Reducing Consumer Demand for Illegal Wildlife Products 

Most of the international conservation work funded by the Service has focused on 

on-the-ground protection of habitat and wildlife, including enforcement efforts, with 

the Service providing approximately $10 million annually to enhance and support 

11 

wildlife conservation throughout Africa and Asia. In addition, the Service supports 

government and non-government partners with public awareness and demandreduction campaigns in Asian consumer nations. 

Over the years, the Service has also worked to educate and inform U.S. consumers about the role they play in wildlife trafficking and the impacts of this illegal 

activity on animal and plant species around the world. These efforts have ranged 

from partnering with nongovernmental organizations on a long-running ‘‘Buyer 

Beware’’ campaign and commissioning our law enforcement officers to present outreach programs on wildlife trafficking at the local, State, and national levels, to 

using airport billboards and social media to engage the public on this issue. 

Using our extensive network and experience, we are developing a strategy for the 

Service’s role in addressing consumer demand. This includes working with the private sector and governments in key consumer countries, including the United 

States, to build public awareness about the impacts of illegal trade on wildlife and 

the potential penalties for engaging in such activities. The Service is also taking 

other actions to encourage attitudinal and behavioral shifts, all leading to measurable reductions in demand for illegal wildlife products. 

U.S. IVORY CRUSH

As part of our effort to combat illegal ivory trafficking, on November 14, 2013, 

the United States destroyed its 6-ton stock of confiscated elephant ivory, sending a 

clear message that we will not tolerate wildlife crime that threatens to wipe out the 

African elephant and a host of other species around the globe. The destruction of 

this ivory, which took place near the Service’s National Wildlife Property Repository 

on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge near Denver, Colorado, 

was witnessed by representatives of African nations and other countries, dozens of 

leading conservationists, and international media representatives. 

This ivory crush sparked a new sense of possibility and collaboration—that we can 

work together effectively to halt this crisis before it is too late. This action signaled 

the United States’ commitment to combat wildlife trafficking, and was carried out, 

in part, to encourage other nations to do the same. Following the U.S. ivory crush, 

a number of other governments destroyed most of their stockpiles of seized ivory, 

including China, France, Chad, Belgium, and Hong Kong. We now are in a much 

better position to work with the international community to push for a reduction 

of ivory stockpiles worldwide, and crack down on poaching and illegal trade. 

PRESIDENT’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING

The Administration recognized that if illicit wildlife trade continues on its current 

trajectory some of the world’s most treasured animals could be threatened with extinction. In response to this crisis, on July 1, 2013, President Obama issued Executive Order 13648 to enhance coordination of U.S. Government efforts to combat 

wildlife trafficking and assist foreign governments with capacity building. 

The Executive Order establishes a Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking 

charged with developing and implementing a National Strategy for Combating 

Wildlife Trafficking. The Task Force is co-chaired by the Department of the Interior, 

Department of Justice, and Department of State, and includes a dozen other departments and agencies. Drawing on resources and expertise from across the U.S. 

Government, we are working to identify new approaches to crack down on poaching 

and wildlife trafficking and to more efficiently coordinate our enforcement efforts 

with interagency and international partners. The Executive Order also establishes 

an Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking comprised of individuals with relevant 

expertise from outside the Government to make recommendations to the Task Force. 

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR COMBATING WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING

In accordance with the Executive Order, the Presidential Task Force produced a 

National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking. The National Strategy establishes strategic priorities and guiding principles to help focus and strengthen the 

U.S. Government’s efforts to combat wildlife trafficking, and to position the United 

States to exercise leadership on this urgent issue. The strategic priorities include: 

(1) strengthening the enforcement of laws that protect wildlife; (2) reducing demand 

for illegal wildlife and wildlife products; and (3) working in partnership with governments, local communities, non-governmental organizations, the private sector, and 

others to enhance global commitment to combat wildlife trafficking. 

The Service is integrally involved in all of these priorities, but I would like to 

highlight a few areas of particular importance in our efforts to stem illegal wildlife 

trade. 

12 

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS TO ADDRESS THE CURRENT POACHING CRISIS

The United States has several laws and regulations in place that can help to address the poaching crisis. African elephants are listed as threatened under the ESA 

and are also protected under the African Elephant Conservation Act (AECA). Nations across the world regulate trade in this species under CITES. Under these U.S. 

laws, it is generally illegal to: 

• Import African elephant ivory. 

• Export it without CITES documents. 

• Buy or sell unlawfully imported African elephant ivory in interstate 

commerce. 

Asian elephants are listed as endangered under the ESA. Import, export, and 

interstate commerce in ivory and other parts and products are generally prohibited. 

Though there is some ivory trade in the United States involving antiques and legally acquired ivory imported prior to the 1989 AECA ivory import moratorium, we 

believe a substantial amount of elephant ivory is illegally imported and enters the 

domestic market. It is extremely difficult to differentiate legally acquired ivory from 

ivory derived from elephant poaching. Our criminal investigations and antismuggling efforts have clearly shown that legal ivory trade can serve as a cover for 

illegal trade. In addition to the Victor Gordon case noted above, Service and State 

wildlife officers seized more than two million dollars-worth of illegal elephant ivory 

from two New York City retail stores in 2012. 

Following the release of the National Strategy, the Service has taken steps toward 

implementing a near complete ban on commercial trade in elephant ivory. The first 

of these steps was the issuance of Director’s Order 210, which re-affirmed enforcement of the AECA moratorium and addressed how the Service would enforce importation under the ESA antiques provision. 

Following the issuance of Director’s Order 210 on February 25, the Service met 

with a wide array of stakeholders, including individuals and groups representing 

antiques dealers, auction houses, musical instrument makers, museums, and orchestras. As a result of these constructive meetings, we revised the Director’s Order to 

address several of their concerns, allowing a broader class of noncommercial items 

to be imported into the United States and clarifying how we intend to enforce the 

ESA antiques provision, while still maintaining our goal of ensuring that the United 

States is not contributing to poaching of elephants and illegal trade in ivory. 

In addition to the provisions in the Director’s Order, we improved our ability to 

protect elephants, rhinos, and other CITES-listed wildlife by publishing a final rule 

revising our CITES regulations, including ‘‘use after import’’ provisions that limit 

sale of elephant ivory within the United States. Under this new rule, which becomes 

effective on June 26, 2014, items such as elephant ivory imported for noncommercial 

purposes may not subsequently be sold within the United States. For African elephant ivory imported prior to 1990, when the African elephant was listed in CITES 

Appendix I and commercial international trade was generally prohibited, the burden 

is now on the seller to demonstrate that this ivory was imported prior to 1990. 

These regulations were previously published as a proposed rule with opportunity for 

public comment. 

In the coming months, we will also publish a proposed rule to revise the ESA special rule for the African elephant (50 CFR 17.40(e)). This action, which will include 

proposed limitations on the interstate sale of African elephant ivory, will also include a public comment period. Using our authority under the ESA, we will also 

propose limiting the number of elephant sport-hunted trophies that an individual 

can import to two per hunter per year. 

The combined result of these administrative actions would be the elimination of 

most commercial trade (import, export, and interstate and intrastate sale) in elephant ivory, with certain narrow exceptions. Taking these measures will establish 

U.S. leadership and support diplomatic efforts to encourage additional efforts to 

combat illegal trade in consumer nations. The United States is one of the world’s 

major consumers of illicit wildlife products, and we must lead by example. These 

actions are also consistent with recent CITES recommendations adopted at CoP16. 

Assess and Strengthen Legal Authorities 

While the Service is pursuing administrative actions to address the poaching crisis, the National Strategy also calls on Congress to consider legislation to recognize 

wildlife trafficking crimes as predicate offenses for money laundering. This action 

would be invaluable to the Service’s law enforcement efforts because it would place 

wildlife trafficking on an equal footing with other serious crimes. It would also provide our special agents with the same tools to investigate serious crimes that other 

13 

Federal law enforcement agencies have. This legislative change would help take the 

profit out of the illegal wildlife trade and end the days of wildlife trafficking being 

a low-risk, high-profit crime. Strong penalties provide a deterrent and assist the 

U.S. Government in unraveling complex conspiracies and combating trafficking. 

Offenders facing significant penalties are more likely to become key cooperating defendants than those facing a light penalty. 

Save the Vanishing Species Semipostal Stamp 

The National Strategy recommends continuing the sale of the Save the Vanishing 

Species Semipostal stamp. This stamp, which went on sale on September 20, 2011, 

has been providing vital support for the Service’s efforts to fight global wildlife trafficking and poaching. More than 25.5 million stamps have been purchased by the 

American public online and at their local post offices, generating more than $2.5 

million for conservation. This money has been used to support 47 projects in 31 

countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to conserve elephants, rhinos, tigers, 

marine turtles, and great apes. These funds have been leveraged by an additional 

$3.6 million in matching contributions—making the stamp a key part of the United 

States’ efforts to protect wildlife and address the ongoing worldwide epidemic of 

poaching and wildlife trafficking. 

The continued sale of the Save the Vanishing Species Semipostal stamp is authorized by legislation enacted by Congress. However, the requirement to sell the stamp 

for at least 2 years has expired and the Postal Service has discontinued the sale 

of the stamp at this time. Continuing to sell the stamp would extend an opportunity 

for the American public to support wildlife conservation abroad by directly contributing money to help rhinos, tigers, elephants, sea turtles, and great apes. 

CONCLUSION

I would like to thank the subcommittee for your support of our efforts to combat 

wildlife trafficking. I want to leave you by asking you to consider this moment in 

history—and the choice we must all make as human beings and global citizens. We 

have a chance here, and now, to build on this National Strategy to ensure a secure 

future for elephants, rhinos, and hundreds of other wild plant and animal species. 

How will we answer when our grandchildren ask why some of these magnificent 

creatures no longer exist in the wild? I want to be able to tell them that the Service 

did everything we could to keep these amazing species from vanishing from our 

planet. I look forward to working with your subcommittee to make it a reality. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today. I would be pleased to 

answer any questions that you may have. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Dreher. 

Next the Chair recognizes Mr. Tendaupenyu for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ITAI HILARY TENDAUPENYU, PRINCIPAL 

ECOLOGIST, ZIMBABWE PARKS AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and your committee, for affording me this opportunity to testify before this subcommittee. 

I am a principal ecologist here on behalf of the Director General 

of the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, an organization mandated to manage Zimbabwe’s wildlife heritage. 

The suspension of April 4, 2014 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Services of all imports of African elephant trophies taken in 

Zimbabwe during the 2014 hunting season came without prior notice or engagement with the Government of Zimbabwe and did not 

have any scientific basis. 

The Service alluded to the fact that legal well regulated sport 

hunting as part of a sound management program can benefit the 

conservation of listed species by providing incentives to local communities and to conserve the species by putting much needed revVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:10 Apr 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\02 FISHERIES, WILDLIFE\02JU24 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88502.TXT DARLEN
14 

enue back into conservation. The suspension acts as a contradiction 

to this. 

To establish the status of African elephant in Zimbabwe, systematic aerial surveys, waterfall and road counts, and ranger-based 

data collection and monitoring are used. In the four major elephant 

geographical ranges, the Northwest Matabeleland has an estimated 

population of 50,000 elephants; the Mid-Zambezi, 30,000; 

Sebungwe, 15,000; and the South-East Lowveld, 12,5000 according 

to a 2013 aerial survey. The surveys indicate a stable increasing 

elephant population. 

The ban has huge negative, social and economic impacts in 

Zimbabwe. Sixty-seven percent of elephant quota goes to local communities, and the private sector, 50 percent of which goes directly 

to communities. The ban will result in the loss of income to local 

communities who are the most vulnerable groups. 

The collapse of the hunting industry will result in the loss of income and employment to supporting services and will also result 

in an increased human elephant conflict due to reduced elephant 

ranges. Reduced funding for poaching efforts will result in increased poaching, hence increased decimation of all live populations. 

ZimParks manages 50,000 square kilometers, approximately 13 

percent of Zimbabwe, and has a statutory obligation to manage 

wildlife conservation beyond state protected areas. It receives no 

fiscal funding, and all of its revenue is generated from sustainable 

conservation activities and through limited donor support. The 

hunting industry contributes 30 percent of annual revenue generated and is used to fund conservation efforts. 

We should note that hunters on the ground also act as a first line 

of defense against poaching, through ground intelligence and surveillance, hence, act as a deterrent to poaching. 

The ban will affect resource protection activities, problem animal 

management, fire management, law enforcement, and environmental education and awareness campaigns. 

The Communal Area Management Program for Indigenous 

Resources, CAMPFIRE, is a brainchild of ZimParks and is a world 

renowned success story. It is a national strategy established with 

the primary purpose of helping rural communities to sustainably 

manage the natural and cultural resources, derived income from 

the resource, and determine how the income will be utilized. 

Fifty-eight out of 60 districts in Zimbabwe participate in the program. Ninety percent of CAMPFIRE revenue comes from sport 

hunting, 70 percent of which is from elephant hunting. 

CAMPFIRE income is used for community projects in the fields 

of education, health, and other livelihood support services in rural 

areas, and meat from sport hunting also benefits rural communities. 

The benefits from sustainable use of wildlife resources have 

served to increase the confidence of communities in wildlife management, thereby improving tolerance and survival of wildlife species. The guidelines for CAMPFIRE by the Government of 

Zimbabwe emphasize that communities must at all times receive 

the highest benefits. 

15 

Once elephants are no longer economically important to local 

communities, those communities will have no incentive to tolerate 

elephants and protect them. 

Sixty percent of hunters in Zimbabwe are U.S. clients or citizens. 

I beg your pardon. The suspension already resulted in American 

hunting clients wanting to move their safaris elsewhere, which will 

result in loss of income to safari operators, professional hunters 

and guides, and also have downstream effects. It should be noted 

that the sector contributes significantly to anti-poaching funding. 

Since the Fish and Wildlife Service cited lack of current information on the status and management of elephants within Zimbabwe 

and that the suspension could be lifted after the Service had received sufficient information, ZimParks officially responded on 

April 17, 2014, addressing all questions that had been raised and 

supplying a host of pertinent additional information. 

Meetings have also been held between the Service, ZimParks, 

CAMPFIRE and safari operators together with the private sector, 

and to date no feedback has been received on these engagements. 

We strongly urge the Fish and Wildlife Service to reverse the 

suspension which clearly has negative impacts to livelihoods and 

conservation, and appeal to them to work with Zimbabwe in 

strengthening conservation efforts in a constructive manner. Shutting down the trade is not the solution. The ban will result in irreparable damage to wildlife conservation, our heritage and lead to 

impoverishment of rural communities. 

It will also lead to the reversal of the gains that we have 

achieved thus far in conservation. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tendaupenyu follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ITAI HILARY TENDAUPENYU, PRINCIPAL ECOLOGIST

REPRESENTING THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE ZIMBABWE PARKS AND WILDLIFE

MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to share my views on behalf of the Zimbabwe Parks and 

Wildlife Management Authority regarding the recent importation ban imposed by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on sport-hunted elephants from 

Zimbabwe. 

My name is Itai Hilary Tendaupenyu. I am a Principal Ecologist representing the 

Director General of the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority 

(‘‘ZimParks’’). ZimParks’ mission is to conserve Zimbabwe’s wildlife heritage through 

effective, efficient and sustainable utilization of natural resources for the benefit of 

present and future generations and stakeholders. We strive to be the world leader 

in sustainable conservation. 

ZimParks, much like the USFWS, has a mandate to manage the entire wildlife 

population of Zimbabwe, whether on private or communal lands. Although private 

landowners may utilize the wildlife on their land, they are still accountable to 

ZimParks for the welfare of the animals. Mandated with the protection, management and administration of the wildlife of Zimbabwe, ZimParks has a proud history 

of sound management that endeavors to conserve the unique flora and fauna heritage of Zimbabwe. 

Zimbabwe welcomes President Obama’s directive that U.S. Government executive 

departments and agencies assist foreign nations in building capacity to combat 

poaching of protected species and the illegal trade in wildlife. Although we agree 

with the goals of the directive, we do not agree with some of the strategies the 

USFWS has used to implement the directive. Instead of working with our wildlife 

management authorities, your FWS has made unilateral decisions and has issued 

edicts. The National Strategy on Wildlife Trafficking and the Advisory Council 

should guide international partnerships with nongovernmental organizations, local 

communities, and the private sector to promote mechanisms that prevent poaching 

16 

and illegal trade, rather than make decisions without including these important 

partners. Instead of collaborating with and assisting those who are directly involved 

with the day-to-day effort to combat illegal wildlife trafficking, the decisions recently 

made by the United States have undermined Zimbabwe’s conservation efforts and 

the success of programs like CAMPFIRE, its revenue stream, and its anti-poaching 

work. 

Sport-hunting and the revenue it generates for Zimbabwe and its people play a 

significant role in the conservation of Zimbabwe’s wildlife. Revenue from sport hunting is paid directly to ZimParks and the Forestry Commission (depending on where 

the hunting takes place). Revenue is generated from auction bids for the right to 

hunt on some lands, hunting lease fees (concession fees), trophy fees, and daily rates 

paid by hunters. Those sources of revenue contribute wholly to the conservation 

budget of ZimParks and the Forestry Commission. They also contribute to revenue 

generated on communal lands (see CAMPFIRE discussion below). A significant portion of the revenue from sport-hunting comes from U.S. hunters. Zimbabwe’s 

elephant conservation efforts and its anti-poaching strategies derive tremendous 

benefit from these sources. 

Hunting often occurs in areas that are too dry for agriculture pursuits and nonhunting tourism. Without hunting, such areas would be prone to poaching due to 

the absence of human activity. Hunting brings accessibility to such remote areas in 

terms of roads, airstrips, and water development, thus making the areas economically, environmentally, and socially beneficial. 

1.0 BACKGROUND 

On April 4, 2014, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued 

a press statement whilst simultaneously informing Zimbabwe of the temporary suspension of all imports of African elephant trophies taken in Zimbabwe during the 

2014 hunting season. The USFWS did not send Zimbabwe a request for information 

about these issues until the very day that they announced the ban. The USFWS in 

their communication advised that they could not make a positive finding that the 

importation of elephant sport-hunted trophies would enhance the survival of the 

species as required under their Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the African 

Elephant Conservation Act (AECA), both being stricter domestic measures. They 

also cited lack of current information on the status and management of African 

elephants within Zimbabwe and that the suspension could be lifted after the Service 

had received sufficient information. 

To date, the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (ZimParks) officially responded on the April 7, 2014 to the USFWS addressing all questions that 

had been raised and supplying a host of pertinent additional information. Meetings 

have also been held in Washington, DC between USFWS officials, ZimParks and 

representatives of communities (CAMPFIRE), Safari Operators and the private sector from Zimbabwe. The USFWS has now had these materials for 6 weeks and yet, 

has made no effort to lift the ban that they based on what they claimed to be a 

lack of information. Now that they have had adequate time to review the information we provided, Zimbabwe would like to see the ban immediately lifted. 

In all our submissions, we have been very clear and consistent about our displeasure with the manner in which this unilateral suspension was handled without 

prior engagement and notification, lack of transparency and science-based evidence 

to support this. We believe we have not been respected in all these processes. 

Whilst the USFWS alluded to the fact that legal, well-regulated sport hunting, as 

part of a sound management programme, can benefit the conservation of listed species by providing incentives to local communities and to conserve the species by putting much needed revenue back into conservation, the suspension acts as a 

contradiction to all this. 

2.0 THE STATUS OF AFRICAN ELEPHANT POPULATION IN ZIMBABWE 

There are four major elephant geographical ranges in Zimbabwe namely NorthWest Matabeleland, Mid Zambezi Valley, Sebungwe and South-East Lowveld. These 

ranges cover different land tenure categories in Zimbabwe which include state protected areas (parks estate and indigenous forest areas) privately owned land and 

communal lands. Systematic aerial survey and sampling techniques are used to estimate elephant numbers throughout the four major geographical ranges in 

Zimbabwe. A national aerial survey of large mammals that was last conducted in 

2001, estimated the elephant population to be 88,123. Partial surveys that have 

been done over years through aerial surveys, waterhole and road counts as well as 

ranger based data collection and monitoring show an increasing trend in elephant 

17 

populations in Zimbabwe. A national aerial survey for large mammals to determine 

the current population of elephants is planned for the 2014 dry season with funding 

from Paul G. Allen through an NGO ‘‘Elephants Without Borders’’ based in 

Botswana. 

3.0 ELEPHANT DISTRIBUTION IN ZIMBABWE 

The distribution of elephants in terms of geographical ranges Zimbabwe is shown 

on Appendix 1. 

3.1 North West Matabeleland 

This area constitutes the range for the largest elephant sub-population in 

Zimbabwe occupying the Hwange-Matetsi Complex including several Forest Areas 

as well as Hwange and Tsholotsho communal areas. Based on national survey conducted in 2001, the elephant population for this area is now estimated to be 50,000. 

3.2 Mid-Zambezi Valley 

The elephant sub-population in the area occupies the Parks and Wildlife Estate 

between Lake Kariba and Kanyemba. Based on national survey conducted in 2001, 

the elephant population for this area is now estimated to be 20,000. 

3.3 The Sebungwe 

This area forms part of the elephant range and unlike other populations in 

Zimbabwe is largely closed, being isolated by Lake Kariba and surrounded by 

human settlements. Based on a survey conducted in 2006, the elephant population 

for this area was estimated to be 15,000. 

3.4 The South-East Lowveld 

This area forms part of the elephant range covering Gonarezhou National Park, 

Save Valley Conservancy, Bubye Valley Conservancy and the surrounding communal lands. Based on aerial surveys done in 2013, the elephant population for this 

area was estimated to be 12,500. 

4.0 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SUSPENSION FOR ZIMBABWE 

The Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority was stunned by the 

unilateral decision by the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) to suspend imports from elephant trophies hunted in Zimbabwe for the year 2014. This 

decision was taken without prior written notice or engagement with the Government of Zimbabwe. The suspension of imports of hunting trophies from Zimbabwe 

will have huge negative social and economic impacts on the national and local 

economies. Approximately, 67 percent of the annual elephant export quota is allocated to local communities and private sectors with more than half of this going to 

local communities. Sport hunting takes place in Safari Areas falling under the 

Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, Indigenous Forest Areas managed by 

the Forestry Commission, the Communal Lands where the Communal Areas 

Management Programme of Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) occurs and the 

Private Game Farms and Conservancies. 

The CAMPFIRE programme has created expanded wildlife range. However, its 

collapse through the ban will reverse this situation and create increased human and 

wildlife conflict since the buffer for human and wildlife conflict would have been removed and ultimately there will be increased illegal off take in the core range. This 

move will certainly impact on wildlife conservation, the economy, community livelihoods and the effects of this ban are explained below; 

4.1 Impacts of Suspension on the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority 

The principal and most important form of utilization of elephants in Zimbabwe 

is safari or trophy hunting. Suspension on imports from elephant trophies hunted 

in Zimbabwe for the year 2014 and their products has adverse impact on the 

economic development by destroying the safari hunting industry which is anchored 

on a few key species of which the elephant is included. Since inception, the Parks 

and Wildlife Management Authority has not been receiving any funding from the 

Fiscus or Central Government budget to fund day-to-day operational activities. The 

Authority currently generates its income for funding operations from sustainable 

conservation practices including sport hunting which contributes 30 percent of the 

total income. The Authority is expected to raise enough financial resources and mobilize other resources for wildlife conservation within and outside state protected 

areas. The consequences of this ban will be deteriorating infrastructure and equipVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:10 Apr 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\02 FISHERIES, WILDLIFE\02JU24 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88502.TXT DARLEN
18 

ment due to resource constraints and increased illegal harvesting of the natural 

resources due to limited funding for resource protection and reduced community 

benefits through the CAMPFIRE programme. The Parks and Wildlife Act Chapter 

20:14 as amended legally defines six categories of Protected Areas under the jurisdiction of the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (Appendix 2). The six categories are National Parks, Safari Areas, Recreational Parks, Botanical Reserves 

and Gardens and Sanctuaries which in total cover about 13 percent of the country 

(5 million hectares). 

The Authority has also a statutory obligation to manage wildlife conservation outside state protected areas and this entails undertaking functions such as problem 

animal control, fire management, law enforcement, environmental education and 

awareness campaigns, as its contribution to safeguarding our natural heritage, public safety and security, food security, etc. The costs of all these activities are borne 

by the Authority without any financial benefits at a time when the Authority is 

expected to be financially viable. 

The Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources 

(CAMPFIRE), a brainchild of the Authority (then Department of National Parks and 

Wildlife Management) is a national strategy that was established with the primary 

purpose of helping rural communities to sustainably manage their natural and cultural resources, derive income from the resource and determine how the income 

would be utilized. Out of Zimbabwe’s total land area of 390,757 km2, CAMPFIRE 

manages about 49,700 km2 or 12.7 percent of the country. CAMPFIRE manages for 

purposes of both wildlife conservation and other natural resources in areas with 

mostly rural communities. The basic premise of CAMPFIRE is that financial incentives are critical to the conservation and sustainable use of the country’s wildlife 

and other natural resources. Natural resources in communal lands are communally 

owned. CAMPFIRE was designed as the answer to the management of this 

communally owned resource and an intervention that would prevent a chaotic situation derived from an open access regime. The demise of this community based natural resource management programme will therefore reverse the achievements of 

this programme. 

4.2 Impacts of Suspension on the CAMPFIRE Programme 

Financial benefits from sustainable use have served to increase the confidence of 

communities in wildlife management, thereby improving tolerance and survival of 

wildlife species. Safari hunting is the key driver for Communal Areas Management 

Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE). Safari hunting benefits from 

large communal areas that are close to wildlife protected areas, have low density 

human populations and are set aside as concession areas leased for the purpose of 

sport hunting activities. CAMPFIRE was operationalized through the giving of 

Appropriate Authority status (AA) to the Rural District Councils. In the Parks and 

Wildlife Act of 1975 (Amendment of 1982), the AA is bestowed on the land holder 

and the RDC is the land holder in communal lands. Communities are only land 

occupiers under the jurisdiction of the RDC. Fifty-eight out of sixty districts in the 

country participate in CAMPFIRE. 

The Guidelines for CAMPFIRE issued by Government of Zimbabwe underline the 

fact that CAMPFIRE is a community programme and based on this understanding 

stipulate that, communities must at all-time receive the highest benefits. The 

guidelines also stipulate that if RDCs fail to deliver to the communities there is the 

need to have the AA status reviewed and or withdrawn. 

In this regard the guidelines stipulate the following: 

(i) Not less than 55 percent of gross revenue shall go to producer communities. 

(ii) RDCs shall receive a maximum of 26 percent of gross revenue for the purpose 

of managing the Appropriate Authority status on behalf of the communities. 

This entails law enforcement, monitoring and capital development for wildlife. 

(iii) The CAMPFIRE Association shall receive 4 percent of the gross revenue. 

(iv) RDCs also get 15 percent of gross revenue. This is to cover overhead costs. 

In CAMPFIRE areas, a significant portion of the revenue generated from sport 

hunting is re-invested in wildlife conservation. It is noteworthy that revenue from 

elephant hunting contributes approximately 60 percent of total earnings by Rural 

District Councils annually. On average, US$1.5 million per year in net income directly benefits local communities. This income is derived from the lease of sport 

hunting rights to safari operators. A lesser proportion of income is generated from 

tourism leases on communal land, and other natural resources management activities. Up to 90 percent of CAMPFIRE revenue comes from sport hunting and it is 

important to highlight that elephant hunting contributes more than 70 percent of 

19 

CAMPFIRE’s annual revenue. If hunting is no longer an economically viable form 

of land use, communities will choose pastoralism and unviable agriculture, which 

reduces habitat available for elephants. Taking space away from elephants means 

more human and elephant conflict and as a result, more retaliatory killing of elephants, poaching and collusion with poaching syndicates. Local communities will 

only find an incentive to protect elephants if they can derive economic value from 

such a resource. 

The ban will negatively affect Zimbabwe’s efforts to meet the United Nations 

Millennium Development Goals through poverty reduction and rural development. 

The CAMPFIRE programme heavily relies on elephant trophy hunting for sustainable wildlife conservation. Apart from funding conservation, CAMPFIRE income is 

used, for community projects in the fields of education, health and other livelihood 

support services, in rural areas. Other benefits from elephant hunting include meat 

which is availed to rural communities providing the much needed protein in communal areas. The ban on elephant trophy imports into USA will result in reduced 

benefits flow to local communities in Zimbabwe (through the CAMPFIRE program). 

With the diminishing wildlife value, local communities may not support any conservation efforts and instead human-wildlife conflicts will be heightened and more 

wildlife land might be turned into other land use options that are deemed profitable 

by communities. 

Human and elephant conflict has been on the increase in most of the areas adjacent to the major elephant range. Appendix 3 indicates the extent of humanelephant conflict in four hot spot districts for the period 2009 to 2011. In addition 

to the loss and injury to human life, communities adjacent to wildlife areas suffer 

the following: 

• Destruction of crops which affects both the quality and quantity of harvests 

and impacting negatively on food security; 

• Destruction of property; 

• Depletion of water sources; 

• Destruction of water infrastructure; 

• Reduced grazing land; 

• Restricted access to essential commodities such as firewood; 

• Loss of opportunities to carry out other activities due to time spent guarding 

crops and property. 

The strongest and most efficient way to combat illegal trafficking of wildlife and 

wildlife products in communal areas is to provide local communities with the incentive to participate in the war against poaching. Furthermore, the best way to engage 

communities is to increase the value of wildlife above the value of these animals 

to poachers and to the illegal trafficking trade. Once elephants are no longer economically important to local communities, those communities will have no incentive 

to keep elephants and protect them. 

5.3 Impact on the Private Wildlife Sector 

The local safari hunting industry, constituted by a healthy balance of indigenous 

and non-indigenous players will have huge losses in revenue as the hunts for the 

2014 season had already been marketed. More than 50 percent of hunting clients 

coming to Zimbabwe every year are from the U.S. market. Besides direct benefits 

from safari hunting such as cash and employment, indirect benefits arise from the 

multiplier effect in downstream activities such as taxidermists, dipping and packing 

companies, freight companies, ivory manufacturers etc. The annual CITES export 

quota for Zimbabwe is a maximum of 500 elephants (or 500 pairs of tusks). Between 

2005 and 2009 total hunting receipts peaked $360,125,327 over the 5-year period 

(Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe figures). This translates to an average of $72,025,065 

per year. Of the total hunting revenue in the country, elephant hunting contributes 

in excess of USD$14 million every year. Furthermore, sport hunters are the first 

line of defense and the most important factor in ground intelligence, surveillance 

and a deterrent to poaching. It is therefore clear that the collapse of the hunting 

sector will have a negative impact on conservation efforts. 

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 

Elephant sport hunting and hunting in general in Zimbabwe contributes significantly to the national economy and should therefore be promoted. It has been demonstrated that the elephant as one of the Big Five, is the backbone for the hunting 

industry in the country. Hunting is therefore crucial to the flow of revenue for conservation and all the benefits to communities in terms of employment, community 

20 

projects and protein. The aggregate effect of elephant hunting to communities is the 

reduction of poverty and improved living standards. In light of this, we strongly appeal the USFWS to reconsider the policy of banning the commercial trade in 

elephant ivory taking note of the serious negative consequences of such a policy. 

Zimbabwe earnestly looks forward to a favorable review of the suspension of the importation of Zimbabwe’s sport hunted elephant trophies taken in 2014. 

* Supporting materials are attached as Appendices 4–6. 

Appendix 1: Elephant Range in Zimbabwe 


88502.001.eps
21 

Appendix 2: Categories and Numbers of Protected Areas in 

the Zimbabwe 

Category of Protected Area Number of Protected Areas 

National Parks ...................................................................................................................................... 11 

Recreational Parks ............................................................................................................................... 16 

Sanctuary .............................................................................................................................................. 6 

Safari Areas .......................................................................................................................................... 16 

Botanical Reserves ............................................................................................................................... 14 

Botanical Gardens ................................................................................................................................ 3 

TOTAL ........................................................................................................................................... 66 

Appendix 3: Human and Wildlife Cases for Four Hotspot 

Districts from 2009 to 2011 

District Number of Cases Humans Killed Humans Injured 

Binga ......................................................................................... 36 8 0 

Mbire ......................................................................................... 6 5 1 

Hwange ..................................................................................... 289 2 1 

Tsholotsho ................................................................................. 41 0 0 

TOTAL ............................................................................... 372 15 2 

22 

SUPPORTING MATERIALS 

Appendix 4: Zimbabwe Professional Hunters and Guides 

Association 


88502.002.eps
23 


88502.003.eps
24 

Appendix 5: Safari Operators Association of Zimbabwe 


88502.004.eps
25 


88502.005.eps
26 


88502.006.eps
27 


88502.007.eps
28 


88502.008.eps
29 

Appendix 6: Professional Hunters’ Association of South 

Africa 


88502.009.eps
30 


88502.010.eps
31 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Tendaupenyu. 

At this point we will begin Member questioning. To allow all 

Members to participate and to ensure we can hear from all of our 

witnesses today, Members are limited to 5 minutes for their questions. However, if Members have additional questions, we can have 

more than one round and we usually do. 

I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Dreher, how long have you been with the service? 

Mr. DREHER. I have been with the Service for just about a 

month. 

Dr. FLEMING. Just about a month. OK. Is there a significant 

problem with illegal, that is, I guess, smuggling, illegal transfer of 

ivory into the United States? 

Mr. DREHER. Yes. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. In a statement by your Service—September 

2012, Fact Sheet, indicating ‘‘we do not believe that there is a significant illegal ivory trade into this country.’’ 

Can you explain? 

Mr. DREHER. I think we have had since that time substantial law 

enforcement evidence of illegal activity coming into the country. 

And let me add, by the way, Mr. Chairman, that I came to the 

Service from a position as the Acting Assistant Attorney General 

for the Environment and Natural Resources for the Department of 

Justice, and the Department of Justice, of course, prosecutes these 

criminals. 

Dr. FLEMING. Right. But to save time here, instead of going 

through your resume, the point is: what significant thing has occurred? What disaster has occurred in the last 2 years? 

Mr. DREHER. Well, first the disaster, I think, is the mounting 

awareness of the crisis in the killing of elephants in Africa. What 

we are seeing in terms of law enforcement, Mr. Chairman—I do not 

intend to be evasive—in law enforcement we are seeing mounting 

evidence in our law enforcement operations of substantial illegal 

importing of ivory into this country. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Now, last month, this is from the Federal 

Register. This is last month. ‘‘We do not believe it is necessary for 

ensuring the conservation and sustainable use of the species to 

retroactively apply current import-export restrictions to domestic 

activities involving specimens that were legally imported prior to 

the imposition of those restrictions.’’ 

So, again, 2012 there was not a problem. In fact, I heard the Acting Ranking Member mention that the United States is the second 

most illegally transferred Nation while, in fact, CITES says in 

2013—I am sorry—2014, it is not among the top eight. In fact, it 

is not even listed at all. 

So why is it that all of a sudden after years of things being fine 

in terms of not what is happening in those countries, in Africa, but 

what is happening here, the illegal importation of ivory? 

2012, 2013, 2014, no problems. All of a sudden you are here a 

month and you say there are huge problems. What has happened 

in the last month? 

Mr. DREHER. Well, let me again say that I have been responsible 

for prosecuting these criminals for much longer than a month in 

my role at the Justice Department, but in answer to your question 

32 

about what has changed in our perspective, first, the United States 

as a government has recognized the importance of taking all steps 

possible—— 

Dr. FLEMING. Again, sir, you are not answering my question. My 

question is what has changed in recent history. What is new? 

Has the crime rate tripled, quadrupled? What has happened 

here? 

Have your prosecutions—and we will check this—have your prosecutions increased? Have you sent many more, scores of more 

people to prison as a result? 

What is different? 

Mr. DREHER. Well, as I explained, I think our law enforcement 

operations are, in fact, detecting the illegal import of African—— 

Dr. FLEMING. You think it is. It does not matter what you think. 

I want to know what is documented. What is documented that has 

happened in the last 2 years to make Fish and Wildlife say one 

thing in 2012, that there is no significant problem, and you all of 

a sudden, you are here on-line for a month, and you say there is 

a significant problem? 

What has happened? Tell me what is different. 

Mr. DREHER. The evidence we have seen from our law enforcement operations, which includes, for example, the prosecution 

and—— 

Dr. FLEMING. Well, what is it? 

Mr. DREHER [continuing]. And incarceration of—— 

Dr. FLEMING. I know you are saying that, but what is the evidence? 

Mr. DREHER. A ton of illegally imported ivory disguised to look 

like antiques seized in a case that we have just discussed before 

you. 

Dr. FLEMING. One case. 

Mr. DREHER. Two tons of illegally imported ivory seized at JFK 

Airport in 2012. These are not the only law enforcement operations 

that have shown evidence of illegal import of disguised ivory into 

this country. 

Our law enforcement officials believe that this is a significant 

problem, and we are doing everything we can to address it. 

Dr. FLEMING. So as a result of one or two cases of significant, 

substantial amounts that you claim today—we have not seen the 

evidence of it, documentation of it—you are saying that we should 

now deem all owners of ivory, perhaps owning it for generations in 

their families, that it no longer has any value, cannot be transferred to someone else, and that the burden is on that individual 

to prove that it is legal ivory, which is impossible in most cases, 

because of something that happened in the last year or so? 

Mr. DREHER. If I may remind you, sir, the policy of the United 

States expressed in the Endangered Species Act generally is that 

trade in endangered species is prohibited, and there are exceptions 

to that. We have a special rule for African elephants. The special 

rule was adopted many years ago when it was not as obvious as 

it is today. 

Dr. FLEMING. Well, I am out of time. Again, you are not coming 

forward with any real information. 

I yield to the Ranking Member for questions. 

33 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I just want to clarify something. When I talked about in my 

opening statement in the past year over 35,000 elephants and 

1,000 rhinoceroses have been killed illegally for their tusks and 

horns, the issue about where we rank is clearly this. Where does 

the United States rank in terms of a market for ivory? 

Do not talk about legal-illegal. We are just talking about a market. Where are we in terms of that world market? 

Mr. DREHER. Mr. Lowenthal, I am sorry to say that as with any 

kind of illicit trade, it is very difficult to establish exact dimensions. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. We are not talking about illicit trade. We are 

just talking about market. I believe that we are the market for 

ivory. The United States ranks second in the world in terms of a 

market for ivory that is sold. Is that true? 

Just a moment. We are not talking about illicit. We are just talking about all ivory. 

Mr. DREHER. I cannot confirm that we are second. I can confirm 

that we are a very major market for—— 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. I can confirm that we are second, Mr. Dreher. 

I can confirm that. 

Let me go back and talk about why and with just the understanding of what the underlying problem is because that is really 

why we are here. We are not really here just to talk about, although some of the things that have occurred in the 1-year ban of 

ivory, sports elephants from Tanzania and Zimbabwe; in the 1800s, 

ladies’ hats were made of feathers and they were made of eagles, 

hawks and herons. They were very popular, so popular that their 

desire or their market almost wiped out populations of migratory 

birds in the Western Hemisphere. 

In 1918, this Congress passed the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or 

MBTA, which implemented a strict ban on the trade of migratory 

birds. Populations of these species have rebounded and there is no 

demand today for these feathered hats. 

Why do you think that MBTA and similar laws like the Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act have been so effective? 

And do you think it is time to bring protections for African elephants more in line with the protections that we provide now for 

migratory birds? 

Mr. DREHER. I think it is certainly true that the conservation 

laws that were enacted to protect migratory birds have been enormously successful. They have been successful both in immediately 

restricting trade in wildlife that was decimating the populations of 

migratory birds. 

They have also been successful, I think, in creating long-term 

changes in popular culture and taste. You know, we no longer see 

ladies’ hats that are of the same even with artificial bird feather 

and that sort of thing. 

I think that is one of the things that we can attempt to do here, 

is to try to both be vigilant in trying to crack down on the illicit 

trade in ivory. We can also attempt to send a message that commercialization of wildlife that leads to its extinction is not acceptable, and that I think is certainly a message that we are trying to 

send here. 

34 

We crushed ivory, for example, at the ivory crush out in Denver, 

six tons of ivory that had been taken as illegal imports by law enforcement officials. We crushed that ivory to send a very clear signal that the ivory was not meant to be seen as items of value. It 

was meant to be seen as evidence of the destruction of wildlife. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. And the question has also been raised that 

these are onerous regulations. I would just like to clarify that: is 

it not true that the ivory import ban under the African Elephant 

Conservation Act is stricter than what the Administration is proposing now? 

Is it not also true that the Endangered Species Act, Section 4(d), 

for African elephant ivory is more lenient than the rules for trading 

other types of ivory, and that a revision of this rule will still be 

more flexible for importers of antique ivory than the provisions of 

the African Elephant Conservation Act? Is that not true? 

Mr. DREHER. That is absolutely true, that the African Elephant 

Conservation Act moratorium is absolute. We are administering it 

with some sensitivity and flexibility. We are trying to work closely 

with stakeholders. 

The same is true of the prohibitions of the Endangered Species 

Act that would otherwise apply if it were not for a special rule that 

we have adopted and which we are proposing to revise, not rescind, 

but revise in order to make it more effective in achieving conservation, but still being sensitive to legitimate owners of ivory and their 

needs. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Maybe you can tell us then just in my last 

question how tightening restrictions on domestic ivory trade will 

help reduce the poaching and trafficking crisis that Africa is facing 

today. 

Mr. DREHER. Well, the major thing driving the poaching is the 

illegal trade in very high value artifacts, and it is disguised in this 

country and elsewhere around the world as legitimate ivory trade, 

reaching very high value. If we can limit the market and if we can 

eliminate the ability of the legal trade to cover and to disguise the 

illegal trade, it will help us enormously in terms of reducing the 

market for this ivory and in cutting out the economic incentive for 

these criminals to kill wildlife. 

They are not killing elephants because they hate elephants. They 

are killing elephants because they see them as sources of money, 

and if we can take the money out of the equation, they will stop 

killing elephants. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Young is recognized. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the members. I have another meeting I am 

chairing. 

Mr. Hilary Tendaupenyu; is that correct? 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. Tendaupenyu. 

Mr. YOUNG. Were you contacted by the Fish and Wildlife, being 

as you are the head of the Fish and Wildlife in Zimbabwe? 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. When, sir? 

Mr. YOUNG. Relative to the suspension. 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. No, before that there was no communication. 

35 

Mr. YOUNG. It would seem to me that they would have the courtesy to at least contact the country which the elephants are supposedly a problem. 

The elephant population is healthy in your country? 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. It is actually on the increase, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. The elephant is a consumer of forage and a 

destroyer of other property; is it not? 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. That is correct. 

Mr. YOUNG. And in your opinion, what do you think will happen 

if, in fact, this hair-brained idea from Fish and Wildlife becomes a 

reality? What do you think will happen to the elephant herd in 

Zimbabwe? 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. It will result in the decimation of populations. 

Mr. YOUNG. And you base that upon the poaching primarily? 

There is no value so they take the elephants for food or what do 

you base that on? 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. Well, basically we are saying that if we are 

no longer able to fund conservation activities and communities are 

no longer able to derive benefit from it, it will be a free-for-all and 

poaching will increase, and as that it will result in the decline in 

our elephant population. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, I hope that some of my colleagues follow up, 

sir, because I am disgusted right now with our government and the 

Fish and Wildlife Department for putting up a ‘‘fuscade’’—I call it 

a ‘‘fuscade’’—for saying this is for conservation. It is not. 

This is to make somebody feel good, Friends of Wildlife, Defenders of Wildlife, and I can go right down the line. This will kill 

elephants. It has happened before. 

Mr. Dreher, how do you differentiate between elephant ivory and 

walrus ivory? 

Mr. DREHER. There are actually tests that we can use readily in 

the field to differentiate between them. 

Mr. YOUNG. So this will not affect walrus ivory? 

Mr. DREHER. No. 

Mr. YOUNG. What kind of test do you have? 

