U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

86–869PDF 2014

INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING THREATS

TO CONSERVATION AND NATIONAL SECURITY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 26, 2014

Serial No. 113–143

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Kerri-Ann Jones, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans and 

International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of 

State ...................................................................................................................... 5

The Honorable Daniel M. Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

U.S. Department of the Interior ......................................................................... 17

Mr. Robert G. Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice ................................. 28

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Kerri-Ann Jones: Prepared statement ......................................... 8

The Honorable Daniel M. Ashe: Prepared statement ........................................... 19

Mr. Robert G. Dreher: Prepared statement ........................................................... 30

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 60

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 61

The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs: Material 

submitted for the record by the National Rifle Association ............................. 63

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York: Prepared statement ...................................................................... 66

The Honorable Edward R. Royce: Questions submitted for the record to the 

Honorable Daniel M. Ashe .................................................................................. 68

The Honorable Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the

State of South Carolina: Questions submitted for the record to the Honorable Kerri-Ann Jones, the Honorable Daniel M. Ashe and Mr. Robert G. 

Dreher ................................................................................................................... 71

(1)

INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING 

THREATS TO CONSERVATION AND 

NATIONAL SECURITY 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2014

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:11 a.m., in room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. This hearing will come to order and I’m going 

to ask the members to come down to the committee and take their 

seats so we can get started. 

This hearing is on international wildlife trafficking and threats 

to conservation, threats to security, and I would just start with the 

observation that we have a major slaughter going on across the African subcontinent. 

If we had looked at the numbers a few years ago we would have 

found that between 1990 and 2005, South Africa lost 14 rhinos a 

year. Friends, last year there were thousands slaughtered in South 

Africa. 

It gives you a sense of the magnitude of what is happening to 

the white rhino, the black rhino. If we look at elephants, last 

year—well, back in 2011, 17,000 elephants were killed in sub-Saharan Africa illegally. Now we go to the following year—30,000 killed 

in 1 year. 

How can this be? How can this new battlefield in this fight end 

up in such absolute slaughter, threatening the extinction of some 

of these species? 

There is a battlefield there and part of it is with organized crime 

and part of it is that organized crime has tools that poachers in the 

past did not have, and increasingly rebel groups and especially terrorist organizations like al-Shabaab are carrying into the fight a 

new type of weaponry that these animals have not been up against 

in the past and the battle where this is being carried out is in 

South Africa’s national parks. 

Some years ago, some of us worked to set up a national park system—Congo Basin Forest Partnership Act. Well, now those parks 

across Africa are the battlefield in which these species are being 

slaughtered. 

So as one witness will tell the committee, we are at a pivotal moment in the conservation movement with an alarming and unprecedented dramatic increase in the slaughter of wildlife. 

2

Driving that slaughter, of course, is the value and we—I talked 

a little bit here about what happened to the black rhino. The value 

of rhino horn right now is $60,000 per kilo. 

Now, that is more than platinum. That is more than cocaine. So 

you can see why these criminal syndicates are part of the chain. 

You can have terrorists or poachers or some of these rebel groups 

that do the work on the ground but they pass it off to a criminal 

syndicate that then moves it to market. If you looked at the cost of ivory, tusk, $1,000 per kilogram. So 

that makes trafficking among the most lucrative criminal activities 

worldwide right now, generating $8 billion to $10 billion per year 

and that cash flow allows today’s poacher to buy something he 

hasn’t had in the past. He has got at his disposal helicopters, highpowered weapons, night-vision goggles. 

And then you take into account the intelligence community and 

what they are briefing us on and they are saying that traffickers’ 

use of sophisticated networks is now part of the program to move 

these products and that this is not just a threat to wildlife anymore. 

Increasingly, they say, you have terrorist and rebel groups capitalizing on this trade and that that is a threat to national security. 