Mr. DREHER. I believe it is a chemical test, but—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, it says here that you are backing off of required DNA tests. Now, what are you going to do to test the two 

different ivories? 

Mr. DREHER. My understanding is it is actually visual inspection. 

Mr. YOUNG. Visual inspection although carved. 

Mr. DREHER. And our agents can determine the difference 

between then. 

Mr. YOUNG. That is horse nosey. If you do not know what horse 

nosey is, it is related to the back end of the horse. 

Mr. DREHER. I was going to—— 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. You know this, and the Fish and Wildlife up 

there in the State of Alaska, your agency, now has the gall to make 

it their interpretation of, in fact, what can be done and how it can 

be identified of other species under the Endangered Species Act, 

primarily the sea otter. That is an agent that does not know 

Shinola. 

36 

Now, do you have a standardized test that is going to be in the 

field? 

Mr. DREHER. My understanding is that our law enforcement officers can, in fact, determine the difference and are doing so in the 

field. 

Mr. YOUNG. But your agents cannot tell if ivory is this year or 

10 years old or 50 years old. 

Mr. DREHER. No, that we cannot do readily, unfortunately. That 

takes a laboratory analysis, and it is expensive, and it is destructive. 

Mr. YOUNG. So I have an ivory pistol, an ivory handled pistol 

that is 100 years old, and I want to import it or export it, and this 

would preclude me from doing it? 

Mr. DREHER. It would depend on your documentation for the age 

of the pistol. 

Mr. YOUNG. I have no documentation. I inherited it. 

Mr. DREHER. You can probably show some evidence of when you 

inherited it or when your parents had it. I mean, it is not as if 

you—— 

Mr. YOUNG. I inherited it from my Uncle John, and he had nothing, but I inherited it. It was in his will, but he’s my uncle. So I 

can now import or export. It is not going to be prohibited. 

Mr. DREHER. If it is over 100 years old it is an antique under 

the—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, how do you tell? You just told me you could 

not tell if it was 100 years old. 

Mr. DREHER. That is actually going to be the burden that you 

will bear, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. Oh, I will bear it, but that means the government 

can seize it. 

Mr. DREHER. If you cannot document your attempt to import—— 

Mr. YOUNG. There we go, guys. There is the Chairman. Here we 

come. Uncle Sam is going to take and say you have to prove it. You 

are guilty because we say you are. 

That is wrong. That is wrong, and this is not going to save the 

elephants. 

For those in the audience who think you are saving elephants, 

you are going to be killing these elephants. There is a value when 

they can be hunted. There is a value when they can be, in fact, 

managed. There is a value if you let the country manage its game. 

We are sticking our nose in somebody’s business, very frankly. 

We are not going to solve a problem you are trying to seek, and 

I have been a sponsor of saving the elephants with conservation for 

years, but what you are going to do in this so-called department— 

the Fish and Game Department has gone wacky on me—is, in fact, 

is, in fact, going to fail to save these elephants. Shame on you. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. DeFazio I believe is next on that side. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think what we need to keep in mind here is we need new solutions. You know, what worked in 1988, 1989, and the contributions 

of sport hunting to these countries was very valuable. Today a 

sport hunter with a bolt action rifle is no longer a deterrent to 

37 

large groups of crazed militants slaughtering elephants with automatic weapons and poison. 

Times have changed. So we cannot say that sport hunting is the 

solution. It is still incredibly valuable to the local communities and 

potentially to the nations involved. That is good. That gives them 

some incentive, but the other thing was it was actually a deterrent 

value because you had people out there who were similarly armed 

or maybe with ratty weapons who were poaching the elephants. 

Now it is organized, armed fanatic militants, which really needs 

some sort of military or paramilitary response on the part of some 

of these governments, and that is perhaps something to be discussed in another committee at another time in terms of what the 

U.S. appropriate role is in facilitating that. 

But we have to stop talking past each other here and we have 

to find some viable solutions. We have to find viable solutions that 

go to people who have had things in their families for generations. 

Mr. Young was his usual dramatic self, but the point here is that 

I read of one case where someone was trying to bring in a piano 

from Japan. You know, apparently we have now resolved that issue 

individually, but there are problems here with the way this rule 

was promulgated and its impact, but we also want to send the 

strongest message to the world that we are not going to tolerate 

this. 

Perhaps the gentleman whom I mentioned earlier should have 

gotten a longer sentence and a bigger fine, but that is another 

issue. 

Are we researching a way for a test? I mean, we can carbon date 

stuff pretty exactly. We have all sorts of things out there, you 

know, a mass spectrometer. Is there not some researching test that 

would make it easy for people to prove age? 

Mr. DREHER. We are researching tests. I mean, unfortunately the 

ones you mentioned are among the ones that we can draw upon, 

and they are destructive and they are expensive. They are destructive in the sense that they require some sample, some portion of 

the item to actually be destroyed in order to chemically analyze it, 

and they are not foolproof, but we can use them effectively to date 

things. 

Right now the tests we are using to date ivory cost us $1,000 per 

test, which is not too high when you have a major criminal prosecution, but it is very high for field agents to use, and it requires 

the consent of the property owner to permit it to be tested because 

it does involve some sampling. 

So there are limits to what we can do. We are, unfortunately, 

stuck in our law enforcement effort by our inability to distinguish 

readily between fake antique ivory and real antique ivory, and that 

has been used around the world and in this country by the criminals. They know this. They have whole factories that are set up to 

do this, to artificially age ivory, to carve it so that it looks like it 

is exactly like a tribal carving from 100 years ago, and then to 

bring it into this country. 

That is exactly what Victor Gordon was doing. He was sending 

instructions back to his factories in Africa, saying make it look 

like—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Where was the factory located? 

38 

Mr. DREHER. It was from East Africa. I do not know where 

though. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Did the U.S. Government take any action to 

pursue that with the government involved, whichever government 

it was, to close down this factory? 

Mr. DREHER. I am not aware of what we have done with that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. See, we need to be reaching overseas in a very 

strong way, and I mean, that seems to me kind of minimal if we 

have finally got a line on an illegitimate factory mass producing 

this stuff out there. We should be using every tool we have to go 

after that and go after that country and close that stuff down and 

doing that around the world in addition to what I mentioned earlier, which are some trade sanctions against these countries, that 

little country and the big countries that are overtly importing. 

I have to say we just have to begin to think out of the box and 

come up with a creative solution. I mean, as we sit here and talk 

past each other, I think it is four elephants an hour that are being 

slaughtered. So we’ve been here more than an hour. Four more elephants unless they did another poisoning today and killed many 

dozens or hundreds, who knows? 

So this is something that begs a solution instead of a partisan 

brawl, which is very usual for this committee. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Dreher, do you hunt? 

Mr. DREHER. I do not, sir. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So I guess you are a fisherman. You trout fish. You 

big billfish. 

Mr. DREHER. I have fished, yes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. You have been, but are you active in that at all? 

Mr. DREHER. Not today, but I have been. 

Mr. DUNCAN. OK. Are you a member of Ducks Unlimited, 

National Wild Turkey Federation, Safari Club International, any of 

those conservation organizations? 

Mr. DREHER. I am not. 

Mr. DUNCAN. OK. So let me just ask you this. Are you aware of 

the role that hunters play in conservation? 

Mr. DREHER. I am very aware of it. 

Mr. DUNCAN. OK. Hunters have contributed millions upon 

millions upon millions of dollars for conservation efforts to restore 

the white tailed deer, the wild turkey, the trout, the Billfish 

Association for billfish, and the oceans. Hunters play a part of conservation. 

Let me point out the New York Times article, and I am not one 

to tout the New York Times on a regular basis, but the New York 

Times had an article, ‘‘The Wrong Way to Protect Elephants.’’ In 

this article the authors state that ‘‘the new Obama administration 

policies would merely cause the price to balloon and the black market to flourish, pushing up the profit potential of continued poaching. These new rules proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service 

may well end up doing more harm than good to the African 

elephant.’’ 

39 

Why is the New York Times wrong? 

Mr. DREHER. I mean I have to say for what it is worth the approach we are taking for law enforcement in trying to interdict illegal contraband coming into this country is the same approach we 

take for other forms of illegal activity. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Law enforcement is having a hard time in the 

African countries doing conservation because they do not have 

enough manpower, and this is going to hurt their economic ability 

to actually hire more law enforcement officers to combat poaching. 

American hunters traveling to Zimbabwe or Tanzania, other 

places, they are actually catching a lot of these poachers out there 

in the field, and guess what else they are finding. They are finding 

the snares, and they are dismantling the snares and destroying 

those because the countries do not have the ability to hire the number of officers necessary. 

The money that goes into the economy from active hunting on 

the African Continent supplies the money and the resources for 

these countries to have the conservation officers that can actually 

do the job. Your policies will do nothing but curb the ability of 

American hunters to actually travel to Africa and provide those 

dollars that those economies desperately need. 

I do not believe there is enough money in the conservation effort 

to actually pump into those countries to provide those dollars and 

to provide those officers, those conservation officers. 

Would you not agree with me that unless the range states are 

effectively able to stop poaching, African elephants will simply continue their march toward extinction? 

Mr. DREHER. I would agree with you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. OK. So we are on the same page there. 

In the final analysis, you can close the U.S. market and destroy 

the value of millions of legally obtained ivory products, but unless 

we stop poaching, it is very unlikely that those who traffic in these 

illegal wildlife will simply find another market. You are already 

seeing an emerging market in China. 

Will this ban stop poaching of elephants in Africa? 

Mr. DREHER. Not by itself, but this ban is only part of the effort 

that my Service and that of the U.S. Government is engaged in to 

try to combat this problem. This ban is one important strand of 

that which involves law enforcement to crack down on the criminals involved. 

When you put someone like Victor Gordon in jail, admittedly 

only for 21⁄2 years, that is a very significant deterrent to other 

criminals who are—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, let me stop you right there. I will tell you 

who you are targeting. I have had numerous cases where people 

have lawfully obtained African ivory through hunting efforts with 

valid tags and valid transportation permits to bring them into the 

country, and they have been jerked around by this agency trying 

to bring that ivory in. That is who you are targeting. 

You are not targeting the illegal ivory trade in this country or 

the world. You should work with the Government of China. You 

should work with the countries that are actually stockpiling a lot 

of ivory. 

40 

I will tell you what we need to do. We need to work with countries like Tanzania and Zimbabwe and allow hunting, allow conservation efforts through hunting, allow more permits and allow 

these guys to actually set quotas, allow X number of elephants to 

be harvested annually, and allow that money to actually funnel to 

the communities that have crops destroyed because the elephants 

are destroying homes and crops and communities. Actually provide 

the dollars so they can have the conservation officers out there to 

stop this poaching. 

You are exactly right. Poaching is terrible. The numbers do not 

lie at all. But it is not through hunting and it is not through some, 

and I will say, asinine ban by the Fish and Wildlife Service that 

is politically driven. 

Now, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. DREHER. I would be happy to respond. I have not so far been 

able to respond to any of the allegations. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman has already yielded back. 

Mr. DUNCAN. That was my time. Thank you. 

Dr. FLEMING. Ms. Shea-Porter. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you very much. 

And please feel free to respond. 

Mr. DREHER. First I need to say that the Fish and Wildlife 

Service fully recognizes the importance and the value of sport 

hunting in the history of conservation and in the current conservation efforts around the world. Sport hunters in this country have 

been the backbone of conservation of wildlife in this country, including the backbone of support of the programs that the Fish and 

Wildlife Service administers. They are an important factor in conservation worldwide. 

We have a special situation in the two countries that are at issue 

here. That is that under our regulation we must make a finding 

that sport hunted trophies or that allowing the import of sport 

hunted trophies will enhance the conservation of the species, and 

we have been able to make that for a number of countries. We have 

no concern with hunting of elephants in South Africa or in 

Botswana. Those are countries that have well regulated programs. 

We have significant concerns about Tanzania. The population of 

wildlife of elephants in Tanzania is crashing, as has been recognized by CITES and by world authorities. 

There is mounting concern that government authorities in 

Tanzania are unable to manage or protect their wildlife, and it is 

no longer clear to us that the dollars that American hunters bring 

into that country are used in any meaningful way for the conservation of elephants. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. Thank you. 

Mr. DREHER. OK. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I am glad you cleared that up. 

I do have a couple of questions here, and I am sorry. I am going 

to make a mistake with your name, Mr. Tendaupenyu. 

Could you please tell me first of all who paid for your trip here? 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. The Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. The Zimbabwe government? 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. The Parks and Wildlife Management. 

41 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. OK. Thank you. 

And has your population of elephants been going up or down? 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. It is actually on the—on the—— 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Going down. So—— 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. On the increase, ma’am. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. So in spite of the hunting and the conservation and the income coming in and your management efforts, your 

population is dropping. 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. No, no, ma’am. The population is on the increase. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. By how much? 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. I can give you the figures. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. OK. I would like to see those. We will do another round. 

I also want to know, you indicated that you also received some 

income from tourism, right? But you did not say what percent was 

from eco-tourism. How hard have you worked on that? And is that 

something that you see in your future to be able to perhaps bring 

more income and help the people in the area and help protect the 

elephants? 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. OK. Tourism is rather suppressed right now. 

So the income realized from that is quite low compared to that revenue stream that I talked about from—— 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Do you have an aggressive program for it? 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. We are doing our marketing. There is an aggressive program for that, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. OK. And what percent of the income that 

comes in for your program is from tourism right now? 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. I do not have the figures readily available 

right now, but those can be available to you, ma’am. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. OK. Is that going up or down? 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. Tourism figures, slightly on the increase now 

in recent years. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. On the increase. 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. Yes. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. All right. So your tourism is on the increase, 

and your number of elephants, the population, is on the increase 

and you will get back to me about the number. 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. OK. Thank you. 

And I have a question. Now, you said how many tons of ivory in 

2013? 

Mr. DREHER. That we have seized? 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Yes. 

Mr. DREHER. Well, in the one case we have been talking about 

it was one ton of African ivory, new ivory. There was a seizure of 

two tons at JFK Airport in 2012. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. How many elephants is that? 

And can you take a guess of how many elephants are being killed 

just for that, not for any other reason, but for the ivory? 

Mr. DREHER. We are converting kilograms into pounds. I am 

sorry. We can get back to you with an answer for that, but the 

tusks can weigh 100 pounds or 80 pounds. So you have some sense 

42 

that there were a large number of individual elephants that had 

to have been killed in order to supply three tons. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Right. OK. Thank you for that. 

Now, is there some kind of compromise here? You know, listening to both sides, and by the way, I come from a State where they 

hunt and they fish. I live in New Hampshire, and it does not mean 

that you do or you do not. That does not make any statement about 

what kind of person you are, about whether you care about the environment or do not care about the environment. I am not really 

sure where that questioning was going, but let me just say that I 

cannot understand why we cannot find something that helps, and 

what would help your government to continue promoting conservation and still be able to protect your elephant population? 

I cannot understand why it is like either/or when you are talking 

to us about your country and your situation in Zimbabwe. Why is 

it either/or? Either they have to hunt at a high level and we have 

to just stay out of it or from what you said everything will just fall 

apart, that the land will be taken, that the elephants will be killed, 

that there will be more mayhem. 

I was not really following your argument. 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. OK, ma’am. My point was ZimParks does not 

rely on the government for funding, and it has to generate its income from sustainable conservation efforts. We have limited donor 

support, and this is from our wildlife. We believe that wildlife 

should pay for itself. 

And from that, that is where we are looking at that. It should. 

The revenue that we want to generate that protects the wildlife 

comes from the wildlife itself. That is the principle. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. But it seems to me that if you are experiencing this great loss and this is a treasure for your country and 

that you will actually—do you want me to do another round? 

Dr. FLEMING. Unfortunately we have another large panel and 

then we have a vote in about an hour. So unfortunately, we will 

just have to submit questions for the record. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. OK, and could I please have the answers to 

the questions that I asked? 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. Those will be answered. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. Thank you. I will look forward to 

seeing them. 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. Yes. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. McAllister, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCALLISTER. Thanks, Chairman. 

First let me just say that I and all of this panel believe that we 

should protect the elephants. No one wants to see them become endangered and not be able to enjoy God’s creation that we all watch 

wildlife shows, go on safaris and all that. 

But when it comes to the question she just asked about the middle ground, I believe you just said it. The efforts are working. You 

said the elephant population is on the rise in Zimbabwe; is that 

correct? 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. That is correct. 

43 

Mr. MCALLISTER. So I mean, it seems like it is working. So here 

is the issue I have, and I want to hear from Mr. Dreher on it. 

A few things: one, back in 1978, the amendment to the 

Endangered Species Act clearly established an exemption for the 

import and export and sale of antique items that are at least 100 

years of age. In fact, a former Congressman from my State, David 

Treen, stated, ‘‘My proposal was adopted in Committee by voice 

vote. All the witnesses at the hearing supported the concept of exempting antiques since the purpose of the Act is to protect living 

species rather than those that lived 150 years ago.’’ 

So here is my question: are you not trying to rewrite the statute 

and congressional history? 

Mr. DREHER. Congressman, no, not at all. We have, in fact, recently just clarified the way in which we will interpret and enforce 

the antiques exception. We certainly fully recognize the importance 

of that exception to the congressional intent behind the Act. 

So there was no restriction here under the ESA that will affect 

legitimate antiques that meet the statutory definition. 

Congress also passed the African Elephant Conservation Act, and 

that imposed an absolute moratorium on the import of African 

ivory without regard to age, absolute moratorium on the import of 

African ivory. We are administering that in as flexible a way as we 

can to recognize legitimate needs, such as those of householders 

who are bringing in goods as part of their household, musical instruments, orchestras, traveling exhibitions. 

But it is Congress in that Act which has banned all imports 

without regard to age. Now, we—— 

Mr. MCALLISTER. But you are putting the proof upon us as the 

citizens to prove it is an antique or not. 

Mr. DREHER. Well, quite frankly, the proof, the burden is on us 

as citizens to prove our ownership of property in many circumstances, to prove that our claims of exemptions from income 

taxes. I mean, it is not unusual that we would expect someone 

claiming the benefit of an exemption to prove lawful possession of 

an item that is claimed to be exempt. 

Mr. MCALLISTER. Correct. Well, I just do not understand why are 

we not spending more efforts on going after the poachers, going 

after the criminal trafficking syndicates, the terrorist organizations 

instead of trying to go after the import and export of antiques. 

I have a few pictures here that kind of explains what you are 

going after and what it is going to do, and I got these off of 

Sotheby’s Web site, and I will give them to the Chairman. It just 

shows what little bit of ivory is in some of these antiques that are 

being sold, and these are just your everyday antiques. I mean, we 

are talking a minimal amount of ivory. 

So let me explain what my opinion, what this is going to do. 

What you are trying to do is take countries like Zimbabwe and all 

and take the ability to govern themselves, the ability to conserve 

their animals out of their hands, and what you are going to do is 

you are going to create a black market now to where more new 

ivory is being poached to create more antiques like this because the 

black market sells more than legal markets ever sell. 

I think we should be going after those who are violating the 

laws. I agree with Congressman DeFazio. That punishment is not 

44 

severe enough for those who are poaching ivory. I think there 

ought to be another statute on top of it that says whenever you try 

to imitate an antique there is even a more harsh punishment to go 

along with the poaching. 

I believe there is common ground that we can find, and as to 

allow countries that are increasing their elephant habitats, but yet 

also make sure that we are making people pay the price for doing 

and make sure that we go after these terrorist organizations that 

are just slaughtering elephants and that is by assisting these countries with it. 

I do not believe in penalizing people that truly are doing justice 

and being honest and making life harder on them to live in this 

country and to do just what they enjoy, whether it be bird watching 

or antique collecting. That is not what our role is to do, to make 

life harder on them. 

Our goal is to protect the animals and support other countries 

in their ability to protect, and I will let you answer that, but I appreciate you taking the time to come today and testifying for us. 

Mr. DREHER. Thank you, Congressman. 

And I certainly agree with the fact that we need to address all 

of those things. We cannot address this wildlife trafficking crisis 

without engagement with the range countries overseas, without 

trying to reduce consumer demand and also without trying to build 

partnerships with foreign countries and partnerships with interests 

and stakeholders like the sport hunting community. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has a very good relationship with 

the sport hunting community in this country and cherishes that. 

We have shared conservation goals for decades, since the foundation of the Service. 

Dr. FLEMING. I am sorry. We are going to have to keep moving 

on if we are going to hear from other witnesses. 

Mr. Southerland, 5 minutes. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I do not even know where to start really. I am astonished. Mr. 

Dreher, I am going to direct my comments first to you. 

I am amazed. I notice here that you had spent time in the 

Justice Department before you came to the Wildlife Service. I am 

rather astonished by your belief that it should be the burden of 

proof by the American citizens to prove something that is perhaps 

in many cases unprovable. You know, I hope that is not a philosophy that you gained while in the Justice Department. That is terrifying to think that that might be a contagious thought process 

there. But we certainly are seeing evidence that that might be germinating in other areas throughout the Justice Department. 

I am blown away by people’s assertion here that you’ve got it all 

figured out when it comes to our species. We know the red snapper 

in the Gulf of Mexico that are being destroyed by the thousands by 

artificial reefs being removed from the oil rigs, idle iron, and really 

these efforts, this government could care less about the fish because they just want to make sure that humans cannot pick up 

those fish once they have been destroyed. It has nothing to do with 

the fish. 

I am curious though as to what I am hearing. We talk about 

Kenya and Zimbabwe and what is going on, and, sir, I know you 

45 

are here. You came a long way obviously to testify. I am most interested by your comments that your elephant population through 

the systems you have in place is on the rise, and I just want to 

make sure that that is stated because I think some on the other 

side of the aisle just were hoping and praying you would say that 

your elephant population is on the decrease. But yours are, in fact, 

on the increase, correct? 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. They are on the increase. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I find it interesting that Kenya outlawed 

hunting in 1973, and yet their herds are absolutely just the opposite of yours. They are continuing to decline, and Kenya cannot 

even protect a 50-year-old bull from being slaughtered very, very 

recently. 

Tell us, sir. You came over here to testify today. You know, we 

have already had Mr. Dreher admit that the Wildlife Service did 

not alert your government prior to suspending the importation of 

sport hunted elephant trophies from those countries. 

Does it irritate you or do you find it bothersome that our government, who seems to be swimming outside of its lanes here, did not 

even communicate with you? 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. Very much so, sir. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Very much so. 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. Yes. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. OK. Could you expound on that? I mean, do 

you feel like we are being a little meddling into something that is 

pushed rather by ideology rather than good conservation practices? 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. Indeed, we base our efforts or whatever we 

do on scientific evidence, and if it had that scientific evidence to 

substantiate, at least it would make sense. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Right. So you’re saying that absolutely to my 

question and that you need good scientific data, and it needs to 

make sense. I know some people cannot perhaps hear your answers, and I want to make sure that I help get your good common 

sense message out because I can tell you in this room on a weekly 

basis we see insanity here, insanity. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. OK? We do. We do. And so we keep talking 

about good data. There are people on the other side that could care 

less about good data. I can tell you we certainly are not using good 

data in the Gulf, and we are making sure that we do not have good 

data because we do not want to see what that data proves because 

then we would have to make common sense, self-evident practices 

that would be good for freedom as well as good for the stock we 

claim to care about. 

Is there any reason imaginable why the Service did not reach out 

to you? Can you imagine any good reason why they did not do so 

and give you that professional courtesy? 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. No. We actually fail to understand why that 

happened. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. You fail to understand that. 

Well, Mr. Dreher, with the time we have remaining, can you 

address—— 

Mr. DREHER. I would be very happy to. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND [continuing]. Why he fails to understand? 

46 

Mr. DREHER. I would be very happy to. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. You all have been rude really. 

Mr. DREHER. We asked for information in 2007, and we have—— 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. You asked for information. 

Mr. DREHER. Yes, and we have been in contact with them every 

year since at international—— 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. And contact, did that contact—— 

Mr. DREHER. Personal, face-to-face contact. There is no question—— 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Right. 

Mr. DREHER [continuing]. That they understand we had concerns 

about their program. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Can you provide that proof to us? 

Mr. DREHER. I can and I will be happy to. Let me also say that 

we acted based on International Union of Conservation of Nature 

data showing that the population of elephants in this country may 

have dropped by as much as 50 percent—— 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Right. And I hope that organization—— 

Mr. DREHER. So we have very different—— 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Reclaiming my time, sir, I hope that I do not 

have—I hope they do not share your beliefs that the American 

people or anybody in this world must prove by documentation 

something that they inherited maybe from a grandfather or great 

grandfather. What a dangerous, dangerous belief you have, sir. 

I yield back. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman’s time is depleted. 

Mr. Daines, you are recognized. 

Mr. DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So I represent the State of Montana, and I can tell you, lawfully 

owning firearms is a very important part of our heritage, including 

many which would contain pre-ban ivory. The Director’s order, as 

best we can tell, though well intended was issued without consideration of law abiding citizens who trade, sell, or own firearms containing elephant ivory or enthusiasts for the music and arts who 

use their ivory containing instruments to enrich many people’s 

lives. 

I think we are all in violent agreement here today that we want 

to make sure we stop poaching and protect the African and Asian 

elephants. Many of us are active sportsmen and women, and as 

Congressman Duncan mentioned, hunting oftentimes is the best 

way to preserve a species, and I think we have seen that example 

certainly from our witness here today. 

But I was made aware recently that the Budapest Orchestra was 

coming into JFK Airport here on June 3. Stefan Englert, the 

Executive Director of the orchestra, said in an interview that the 

ensemble had taken steps to comply with new rules governing 

ivory. The orchestra had documentation for each bow, including 

photographs, letters from the bow makers stating they contained 

no banned ivory. 

But even with this documentation the bows were not allowed to 

be used. My understanding is that one person in the ensemble 

brought two identical bows from the same maker, same materials. 

One was allowed to be used; the other was not. 

47 

In fact, doing a little further research, in April an orchestra came 

from Austria to perform at Carnegie Hall, and they were stopped 

from getting their bows through, and it was through the intervention of the officials of the Carnegie Hall that at the last minute got 

the bows through because they were going to cancel the concerts 

because of the harassment they were receiving here in trying to get 

the documentation, which they all had, through the system. 

Given the limited resources of Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

enormous, enormous poaching problem in Africa, is confiscating 

bows from the Budapest Orchestra really the best use of taxpayer 

dollars? Mr. Dreher. 

Mr. DREHER. First, I think for what it is worth, my understanding is that the issue of importation of artifacts, musical instruments that contain CITES listed material is one that has been 

with us for a long time. I mean, the incidents you described would 

have occurred exactly the same way last year or the year before 

had they attempted to enter the country with musical instruments 

that did not have proper CITES documentation. 

Mr. DAINES. They are referencing, by the way, they are referencing the May 12 edict that came out in the Federal Register 

Notice was the issue here coming through JFK. 

Mr. DREHER. My understanding is that this was an issue of 

CITES documentation, and sort of the unhappy truth is, and we 

are trying very hard to be sensitive to the legitimate interest of 

musicians, the legitimate interest of orchestras and of traveling exhibitions. That is, in fact, why we have created exceptions to what 

otherwise would be the implementation of an absolute ban on the 

import of ivory under the congressional act to reflect that, but they 

still need to provide adequate documentation for CITES, and that 

has always been an issue in terms of importing material into the 

country. There is going to be a check to see whether they have 

that. 

We are working continually with the interested stakeholders that 

you have mentioned to try to figure out ways that we can respect 

their genuine needs to be able to perform with and import into the 

country for performance purposes instruments that may contain 

ivory or other CITES material. 

Mr. DAINES. Right. 

Mr. DREHER. And we will continue to work with them. 

Mr. DAINES. And we have two examples in the last 90 days, one 

in April and one in the first week of June, where renowned orchestras with what they thought was all the proper documentation 

were stopped, nearly canceled the concert at Carnegie Hall, and 

through a diving catch here with the Budapest Orchestra they 

were able to get through. 

But I think this is an example of the concerns we have of the 

regulations. They just do not have common sense. They are going 

to stop law abiding men and women, American citizens and citizens 

coming in perhaps in the performing arts. 

The challenge is here of wanting to move forward here in a common sense fashion. These regulations, I think, seem a bit arbitrary 

and difficult to follow and are not going to ultimately get to the 

bottom of this, which is, we are trying to protect and save these 

African elephants. 

48 

Mr. DREHER. I understand your concern, and I understand the 

concern about what the highest priority should be. It certainly is 

not our highest priority to do this, but we are nonetheless responsible and the Border and Customs Patrol people are responsible for 

monitoring imports into the country. 

I do think the underlying issue that we need to grapple with is 

that it is precisely the trade in these artifacts, artifacts made of 

wildlife that is killing wildlife, and there are circumstances as you 

said where sport harvest of wildlife is an essential part of a wellmanaged conservation program, and we recognize that and work 

closely with folks all the time. 

There are other circumstances where the marketing of artifacts 

made of endangered species drives them toward extinction, which 

is why the general rule under the Endangered Species Act is there 

cannot be any trade in endangered species. 

Mr. DAINES. Just the concern we have, and I will conclude my 

questioning here, is just that you have law abiding musicians and 

so forth here that are caught right now by these regulations that 

are wreaking havoc on law-abiding citizens and not really getting 

to the core issue here, which is how do we stop the poaching and 

the killing here of these African elephants illegally. 

Thank you. 

Dr. FLEMING. That concludes the first panel, but before I release 

the first panel I want to take a moment of the Chairman’s privilege 

here for a couple of reasons. 

First of all, Mr. Tendaupenyu, you have come a long way, and 

I want to be sure that you have a last word with us here today because I think what you have to say is very important. 

But I want to frame the issue carefully for everyone. There is not 

a single person on this dais, in this Congress, I suspect, or in this 

room that wants anything but the sustainability of our elephant 

population. There is no one here. I mean, we all basically want the 

same outcome. 

Where we differ is in how we apply certain rules and principles 

and we receive that outcome. But we have two problems, really two 

issues. 

Number one is the fact that many people have ivory, ivory musical instruments, ivory art, other forms of ivory that are very old. 

It is simply impossible to have the documentation necessary. This 

is not the same as the IRS. When you incur an expense, you have 

a paper trail, and you know that that is going to be a deductible 

expense. This is not the same thing. It is not equivalent, and it is 

inappropriate, in fact, I think unconstitutional to require someone 

to be guilty until proven innocent. And so that is something we 

have to deal with in an outright ban. 

The other part of this is, and I want to make sure everyone here 

is clear on it, the money that is necessary in Zimbabwe to protect 

the elephants comes from the hunters themselves. When the hunters leave, the elephants die. The elephants die why? Number one, 

if a herd grows, it runs out of sustainability. It does not have the 

habitat. So some are going to starve. Some are going to go through 

a painful death. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, we have another panel, and—— 

Dr. FLEMING. I understand that. 

49 

Mr. LOWENTHAL [continuing]. And we are never going to get to 

it. 

Dr. FLEMING. But I want to be sure that this gentleman, and as 

Chairman it is my privilege to do this, and so in terms of 

Zimbabwe and the protection of the elephants, what has been 

working and increasing the herd has been simply allowing hunters 

to take a certain number of trophies and then also allowing for 

growth of that herd and then last, of course, the fact that they protect against the poachers. 

So I want to give you the opportunity to kind of encapsulate that 

and make sure we understand the issue when it comes to 

Zimbabwe. 

Mr. TENDAUPENYU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think in my closing statement I said it exactly as it is. We are 

saying that the proceeds from hunting actually contribute toward 

the conservation efforts. It also incentivizes the elephants toward 

the communities, and once this aspect is removed, people will no 

longer treasure these and, hence, it will lead to increased poaching 

because less money goes to conservation, less protection, and this 

will result in the decimation of our wildlife populations. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank you for that, sir, and as a result we are 

not going to have time for a second round. We would love to have 

one. So we will ask you to step down and we will ask the next 

panel to step up, and we will hear more testimony on this important issue. 

OK. As our panel moves into place, I want to go ahead and begin 

introductions because we are limited in time. 

First we have today Mr. Ian Somerhalder, President of the Ian 

Somerhalder Foundation; The Honorable David J. Hayes, Vice 

Chair, Federal Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking; The Honorable Jack Fields of Texas; Ms. Arian M. Sheets, Curator of 

Stringed Instruments, National Music Museum; Mr. Matthew 

Quinn, Quinn’s Auction Galleries; and Air Force veteran Captain 

Scott O’Grady. 

Your written testimony will appear in full in the hearing record. 

So I ask that you keep your oral statements to 5 minutes as outlined in our invitation letter to you under Committee Rule 4(a). 

I think you have heard the instructions on the microphone. So 

we will not go forward with that and dispense with it. 

So, Mr. Somerhalder, welcome to the subcommittee, and you are 

now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF IAN SOMERHALDER, PRESIDENT, IAN 

SOMERHALDER FOUNDATION 

Mr. SOMERHALDER. Thank you, Chairman, and good afternoon, 

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Lowenthal, and members of 

the subcommittee. 

My name is Ian Somerhalder. I am an actor and President of the 

Ian Somerhalder Foundation, which is a not-for-profit organization 

that is dedicated to empowering, collaborating and educating with 

people to help them collaborate and impact the planet positively 

and its creatures. 

I am grateful to say that I was also just named United Nations 

Goodwill Ambassador to their Environmental Programs. 

50 

I would like to thank the subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to speak here today, and I would like to especially thank 

Chairman Fleming, who represents my home State of Louisiana. So 

thank you, sir. 

I am honored to be here, able to speak today to the need for redoubled efforts to protect rapidly declining populations of African 

elephants. I appreciate and admire the work of the Wildlife 

Conservation Society, which continues to identify opportunities for 

me to have an impact on U.S. Government conservation actions. 

Some of you might remember my last testimony from 3 years ago 

when I first had the honor of addressing this subcommittee in support of Multinational Species Conservation Funds, MSCF. These 

funds play a critical role in saving wildlife populations from many 

of the world’s most iconic species, including the African elephants, 

which are the topic of our hearings today, by supporting programs 

that control poaching, reduce human wildlife conflict and protect 

essential habitats. 

The MSCF are due for reauthorization, and I encourage the subcommittee to take up the bipartisan bills to extend these important 

programs. I would also urge the subcommittee to extend the MSCF 

semi-postal stamp enabling the public and empowering them to 

provide funding for anti-poaching activities. 

So as you all know, I am not a policy expert or a park ranger. 

I have been fortunate to have success as a—well, some success as 

an actor, and with that comes what I see as a privilege. 

Dr. FLEMING. You are too humble. 

Mr. SOMERHALDER. But I see it as a privilege ultimately to be 

able to raise awareness about issues that I am passionate about 

that need to be raised. 

So in my previous testimony I called attention to several global 

priority species, but today the plight of the elephant demands our 

undivided attention. There is really no word you can use to describe the situation of elephants in the wild today. They are simply 

in crisis. 

Quite frankly, there is no way to even overstate how catastrophic 

the last few years have been for these elephants because now they 

are under threat as they have never been before by agents of 

transnational crime rings and terror organizations who are mutilating helpless animals and murdering park rangers on a scale not 

seen since the international ivory ban went into effect. 

The most current studies done by the Wildlife Conservation 

Society show that in 2012 alone poachers killed approximately 

35,000 African elephants for their tusks, and Central Africa has 

lost more than half of their elephants in the last decade. 

So at this rate the African forest elephants will be extinct in 10 

years, and the East African Savannah elephants will be right behind them. 

So what will the world look like without elephants? I mean, I 

think the question that we should ask ourselves is: how can we actually justify allowing this species, which is considered as intelligent as dolphins and great apes, to go extinct? 

The situation is dire. Kenya Wildlife Service park rangers describe the efforts against poachers as a war that they are losing, 

and also let me add that there is growing evidence that organizaVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:10 Apr 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\02 FISHERIES, WILDLIFE\02JU24 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88502.TXT DARLEN
51 

tions like the Lord’s Resistance Army and al-Shabaab fund terrorist attacks, recruitment efforts, guns and explosives with the 

proceeds of illegal ivory sales. 

There is a silver lining, however. There is ample evidence that 

conservation efforts have a significant positive deterrent effect 

when protective forces are adequately staffed, trained and armed. 

The number of forest elephants, the most threatened subspecies, 

are seven times higher when they are protected. 

The support of the U.S. governmental agencies, governmental 

agencies like Fish and Wildlife Service and USAID, play an essential role in supporting conservation forces internationally. Sadly, 

the United States is also an important market for wildlife products. 

In 1988, this Congress led the world by banning the commercial 

ivory trade, and it is time for us to take on the mantle of leadership once again. Continued vigilance by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service is critically important and also lets the international community know that we are serious, 100 percent serious about eliminating demand for illicit ivory products. 

This is an issue I know that the American public deeply cares 

about because when I talk about this on social media, the retweets 

and favorites on Twitter number in the tens of thousands, and on 

Facebook hundreds and hundreds of thousands. So we know that 

this is important to the people. 

The outpouring of emotion is strong, and the message is clear. 

We, the people, look to you to enforce tough laws and build global 

partnerships to address wildlife crimes. As Jacques Cousteau said, 

we protect what we love. So on behalf of the Ian Somerhalder 

Foundation, I urge the subcommittee to work with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the Administration to quickly move ahead 

on tightening the ban on commercial ivory trade so that the United 

States can once again show its leadership in saving the African elephant. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

any and all of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Somerhalder follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF IAN SOMERHALDER, PRESIDENT, IAN SOMERHALDER

FOUNDATION

Good morning Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and members of the 

subcommittee. I am Ian Somerhalder, an actor and founder of the Ian Somerhalder 

Foundation, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to empowering, educating, and 

collaborating with people to help them positively impact the planet and its creatures. I was also recently named a United Nations Goodwill Ambassador for their 

environmental programs. 

I would like to thank the subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to speak 

here today and I’d like to especially thank Chairman Fleming, who represents my 

home State of Louisiana. I am honored to be able to speak to the need for redoubled 

efforts to protect rapidly declining populations of African elephants, wild habitats 

and wildlife. I appreciate and admire the field-based and policy work of Wildlife 

Conservation Society who continues to identify opportunities for me to have an impact on U.S. Government conservation actions. 

Some of you might remember my testimony from 3 years ago, when I first had 

the honor of addressing this subcommittee in support of the Multinational Species 

Conservation Funds (MSCF). These funds play a critical role in saving wild populations of many of the world’s most iconic species, including the African elephants 

that are the subject of today’s hearing, by supporting programs that control poaching, reduce human-wildlife conflict, and protect essential habitat. The MSCF are 

due for reauthorization, and I encourage the subcommittee to take up the bipartisan 

52 

1 Berganas, J. (2014) Killing Animals, Buying Arms: Setting the Stage for Collaborative Solutions to Poaching and Wildlife Crime. Washington, DC: The Stimson Center. http:// 

www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/killing_animals_buying_arms_WEB.pdf. 2Douglas-Hamilton, I. (2012) Ivory and Insecurity: The Global Implications of Poaching in 

Africa. Washington, DC: Hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate. 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

bills to extend these important programs—H.R. 39 and H.R. 1329, offered by Mr. 

Young and Mr. Pierluisi, two highly respected members of this subcommittee, and 

H.R. 1328, offered by Congressman George Miller. I would also urge the subcommittee to pass H.R. 262, which would extend the MSCF Semipostal Stamp, enabling the general public to continue to voluntarily provide funding for anti-poaching 

activities through purchases of the stamp. 

As you all know, I’m not a policy expert or a park ranger. I come here today as 

a grateful amplifier representing a vast, global, interwoven tapestry of voices deeply 

invested in the future of our environment and its creatures. Because of our united 

and unending reverence for all vessels of life, the threat of ongoing habitat destruction and wildlife poaching is painfully all too real to us. I spent my childhood entangled with the raw, majestic ecosystem of rural Louisiana. From a very young age, 

my family instilled in me our obligation to protect this delicate balance. Even beyond that, they illuminated how there was no distinction between the ecosystem and 

myself. What I had perceived as ‘‘outside’’ was also inside. When the Gulf Oil Spill 

devastated the bayous I know as home, I became aware of just how true this really 

is. Refusing to surrender to a harrowing sense of vulnerability, I united with an 

international span of changemakers ready to heal and restore the planet and its 

creatures. These changemakers are the IS Foundation family. Armed with compassion and equipped with a vast array of actionable skills, we knew our interdependent collaboration was necessary to reconcile both the environment we see as 

external as well as within. This understanding of our environment’s ultimately borderless and symbiotic nature is pivotal to the work of ISF today. 

I’m grateful and fortunate to have achieved success as an actor, and with that 

comes what I see as the privilege of being able to raise awareness about issues I 

am passionate about. As the founder of the Ian Somerhalder Foundation, I have 

committed my time and financial resources to advancing environmental causes, land 

and wildlife conservation, animal welfare and the empowerment of our youth. In my 

work with oceans, I came across a quotation that rings particularly true to me by 

the legendary explorer and documentary filmmaker Jacques Cousteau, who said, 

‘‘People protect what they love.’’ It is with that mindset that I am motivated to 

share my love and knowledge of the natural world with the American public and 

with all of you here today. 

In my previous testimony, I called attention to several global priority species, including tigers, rhinoceroses, marine turtles, and the great apes. Today, I’d like to 

focus on the plight of elephants, both in Asia and Africa. 

There’s really only one word that can describe the situation of elephants in the 

wild today; they are in crisis. The characteristics that make elephants so iconic 

around the world—their beauty, majesty, and power—are precisely what make them 

so desirable to poachers. Quite frankly, there’s no way to overstate how catastrophic 

the last few years have been for elephants. They are now under threat as never before by agents of transnational crime rings and terrorist organizations, who are mutilating helpless animals and murdering park rangers at a scale not seen since the 

international ivory ban went into effect. 

For these criminals, the black market in illegal ivory is no different than that of 

drugs, weapons, and counterfeit goods—it’s just more lucrative. Today, numerous research organizations and nonprofits report that the illegal wildlife trade is the 

fourth largest in the world, more sizable than the trafficking of small arms, diamonds, gold, and oil. In a study 1 released by the Stimson Center in January of this 

year, illegal wildlife trafficking was estimated to be worth $19 billion. The same 

study reported that rhino horn (which is considered analogous to elephant tusks) 

is now worth about $50,000 per pound, more than gold or platinum. 

As a rule of thumb, wildlife is most vulnerable in regions where the rule of law 

is weakest. Therefore, it stands to reason that Dr. Iain Douglas-Hamilton,2 Founder 

of Save the Elephants, testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

that Central Africa has been the most severely impacted by the dramatic increase 

in elephant poaching, losing more than half of its elephants in the last decade. The 

most current studies done by the Wildlife Conservation Society show that in 2012 

alone, poachers killed approximately 35,000 African elephants for their tusks. At 

53 

3The Elephant Poaching Crisis: A Call for Action. Washington, DC: The Wildlife Conservation 

Society. 4Douglas-Hamilton, I. Ibid. 5Douglas-Hamilton, I. Ibid. 6 Elephants in the Dust: The African Elephant Crisis. United Nations Environment 

Programme, et al. http://www.unep.org/pdf/RRAivory_draft7.pdf. 

this rate, African forest elephants will be extinct in another 10 years, and East 

Africa’s savannah elephants will be right behind them. 

When we see an elephant, we are inspired with a special sort of wonder and reverence. They are truly amazing animals. Elephants live in close-knit families and 

can only be separated by death or by capture. When an elephant dies, it is mourned 

and buried by other members of the tribe. They are the only mammals besides 

humans that are known to have rituals for death. Elephants have been observed 

responding to the distress of other humans and animals by protecting them or intervening in harmful situations. The saying, ‘‘An elephant never forgets,’’ has been 

backed up by neuroscience, which has identified neural structures similar to dolphins, humans, and the great apes. Elephants use tools, exhibit self-awareness, engage in collaborative problem-solving and an especially talented elephant named 

Shanthi here at the National Zoo in DC can even play the harmonica and horn instruments. 

What will the world look like without elephants? How can we ever justify allowing 

this species, which is considered to be as intelligent as dolphins and the great apes, 

to become extinct? 