One example, al-Shabaab—al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Somalia—they 

have turned to the ivory trade for funding. Joseph Kony and his 

Lord’s Resistance Army, when we talked a little bit in the past in 

these hearings about exploiting child soldiers, well, they are exploiting the region’s most unique and limited natural resource to 

fund its brutal violence as well as exploiting children. 

In response to this crisis, I authored legislation last Congress to 

expand the State Department’s rewards program to target 

transnational criminal syndicates. That has been done. 

The first issue—the first example of this is the Pablo Escobar of 

wildlife trafficking, Vixay Keosavang, has been caught. His number-two man was caught in South Africa and just got 40 years. 

Ivory and rhino horn were among what was being shipped out of 

the country. 

In order to take a comprehensive look at this—at this problem, 

the President established an interagency task force. As a starting 

point the group developed and published the National Strategy for 

Combating Wildlife Trafficking and we are going to assess that 

today. 

We are going to look forward to hearing that report and, uniquely, the task force also sought advice from an advisory council of 

outside experts and this included David Barron of the International 

Conservation Caucus Foundation. 

David has worked with Congress for years on these critical 

issues. There are many others including Africans whose views must 

be heard on this subject and as this strategy was being developed 

several of us urged the administration to act boldly to utilize the 

tools—the law enforcement tools right now that we currently use 

to dismantle other illicit transnational networks. 

I know of no reason why we can’t make the same argument, and 

one thing is clear to me. Whether dealing with global terrorist networks such as Hezbollah or international arms dealers such as 

Viktor Bout or even—or even tackling North Korea’s illicit activiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:27 Jun 14, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\022614\86869 SHIRL
3

ties, when the U.S. Government is focused, when the government 

is directed, it can deliver devastating blows to our enemies. 

We have seen that. We have seen them put people like Viktor 

Bout behind bars. What is needed here is exactly that approach 

and what we want to do is encourage the administration to do precisely that, and I am sure our NGO groups want to see the same 

follow through. 

So future generations will judge our response to this crisis. If we 

want a world still blessed with these magnificent species, we need 

creative action. We need very aggressive action. 

We need to work with source and transit and demand to confront 

the challenge, and as Director Ashe will testify, the criminals have 

raised their game. We now must do the same, and I will now turn 

to the ranking member for her opening comment, Karen Bass from 

Los Angeles. 

Ms. BASS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for today’s hearing and in general for your leadership on this issue. 

I know that many people here are aware of Mr. Royce’s leadership on this issue for many years but a few months ago I was attending a dinner and had an opportunity to hear his full history 

on this issue. So I want to thank you for your leadership over 

many, many years. 

I also want to thank our witnesses today for your great work and 

commitment to solving this international crisis. I am encouraged by 

the worldwide movement and the administration’s focus on this 

issue and I look forward to continue to be involved in the implementation of the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking. 

As I know we will hear more of and have heard some, international wildlife trafficking is not only a security and conservation 

issue but it also undermines the stability and development of many 

African nations. 

Throughout the continent, recent spikes in poaching has caused 

instability by providing funds for illicit activities, spreading violence and hurting the nation’s ability to develop indigenous and 

local sources of revenue through wildlife tourism. 

I have seen first-hand the importance of wildlife tourism to local 

community development. A couple of years ago, I was on a CODEL 

to Gabon and also to Botswana and I met with members of communities alongside eco-oriented wildlife sites. 

Many of the people provided services for or worked at these ecosites. In Botswana, for example, I visited a village where the villagers had a contract with a firm in South Africa and the South 

African company came and helped them develop a small but a 

high-end resort—tourism resort. 

And they were able to, one, employ all of the members of the village in terms of building the resort but also people who came and 

visited the resort after a few years, they were able to generate $1⁄2

million in revenue for the village, which they then plowed back into 

the development of the village, and it gave me a whole new way 

to look at this issue. 

I know that if trafficking continues at the current rate it will undercut success that has been made at this site and many others 

4

and prevent other communities from developing their own strategies to use wildlife tourism and community development. 

So I look forward to your testimony today and also to see more 

of what we can do to end this but also to assist the various nations 

in their further development. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Congresswoman Bass. 

Any other members want to make an opening statement? Yes, 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would like to thank the chairman for holding this hearing, and for those of you who don’t know it takes 

someone to make a decision on how we are going to allocate our 

time here. 

And I think your decision, Mr. Chairman, to hold a hearing on 

this subject demonstrates the scope as well as the depth of your 

world view. 

And not all chairmen would have a hearing on this issue, and 

today we acknowledge the destruction of these majestic species in 

Africa and we realize and we underscore that closing our eyes to 

this perhaps historic malady that we are facing in humankind 

today not only is it just the obliteration of wild species in Africa 

but also as important to our own security, which so often happens 

when we close our eyes to some evil that is going on. We end up 

not being able to close our eyes. 

As the chairman has pointed out, terrorists and others now are 

using this very vehicle to handle their own affairs—to pay for their 

own affairs, which threaten the rest of the world and threaten all 

of us. 

So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

We will go to Mr. Cicilline from Rhode Island. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the witnesses for being here today. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to just take a moment to applaud your 

leadership on this issue and to say that I was at the same dinner 

and I was profoundly moved learning of your very long history in 

this area. 

And I am particularly delighted to also recognize the new but 

equally passionate leadership of our ranking member of the Africa 

Subcommittee, Congresswoman Bass, and look forward to what we 

can do as a committee and as a Congress to address this very important issue, and I thank the witnesses for being here and I yield 

back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Cicilline. 

This morning, we are pleased to be joined by representatives 

from the Department of State, the Department of Interior and the 

Department of Justice, who represent the three co-chairs of the 

Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking. 

Prior to her appointment as Assistant Secretary of State for 

Oceans and International Environment, Dr. Kerri-Ann Jones 

worked in several capacities within the U.S. Government including 

positions in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Agency for International Development and NIH. 

5

Dr. Daniel Ashe serves as the 16th Director of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the nation’s principal Federal agency dedicated to 

the conservation of fish and wildlife and the conservation of their 

habitats. 

Earlier in his career, Mr. Ashe was a staffer here on Capitol Hill 

where he worked, of course, on conservation issues, and welcome 

back. 

As Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Environmental and 

Natural Resources Division, Mr. Robert Dreher is tasked with prosecuting these environmental crimes, and without objection your full 

testimony will be put in the record, and if I might suggest you 

might want to summarize. 

If you could hold it to 5 minutes, and members are going to have 

5 days to submit any additional statements or questions that you 

might respond to and any extraneous materials for the record that 

they might want to put into the record. 

So, Dr. Jones, if you could start. We appreciate you being with 

us. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KERRI-ANN JONES, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ms. JONES. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Royce and 

Ranking Member Bass, and members of the committee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here before you today with my 

colleagues to address wildlife—the wildlife trafficking crisis. 

At the outset, I would like to extend my thanks to Chairman 

Royce and other Members of Congress for focusing strong attention 

and action on this pernicious multifaceted crisis. 

If this is left unchecked, we will be facing more serious threats 

to conservation, local economies, security as well as health. This 

terrible problem has been recognized by Congress, by the NGO 

community around the world, by the private sector and across the 

executive branch. 

The President’s July 2013 Executive order called for action, establishing an interagency task force and an advisory council, and 

earlier this month, as you mentioned, Chairman, the President released the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking 

which lays out a clear whole of government plan forward with 

three strategic priorities. 

These are strengthening domestic and global enforcement, reducing demand for illegally-traded wildlife at home and abroad and 

building international cooperation and public-private partnerships 

to combat illegal wildlife poaching and trade. 

The September 2013 white paper on wildlife poaching from the 

Office of the Director of National Intelligence points out that the 

increasing demand and high profitability of illegal wildlife products 

has broadened the scope and scale of the problem, particularly in 

Africa. 