The situation is dire. The aforementioned Stimson Center report, Killing Animals, 

Buying Arms, cites Kenya Wildlife Service park rangers as describing their efforts 

against poachers as a war that they are losing. There is growing evidence that organizations like the Lord’s Resistance Army and al-Shabaab fund terrorist attacks, recruitment efforts, guns and explosives with the proceeds of illegal ivory sales. 

Decades of war and instability in Central Africa have created a power vacuum in 

which these actors are free to do more or less whatever they want, from poaching 

to illegal mining to enlisting child soldiers to trafficking in sex slaves. 

There is no reason for us to give up hope. The desperation and greed driving 

elephant poaching and illegal ivory sales can be reversed. There is ample evidence 

that funding conservation efforts has a significant and positive impact in protecting 

wildlife and the humans tasked with guarding them. Research by the Wildlife 

Conservation Society shows that forest elephant densities, the most threatened subspecies found in Central Africa, are seven times higher where they are protected.3

Iain Douglas-Hamilton, who I mentioned earlier, also described the slaughter of elephants and other endangered wildlife as largely opportunistic, with poachers 

‘‘target[ing] the softest populations . . . mov[ing] from one population to another.’’ 4

Clearly, protective forces act as a deterrent when adequately staffed, trained, and 

armed. The support of U.S. governmental agencies like the Fish and Wildlife Service 

through the Multinational Species Conservation Funds and U.S. Agency for 

International Development play an absolutely essential role in supporting conservation forces internationally, from assisting in training eco-guards and supporting 

prosecutions to bolstering surveillance of key border crossings and investigating financial assets and much, much more. 

There is also reason to hope that we can have an impact on reducing the demand 

for ivory and other endangered species products as well. All the research by governmental and non-profit organizations indicates that most illegal ivory is sold to the 

Chinese market. Far from being dispassionate to the plight of elephants, however, 

the Chinese government strictly protects its own forest elephants.5 What this would 

suggest to me is that there’s a fundamental lack of understanding about the connection between the large-scale poaching of elephants (and rhinoceroses, for that matter), and the presence of ivory in the form of trinkets and potions for commercial 

sale. I see this as a personal challenge to raise awareness about the incredible costs 

of wildlife trafficking, and I hope that U.S. diplomacy will continue to work toward 

that goal as well. 

Although China may be the biggest market, the United States is also one of the 

largest, ranking as high as number two worldwide in some assessments.6 This gives 

the United States the opportunity to lead the international community’s response 

to the elephant poaching crisis—much as it did when this Congress passed the initial U.S. ban on the commercial ivory trade in 1988. Just a year after passage of 

that important legislation, the international community agreed to a similar ban on 

the global trade in ivory. The actions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to tighten 

the U.S. ban on the commercial trade in ivory are critically important, not just to 

ensure that the United States will no longer be a destination for illegal ivory, but 

54 

7Orangutans. WWF International. http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/ 

great_apes/orangutans/. 8Great Apes. WWF International. http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/ 

great_apes/. 9 Robinson, J.G., (2011) Legislative Hearing on H.R. 50, H.R. 1760, and H.R. 1761. 

Washington, DC: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular 

Affairs. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

to show the international community—and China in particular—that the United 

States is absolutely serious about confronting the mass poaching of elephants and 

is willing to assume the leadership role once again to shutdown the demand for illicit ivory products. 

If we do not lead, who will? And if we do not lead now, how much longer will 

there still be elephants left to save? When I reach out to my followers on social 

media about elephant poaching and wildlife trafficking, the response is powerful and 

positive. Retweets and favorites on Twitter number in the thousands, and the response on Facebook is in the hundreds of thousands. The outpouring of emotion is 

strong, and the message is clear: the American people want decisive and meaningful 

action from their government. It’s up to you to enforce tough laws and build global 

partnerships to promote global enforcement to address wildlife crimes. 

Although I understand that the focus of this hearing is on the elephant poaching 

crisis and the ban on commercial trade in ivory, I’d like to take a moment to talk 

about a related topic that is under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee that affects 

all wildlife, and that is the vital importance of protecting wild habitats, both at 

home and abroad. 

Since I last testified before this subcommittee, I’ve had the opportunity to travel 

to parts of the world that are under mounting pressure from environmental and 

human threats. In particular, I’ve spent significant time over the last year in Africa, 

where desertification, agriculture, and urbanization have all played a role in displacing crucial grassland and forest landscapes that are the home to thousands of 

species, large and small. 

There are many strategies for pursuing land conservation. Some organizations 

focus on protecting land- and seascapes with the greatest density of biodiversity, 

which include tropical rainforests, coral reefs, floodplains, and more. Other organizations focus on managing land- and seascapes that are the most productive in 

terms of agricultural and fishing output or mineral and timber resources. Regardless of the approach, strong governance structures are fundamental to protecting 

habitats and pursuing smart and sustainable land use management policies. 

The plight of Great Ape species worldwide illustrates the importance of maintaining wild habitats. In Sumatra and Borneo, the orangutan is considered critically endangered due in large part to the decimation of tropical forests for logging and agricultural interests, both legal and illegal.7 Their native habitat is increasingly 

fragmented by human activity, which results in an orangutan population that is at 

the same time more disparate and more concentrated. Consequently, unusual disruptions like disease, resource scarcity, or fire have an outsize impact on an already 

vulnerable population, making them unable to rebound from adversity. The splintering of a once-large population due to fragmentation also poses serious problems 

in maintaining genetic diversity, which is necessary for the species to remain strong 

and vital. Orangutans are not alone in this plight—gorillas, chimpanzees, and 

bonobos are similarly threatened by habitat disruption.8

As a nation, the United States also has an interest in promoting the political and 

economic stability of other countries throughout the world. Habitat conservation 

must take place in partnership with economic development, not at odds with it. 

Coastal communities will only become more vibrant and prosperous with clean 

water, unpolluted beaches, and carefully managed fisheries. At times, conservation 

programs are even synonymous with economic revitalization. As Dr. John Robinson, 

Executive Vice President of Conservation and Science at the Wildlife Conservation 

Society, who testified alongside me in 2011,9 said, ‘‘Strengthening the Virunga 

National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo provided jobs for hundreds of 

rangers during that nation’s long civil war. These rangers both protected mountain 

gorillas and their habitat and helped control illegal logging and charcoal manufacturing that provided revenues to the insurgencies.’’ The illegal exploitation and 

trade in wildlife and natural resources that fuels regional conflict and funds militias 

must be stopped by global enforcement efforts and proactive large landscape-level 

conservation. 

Let me raise one more reason for taking a strong stance on protecting endangered 

habitats throughout the world. I, like so many people, have become the person I am 

today in relation to the natural world. Growing up in Louisiana left an indelible imVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:10 Apr 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\02 FISHERIES, WILDLIFE\02JU24 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88502.TXT DARLEN
55 

print on who I am as a person. I would venture to guess that it’s the same for many 

of the distinguished members of this subcommittee and their constituents, coming 

from such incredible natural landscapes as those seen in the Mariana Islands, 

Alaska, Guam, Puerto Rico, and each of your districts. It is my belief that we have 

a sacred responsibility to be stewards of the Earth, and especially of those regions 

whose survival hangs in such a delicate balance. Ultimately, to restore natural prosperity to these regions, we will have to invest in holistic solutions. At the IS 

Foundation, we are often asked why we don’t localize our efforts into one particular 

need. Because we view the environment as one meticulously interconnected organism, we believe interconnected solutions are what truly create widespread and 

quantifiable change. After all, an organization that only focuses on saving endangered species is losing sight of the habitat restoration, waterway health, and economic change necessary to holistically fill that need. 

I would like to add one more issue for consideration, and that is the emotional 

resonance that wildlife and habitat conservation has with the American people. The 

bald eagle, the American Bison and the Grand Canyon are as much icons of our 

great country as the values of liberty and justice for all. In my travels and interactions with people around the world, it has been made more than clear to me that 

animals like elephants, tigers, rhinoceroses, sea turtles, and the Great Apes illuminate the imagination and inspire compassion from all corners of the globe. The 

United States has an incredible opportunity to safeguard the long-term future of endangered species and landscapes while also investing in the political and economic 

stability of foreign nations. 

On behalf of the Ian Somerhalder Foundation, I urge the subcommittee to work 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Administration to quickly move 

ahead on tightening the ban on commercial ivory trade so that the United States 

can once again show its leadership in saving the African elephant. Thank you, 

again, for this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Somerhalder. 

And let me give an advisory here. It looks like our votes will 

probably be more like 5 o’clock, and I know Mr. Somerhalder may 

have an airplane to catch. So you can leave any time you wish, but 

we hope you can stay as long as you will. 

Mr. SOMERHALDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would love to 

stay as long as I can. So hurry up, guys. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. FLEMING. Mr. Hayes, you are recognized, sir, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID J. HAYES, VICE CHAIR, 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking 

Member Lowenthal, and members of the committee. 

My name is David Hayes. I am appearing in my personal capacity. I am currently a visiting professor at Stanford Law School. I 

am also the Vice Chair of the Federal Advisory Council on Wildlife 

Trafficking that the President appointed under his executive order 

from last July, Executive Order 13648, and as you know, I served 

as the Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior until 

last July. 

I would like to put today’s hearing in a bit of context first. It is 

about the crisis that the elephants are facing in Africa, and it 

spiked in the last 5 years. Over the last 5 years, we now have a 

new phenomenon that the intelligence communities of the United 

States have confirmed last year, of organized criminal syndicates 

orchestrating the killing of large numbers of elephants. This is different than in the 1980s when it was more opportunistic killings 

by smaller bands who were trying to essentially fund local conflict. 

56 

This is now considered to be the fifth largest transnational organized criminal syndicate in the world, right behind arms, drugs 

and human trafficking. 

The devastation of the elephants is worrisome enough, as Ian explained. The numbers are alarming: 35,000 elephants killed estimated in 2012, another 20,000 just confirmed last year. At these 

rates, this is on a base of maybe 400,000 elephants for the continent as a whole. This is unsustainable in terms of the number of 

elephants that are being killed. 

But in addition to the impact on the elephants, the connection 

to organized crime and terrorist groups is undermining the integrity of governments in Africa; is clearly funding terrorist groups 

and militias. The alarm was really pulled by then Secretary Hillary 

Clinton who in November of 2012 asked the intelligence agencies 

to look into this issue. 

They reported back about a year later and confirmed the kind of 

tides that we are talking about, and that led to the President 

issuing an executive order July 1 in Tanzania to combat wildlife 

trafficking, and here is what he said. ‘‘Poaching operations have expanded beyond small scale, opportunistic actions to coordinated 

slaughter commissioned by armed and organized criminal syndicates. The survival of protected wildlife species such as elephants, rhinos, great apes, tigers, sharks, tuna and turtles has 

beneficial economic, social and environmental impacts that are important to all nations. Wildlife trafficking reduces those benefits 

while generating billions of dollars in illicit revenues each year, 

contributing to the illegal economy, fueling instability and undermining security.’’ 

What the President did then is a whole of government effort to 

get behind and to solve this true crisis in terms of wildlife trafficking. He formed a cabinet level task force under the executive 

order chaired by Secretary Kerry, Secretary Jewell, and Attorney 

General Holder. He directed them to come up with a national strategy to deal with combatting wildlife trafficking, and he formed the 

Advisory Council that I am the Vice Chair of. 

That led to the national strategy document that came out in 

February of this year. It is a comprehensive document that looks 

to strengthening enforcement on the ground in Africa, also in 

strengthening enforcement in the transshipment of these articles 

from Africa to demand nations, including the United States, but 

especially Asia, and second, reducing demand for this wildlife, illegally traded wildlife, and third, expanding international cooperation and commitment. 

Now, what the Fish and Wildlife Service is doing here is a small 

piece of this comprehensive effort. The piece is directed at tightening up restrictions on commercial trade in ivory. Those commercial restrictions are in the law today. As has been mentioned 

before, the 1988 Elephant Conservation Act makes illegal any import of any African ivory since 1989. 

When CITES came, because of U.S. leadership, CITES then came 

in and confirmed that as a global ban. What has happened in recent years is that ban had deteriorated, and with the last 5 years 

and the increased attention by these criminal syndicates, there is 

57 

now a flood of illegal ivory moving around the world. We need to 

get at it. 

The United States simply needs to tighten up the loopholes and 

prosecute existing legal requirements. That is what this is all 

about. 

I will say finally, the Fish and Wildlife Service clearly can do, I 

think, a somewhat better job in assuring Americans that they are 

not in danger of being prosecuted for owning ivory and for commercially trading ivory when it fits within, for example, the antique exemption of an ESA. My understanding is the Fish and Wildlife 

Service is beginning a public rulemaking within 2 months that will 

provide an opportunity for the public to provide input and to establish appropriate legal standards. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayes follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID J. HAYES, VICE-CHAIR, FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL

ON WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING

My name is David J. Hayes. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs to discuss actions 

that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) is taking to implement restrictions on 

commercial trade in ivory and related issues. 

I am testifying today in my personal capacity. I currently am a Distinguished 

Visiting Lecturer at Law at Stanford Law School. I also am the appointed ViceChair of the Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking, which the President established under Executive Order 13648 (‘‘Combating Wildlife Trafficking’’). As this 

subcommittee is aware, I served as the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department 

of the Interior from the outset of the Obama administration until last July. I also 

served as Deputy Secretary in the Clinton administration. 

THE SCOURGE OF IVORY TRAFFICKING: CONTEXT FOR TODAY’S HEARING

Over the last 5 years, organized criminal syndicates have orchestrated an alarming surge in the killing of tens of thousands of elephants for their ivory. An 

estimated 35,000 elephants were killed for their ivory in Africa in 2012, and preliminary information indicates that at least 20,000 additional elephants were killed in 

2013. 

The devastation of some of Africa’s most iconic animals, including the largest 

mammals who roam the earth, is cause enough for alarm. But behind the local villagers who carry out the killings lie sophisticated criminal syndicates that are reaping billions of dollars in illegal profits, fueling instability and corruption in African 

and Asian nations, and helping arm militias and terrorist groups. The international 

criminal menace—which has expanded its trafficking activities beyond drugs, arms 

and human trafficking into the newly lucrative illegal wildlife trade—poses a direct 

threat to stability and order in important emerging economies and U.S. trading 

partners in Africa and Asia. And these real and present dangers are being fueled 

by demand for ivory—a non-essential luxury item. 

Over the past 2 years, the world has begun to awaken to the double threat posed 

by illegal wildlife traffickers: (1) the cruel killings of tens of thousands of Africa’s 

most iconic animals and the growing tragedy triggered by the mass killings, including the fraying of Africa’s deep cultural, environmental and economic linkage and 

shared identity with its wildlife; and (2) the corrosive influence that massive illegal 

wildlife trafficking is having on important U.S. interests in Africa and Asia, 

spawned by the traffickers’ unholy alliances with militias, terrorist groups and corrupt officials. 

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first drew attention to these emerging 

threats in an important State Department address in November 2012. She triggered 

the U.S. intelligence agencies’ analysis and subsequent confirmation of the ties between the criminal syndicates involved in wildlife trafficking and their connection 

with militia and terrorist groups. Simultaneously, leaders in the U.S. Department 

of the Interior—which oversees African wildlife programs through its Fish & 

Wildlife Service and is the U.S. lead in implementing the international convention 

that restricts trade in endangered species (CITES)—also sounded the alarm within 

the Administration. More specifically, while visiting in Tanzania as Deputy 

58 

Secretary in early 2013 on behalf of FWS’s Africa program, I learned first hand 

about the mass killings of elephants in Africa and resuscitation of the illegal ivory 

trade, and returned to the United States, committed to work with the White House 

and take on the issue. 

A few months later, the President used the opportunity of his visit to Africa to 

make combatting international wildlife trafficking a priority for the Administration. 

See Executive Order 13648 (‘‘Combating Wildlife Trafficking’’) (July 1, 2013). 

Section 1 of the President’s Order speaks clearly and strongly to the threat that the 

international wildlife trafficking scourge poses to U.S. interests. It states: 

‘‘The poaching of protected species and the illegal trade in wildlife and their derivative parts and products (together know as ‘‘wildlife trafficking’’) represent 

an international crisis that continues to escalate. Poaching operations have 

expanded beyond small-scale, opportunistic actions to coordinated 

slaughter commissioned by armed and organized criminal syndicates. 

The survival of protected wildlife species such as elephants, rhinos, 

great apes, tigers, sharks, tuna and turtles has beneficial economic, social and environmental impacts that are important to all nations. 

Wildlife trafficking reduces those benefits while generating billions of 

dollars in illicit revenues each year, contributing to the illegal economy, fueling instability, and undermining security. Also, the prevention 

of trafficking of live animals helps us control the spread of emerging infectious 

diseases. For these reasons, it is in the national interest of the United States 

to combat wildlife trafficking.’’ (Emphasis added.) 

The President took several concrete steps in his Executive Order to give teeth to 

his policy pronouncement, including: (1) the formation of a cabinet-level Presidential 

Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking (Task Force)—chaired by Secretaries Kerry and 

Jewell and Attorney General Holder; (2) a directive that the Task Force develop and 

then implement a National Strategy to Combat Wildlife Trafficking; and (3) the formation of an Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking to assist the Administration 

in developing and implementing the National Strategy. The President’s Executive 

Order also directed the Task Force to explore how best to fold wildlife trafficking 

into the Administration’s previously announced initiative on ‘‘Transnational 

Organized Crime.’’ 

The Task Force and Advisory Council heeded the President’s call and, on 

February 11, 2014, the White House released the National Strategy for Combating 

Wildlife Trafficking. The National Strategy lays out an ambitious agenda, identifying three strategic priorities to guide the U.S. response to the global wildlife trafficking crisis: (1) Strengthen Enforcement; (2) Reduce Demand for Illegally Traded 

Wildlife; and (3) Expand International Cooperation and Commitment. The National 

Strategy then builds out 24 key implementation areas under the three strategic priorities. Adding to the mix, the Advisory Council took action on June 9, 2014 and 

formally endorsed 19 specific recommendations to implement the National Strategy 

and move forward with a comprehensive, multi-front war on wildlife traffickers. 

FWS ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE BAN ON COMMERCIAL TRADE IN IVORY

As noted above, tightening up existing restrictions on commercial trade in ivory 

represents one element of a whole-of-government, multifaceted effort to combat illegal wildlife trafficking. Ending the slaughter, corruption and funding of militias and 

terrorist groups caused by illegal traffickers required attention on all of the three 

strategic priorities identified in the recently released National Strategy document: 

(1) Strengthen Enforcement; (2) Reduce Demand for Illegally Traded Wildlife; and 

(3) Expand International Cooperation and Commitment. 

That said, restrictions in commercial trade in ivory play an important role in the 

overall effort because they focus U.S. and worldwide consumer attention on the devastating impact that ivory sales are having on elephant populations and de-glamorize the purchase of ivory. Restrictions on ivory trade also dramatically shrink the 

legal market for ivory products, thereby unmasking the ‘‘cover’’ that legal or pseudolegal markets now provide for ivory traffickers. Doing so unleashes enforcement efforts in the United States, and worldwide, against the movement and sale of ill-begotten ivory. 

Previous experience validates the important role that restrictions on ivory trade 

can have in striking back at illegal wildlife traffickers. More specifically, in 1989, 

the world community responded to a previous surge in elephant killings in Africa 

by uplisting elephants to Appendix I status under the CITES convention and banning commercial imports and exports of ivory. The 1989 ban had a dramatic impact. 

Ivory markets in the United States and Europe collapsed. With the ban in place, 

59 

poaching rates declined precipitously and elephant populations in Africa stabilized 

at around 600,000 (down from a peak of 1.2 to 1.3 million elephants in the late 

1970s). Elephant populations then remained relatively healthy for nearly 20 years— 

with greatly reduced ivory-related killings—until poaching rates began to escalate 

rapidly again around 2008, accelerating to today’s massive levels of killings, which 

are threatening the continued existence of elephants in the African wild. 

A number of factors have come together since 2008 to trigger the spiking in elephant killings. Two of the most important factors revolve around erosion of the 1989 

ban on commercial trade in ivory. The most striking undermining of the ivory ban 

occurred in 1999 and again in 2008, when CITES allowed sales of national stocks 

of ivory in the hope that adding more legal ivory into the market on a tightly regulated basis would moderate demand, bring down prices, and demonstrate that a regulated ivory market could be successful. 

The experiment was a disaster. The introduction of new, legal ivory undermined 

the worldwide ban on commercial trade in ivory and provided cover for illegal syndicates to dramatically increase elephant killings and sales of illegal ivory. Efforts 

to track and regulate the legal ivory that entered the marketplace in 1999 and 

again in 2008 failed spectacularly, with China, at one point, being unable to account 

for a significant amount of the ivory that it had purchased. 

In addition, the weakening of the ban on ivory trade unfortunately coincided with 

the rapid rise of a newly wealthy middle and upper class in Asia which has fueled 

increased demand for ivory. The potential market is huge, and the run-up in the 

price in ivory with no apparent slowing of demand, indicate that demand for ivory 

is inelastic. So long as ivory is available for sale and viewed as an acceptable purchase, the voracious market will continue to incentivize criminal syndicates to kill 

elephants for their ivory in record numbers—threatening the viability of the species 

in Africa. 

These developments have led experts to agree that elephant killings will continue 

at a high rate unless the United States and other nations double down on the 1989 

ban on commercial trade while, at the same time, launching a sophisticated demand 

reduction strategy. Parties to the CITES convention are taking steps in this direction, demanding that a number of nations that have clearly been violating the 1989 

ban—including China, Vietnam, Kenya and Tanzania, among others—develop action 

plans to clamp down on illegal transport and sale of ivory and rhino horn. CITES’ 

Standing Committee will be reviewing those plans this summer for their sufficiency. 

IMPLEMENTING THE IVORY BAN IN THE UNITED STATES

Here in the United States, the initial success of the 1989 ban on most imports 

of African elephant ivory also has eroded over time. While early messaging of the 

ban prompted many retailers to get out of the ivory business, loopholes and exceptions in U.S. law, along with lax enforcement, allowed some commercial trade to 

continue. The Administration recognized that U.S. leadership in stopping the dramatic increase in wildlife killings depends, in part, on tightening up our own administration of the ban on commercial trade in ivory. That is why the White House 

combined the release of the National Strategy on February 11, 2014, with an announcement that FWS would take administrative actions to more fully implement 

a ban on commercial trade in ivory. 

A key point in this regard is that U.S. law already outlaws virtually all commercial trade in ivory. The cornerstone of U.S. restrictions on ivory trade is the African 

Elephant Conservation Act of 1988, 16 U.S.C. 4201 et seq. (AECA). Section 4223 of 

the AECA makes it unlawful, as general matter, to import raw or worked ivory that 

was illegally exported from an ivory producing country and to import raw or worked 

ivory from a country for which a moratorium is in place under section 4222 of the 

Act. Under regulations that were promulgated under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, no downstream commercial trade is allowed in ivory products 

that were illegally imported. 50 CFR 17.40(e). 

Thus, in accordance with the AECA, when the CITES Appendix-I listing of the 

African elephant went into effect in 1990, it essentially cut off commercial imports 

and exports of elephant ivory here in the United States, in addition to the scores 

of other nations that adhere to CITES requirements. Under an administrative exception to the AECA moratorium, the only commercial ivory imports allowed after 

1989 were ivory products that qualified as ‘‘antiques’’ under the Endangered Species 

Act definition. 16 U.S.C. 1539(h). 

FWS’s recent actions in tightening up the already-in-place restrictions on commercial trade in ivory are modest. 

First, FWS has determined that the exception for antiques under the ESA, which 

allows for commercial trade in ivory that meets the ESA definition of antique, inVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:10 Apr 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\02 FISHERIES, WILDLIFE\02JU24 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88502.TXT DARLEN
60 

cluding that it is more than 100 years old, should not apply to imports that are proscribed under the African Elephant Conservation Act. This is a common sense 

change that closes an importation loophole that has long been at odds with the 

strong import ban that Congress adopted in the AECA. 

Second, when explaining that it will no longer apply an ‘‘antique’’ exception for 

items containing African elephant ivory that are imported for commercial purposes, 

FWS indicated that it intends to clarify the type of documentation that may be used 

to verify the provenance of an item, including the circumstances under which it was 

imported into the United States (for example, verifying that the ivory was legally 

imported into the United States without restrictions), to allow for on-going commercial trade which is allowed under current regulations. FWS will be proceeding with 

this clarification via a public rulemaking process that it reportedly intends to initiate soon. 

In clarifying of the type of verification needed to establish that an ivory product 

can be traded commercially in the U.S. because it qualifies as ‘‘antique’’ ivory under 

the ESA, the Service will be following Congress’ direction. Congress has made clear 

that persons who seek to benefit from exceptions to ESA prohibitions, such as the 

‘‘antique’’ ivory exception, have the ‘‘burden of proof’’ in establishing the exception. 

16 U.S.C. 1539(g). 

It is my view that in clarifying the proof needed to establish legality under the 

law, FWS should adopt a common sense approach that offers law-abiding ivory owners reasonable avenues to obtain required certifications. But the showings must be 

vigorous enough so as to prevent fraudulent claims by agents of the sophisticated 

traffickers who are making billions from the sale of ivory from freshly killed elephants. The Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking made a similar point in adopting and forwarding the following recommendation to the cabinet-level Task Force 

in a public meeting held on June 9, 2014: 

The Interior Department Should Continue to Take Administrative 

Steps to Tighten and Clarify the U.S. Restrictions on Commercial Trade 

in Ivory and Rhino Horn 

The Advisory Council supports the Administration’s efforts to use available administrative tools to close loopholes and tighten up the ban on commercial trade 

on ivory products in the U.S., consistent with existing law. The Advisory Council 

urges the Interior Department’s Fish & Wildlife Service to work with the 

regulated community and provide non-burdensome permit approvals for noncommercial import and export of products that contain ivory (e.g., orchestra instruments that contain ivory; traveling museum exhibitions, etc.), and for clear 

and reasonable burden of proof standards that qualify ivory products as ‘‘antiques’’ that are exempt from the Endangered Species Act. The Council also urges 

FWS to identify and foster donation (e.g., to a museum), disposal and other options that are available to individuals who possess ivory or rhino horn products 

that cannot be traded commercially. 

In sum, it is appropriate for FWS to take these modest steps to clarify what type 

of commercial trade in ivory is legal, and what is not. In so doing, FWS is reminding 

Americans that U.S. law prohibits almost all commercial trade in ivory and that the 

law requires individuals seeking to sell ‘‘antique’’ and pre-ban ivory products to 

come forward with credible evidence that they qualify for these exceptions to the 

general rule. By taking these actions, FWS is not impacting the right of U.S. citizens to own ivory, or to trade ivory products if they can make required showings. 

In addition to being authorized and appropriate under existing law, it is important that the United States enforce existing restrictions on ivory trade in order to 

ensure that the United States does not provide a market for the illegal ivory trade 

that has been spiking, worldwide, over the past few years. 

As a final point, by taking steps to reconfirm and clarify existing restrictions on 

commercial trade in ivory, the United States strengthens its hand in insisting that 

China and other Asian nations take similar steps and shut down the rampant illegal trading activity that has infected their domestic ivory markets. If they do not, 

the United States can and should demand that offending nations either get in line, 

or suffer the consequences of trade sanctions imposed under the authority of U.S. 

law (the Pelly Amendment) or in concert with other nations, under the CITES treaty. The Advisory Council formally adopted a specific recommendation along these 

lines in the meeting that it held on June 9. The recommendation reads as follows: 

61 

The U.S. CITES Delegation Should Aggressively Advance the President’s Agenda to Combat Illegal Wildlife Trafficking 

The Advisory Council recommends that the Task Force work closely with the 

U.S. delegation to the upcoming CITES Standing Committee (SC) meeting, and 

other CITES-related activities, and ensure that: (1) the United States is represented at an appropriately high level; and (2) the U.S. delegation aggressively 

advances the President’s agenda to combat illegal wildlife trafficking. In particular, the Advisory Council recommends that the United States’ CITES delegation work with other member states to hold countries accountable for the 

implementation of their CITES obligations—both recognizing positively when 

countries have made significant progress, and taking action when they have not. 

The U.S. also should consider imposing trade sanctions under U.S. law (e.g., the 

Pelly Amendment) when trading partners are persistently violating CITES or 

other anti-trafficking requirements. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony to the subcommittee. 

Dr. FLEMING. Congressman Fields, you are now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JACK FIELDS, FORMER 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. FIELDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Fleming, Mr. 

Lowenthal, Mr. Young, my former leader, it is a real honor to be 

here today. My name is Jack Fields. I am a former Member, serving 1980–1996 from the State of Texas. I was co-author of the 

African Elephant Protection Act of 1988, and today I represent no 

one other than myself, although I would like to think I represent 

all the Members who voted for that Act, both current and former. 

And I want to comment just a moment about that Act because, 

Mr. Chairman, when I heard you speak just a moment ago, to me 

you really focused this in a way that it really should be, the framing that the real problem is the poacher, as did you, Mr. 

Lowenthal; that if we are all sincere about doing something about 

the sustainability of the African elephant, we need to focus on the 

poacher. We need to focus on the countries that allow the importation of illegally taken ivory. I mean, that is where our focus should 

be. 

And I say that in the context that I did that very thing with 

Tony Beilenson, a former Member, liberal Democrat from 

California, great friend of mine, great legislator. For those of you 

on the Democrat side of the aisle, you should be so proud that you 

were represented by someone like that, a great gentleman, great 

intellect, great integrity. 

And Tony and I came from different cultures, different philosophies, but we found a commonality in that we wanted to see the 

African elephant preserved. So we started conversations, and we 

had conversations with groups that were against hunting. We had 

conversations with groups that were for hunting, and we decided 

that we were going to put collateral issues aside, and I suggest to 

you today that this issue regarding ivory is a collateral issue. I suggest to you this issue regarding the ban of importation of ivory 

from Tanzania and Zimbabwe, that is collateral. 

If you are really looking at trying to preserve the elephant population, to me the long and short of it is you should look on the market demand side. You should see who is making the money, follow 

the money, chase the money. 

62 

And when Tony and I came up with the legislation that became 

the Elephant Protection Act of 1988, we went beyond just the passage of that legislation. If we had stopped there, we would have 

made a monumental mistake. The first thing we did after the passage, we had a meeting with Secretary Jim Baker, who was then 

Secretary of State, and said, ‘‘There is a real problem in Japan. 

Forty percent of the world’s ivory is being consumed in Japan for 

the hanko, their signature stamp’’. 

Well, lo and behold, when Secretary Baker met with the 

Japanese, the Japanese decided to adhere to CITES. So all of a 

sudden, 40 percent of the world’s demand was dried up. 

The second thing we did, we went and met in the Members’ dining room with the Ambassador for Great Britain because at that 

time Great Britain had governing authority over Hong Kong. We 

said there is a real problem. We would hope that you would adhere 

to CITES, put the noose around Hong Kong, which the British did. 

Then we found that the ivory was being smuggled into China. So 

we thought we were on a roll. We had been successful regarding 

Japan. We had been successful regarding Hong Kong. We will meet 

with the Chinese Ambassador. When we met with the Chinese 

Ambassador, he said, ‘‘Mr. Congressman, you made a big mistake. 

There is no post ivory in our country.’’ 

Tony and I disagreed. We introduced a piece of legislation that 

would have denied China $150 million in fishery exports. We held 

a hearing, not in this room, but just down the hall. The room was 

populated by journalists from China, and all of a sudden the 

Chinese Ambassador came back after that hearing and said, ‘‘Believe it or not, we found a problem and we are going to adhere to 

CITES.’’ 

The price of ivory, the net effect, the price of ivory at that point 

was $100 per pound. It dropped to almost zero. Poaching became 

almost nonexistent, and those countries that had good elephant 

conservation programs like Zimbabwe, like Tanzania, their elephant populations began to grow. Today you have an elephant population in Zimbabwe, as an example, that is twice what the local 

habitat can actually sustain. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the remainder of my testimony for the record but just close with this. You have a tremendous amount of power, you and Mr. Lowenthal, and I was very 

intrigued by what Mr. DeFazio said. I mean, it sounds to me like 

there is a real opportunity for those of you who are sincere and 

want to do something to sustain the population of African elephants to work together and shine that spotlight on the people who 

are the bad actors, to follow the money and examine sanctions, examine legislation that prevents exports to this country. 

You know, most countries cannot stand that type of global spotlight, and I encourage you to do that, and I encourage you to get 

as much information as you can from our government, from international entities and come forward with a bipartisan collaborative 

process that really does work. 

What has been presented by Fish and Wildlife, in my opinion, 

will not work. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fields follows:] 

63 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JACK FIELDS, FORMER MEMBER OF CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Chairman Fleming and Ranking Member Sablan, thank you for this opportunity 

to testify before your subcommittee this afternoon. My name is Jack Fields, I am 

a former Member of Congress, representing the Eighth Congressional District of 

Texas from 1980–1996 and one of the co-authors of the African Elephant Protection 

Act of 1988. Today, I represent no one other than myself, although I would like to 

think that I represent all Members, former and current, who supported the African 

Elephant Conservation Act of 1988. 

The African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 was truly a bipartisan piece of 

legislation cosponsored by Tony Beilenson, a liberal Democrat from California, and 

me, a conservative Republican from Texas. For those of you on the Democrat side 

of the aisle, you would have had a great deal of respect for Tony Beilenson as a 

real gentleman—he was a legislator’s legislator, he had a keen intellect, unmatched 

sincerity and integrity, and he had a passion to save the African elephant. 

And, while Tony and I came from different cultures and represented different constituencies, we both realized that we had to do something to stop the poachers who 

were decimating the elephant herds of Africa—so, we focused on our commonalities 

rather than our differences. 

We brought together a disparate group of stakeholders—we met and engaged with 

the Humane Society of the United States, the African Wildlife Foundation, World 

Wildlife Fund, and other groups who did not support sport hunting—and, we met 

with the Houston Safari Club, Safari Club International, the Dallas Safari Club and 

other groups who did support sport hunting. 

The result of these meetings was the creation of a bipartisan group who put all 

collateral issues aside to focus on saving the African elephant, and recognizing that 

the poacher and the countries who did not adhere to CITES and who allowed 

poached ivory into their borders, these were our enemies. 

Our bipartisan consensus resulted in the African Elephant Conservation Act of 

1988 which remarkably passed both the House and the Senate by voice vote. 

The African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 did several important things: 

1. It stopped the importation of carved ivory into this country. 

2. It had a finding that sport hunting was biologically neutral and had no impact 

on sustainable populations of elephants. 

3. It rewarded those countries who had good conservation programs and adhered 

to the rules established by CITES. 

But, Tony and I did not stop with the passage of the legislation—we felt that the 

legislation was the foundation and gave U.S. congressional authority to go after the 

real enemy—the poacher—and that the best way to stop the poacher was to dry up 

the ‘‘market/demand’’ side of the equation. 

So, we began a series of very important meetings together as a team and, I think 

we were a good team—Tony, as a Democrat represented the majorities in the House 

and Senate, and, as a Republican, I had assets in President Ronald Reagan’s administration. 

1. Our first meeting was with Jim Baker who at that time was Secretary of 

State. We made a case that 40 percent of the world’s ivory was being consumed by the Japanese—Secretary Baker agreed to intervene with the 

Japanese who very quickly stopped the importation of ivory into their country—a tremendous victory to dry up 40 percent of the world’s market. 

2. Next, Tony and I met with the British Ambassador—because at that time the 

British governed Hong Kong. We met in the Member’s dining room—to our 

surprise, the British agreed to ban the importation of ivory into Hong Kong— 

another great victory—more demand was dried up! 

3. Then, we learned that the ivory was being shifted into China from Hong 

Kong. We asked for a meeting with the Chinese Ambassador—who told us 

that no poached ivory was in China. Tony and I differed with the Ambassador 

and asked that China stop the importation of poached ivory and adhere to 

CITES. We were told that China was not a problem, which resulted in Tony 

and I introducing legislation denying the Chinese $150 million in fishery exports into the United States. We held a hearing on this bill, and then we were 

told that the Chinese had found a problem and that it was being corrected 

and that their country would adhere to CITES. Another great victory for the 

African elephant and defeat for the poacher. Sadly, in the case of China, however, that victory was not a permanent one. 

64 

So, what was the net result of our legislation coupled with our efforts to dry up the market/demand? The price of ivory dropped from approximately $100/lb to almost nothing—poaching became almost non-existent and, in the countries which 

had good conservation programs, there was a growth in their elephant populations. 

So, why do I take so much time reminiscing about the past? Because if you are 

sincere in wanting to protect and enhance the elephant populations in Africa, which 

I think, you are—then you would want to hear what Tony and I learned from an 

exhaustive process working with all stakeholders—to hear about what Congress 

passed back in 1988—and to hear what affected the poacher, our ‘‘enemy’’—which 

is drying up their marketplace, stopping the demand for poached ivory globally and, 

if need be, shining the spotlight on those countries who are bad actors—those countries who allow poached ivory into their borders. Let me assure you that most 

countries cannot withstand nor afford to have this type of spotlight shone on them. 

So, in the context of what we know works in stopping the poacher and drying up 

the global marketplace for poached ivory—Is the proposal brought forward by the 

Fish and Wildlife good policy, the right action to protect the African elephant in 

Zimbabwe and Tanzania? I suggest to you the answer is a ‘‘resounding no’’! There 

are several reasons: 

1. Not consulting with Zimbabwe and Tanzania before the announcement of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service proposal quite frankly is insulting to these two 

countries. Zimbabwe and Tanzania have been leaders in conservation policies 

regarding the African elephant. It is their citizens who have their crops trampled, their children chased, their fences and homes knocked down. 

2. Denying the importation of legally taken sport hunted ivory within the quota 

filed with CITES for these two countries converts the elephant from an animal protected by local citizens to an animal that is viewed as a source of protein and ivory to be poached. In Zimbabwe, where I have the most familiarity, 

and in the area of Wankie National Park where I have visited over 10 times, 

sport hunting brings in over $575,000 per year, with 80 percent of that number staying in the local community. By contrast, the photographic lodge in 

that area brings in $30,000/year for the local community. And, this is just one 

area of Zimbabwe. Sport hunting, for the country of Zimbabwe, brings in between $15 and $20 million each year. 

3. By stopping sport hunting which is biologically neutral, there are several 

other effects: 

a. Employment in the local communities goes down, the support staff do not 

have jobs—which creates the wrong type of incentive for local protection 

of the elephant. The elephant becomes viewed as a protein source rather 

than an animal which generates revenue for the overall benefit of the 

local community. 

b. By taking the professional and sport hunter out of an area like Wankie, 

which is more vast and remote than you and I can imagine, takes out the 

eyes and ears of those who work with the understaffed and underfunded 

National Parks Services of these countries. There are far fewer people 

protecting the elephant herds. This one fact alone makes it easier for 

poachers to operate. 

c. Many of the sporting groups support water projects for the elephants. I 

know of one private company in Zimbabwe, on their own, who drill water 

wells within the national park, not the hunting areas, to protect the elephant herds which have been devastated by a historically bad drought. 

So, the proposal of the Fish and Wildlife Service before us today: 

1. insults host countries like Zimbabwe and Tanzania; 

2. kills jobs in rural, subsistence communities; 

3. removes those who work with the National Parks Services in Zimbabwe and 

Tanzania from remote areas, thus making it easier for poachers to decimate 

elephant herds; and 

4. it takes those who are on the front line helping preserve elephant populations 

in this time of historic drought out of the area. 

So, if this is the result—Is this good policy? Well thought out? 

And, one additional comment on the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposal which 

has a stated goal of establishing a ‘‘virtual ban’’ on the commercial sale of elephant 

ivory—when we wrote the moratoria provisions of P.L. 100–478, the fundamental 

goal was to stop the shipment of ivory from those range states who failed to have 

a sound and effective elephant conservation program. This language was never inVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:10 Apr 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\02 FISHERIES, WILDLIFE\02JU24 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88502.TXT DARLEN
65 

tended to destroy the value of legally obtained ivory products. These items, which 

may contain a small amount of ivory, includes firearms, guitars, jewelry, pianos, violins, and other cultural artifacts which have historic and intrinsic value. These 

items and products have no conservation value to the 400,000 wild elephants in 

Africa by preventing their sale. 

I suggest that you ask the Fish and Wildlife Service to review their proposal and, 

ask the questions: Does this proposal protect/enhance the elephant populations in 

Africa? Does this proposal create the right incentives for community protection of 

the elephant? Does this proposal make it easier to poach and smuggle ivory? 

I suggest to both sides of the aisle—seek information from our government— 

global entities—on where the poached ivory is being taken today. Who makes the 

money from poached ivory? Follow the money. 

And, then I suggest that you work with those host governments to stop the importation of poached ivory within their borders and, if such a government turns a deaf 

ear, think of all the weapons and options in your arsenal. Shine the spotlight— 

globally embarrass those host governments, pass sanctions, deny imports from their 

respective countries. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope you will hold additional hearings—shine the spotlight. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this subject which is very dear and 

personal to me. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Congressman Fields. 

Next, Ms. Sheets, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to 

present testimony on behalf of the National Music Museum. 

STATEMENT OF ARIAN M. SHEETS, CURATOR OF STRINGED 

INSTRUMENTS, NATIONAL MUSIC MUSEUM 

Ms. SHEETS. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my 

name is Arian Sheets, and I am Curator of Stringed Instruments 

at the National Music Museum in Vermillion, South Dakota. 

Thank you for your invitation to appear today to discuss how the 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed ban on ivory sales would adversely impact musical instruments, musicians, and the museum 

community. 

By way of background, the National Music Museum was founded 

on the campus of the University of South Dakota on July 1, 1973. 

Our collection of more than 15,000 American, European and nonWestern instruments are among the most inclusive in the world. 

The collection includes many of the earliest, best preserved, and 

historically most important musical instruments known to survive. 

About one-third of the instruments in our collection are 

American made, and many, both from this country and abroad are 

what might be called vintage instruments, that is, less than 100 

years old. 

I will focus my remarks today on how ivory was used in musical 

instruments after the early years of the 20th century and how the 

proposed ban would adversely affect these cultural icons. 

In the area of stringed instruments with which I am most familiar, for example, C.F. Martin & Company of Nazareth, 

Pennsylvania, used small amounts of ivory in almost all of its guitars, starting with the company’s founding in 1833. By 1918, 

Martin had stopped using ivory for bindings, bridges, bridge pins, 

and friction peg tuners. Martin continued to use ivory for saddles 

and nuts until approximately 1970, well before the elephant ivory 

was essentially banned. 

The ivory saddles and nuts weigh only a few grams each and account for less than 2 percent by weight of the entire instrument. 

66 

Yet that is enough to make the entire instrument illegal for commercial sale under the Fish and Wildlife proposal. Most other U.S. 

manufacturers did not use ivory to the same extent. 

Ivory was also used in very small amounts in the crafting of violin bows, though usage had generally stopped by the early 1980s, 

replaced with mammoth ivory and synthetic material. An ivory bow 

tip generally required only about a gram of unfinished ivory. Bow 

makers designed the head of the bow around the physical properties of the ivory tip, which gives the delicate bow head proportion, strength and proper balance. 

Even though ivory use stopped more than 30 years ago, many 

musicians, including famous artists, still perform with these old 

but not antique bows. Replacing tips with non-ivory material while 

possible is fraught with dangers, not least of which is the accidental destruction of the bow while removing the tip plate, which 

is a risky procedure. 

With regard to pianos, ivory was used as a veneer about one millimeter in thickness covering keys until better plastic technology 

developed in the 1930s and 1940s. For example, Steinway & Sons, 

a leading American piano manufacturer, stopped using ivory on its 

keys in the mid-1950s. 

Many high-end European piano makers continued using ivory 

until 1989, including Boesendorfer, whose instruments are found in 

many concert halls. These fine pianos can be worth well more than 

$100,000 and are vital tools for concert artists and also the venues 

that hold them. 

Ivory was rarely used as a decorative material on pianos, but 

came into use as a superior material for key tops in the 18th and 

19th centuries due to its easy workability and resistance to wear. 

While ivory may be preferred by some pianists because it absorbs 

perspiration and minimizes sticking, it is also more susceptible to 

chipping and cracking, requiring repair. 

Finally, ivory was used in some woodwind instruments, such as 

clarinets, oboes and bassoons, but, again, in small amounts. 

To recap, musical instruments never used large amounts of ivory 

and whatever ivory use there was was abandoned long ago for a 

variety of reasons. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed ban on 

further importation and domestic sale of ivory would have a profound and adverse impact on many. For example, the ability of the 

National Music Museum to add to its collections would be severely 

impaired. Like most museums, we rely on donations and purchases 

to enhance our collection. 

While I am not a tax expert, it would seem to me that if ivory 

cannot be sold, instruments containing ivory would be deemed to 

have no value and, therefore, no deduction for their donation might 

be available. 

If sales are banned, we could no longer go into the commercial 

marketplace to purchase exceptional instruments with this material. Additionally, if the ban devalues objects made with ivory, it 

affects our ability to obtain insurance which is necessary for the 

transportation and loan of museum objects. I would respectfully request that the subcommittee urge Fish and Wildlife to create an 

exemption. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sheets follows:] 

67 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARIAN SHEETS, CURATOR OF STRINGED INSTRUMENTS, NATIONAL MUSIC MUSEUM

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Arian Sheets and I am 

Curator of Stringed Instruments at the National Music Museum in Vermillion, 

South Dakota. Thank you for your invitation to appear here today to discuss how 

the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed ban on ivory sales would adversely impact 

musical instruments, musicians and the museum community. 

By way of background, the National Music Museum was founded on the campus 

of the University of South Dakota on July 1, 1973. Our collection of more than 

15,000 American, European and non-Western instruments are the most inclusive in 

the world. The collection includes many of the earliest, best preserved and historically most important musical instruments known to survive. About one-third of the 

instruments in our collection are American-made and many—both from this country 

and abroad—are what can be called ‘‘vintage’’ instruments, that is, less than 100 

years old. 

I will focus my remarks today on how ivory was used in musical instruments after 

the early years of the 20th century and how the proposed ban would adversely affect 

these cultural icons. 

In the area of stringed instruments with which I am most familiar, for example, 

C.F. Martin & Co. (Nazareth, PA) used small amounts of ivory in almost all of its 

guitars starting with the company’s founding in 1833. By 1918, Martin had stopped 

using ivory for bindings, bridges, bridge pins and friction pin tuners. Martin continued to use ivory for saddles and nuts until approximately 1970, well before elephant 

ivory was essentially banned. Martin guitars containing ivory range from relatively 

low-level instruments which may sell today for $1,500, according to retail sources, 

to highly desirable models which can bring as much as $350,000. The ivory saddles 

and nuts weigh only a few grams each and account for less than 2 percent by weight 

of the entire instrument, yet that is enough to make the entire instrument illegal 

for commercial sale under the FWS proposal. Most other U.S. manufacturers did not 

use ivory to the same extent. 

These instruments, like those from other manufacturers or artisan luthiers, are 

sought after because of their tonal quality and craftsmanship, and not because they 

contain ivory. 

Ivory was also used in very small amounts in the crafting of violin bows, though 

usage had generally stopped by the early 1980s, replaced with mammoth ivory and 

synthetic material. An ivory bow tip generally required about 1 gram of unfinished 

ivory. 

Bow makers designed the head of the bow around the physical properties of the 

ivory tip, which gives the delicate bow head protection, strength and proper balance. 

Even though ivory use stopped more than 30 years ago, many musicians, including 

famous artists, still perform with these old, but not antique, bows. Replacing tips 

with non-ivory material, while possible, is frought with dangers, not the least of 

which is the accidental destruction of the bow while removing the tip plate, which 

is a risky procedure. 

With regard to pianos, ivory was used as a veneer (about 1 millimeter in thickness) covering keys, generally until better plastic technology developed in the 1930s 

and 1940s. For example, Steinway & Sons, a leading American piano manufacturer, 

stopped using ivory on its keys in the mid-1950s. Tracking instrument age and ivory 

use by other U.S. manufacturers is extremely difficult, since almost all of the dozens 

of manufacturers which once operated in this country ceased production long ago; 

only a small handful of U.S. piano producers remain. Many high-end European 

piano makers continued using ivory until 1989, including Bo ̈sendorfer, whose instruments are found in many concert halls. These fine instruments can be worth well 

more than $100,000 and are vital tools for concert artists and venues. 

Ivory was rarely used as a decorative material on pianos, but came into use as 

a superior material for key tops in the 18th and 19th centuries, due to its easy 

workability and resistance to wear. While ivory may be preferred by some pianists 

because it absorbs perspiration and minimizes key ‘‘sticking,’’ it also is more susceptible to chipping or cracking, especially at the ends, and is prone to discoloration 

over time, sometimes requiring repair. 

But the ‘‘bottom line’’ is that, like other instruments, ivory has not been used in 

piano manufacture for decades. 

Finally, ivory was at one time used in some woodwind instruments, such as clarinets, oboes and bassoons, but again in small amounts as turned rings and section 

dividers. Woodwind manufacturers have not used ivory in many decades. 

To recap, musical instruments never used large amounts of ivory and whatever 

ivory use there was long ago abandoned for a variety of reasons. While only about 

68 

5 percent of the National Music Museum’s collection contains ivory, many thousands 

of guitars, violin bows, pianos and woodwinds which do contain ivory are still in use 

today by amateurs and professional musicians, and are owned and acquired legally 

in the past by many American families. Higher-value historical instruments, including those desirable for exhibition, use, and preservation, are more likely than average to contain ivory by virtue of its excellence as a working material. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed ban on further importation and domestic 

sale of ivory would have a profound and adverse impact on many. In most cases, 

current owners of objects containing ivory lack documentation of the import of the 

ivory into the United States, which could act to effectively ban the sale of even antique objects which have been in this country legally for decades or centuries. 

For example, the ability of the National Music Museum to add to its collection 

would be severely impaired. Like most museums, we rely on donations and purchases to enhance our collection. While I am not a tax expert, it would seem to me 

that if ivory cannot be sold, instruments containing ivory may be deemed to have 

no value and therefore no deduction for their donation might be available. And if 

sales are banned, we could no longer go into the commercial marketplace to purchase exceptional historical instruments with this material. Additionally, if the ban 

devalues objects made with ivory, it affects our ability to obtain insurance, which 

is necessary for the transportation and loan of museum objects. 

Individual musicians, whether amateur or professional, could not purchase replacement instruments containing ivory, nor would they be able to sell instruments 

that are no longer needed. These instruments are essential ‘‘tools of the trade’’ for 

both full-time and part-time musicians. Because instruments are hand-crafted and 

uniquely matched to the performance needs of musicians, they represent substantial 

personal investments that are critical to performance success. Musicians generally 

do not purchase instruments because of their ivory content; the presence of ivory 

is generally only incidental to the overall quality and playability of an individual 

instrument. 

While on the subject of individual musicians, I would also note that the abrupt 

imposition of a Fish and Wildlife Service order in mid-February has caused 

confusion and concern among individual musicians and organized groups such as orchestras. While museums may have in place procedures to comply with the oftencomplex permitting requirements required by FWS, many individuals and groups 

are in need of a more transparent, simpler process for obtaining the necessary permits to travel with their instruments and perform internationally. 

Another area of particular concern to our museum is our ability to transport historical objects containing ivory for national and international exhibitions. While we 

understand the permitting process for CITES-listed species, the new proposal may 

make it impossible to loan many instruments to institutions outside of this country. 

It is also not clear whether domestic loan would be possible. And at least one major 

piano moving company had recently indicated it will not accept ivory-containing 

instruments for transport, further hampering loan possibilities. 

Music is an essential element of our cultural heritage and individual instruments 

can be played for decades, or even hundreds of years. Banning the sale of certain 

high-quality vintage musical instruments will, in my view, impair the future of 

music in the culture of the United States. 

I would respectfully request that this subcommittee urge the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to create an exemption from any sales ban for musical instruments or products containing only a small amount of ivory. 

Thank you again for the invitation to appear here today. I would be happy to 

answer any questions. 

Dr. FLEMING. Ms. Sheets, your written testimony will be in full 

in the record. So we appreciate it. 

Ms. SHEETS. OK. 

Dr. FLEMING. I want to make sure that we get a chance for questions here. 

Next Mr. Quinn. 

69 

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW QUINN, QUINN’S AUCTION 

GALLERIES 

Mr. QUINN. ‘‘The United States shall seek to reduce the demand 

for illegally traded wildlife both at home and abroad while allowing 

legal and legitimate commerce involving wildlife.’’ That is what the 

President said in the executive order Mr. Hayes referenced. 

So Chairman Fleming and Ranking Member Lowenthal, I thank 

you and the other committee members. I thank you for having me 

today. 

My name is Matthew Quinn. I am with Quinn’s Auction Galleries 

in Falls Church, Virginia. We are about 6 miles from here, and we 

routinely offer products that contain ivory or are made of ivory for 

members of the community as they are dealing with the loss of a 

loved one or throughout that process. 

I am here today to help explain the impact of where this would 

go. I started with that quote because I knew that when the President’s team that drafted that, they did it with intent. It was carefully crafted, and the funny thing is I have yet to see the words 

‘‘while allowing legal and legitimate commerce involving wildlife’’ to 

show up in any document put out by the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

the Advisory Task Force, the Council or anywhere. I have looked, 

I have looked, and I have looked, and even in Mr. Hayes’ testimony 

a minute ago I did not hear the words ‘‘allowing legal and legitimate commerce.’’ I think we have moved a bit too fast. 

My job as I work with people across the country and primarily 

in this area is to help maximize value. On the 25th of February 

when the Director’s Order 210 was issued, that job became extremely difficult. 

I want to start and talk a little bit about a couple of stories that 

can maybe best represent where this would happen. My first one 

is a woman by the name of Helen Mang. Her and her husband 

traveled the country, traveled the world, and they collected an object called netsuke. You can see it on the image here. This is one 

example. 

They had 1,100 pieces that they had collected over a 50-year 

period. I do not know when they bought their last one exactly, but 

they were buying in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s. When she died I 

think 2 years ago in January, she was a few months shy of her 

100th birthday. 

We offered this for sale one day. She had initially approached us 

to begin to sell that because she was running out of money to pay 

for her health care. She had managed numerous assets, and when 

it came down to it, this was her last piece that she had brought 

to the table, and we began to offer that for her, and we did generate an awful lot of money. 

Most of these pieces were exclusively 18th and 19th century. The 

fact of the matter is we have been a collector society in American 

since World War II, before World War II, but certainly after World 

War II. People collected objects. They collected Hummels, coins, 

stamps, you name it. I am sure many of us have, and a lot of those 

objects included ivory. Ivory was absolutely no exception. 

One of the things that I have included in my testimony, and I 

would encourage you to go and read it, is a document put together 

by Lark Mason. Lark Mason is a New York auctioneer and an 

70 

associate of mine, a good friend, and he is very knowledgeable in 

the industry. He has put together this document that really details 

how many pieces are out there, and it is in the hundreds of millions. 

He states today that there are probably between five and seven 

million pianos containing ivory out there in America still, and if we 

do not go through the promotions and have proper research analysis and oversight, if we move forward the way things have been, 

millions of unknowing Americans will be affected. 

The next photo I am going to show you is actually a document 

of the Mang’s collection. If you look at this we see items, numbers, 

dates. On the far right side we see when they bought it. It has actually been cut off a little bit. It will be included in your packet. 

It shows all of the information. This is unbelievable documentation 

for a collector. 

Yet it would not meet the criteria of what Fish and Wildlife has 

proposed. It would be hard to find someone that would have better. 

Let us go on to the next one if we could. This is an ivory portrait 

miniature. This is signed and dated in Philadelphia in 1795 by a 

member of the Peale family, some of the most noted artists in 

America, that piece signed and dated. I do not know when it came 

in. I do not know if it actually came in prior to 1795 when it was 

painted in Philadelphia. So those are things we have to look at. 

So let us go on to the next one here, which is a teapot. This has 

two little, tiny white pieces on the right side. Those pieces are 

ivory, and those should be noted. That 1861 teapot from Baltimore 

under certain regulations would have been illegal. 

I will note that revised Director’s Order 210 allows for some of 

this, and we are working together to try to figure this out, but we 

are not there yet, and I encourage your involvement. 

The next thing I want to point to is Mrs. Heather Foley agreed 

to accompany me, and I have a physical teapot that I will ask Marc 

to pass around if he can, if that is possible. 

Thank you. 

And you can actually see those objects, and you can take a look 

at that from a point of reference. I have been working with 

Heather and her husband Tom to sell their collections. 

You see the pot in front of me? This one also has ivory in it. 

My last note I want to close with is the December 16 Advisory 

Council meeting. There is a statement that says, ‘‘From a business 

perspective, the Council noted a total ban would be the easiest administrative solution notwithstanding the Fifth Amendment question.’’ 

And I note the word ‘‘easiest.’’ I did not realize the easiest was 

the appropriate way to manage public policy, and I doubt that this 

Congress or Administration does either. 

I know it is difficult to identify this stuff. I know it is difficult 

to identify the age. There is a group of items that I would encourage you to look at that we do not have time to pass around. Look 

at those and see how difficult it is. 

Thank you so much for having me, and I look forward to 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Quinn follows:] 

71 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MATTHEW QUINN, QUINN’S AUCTION GALLERIES, FALLS

CHURCH, VIRGINIA

‘‘. . . 1. (d) the United States shall seek to reduce the demand for illegally traded 

wildlife, both at home and abroad, while allowing legal and legitimate commerce 

involving wildlife.’’ 

—The President of the United States, Executive Order 13648, July 5, 2013 

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and distinguished members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to address this subcommittee today. 

My name is Matthew Quinn of Quinn’s Auction Galleries in Falls Church, Virginia. 

The second part of the statement I just read above, which was carefully crafted by 

the White House, has somehow gotten lost or ignored. What I am about to share 

with you today hopefully will enlighten you on the harsh impact on the American 

people of the Administration’s proposed comprehensive ban on the sale of ivory. The 

magnitude of the impact on the American people is far more reaching than one 

might think, I am quite certain it will impact the majority of all Americans and certainly most of us in this room. 

While many throughout the antiques, art and auction trade share my views in 

this testimony, I speak to you today representing only my firm, Quinn’s Auction 

Galleries, and my clients. Quinn’s Auction Galleries has served the greater Capital 

Area for nearly 20 years assisting individuals dealing with the loss of a loved one 

or just the need to sell items. Sometimes we work with families that desperately 

need the money, and other times we simply help our customers sell items that they 

can no longer use. We work diligently to make sure that we can maximize the value 

to the seller. As so often happens, most of the families we work with have some 

sort of ivory, or other product from an Endangered Species Act regulated wildlife, 

in their home. I have worked closely with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

agents to stay within the law, and that task became extremely complicated on 

February 25, 2014, with the issuance of USFWS Directors Order 210. 

I would like to share with you a couple of customer stories that illustrate the 

devastating impact of these government actions that carry unintended consequences. 

A few years ago I had the genuine privilege to work with Mrs. Helen Mang. She 

was 99 years old and sharp as a tack. I sat in her room at the care facility she was 

living in and heard marvelous stories of her and her husband’s travels throughout 

the world collecting these little Japanese carvings called Netsuke. She would talk 

about one; where she got it, what she paid for it, and practically what direction the 

wind was blowing when she described it. It was their passion, their collection and 

their investment for the future. Helen and Jack were not unlike many Americans 

who choose to diversify their financial portfolio with collectible objects. Enclosed is 

a copy of the sale catalog for her collection of over 1,100 pieces of Japanese carvings 

where more than half were either made entirely of ivory or had some sort of ivory 

in them. There came a time when she looked to sell her collection to assist with 

some of the vast expenses of care in her nursing facility. Sadly, she didn’t live to 

see her collection sold, and this sale was a great memoriam to her and Jack’s life. 

If this outright ivory ban moves forward as suggested by USFWS and the President’s Advisory Council, then the Mang’s collection—which was predominantly 18th 

& 19th century and completely legally acquired and held for decades—would be 

without much value. Japanese Netsuke are tiny pieces of Japanese culture carved 

out of one of the most precious materials they knew at the time. The picture attached shows one such carving. Helen purchased this piece from a Washington, DC 

dealer on October 1, 1953, for $55. It was made in the 18th century in Japan in 

the Kyoto area as indicated by carving and subject. When this one item was sold, 

you will see on the sample page of this very meticulous collector spreadsheet that 

even all the information that she has collected would not satisfy the ‘‘antique exemption’’ standards that have been proposed by some of the Federal rule changes. 

Americans have collected Netsuke and other pieces containing ivory for many decades. Following World War II, America was very much a collector society, and it was 

popular to collect things like Hummel figurines, collector’s plates, coins, stamps and 

so many other items. Items containing ivory were no exception, and it was 

completely legal in 1945 . . . 50 . . . 60 and 1970! I have attached a document assembled and written by Lark Mason, a prominent New York fine art and antiques 

auctioneer, and submitted to the State of New York. His document estimates that 

the nearly 4 million Americans stationed in Japan during the middle of the 20th 

century brought back between 1.5 million and 2.5 million objects containing some 

measure of ivory. Mr. Mason’s document is impressive and worthy of a good read. 

He cites that there are between 5 million and 7 million pianos alone with ivory keys 

72 

in the United States, and hundreds of millions of total objects estimate in America 

today. 

Without proper research, analysis, thorough review and oversight, such quick 

administrative actions such as the proposals put forth by USFWS will adversely impact millions of unknowing Americans, including my customers. 

To illustrate the matter more tangibly, I have included several pictures of objects 

that most people do not realize have ivory in them, and that they were made in 

America hundreds of years ago. The first is a portrait miniature. It is about 3 inches 

tall and was painted in Philadelphia in 1795, and is signed and dated. From the 

picture you can see that the value of this object is indeed based on the artistry of 

James Peale, one of the most important families in American art history, and its 

painting on ivory would render it of no value if this ban moves forward. Mr. Mason’s 

document also estimates that as many as 3 million to 5 million portraits like this 

exist today. Virtually all but some tourist copies were made over 100 years ago, and 

the copies were done long before the Endangered Species Act was enacted. 

The next picture that you see is a teapot made in 1861–1868 in Baltimore, 

Maryland. It is also signed and dated, as all silver products are. Upon close inspection, you will see two small white pieces that are ivory. In this case they serve as 

insulators to keep the heat from the hot coffee or tea from reaching the silver handle. Teapots like this number in the hundreds of millions globally, and Lark Mason’s 

conservative estimates suggest that there are 10 million plus tea sets left in the 

United States, despite the recent spike in the price of silver that has led to millions 

being melted for their silver content. 

While we are on teapots, I have asked that Mrs. Heather Foley join me today at 

the hearing. I have been working with Heather and her husband Tom, while he was 

alive, to assist them in selling some property. She graciously agreed to attend today, 

as she understands the burden such a ban can have on the American people. 

Heather brought with her a teapot that she and her mother bought over 40 years 

ago in Egypt. It also has ivory insulators. I will pass it around for you to see more 

closely. I will also reference as part of this testimony her letter to the Advisory 

Council that I presented with my testimony for the record at the Advisory Council’s 

March 20th meeting in Arlington, Virginia. 

In addition, I have brought with me a teapot that was made by Georg Jenson in 

the Cosmos pattern. I will pass this one around as well. This teapot is signed and 

dated with marks that date it from 1945–1977. I am told from Georg Jensen that 

they discontinued using ivory in the late 60s; however, to this day they still use 

Mammoth tusks in their production. 

This leads me to my next point. 

In the Advisory Council minutes from the December 16, 2013, meeting, in a paragraph spanning pages 4–5, it states: ‘‘From a business perspective, the Council 

noted that a total ban would be the easiest administrative solution, notwithstanding 

the 5th amendment question.’’ 

Easiest? I didn’t realize that ‘‘easiest’’ was the appropriate way to manage public 

policy, and I doubt the Congress or the Administration does either. One of the reasons that the Advisory Council appointed by the President said ‘‘easiest’’ is because 

of the immense difficulty in determining what species of ivory might be used and 

how old it is. I know from experience that it would be equally difficult for enforcement officers to determine the differences between Marine Ivory, Carved Antler, 

Bone, Vegetable ivory or even Bakelite and other plastics. I will pass around a few 

samples that are labeled for your inspection. We surely would not consider banning 

all of these substances in order to take the ‘‘easiest’’ path. 

The art and antiques trade routinely handle the variety of substances that I describe above and are trained to tell the difference with relative ease. We are accustomed to the various carving techniques, quality, the subtleties of each substance, 

and the types of materials that objects have been made with over the past centuries. 

We are in fact here to, and happy to, help government regulators and policymakers 

with these complex issues. 

I strongly believe that no legitimate antique dealer, appraiser, or auctioneer supports the elephant poachers, and we all realize that this is in fact a global problem 

that needs to be addressed. However, I am, on behalf of my trusted colleagues in 

the trade, asking that this committee and the U.S. Congress halt this rulemaking 

process and consider reasonable solutions so that any final policy’s impact on the 

American people can be fully considered. We must work harder to find a solution 

to both protect the elephants and the American people, which are not mutually exclusive. That is why I am here today and why I stand ready to help and preserve 

‘‘. . . legal and legitimate commerce involving wildlife.’’ 

Thank you for your time and for your consideration of my business and consumer 

viewpoint. I look forward to responding to any questions you might have. 

73 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Quinn, for your testimony. 

Next up an Air Force combat veteran, a hero from the Bosnian 

conflict, Scott O’Grady. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT O’GRADY, RETIRED, UNITED STATES 

AIR FORCE 

Captain O’GRADY. Thank you, Chairman Fleming and Ranking 

Member Lowenthal and other members here today, for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee. 

My name is Scott O’Grady. I am an Air Force veteran, and I am 

a conservationist. I passionately believe that we all have a unique 

responsibility to conserve wild places and wild species. 

I am a member of many U.S. based conservation organizations, 

including Safari Club International. SCI has over 50,000 members 

worldwide, and through its affiliated organizations, they represent 

an additional seven million hunter conservationists. 

I was asked to be here today because I have recently hunted elephant in Zimbabwe. It was an amazing experience. From this I 

have the first-hand experience to accurately describe what it takes 

to manage wildlife sustainably in the rural and economically depressed regions of Africa. 

This year on April 4, the hunter conservationist community was 

shocked by a decision of the Fish and Wildlife Service to immediately ban all U.S. importation of sport hunted elephants from 

Zimbabwe and Tanzania. This decision is devastating to the wildlife management in Africa. 

First I would like to state clearly that hunters are conservationists. In the United States over 15 million American hunters pay for 

the bulk of conservation funding. American hunters play the same 

role in Africa. 

Poaching, on the other hand, is an abhorrent activity that everyone condemns. No one despises poaching more than the hunter conservationist. Having now traveled to Africa to hunt on five 

extended safaris, I can provide a unique perspective on how antipoaching is conducted in the vast wilderness of Africa. African government agencies that are responsible for wildlife management are 

financially dependent on hunters, primarily U.S. hunters. In 

Zimbabwe, U.S. hunters represent roughly 60 percent of their clients, and in Tanzania U.S. hunters represent nearly 90 percent of 

clients. 

With the money generated from sport hunters, the government 

agencies are able to pay for anti-poaching patrols on millions of 

acres that otherwise would be devoid of law enforcement personnel. 

The private businesses and outfitters that manage much of the 

wild lands of Zimbabwe and Tanzania employ scores of antipoaching patrols to privately supplement the government personnel. 

Safari hunting businesses in Tanzania manage roughly 30 percent of the entire country for wildlife. Lands in Southern and East 

Africa have three main uses: first, subsistence farming, which has 

very little economic value; second, herding for cattle and goats, 

which generates about a dollar per hectare; and then, third, wildlife hunting, which generates around $7 to $10 per hectare. 

74 

Every time a U.S. hunter is dissuaded from traveling to Africa 

to hunt by government regulations, the acres where they would 

have hunted will likely be converted away from the wilderness and 

into economic activities like farming and pastoralism. Wildlife is 

the biggest loser in this equation, and wildlife will be viewed as a 

pest when it has no value. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s ban imposed on U.S. hunters is 

a poor policy decision in regards to wildlife conservation in Africa. 

This ban has caused a significant breach of confidence with the 

African communities who live and work with their wildlife and 

with the U.S. hunters who help pay for the management of that 

wildlife. 

On May 8 I had the opportunity to address Fish and Wildlife 

Service leadership about their decisionmaking process. I asked 

what science they had justifying their decision, but the response 

was an anemic, ‘‘We have no scientific justification.’’ 

The Fish and Wildlife Service must immediately reconsider their 

decision and allow importation of sport hunted elephants from 

Zimbabwe and Tanzania. The ban on importation into the U.S. defunds wildlife management in their countries. Without U.S. hunters in the field, there will be a vacuum in which only poachers 

profit. 

I would like to thank the committee for their time today on this 

important issue. I hope to see an immediate reversal of this policy 

because it is causing immediate damage to sound wildlife conservation efforts in Africa today. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Grady follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT O’GRADY, AIR FORCE VETERAN

Thank you Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and other members of 

the Subcommittee for Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs, for the opportunity to testify today. 

My name is Scott O’Grady. I am an Air Force Veteran and I am a conservationist. 

I passionately believe that we all have a unique responsibility to conserve wild 

places and wild species. I am a member of many U.S. based conservation organizations including Safari Club International. SCI has a membership of over 50,000 

worldwide conservationists and through its affiliated organizations across North 

America, Europe, and Africa they represent an additional 7 million hunterconservationists. The Safari Club International Foundation hosts an annual conference in Southern and East Africa. This conference brings together representatives 

of numerous African governments, professional hunters, and community leaders to 

share best practices in sustainable conservation. The responsibility to develop sustainable wildlife management programs that protect wildlife habitat and ensure financial stability for communities living with wildlife is a serious task that requires 

serious consideration. As a conservationist I am proud to see the U.S. Congress 

hosting this hearing today to discuss vitally important issues of species conservation 

in Africa. 

On February 25, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued Director’s Order 210. 

The Director’s Order includes new staff guidelines that will impact hundreds of 

thousands, if not millions of unsuspecting U.S. citizens. Director’s Order 210 prohibits the importation of antique ivory, as defined by the Endangered Species Act, 

for commercial purposes. Before Director’s Order 210, Americans could import items 

that contain ivory that were at least 100 years old for commercial purposes. Under 

Director’s Order 210, that is now illegal. Many businesses will greatly suffer due 

to this change. Director’s Order 210 also seems to place a heavier burden on individuals that already own antique ivory and want to sell it. Many Americans own antique jewelry, pianos, musical equipment, firearms, knives, and furniture that 

contain ivory. Under Directors Order 210, these U.S. citizens can now be prosecuted 

for simply trying to sell a family heirloom if they do not have sufficient documentaVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:10 Apr 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\02 FISHERIES, WILDLIFE\02JU24 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88502.TXT DARLEN
75 

tion proving it is at least 100 years old. Other than paying to have the item professionally appraised, the Fish and Wildlife Service has not told the American public 

what is sufficient to prove that their possessions meet the antique exemption. Under 

Directors Order 210, these U.S. citizens can now be prosecuted for simply trying to 

sell a family heirloom. The policies of Director’s Order 210 provide no benefit to 

anti-poaching efforts in Africa. 

On April 4, 2014 the hunter-conservationist community was shocked by a decision 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to immediately ban all U.S. importation of 

sport hunted elephants from Zimbabwe and Tanzania. Neither the hunting community nor the wildlife management authorities of Zimbabwe and Tanzania received 

any warning of the abrupt importation ban. 

For Zimbabwe, the FWS relied on a lack of information to impose the ban, rather 

than concrete current information about the status of elephants and anti-poaching 

efforts in the country. Shockingly, the FWS did not even ask for this necessary information until after it shut down elephant importation. What little information the 

FWS did examine was outdated and inaccurate. And despite the fact that the FWS 

was well aware that hunting revenues provide the sole source of funding for 

Zimbabwe’s wildlife management authority, the FWS nevertheless deprived its sister agency of the resources necessary to conserve elephants and fight poaching. 

For Tanzania, the FWS’s failure to communicate with Tanzania’s wildlife management authority before making the decision to impose the ban violates a 2009 

Memorandum of Understanding signed by representatives of our government and 

the government of Tanzania. The ban also fails to recognize Tanzania’s efforts and 

successes in battling against elephant poaching. 

Instead of helping Zimbabwe and Tanzania fight illegal trafficking and conserve 

their elephant populations, these bans undermine their efforts, deprive them of the 

resources they need to protect their elephant populations, and diminish the value 

of these animals to anyone except poachers. The damage that our government has 

done with these bans grows greater every day. 

I was particularly shocked by this decision. I had recently returned from a 3-week 

safari in Zimbabwe, and I can personally attest that their elephant population is 

not only robust, but is exceeding the land’s carrying capacity. By eliminating hunters like myself from the landscape of Zimbabwe and Tanzania, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service is doing a disservice to the communities and individuals who work 

with wildlife in these countries. Without the consistent spending from international 

hunters, the ability for communities to plan for their future is in doubt. While on 

my hunt, I was joined by representatives from the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife 

Authority and by the Forestry Commission. Their responsibility was to make sure 

that my hunt, just like every other hunt, followed the letter of the law appropriately. These agency representatives were also there to oversee that anti-poaching 

efforts were in place. I personally witnessed anti-poaching units in the field patrolling the areas where I was on safari. Without the funding from hunting safaris the 

anti-poaching patrols would not exist and the result would be rampant poaching. 

The Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Authority and the Forestry Commission rely upon 

funding each year from safaris to pay for anti-poaching resources. One year without 

this funding would shut down their operations. The results will be catastrophic to 

the protection of the elephants, other wildlife, the ecosystem and the economic impact to the local communities if the U.S. FWS continues down its current path. 

My safaris were the fulfillment of a life-long dream. I used my savings to pay for 

the safaris knowing the importance of my finances contributing to the conservation 

of the local wildlife and economy. The cost of my two safaris for a total of 30 days 

was US$75,000. Of this, $27,000 was for government elephant fees, $4,500 for 

Concession fees, $2,000 for Taxes, $300 for other tags and permits, plus $5,000 for 

gratuities and other costs for travel. My direct financial contribution ensures that 

wildlife in Zimbabwe has more value than just meat on the table, or worse— 

elephants seen as a pest species. 

This year my projected income is less than what I spent on the safaris. But I 

know the money I spent maintains elephant conservation efforts in Zimbabwe and 

it was absolutely worth the cost. My personal contribution continues to add value 

to the overall elephant population in Zimbabwe so that Zimbabwe’s agencies and 

local communities can sustain their anti-poaching efforts. 

The FWS ban is causing elephants to have less and less financial value. Safari 

operations will cease to exist and the anti-poaching resources provided by those 

companies, paid for by U.S. hunters, will also cease. The result will be an open season for poachers, who unlawfully and indiscriminately kill anything for food and 

money. 

The American hunter is not the problem. Instead the American hunter is a part 

of the solution to protecting and preserving African elephant populations. The FWS 

76 

ban was instituted without the good faith of working with their colleagues in Africa. 

It was made without consideration for the real impacts on the communities throughout these two countries who will be forced to convert land away from wildlife to less 

economically viable uses. It was made with the deliberate act of keeping American 

hunters, the primary financial institution for anti-poaching in the dark. This ban 

is focused on eliminating the greatest resource for elephant conservation efforts, 

which is the American hunter. The ban should be immediately lifted and current 

scientific wildlife data should be reviewed for proper ecosystem management. 

I would like to thank all the committee members for your attendance today and 

for your willingness to understand a very complicated situation in remote areas of 

Africa. In the United States over 15 million American hunters and 30 million 

American target shooters pay for the bulk of conservation funding from which all 

U.S. citizens enjoy an improved outdoors. American hunters play this same role in 

Africa. I implore you to reverse this ban immediately, rely upon sound scientific 

wildlife management and the role of American hunters to wildlife conservation and 

anti-poaching efforts in Africa. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. O’Grady. 

We are now at the question and answer period. I now recognize 

myself for 5 minutes. 

Ms. Sheets, could you describe for us the impact of the Director’s 

order, Fish and Wildlife Service’s plan on your museum? What impact is this going to have? 

Ms. SHEETS. Well, the immediate impact is, of course, that we 

will no longer be able to commercially acquire instruments containing ivory particularly from overseas. Constantly historic instruments are coming up to auction. 

In the past we have raised money to purchase instruments. That 

would be impacted. There is also the lack of clarity on commercial 

value if the sale of these objects is forbidden. 

Most of our acquisitions at this point are through donation, and 

our donors receive a tax deduction for that. So that would be impinged. 

Also we have to acquire commercial insurance in order to loan 

objects. If there is no commercial value, we are not able to acquire 

that insurance potentially, and that impacts especially our overseas 

loans. We have the potential to loan objects containing ivory for 

educational purposes overseas. That would be endangered. 

So certainly not just ivory possession, but possession of other 

very historical, very valuable things would be devastated and 

would in some cases yield something very valuable to having almost no value. 

Ms. SHEETS. That is true, and these objects are part of our history. We wish we could go back in time and change the fact that 

they killed elephants to make them, but we cannot. 

Dr. FLEMING. Well, if 100 years ago they knew that this rule was 

going to come out, maybe they would have created some sort of certification or documentation, but obviously that was not foreseeable. 

Mr. Quinn, do you support a de minimis requirement in the regulations? 

Mr. QUINN. I think a de minimis requirement is part of what 

needs to happen, and that ultimately has to be maybe more narrowly defined. Is it a percentage? Is it an amount? I think we have 

to work to figure that out. 

As we look at objects like the teapot I brought and Mrs. Foley’s 

teapot, you know, those objects—this one has a date mark from 

77 

1945 to 1977. Mrs. Foley, she acquired with her mother in Egypt 

45 years ago. So those are not antiques. 

So how do we begin to look at those and to make sure that the 

assets of the American people are protected? I think a de minimis 

is a key part of that when it comes to certain types of objects. 

These are the ones that typically have more value, and I think we 

need to look at that. 

It has to be done in conjunction with an antique exemption. I do 

not think it can be done alone. 

Dr. FLEMING. Right. And Captain O’Grady, you seem to have a 

lot of passion about hunting and sportsmanship and so forth, and 

you made a comment that I completely agree with, and that is who 

would have more of an invested interest in conservation than hunters themselves; the same for fishermen. I would love to hear your 

comment on that. 

Captain O’GRADY. Yes, sir. That is why this issue of a ban on the 

importation only applying to U.S. hunters is so dear to my heart, 

because it is going to have the reverse effect. It is going to actually 

be the cause if it is kept in place for the decimation of the African 

elephant because it is going to take the greatest conservationists 

for the African elephant out of the equation, and that is the 

American hunter who is the front line defense, boots on the ground, 

stopping the poaching. 

One of the greatest things that I was able to experience while I 

was in Zimbabwe in March this year in four national forests on 

African safari for elephant was to see that my funding was going 

to anti-poaching, with anti-poaching patrols in the field day and 

night camped out, protecting the area where I was on safari. To 

know that I was a part of that conservation effort was very enriching. 

Dr. FLEMING. So by stopping legal hunting and legal importation, 

then what is in effect happening is that the actually opposite effect 

of that desired, which is to lose elephants. 

Now, finally a quick question for Mr. Hayes. Since you were a 

political appointee with the Obama administration and worked 

with Secretary Jewell, why do you believe that no representatives 

from an ivory producing country or state or territory, a professional 

hunting association, an auction house, a music company, museum 

director, a sport hunting organization, et cetera, et cetera, et 

cetera, is on the Advisory Committee or Advisory Council, are not 

on that? All of these different interest groups it would appear 

should be and yet they are not. 

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I had left the Department in early 

July, and the decisions about who should be appointed to the 

Advisory Council were made in September. I had no involvement 

in those decisions. 

Dr. FLEMING. If you were there, would you have suggested that 

they should? 

Mr. HAYES. I think the effort, as explained in the executive order 

was to get experts involved on the council, and for example, the 

Deputy Council of eBay, which previously was a major seller of 

ivory, is on the Council. 

Dr. FLEMING. I am running out of time. 

Mr. HAYES. Sure. 

78 

Dr. FLEMING. But I listed those organizations. Would you agree 

or not agree they should be on there? 

Mr. HAYES. I do not think you can put everybody on an Advisory 

Council. I think the key thing is for the Advisory—— 

Dr. FLEMING. How about just one of those? Would you have 

agreed with just one of them? 

Mr. HAYES. It depends on who it is, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. My time is up. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I have listened to this wide range first in the panel and in the 

first panel and discussions among members, and I am trying to 

come to grips with why we are here and what have I learned and 

what are the critical issues and what do we agree upon and what 

do we not agree upon and what should we be working on. 

It seems to me that what we all have in agreement and the core 

fundamental issue is that we are here to talk about the sustainability of the population of elephants, especially African elephants. 

We are engaged or what is happening is that we must engage in 

certain things to ensure the sustainability because without it the 

elephant will become extinct or potentially could become extinct. 

That is the first thing. 

Second is that poaching has changed; that what we have talked 

about in the past about poaching, now poaching has become an operation of organized criminal element and not individuals, although 

there is probably some of that, too, and terrorist organizations of 

such a magnitude that they engage with helicopters, high tech 

equipment, that the very nature of poaching has changed. 

The third issue is that there is a national strategy that the President and the Administration is trying to put forward that builds 

upon already existing legislation that has already been out there, 

and the question is, and there are a lot of things that we agree 

upon and do not, and I want to find out what those critical issues 

are. 

One is that hopefully I want to find out whether we all agree 

upon that prohibiting the commercial import of African elephant 

ivory is in our Nation’s and in the elephant’s best interest, the sustainability part of this strategy. Is that true or not? 

Second is, are we going to prohibit the commercial export of 

elephant ivory. That is a critical issue. Are we going to restrict domestic resale of elephant ivory, except under certain kinds of conditions, and that is bona fide antiques, and that raises another 

question of what is an antique. How do you identify anything as 

an antique? Is it truly an antique? Whose responsibility is that? 

That is what we should be discussing and those are critical 

issues, but the issue is unless it’s an antique, we have to come to 

agreement we are not going to allow the commercial sale of, and 

domestic. 

Another one is sports hunting. It does not seem to me the issue 

is really whether sports hunting is good or bad. We know sports 

hunting is a practice that is going on and, you know, whatever it 

is we are going to maintain it. The question is should we put limits 

on the amount of sports trophies that come back, and we are proposing two. Is that a fair limit? 

79 

And the other one is why is there not a ban. Why is there a 1- 

year suspension of sports hunting elephants to come into the country from Tanzania and Zimbabwe? It is only 1 year, through the 

year 2014, and it is because the Fish and Wildlife Service has suspended it for 1 year because they say there are questionable management practices and a lack of law enforcement there and weak 

governance. 

The question is: as we move forward into 2015, can that be corrected? That is the issue. And will those two countries have the 

same restrictions that everyone else has? And the question before 

us is: are those reasonable kinds of things? Should we be saying 

two per year of sports hunting trophies that can come into the 

country? 

And how do we decrease the demand for ivory products in this? 

And how do we go after those in a meaningful way who have been 

criminals? Should we increase the penalties for this? 

Those I think are the critical issues. I do not think spending all 

the time on whether something is an antique or not here or getting 

on is really the critical issue or pro- or anti-sports hunting. That 

is not the issue. 

The issue is are these reasonable kinds of standards that will 

help to sustain the population. That is what it is all about. So to 

me those are the things I think this committee needs to deal with, 

and I thank everyone for bringing us this information. 

I don’t have any specific questions more. I have been educated. 

I do not think we have come to consensus. I do not think we are 

too far apart. I think there are certain small issues on—and I know 

others will say they are not small in terms of we are hurting the 

sports hunter—I do not think that is the issue. The issue really is, 

is this a legitimate number, the number two. That is what is being 

proposed, and then in the future should this 1-year suspension be 

lifted. 

And the same thing is how do you demonstrate something is an 

antique. 

And with that I thank the Chair for holding this committee hearing and for educating me. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the Acting Ranking Member. Thank you 

for your comments. 

Mr. Young is recognized. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the panel. 

You know my frustration. You have been in the audience with 

the Fish and Wildlife. Like I said, they have been sort of like the 

guy that grows pot. He has been using his own product. This does 

not make sense. 

But Congressman Fields, thanks for your testimony. I was one 

of the co-sponsors with you of the 1988 Act. Did you ever envision 

that this law would be used to destroy the economic value of millions of items legally acquired by Americans over the years? 

Mr. FIELDS. Absolutely not. 

Mr. YOUNG. It was never the intent, was it? 

Mr. FIELDS. Never discussed. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. What was the purpose of the Act in your 

memory for the sport hunted trophy exemption? 

80 

Mr. FIELDS. Well, this was, as I mentioned a moment ago, collaborative. We worked both sides of the aisle. We worked with all 

stakeholders, and we all determined that sport hunting was biologically neutral and that the insignificant take had no effect on 

the sustainability of the elephant population. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. What would be the impact upon programs like 

CAMPFIRE, which is very vital? 

Mr. FIELDS. Well, and it decimates it. If I could, let me respond 

just in a way to Mr. Lowenthal because I think your questions 

were very well framed, and I would like to have an opportunity to 

talk with you more. 

Mr. YOUNG. Do not use too much of my time with Mr. Lowenthal. 

Mr. FIELDS. Just one quick example. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. 

Mr. FIELDS. Because the question was: can 1 year really make 

a difference? One year can make a dramatic difference, and let me 

talk about Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe. I am very familiar 

with that area. 

There are about $525,000 a year generated through sport hunting the African elephant. Eighty-five percent of that goes into the 

local community. That is a gigantic sum of money for that one area 

for 1 year. 

And if we are not careful, what the Fish and Wildlife Service has 

proposed converts the elephant from having economic value to 

being something that was referred to a moment ago as a protein 

source, that has a value in addition to the tusk. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. I just hope somebody else heard that. 

Mr. Fields, Congressman, do you find it curious that the 

Administration did not request an increase in the funding of Fiscal 

Year 2015 for the African Elephant Conservation Fund? After all, 

this fund has been the only contiguous source of money sent to 

Africa by ivory producing countries to stop poaching. 

Mr. FIELDS. Well, in the past 26 years, 467 projects have been funded to the tune of about $31 million. So the answer is, yes, I 

am surprised. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, again, it shows the hypocrisy of this whole situation. We have a Fish and Game department that is, again, like 

smoking wacky weed, you know, and they are coming out saying 

this is going to stop the elephant decline, and yet they did not request any money to stop really the poaching. 

You hit it right on the head. Follow the money, the poaching, not 

from this country. I think it is going to be very harmful. 

And, Mr. Fields, we all want to save the African elephant. Like 

I say, I have been sponsoring that bill and there have been others, 

and I am all for it, and to help to eliminate poaching would be an 

excellent start. Nevertheless, please tell me how you think destroying the value of an ivory chess set which is 75 years old would save 

an elephant in Africa. 

Mr. FIELDS. Well, it would not, and as I suggested a moment ago, 

to me that is collateral. I think what has been discussed about the 

poacher, what has been discussed about the countries that allow 

poached ivory to enter their borders, those are the two enemies. I 

mean that, if you are really sincere about preserving the elephant, 

preserving a sustainability in the herd is to go after the poacher 

81 

and to go after the countries that allow the poached ivory to come 

in. 

Go after the market side. Follow the money. 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, and it goes back to a de minimis type of ivory 

and that teapot. I sit here and I think, ‘‘What are they thinking?’’ 

Mr. Ash says, ‘‘Oh, no, that is now illegal,’’ that little teapot, the 

one you’ve got that little piece of ivory in. 