African countries are facing mounting security challenges where 

they are often outgunned by heavily-armed criminal operations. 

Strengthening enforcement is a necessity and we have taken some 

actions to begin to address this crisis. 

6

This past November, Secretary Kerry announced the first ever 

reward for information leading to the dismantling of the Xaysavang 

Network, a transnational crime syndicate facilitating wildlife trafficking across Africa and Asia. 

Chairman Royce’s efforts were instrumental in being able to put 

out this announcement for reward and we thank you, Chairman. 

For the last decade, the department has partnered with other 

U.S. agencies to stand up five regional wildlife enforcement networks and our goal is to connect these regional networks and create a global network. 

Our foreign assistance will continue to strengthen policies and 

legislative frameworks to enhance investigative and law enforcement functions and to support regional cooperation among enforcement agencies. 

They will also work to develop capacities to prosecute and adjudicate crimes related to wildlife trafficking. However, to address 

wildlife trafficking we must also address demand. 

We must remove—reduce the market for these products. To do 

this, we intend to strengthen our efforts with international partners to communicate the negative impacts of this devastating trade 

on security, environment, local economies and public health. 

For example, USAID’s Asia Regional Response to Endangered 

Species Trafficking, or ARREST—the ARREST Project—has 

launched a series of demand reduction campaigns in Asia’s three 

biggest wildlife market and transit countries and a first Asia-wide 

smart phone application that will help counter illegal trade in wildlife. And, of course, we will continue to work through our missions 

around the world to get the message out every way we can. 

The third strategic priority recognizes that solutions to this challenging problem require partnerships. We continue to strengthen 

our diplomatic work to raise the profile of this issue. 

We are highlighting the issue in the G–8, in Asia regional bodies 

and at the U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal 

Justice. 

We have secured the inclusion of language to address wildlife 

trafficking in two security resolutions adopted in January 2014 

sanctioning African armed groups. 

At the recent London conference, 42 nations in the EU signed on 

to a declaration that the U.S. helped shape that includes the commitment to avoid the use of endangered species in government purchases and also calls for the continuation of the prohibition of a 

ban on ivory trade. 

We are working with key partners like Indonesia, where just a 

couple of weeks ago Secretary Kerry signed an MOU with—a 

memorandum of understanding with Forest Minister Hassan that 

addresses wildlife and conservation. 

We are working with China. Law enforcement entities in China 

and the U.S. joined other countries including 26 African and Asian 

nations in a successful global investigative effort, Operation Cobra 

II. 

This was a follow-on to an earlier activity, Cobra I. Both have 

been very successful. Also, in the upcoming strategic and economic 

dialogue with China we plan to again address wildlife trafficking 

7

and to push for concrete actions in terms of raising public awareness to reduce demand and strengthening law enforcement. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate Secretary Kerry’s continued commitment to tackling this very important illegal trade issue. 

We are committed to do more and work smarter with partners 

around the world to support wildlife range states, to maintain the 

integrity of their national borders and to protect their iconic wildlife for future generations. 

Congress has shown great leadership on this issue. We appreciate your support and we very much look forward to working with 

you—continuing to work with you on this important issue. 

Thank you for the invitation to be here today and I look forward 

to your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jones follows:]

8


86869a-1.eps
9


86869a-2.eps
10


86869a-3.eps
11


86869a-4.eps
12


86869a-5.eps
13


86869a-6.eps
14


86869a-7.eps
15


86869a-8.eps
16


86869a-9.eps
17

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Doctor. 

Mr. Ashe. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DANIEL M. ASHE, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. ASHE. Good morning, Chairman Royce, Ranking Member 

Bass, committee members. On behalf of Secretary Sally Jewell, I 

appreciate the opportunity to testify here today about the National 

Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking. 

Spurred by President Obama’s Executive order, the strategy begins the process of leveraging resources and expertise across the 

Federal Government to crack down on the poaching and trafficking 

that is devastating some of the world’s most beloved animals, evidence of that trafficking is on display here on the tabletop before 

us. 

As recent events demonstrate, United States leadership is vital. 

Since we crushed the United States’ stockpile of seized illegal ivory 

in November, China and France have followed suit, and Hong Kong 

has also announced its intention to do so. 

At my right in front of Dr. Jones is a sample of the crushed ivory 

from our Denver event in November. In addition, this past year we 

concluded our most successful CITES conference ever with nine of 

the 10 U.S.-sponsored proposals gaining approval by member nations. 

The Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service will help lead the strategy’s implementation with our colleagues in the Department of Justice and State, building on the 

foundation that has been laid through decades of international conservation and law enforcement work. 

We have a four-tiered approach to combating wildlife trafficking 

with our international partners. First, we continue to work with 

international law enforcement agencies to disrupt and dismantle 

trafficking networks and arrest those responsible for the brutal 

slaughter of these magnificent creatures. 

We have a photo, I think, showing some 1,500 raw tusks that 

were recently seized in Togo, the largest seizure yet by a West African nation, and perhaps that will be displayed in a moment. 

We provide critical financial and technical support for on-theground conservation efforts and to build the capacity of range 

states to protect wildlife and bring poachers and traffickers to justice. 

We work here in the United States and with our partners in 

Asia, Europe and Latin America to reduce demand for wildlife 

products and we continue working with CITES member nations to 

support sustainable trade and well-managed wildlife management 

programs that provide jobs and economic development opportunities in development range countries, as Ranking Member Bass was 

speaking to, thus reducing the allure of poaching and trafficking. 

Now highlighting some of the strategy’s most significant actions, 

we are using the full extent of our existing legal authority to stop 

virtually all commercial trade of elephant ivory and rhino horn 

within the United States and across its borders. 

18

Just yesterday, I signed a Fish and Wildlife Service Director’s 

Order 210, beginning the implementation of that effort. All commercial imports of African elephant ivory into the United States 

will be prohibited without exception. 

Nearly all commercial exports of elephant ivory will also be prohibited with the exception of a very small, strictly defined, class of 

antiques with verified documentation of their antiquity. 

Domestic commerce will be prohibited, again, with the exception 

of documented antiques and other items clearly documented as legally imported prior to the protection of the species under CITES 

Appendix 1. 

The strategy also recommends the continued sale of the Save 

Vanishing Species semipostal stamp. The public has purchased 

more than 25.5 million stamps, generating more than $2.5 million 

for conservation of elephants, rhinoceros, tigers, marine turtles and 

great apes. 

I want to conclude by asking you to consider this moment in history. Mr. Rohrabacher referenced the leadership that is being demonstrated here. We have a chance here and now to take action to 

ensure that elephants, rhinos and hundreds of other wild plant and 

animal species do not vanish from the wild. 

Because of the President’s leadership, that of good colleagues and 

friends and other great institutions and that of this great committee, we can dare to dream that our grandchildren will be able 

to see these iconic species, their heritage as global citizens, in their 

native habitat in the wild. 

I look forward to working with your committee to help to make 

this dream a reality. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:]

19


86869b-1.eps
20


86869b-2.eps
21


86869b-3.eps
22


86869b-4.eps
23


86869b-5.eps
24


86869b-6.eps
25


86869b-7.eps
26


86869b-8.eps
27


86869b-9.eps
28

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

Mr. Dreher. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT G. DREHER, ACTING ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. DREHER. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Bass and members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs——

Chairman ROYCE. Let us try it one more time on punching that 

button. 

Mr. DREHER. Okay. 

Chairman ROYCE. There we go. 

Mr. DREHER. That seems to be working. 

Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Bass and members of the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the work with the Department of 

Justice regarding wildlife trafficking. 

The Department of Justice has long been a leader in the fight 

against wildlife trafficking and we are deeply engaged in the administration’s efforts to combat wildlife trafficking and implement 

the National Strategy. 