I just cannot imagine what they are thinking because this is not 

going to help. I go back to my original statement. I have a pistol 

with an ivory handle on it, if you want to call it, and it is old. I 

do not know where in the hell the ivory came from. I cannot document it, and the value of the weapon is the age of the weapon plus 

the ivory grips, and if I lose the ivory grips, the pistol will lose all 

of the value. 

That is a taking. That is against the Constitution as far as I am 

concerned. We can argue all they want. This is a classic example 

of an agency, again, that does not know what they are doing trying 

to appease a few people that do not know what they are doing, and 

I suggest respectfully, Mr. Chairman, let us listen to those countries that are directly involved. They are trying to evolve and save 

the animals through good conservation, not some bunch of interest 

groups that have this guise of ‘‘I want to save the elephants.’’ 

I thank the panel, too. I was listening to the lady with the museum. We will talk about that later because it does decrease the 

value. You will have a hard time maintaining your museum. 

Thank you. 

Dr. FLEMING. Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I had to go to my office, but I was listening as I was also meeting 

with people. It was a little weird, but they forgave me. At least 

they got half of my brain. 

And I observed that both Mr. Hayes and Representative Fields 

were on a fairly common theme in terms of actions that we could 

take nationally, internationally that follow the money and sanction 

those countries where we are seeing this flow. 

Maybe first Mr. Hayes and then Representative Fields. I mean, 

as I see it, we could currently use Pelly; is that not correct? 

Mr. HAYES. That is correct, Congressman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Has there been any discussion by this commission 

or group, Your Honor, about recommending that? 

Mr. FIELDS. The Advisory Council just had a public meeting on 

June 9 and recommended that if necessary, the Administration 

should look at using the Pelly Amendment to bring sanctions 

against countries that are not honoring the CITES import-export 

restrictions that were set in place now more than 20 years ago. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. But when do we reach the ‘‘if necessary’’ 

point? 

Mr. HAYES. Well, there is an important meeting that CITES is 

having this summer in which eight countries that have been singled out as having particularly poor exporters and domestic markets for ivory that appear to be clearly in violation of CITES, 

including China, Vietnam and others. There will be discussion 

about the action plans they have put on the table. 

And so we think it is appropriate for the—— 

82 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And Pelly can go beyond just a like sanction. It can 

go to other imports or imports from those countries. 

Mr. HAYES. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So if we just threaten a whole bunch of junk coming from China or all of the televisions that we are getting from 

them since we do not make them anymore, it might get their attention. 

Mr. HAYES. Yes. I think it actually has to have a connection with 

wildlife, but in the past the connection has been—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. 

Mr. HAYES. But I defer to you on that, Congressman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. We have to investigate that, and I am trying to 

clearly authorize that. 

Representative Fields? 

Mr. FIELDS. Mr. DeFazio, I think you are absolutely correct. You 

were out of the room when I spoke relative to your statements earlier and also what Chairman Fleming said. The two of you have an 

unbelievable bully pulpit, and I just know from our experience in 

1988 and 1989 when we asked the Chinese Ambassador to come 

and meet with us and then we had follow-up subsequent meetings, 

I do not think anything is going to happen with one meeting, and 

I do not think necessarily two meetings. I think you have to look 

at everything that is available to you in terms of options that you 

can exercise, whether they are sanctions, whether they are pieces 

of legislation. 

Most countries cannot stand in that glare, in that spotlight, and 

I have every confidence in you and Chairman Fleming being able 

to make a real difference. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. And Vietnam, I know we have already done 

a letter on the rhino, but they are also on this list, are they not? 

Yes, and they are desperately trying to be part of the trans-Pacific 

partnership. I think we could also direct a congressional letter to 

our Special Trade Representative Froman to say, ‘‘Well, if they 

keep this up, you should not even consider them,’’ you know, some 

things that might get their attention. 

There was something else mentioned while I was out that related 

back to the teapot and some other things, and I do not know 

whether or not we do not have Fish and Wildlife up here, but your 

familiarity Mr. Hayes and with the group you are serving on, this 

discussion of a de minimis exemption, it just seems to me that 

would narrow the universe so much, and I am trying to think of 

an analogy. 

And it is really hard to come up with an analogy, but I was 

thinking about one thing. It is like we have a problem in this country with legal drugs being used illegally. We are not banning the 

legal drugs. We have tried to put a higher level of restrictions on 

how they are dispensed and how they are prescribed, but they are 

still pretty readily available. We have not gone to the point of, you 

know, where we seem to be going. 

Would some sort of de minimis exemption, I mean, if you could 

take one of those things I picked up as heavy as it is, which is part 

of a tusk and you are talking about small pieces of ivory, it would 

be like 10,000 rings or whatever, you know? 

83 

Mr. HAYES. From my perspective, Congressman, I think that we 

have to have a common sense approach to what I believe, as 

Congressman Fields said, are ancillary issues, and I hope that the 

Fish and Wildlife Service will come forward in their rulemaking 

where they are going to better define what kind of expectations 

there are for burden of proof, for example, et cetera; that there are 

common sense approaches that allow for the continued trading of 

pre-ban imported materials and the continued trading of antiques, 

the bona fide antiques. 

The law allows both types of trade to continue. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. OK. Well, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. FLEMING. We are going to have a vote soon, but I think we 

can still squeeze both in. So Mr. McAllister, you are recognized. 

Mr. MCALLISTER. Thank you, Chairman. 

Well, first let me just say I think we are all in agreement that 

the number one goal is to protect the sustainability of the African 

elephant, and, Congressman Fields, I just have a few questions directly for you because I definitely like the way that you take on the 

subject, cut through all of the B.S., and let us fix the problem and 

then the rest will be collateral and it will fix itself. 

So the first question I have for you is: in your opinion will banning the domestic sale and trade of legally owned pre-ban ivory 

help end the poaching and illicit trade? 

Mr. FIELDS. No. 

Mr. MCALLISTER. What steps do you think the United States 

should take to help those foreign nations to combat poaching? 

Mr. FIELDS. Well, the African Elephant Protection Act has a 

mechanism to fund, you know, programs and projects, which I 

mentioned a moment ago, 26 years, 467 projects, $31 million, but 

again, to me money is not going to solve it, and when you think 

about the poacher, how do we get to those poachers? 

Unless we have boots on the ground, we are not going to get to 

the poacher. We really have to go to the market side and, again, 

the bully pulpit that you guys have, the options that are available 

to you, and I think it is not a one-shot affair. I think you have to 

be consistent and dogged, but you put the spotlight on the country 

with the bad actors or the countries that are the bad actors. 

And also I might say I would not be surprised if there is not 

state-sponsored in some form or effect, and I have no personal 

knowledge, of the poaching. 

Mr. MCALLISTER. I guess would that be the same as the steps we 

should take to help end the international illicit trade of the ivory, 

too? 

Mr. FIELDS. Excuse me? 

Mr. MCALLISTER. I said I guess you would answer the same way 

for the steps that we should take to end the international illicit 

trade in ivory as well as the poaching, the same? 

Mr. FIELDS. I think, again, it sounds too simple, but you have to 

follow the money and go to where the money is, and again, whether 

it is a sanction or a piece of legislation or global condemnation, 

something has to be done to get the attention of the people who are 

the bad actors, the national bad actors. 

84 

Mr. MCALLISTER. And as a retired Member of Congress concerned about poaching in Africa, is this an effective use of the taxpayer dollars in your opinion? 

Mr. FIELDS. Are you talking about the Fish and Wildlife proposal? I personally do not think it is going to work, and I think in 

countries like Zimbabwe and Tanzania, it, first of all, is a slap in 

the face of these countries that they were not consulted. 

It takes the money out of the local community, which the elephant is no longer protected by the community, but becomes a 

meat source, and it has a commodity, the ivory. You know, it takes 

away the money that supports jobs in these very poor areas. It 

makes no sense whatsoever, and again, in terms of the antique 

ivory, to me that is collateral. It does nothing to preserve the current African elephant population. 

Mr. MCALLISTER. Well, I appreciate all of you all coming. I would 

just like to say to you, Congressman Fields, and to you, Mr. 

O’Grady, thank you for your service in government and for the 

military and any others that may have served. I appreciate you 

taking your time today to come and visit with us. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Shea-Porter. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. 

After listening to this back-and-forth for more than an hour, I 

am still wondering exactly why each person is holding the position 

without bending at all. For example, I do not really understand, 

Congressman Fields. You said just go after the poacher; follow the 

money; go after the poacher. But haven’t we been doing that? 

I mean, you started that and thank you for the legislation. 

Mr. FIELDS. And also Tony Beilenson. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Yes, but since then we have come to face 

much larger challenges, and when we talk about all those who are 

making money and using it for terrorist operations or whatever 

they are doing with that, and a real stronger criminal element, 

why do you think we can (a) follow the poacher—apparently we 

cannot or we have not been able to—and what exactly are you talking about in order to stop this? 

I am pretty certain that these governments do not want this either, this illegal poaching. So you said, well, highlight and try to 

embarrass the country. But haven’t we already tried that? 

Mr. FIELDS. Well, it worked. When we did this, the price of ivory 

went from $100 a pound down to virtually nothing, and I am going 

to have to give you my best guess because I am not really current 

and privy to security information, but I think perhaps we have not 

had our eye on the ball. We have not been as focused. 

I think you alluded, as did Mr. Lowenthal and others, that the 

poaching element is much more organized today, much better funded, which to me—and, again, I have on personal knowledge—but 

it makes me wonder if some of the poaching is not state-sponsored. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Exactly. 

Mr. FIELDS. And I think when you look at where the ivory is 

going, obviously there is someone there making money. Somehow 

that is intrinsic in that particular society, and I know from our experience that until we actually got very specific with a country, 

China, and said to them, ‘‘You have a problem,’’ and we were told 

85 

there was no problem and we came back and introduced legislation, 

put the spotlight on, had the hearing, that is when—— 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. But clearly this is not working anymore, and 

the basic problem is that we do not have enough elephants, that 

the elephants are dying, and so I listen to the hunters. I listen to 

the concerns about the economy and thinking there does not seem 

to be much room for compromise there, and then I also would like 

to talk to Mr. Hayes about this because you mentioned the number 

of elephants that died just in the past couple of years, and it is horrific. 

What percent are killed illegally, number one? 

And what would you suggest? And tell me more about the panel 

and what the recommendations are because while what worked 

very well then does not seem to be working now. 

What would be different? Why do you believe that this would 

work? 

Mr. HAYES. First, Congresswoman, in answering your first question, the estimates of 35,000 and then 20,000 over the last 2 years 

are elephants that are killed for their ivory illegally by poachers. 

There is a very effective representation of the relative number of 

elephants that are dying of natural causes versus poaching, and in 

much of Central Africa and East Africa you see that the killings 

are far, far more than would be expected through natural death. 

In terms of what is the situation today, I agree 100 percent with 

Congressman Fields. The ban that took place in 1989, because of 

Congressman Fields’ legislation, was incredibly effective and the 

markets crashed and the value went way down and poaching as a 

result went way, way down. And it stayed down relatively speaking 

over the next 20 years or so. 

It has really spiked in the last 5 years, and for a couple of reasons. No one knows for sure why, but there are a couple of obvious 

factors. 

One is CITES made a mistake and put on the market some national stocks of ivory and created an ambiguity about all of a sudden now the ban that was really quite complete based on the 

African Conservation Act became, well, now there is good ivory. So 

it was cover, as Mr. Dreher explained, for the illegal sale of ivory. 

The other thing is the rise of a middle class in China and Asia 

and the consumerism associated with that and those combinations, 

and I think the U.S. and the world took their eye off the ball as 

well. 

Many of the recommendations are really along the lines of demand reduction, just as Congressman Fields has said, and follow 

the money and try to get the kingpins that are involved. The good 

thing about the syndicates is that it is not necessarily the small 

poacher that is in the village that is causing the problem. It is the 

big time operators. 

We know how to deal with that globally and efforts are underway 

under the transnational organized crime initiative. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Can you deal with that and still protect the 

right that we have heard from others talking about their musical 

instruments, talking about their antique business? 

Mr. HAYES. Certainly. 

86 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. And talking about a certain amount of 

hunting. Is there a balance there? 

Mr. HAYES. Certainly. I mean, I agree 100 percent with 

Congressman Fields that the antique ivory issue, the musician 

issue, we should be able to work through these issues, and the 

hunting issue, there is no question that in some countries the hunting is tremendously helpful. 

Right now in Tanzania, I do not know the situation in Zimbabwe, 

but we know that in Tanzania the elephant populations are declining precipitously. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. OK. Thank you. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. The gentlelady’s time is up. 

And we now have a vote, and we are out of time. Before closing, 

I would again like to thank all of our witnesses for the participation in this important hearing. 

I also would like to have unanimous consent to include in the 

hearing record the INTERPOL report by Dr. Samuel K. Wasser; a 

statement by Sotheby’s, testimony of Christie’s; a statement of Art 

and Antiques Trade Group; a statement by the Association of Art 

Museum Directors; a statement of Art and Antiques Trade Group; 

a statement by Ms. Linda Karst Stone of Kerrville, Texas; an article by a Mr. Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute; and an article that 

appeared in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal entitled ‘‘Grandma’s 

Cameo Becomes Yard Sale Contraband.’’ 

And without objection, so ordered. 

There is no question that each of us believes that the illegal killing of elephants must stop. I remain hopeful that the Fish and 

Wildlife Service will listen to reason and not criminalize millions 

of Americans who legally own ivory. 

In the final analysis, simply closing the U.S. market and prohibiting the import-export, interstate and intra-state sale of elephant 

ivory will not save elephants in the ivory producing states. It might 

make us feel better, but traffickers do not care whether their illegally obtained wildlife is sold in Beijing, Hong Kong, Saigon or 

Washington, DC. 

I also remain unconvinced that treating Grandma’s ivory broach, 

Uncle Bob’s Steinway piano, or cousin John’s vintage Martin guitar 

with ivory pegs, all of which were legally acquired many years ago, 

as contraband will do anything to save or conserve wild elephants 

today. 

I want to thank Members and staff for their contributions to this 

hearing. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAYMOND M. HAIR, JR., INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

On behalf of the 80,000 members of the American Federation of Musicians of the 

United States and Canada (AFM) and the International Conference of Symphony 

and Opera Musicians (ICSOM), a Players’ Conference within the AFM representing 

over 4,000 musicians in over 51 major symphony and opera orchestras throughout 

the United States, I want to thank Subcommittee Chairman John Fleming and 

87 

Minority Committee Member Alan Lowenthal for holding the June 24, 2014 oversight hearing on the plan of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to implement a ban on the commercial trade in elephant ivory. The ban has a laudable goal: 

to shut down the illegal trade in ivory that fuels African elephant poaching. The 

AFM supports conservation efforts and the fight against illegal poaching and illicit 

trade in African elephant ivory. 

However, the USFWS Director’s Order 210—both as originally issued on February 

25, 2014 (the Order), and as modified on May 14, 2014 (the Amended Order)—has 

had and will continue to have the most severe of negative and unintended consequences on musicians, culture and the music industry, without advancing the 

goals of the elephant ivory ban, reducing illegal ivory trade or diminishing elephant 

poaching in Africa because of its restrictions on musical instruments. 

Although elephant ivory was once used in small amounts in the manufacture of 

some musical instruments, this has not been the case for decades. However, thousands of musicians now own musical instruments that lawfully contain small 

amounts of elephant ivory. These musicians did not buy their instruments for the 

de minimis amounts of ivory they contain, but for their acoustic and handling properties unrelated to ivory per se. The use and sale of these musical instruments does 

not fuel the illegal ivory trade. 

But the Amended Order nevertheless imposes severe restrictions on musicians’ 

ability to perform internationally with these instruments, and will erode the instruments’ economic value, causing great harm to our musical culture as well as great 

economic harm to our Nation’s musical artists. Although the Amended Order sought 

to correct problems created by the Order’s restrictions on the ability of musicians 

to travel with their instruments, it fails to provide a clear, practical and reliable 

system for permitting such travel. 

The AFM submits this written testimony for the record in order to show, first, 

that musical instruments containing small amounts of ivory simply should be exempted from the ivory ban, and second, that at a minimum, the application of the 

Amended Order and any new rules regarding musical instruments should be held 

in abeyance until clear, reliable and non-burdensome means of compliance are 

worked through with stakeholders. 

THE AFM AND ITS UNIVERSE OF STAKEHOLDERS

The AFM is the largest labor organization in the world representing professional 

musicians, and possibly the oldest, having been founded in 1896. The AFM represents musicians in such diverse workplaces as motion picture and sound recording 

studios, live theaters, symphony, opera and ballet orchestras, hotels, lounges, tours 

and every other sort of venue large and small. The AFM has also represented the 

legislative and policy interests of working musicians since at least 1907, when operetta composer Victor Herbert was asked and appeared before Congress in support 

of copyright reforms on behalf of composers and the AFM. The AFM is firmly committed to raising industry standards and placing the professional musician in the 

foreground of the cultural landscape and relevant policy debates. 

AFM members comprise the broadest imaginable universe of performing musicians. We perform as jazz, classical, folk, country, rhythm and blues, world music, 

Latin, Asian, salsa, samba, polka, hip-hop and rock artists in over 200 affiliated 

locals throughout the United States and Canada. We are found in the professional 

ranks of major and regional symphonic, operatic and ballet orchestras, musical theater pits, major motion picture sound studios, night clubs, city music festivals, and 

traditional city-community concert and drum-and-bugle style bands. We teach in 

schools, universities and private studios, thus training new generations of artists. 

Contrary to popular misconceptions, most musicians are neither rich nor celebrities, nor is ours a life of effortless play. We have natural talent, but only hard 

work and practice will hone our art. Full-time jobs in music are rare. Most professional musicians struggle to earn a decent living, and a successful musician is likely 

to be a person of extraordinary musical gifts earning, at best, a modest, middle-class 

livelihood. 

For professional musicians, our musical instrument is a crucial tool of the trade, 

and more—it is our voice. A musician chooses his or her instrument with the utmost 

care for sound, playability and personal suitability, and then practices and performs 

on it until the instrument is an extension of the musician’s artistic self. Musicians’ 

instruments may range in value from $1,000 to $10,000,000; for most musicians it 

is a major investment, and its economic value is as crucial to the musician’s future 

economic well-being as its acoustic quality is crucial to his or her artistic expression. 

I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of instruments to musicians and the 

music industry: professional musicians depend on their instruments to earn a living 

88 

1 Indeed, the USFWS has acknowledged that precluding the movement of musical instruments 

containing CITES pre-Convention or antique ivory ‘‘would not benefit elephant conservation’’ 

and such movements ‘‘do not contribute to poaching and illegal trade.’’ USFWS Moves to Ban 

Commercial Elephant Ivory Trade Questions and Answers, http://www.fws.gov/international/ 

travel-and-trade/ivory-ban-questions-and-answers.html, see answer to ‘‘Why not impose a complete ban on all import, export and domestic sale?’’ 

and give voice to their artist expression, student musicians to learn their art, and 

amateur musicians to express themselves in their homes and communities. 

AFM members recognize the dignity of work and the value artists and supporters 

of the arts place on that work. With the execution of every musical note, we strive 

for perfection in both practice and performance. We know that perfection demanded 

by our commitment to the art can only be achieved through our instruments. 

MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS CONTAINING DE MINIMIS AMOUNTS OF IVORY SHOULD BE

EXEMPT FROM THE BAN

At the June 24, 2014 oversight hearing, Ms. Arian Sheets, Curator of Stringed 

Instruments at the National Music Museum, provided the subcommittee with clear 

testimony that while 20th century instrument makers used small amounts of elephant ivory (often less than 1 gram) in certain musical instruments, elephant ivory 

has not been used in the manufacture of musical instruments for decades. Thus, the 

contemporary manufacture of musical instruments neither provides a market for illegally traded ivory nor fuels the African elephant poaching that feeds that illegal 

market. 

It is also clear that the continued existence, sale and use of thousands of what 

Ms. Sheets calls ‘‘vintage’’ instruments that contain small amounts of elephant ivory 

from earlier decades, when such use was lawful, also does not feed the illegal ivory 

market nor encourage elephant poaching. As I explained above, musicians select instruments for the quality of the instrument’s tone and the highly individualized 

sense of the instrument’s suitability for artistic talent and desires. We do not select 

instruments for the minimal amounts of elephant ivory they may contain; ivory is 

irrelevant to the musical value of the instrument. Bluntly stated, musical instruments are not bought and sold for ivory, and in the wake of all the furor that erupted over the Order and the Amended Order, the AFM is unaware of any evidence 

that the import, export, interstate sale or intrastate sale of musical instruments has 

any effect on illegal ivory trafficking or elephant poaching.1

The AFM understands that the difficulty facing the USFWS is that of determining 

which vintage instruments contain lawfully obtained, pre-Convention elephant 

ivory, and which, perhaps, do not. But the approach taken in the Order and the 

Amended Order, which put an impossible burden on ordinary citizen-musicians to 

ascertain and document the provenance of the small amounts of ivory in their instruments—which were never purchased for their ivory in the first place, and about 

which sufficient documentation may be impossible to obtain—puts an extraordinary 

hardship on musicians with no countervailing benefit for wildlife conservation. 

Musicians are terrified to take their instruments on tour to foreign engagements, 

for fear of confiscation upon return to the United States, no matter what steps they 

have taken, because the permitting process is full of obstacles and may be impossible to fulfill with certainty. Middle-class musicians can ill afford for their instruments—which represent a major investment for them—to lose value because they 

cannot be sold in inter- or intra-state commerce. And these harms will have an adverse effect on the arts generally, from symphony, opera and ballet orchestra institutions to ethnic ‘‘world music’’ groups (and groups performing in every genre 

imaginable) to the viability of foreign cultural exchanges. 

In light of the fact that the practice of inserting small amounts of elephant ivory 

in musical instruments ended decades ago, the lack of evidence that travel, use and 

sale of musical instruments with small amounts of ivory has any ill effect on wildlife 

conservation, and the harms with which the Amended Order will burden musicians 

in particular and the arts generally, the AFM believes that musical instruments 

should be exempted from the Amended Order. 

THE APPLICATION OF THE AMENDED ORDER AND ANY NEW RULES ON MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS CONTAINING SMALL AMOUNTS OF ELEPHANT IVORY SHOULD BE HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING ESTABLISHMENT OF CLEAR, RELIABLE AND NON-BURDENSOME MEANS

OF COMPLIANCE

If musical instruments containing small amounts of elephant ivory are not to be 

completely exempted from the application of the Amended Order and other conservation regulations, their application should, at a minimum, be deferred until the 

89 

USFWS (and any other relevant government agencies) have consulted with stakeholders in the music and arts communities and reached agreements upon clear, reliable and non-burdensome methods of compliance. 

In his testimony during the June 24, 2014 oversight hearing, David J. Hayes, 

Vice-Chair of the Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking, noted that the Advisory 

Council had ‘‘urge[d] the Interior Department’s Fish & Wildlife Service to work with 

the regulated community to provide non-burdensome permit approvals for noncommercial import and export of products that contain ivory (e.g., orchestra instruments that contain ivory; traveling museum exhibitions, etc.), and for clear and 

reasonable burden of proof standards that qualify ivory products as ‘‘antiques’’ that 

are exempt from the Endangered Species Act.’’ 

But to date, the application of the Amended Order has been unclear, unreliable, 

and burdensome. Musicians of all types—those who tour as musicians employed by 

orchestra institutions, those who tour in their own small groups or as solo performers in all types of musical genres, and those who simply own vintage instruments and fear their loss or devaluation—have suffered from uncertainty that hurts 

the arts and does nothing for wildlife conservation. 

The Order 

Immediately upon issuance of the February 25, 2014 Order, the American music 

industry was thrown into turmoil. It is no exaggeration to say that AFM musicians 

in the United States and Canada experienced panic at the thought that under the 

immediate enforcement provisions of the Order, they faced the possible confiscation 

of their instruments containing small amounts of ivory upon returning from foreign 

tours, and had no clear idea and no government guidance regarding how to comply 

with the Order to avoid such extreme results. The AFM worked hard to untangle 

the new rules regarding travel in and out of the country, but there upon issuance 

of the Order there was no one central government source of reliable answers to the 

myriad of confounding questions raised by the Order and its immediate enforcement. 

The AFM and other organizations were able to assist two major U.S. symphony 

orchestras whose players, all members of AFM Locals in Boston and New York, 

were already scheduled to travel overseas within a few months. But it was impossible meet the needs of the many non-orchestral musical groups who were booked 

to perform overseas and had no guarantee that they would be able to return safely 

with their musical instruments—because it was impossible to determine up-to-date, 

conclusive and accurate directions about how to navigate customs and immigration 

with instruments containing small amounts of ivory. There were some indefensible 

confiscations of instruments that may have been related to African ivory, and the 

uncertainties surrounding the Order allowed rumor and misinformation to spread 

through the music industry like wildfire. 

The AFM became convinced that complications would continue unless and until 

musical instruments either were exempted from the Order, or were subjected to 

clear, reliable and non-burdensome rules. As I wrote to President Obama, ‘‘the language in the Order creates insurmountable obstacles that the average citizen musician cannot navigate due to the lack of a One-Stop government site that provides 

necessary guidance.’’ (See attached letter to President Obama dated April 4, 2014.) 

I wrote a similar letter to the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic 

Caucus and Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, to advise them the Order 

likely would adversely impact diverse musical cultural constituencies, including 

groups that travel with special indigenous non-traditional musical instruments that 

may contain ivory. (See attached letter to the Congressional caucuses dated April 

4, 2014.) In that letter, I requested and recommended the exemption of musical instruments from the Order until such time as USFWS issued an orderly plan that 

would allow artists to smoothly traverse the system assuring guaranteed, safe importation of their valued musical instruments through customs and immigration 

upon return. 

Last but certainly not least, the AFM and partner organizations met with the 

USFWS to urge that the needs of the music community could and should be met 

without any harm to wildlife conservation. 

The Amended Order 

Due to considerable pressure brought about by the AFM and its national music 

partners, the USFWS issued the Amended Order on May 15, 2014. Though we welcomed the Amended Order’s expansion of the date related to sales and trade of musical instruments, the Amended Order did not go far enough to mitigate the burdens 

and harms caused by including musical instruments containing small amounts of 

90 

2 Indeed, it is not only difficult for musicians to determine or document the ivory (or lack 

thereof) in their instruments. The AFM understands that there is at least one documented case 

of an instrument being confiscated by U.S. officials because it was suspected to contain elephant 

ivory, when it fact it contained none. 

ivory within the purview of the elephant ivory ban. The following are only some of 

the ongoing problems under the Amended Order and potential new regulations. 

The Burden of Proof and the Lack of Clarity Surrounding Applications for 

CITES Certificates 

The Amended Order allows the import/export (i.e., foreign tours and returns to 

the United States) of musical instruments containing worked elephant ivory that 

was legally acquired and removed from the wild prior to February 26, 1976 (the 

date that the African elephant was listed under the Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)), and not sold since February 25, 2014. This 

would cover an enormous number of musical instruments, except for the following 

critical practical problem: the burden of proving that the minimal amount of ivory 

in a musical instrument was taken from the wild pre-CITES is often impossible to 

meet. Numerous instruments, including many of the finest examples that are prized 

by musicians for their playing qualities, were crafted with small amounts of ivory 

long before CITES existed. Violin bows, for example, are often extremely old. None 

of these instruments, and very few others, would have been provided with documentation regarding their ivory content, most especially because the instruments 

were never valued for the minimal amounts of ivory they might contain but only 

for their ability to produce sounds.2

Simply put, it is unreasonable to impose a burden of proof upon citizen-musicians 

that simply cannot be met, particularly given the lack of connection between musical instruments and the illegal ivory trade. 

If the USFWS persists in believing that musicians should be required to make 

some showing regarding the likely source of any ivory in a musical instrument 

(though a showing far short of proving provenance where proof is impossible), the 

showing that should be required to obtain a CITES certificate (or other ‘‘musical 

passport’’) must be informed by practical reality, determined in conjunction with 

musicians and experts on musical instruments, and accompanied by clear, consistent and reliable guidance and directions (including to enforcement officials)— 

before it is enforced. At present, even with the issuance of a new musical instrument permit number 3–200–88, appropriate government ‘‘required’’ documentation 

needed to prove the source of any ivory in the instrument is unclear. 

Resolution of Economic Issues Relating to Seizures of Legally Purchased 

Musical Instruments 

The AFM understands that fines have recently been levied on confiscated musical 

instruments and their component parts, with no system in place to reimburse affected artists whose instruments may eventually be deemed to be perfectly lawful. 

There is currently no system in place to reimburse musicians for the value of lawful instruments that are damaged or destroyed in inspection or enforcement efforts. 

Musical instruments are fragile, and instruments suspected of being in violation of 

regulations may be damaged or destroyed if inspected and mishandled by nonexperts. As an economic matter, regulations must provide for compensation in such 

circumstances. As a practical matter, regulatory language must be developed in cooperation with musicians and instrument experts to ensure that it appropriately 

protects valuable instruments during any physical inspection. 

Preventing Devaluation of Musical Instruments 

As I described above, musical instruments are major investments for working 

musicians and music students. Regulations that prevent the sale of musical instruments containing minimal amounts of African elephant ivory will do nothing to prevent the illegal ivory trade, but will radically reduce the economic value of musical 

instruments, threatening the livelihoods, capital investment, and future retirement 

of musicians, as well as preventing a new generation of musicians from benefiting 

from some of the finest musical instruments in existence. This is a most serious 

problem, not only for individual musicians, but for the music and arts community 

as a whole, and must be addressed. 

Insufficient Number of Ports of Exit and Re-Entry to the United States 

At time of the issuance of the Amended Order until now, the USFWS made no 

effort to accomplish targeted, effective public education regarding the need, under 

the Amended Order, to exit and enter the United States through designated ports. 

Moreover, citing cost prohibitions during our meetings, the USFWS would not conVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:10 Apr 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\02 FISHERIES, WILDLIFE\02JU24 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88502.TXT DARLEN
91 

sider expanding the number of ports available to musicians re-entering the United 

States with affected musical instruments. These problems must be rectified. And, 

as noted above, reliable techniques for distinguishing African elephant ivory from 

other materials must be developed, and safe procedures for the handling and protection of musical instruments must be developed with instructions clearly filtered 

down to enforcement officials. 

International Inquiries 

I have written at length about American musicians, but AFM and non-AFM 

Canadian musicians cross daily into the United States, and there is no clarity regarding the documentation they now need to bring their musical instruments into 

the United States. New regulations now imposed by the U.S. government have 

added additional layers to the travel procedures Canadian musicians follow, which 

already include immigration verification, work permits, and the Canadian government requirement for musicians to obtain an ATA Carnet, just to name a few. Similarly, international musicians committed to perform in the United States, often as 

part of important cultural exchanges, suffer from uncertainty regarding requirements and their ability to obtain appropriate CITES documentation. 

Conclusion 

In addition to thanking the subcommittee for its attention to this critical issue, 

I would also like to thank officials of the USFWS for their continued responsiveness 

to the concerns of the music community. But as the consideration of these issues 

continues, the AFM urges Congress, the Administration and the USFWS to take to 

heart the plight of the working musician and the music industry at large. 

In this regard, it is worth noting that musical instrument makers and the music 

industry generally have been leaders, not followers, in the conservation of wildlife, 

given the fact that they discontinued the use of ivory in musical instruments decades ago. Many musical instruments lawfully containing small amounts of elephant 

ivory remain in use, and they have extraordinary artistic and financial value to musicians and the arts. The AFM believes that a full moratorium for musicians and 

their instruments should be placed on the application of the Amended Order and 

any other new rules to musical instruments, either permanently, or, at a minimum, 

until such time all issues are resolved in conjunction with stakeholders and clear 

final guidelines and documentation are published on the USFWS Web site. 

Attachments 

ATTACHMENT 1 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS

OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, 

NEW YORK, NY, 

APRIL 4, 2014. 

Hon. BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States, 

The White House, 

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20500. 

Re: Meeting Request—Professional Musicians and African Ivory 

DEAR PRESIDENT OBAMA: 

Please permit me to introduce myself. I am the International President of the 

American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada, (AFM) an AFLCIO labor union founded in 1896 and recognized by the Department of Labor as one 

of the oldest unions in the United States. For more than 117 years, the union has 

served as the principal representative for professional musicians both at the bargaining table and in government and federal affairs. On behalf of 80,000 professional musicians, I write to request a meeting with you to discuss reconsideration 

and possible rescission of restrictive and what we feel is punitive language in 

Director’s Order No. 210 issued by the United States Department of the Interior— 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service on February 25,2014. 

Mr. President, while the AFM joins you and the rest of the world in the preservation and protection of endangered wildlife species from poachers and unscrupulous 

dealers in the African ivory trade, Order No. 210 hurts musicians by immediately 

implementing new and extremely restrictive rules on musicians who tour and travel 

internationally and who represent the best of American art and culture. The Order’s 

sudden release has created ‘‘a chilling effect’’ on the travel and touring schedules 

92 

of musicians who have contracted with international concert vendors and in certain 

cases, with representatives of foreign governments. 

We are joining with prominent AFM artists such as B.B. King and others to raise 

the point that Section 2 b (4) of the Director’s Order singles out musicians and their 

priceless working tools by placing highly restrictive travel requirements with musical instruments containing in most cases de minimis parts of African elephant ivory. 

The Order would in effect subject any artist returning from international engagements to detention, confiscation and possible destruction of priceless musical instruments that may be placed in the hands of officials who have no knowledge about 

how to handle them. 

Most importantly, the AFM believes the language in the Order creates insurmountable obstacles that the average citizen musician cannot navigate due to the 

lack of a One-Stop government site that provides necessary guidance. With no published guidance from USFWS and no ability for a musical constituency here in the 

United States that easily surpasses one million affected artists, organizations like 

mine are inundated with telephone calls and emails from members asking for solutions that the government has not provided. There is no central website designed 

to answer citizens’ questions, no hotline for those traveling in the immediate future, 

no expedited permit processing, and no directive to U.S. Customs and Immigration 

Officers who are charged with immediate execution of enforcement about how to 

manage encounters with musicians returning from travel who are not aware of this 

new Order. 

In closing, we have reached out to Members of Congress and asked for their help 

with this matter. We have indeed received interest and some support and look forward to the opportunity to meet with you, Mr. King, and if possible members of various Members of Congress to devise a more complete resolution to problems created 

by Director’s Order No. 210. 

Thanking you in advance for your consideration, I am, 

Sincerely and respectfully yours, 

RAYMOND M. HAIR, JR., 

International President. 

ATTACHMENT 2 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS

OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, 

NEW YORK, NY, 

APRIL 4, 2014. 

Hon. MARCIA FUDGE, Chair, 

Congressional Black Caucus, 

2344 Rayburn HOB, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Hon. JUDY CHU, Chair, 

Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, 

1520 Longworth HOB, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Hon. RUBEN HINOJOSA, Chair, 

Congressional Hispanic Caucus, 

2262 Rayburn HOB, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: American Federation of Musicians—African Elephant Ivory—Meeting with 

President Obama 

DEAR CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS CHAIRS: 

I am writing to ask your assistance with a critical issue that has affected the entire music industry, particularly musicians you represent. Respectfully, the matter 

requires immediate attention. 

On February 25,2014 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the auspices of the 

Department of the Interior released Director’s Order No. 210 outlining new, 

stepped-up enforcement requirements for import, export and travel with items containing African elephant ivory. Section 2 b (4) specifically carves out and places new 

travel limitations on musical instruments. The harmful effects of Order No. 210 are 

93 

being felt throughout the music industry particularly among musicians with instruments that were legally acquired prior to February 26, 1976. 

The American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada (AFM) 

is not arguing the merits of the ivory ban, just the effects of the Director’s Order. 

As the representative of 80,000 professional musicians in the United States and 

Canada, it is our obligation to point out that what appears to be a specific yet targeted focus on valuable musical instruments containing de minimis amounts of elephant ivory is simply punitive. The Order has caused concerns for musicians 

throughout our industry who travel abroad and who fear they will have no recourse 

should enforcement actions by U.S. Border agents take place upon reentry into the 

United States. Stakeholders should have time and the ability to comment on the 

merits of the Order and any new rules within our respective industries and professional communities. 

Hundreds of thousands of professional musicians, college students, and fine musical instrument collectors who for decades have owned rare and antique musical instruments have been swept up in the sudden negative effects of this Order and what 

may eventually become a rule. Musicians who travel daily with valuable work tools, 

student musicians who attend major universities, colleges and conservatories, and 

high school students in every community in the United States and its territories 

who own instruments legally acquired before 1976, have been singled out. Many 

who do not follow the Federal regulatory process will have absolutely no way of 

knowing how to travel and securely reenter the United States without having priceless instruments detained, confiscated and possibly destroyed at customs entry 

points around the United States. 

The American Federation of Musicians along with scores of other national arts 

groups are pushing for a carve-out of musical instruments legally owned by 

American musicians and instrument collectors. 

We ask that the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Asian Pacific 

American Caucus, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus weigh in on this issue 

with a letter to President Obama with an eye toward rescinding the musical instrument segment of the Order. 

I will also forward information about our issue regarding promulgation of an overdue rule for musical instruments as carryon baggage and our work with Secretary 

Foxx’s staff. 

Thanking you in advance for the Caucus’ help. 

Sincerely yours, 

RAYMOND M. HAIR, JR., 

International President. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF VIOLIN AND BOW MAKERS, 

INC. 

The American Federation of Violin and Bow Makers represents violin and bow 

makers from throughout North America. The art of violin and bow making represents a body of knowledge that has been handed down for centuries. The 

Federation’s mission is to enhance public understanding and appreciation of historical violins and bows, the making of new instruments, as well as conservation and 

restoration of historical and modern instruments. The Federation works closely with 

many other musical industry organizations, including the International Pernambuco 

Conservation Initiative, the Violin Society of America, the International Society of 

Violin and Bow Makers, the League of American Orchestras, the American Federation of Musicians, the National Association of Music Merchants and the Recording 

Academy, to increase awareness of resource conservation issues crucial to the future 

of music. 

The Federation appreciates the opportunity to present comments to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs as it provides oversight 

regarding the African elephant ivory ban. 

The ban poses a dilemma to the stringed instrument world. The Federation supports without reservation the President’s goal of combating wildlife trafficking and 

conserving African elephants. The Federation remains deeply concerned, however, 

that if the scope of the ban is not properly tailored, it will produce the unintended 

consequence of harming our Nation’s artistic and cultural heritage. 

Unlike some objects containing ivory, musical instruments are indispensable tools 

of the trade for makers, dealers and musicians. A musician’s instrument is highly 

personal, integral to the sound and performance quality the musician is trying to 

94 

achieve, and often represents a very substantial personal financial investment. 

Hand crafted and unique, many instruments are among our culture’s most highly 

prized artistic, cultural, historical and educational objects. 

Approximately 25–30 years ago bow makers, who number approximately 50 in the 

United States, learned about the plight of elephants and stopped using elephant 

ivory. Since that time, bows have been made using mammoth ivory or other substitutes. When bows were in the past made using elephant ivory, the quantities 

were extremely small—approximately 1 gram was used to shape a quarter gram tip. 

With approximately 350 bows made each year domestically, the tusks from one 

elephant, therefore, could have supplied several thousand tips over many years. 

Bow tips are functional: they grip horsehair, provide balance and protect the bow’s 

delicate pernambuco tip. Musicians, however, do not purchase bows for their ivory. 

They purchase them for their overall artistic and acoustic qualities and may very 

well not be aware that a tip is made of ivory. The existence of elephant ivory in 

older bow tips, therefore, has never been a driver of trade and does not today contribute to a bow’s value or, at a higher level, help drive up the cost of elephant ivory 

globally. 

Today, a very large universe of lawfully made, sold, and purchased bows containing elephant ivory are being played throughout the country and the world by 

professional, amateur, and student musicians. These bows are also being studied, 

exhibited, bought, and sold by instrument makers, dealers, and musicians. The 

Director’s Order and news of future rule-making has created a broad perception 

among owners of these bows that they should immediately replace their lawful elephant ivory tips or risk seizure at international borders, possible forfeiture, and professional disaster. 

Recently, for example, a bow maker replaced the tip of a 30-year-old bow of high 

value. He reported that, although he was able to do the job without damaging the 

bow’s wooden stick, the bow would never play the same. The great pity is that the 

sacrifice of this and many other bows’ artistic and historic qualities will do nothing 

to save African elephants. 

The Federation urges the government to adopt a surgical, evidence-based 

approach to targeting and restricting activity, so that limited enforcement resources 

are expended where they will yield conservation benefit. The Federation is not 

aware of any evidence demonstrating a relationship between elephant poaching, 

wildlife trafficking and musical instrument making. Absent such evidence, the 

Federation believes the Government should refrain from imposing any new restrictions on the trade in musical instruments containing de minimis quantities of legally obtained ivory. 

The Federation was encouraged that the revised Director’s Order 210 issued last 

month incorporated common-sense improvements, such as removing the limit on 

non-commercial importation of instruments containing ivory and sold after 1976. 

Imposing the same limit on instruments sold after February 2014, however, seems 

arbitrary and destined in the future to impose an unfair burden on musicians, bowmakers, and dealers without a clear, countervailing conservation benefit. Similarly, 

the Federation agrees with the Director’s decision to eliminate the requirement that 

antiques need to have entered through authorized ports. The Federation believes 

that the antique definition should be revised further to simply require that an 

instrument be 100 years old. Moreover, we note that, when determining a musical 

instrument’s artistic and cultural value, the distinction between antiques and nonantiques is illusory—bows younger than 100 years old may have superior qualities. 

With more proposed rules coming out later this year, there is currently a great 

state of confusion and anxiety within the music community. A noticeable shift toward greater enforcement of CITES and Endangered Species Act permitting requirements, the roll out of a new musical instrument passport followed by the African 

elephant ivory ban has produced tremendous uncertainty about the steps needed to 

comply with U.S. and foreign laws and applicable burdens of proof. The Federation 

urges U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to immediately provide the music industry with 

clear, one-stop, easy-to-access online guidance that will aid compliance. The Federation also believes that scheduling the release of forthcoming proposed rules concurrently rather then in sequence would help to minimize confusion. 

The music industry wants to understand how to comply with all applicable laws 

and it wants to support a targeted, common sense approach to protecting African 

elephants. If musicians, instrument makers, and dealers cannot enter the United 

States with the instruments they depend on without fear of seizure; and if musicians, makers and dealers cannot buy and sell the antique and non-antique instruments needed in order for music to develop and the highest levels of quality to be 

achieved, we risk imposing serious and unnecessary hardship on a substantial ecoVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:10 Apr 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\02 FISHERIES, WILDLIFE\02JU24 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88502.TXT DARLEN
95 

1The Art and Antique Dealers League of America (the ‘‘League’’) has 93 member firms in 

United States. More about the League may be found at http://www.artantiquedealersleague.com. 2The National Antique and Art Dealers Association of America (‘‘NAADAA’’) has 39 members 

across the United States. More about the NAADAA may be found at http://www.naadaa.org. 3The Antiques Dealers’ Association of America (‘‘ADA’’) has 102 member firms in the United 

States. More about the ADA may be found at http://www.adadealers.com. 4The Appraisers Association of America (‘‘AAA’’), the premier national association of personal 

property appraisers of fine and decorative arts, has over 700 member firms in the United States. 

More about the AAA may be found at http://www.appraisersassociation.org. 5 British Antique Dealers’ Association (‘‘BADA’’), the trade association for the leading antique 

dealers in Britain, has 348 members, of which seven are located in the United States. More 

about BADA may be found at http://www.bada.org. 

nomic sector and undermining a tradition of cultural activity that has earned the 

United States a global reputation as a home of artistic excellence. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM G. PEARLSTEIN AND MICHAEL J. MCCULLOUGH, ART AND ANTIQUES TRADE GROUP

We represent the Art and Antiques Trade Group (the ‘‘Trade Group’’). The Trade 

Group consists of the Art and Antique Dealers League of America,1 the National 

Antique and Art Dealers Association of America,2 the Antiques Dealers’ Association 

of America,3 the Appraisers Association of America,4 and the British Antique 

Dealers’ Association.5 These associations represent the interests of the small businesses that deal in fine and decorative art objects of cultural significance. Collectively, they represent approximately 500 dealers and 700 appraisers in the United 

States and United Kingdom. Our auctioneers include Bonhams, Doyle, Heritage, 

iGavel, Keno Auctions, Skinner and Stair). They are among the leading auction 

houses in the fine and decorative arts. We believe that the Trade Group collectively 

represents the majority of the trade in the United States and United Kingdom in 

antique fine and decorative art objects and includes the leading experts in the field. 

The plight of the elephant is of great concern to the Trade Group, and we deplore 

the lack of focus this issue has received in the past. We applaud the leadership 

shown by the Administration and this subcommittee on the issue of regulating the 

trade in elephant ivory. 

The Trade Group’s members have routinely worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the ‘‘Service’’) with regard to import/export permitting and enforcement 

matters. They understand the difficult task given to the Service to enforce the 

Nation’s wildlife laws. In furtherance of the National Strategy for Combatting Wildlife Trafficking, the Art and Antique Trade Group has offered to work with the 

Service and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation to create a 

public-private partnership and institute best trade practices. Our goal is to facilitate 

a transparent, lawful market in ivory objects that are reliably certified as bona fide 

antiques, and block the illegal traffic in uncertified, poached materials that lack 

permits. 

We respectfully ask the subcommittee to consider the following concerns: 

The Antique Exception under the ESA 

We expressed concern that Director’s Order No. 210, as originally issued in 

February 2014, had linked the ‘‘antiques exception’’ to the ‘‘designated port requirement’’ (under Section 1339(h) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

(‘‘ESA’’)), thus clouding the trade in pre-1982 antique imports and U.S. made 

antiques. 

We asked the Service to consider decoupling the antique exception from the designated port requirement, and made three essential arguments: (i) seasoned experts 

in the fine and decorative arts trade can reliably distinguish genuine antiques from 

fakes, forgeries and fresh ivory; (ii) the trade in certified antiques does not drive 

demand for low-grade objects that incorporate poached ivory; and (iii) any ‘‘de minimis’’ requirement for antique ivory would be unworkable, unenforceable, and make 

the ‘‘antiques exception’’ unavailable for most of the antique objects in the trade. 

After considering the concerns raised by our representatives and other stakeholders, and in light of the legislative history of the antique exception, the Service 

issued Amendment 1 to the Director’s Order in May 2014 (the ‘‘Amended Order’’). 

As you know, the Amended Order provides that the Service, in its enforcement discretion, will not enforce the designated port requirement against bona fide antiques 

imported prior to 1982 and articles that were created in the United States and 

96 

never imported. The Service takes the view that the limited exception for the trade 

in reliably certified antiques does not contribute to the demand for freshly poached 

ivory. In his testimony to the Senate Subcommittees on African Affairs and East 

Asian and Pacific Affairs on May 21, 2014, Director Ashe added that a ‘‘de minimis’’ 

requirement would be unworkable and unenforceable. 

Imports of Certified Antiques 

In light of the rationale underlying the Amended Order, we believe that there is 

a strong case: 

• to create an import CITES requirement for the importation of bona fide antiques containing worked elephant ivory and those previously exported under 

permit being returned; and 

• to create an expert advisory panel to assist the Service in reviewing import 

and export CITES permit applications. 

The ESA Preempts Contrary State Regulation 

• Section 6(f) of the ESA provides in relevant part that: 

‘‘Any State law or regulation which applies with respect to the importation 

or exportation of, or interstate or foreign commerce in, endangered species or 

threatened species is void to the extent that it may effectively . . . (2) prohibit what is authorized pursuant to an exemption or permit provided for in 

this Act or in any regulation which implements this Act.’’ 

• New York State has recently passed a bill that purports, among other things, 

to limit the trade and transfer of objects containing ivory, mammoth or rhinoceros to 100-year-old antiques that include not more than a ‘‘de minimis’’ 

amount (in this case 20 percent) by volume of such materials. Other States, 

such as New Jersey, have enacted or may soon enact similar ‘‘de minimis’’ legislation or outright bans on the trade in antique ivory. 

• The ‘‘de minimis’’ limit and other features of the New York bill impermissibly 

conflict with, and effectively negate, the antiques exception under the ESA. 

They place New York law (and other contrary State laws) squarely at odds 

with express Federal law and Congressional policy. 

• We respectfully request that Congress require the Service to emphasize in its 

final rules regarding the Amended Order the preemptive effect of the antiques exception on contrary State law. 

An Ivory Ban Would Have a Significant Adverse Effect on the U.S. Art Market 

• In the United States, the total number of quality fine art objects individually 

worth over $10,000 is relatively small, probably totaling in the hundreds of 

thousands. The number of decorative art objects is much higher, probably totaling in the range of 400,000,000 or more. We estimate that approximately 

5 percent of these enter into commerce each year, for a total of around 

20,000,000 objects, consolidated into 1.5–2.5m transactions. 

• Most items sold at auction, in tag sales or house sales enter into the marketplace one time each generation. Assuming the items offered total around 

1,500,000–2,500,000 each year and this number is replicated each year over 

30 years, then the total objects entered into commerce in this period would 

total between 30,000,000–50,000,000 objects. 

• Because these materials were incorporated into and used to create rare and 

precious objects, the values of objects that contain these materials are high. 

Many collectors stand to be severely hurt by a ban or effective ban of antique 

objects made of or containing these materials. 

• A conservative estimate is that 20,000,000–30,000,000 U.S. citizens will be affected and suffer significant loss. More will be affected by burdens of paperwork and regulatory compliance. The loss of value, lost sales, and compliance 

costs will certainly cost American citizens a total in the tens of billions of 

dollars each year. 

• The less tangible cost will be cultural, stigmatizing huge numbers of works 

of art, many that are unique cultural treasures, because these incorporate a 

material that is today viewed differently than in the past. This loss is 

incalculable. 

• See Appendix A for an overview of the trade in fine and decorative art objects 

containing antique ivory. 

97 

1The AAMD is not in a position to speak on behalf of all museums in the United States, but 

there does not appear to be a compelling reason not to make this exception applicable to any 

museum that meets the definition in 45 CFR § 1180.2. 

Our goal is to facilitate a transparent, lawful market in ivory objects that are reliably certified as bona fide antiques, and block the illegal traffic in uncertified, 

poached materials that lack permits. We hope to continue our dialog with the 

Service and this subcommittee to facilitate this goal. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ASSOCIATION OF ART MUSEUM DIRECTORS

I. INTRODUCTION

The Association of Art Museum Directors (the ‘‘AAMD’’) is a professional organization consisting of approximately 240 directors of major art museums in North 

America. The purpose of the AAMD is to support its members in increasing the contribution of art museums to society. 

The AAMD supports the efforts of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (‘‘FWS’’) and 

the international community to address the threats to wildlife, including elephants, 

in a responsible and measured approach. Museums have a significant role to play, 

particularly as educators and communicators. At the same time, museums have a 

responsibility to protect, conserve, and display works of art that represent the creativity of the human spirit. That creativity expresses itself in many mediums and 

in the past, quite legitimately, through works that include elements of species that 

are now endangered or threatened. 

The implementation of a complete ban on the commercial trade in elephant ivory 

would deal a severe blow to museums in carrying out their primary responsibility 

of protecting, conserving, displaying and sharing works of art from all ages in all 

mediums. Art museums in the United States 1 (individually, a ‘‘U.S. Art Museum’’) 

have a long history of complying with CITES and national laws designed to protect 

endangered and threatened species, such as the Endangered Species Act, which for 

decades have allowed U.S. Art Museums responsibly to acquire, exhibit and make 

direct loans of legally acquired artwork containing elements of elephant ivory, and 

other endangered or threatened species. 

The FWS Director’s Order 210 (‘‘Director’s Order’’), not only through its specific 

prohibitions, but also through the resulting confusion within the art world, has had 

a significant negative impact on the ability of U.S. Art Museums to carry out their 

mission. Specifically, two vital components of museum activities have been impacted; the ability of U.S. Art Museums to acquire new works and the ability of U.S. 

Art Museums to take part in exchanges of international exhibitions and direct loans 

with foreign lenders. 

II. AREAS OF CONCERN

A. Acquisitions: A major concern for U.S. Art Museums is their ability to continue 

to acquire works of art that contain elements of raw or worked African elephant 

ivory whether by purchase, gift or bequest both domestically and abroad. Additions 

to an art museum’s permanent collection are done through a rigorous process known 

as accessioning, whereby the museum not only acquires a work of art, but commits 

to its long-term care and conservation. Only rarely are works ever removed from the 

permanent collection. As a result, acquisition by a U.S. Art Museum effectively removes these items from the trade and allows them to be studied, researched and 

displayed for the benefit of the public, scholars and students. Unfortunately, actions 

by the FWS have limited the ability of U.S. Art Museums to accept donations and 

acquire works of art containing African elephant ivory. 

1. Donations: U.S. Art Museums acquire approximately 80 percent of their collection through generous donations that allow the American public to see works that 

many museums could never afford to purchase. Currently, there is confusion about 

whether an individual in lawful possession of a work of art containing raw or 

worked African elephant ivory may donate that work to a U.S. Art Museum and 

take a tax deduction or if this donation would constitute a post-February 25, 2014 

transfer for financial gain or profit. Under the Director’s Order, if a work has been 

transferred for financial gain or profit after February 25, 2014, there would be a 

bar to import of the item to the United States. As a result, such a work would be 

ineligible for loans outside the United States because the work could not be returned to the U.S. Art Museum. 

98 

2 As set out in Revenue Procedure 90–12, 1990–1 C.B. 471, and Revenue Procedure 92–49, 

1992–1 C.B. 987. 3This paper does not address the proposed ban on commercial sales in the United States as 

others will undoubtedly address that issue, but the AAMD does support a continued, carefully 

regulated United States market for verifiable antiques containing ivory. 4While the terms re-exported and re-imported are often used, and are used in this paper, to 

describe a work of art that is going out of and coming back in to the United States or coming 

into and going back out of the United States, they are, under certain circumstances, a misnomer, as they imply previous movement across U.S. borders, whereas in fact, works made in 

the United States may never have been previously removed. 

When a donor donates a work of art, often worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, and takes a tax deduction, even at the highest marginal bracket, the donor is 

still, on a net basis, giving away more than half of the fair market value of the donated work. The FWS should clarify that a donor may take a tax deduction for a 

gift to a U.S. Art Museum and that doing so does not create a post-February 25, 

2014 gain event, provided that the donor does not receive any substantial benefit 

in exchange (as defined by the Internal Revenue Service).2

Similarly, if an object that was legally purchased after February 25, 2014 were 

to be donated to a U.S. Art Museum, whether or not the donor takes a tax deduction, the museum that accepts such a gift could not loan the object to a foreign exhibition or make a direct loan to a foreign museum because the work was involved 

in a commercial transaction after February 25, 2014 and, therefore, could not be reimported to the United States to be returned to the U.S. Art Museum. The FWS 

should add an exception for purchases legally made after February 25, 2014 and 

donated to a U.S. Art Museum in addition to clarifying that the donation is not a 

financial gain or profit transaction occurring after February 25, 2014, as discussed 

above. 

2. Acquisitions Abroad: 3 The new criteria limiting the ability of U.S. Art 

Museums to import items containing African elephant ivory lawfully acquired 

abroad are too narrow and severely limit the ability of museums to fulfill their mission. The Director’s Order has made illegal the importation for commercial purposes 

of works of art containing ivory, most importantly for U.S. Art Museums including 

those containing ivory that is at least 100 years and often centuries old. As a result, 

while foreign markets continue to function with great works of art containing ivory 

sold on a regular basis, those works can no longer be acquired by U.S. Art 

Museums. Rather, they become part of foreign private or public collections and are 

lost to the American public. This is not an issue of recently acquired ivory. Art museums buy works of art—not ivory. They buy those works based on rigorous scholarship and research. When a museum determines to acquire, for example, a medieval 

reliquary carved from ivory or a Greek plaque of a warrior from 1400 B.C., the museum’s identification of the object as medieval or as ancient Greek means, by definition, that the ivory it contains is centuries old and, therefore, presents no threat 

to the current plight of elephants. U.S. Art Museums should be permitted to continue to acquire these works—antiques as defined by statute—and to import them 

into the United States for the benefit of the public in the United States. 

B. Exhibition and Direct Loans: The ability to move works of art containing ivory 

in and out of the United States in connection with exhibitions abroad and exhibitions in the United States and direct loans to and from foreign lenders and borrowers is essential to the mission of museums. The Director’s Order, not only 

through its specific prohibitions, but also through the resulting confusion within the 

art world, has had a significant negative impact on the ability of U.S. Art Museums 

to create, organize, effectuate or participate in international exhibitions and to make 

or receive direct loans of objects containing African elephant ivory. Foreign lenders 

are reluctant to loan such works of art to U.S. Art Museums because of concern that 

the works will not be returned. U.S. Art Museums are concerned about lending to 

foreign venues for fear that the works will not be able to be re-imported into the 

United States.4 There is no indication that any of this movement in the past has 

been illegal or inappropriate and, at least in the experience of AAMD, these loans 

have routinely been made in full compliance with CITES and other applicable laws. 

The procedures for these loans should not change from the rules and regulations 

applicable to such loans prior to February 25, 2014. 

In the context of the non-commercial import and export of a work of art containing African elephant ivory, the work should be permitted to be imported and exported and re-imported and re-exported, provided that a U.S. Art Museum certifies 

to the FWS that the work: 

99 

1. is more than 100 years old, based on certified documentation of ownership, 

qualified appraisal, or other accepted methods of proving an object’s 

provenance; 

2. is reasonably believed to include African elephant ivory; 

3. has not been repaired or modified with any part of any such species on or 

after December 28, 1973; and 

4. was either legally imported prior to September 22, 1982 or thereafter entered 

through a port designated for import of ESA antiques or was created in the 

United States and never imported. 

III. CONCLUSION

While AAMD supports the efforts of the FWS to curtail the illegal wildlife trade 

and protect endangered and threatened species, including the elephant, a complete 

ban on commercial trade in African elephant ivory would have dramatic and far 

reaching implications for the U.S. Art Museum community and severely impair museums’ ability to fulfill their mission. Restricting the trade in illegally acquired 

African elephant ivory should not deny to the public of the present the work of artists of the past. 

The Director’s Order addresses not only the FWS’ plan to implement a ban on 

commercial trade in elephant ivory, but many additional limits on commercial and 

noncommercial activities involving elephant ivory, rhinoceros horn, and parts and 

products of other species listed under the Endangered Species Act. The AAMD has 

concerns about the numerous implications of the Director’s Order and other actions 

proposed by the FWS which significantly impact the ability of museums to fulfill 

their mission, however, as this hearing is strictly on the plan to implement a ban 

on commercial trade in elephant ivory, the AAMD has not addressed its other concerns in this statement. The AAMD would be glad to provide a more comprehensive 

statement regarding its concerns with the FWS’ actions generally to the extent it 

would be helpful to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular 

Affairs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTIE’S, INC. 

Christie’s appreciates the opportunity to submit comments to the Subcommittee 

on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs. 

Christie’s unequivocally condemns the slaughter of elephants for illegal elephant 

ivory. We understand that the slaughter of elephants today is at such a pace as to 

endanger seriously the entire species. We believe we have a role to play stopping 

the poaching of elephant ivory and the illegal trade in contemporary ivory works 

that results and we take our responsibilities in this respect very seriously. 

Our primary task is to ensure that Christie’s does not sell any art containing illegal contemporary ivory. To this end, we do not ever sell ‘‘unworked’’ tusks, regardless of their age. We do, however, sell antique objects of cultural and artistic importance, some of which include elephant ivory as a material. These antique works of 

art include items as diverse as 18th century furniture, objects of virtue, ancient 

sculpture, Japanese netsuke, Old Master paintings and frames, musical instruments 

as well as 18th century silverware. These historic works of art were crafted long 

ago when the elephant population was not under threat and are completely unrelated to current illegal elephant ivory trade, which is driven largely by the appetite 

for contemporary religious, tourist and trophy pieces, none of which are sold by 

Christie’s. 

In selling these historic cultural and artistic objects which incorporate ivory, 

Christie’s is careful to abide by all global, Federal and State laws designed to protect elephants and prevent the sale of illegally obtained contemporary ivory. In 

particular, we have obtained licenses from both the relevant Federal and NYS regulatory agencies to offer for sale antique items containing ivory. We also have implemented a comprehensive training program taught by the Legal Department to teach 

our specialists and administrators the legal requirements needed to import, export 

and sell antique objects containing ivory. This program is held several times annually to ensure that all relevant employees are fully knowledgeable about the legal 

requirements surrounding the sale of antique objects containing ivory. 

Even more important than our licensure or training programs is our rigorous vetting program through which any item believed possibly to contain ivory is subjected. 

Our goal is to ensure that no objects that pass through our hands are the product 

of poaching. In order to determine the age and type of ivory in items offered for sale, 

100 

Christie’s vets each item as follows: (a) Every item that may possibly contain ivory 

is examined by an expert to determine whether the material in question constitutes 

ivory, synthetic ivory, other animal bone, or some other material and to help ascertain it’s age; (b) our specialists request and review provenance documentation to 

help pinpoint the age and country of origin of the object in question; (c) our specialists also examine the aesthetics of the object to ascertain an object’s country of origin, date, and type of ivory, based on their knowledge of art history and trade routes 

over time; (d) our specialists also study each object to make sure that the normal 

wear and tear, coloring and other details commonly associate with an antique object 

of that type are present; and (e) finally, our specialists look for any indications of 

restoration and then work to ensure that any ivory used to restore the object also 

comply with international, Federal and State laws and regulation. In short, 

Christie’s maintains stringent due diligence for all objects that may contain ivory 

in order to ensure that they fully comply with all legal requirements. 

By setting such a high standard of compliance, Christie’s not only intends to provide a good example within the art market regarding the sale of antique ivory objects but also serves as an educational resource for its clients. As we undergo the 

vetting process, we use that opportunity not only to explain what we are doing to 

our clients but the reasons why we are have put this vetting process in place. By 

helping our clients to understand the complexity of and risks associated with ivory 

objects, we enable them to make smart choices not only with us but when purchasing from others. Educated clients in turn undercut the market support for 

illegal ivory. 

Despite Christie’s multiple efforts to support the limited market for antique objects containing ivory against the contemporary trade in illegal ivory, some still seek 

a total ban on the sale of commercial ivory. We think that stance ignores how well 

Christie’s and other reputable market players meet the strict legal standards associated with the sale of antique objects containing ivory. Additional enforcement efforts 

rather than a more extensive ban would curtail the illicit trade. 

Moreover, there are significant collateral costs to a total ban on the sale of ivory. 

Many pre-19th century objects of artistic and cultural importance contain ivory, and 

a large portion of those contain only a de minimis amount. For instance, many 18th 

century wood tables contain limited amounts of in-laid ivory, certain Old Master 

paintings are painted on ivory canvases, many silver tea sets have ivory handles, 

antique musical instruments have ivory parts and the list goes on. These items can 

make up sizable portions of the collections of many museums. Even if museums 

were exempted from compliance with a complete ban, the ban would render this 

part of their collections valueless because there would be no market in which they 

could sell or trade these items. Likewise, it would render valueless the pieces in the 

hands of private collectors. 

Some of those collectors will have spent millions of dollars to purchase their antique objects containing ivory. Others may have inherited them or purchased them 

for much less money. Some may want to sell their antique ivory objects in order 

to purchase other items while others may want to sell these items in order to fund 

their child’s college education or renovate their home. In all cases, these private 

owners counted on their objects to retain value. However, a complete ban will eliminate any value to these items, no matter how distant in time from current poaching 

or minute in amount the ivory is. We believe a strict, safe, limited market can be 

continued for these antique objects containing ivory that will permit them to retain 

value for their good faith purchasers. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TERESA M. TELECKY, PH.D., DIRECTOR, WILDLIFE

DEPARTMENT, HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL

The Humane Society of the United States (The HSUS) and its global affiliate, 

Humane Society International (HSI), together constitute one of the largest animal 

protection organizations in the world. We thank Chairman Fleming and members 

of the committee for the opportunity to submit written testimony. 

Just a few weeks ago, one of Kenya’s largest and most iconic elephants, Satao, 

was killed by poachers with a poisoned arrow. The tragic death of Satao sparked 

mourning, outrage and condemnation across the globe. Images of his mutilated face 

and body—his majestic, long tusks gone—send a powerful signal that we are racing 

against time to save elephants from the ongoing slaughter for their ivory. It also 

epitomizes the ruthless poaching fueled by worldwide demand, including here in the 

United States, for ivory trinkets, statutes, decorative items and trophies. 

101 

1Martin, E., and D. Stiles. 2008. Ivory Markets in the USA. Care for the Wild International 

and Save the Elephants. West Sussex, UK and London, UK. http://www.savetheelephants.org/ 

files/pdf/publications/ 

2008%20Martin%20&%20Stiles%20Ivory%20Markets%20in%20the%20USA.pdf. 

The best way to stop the slaughter of elephants for their ivory and the march of 

the elephants toward extinction is to close ivory markets around the world, including by ending the import, export and domestic sale of elephant ivory in the United 

States. 

Therefore, The HSUS and HSI strongly support the Administration’s efforts to 

protect elephants by reducing the significant ivory market in the United States, and 

we appreciate efforts by the U.S. Congress to highlight the elephant poaching crisis, 

including this hearing today and the February 26 hearing by Chairman of the 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Congressman Ed Royce, on ‘‘International 

Wildlife Trafficking Threats to Conservation and National Security.’’ The Chairman, 

committee members and witnesses highlighted a wide range of devastating impacts 

of wildlife trafficking, especially trafficking of ivory from recently poached elephants 

that go beyond the extinction of elephants and the cruelty inflicted on the poached 

animals. The impacts also include threats to the national security of the United 

States. 

The Obama administration’s Executive Order on Combatting Wildlife Trafficking 

issued last year, and the release of the National Strategy for Combatting Wildlife 

Trafficking earlier this year, demonstrated the U.S’s firm resolve to address the 

international poaching crisis that is affecting not only elephants but rhinos, tigers 

and a host of other species. We strongly commend the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) for following up on the Order and Strategy by issuing a series of Administrative Actions ratcheting down on elephant ivory import, export and interstate commerce, to the extent allowed by law. In particular, HSUS and HSI strongly support 

the prohibition on importation of all African elephant ivory for commercial purposes, 

including antique ivory, and the moratorium on the importation of sport-hunted trophies of elephants from Tanzania and Zimbabwe. We are looking forward to reviewing proposed rules currently being developed by the USFWS and we urge the 

Service to promulgate the strongest regulations possible under law, that do not contain loopholes or exemptions that would create enforcement challenges. 

The actions of the Administration are steps in the right direction, as the U.S. has 

a crucial role to play in stemming the illegal ivory trade. It might surprise many 

that the United States is the second largest market for ivory after China. According 

to a 2008 report,1 ‘‘Ivory Markets in the USA,’’ a total of 24,004 ivory articles were 

found for sale in 654 outlets in 16 towns and cities visited in the United States. 

New York had by far the most ivory for sale, followed by California and Hawaii. 

New York City had at least 11,376 items for sale. Hawaii had 23 outlets selling at 

least 1,867 items. 

The authors found that: 

• Nearly one-third of the items appeared to have been crafted after 1989 when 

the international ban on the ivory trade under the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) took effect, making their 

importation illegal. 

• Inspection of pieces (mainly of Chinese origin) in shops suggested that many 

figures, netsukes, and jewelry items were recently made. Some African items 

also looked recently made. 

• In Hawaii, close to 90 percent of the items for sale were found to be of 

unknown or illegal origins. 

• Over 40,000 worked ivory items, including personal effects, were legally imported to the United States from 1995–2007. Previous studies found that 

ivory workshops in Asia and Africa produce fake antiques. Thus, even the imported worked ivory into the United States that seems old could be recently 

made. 

• The U.S. legally imported some 3,530 tusks and about 2,400 raw ivory pieces 

between 1990 and 2005 and some of this material was illegally sold into the 

commercial market. 

• Federal and State authorities rarely inspect shops or Internet sites for illegal 

raw or worked ivory. 

• Some contraband gets past Customs and there are no effective internal ivory 

transport and retail market controls. 

102 

2 Humane Society of the United States. 2002. An Investigation of Ivory Markets in the United 

States. The Humane Society of the United States. Washington, DC, USA. http:// 

www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/Ivory_Trade_Report.pdf. 

Research conducted by The HSUS and HSI in June and July 2013 on Hawaii’s 

and New York’s online ivory marketplaces found them vibrant yet unregulated. For 

instance, the Web site that sold the largest number of ivory products in Hawaii, 

over 800 items in total, attempts to demonstrate the legality of the ivory by posting 

on the Web site ivory import permits from the 1980s that do not contain information 

needed to match items on the list to items that are offered for sale. Several other 

vendors state that their ivory was legally imported but do not provide documentation matching the ivory they offer for sale. None of the 1,153 ivory articles offered 

for sale online in Hawaii can be judged with confidence to be legal. 

An earlier investigation 2 in 2002 by The HSUS of ivory markets in the United 

States found: 

• Ivory sellers who offed to provide fraudulent documents to investigators indicating that elephant ivory was mammoth ivory, that new ivory was old ivory, 

or that recently imported ivory was imported a long time ago. 

• These markets are supplied, at least in part, by illegal imports from Hong 

Kong of ivory objects carved in China. 

• Those in the ivory business offered tips about how best to smuggle ivory into 

the United States, including placing small ivory items in their luggage in a 

certain manner to avoid detection by x-ray machines and importing through 

U.S. ports, such as Alaska, where there are few USFWS inspectors. 

• There is no real disincentive to smuggle ivory into the United States. 

Although large-scale smugglers can be fined and imprisoned, small-scale 

smugglers are usually only required to forfeit the ivory objects. 

While the United States has laws and regulations pertaining to ivory trade, they 

are confusing and riddled with loopholes exploited by those involved in the international and domestic ivory trade. This also leads to consumer confusion about what 

is legal and what is not. The result is a flourishing, poorly regulated domestic ivory 

market in the United States. 

In the United States, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 

Species (CITES) is implemented through the Endangered Species Act (ESA). CITES 

bans the international commercial trade in both Asian and African elephant ivory. 

However, there are exceptions to this rule. Generally, any ivory possessed prior to 

July 1, 1975 is ‘‘pre-Convention’’ and can be traded internationally for commercial 

purposes. Sport-hunted elephant trophies can be exported and imported but not for 

commercial purposes. It is important to note that CITES does not address domestic 

trade in ivory. 

In addition to CITES rules governing international trade, the ESA also has its 

own rules governing international trade as well as domestic interstate trade. Under 

the ESA, the Asian elephant is listed as ‘‘endangered’’ and the African elephant as 

‘‘threatened’’. This means that, in general, it is illegal to import, export or sell Asian 

elephant ivory between States. However, African elephant ivory legally imported to 

the United States prior to January 20, 1990 (when the 1989 CITES ivory trade ban 

became effective) may be sold on the domestic market. Furthermore, import, export 

and interstate sale of ivory that is ‘‘antique’’ (more than 100 years old) are allowed. 

The other law of relevance is the African Elephant Conservation Act, which 

banned the importation of raw and worked African elephant ivory on June 9, 1989. 

The ban does not include sport-hunted elephant trophies. 

Finally, some jurisdictions within the United States have laws that can affect the 

legality of the sale of ivory. California banned the sale of ivory, although this law 

appears not to be enforced. Recently, both New York and New Jersey banned the 

sale of ivory although in New York there are some very limited exceptions. 

To summarize, it is legal to import, export and sell on the U.S. domestic market 

certain types of elephant ivory depending on the age of the ivory, the date the ivory 

was acquired or imported, and whether the ivory is from an Asian or African elephant. These variables are difficult for the public to comprehend and challenging 

for authorities to implement and enforce. 

The difficulty of enforcing these laws cannot be overlooked. Ivory is a term that 

can refer to the tusks of Asian or African elephants, or the tusks of extinct 

mammoths (dug up from the frozen tundra of Siberia or Alaska), or the teeth of hippos, walrus, sperm whale, narwhal, warthog or boar. Only experts, using special 

equipment, can sometimes tell the difference between Asian and African elephant 

tusks, or between elephant and mammoth tusks. Even then, it is not always posVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:10 Apr 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\02 FISHERIES, WILDLIFE\02JU24 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88502.TXT DARLEN
103 

3http://www.manhattanda.com/press-release/da-vance-announces-guilty-pleas-dealers-sellingillegal-elephant-ivory. 4http://www.fws.gov/home/feature/2014/3-31-14-Operation-Crash-Overview.pdf. 

5http://www.justice.gov/usao/nye/pr/June14/2014June4.php. 

6http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AuA8- 

_Dd25sJ:news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140604-victor-gordon-ivory-traffickingphiladelphia-operation-scratchoff-usf-ws-forest-elephants-gabon/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us. 7 ‘‘Eye on Ivory, Investigations & Inspections’’, USFWS, http://www.fws.gov/le/pdf/ElephantIvory-Investigations.pdf. 

sible to tell the difference between ivories of these closely related species. The fact 

that ivory carvings can be made from other mammals, including extinct ones that 

are not regulated by international or domestic laws, offers an easy means for smugglers to circumvent legal requirements by simply claiming elephant ivory carvings 

to be those of another species. 

An example of the enforcement problems surrounding ivory is illustrated when 

the USFWS seized ivory carvings imported from Hong Kong. The subject was importing 56 ivory carvings (mainly ‘‘netsukes’’ which are small ivory carvings of animals or people) in his luggage, and told the wildlife inspector that they were all 

mammoth ivory and did not require a permit. He had receipts from a Hong Kong 

shop where he had purchased the items, stating that they were ‘‘mammoth’’ tusk 

carvings. The carvings were sent to the USFW’s National Fish and Wildlife 

Forensics Laboratory to be tested. Out of the 55 carvings tested, 10 were made from 

ivory from African or Asian elephants (these items were seized), while another 6 

carvings were made from extinct elephant ivory from mammoths or mastodons. 

However, the majority of the carvings could not be determined with accuracy to be 

either elephant ivory or mammoth ivory. In fact, 29 carvings were made from 

‘‘elephant ivory of an indeterminate source.’’ Furthermore, 10 of the carvings were 

found to be ‘‘carvings made from dentine (ivory) of an indeterminate source,’’ presumably meaning that it could not be determined even from which type of the animal the ivory originated. If one of the most advanced wildlife forensics laboratories 

in the world has difficulty distinguishing between ivories, and thus between potentially legal or illegal items, it is almost impossible to expect the average ivory buyer 

to be able to do so. 

Numerous high-profile and large-scale seizures during the last few years show 

that our market is a fertile ground for smuggled ivory. According to Interpol’s rule 

of thumb only 10 percent of contraband is seized. This suggests that for every major 

seizure of illegal ivory in the United States, many more illegal items were smuggled 

into the United States. Once these illegal ivory items cross our borders, there is no 

effective control mechanism to stop their circulation in the markets. 

Below are a few examples of recent significant ivory seizures: 

• In 2012, an investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney, the USFWS 

and New York State Department of Environmental Conservations agents led 

to the confiscation in Manhattan’s diamond district of roughly a ton of ivory 

trinkets which filled 72 banker boxes, representing approximately tusks of 

100 slaughtered elephants. The seized goods were worth 2 million dollars.3

• An ongoing investigation since 2012 by the USFWS, dubbed ‘‘Operation 

Crash’’,4 in collaboration with the Department of Justice has made 17 arrests 

and 9 convictions concerning wildlife crimes. One conviction involves a 

transnational criminal network that smuggled rhino horns and elephant ivory 

collectively worth more than 4.5 million dollars. Ringleader of the network, 

Zhifei Li, was sentenced to 70 months in prison on May 27, 2014. 

• On June 4, 2014, a Philadelphia art dealer, Victor Gordon, who pleaded guilty 

for smuggling African elephant ivory, was sentenced to 30 months in prison.5

One ton of elephant ivory was seized from Gordon’s Philadelphia store in 

April 2009. According to a National Geographic article, Gordon instructed his 

West African co-conspirator, ‘‘how to alter receipts and to dye the material to 

make it appear old.’’ 6

• The USFWS’ ‘‘Operation Scratchoff’’, which targets smuggling of elephant 

ivory from Africa to the United States, discovered various ways traffickers use 

to avoid detection. For instance, ‘‘shipments were accompanied by fraudulent 

shipping and customs documents identifying their contents as African wooden 

handicrafts or wooden statues. The ivory itself was painted to look like wood; 

covered with clay; or hidden inside wooden handicrafts, such as traditional 

African musical instruments.’’ 7

104 

8http://www.fws.gov/international/pdf/factsheet-ivory-crush-qa.pdf. 

9http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140116/PROFESSIONAL_SERVICES/140119890/ 

citys-illegal-ivory-trade-threatens-elephants. 10 ‘‘Poachers Behind March Slaughter of 89 Elephants Captured in Chad’’, ICCF. http:// 

www.iccfoundation.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=494:poacher-behindmarch-slaughter-of-89-elephants-captured-in-chad&catid=72:2013&Itemid=373. 11http://news.discovery.com/animals/elephant-poaching-cameroon-120229.htm. 12 ‘‘Devastating Decline of Forest Elephants in Central Africa’’, PLOS One, March 4, 2013. 13http://www.cites.org/eng/news/pr/2012/20120228_elephant_cameroon.php. 14http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/02/world/asia/an-illicit-trail-of-african-ivory-tochina.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1382464974-wCE0VI1v2lNFACwuMh5K4A. 15 ‘‘Elephant slaughter escalates as illegal ivory market thrives’’, by Animal Welfare Institute, 

https://awionline.org/awi-quarterly/2013-winter/elephant-slaughter-escalates-illegal-ivorymarket-thrives. 

The lack of effective controls along the trade routes, combined with the difficulty 

of distinguishing legally acquired ivory from ivory of recently poached elephants, are 

exploited by unscrupulous dealers to launder illicit ivory into our marketplace. The 

USFWS has remarked that ‘‘criminal investigations and anti-smuggling efforts have 

clearly shown that legal ivory trade can serve as a cover for illegal trade.’’ 8 In a 

January hearing of the New York State Assembly Committee on Environmental 

Conservation, assistant director of the Office of Law Enforcement at USFWS, 

William Woody testified that law enforcement agents ‘‘struggle to identify the age 

of the ivory they find for sale, which determines its legality.’’ 9

The only logical conclusion, therefore, is that there must be a ban on ivory sales 

in the United States if we are to eliminate our role in the poaching and possible 

near-term extinction of elephants. While we strongly support the Administration’s 

efforts to ratchet down on the ivory trade, existing laws do not go far enough. We 

urge Congress to urgently establish a ban, without exceptions, on import, export, 

and domestic sale of elephant ivory. 

As the Nation’s largest animal protection organization, The HSUS’ concern regarding the ivory trade is first and foremost the cruelty of poaching inflicted on the 

elephants. Because one-third of the tusk is attached to the skull of the animal, 

poachers brutally hack off the face of the elephant to obtain the tusk. Poachers kill 

entire elephant families, including its youngest members as long as they have tusks. 

Elephant babies, who do not have tusks that have emerged, are left as orphans unable to fend for themselves and often die if not rescued by humans in time. 

Poachers are getting increasingly ruthless. In Zimbabwe in July last year, poachers poisoned water holes with cyanide and killed more than 300 elephants. Other 

animals, such as lions, vultures, and so on, also died from drinking from the same 

water sources or from feeding on the poisoned elephant carcasses. In March 2013, 

89 elephants, including 33 pregnant females and 15 calves, were slaughtered in 

Chad.10 A year before in February 2012, poachers killed nearly 450 elephants in 

Cameroon for their ivory.11 The Central African region bears the brunt of the poaching crisis. It is estimated that the population of forest elephants in Central Africa 

declined by 62 percent between 2002 and 2011.12 The African elephant population 

has declined by an estimated 50 percent over the last 40 years with approximately 

470,000 animals left in 38 range countries. The Asian elephant is endangered; its 

population has also been reduced by half compared to the beginning of the 20th 

century with less than 50,000 left in 13 range countries. Data indicates that in 2012 

at least 35,000 African elephants were killed to supply the global ivory trade, close 

to 100 every day. If the poaching rate persists, African elephants could be extinct 

in a few decades. 

There is also a human toll behind elephant poaching. During the last decade, over 

a thousand park rangers across the world have been killed by poachers while on 

duty. The loss of park rangers has a ripple effect across local communities because 

they are mothers, fathers, aunts and uncles; they are bread winners; and they are 

community members. These wildlife rangers are underpaid, outnumbered and 

outgunned by poachers. As the Secretary General of CITES pointed out, ‘‘the 

massive scale of poaching reflects a new trend that we are detecting across many 

range states, where well-armed poachers with sophisticated weapons decimate elephant populations, often with impunity.’’ 13 Lives of wildlife rangers are increasingly 

put in danger literally every time, if not every day, when they fulfill their job duties 

of protecting elephants from poachers. 

Ivory is dubbed ‘‘white gold’’ because of the lucrative profits ivory sales generate. 

A pound of raw ivory costs $1,300 today.14 Some say that carved ivory can sell for 

$60,000 for 10 kilograms.15 The handsome financial rewards of the ivory trade have 

attracted Africa-based armed militia and terrorist groups. Ivory has become the new 

‘‘blood diamond’’ in Africa that provides an economic bloodline to these criminal and 

105 

16http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/campaigns/elephant-campaign/elephant-campaign-howafricas-white-gold-funds-the-alshabaab-militants-9102862.html. 17 ‘‘Kony’s Ivory’’, Enough Project, June 3, 2013, http://www.enoughproject.org/reports/konysivory-how-elephant-poaching-congo-helps-support-lords-resistance-army. 

terrorist syndicates. According to an investigation by the Elephant Action League 

(EAL), Somalia-based Al-Qaeda affiliate, Al Shabaab, trades up to three tons of 

ivory every month and derives a substantial amount of its funding from the ivory 

trade. EAL estimated that profits from the ivory trade support about 40 percent of 

Al-Shabaab’s operations.16 Indicated by the International Criminal court for war 

crimes and crimes against humanity, Joseph Kony and his Lord’s Resistance Army 

have turned to elephant poaching to sustain their nefarious activities. The 

Washington-based anti-genocide organization, Enough Project, in a report released 

in June 2013, ‘‘Kony’s Ivory,’’ found that ‘‘LRA leader Joseph Kony has ordered his 

fighters to bring him elephant tusks. Eyewitnesses report that the LRA trades tusks 

for much-needed resources such as food, weapons, and ammunition, and other supplies.’’ 17 Lured by money, Sudan’s Darfur genocide perpetrator, Janjaweed, have 

been engaged in elephant poaching. Riding on horseback, and heavily armed, members of Janjaweed repeatedly crossed borders into protected parks in Cameroon and 

Chad to butcher elephants for their tusks. Profits generated by the ivory trade are 

much like the blood or conflict diamond that funded insurgency and prolonged the 

protracted conflicts in the African content. It is also easy money and untraceable. 

The involvement of African rebel groups and Al-Qaeda terrorist network in 

elephant poaching and the illegal ivory trade elevated the stakes as well as the urgency. Stemming the ivory trade is no longer just about saving the elephants, but 

also about stopping the cash-flow from the ivory trade for these groups, and protecting U.S. national security interests in the region. 

The United States alone cannot solve the elephant poaching crisis. Many argue 

that the problem lies with China or other Asian countries but we cannot deny the 

fact that the United States has a sizable ivory market that contributes to the 

flourishing of the illegal ivory trade. The world is looking to the United States for 

leadership, to fight these terrorists and save the elephants. But to have credible 

leadership, we must first address our own significant market for ivory. Efforts reducing our demand for ivory, such as the impending USFWS regulations to prohibit 

domestic ivory trade, are a clear and bold demonstration of our commitment to combating the illegal ivory trade. By taking a further step, by Congress enacting a ban 

on import, export and sale of elephant ivory, we could ensure that illegal ivory, ivory 

from newly poached elephants that funds terrorism and destabilizes Africa, will 

have no place in our country. 

U.S. actions matter and our leadership on this issue is paramount. Soon after the 

United States crushed six tons of seized ivory in Denver last year, China, France, 

Belgium and Hong Kong destroyed their seized ivory stockpiles, thereby sending the 

message far and wide that buying ivory is equivalent to elephant death and the 

world’s governments are not going to stand for it. International coordination and 

solidarity from the international community, especially from major ivory consuming 

countries, is imperative to stop the demand and thus to stop the killings. Our diplomatic efforts in convincing major consuming countries, such as China, to reduce 

their ivory demand would be most effective and credible if we can tell them unequivocally that the United States has a ban on the sale of ivory, and that we urge 

them to join us and do the same. 

We have talked the talk and now we must walk the walk. The threat of extinction 

facing elephants waits for no one while poachers and traffickers continue their 

slaughter and despicable activities unabated. The time for a total ban on the U.S. 

domestic ivory markets is now. 

I thank you for your time and consideration of this matter that is crucial to the 

survival of the elephants, to the stability of the African continent, and to the 

national security interests of the United States. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JESSE ROSEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, LEAGUE OF AMERICAN

ORCHESTRAS AND BRUCE RIDGE, CHAIR, INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF

SYMPHONY AND OPERA MUSICIANS

The League of American Orchestras, founded in 1942, and chartered by Congress 

in 1962, is the national arts service organization of approximately 800 orchestras 

across the United States—all 501(c)(3) nonprofit charitable organizations— 

representing thousands of administrators and musicians working daily to deliver orVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:10 Apr 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\02 FISHERIES, WILDLIFE\02JU24 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88502.TXT DARLEN
106 

chestral music to audiences worldwide. The International Conference of Symphony 

and Opera Musicians (ICSOM), founded in 1962, represents over 4,000 musicians 

from 52 major symphony orchestras throughout the United States, with the mission 

to promote a better and more rewarding livelihood for the skilled orchestral performer and to enrich the cultural life of our society. Our organizations are also active participants in the wider international cultural exchange community, 

partnering with The Recording Academy, Chamber Music America, the American 

Federation of Violin and Bow Makers, the National Association of Music Merchants, 

and the Performing Arts Alliance. 

Every day, thousands of U.S. professional musicians, students, and private individuals use musical instruments in public performances, private events, educational 

pursuits, and for personal enjoyment. Musicians who make their living performing 

with these tools of the trade live in cities and towns, large and small, in every corner of the United States, and contribute to the economic strength, civic vitality, and 

educational vibrancy of the communities in which they live. International artists 

from beyond our country’s borders are frequently invited to perform for U.S. audiences—alongside U.S. musicians—multiplying the diverse array of offerings available to listeners. In ongoing international cultural and diplomatic endeavors, U.S. 

orchestras, small ensembles, and soloists tour internationally to perform for audiences across the globe. In the course of their careers, working musicians nationwide 

make a considerable investment in the highest quality musical instruments available to them and count on their instruments to enable them to attain their musical 

skills, advance their careers, and supply extraordinary musical experiences to audiences. 

A great many musicians, particularly string players, perform with legally crafted 

and legally purchased musical instruments that contain small amounts of elephant 

ivory. Ivory may be found in an array of string, wind, percussion, and brass instruments. The policies recently adopted and soon to be proposed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service regarding the travel and sales rules for musical instruments will 

have a profound impact on the cultural vibrancy and economic activity of musicians 

in the United States, and will significantly alter the environment for international 

cultural activity. 

We appreciate this opportunity to go on record related to the impact of recent proposals to ban commercial activity related to African elephant ivory. In addition to 

concerns related to anticipated upcoming regulatory action to limit future sales of 

existing musical instruments, we offer comments here regarding the immediate impact of new policies now in place that limit international travel with these musical 

instruments. 