Earlier this month, Associate Attorney General Tony West led 

the U.S. delegation at the London conference on illegal wildlife 

trade at which more than 40 countries agreed to a declaration on 

the need for international action to address this crisis. 

And the Department of Justice served as a co-chair along with 

my fellow co-chairs from the Department of State and Department 

of Interior and worked closely with 14 other Federal agencies to develop the National Strategy. 

As the strategy recognizes, strong enforcement is critical to stopping those who kill and traffic in protected species. The environmental crime section of the Department of Justice works with the 

U.S. Attorneys Offices around the country and with our Federal 

agency partners to enforce the Lacey Act and the Endangered Species Act as well as statutes prohibiting smuggling, criminal conspiracy and related crimes. 

In our prosecutions we are increasingly seeing the involvement 

of criminal organizations, including transnational criminal organizations, that may threaten the security interests of the United 

States and its allies. 

We are currently involved, for example, in prosecuting cases developed through Operation Crash, an ongoing multi agency effort 

with very strong involvement of the investigative agents of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service and other Federal agencies including Customs 

and Border Patrol, to detect and prosecute those engaged in illegal 

killing of rhinoceros and the trafficking of rhinoceros horn. This 

initiative has resulted in multiple convictions, significant jail time, 

penalties and forfeited assets. 

Recent Operation Crash cases involve organized criminal elements that speak to the scope and scale of this problem. In one 

such case, Zhifei Li, a Chinese national, pled guilty this past December to organizing a conspiracy in which at least 30 raw rhinoceros horns and numerous objects made from rhino horn and eleVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:27 Jun 14, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\022614\86869 SHIRL
29

phant ivory worth more than $4.5 million were smuggled illegally 

from the United States to China. 

Li admitted that he was the boss of several antique dealers in 

the United States who helped him obtain and smuggle wildlife 

items and that he supplied ivory to three illegal-carving factories 

in China. 

In another case, Michael Slattery, Jr., an Irish national, was recently sentenced to serve 14 months incarceration as well as to pay 

a fine and forfeit proceeds from his illegal trade in rhinoceros horn. 

He admitted to illegal trafficking throughout the United States 

and is alleged to belong to an organized criminal group engaged in 

rhino horn trafficking. 

We have seen success in prosecuting those illegal—who illegally 

traffic in elephant ivory including, for example, a defendant whose 

import-export businesses were fronts for smuggling into the United 

States products from endangered and protected wildlife species including raw elephant ivory. 

Another ivory case concerned a 2-year criminal conspiracy in 

which six defendants pleaded guilty to illegally importing ivory 

through the New York’s JFK Airport. 

In our cases, we seek substantial penalties including incarceration appropriate for crimes of this magnitude. Strong enforcement 

in the United States is not enough, however. As the National Strategy recognizes, wildlife trafficking is a global problem that requires 

a global solution. 

For that reason, the Department of Justice has for many years 

worked closely with other Federal agencies to help foreign governments build their capacity to develop and effectively enforce their 

own wildlife trafficking laws. 

Our efforts in this area include training our foreign counterparts 

on the legal, investigative, prosecutorial and judicial aspects of enforcing wildlife laws. 

We seek to help our partners craft strong laws, strengthen their 

investigation and evidence-gathering capabilities and improve their 

judicial and prosecutorial effectiveness. 

I temporarily lost my place but I am soon about to recover it. 

Chairman ROYCE. Feel free to summarize. 

Mr. DREHER. Well, let me just say that we are very proud of our 

record of achievement in this area. The National Strategy is a reminder that much more is needed. The strategy calls for Federal 

coordination through a whole of government approach and is a 

strong basis for our continued movement forward. 

We will commit our efforts to the prosecution of wildlife criminals and give it—treat it with the seriousness that these crimes 

warrant and deserve. We look forward to working with Congress to 

strengthen existing laws and to adopt new legislation to improve 

the tools available to address this challenge. 