The music community is fully committed to the goals of wildlife conservation and 

combatting illegal trade in ivory and other protected species. Following the issuance 

of the February 25, 2014 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director’s Order 210, we 

have been informing musicians of the threat to African elephant populations, assembling the only existing comprehensive guidance for musicians attempting to navigate the new rules for travel with instruments, and responding to numerous daily 

inquiries and reports from individuals and groups—in the United States and across 

the globe—attempting to travel with existing, legally crafted musical instruments 

that contain small amounts of African elephant ivory and other protected species 

material. While we are grateful for the expansion of instruments eligible for travel 

under the revised Director’s Order issued on May 15, serious barriers to international cultural activities remain. 

A reliable system has not been built to support travel with Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) permits. Musicians that conclude a permit is required encounter an array of obstacles when attempting to simply travel to use the tools of their trade. 

• Clear, species-specific public guidance regarding the many layers of CITES 

and domestic requirements in the United States and internationally simply 

is not available in a format easily accessible to musicians. Musicians and cultural institutions are struggling to assess and document the endangered species content of musical instruments, which were legally crafted decades, and 

even centuries ago. Because these instruments were purchased, not for their 

protected species material, but for their unique artistic qualities, and considering a great many of them were crafted before CITES came into existence, 

very few instruments were accompanied by species-specific documentation at 

the time of purchase. In most cases, it is impossible for musicians to produce 

original records confirming the material used in instruments, leaving them to 

pursue appraisals and expert affidavits, with no assurance as to whether such 

documentation will be acceptable. Some musicians unable to answer the 

107 

threshold question as to whether the content of their musical instruments includes protected species material are obtaining permits out of necessary caution, raising their own burden, and raising the impact on permitting and 

enforcement authorities. While the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has publicly 

stated that it can use visual inspection to distinguish African elephant ivory 

from other, non-protected material found in musical instrument parts as 

small as the tip of a bow, musicians have a high degree of fear that even contemporary instruments made with non-protected material are currently at 

risk of confiscation. 

• The required U.S. permit application procedures are entirely new and not 

clearly communicated to musicians. Over the past 4 months, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service has been very responsive to the small number of initial 

applications for 3-year musical instrument passports, and has provided exemplary public service, responding to inquiries quickly and comprehensively. 

However, the application forms for passports were not complete, leaving orchestra applicants, for instance, to retrofit existing forms intended for use by 

‘‘circuses and traveling animal exhibitions.’’ A new form for applying for 3- 

year permits has only just been completed in the United States, and the 

process for using it is as-yet untested. It is unclear whether U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife will have the capacity to process the potential volume of permit applications it would receive under a fully implemented permit system. 

• The extremely limited designated U.S. port locations and hours of operations 

available for inspecting and credentialing permits are insufficient to support 

the volume of travel undertaken by professional musicians, students, and others participating in an array of international cultural activity. At present, 

only nine U.S. ports have inspectors available to process permits for musical 

instruments that contain both plant and animal material (e.g., stringed instruments containing Brazilian rosewood and ivory). Lengthy port inspection 

procedures on departure and arrival, for individuals and groups simply transporting musical instruments for use internationally, are an immense barrier 

to compliance with the underlying permit procedures. Musicians also require 

formal assurances that their fragile instruments will not be in harm’s way 

when undergoing inspection and that instruments will be safe from damage 

or destruction if erroneously confiscated. 

• International CITES authorities are not sufficiently prepared to issue multiyear musical instrument passports, and the process for recognizing U.S.- 

issued documents is uncertain. European CITES countries, for instance are 

taking the time required to fully consider the impact on their stakeholders 

before implementing a musical instrument passport process. U.S.-based musicians attempting to use U.S.-issued permits internationally are encountering 

confusion and delays that disrupt time-sensitive travel. 

• In addition to the inconsistencies related to international CITES permit procedures, the lack of clarity regarding the added U.S. domestic rules for traveling with endangered species material presents insurmountable obstacles for 

many international artists attempting to travel to perform for audiences in 

the U.S. and alongside U.S. musicians. Well-meaning foreign musicians attempting to comply with permit requirements have had their instruments detained because they unintentionally missed a step in the process or were 

unaware of the additional U.S. domestic rules for travel with instruments. 

Our organizations will continue to inform musicians of the rules for travel with 

musical instruments, and we will partner with our colleagues in the instrumentmaking community to help musicians better identify and document the material 

contained in their musical instruments. We believe that conservation goals and 

international cultural activity will be more fully supported when the United States 

takes the following additional actions: 

• Immediately issue clearer guidance tailored for musicians preparing to come 

into compliance with existing CITES and domestic permitting rules and 

enforcement procedures. 

• Fully coordinate implementation and enforcement procedures among the 

Transportation Security Administration, Department of Homeland Security, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to streamline treatment of musical instruments. 

• Communicate with international CITES authorities to pursue harmonizing 

U.S. musical instrument passport procedures with international permitting 

and enforcement protocols wherever possible. 

108 

• Remove the limitation on entering or re-entering the United States with 

musical instruments purchased after February 25, 2014, which contain 

African elephant ivory. 

• Implement a ‘‘personal effects’’ exemption that would allow legally crafted and 

legally purchased musical instruments to be transported through nondesignated ports without undergoing lengthy inspection procedures. This policy change would restore opportunities for international cultural exchange 

and enable extremely limited enforcement resources to be redirected to genuine threats to wildlife conservation. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s ‘‘Ivory Ban Questions and Answers’’ includes 

the following statement (emphasis added). 

Why is the Service allowing limited imports for non-commercial purposes 

to continue, but restricting the commercial importation of antiques made 

from African elephant ivory? 

The United States is a market for objects made from African elephant 

ivory, which drives increasing poaching of wild elephants. The Service has 

determined that it must take every administrative and regulatory action to 

cut off import of raw and worked elephant ivory where that importation is 

for commercial purposes. Allowing imports for law enforcement and scientific purposes is in line with the Service’s mission to help conserve 

African elephants and stop trafficking in African elephant ivory. The other 

limited exceptions allow movement into the United States of legally possessed African elephant ivory that predates the listing under the 

Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora (CITES) for personal use as part of a household move or 

inheritance, musical performances, and traveling exhibitions. Each of these 

types of import must meet specific criteria. And unlike the commercial antiques trade, none of these types of imports has been used by smugglers to 

‘‘cover’’ trafficking in newly poached ivory. 

Given that the use of musical instruments does not contribute to trafficking in 

poached African elephant ivory, we firmly believe that policies that protect the future use of musical instruments should be expanded. We submit the attached document, Protecting the Use and Ensuring the Preservation of Musical Instruments, as 

supporting material, which includes comprehensive facts about the limited, historic 

use of ivory in musical instruments. Notably, the document demonstrates that there 

is not a demand for new ivory in the use of crafting new musical instruments. 

In partnership with the broader music community, we will be engaged in ongoing 

opportunities for public comment, and will participate in future Federal rulemaking 

procedures related to travel with musical instruments—and domestic sales of instruments—to seek opportunities for future generations of musicians to have access to 

existing, culturally significant instruments of unparalleled quality. We thank the 

committee for this opportunity to seek urgently needed near-term solutions that 

meet conservation goals while supporting international cultural activity. 

Attachment 

Protecting the Use and Ensuring the Preservation of Musical Instruments 

The undersigned organizations urge Congress and the Administration to take the 

following steps to protect international and domestic cultural activity while supporting essential endangered species conservation efforts: 

• Restore opportunities for international travel with legally crafted, legally 

purchased musical instruments that contain endangered species material. 

• Maintain the legal sale of existing, legally crafted musical instruments that 

contain small amounts of African elephant ivory. 

• Support African elephant conservation by focusing U.S. enforcement resources 

on efforts that genuinely combat illegal trade and trafficking in African 

elephant ivory, rather than banning travel with and sale of legally crafted 

and legally purchased musical instruments. 

As part of a broader effort to combat illegal trade in African elephant ivory, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has ordered sweeping enforcement procedures related to the Endangered Species Act and the African Elephant Conservation 

Act and is drafting new regulatory limitations. Thousands of musicians use musical 

instruments containing small amounts of African elephant ivory that were legally 

109 

crafted decades ago and legally purchased—not for their ivory content, but for their 

impeccable sound and artistic value. The new USFWS measures have severe consequences on international and domestic cultural activity. 

On February 25, 2014, new strict limits immediately took effect for international 

travel with instruments that contain African elephant ivory, preventing travel with 

instruments that were legally purchased after 1973. In response to urgent appeals 

from the music community, USFWS revised Director’s Order 210 on May 15, 2014, 

saying that noncommercial movement of musical instruments ‘‘do(es) not contribute 

to poaching or illegal trade.’’ However, the revised Order still prohibits traveling 

musicians from returning to the United States with instruments legally purchased 

after February 25, 2014 and heightens implementation of international permit requirements that are nearly impossible to navigate. 

USFWS will next issue proposed regulations that will also effectively ban domestic sales of existing, legally crafted instruments that contain African elephant ivory. 

The new and forthcoming rules will unfairly render many musical instruments 

that were legally made, bought, and sold impossible to use internationally, illegal 

to resell, and effectively valueless in their existing condition. The majority of these 

instruments are irreplaceable culturally and artistically, and they are essential to 

a musician’s sound. Ivory has generally not been used for decades to create new musical instruments. USFWS has not explained how the commercial sale of existing 

musical instruments contributes to elephant poaching and the illegal trafficking in 

ivory. 

The music community is fully committed to the goals of wildlife conservation and 

combatting illegal trade in ivory and other protected species. We are asking the 

Administration to use its regulatory authority and enforcement discretion to craft 

a reasonable solution that protects the domestic and international use of musicians’ 

tools of their trade, and preserves historical and legally made instruments now and 

for future generations to come. 

Alternate ROOTS National Alliance for Musical 

Theatre 

American Federation of Musicians of 

the United States and Canada 

National Association of Music 

Merchants 

American Federation of Violin and 

Bow Makers 

National Performance Network 

Association of Performing Arts 

Presenters 

OPERA America 

Chamber Music America Performing Arts Alliance 

Dance/USA The Recording Academy 

Fractured Atlas Theatre Communications Group 

International Conference of 

Symphony and Opera Musicians 

(ICSOM) 

Violin Society of America 

League of American Orchestras 

Facts about Ivory in Musical Instruments 

Many musicians perform with instruments crafted decades, and even centuries, 

ago that contain small amounts of African elephant ivory. Most frequently found in 

bows and acoustic guitars, ivory may also be found in other string instruments, 

wind instruments, keyboards, brass, and certain percussion instruments. 

There is today no market for unworked or raw African elephant ivory within the 

musical community. Bow makers and other artisans stopped using elephant ivory 

decades ago. The trade and use of musical instruments is not a source of illegal trafficking in elephant ivory. 

The use and re-sale of instruments does not increase demand for ivory products 

or drive ivory value. Instruments are not purchased for their ivory content, but 

rather for their impeccable overall quality and tonal attributes that enable their 

owners to perform to their very best abilities. Unlike many other commodities, musical instruments are hand crafted and unique; no two are exactly alike in the way 

that they feel and sound. This helps account for their high cultural and historical 

value. 

Ivory material is not easily replaced without risk of irreparable damage to the 

instruments. Attempts at re-tipping bows, for instance, can result in the loss of historical bow wood and the bow’s unique balance and artistic quality. The art and traVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:10 Apr 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\02 FISHERIES, WILDLIFE\02JU24 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88502.TXT DARLEN
110 

dition of instrument making, part of our cultural heritage, will be undermined if 

antique and pre-act ivory are removed from bow tips and guitars in a blanket and 

indiscriminate manner to comply with the new and forthcoming rules. The preservation of these historical instruments is essential to the study of the art of crafting 

instruments, now and in the future. 

These instruments are essential tools of the trade. Because instruments are handcrafted and uniquely matched to the performance needs of musicians, they are very 

often quite expensive and represent substantial personal investments for musicians. 

Most musicians do not have suitable substitute instruments for use in place of instruments that contain ivory. 

The use, preservation, and sale of instruments are inextricably bound. The vast 

majority of musicians, artisans, and dealers are individuals or small businesses. 

Museums, institutions, and other collectors, public and private, will no longer be 

able to acquire instruments, impoverishing U.S. collections, which culturally enrich 

the public. All depend on the ability to transfer instruments. If instruments cannot 

be sold, music as we know it will not survive and musical collections, which provide 

the basis for learning, will be frozen in place. 

Facts about Travel with Instruments 

Under the original February 25, 2014 Director’s Order 210 [Administrative 

Actions to Strengthen U.S. Trade Controls for Elephant Ivory, Rhinoceros Horn, and 

Parts and Products of Other Species Listed Under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA)], instruments containing African elephant ivory were not allowed to enter the 

U.S. if the instruments had been purchased after February 26, 1976. In response 

to urgent appeals from the music community, USFWS amended Director’s Order 

210 on May 5, 2014 to slightly ease the restrictions on musical instruments. 

Under the latest version of the rules, a musical instrument that contains African 

elephant ivory may only be brought into the U.S. if the instrument meets all of the 

following criteria: the African elephant ivory contained in the instrument was legally acquired prior to February 26, 1976; the instrument has not subsequently been 

transferred from one person to another person for financial gain or profit since 

February 25, 2014; the person or group traveling with the instrument qualifies for 

a CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora) musical instrument certificate; and the musical instrument containing African elephant ivory is accompanied by a valid CITES musical instrument 

certificate or an equivalent CITES document. These limitations apply to musical instruments that contain either antique or newer ivory. 

While widening the scope of instruments eligible for travel across U.S. borders is 

a step in the right direction, many serious questions and concerns remain. It is unclear at this time what documentation will be sufficient to prove that an instrument 

was purchased prior to February 25, 2014 or that the ivory in the instrument was 

acquired prior to February 26, 1976. Instruments legally purchased after early 2014 

that contain African elephant ivory will be banned from entering the U.S., even if 

the instruments are entering the U.S. purely for personal or professional use. 

A reliable system has not been built for obtaining CITES passports and navigating complicated enforcement procedures at U.S. ports of entry and departure, 

and across the globe. The costs, uncertainty, and risks associated with attempting 

to travel with permits are a barrier to international cultural activity. While rules 

the requiring permits for travel with instruments have existed for nearly 40 years, 

they have never been widely implemented, and a complete structure has not been 

put into place to facilitate compliance. 

The permit process, customs enforcement procedures, and rules for compliance 

with the ban are opaque and incomplete, creating a high risk of erroneous seizure 

and forfeiture of musical instruments. African elephant ivory used in older instruments can be very difficult to distinguish from mammoth or non-endangered ivory 

types. The CITES musical instrument passport concept is new and the permit procedures are not yet fully developed. Only nine U.S. ports are available for travel with 

instruments that contain ivory and protected wood species. The use of U.S. permits 

in foreign countries is untested. Innocent mistakes at Customs will result in the disproportionate penalty of forfeiture. Immediate solutions are needed to avoid erroneous, potentially destructive, and professionally crippling seizures of instruments. 

These travel limitations put the livelihood and international reputation of musicians at risk. International artists perform for U.S. audiences, U.S. musicians tour 

internationally to perform across the globe, and individual amateur and professional 

musicians frequently travel abroad to perform as soloists and smaller ensemble 

members. International performances have been planned years and months in advance of the new travel rules. It is simply impossible for musicians to fulfill their 

engagements without their instruments. 

111 

Current and emerging rules related to travel with instruments that contain endangered species material are not clearly or effectively communicated by U.S. 

authorities to the vastly diverse communities of U.S. and foreign artists that travel 

across borders. There is no one-stop federal resource to communicate new orders 

and rules, leaving musicians not institutionally connected at risk of becoming unfairly ensnared in customs enforcement. Tens of thousands of musicians with unique 

cultural backgrounds residing in the United States, and those who live in diverse 

American communities and perform as professional and semiprofessional musicians, 

run a great risk of never hearing about new rules. The unmet need for mass communication and distribution of new rules, along with instructions particularly in 

non-English languages, presents a particular threat to artists in these diverse communities. 

Instrument and bow makers who travel internationally with instruments simply 

to exhibit them or for educational purposes, and without intention to sell them, 

could find their instruments and bows subject to seizure simply because they otherwise engage in commercial activity by profession. 

If musical instruments are confiscated and/or destroyed, significant financial 

hardship may ensue. Such seizures could very well spell the end of employment and 

make it impossible for musicians to participate in opportunities within artistic cultural centers, clubs, and educational training organizations. 

Conservation goals will be better supported by focusing U.S. enforcement resources on the root of the elephant ivory trafficking problem, not on legal international cultural activity undertaken by musicians. Members of the Advisory 

Council on Wildlife Trafficking publicly stated on March 20, 2014 their intent to 

focus on the ‘‘bad guys’’ fueling and fulfilling demand for new ivory products. Musicians, bow makers and restorers, and institutions and private collectors of historical 

and legally made bows are not contributing in any way to increased demand for illegally traded ivory. 

Facts about the Production, Sale, and Re-Sale of Instruments Containing 

Ivory 

The music community is not seeking to craft new instruments using African 

elephant ivory. After the 1976 CITES listing of African elephant ivory, and the 1989 

implementation of the African Elephant Conservation Act, U.S. bow makers and restorers, guitar makers, and piano manufacturers in the United States stopped using 

elephant ivory and turned to mammoth ivory and other non-endangered material 

as a plentiful substitute. 

These instruments were legally crafted decades ago. Until the CITES listing of 

African elephant ivory in 1976, hundreds of thousands of handmade bows, acoustic 

guitars, and other instruments produced over many decades, and even centuries, 

were made with small amounts of ivory. For example, violin bows often contain a 

thin ivory tip, with dimensions of approximately .6 millimeters x 10 millimeters 

x 23 millimeters. An average bow tip weighed .2–.25 grams and required 1 gram 

of unfinished ivory. In 1970, when trade in elephant ivory was legal, an average elephant tusk weighed 26 pounds, meaning that ivory from one elephant could have 

produced over 23,000 bow tips. The head of the bow was designed around the physical properties of the ivory tip, which gives the delicate bow head protection, 

strength, and proper balance. Many acoustic guitars used small amounts of ivory 

as saddles or nuts, typically amounting to no more than 1 percent of the instrument’s weight. 

Existing instruments that were legally crafted, sold, and purchased should remain 

in use. Although elephant ivory has not been used in the making of new instruments in decades, tens of thousands of instruments containing small amounts of elephant ivory are today being played and carried throughout the United States and 

the world by professional, amateur, and student musicians. These instruments 

should be available to future generations of musicians as well as instrument makers, who look to historical examples as essential educational references for their 

work. 

It will be extremely difficult for many vintage instruments to be designated as antiques eligible for an exemption under the proposed rules. In order to qualify as an 

antique eligible for import, export, and interstate sale, an instrument must not only 

be 100 years old, but must have entered the U.S. via one of 13 authorized ports, 

even though such designated ports did not exist until 1982. Even if the port-entry 

requirement is relaxed in the proposed regulations, other problems remain. Instruments that have been repaired or modified with any endangered species since 1973 

are also not eligible for designation as antiques. Otherwise qualifying antiques also 

will not be eligible for exemption if purchased after February 25, 1976. Non-antique 

112 

vintage instruments would be banned from import and domestic sale under the 

USFWS proposal. 

July 2014 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SOTHEBY’S, INC. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity 

to submit testimony for the record of the Oversight Hearing on U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Plans to Implement a Ban on Commercial Trade in Elephant Ivory. 

Sotheby’s has been uniting collectors with world-class works of art since 1744. We 

are the oldest company listed on the New York Stock Exchange (BID) and committed to conducting our business with the highest level of integrity and transparency and to supporting an ethical art market. Sotheby’s was the first participant 

in the art market to establish a global Compliance & Business Integrity Department, which oversees the development and maintenance of programs and policies 

designed to facilitate Sotheby’s ongoing compliance with all applicable laws, rules 

and regulations governing our worldwide operations, including those related to endangered species. 

Sotheby’s deplores the illegal slaughter of elephants and other endangered wildlife 

and has long supported various conservation organizations. For example, Sotheby’s 

CEO hosted the premiere screening of The National Geographic Special, ‘‘Battle for 

the Elephants,’’ and we have played a significant role in The Big Egg Hunt events 

in both London and New York, which benefited an organization dedicated to protecting Asian elephants. We strongly support conservation efforts, including further 

restrictions on the illegal trade in objects made with illegally sourced ivory. We succor the President’s initiative to end wildlife trafficking to curb poaching of elephants 

and stand ready to assist with policy education. We support efforts to ensure that 

only reputable, transparent and responsible sellers are allowed to sell ivory objects, 

efforts to increase scrutiny of individual objects being offered and increased penalties for those who illegally sell ivory. However, we are concerned that the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Director’s Order 210 could eliminate the sale and import of antique ivory, which would negatively impact the art market across the country including Sotheby’s, museums and other art purchasers. 

There are long-existing Federal and State laws that contain significant restrictions on the importation, exportation and sale of ivory. Compliance with these laws 

requires multiple layers of licensing and substantial background research in order 

to determine whether the ivory may legally enter the United States and/or whether 

it may be legally sold. Auction houses like Sotheby’s are noted for the quality and 

thoroughness of the information we provide to determine the legitimacy of the ivory 

we seek to sell. It is this track record and transparency of auction houses and other 

compliant actors that ensures that only legitimate antiques remain in commerce, in 

the hands of private collectors, museums, and the public at large. We cannot understate the cultural value and education that antiques provide society and we urge 

the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (‘‘USFWS’’) to produce a predictable, common-sense 

regulatory regime that will ensure generations of Americans can enjoy antiques 

from all regions of the world. Specifically, we fear that Order 210’s prohibition of 

antique imports with ivory serves no policy purpose and worse impedes the United 

States’ ability to lead by example with a rigorous commercial standard for cultural 

objects containing wildlife . Furthermore, isolating the United States from cultural 

treasures based on present day atrocities does nothing to remedy the problem. We 

urge the President and stand by him to educate the world on the importance of protecting today’s wildlife, but banning antique sales does not accomplish our shared 

objective. 

There has long been a statutory exemption in the United States Endangered 

Species Act (‘‘ESA’’) to allow the import, export and sale of antique items containing 

endangered material, i.e. those over 100 years old. There is an economically significant and important trade in antique art and artifacts (including furniture, sculpture, cultural objects and musical instruments) that were legally created more than 

100 years ago that have been collected, exhibited and traded throughout history. 

The exemption is important to museums, art collectors, and legitimate art market 

participants, and is in the public interest. Museums, for example, need to retain the 

ability to acquire and/or transfer art work, created long ago, that contains endangered material so they may refresh and curate their collections; similarly, individuals who legally collected or inherited artifacts made long ago with plant and 

animal material should not be deprived of the highly regulated legitimate marketVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:10 Apr 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\02 FISHERIES, WILDLIFE\02JU24 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88502.TXT DARLEN
113 

place that currently exists, and which facilitates movement of art to and from public 

and private collections. 

Director’s Order 210, dated February 25, 2014 implemented several new enforcement policies that could effectively eliminate the antique exemption in the ESA and 

not allow the sale or import of antique ivory in the United States. For example, the 

Order re-interpreted the definition of ‘‘antique’’ to require that the piece had been 

imported through designated ports after such ports were designated in 1982. After 

hearing from the antiques trade and other interested parties, USFWS conceded that 

the new requirements were unworkable and issued an Amended Director’s Order on 

May 15, 2014. That Amendment removes the import requirement for items that are 

already in the United States. We applaud the USFWS for being responsive, however 

other concerns remain. 

First, although the amended Director’s Order appears to take steps toward allowing the continued market for antique items containing ivory, the language of the 

Order and associated documents is vague and thus leaves room for wide latitude 

in how USFWS will enforce it and future regulations. For example, between 

February and May (the issuance of the first and amended Director’s Orders), although the sale and export of antique African elephant ivory was legally permitted, 

the USFWS effectively blocked it by requiring proof as to the type of ivory that was 

impossible to obtain. As Director Ashe continues to refer to their desire for a ‘‘near 

total ban’’ on the trade of ivory, it remains to be seen what type of substantiation 

the Service will require to prove the age of an object or the species it contains. 

Second, the Director’s Order changes the requirements for establishing the age of 

property containing endangered material, calling into question whether USFWS will 

accept affidavits from Sotheby’s specialists—some of the foremost in their respective 

fields. By requiring that a qualified appraisal be given by a person who is not an 

employee of ‘‘any business that is a party to the transaction,’’ the Director’s Order 

appears to say that USFWS will not accept the expert opinions of Sotheby’s highly 

skilled specialists concerning the age of the objects consigned to Sotheby’s for sale 

simply because Sotheby’s is involved in the transaction. While ‘‘independent’’ experts make sense in some contexts, it makes no sense here, as there is no one better 

placed to make this expert determination than the very people with extensive commercial experience, knowledge and expertise with the particular property—whether 

furniture, silver, musical instruments or American revolutionary items. Moreover, 

Sotheby’s and our specialists’ interests in correctly identifying the age of an object 

are perfectly aligned with USFWS’s interest in doing the same. If an object is not 

an antique as determined by a Sotheby’s specialist, it is effectively a modern reproduction. Since Sotheby’s guarantees the objects that we sell, any mistake as to the 

age of an object could have serious financial and reputational repercussions. Thus, 

we urge the Director to focus efforts on vetting the qualifications and integrity of 

the experts and not on their independence, given that it is not realistic to require 

experienced sellers and buyers to obtain appraisals from their competitors. We also 

note that opining as to the age of an object is different from identifying the plant 

or animal material. Sotheby’s typically relies on outside animal specialists with appropriate training and expertise in species identification to identify the animal 

material. The regulation should require the right expert to make the various identifications and age determinations, and Director’s Order 210 does not do so. 

Third, Director’s Order 210 bans commercial imports of items containing African 

elephant ivory, regardless of their age. We are not aware of any documented or substantiated connection between the trade in antiques crafted with ivory before it was 

protected and present day poaching and illegal trafficking. In contrast, it is certain 

that banning the import of antique objects crafted with ivory will bring real, measurable harm to U.S. collectors and institutions. Since there is a clear and statutorily 

mandated exception for antique items, that exception should apply also to the import of such objects when done according to law. 

Finally, there were many important objects, including highly designed, artistic 

furniture (such as pieces created at Emile-Jacques Ruhlmann), created in the 

1920s–1940s using African elephant ivory legally acquired well before the elephants 

were protected under CITES and the ESA. The trade in such objects has long been 

permitted under the Special Rules for African elephant ivory. However, the new documents issued by the USFWS reflect their intent to amend the Special Rule to 

eliminate the ability to trade in these very old and important objects. 

The USFWS proposal produces significant unintended consequences and criminalizes important cultural commerce activities that benefit many audiences. We urge 

this committee to ensure that the antique exemption be preserved and to exercise 

careful oversight of the Director’s Order and the upcoming regulatory process related to ivory policies. 

114 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LINDA KARST STONE, KERRVILLE, TEXAS

My name is Linda Karst Stone. I am proud to be an American Scrimshaw artist, 

self-employed for over 37 years, pay my taxes, vote and earning a living. I love my 

work. I have never hunted an elephant and the one thing that everyone here can 

agree on is that the magnificent elephants need to be protected. I owe my very livelihood to the ivory producing animals of our planet. 

I have worked with ivory all my life, most of it recycled. I do not expect everyone 

to like what I do but I also represent 37 years of collectors who found what I create 

worthy of their investments. Not one piece would have the paperwork this ban 

would require, changing my life’s work into worthless objects. I was not lazy in 

keeping paperwork or giving it. None was required which is why the USFWS plans 

to shift the burden of proof onto the seller. They know none exists and that enforcement would be overwhelming so they intimidate lawful collectors with the RICO, 

travel and LACY acts, wire taps and Felony charges. 

Some believe all ivory is blood ivory. That is a lie. Poachers are talking over because some people oppose a legal ivory market that would take away the poachers 

incentive and the terrorist’s money. If legal ivory was available it would find a market. We are handing out billions of dollars to impose our views onto Africa. We are 

giving charity to governments that does not reach its target. We all know this is 

complicated, over 35 range countries, some of them that cannot even protect their 

children and are not concerned with poachers. Others have more elephants than the 

land can support. 

This law: 

• Is an Overwhelming ‘‘taking’’ of legal personal property, without just 

compensation protected by the constitution with a stated mission to send a 

message to poachers who will not care 

• Ignores the supreme court 1st amendment protecting ‘‘viewpoint Neutrality’’ 

• Reverses the long standing premise of American law that we are ‘‘innocent 

until proven guilty’’ 

• Unlawfully rules over intrastate commerce 

• Arrogantly forces our views onto Africa without their input and over their 

objections 

• Creates an impossible enforcement issue that will affect millions of dollars of 

taxable income 

• Spends tax dollars for an advertising campaign to make ivory owners so unpopular that they will turn in their valuable heirlooms to an agency that decided to put 6 tons of ivory through a rock crusher. Money that could have 

raise millions to fight poachers and encourage conservation 

• Ignores that fact that elephants do die of old age and that ivory could fund 

the elephants salvation 

• Uses misleading numbers of poached animals as confirmed in the MIKE 

report, 20,000 not 35,000; http://www.cites.org/eng/ 

elephant_poaching_and_ivory_smuggling_figures_for_2013_released 

• Ignores current prosecutions made under existing laws that do need to be 

better enforced 

• Bans ivory that has already been banned for import and export for over 25 

years 

• Most importantly it will not save one living elephant from being 

killed in Africa 

There are success stories in Africa like South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. 

They have the answers, they live with the elephants. We should listen to them or 

we will watch them stop investing in the herds and extinction will be eminent. In 

a TED talk, Conservationist John Kasaona from Namibia explained how they 

turned poachers into protectors. He said, ‘‘Conservation will fail if it doesn’t work 

to improve the life of local communities.’’ The solution lies in their hands. This law 

would impede all their best efforts. 

Please stop this unworkable assault of American rights. 

115 

RICHARD L. HUBER, 

NEW YORK, NY 10024, 

JUNE 20, 2014. 

Hon. JOHN FLEMING, Chairman, 

House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs, 

1324 Longworth House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: Oversight Hearing on ‘‘The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Plan to Implement 

a Ban on the Commercial Trade in Elephant Ivory,’’ June 24, 2014—Comments 

Submitted for the Record 

DEAR CHAIRMAN FLEMING: 

I am writing you in reference to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Plan 

to Implement a Ban on Commercial Trade in Elephant Ivory in the United States, 

contained in Director’s Order 210, dated February 25, 2014, articulated in the meeting of the Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking held March 20, 2014 and contained in the revised Director’s Order 210, dated May 15, 2014. 

My wife and I are collectors of Iberian Colonial art and have been so for some 

40 years. A subset of the objects included in this category is Hispano-Philippine & 

Indo-Portuguese pieces of ivory religious sculpture. By definition, all are pre-1820 

(the effective end of both the Spanish and Portuguese colonial periods). We have frequently lent objects from our collection to leading U.S. museums. The Philadelphia 

Museum of Art held an exhibition of our collection last year on which a beautiful 

catalogue was published. Exhibit A attached hereto contains a representative sample of photographs. 

We have imported at least a dozen such objects over the last few years. We have 

always chosen to import them legally and have had much experience with FWS in 

the process. This has almost always been a painful experience, between obtaining 

the CITES documents from the designated authority in the exporting country to 

having virtually every single piece physically examined by an FWS inspector. This 

frequently includes the retention of brokers or facilitators which obviously makes 

the whole process more expensive. Indeed, the topic of FWS enforcement is a hot 

subject for discussion amongst major museum directors, since they all have their 

own ‘‘horror stories’’ about some 16th century Japanese scroll that happens to have 

small ivory finials on the scroll rod, or a 15th century Spanish chest with inlays, 

or a medieval German chest with ivory drawer knobs. 

No one I know disputes in the slightest the importance of enforcing the 

Endangered Species Act. As a matter of fact, my wife and I are strong supporters 

of the Act; she is a trustee of the Nature Conservancy, my father spent his whole 

professional career with the U.S. Forest Service and was head of wildlife management for the Forest Service in the Pacific Northwest when I was in high school. But 

I and many others question the way FWS does the job, particularly in an environment where government at all levels is being encouraged to operate more intelligently and efficiently. 

Does the FWS really think that the Metropolitan Museum of Art, or the Brooklyn 

Museum, or the Philadelphia Museum of Art (we happen to know the directors and 

many curators at all three institutions), would ever remotely consider violating the 

Endangered Species Act? To me, this is inconceivable—and a similar level of trust 

should be afforded to private collectors who have a proven record of legal compliance 

and commitment to both the protection of endangered species and the preservation 

of genuine antiques. I am a retired Chairman and CEO of a Fortune 100 company 

and I am proud of the business reputation that I built over 50 years. As mentioned 

above, we have imported many objects which have required FWS approval over the 

years. Perhaps the time of FWS inspectors could be more efficiently employed elsewhere in the vast scope of regulation which the Agency is tasked with enforcing. 

To completely ban, de facto, as FWS does, the importation of antique ivory items 

to ‘‘enhance’’ the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act would be similar to 

banning driving because a small percentage of drivers get behind the wheel when 

they are intoxicated. Sure, banning all driving would stop drunk driving, but at a 

huge cost—and of course would never be contemplated. However, this is exactly 

what the FWS ban on ivory imports would do. 

I believe that we have skilled people in enforcement functions instead of machines 

so that they can think. It is really not that hard to distinguish between genuine 

CITES documents and falsified ones; even an untrained eye can certainly distinVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:10 Apr 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\02 FISHERIES, WILDLIFE\02JU24 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88502.TXT DARLEN
116 

guish a 17th century Indo-Portuguese religious carving from a recently fabricated 

Chinese ivory trinket. Exhibit B attached hereto shows the obvious differences. 

Once again I say mindless bureaucracy! I am of the strong opinion that our government’s elephant conservation efforts would be better served by taking much of 

the budget currently used for domestic enforcement and sending it to Kenya, 

Tanzania and Uganda to hire more game wardens. More aggressively pursuing the 

real source of the problem would be considerably more effective than playing valueless games with American citizens who would struggle under the FWS proposed rule 

to meet documentary requirements that are impossible to comply with. 

Let’s face it: the United States is an extremely low risk country for violations of 

the Act. There is no tradition of semi-mystical reverence for ivory or ivory carvings 

as is the case in China, India and several other Asian countries. These countries 

are the recipients of the vast majority of smuggled raw ivory, and I doubt if the 

U.S. represents even 1 percent of the total. 

Instead of wasting time, energy and money harassing owners of legitimate antique ivory by imposing impossible documentary demands, I would suggest making 

all reputable museums self-enforcing agents of the FWS. Simple documents could 

be filed for each antique export or import, which could be periodically audited by 

FWS, if that were deemed necessary. I would go further and deputize such institutions to do the same for registered collectors of antique ivory objects. 

I would commend to this subcommittee, indeed to Congress itself that the FWS 

can continue to restrict and prohibit the illegal trade of African elephant ivory in 

the United States with methods that encourage the cooperation of all reputable 

actors. Better cooperation among responsible parties will have substantial results— 

far more so than trying to effect a complete ban on antique cultural articles by 

criminalizing the trade in the United States with new documentation requirements 

that are inordinately expensive and impossible to comply with by even the most 

well-meaning and law-abiding antiques collector. 

Sincerely, 

RICHARD L. HUBER. 

117 

EXHIBIT A 

Three Centuries of Iberian Colonial Art (c. 1500–1800) 


88502.023.eps
118 


88502.024.eps
119 


88502.025.eps
120 


88502.026.eps
121 

EXHIBIT B 

CENTER FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, 

SEATTLE, WA. 

Hon. PETER DEFAZIO, Ranking Member, 

House Committee on Natural Resources, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CONGRESSMAN DEFAZIO: 

Thank you for your participation in the House Natural Resources Committee 

hearing on the African elephant ivory trade held on June 24, 2014. 

As you know, the hearing was introduced by first citing a recent report from the 

Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) 

Secretariat on the number of elephants killed last year in the illegal trade. That 

was followed by a description of a report I prepared for INTERPOL on poaching hot 

spots across Africa. Given how my INTERPOL report was described at the hearing, 

I am concerned that its findings were misunderstood and that this misunderstanding could jeopardize acceptance of the report and its recommendations for 

action. A copy of the report is attached for your information. 

The INTERPOL report describes the results and implications of an investigation 

my laboratory has been conducting since 2004. We use DNA analyses of large seizures (≥ 0.5 tons) of African elephant ivory made in Africa and Asia to determine 

the locations of the major poaching hot spots in Africa. These analyses can reliably 

determine the origin of a large seizure to within 300 km (180 mi) of its true origin. 


88502.027.eps
122 

Our work is conducted in collaboration with INTERPOL, the United Nations Office 

on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), CITES Secretariat, World Customs Organization 

and World Bank. We also collaborate with United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) Office of Law Enforcement, and that collaboration recently led to the successful conviction in Togo of the largest ivory dealer in West Africa. 

Our findings to date suggest that the majority of large ivory seizures are derived 

from a fairly small number of locations across Africa. If this pattern persists, it offers an effective strategy to thwart this Transnational Organized Crime (TOC) that 

is consistent with the UNODC 2010 report: The globalization of crime: A 

transnational organized crime threat assessment. As the UNODC report argues, the 

elaborate networks that enable TOCs to operate make TOCs particularly difficult 

to contain. Thus, the most effective way to combat TOCs is to make their networks 

inoperative. Our project aims to provide the intelligence needed to achieve that by 

identifying and directing concerted law enforcement efforts to the major poaching 

hot spots in Africa. We hope that such law enforcement efforts will stop the major 

flows of ivory from entering these networks and thus choke this illegal trade at its 

source. This may also be the most effective way to urgently stop the unsustainable 

slaughter of elephants that continues across Africa. 

By definition, major poaching hot spots supply many tons of ivory into the illegal 

trade repeatedly across years. Such hot spots can only provide that much ivory if 

they contain many thousands of live elephants and present a relatively low risk of 

apprehension for poachers. Few remaining places in Africa can still provide that. We 

believe that is why the same major hot spots keep appearing repeatedly in our analyses, and this also makes them slow to change. These same features are what 

makes the above mentioned law enforcement strategy feasible. The locations of recent large ivory seizures provide some of the best predictors of areas that continue 

to experience the heaviest poaching, and the small number of these major hot spots 

is what makes their containment possible. 

I was very proud to hear my report used to introduce the June 24 hearing. 

However, the following statement gave me concern that its important findings were 

misunderstood: ‘‘Based on a report to INTERPOL by Dr. Samuel Wasser of the 

University of Washington, who performs the DNA testing on seized ivory, we now 

know that poachers are killing over 75 percent of all elephants in about three locations in Africa.’’ 

My report did indicate that the majority of large ivory seizures analyzed to date 

came from a small number of locations across Africa and recommended that these 

poaching hot spots be immediately targeted by law enforcement. However, in no way 

did the report suggest that 75 percent of all elephants were being killed in just 2– 

3 locations across Africa. To the contrary, the report emphasizes that a primary objective of our ivory tracking program is to analyze a more representative number 

of ivory seizures so we can be confident that we have identified all current major 

ivory poaching hot spots in Africa. Once identified, the majority of those hot spots 

would also need to be targeted to successfully choke this TOC at its source. If all 

goes as planned, we hope to have all of the current major poaching hot spots identified within the next 12 months. 

I am concerned that the apparent misunderstanding of my INTERPOL report at 

the June 24 congressional hearing, oversimplified one of the few effective strategies 

to significantly thwart this TOC. While it is vital to target the major poaching hot 

spots prescribed in that report, those few areas are certainly not the only ones that 

need to be targeted to stop the slaughter of elephants. Finally, of all the hot spots 

our analyses have identified to date, the worst hot spot by far is the game reserves 

in southern Tanzania. I did not hear that point brought out at the hearing, and I 

wanted to be sure you were aware of it, as it provides strong justification for the 

USFWS decision to prohibit importations of ivory trophies from that country. 

Thank you for your understanding and attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

SAMUEL K. WASSER, PH.D., 

Director, Center for Conservation Biology, 

Professor, Department of Biology, 

Endowed Chair in Conservation Biology. 

Attachment 

123 

Report to INTERPOL on DNA Assignment of 

Large Ivory Seizures 

by Samuel K Wasser, Ph.D., Center for Conservation 

Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 

Executive Summary 

Since 2005, the Center for Conservation Biology has been collaborating with 

INTERPOL to identify the major elephant poaching hotspots across Africa. We developed a DNA reference map for forest and savanna elephants across the continent 

and use this to assign origin to genotyped ivory seizures that constitute large seizures of ≥ 0.5 tons. The report clearly identifies two current major hotspots. The 

most significant hotspot is in SE Tanzania, including the Selous Game Reserve, 

with recent infusion into Ruaha National Park, along with the adjacent Nyasa 

Game Reserve in northern Mozambique. The second current hotspot is in the 

TRIDOM area of Central Africa, especially in NE Gabon and NW Congo-Brazzaville. 

A third hotspot was also identified in Zambia but no longer appears to be current. 

Our work continues to search for additional hotspots. However, there is little doubt 

that the two areas we identified as the most important current hotspots warrant 

immediate law enforcement action aimed at shutting these areas down. 

Introduction 

Transnational organized crime (TOC) has placed considerable challenges on law 

enforcement agencies, partly due to the complexities of the networks that enable 

them to operate. Over the past decade, wildlife crime has emerged as among the 

top four or five TOCs, partly due to their high profit margin and low risk or apprehension and/or prosecution. The problem is compounded by wildlife being a relatively non-renewable resource, where losses can be associated with considerable, 

long-lasting environmental damage. The illegal elephant ivory trade has rapidly escalated in this environment, particularly since 2006. Insurgents have capitalized on 

this trade to support their operations and line their pockets, further compounding 

the problem. We may now be losing more than 10 percent of Africa’s elephant population annually. Given the key roles that elephants play in the ecosystem, this has 

created a considerable urgency to stop the killing. 

Fortunately, the Center for Conservation Biology, working largely in collaboration 

with INTERPOL, has developed intelligence-gathering methods aimed at identifying 

the major African elephant poaching hotspots across Africa, with the ultimate goal 

of targeting those areas for future law enforcement. This approach may also serve 

as a model for attacking TOCs in general. 

We developed unique genetic methods to determine the origin of large ivory seizures. These origin assignments are accurate to within 260 km of the seizure’s actual origin, from anywhere in Africa. At least two lines of evidence strongly suggest 

that the origin assignments of large ivory seizures (≥ 0.5 tons) are highly reliable 

predictors of the most significant current poaching hotspots. (1) The vast majority 

of ivory in single seizures tends to come from the same localized area(s), poached 

repeatedly over time. Thus, poachers appear to be targeting the same locations to 

meet their quota. (2) The same locations keep recurring over and over again as the 

places of origin of major ivory seizures, suggesting that the number of major 

hotspots may be far more limited than previously thought. This makes sense since, 

by necessity, hotspots are areas that have enough elephants to supply multiple tons 

of ivory repeatedly over multiple years, where the risk of apprehension to poachers 

is also low. Relatively few remaining elephant populations have those characteristics, limiting both the number of hotspots and the speed with which hotspots change 

over time. These combined features make the origin of large ivory seizures highly 

predictive of future poaching hotspots, offering a powerful forensic tool for targeting 

the highest risk areas for future poaching. Properly applied, this information could 

focus law enforcement on the most significant poaching hotspots across Africa, potentially choking the networks, at their source. This approach could provide a highly 

efficient, cost-effective way to tackle TOC, simultaneously serving as a model for attacking TOCs in general. 

The figures below illustrate these points. They show the origins of 13 large ivory 

seizures analyzed since the inception of our program, 11 of which were conducted 

in direct collaboration with INTERPOL. They reveal three major hotspots: The first 

major hotspot we identified was in Zambia (Figure 1), but may no longer be current. 

The second and by far the biggest current hotspot is in the Selous Game Reserve 

124 

and neighboring parks in SE Tanzania along with the adjacent Nyassa Game 

Reserve in northern Mozambique (Figures 2–6). The third major and still current 

hotspot is in Gabon and Congo-Brazzaville, especially in the TRIDOM area in NE 

Gabon and NW Congo (Figure 7). Results also show how the transit but not the 

source locations have changed over time. 

Zambia 

In 2002, the largest ivory seizure since the 1989 ivory ban was seized in 

Singapore in a joint operation by INTERPOL, LATF and Zambia and Malawi Wildlife Authorities. The 6.5 ton seizure was shipped from Malawi, transiting Durbin, 

South Africa before being seized in Singapore. The seizure contained 531 very large 

tusks and 42,000 hankos. The ivory was sampled by INTERPOL and LATF and sent 

to our lab for analysis in 2006. The majority of tusks (Figure 1a) and hankos (data 

not shown) were assigned to Zambia. Documents recovered at the Malawi ivory 

carving factory where the samples were shipped indicated 19 other shipments with 

the same modus operandi (MO). In 2005, another 6 tons were seized in the 

Philippines, again with the same MO. However, the tusks were stolen from their 

storage area before they could be analyzed. In 2006, a joint operation by 

INTERPOL, LATF and the CITES Secretariat recovered another shipment with the 

same MO. That shipment was used in a controlled delivery, cut short and seized 

in Singapore. Our lab determined that those tusks also originated in Zambia (Figure 

1b). No subsequent seizures from this area has since been recovered, leading us to 

speculate that this area no longer constitutes the major poaching hotspot that it was 

in the past. 

Figure 1. DNA assignment results of two large ivory seizures, respectively made in Singapore 

during 2002 and 2006. Each black circle indicates the median assigned location of a separate 

tusk in the seizure. The red crosses indicate the respective locations of savanna reference samples using to make the assignments. Since the ivory was initially determined to be from savanna 

elephants, only savanna elephant reference samples were used to make these assignments. The 

black arrows represent the transit routes. The curved red arrows point to the assigned origin 

of the ivory. 

Southern Tanzania/Northern Mozambique 

In 2006, Tanzania exported 11 tons of ivory seized within a 1.5 month period. The 

first two seizures (3 tons and 2.2 tons) were made, one day apart, in Taiwan. The 

third seizure (2.6 tons) occurred 4 days later in Hong Kong, and the fourth (2.8 tons) 

∼1 month later in Japan. The first three seizures were all genetically assigned to 

the Selous Game Reserve in SE Tanzania and the adjacent Nyassa Game Reserve 

in northern Mozambique (Figure 2). Japan refused to provide their seized ivory for 

these analyses. However, many of the tusks had Swahili writing on them, also suggesting an East African origin. 


88502.011.eps
125 

Figure 2. DNA assignment results from three ivory seizures, shipped from Tanzania within 

a 5-day period in 2006. Each black circle indicates the median assigned location of a separate 

tusk in the seizure. The orange and green crosses indicate the respective locations of savanna 

and forest reference samples. The ivory was initially determined to be from savanna elephants. 

Thus, only savanna elephant reference samples were used to make these assignments. The black 

arrows represent the transit routes. The curved red arrows point to the assigned origin of the 

ivory. The picture in the bottom is from a fourth seizure shipped out of Tanzania the following 

month. We were not given the samples to assign. However, the photo shows Swahili writing 

on the tusk, further indicating East African origin. 

In 2009, Tanzania shipped 14 tons of ivory seized between March and August in 

Vietnam (9 tons) and the Philippines (5 tons). All of these tusks had similar MOs. 

We did not acquire those seizures at the time. However, the Philippines recently 

crushed their ivory stockpiles and provided us samples from these seizures prior to 

carrying out the crush. Two of these seizures were among the 5 tons seized in 2009. 

Those seizures were assigned to the Selous Game Reserve in SE Tanzania and the 

adjacent Nyassa Game Reserve in northern Mozambique (Figure 3). 


88502.012.eps
126 

Figure 3. DNA assignment results of two large ivory seizures, respectively made in the 

Philippines in 2009. Each blue circle indicates the median assigned location of a separate tusk 

in the seizure. The orange crosses indicate the respective locations of savanna reference samples 

using to make the assignments. Since the ivory was initially determined to be from savanna 

elephants, only savanna elephant reference samples were used to make these assignments. The 

black arrows represent the transit routes. The curved red arrows point to the assigned origin 

of the ivory. 

In August 2010 and May 2011, Kenya made two seizures with similar MOs of 1.5 

and 1.3 tons respectively. These two seizures also came from Tanzania (Figure 4, 

but with two notable differences. They were from widely dispersed, versus highly 

concentrated areas, across Tanzania, following a pattern more consistent with stockpiled ivory and, for the first time, the Tanzania-derived contraband was transited 

out of Africa from a country other than Tanzania. Perhaps coincidentally, these seizures occurred just following Tanzania’s failed petition to sell their stockpiled ivory 

at the CITES COP15 (March 2010), when all eyes were on them. 


88502.013.eps
127 

Figure 4. DNA assignment results of two large ivory seizures, respectively made in the Kenya 

during August 2010 and May 2011. Each blue circle indicates the median assigned location of 

a separate tusk in the seizure. The red crosses indicate the respective locations of savanna reference samples using to make the assignments. Since the ivory was initially determined to be 

from savanna elephants, only savanna elephant reference samples were used to make these assignments. The black arrows represent the transit routes. The curved red arrows point to the 

assigned origin of the ivory. 

There has been a lot of recent speculation on militias poaching ivory to support 

their regimes by trading ivory directly for arms. This was partly fueled by a rapid 

increase in ivory smuggled from Kampala, Uganda to Mombassa, Kenya prior to 

being shipped to Asia. Since 2011, 17 tons of ivory was seized in Mombassa after 

transiting Kampala, with 13.5 tons seized in 2013. Militias in eastern DRC were 

believed to have been the perpetrators. In May, 2012, 359 tusks were seized in Sri 

Lanka after transiting Kampala and being shipped out from Mombasa. INTERPOL 

sent a rapid response team to Sri Lanka to sample those tusks and sent them to 

our lab for analysis. Once again, the ivory came from the Selous Game Reserve and 

Ruaha National Park, both in SE Tanzania with some potential spill over into the 

adjacent Nyassa Game Reserve in northern Mozambique (Figure 5). 


88502.014.eps
128 

Figure 5. DNA assignment results of the Sri Lanka ivory seizure, May 2012 (southern 

Tanzania). Each black circle indicates the median assigned location of a separate tusk in the 

seizure. The orange crosses indicate the respective locations of savanna reference samples used 

to make these assignments. Since the ivory was initially determined to be from savanna elephants, only savanna elephant reference samples were used to make these assignments. The 

black arrows represent the transit routes. The curved red arrows point to the assigned origin 

of the ivory. 

In June 2013, 781 tusks were seized in Malawi, implicating a high level officer 

from the Tanzania military. This seizure is also alleged to involve the same dealer 

responsible for the 1.8 tons of ivory seized in the house of a Chinese national in 

Dar es Salaam in November 2013. INTERPOL worked with NCB in Malawi and 

Tanzania to sample the Malawi seizure. The tusks varied widely in size, but included some very large samples (>1.6 m in length). The tusks also had four different 

types of writing on them: 1 = Blue writing, 2 = Green writing, 3 = Red writing, 4 

= ‘‘777’’ written in Red. 

DNA analyses revealed that all of the tusks were from savanna elephants. The 

overall assignment of the 65 samples that amplified DNA suggest they were derived 

from an area spanning SE Tanzania and northern Mozambique, with the largest 

concentration likely derived from the Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania and the 

Nyasa Game Reserve in northern Mozambique, and a possible second distribution 

slightly more north spanning Ruaha National Park/Mikumi National Park/northern 

Selous Game Reserve (Figure 6). 


88502.015.eps
129 

Figure 6. Group assignment of savanna elephant tusks from the June 2013 Malawi seizure. 

Each tusk assignment in the overall group assignment is indicated by a blue circle. Orange 

crosses represent the savanna reference samples locations used to make the group assignments. 

Separating the analyses into their four separate groups suggested that these 

groups represent at least three different groups of poachers/dealers (Figure 7A–D). 

The distribution of poached ivory in groups 1 (blue writing) and 2 (green writing) 

spanned the entire range where poaching occurred (i.e., were similar in distributions 

to the overall pattern seen in Figure 6). However, groups 3 (red writing) and 4 (777 

written in red) appear to be distinct. Group 3 was more concentrated in the northern part of the overall distribution, on the Tanzania side, whereas group 4 appears 

to be more concentrated in the southern part of the distribution, on the Mozambique 

side. The combined results suggest that at least three separate groups of poachers/ 

dealers contributed ivory to this overall seizure. 

Based on these seizures, there is no doubt that SE Tanzania is the most significant major poaching hotspot in Africa. The transit locations have progressively 

moved outside of Tanzania, but the source has remained firmly within Tanzania, 

bleeding the largest protected area in Africa of its enormous natural elephant population. 


88502.016.eps
130 

Figure 7. Separate group assignments of savanna elephant tusks from the June 2013 Malawi 

seizure, based on the color of ink and specific writing on the surface of the tusks: A. Group 1 

= blue writing on outside of tusks; B. Group 2 = green writing; C. Group 3 = red writing; D. 

Group 4 = ‘‘777’’ written in red. Each tusk assignment in the sub-group assignment is indicated 

by a colored circle. Orange crosses represent the savanna reference samples locations used to 

make the group assignments. 

Gabon/Congo-Brazzaville 

In 2006, a seizure was made in Hong Kong when a container was X-rayed and 

found to have a false compartment containing 4 tons of ivory. The tusks in this seizure were very large tusks, on average. The container was shipped from Cameroon. 

However, our analyses assigned the ivory to an area covering central Gabon and 

Congo-Brazzaville, potentially overlapping the elephant rich TRIDOM area of NE 

Gabon and NW Congo (Figure 8a). Documents uncovered at the dealers home in 

Cameroon revealed at least 12 similar shipments, with the same 3 containers returning to Cameroon carrying used tires for resale. The next two returning containers were searched, and found to also have false compartments. Scraps of ivory 

recovered from the compartments of these two containers were also assigned to the 

same area as the 4 ton seizure (data not shown). 

In July 2103, Hong Kong seized 1,148 tusks, after transiting Togo. Unlike the previous seizure, these tusks were remarkable in that they were all very small in size 

(1.0–1.5 kg on average), suggesting they came from small elephants. Those tusks 

were once again assigned to the TRIDOM area of NE Gabon and NW CongoBrazzaville (Figure 8b), suggesting this area to have undergone considerable poaching pressure over time. 


88502.017.eps
131 

Figure 8. DNA assignment results of two ivory seizures made in Hong Kong during 2006 and 

2013. Each black circle indicates the median assigned location of a separate tusk in the seizure. 

The green crosses indicate the locations of forest reference samples. The ivory was initially determined to be from forest elephants. Thus, only forest elephant reference samples were used 

to make these assignments. The black arrows represent the transit routes. The curved red arrows point to the assigned origin of the ivory. 

On January 22 and 29, 2014, Togo authorities seized nearly 4 tons of ivory in 

Lome, Togo, en route to Vietnam. INTERPOL sent a rapid response team to Togo 

to sample the seizures for DNA analyses. The samples were imported into the 

United States by the USFWS under an ‘‘Lo’’ CITES designation and sent to the 

Center for Conservation Biology (CCB) for DNA assignment. 

When INTERPOL arrived in Togo, the two seizures were already merged with no 

way to separate them. Since it was suspected that the two seizures were actually 

part of the same shipment, the January 22 and 29 seizures were treated as one, 

with a total of 200 samples collected from the entire shipment according to previously established protocols. Of these, 86 samples reached the inclusion criterion 

of amplifying DNA at 10 or more of the 16 loci examined. Of these, 79 samples were 

from forest elephants and 7 from savanna elephants. 

The forest elephant samples were largely from the TRIDOM area, including NE 

Gabon, NW Congo-Brazzaville, and SW Cameroon, including also the Dzanga Sanga 

area of CAR. A few samples in that cluster may also have come from Central DRC. 

There was also a second cluster of eight samples that had a West African origin, 

concentrated in the western part of Cote d’Ivoire (Figure 9). 

Four of the savanna elephant samples came from SW Chad and perhaps 

Cameroon, with one additional sample from CAR and two from Tanzania. The two 

samples from Tanzania are noteworthy because they suggest a potential connection 

between dealers operating in eastern and western Africa. 


88502.018.eps
132 

Figure 9. Assignment of: (a) forest and (b) savanna elephant tusks seized in Togo, January 

2014. Each blue circle represents the assignment of one forest or savanna elephant tusk. Green 

and orange crosses respectively represent forest and savanna elephant reference samples used 

to make the assignments. 

The above results suggest the emergence of another major and still current 

elephant poaching hotspot in Africa, this one involving the last remaining healthy 

population of forest elephants in the TRIDOM area of Central Africa. 

Current Plan 

Our program had a slow start, obtaining only a small portion of all seizures made 

between 2006 and 2010. Countries were reluctant to hand over their seizures and 

the vast majority of the seizures we acquired were at the bequest of INTERPOL. 

Publication of our results (Wasser et al 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009) and presentations 

at CITES COPs eventually raised awareness of the value of this method. By COP16 

held in Thailand last March, it was clear that the remaining elephants in Africa 

were being poached at a scale not seen since the ivory ban and this could drive the 

remaining African elephants to near extinction in the next decade. In response, the 

parties unanimously passed resolution 16.83, urging all countries making large 

ivory seizures to rapidly turn them over to an established laboratory for origin assignment. At that same meeting, ICCWC requested our lab to lead the origin assignments and for the first time, we are acquiring large numbers of seizures on a 

frequent basis. Indeed, we are now positioned to identify all major current poaching 

hotspots in Africa by mid-2015. We already have firm commitments from the seizing 

countries to acquire 31 (in orange) of the 39 large ivory seizures documented between 2011 to present. Ten of those seizures (in boxes) have already been sampled 

and shipped to our lab, eight of which have already been analyzed this year (Table 

1). 


88502.019.eps
133 

Taking Action 

We are now working on a plan to make these results actionable, by cooperative 

law enforcement efforts that target these major hotspots. Our goal is to focus initial 

actions on the two largest, current hotspots, beginning with southern Tanzania and 

then the TRIDOM area of NE Gabon/NW Congo-Brazzaville. If successful, this will 

pave the way to bring down all the major hotspots we hope to identify over the next 

12 months, offering the real opportunity to choke this burgeoning transnational 

crime at its source. 

Supporting Literature 

Wasser SK, A Shedlock, K Comstock, E Ostrander, B Mutayoba, M Stephens. 2004. 

Assigning African elephant DNA to geographic region of origin. Applications to the 

ivory trade. Proceedings National Academy of Sciences 101: 14847–1485. 

Wasser SK, C Mailand, R Booth, B Mutayoba, ES Kisamo, B Clark, M Stephens. 

2007. Using DNA to track the origin of the largest ivory seizure since the 1989 trade 

ban. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(10): 4228–4236. 

Mailand C, SK Wasser. 2007. Isolation of DNA from small amounts of elephant 

ivory. Nature Protocols 2: 2228–2232. 

Wasser SK, WJ Clark, O Drori, ES Kisamo, C Mailand, B Mutayoba, M Stephens. 

2008. Combating the illegal trade in African elephant ivory with DNA forensics. 

Conservation Biology 22: 1065–1071. 

Wasser SK, B Clark, C Laurie. 2009. The Ivory Trail. Scientific American July, 

2009. 

Wasser SK, et al. 2010. Elephants, ivory and trade. Science 327: 1331–1332. 


88502.020.eps
134 

2012 DATA FROM ELEPHANT DATABASE


88502.021.eps
135 

Elephant Poaching and Ivory Smuggling Figures 

Released Today 

CITES—PRESS RELEASE—June 16, 2014 

Poaching levels remain alarmingly high at over 20,000. More large ivory seizures in 

Africa than Asia for the first time 

Geneva, 13 June 2014—Over 20,000 African elephants were poached across the 

continent in 2013 according to a report released today by the Secretariat of the 

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES). Although the sharp upward trend in illegal elephant killing observed since 

the mid-2000s, which had peaked in 2011, is levelling off, poaching levels remain 

alarmingly high and continue to far exceed the natural elephant population growth 

rates, resulting in a further decline in elephant populations across Africa. 

The report also shows a clear increase in the number of large seizures of ivory 

(shipments over 500 kg) made in 2013, before the ivory left the African continent. 

For the first time, the number of such seizures made in Africa exceeded those made 

in Asia. Just three African countries—Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda—accounted for 

80% of those seizures. Large-scale ivory seizures are indicative of transnational 

organized crime being involved in the illicit ivory trade. 


88502.022.eps
136 

‘‘Africa’s elephants continue to face an immediate threat to their survival from 

high-levels of poaching for their ivory and with over 20,000 elephants illegally killed 

last year the situation remains dire. Due to the collective efforts of so many, we also 

see some encouraging signals, but experience shows that poaching trends can shift 

dramatically and quickly, especially when transnational organized crime is involved,’’ said John E. Scanlon, Secretary-General of CITES. 

Southern Africa continues to hold the lion’s share of Africa’s elephants, holding 

close to 55% of the known elephants on the continent. Eastern Africa holds 28% and 

Central Africa 16%. In West Africa, less than 2% of the continent’s known elephants 

are spread over 13 countries. 

Poverty (measured by infant mortality rates) and weak governance (measured by 

law enforcement capacity and corruption levels), together with demand for illegal 

ivory in consuming nations are three key factors linked to higher poaching levels. 

Overall poaching numbers were lower in 2013 than in 2012 and 2011—but they 

continue to exceed 20,000. The report warns that poaching levels will lead to continuing declines in the African elephant population. 

The report identifies monitored sites where poaching is increasing (33% of monitored sites), including Dzanga Sangha (Central African Republic), as well as those 

sites where a decline in poaching has been observed (46%), such as Zakouma 

National Park (Chad). Some populations of elephants continue to face an immediate 

threat of local extinction. 

The report containing the latest figures (2013) from the CITES Monitoring Illegal 

Killing in Elephants (MIKE) programme and the Elephant Trade Information 

System (ETIS) will be discussed at the 65th meeting of the CITES Standing 

Committee taking place in Geneva from 7 to 11 July 2014. 

The monitoring data from the field is unique and it is the most comprehensive 

global survey of any of the 35,000 CITES-listed species. It is collected by law enforcement patrols and other means, who try to establish the cause of death and 

other details, every time a carcass is found. CITES then collates and analyses this 

data thanks to funds provided by the European Union. 

Commenting on the scope of the report, Julian Blanc, responsible for the MIKE 

programme, said: ‘‘We are monitoring 30 to 40% of the elephant population, through 

a peer reviewed process that gives us the best available global estimates on the illegal killing of elephants. We hope to expand this coverage to improve on our estimates. We are supporting countries that do not have the capacity or the funds to 

monitor MIKE sites and are seeking further support for field rangers.’’ 

In March 2013, based on the findings of ETIS, CITES identified eight countries 

(Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, China, Malaysia, The Philippines, Thailand, and 

Vietnam) as the most heavily implicated in the illegal ivory trade chain as source, 

transit or destination countries. CITES took decisions at that time requesting all 

eight countries to develop and implement National Ivory Action Plans to tackle the 

elephant poaching and smuggling crisis. 

These decisions are being translated into a wide-range of actions and initiatives— 

improved protection in the field, stronger Customs controls, better use of modern 

technologies and forensics—such as DNA testing and isotopes, strengthened legislation and policies, targeted investigations and more prosecutions, new public awareness campaigns, the destruction of confiscated ivory stockpiles, and the allocation 

of dedicated funding to combat wildlife crime. 

‘‘We are seeing better law enforcement and demand-reduction efforts across multiple countries, as well as greater political and public attention to this unfolding crisis and CITES decisions and compliance processes underpin the global effort,’’ said 

Scanlon. 

‘‘The momentum generated over the past three years must now translate into 

deeper and stronger efforts to fight these crimes on the front line, where it is needed 

most—from the field, to Customs, to illicit markets, and only then can we hope to 

reverse the devastating poaching trends of the past decade,’’ added Scanlon. 

Several conferences held since CITES Parties met in 2013, including in Gaborone, 

London and New York, have further contributed to securing high-level political support across all continents. 

The CITES Standing Committee next month will assess the eight countries 

National Ivory Action Plans, and will discuss the next steps to stop illegal ivory 

trade, including whether additional countries should develop National Ivory Action 

Plans. 

The Committee will also consider the roll out of a wide-range of enforcementrelated decisions taken by CITES in March 2013 on other species being pressured 

by illegal trade, including rhinos, Asian big cats, rosewood, pangolins, freshwater 

turtles and tortoises, great apes, and snakes, as well as a study of the legal and 

illegal trade in wild cheetahs. 

137 

Endangered Species: African Poaching Down and 

Ivory Seizures Up—Report 

EE news.net—June 13, 2014 

Poaching of African elephants in 2013 decreased from the previous two years, but 

some populations are still threatened with local extinction, according to international wildlife regulators. 

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora reported that more than 20,000 elephants were poached last year, but for the 

first time, Africa seized more large shipments of smuggled ivory than Asia. 

‘‘We are seeing better law enforcement and demand-reduction efforts across multiple countries, as well as greater political and public attention to this unfolding 

crisis,’’ said John Scanlon, secretary-general of CITES. 

Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda constituted 80 percent of the seizures. The countries are among eight nations that CITES required to create plans to curb ivory 

smuggling. 

Even though total poaching numbers were down on the continent, the practice 

increased last year in the Central African Republic. 

Eastern Africa is home to 28 percent of the continent’s elephants, and the majority—55 percent—live in southern Africa. 

© 1996–2014 E&E Publishing, LLC 

Wildlife: GOP Lawmakers, Witnesses Blast FWS 

Ivory Ban Proposal at House Hearing 

E&ENews.net 

June 25, 2014 

By Dylan Brown, E&E reporter 

With stuffed elephants donated by conservation groups lining lawmakers’ desks, 

everyone at a House Natural Resources subpanel hearing yesterday agreed that 

African elephants could be driven to extinction within a decade if something is not 

done about poaching driven by demand for ivory. 

‘‘The plight of the elephants demands our undivided attention,’’ said Ian 

Somerhalder, ‘‘Vampire Diaries’’ star and president of his own foundation dedicated 

to environmental issues, during his testimony. 

All present said it is necessary to undermine the illicit ivory trade, which has become a billion-dollar funding source for international crime syndicates, militias and 

terrorist groups in Africa and Asia, where ivory is seen as a status symbol. 

The international side of the equation appeared settled. 

Domestic issues, however, especially the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed commercial ivory ban, generated disagreement and prompted strong criticisms from 

Alaska Rep. Don Young (R) and other Republicans. 

‘‘For those in the audience who think you’re saving elephants, you’re going to be 

killing these elephants,’’ Young said. 

The United States remains the second-largest market for ivory in the world, but 

how much of it is illegal remains unclear, said FWS Associate Director Robert 

Dreher. 

Echoing the concerns of sportsmen, musicians and auction houses worried that 

the ban, which eliminates commercial imports and restricts exports to all but 

verified antiques containing ivory, would have a detrimental effect on the value of 

ivory owned by millions of Americans, Young and other members of his party castigated FWS and lambasted the ban as another federal regulatory overreach, arguing 

that the ban would unfairly put the burden of proof on American owners to prove 

their ivory was not the product of poaching. 

‘‘Uncle Sam is going to say you have to prove it, you’re guilty because we say you 

are. That is wrong, and this is not going to save the elephants,’’ Young said. 

With many older instruments containing ivory, National Music Museum stringed 

instruments curator Arian Sheets testified about musicians’ concerns over the effect 

138 

of the ban on older, valuable instruments like ivory-keyed pianos and some guitars. 

Montana Republican Steve Daines pointed out earlier this month that violin bows 

belonging to the Budapest Festival Orchestra were seized temporarily at John F. 

Kennedy International Airport. 

According to fellow panelist Matthew Quinn of Quinn’s Auction Galleries, museums and auction houses could essentially see the devaluation of great swaths of 

items—hundreds of millions, he estimated. Many Americans looking to sell grandma’s ivory figurine collection would be out of luck. 

‘‘Such quick administrative actions . . . will adversely impact millions of unknowing Americans,’’ Quinn said in his written testimony, arguing that the guidelines 

laid out by the FWS are far too rigorous for cases in which people have little to no 

documentation of items. 

Impact of FWS Ban on Hunting 

The ban’s effect on hunting also raised Young’s hackles. 

‘‘There is a value when they can be hunted; there is a value when they can in 

fact be managed; there is a value when you let a country manage its game,’’ he said. 

According to letters obtained by Greenwire under the Freedom of Information Act, 

sportsmen have been in representatives’ ears about the restrictions on importing 

elephant trophies (Greenwire, June 23). Elephant hunts that cost upward of $10,000 

in countries like Zimbabwe were stamped out by the ban, Dreher said, due to questionable management practices and weak governance in some African nations. 

Republicans touted Zimbabwe, one of the few nations that opposed the 1989 international ivory trade ban, as a model for using hunting revenue and management 

to benefit impoverished people. 

‘‘The simple truth is that if wildlife have no economic value, there is little if any 

incentive for people who live in that habitat to conserve or save them,’’ said subcommittee Chairman John Fleming (R-La.). 

At the hearing, Itai Hilary Tendaupenyu, principal ecologist for the Zimbabwe 

Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, said the United States failed to notify 

his government prior to making a decision on the ban. He said hunting revenue is 

critical to Zimbabwe’s economy, with approximately 67 percent of proceeds going to 

local communities. Furthermore, he said, Zimbabwe’s elephant population is actually increasing thanks to hunting. 

Democrats asked to see the data, but International Fund for Animal Welfare 

President Azzedine Downes said the evidence for hunting being a boon for local communities simply doesn’t exist. 

‘‘It’s a great sound bite, but there is no evidence to really back it up,’’ he said. 

‘‘One person comes and shoots an elephant . . . the money goes to the safari company, to the people who issued the permit, and what does the community get? 

Literally a carcass.’’ 

Downes doesn’t buy the argument that the domestic ban isn’t necessary, because 

he says it targets the demand fueling poaching. 

‘‘I think people would like people to think that, that it’s not going to have any 

impact. It’s not about dry regulations; it’s actually about preventing elephants from 

being killed—demand drives it,’’ he said. ’’You have a piece of ivory? You have to 

make a decision: the elephant or this? There are losers, but it’s worth it.’’ 

Both sides agreed on one other thing: Figuring out the age of ivory is a fool’s 

errand. 

Testing requires destroying part of the ivory, and criminals are adept at making 

new ivory look old. 

Allan Thornton, president of the nonprofit Environmental Investigation Agency, 

who also testified at a Democratic press conference preceding the hearing, said allowing ivory that was harvested pre-ban to be traded gives criminals a loophole 

large enough to drive a truck through. 

Downes agreed: ‘‘If someone on the street has to figure out ‘Is this piece legal or 

illegal?’ it won’t work.’’ 

Conservationists applauded the ban as an indication that the United States is 

taking the lead on the issue. Essentially, Crawford Allan, senior director of 

TRAFFIC, a partnership between the World Wildlife Fund and the International 

Union for Conservation of Nature, said it gives the United States the high ground 

from which to influence other countries. 

‘‘Let’s not lose sight of the main prize here . . . and the fact that it’s like a catalytic knock-on effect around the world,’’ Allan said. 

Three hours after it was scheduled to start, the end of the healing was marked 

by bipartisan calls to refocus on that main prize: saving elephants. 

How that will be done remains to be seen, but while he said he didn’t believe 

FWS’s ban would be effective, former Texas Rep. Jack Fields implored his former 

139 

colleagues to work together to attack the root of the problem. Fields suggested they 

hark back to the passage of the original 1989 ban he helped pass. 

’We decided that we were going to put collateral issues aside . . . if you’re really 

looking at trying to preserve the elephant population,’’ he said. 

It’s All About Saving The Elephants 

Forbes Op-Ed 

June 23, 2014 

Guest Post Written By Judith McHale and David J. Hayes 

Doug Bandow recently published an opinion piece in Forbes in which he argues 

that the President is fighting the elephant poaching crisis by targeting U.S. citizens 

who own ivory. He asserts that the Administration’s policy is all about ideological 

politics, rather than actually ‘‘fight[ing] poaching.’’ (Italics in original.) He could not 

be more wrong. 

Contrary to Mr. Bandow’s inference, the Administration’s anti-poaching strategy 

is not proceeding on the backs of U.S. citizens and it is all about, in fact, fighting 

poaching. Unmentioned by Mr. Bandow, the President’s Executive Order on 

Combating Wildlife Trafficking, issued last July, and the follow-up National Strategy document issued by his cabinet last February, lays out a comprehensive strategy that takes the fight directly to the poachers and the organized and sophisticated 

criminal syndicates that are behind them. The threat is an extremely serious one, 

both because the syndicates are devastating economically and culturally important 

elephant, rhino and other iconic wildlife populations, but also because this lucrative 

criminal activity is fueling instability and corruption, and strengthening armed militias and terrorist groups. 

Picking on one aspect of a multi-dimensional, comprehensive strategy, Mr. 

Bandow argues that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is engaged in a misguided and 

pointless exercise in restricting domestic commercial trade in ivory. He fails to note, 

however, that U.S. law already restricts commercial trade in ivory. The current 

restrictions flow from a 1989 U.S. import ban under the African Elephant Conservation Act, followed by a global ban on commercial import and export of ivory established by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 1990 to protect elephant populations that were under 

enormous poaching pressure at the time. These actions took hold and worked, shutting down vibrant ivory markets in the U.S. and Europe. Without an easily accessible market, the massive killings of elephants declined precipitously in the early 

1990s. 

In the last few years, unfortunately, the ban on commercial trade in ivory has deteriorated under the weight of lax enforcement, misguided ‘‘one time’’ sales of national ivory stocks, and other loopholes. Coincidentally, new markets for ivory in 

China and Southeast Asia have opened up and the world is now experiencing a dangerous spike in wildlife killings and related organized criminal activity. 

Because the U.S. remains an important market for ivory—albeit not the largest 

market—it is appropriate for FWS to clarify what type of commercial trade in ivory 

is legal, and what is not. FWS is taking steps to remind Americans that U.S. law 

prohibits commercial imports of ivory and trade in ivory or ivory products that entered the United States illegally. The agency also is seeking to clarify what type of 

evidence must be provided to satisfy the ‘‘burden of proof’’ that U.S. law puts on 

individuals who are seeking to sell ‘‘antique’’ and pre-ban ivory products. 

Ivory owners in the U.S. can continue to own ivory, of course, and trade it if they 

can make required showings. We agree with Mr. Bandow that in clarifying the proof 

needed to establish legality under the law, FWS should adopt a common sense approach that offers law-abiding ivory owners reasonable avenues to obtain required 

certifications. But the showings must be vigorous enough so as to prevent fraudulent claims by agents of the sophisticated traffickers who are making billions from 

the sale of ivory from freshly-killed elephants. 

As a final point, by taking steps to reconfirm and clarify existing restrictions on 

commercial trade in ivory, the U.S. strengthens its hand in insisting that China and 

other Asian nations take similar steps and shut down the rampant illegal trading 

activity that has infected their domestic ivory markets. If they do not, the U.S. can 

and should demand that offending nations either get in line, or suffer the conVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:10 Apr 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\02 FISHERIES, WILDLIFE\02JU24 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88502.TXT DARLEN
140 

sequences of trade sanctions imposed under the authority of U.S. law (the Pelly 

Amendment) or in concert with other nations, under the CITES treaty. 

Ms. McHale is Chair, and Mr. Hayes is Vice-Chair, of the Wildlife Trafficking Advisory Council. 

The Wrong Way to Protect Elephants 

The New York Times—Op-Ed Article 

By Godfrey Harris and Daniel Stiles—March 26, 2014 

The year was 1862. Abraham Lincoln was in the White House. ‘‘Taps’’ was first 

sounded as a lights-out bugle call. And Steinway & Sons was building its first upright pianos in New York. 

The space-saving design would help change the cultural face of America. After the 

Civil War, many middle-class families installed them in their parlors. The ability 

to play the piano was thought to be nearly as important to the marriage potential 

of single ladies as their skill in cooking and sewing, signaling a young woman’s gentility and culture. 

The keys on those pianos were all fashioned from the ivory of African elephants. 

And that is why one of these uprights, the oldest one known to survive, in fact, is 

stuck in Japan. 

The director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service recently issued an 

order prohibiting the commercial importation of all African elephant ivory into the 

United States. (Commercial imports had been allowed in some instances, including 

for certain antiques.) 

The Obama administration is also planning to implement additional rules that 

will prohibit, with narrow exceptions, both the export of African elephant ivory and 

its unfettered trade within the United States. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has said that these new rules will help stop the 

slaughter of elephants. But we believe that unless demand for ivory in Asia is reduced—through aggressive education programs there, tougher enforcement against 

the illegal ivory trade and the creation of a legal raw ivory market—these new 

American regulations will merely cause the price to balloon and the black market 

to flourish, pushing up the profit potential of continued poaching. 

In short, these new rules proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service may well end 

up doing more harm than good to the African elephant. 

What these regulations will also do is make the import, export and interstate sale 

of almost any object with African elephant ivory virtually impossible. Anyone who 

owns any antique African elephant ivory—whether it is an Edwardian bracelet inherited from a grandmother or an ivory-handled Georgian silver tea set owned by 

an antiques dealer—will be unable to ship or sell it without unimpeachable documentation that proves it is at least 100 years old, has not been repaired or modified 

with elephant ivory since 1973, and that it arrived in the United States through 

one of 13 ports of entry. 

The story of the Steinway underscores the complexity, rigidity and absurdity of 

these rules. The piano was salvaged years ago by Ben Treuhaft, a professional piano 

technician. When his wife took an academic job in Japan, he shipped the piano 

along with their other household possessions to Tokyo. They moved to Scotland after 

the Fukushima nuclear accident three years ago, leaving the piano in storage in 

Japan to be shipped later. Now Mr. Treuhaft is ready to return the piano to the 

United States and place it in the hands of a friend who planned to display it at 

her piano shop. 

But the piano remains in Japan. It lacks the paperwork necessary to clear customs in the United States because Mr. Treuhaft failed, when he shipped the piano 

abroad, to obtain the required export permit identifying the ivory keys and the piano’s provenance. In the past, the government might have exercised some discretion 

over Mr. Treuhaft’s oversight. But no more. Moreover, to meet the personal-use 

exception for an import, the piano would have to be shipped back as part of a household move, and he wants to send it to a friend. 

So the piano that Steinway says is its oldest known upright is stuck in Japan. 

Of course, Mr. Treuhaft is not the only one who is or will be hurt or inconvenienced by this draconian order from the Fish and Wildlife Service, or the new rules 

that the administration seeks to impose. Musicians already complain of a burdenVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:10 Apr 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\02 FISHERIES, WILDLIFE\02JU24 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88502.TXT DARLEN
141 

some process and months-long delays in securing permits to take their instruments 

containing ivory abroad. And collectors, gun owners and antiques dealers say they 

have been blind sided by the proposed rules, which will effectively render their 

African elephant ivory pieces worthless unless they can meet the extremely difficult 

standards necessary to sell them. 

We suggest a different approach. We should encourage China, where much of the 

poached ivory ends up, to start a detailed public education campaign that underscores the damage done to elephant populations by the illegal trade in ivory. We 

also need more aggressive enforcement of anti-poaching efforts in Africa. And we 

should figure out a way to manage the trade in raw ivory to protect elephants. For 

instance, several years ago, ivory stockpiles owned by several African countries were 

sold in a series of United Nations-approved auctions in an effort to undercut illegal 

ivory trafficking. The proceeds went to elephant conservation efforts. This is a better 

approach than destroying these stockpiles, as the United States did last fall to six 

tons of ivory. 

Leaving Mr. Treuhaft’s piano in Japan will not save African elephants. But it will 

further endanger them and diminish the lives of those who recognize and value the 

role of ivory in history and culture. 

Godfrey Harris directs the Political Action Network of the International Ivory Society, and Daniel Stiles is a 

wildlife trade consultant. 

A version of this op-ed appears in print on March 27, 2014, on page A31 of the New York edition with the 

headline: The Wrong Way to Protect Elephants. 

© 2014 The New York Times Company 

Grandma’s Cameo Becomes Yard-Sale Contraband 

How will a government ban on selling or trading 

antique ivory help save endangered elephants? 

Wall Street Journal—Op-Ed Article 

By John Leydon, June 23, 2014 

On June 26 countless antiques, musical instruments and other objects made from 

ivory or decorated with it will be effectively banned by the federal government from 

sale or trade within the U.S. Coupled with tough new international import-export 

restrictions, the value of these objects, once in the hundreds of millions of dollars, 

will evaporate. 

The expressed aim of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to discourage the ivory 

trade and protect endangered African elephants, though it is difficult to discern how 

that effort is aided by attacking, say, collectors of Victorian or Art Deco treasures. 

To avoid having the ban termed a ‘‘blanket prohibition,’’ which would require 

congressional legislation, the Fish and Wildlife Service has granted a ‘‘regulatory exception’’ that covers a minuscule number of ivory-laden objects that can meet its 

elaborate requirements. In addition to proving that a particular object is at least 

100 years old, its owner must possess official paperwork showing that it was imported to America before 1990, or legally thereafter, and provide unspecified evidence that the object has not been repaired or modified since December 1973. In 

other words, the bar has been set so high by the Fish and Wildlife Service that very 

few items will qualify, and then only at great expense and months of research and 

bureaucratic wrangling. 

The message is clear to those who possess ivory-detailed objects including clarinets, canes, pistols, crucifixes, timepieces, chess sets, cameos, guitars, mahjong sets, 

pianos or furniture: You own it, you’re stuck with it. The objects shortly will be 

worthless and uninsurable by government decree, and the IRS is unlikely to allow 

you to write it off as an investment loss, no matter how much you or your family 

paid for it—a few hundred dollars at an estate sale or $20,000 at Christie’s. 

The impracticality of monitoring every flea market, auction and estate sale in the 

country will force the Fish and Wildlife Service to selectively enforce the new regulations. Worse, many buyers and sellers—from hobbyists to professionals—may be 

unaware that they will be vulnerable to confiscation, fines and arrest for violating 

the new regulations. 

142 

When the Fish and Wildlife Service does step in to prosecute owners and confiscate the ivory goods, it will be doing so in the misguided belief that it is helping 

to save endangered elephants in Africa by demonizing all ivory, no matter the vintage. As someone who collects ivory-detailed walking canes and who counts himself 

as a dedicated environmentalist, I think the government is overreaching by creating 

this new criminal class. 

If you see the increasingly common signs saying ‘‘Support the Ban,’’ remember 

that the new federal rule is not directed against the brutal mercenaries and terrorist organizations whose present-day poaching is endangering the last remaining 

members of a magnificent African species. The domestic ban is aimed indiscriminately at you or your family or your neighbors, and at heirlooms, collections and 

investments. 

Conservation organizations and lovers of cultural treasures must work together 

to stop the tragedy unfolding in Africa by supporting forceful interdiction efforts. A 

first step toward encouraging such a sensible alliance might be for Congress to impose a time-out on the Fish and Wildlife Service, delaying the implementation of 

its misguided ban and giving thoughtful people who understand its impact, and its 

folly, more time to weigh in. 

The House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs is 

scheduled to meet Tuesday to discuss the domestic ivory ban. Let’s hope our elected 

representatives can bring some sense to the discussion and reverse this new and 

faulty regulation. 

Mr. Leydon, a retired telecom executive, is a member of the International Society of Cane Collectors and a staunch 

supporter of international wildlife conservation organizations. 

Obama’s Ivory-Trade Regulatory Overkill— 

Turning Antique Collectors into Criminals will 

Boost the Black Market 

The Washington Times 

By Doug Bandow—February 18, 2014 

The Obama administration is preparing to treat virtually every antique collector, 

dealer and auctioneer in America as a criminal. In the name of saving elephants, 

the administration is effectively banning the sale of all ivory objects, even if acquired legally decades ago. 

Doing so will weaken conservation efforts and enrich those engaged in the illegal 

ivory trade. 

Elephants are being killed in Africa. Under the Convention on the International 

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, only ivory from before 1989 

can be sold. Unfortunately, ivory-sale prohibition has not stopped the slaughter. 

The greatest demand for new ivory comes from Asia. Most ivory in America 

arrived legally, many years ago. The owners followed the rules as they invested 

hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in art objects. 

Until now, the rules were simple and sensible. Ivory imported legally—that is, 

prior to 1989 or after 1989 with convention certification—could be sold. Older ivory 

usually can be identified by coloring, stains, style, wear, quality, subject and more. 

Most of the older work simply isn’t replicated today. 

Moreover, the burden of proof fell on the government, which had to prove that 

an individual violated the law to convict him of violating the law. That’s the way 

America normally handles both criminal and civil offenses. 

However, in mid-February the administration issued what amounted to a ban on 

ivory sales. In practice, virtually every collector, dealer, auctioneer and other person 

in America is prohibited from selling ivory items—even if acquired legally, owned 

for decades, and worth hundreds or thousands of dollars. 

Every flea market, junk shop, estate sale, antique store, auction showroom and 

antique show is at risk of raids, confiscations and prosecutions. 

First, no imports are allowed, not even of antiques, which before could be brought 

to America with a convention certificate. 

Second, all exports are banned, except antiques (defined as more than a century 

old) in what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says are ‘‘exceptional circumstances.’’ 

143 

At best, the administration is raising the administrative and cost burdens of 

exporting to countries that already limit ivory imports to items with appropriate 

documentation. Or the new rule may restrict the sale of items previously allowed, 

thereby hindering Americans in disposing of their legal collections. 

Third, interstate transactions are prohibited, except for antiques. Explains Fish 

and Wildlife: ‘‘Sellers of antiques in interstate commerce must prove through documented evidence that items qualify as bona fide antiques.’’ Unfortunately, such evidence rarely exists. Thus, the sale of almost all ivory across state lines is effectively 

banned. 

Fourth, intrastate commerce, said the agency, is ‘‘prohibited unless seller can 

demonstrate item was lawfully imported prior to’’ 1990, when the international ban 

took effect. 

But how does someone ‘‘demonstrate’’ when, say, a gift from his parents was imported? Without such proof, the item is not marketable—even though brought to 

America legally. 

By any standard, the administration rule is grossly unfair to thousands of 

Americans. Why is the administration penalizing the law-abiding? 

The U.S. officials complained about the difficulty in distinguishing ivory imported 

legally and illegally. No doubt, banning everything eases enforcement, but the policy 

fails to distinguish between guilt and innocence. 

Moreover, much older ivory, given its manifold unique characteristics, is easily 

distinguishable from new work. 

The illegal ivory supply also is small compared with that of legal ivory. Rather 

than ban the latter in an attempt to limit the former, the government should concentrate resources on aiding African countries in protecting their elephants, better 

interdicting illegal imports, and identifying sellers who specialize in new ivory. 

In fact, targeting owners of legal ivory will perversely undermine such enforcement efforts. Making most ivory in America illegal will vastly expand the ivory 

black market and dramatically dilute enforcement resources. 

Ivory commerce will continue, only more often underground. More objects will privately pass among dealers and collectors, never reaching public view. 

The interstate ban, too, will be flouted. Owners also may hand-carry items to 

other nations without similar restrictions. Moreover, documentation will be faked. 

Collectors and dealers will turn to those already participating in the illegal market, helping criminals expand their networks and increase their profits. Finally, 

overtaxed federal Fish and Wildlife agents may prefer to go after easy targets, such 

as local antique flea markets, rather than secretive smugglers. 

If the administration does not withdraw its rules, Congress should overturn this 

unfair attack on the law-abiding. Washington should penalize poachers and their 

seller allies—not collectors and dealers who have followed the rules. 

The administration’s new regulations will divert enforcement resources, and push 

owners of legal ivory into the illegal trade, meaning more elephants are likely to 

die. 

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to President Reagan. 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

—Lark Mason Associates, April 2014, ‘‘The Scope of the Antique 

Ivory and Endangered Species Market in the United States’’ 

—Carolina Clavier Collection, ‘‘Historical stringed keyboards from 

the beginning of their construction through the middle of the 19th 

century’’ 

Æ