We welcome the longstanding interest of the members of this 

committee and others in the House and Senate in addressing this 

crisis, and thank you for the opportunity to participate. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dreher follows:]

30


86869c-1.eps
31


86869c-2.eps
32


86869c-3.eps
33


86869c-4.eps
34


86869c-5.eps
35


86869c-6.eps
36


86869c-7.eps
37


86869c-8.eps
38

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you very much. If I could go to Mr. 

Ashe first with the observation, Director Ashe, that Fish and Wildlife has began to do with the Embassies exactly what we have had 

the DEA or FBI do in the past, which is to say you are starting 

to station. I guess, in Thailand you have done this. 

We are trying in sub-Saharan Africa. I guess it is in the paperwork to get one of your—one of your agents in the Embassy there. 

I wonder—and I think it is in Tanzania that you are focused on 

that. 

Is there anything Congress could do to help expedite that and get 

that in place, get those agents on the ground in the Embassies? 

Mr. ASHE. I think, as you said, with the help of the State Department and USAID we have had—we have had success. We will have 

our first law enforcement agent stationed in Bangkok later this 

month. 

We are working with the State Department. Our goal through 

the end of this year is to have two agents in Africa, two agents in 

Asia and one agent in Latin America, and we—and I think that the 

most important thing for Congress, obviously, is to provide the financial support for that. 

We will—we did receive an increase in the most recent appropriations bill. We would hope to receive additional funding in the 

coming year to provide further support for this effort and encouragement, of course, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. When we checked in on Tanzania, what was 

the hold-up at State on that? Do you know offhand or——

Mr. ASHE. I do not know the particular hold-up. 

Chairman ROYCE. If there is anything we can do to expedite that 

just——

Mr. ASHE. Tanzania is—actually, what we are trying to do is station an expert in Tanzania that is not law enforcement. At this 

point, Tanzania has not requested law enforcement assistance so a 

little bit different situation in Tanzania. 

Chairman ROYCE. Likewise, most of us have been out there to 

talk to the head of state and to the legislature. I know Karen Bass 

makes frequent trips to that area. 

So if there is anything we can do with their legislature or their 

executive branch to elicit that request, especially given what is 

being looted out of—trafficked out of Tanzania, we would be happy 

to do that. 

I am curious on another subject. Since the Attorney General and 

the Secretary of State consult with the Treasury Secretary on the 

designation process, there is existing authority to go after 

transnational criminal organizations that could be used here because the Treasury Department has the ability to sanction property, sanction assets of transnational criminal organizations. 

So how would the Department of Justice request to Congress to 

place wildlife trafficking as a predicate crime for money laundering, 

bolster the effort in—to attack the financing aspect of this if you 

feel that is important, and if you do is it possible from the panel 

here that we might get legislative language to do exactly what DOJ 

suggests here? Can you get me that draft language? 

Mr. DREHER. Mr. Chairman, we welcome your interest in this 

and we would be happy to work very closely with the committee 

39

to try to develop language. The National Strategy does ask for help 

from Congress. 

We are seeking to have the same law enforcement tools that we 

have available to us to combat other very serious forms of 

transnational crime, and for wildlife trafficking some of those tools 

are more limited than we would benefit from including, in particular, making wildlife trafficking a predicate offense for money 

laundering charges. 

We would also seek help in making—getting clarification of our 

authority for asset forfeiture in cases where the predicate offenses 

were wildlife trafficking. We really want to try to take the profit 

out of this crime. 

But, Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to work with the committee and as closely as we can. 

Chairman ROYCE. That language would be very helpful and very 

welcomed, I think, by the committee and we would work that out 

and move it quickly. 

Local community-based conservation was the other aspect of this 

that I wanted to ask you about. When I was chair of the Africa 

Subcommittee one of the trips we took with Secretary Colin Powell 

was to Central Africa. 

We spent time there with Michael Fay, National Geographic explorer in residence, who explained to us the critical importance of 

supporting on-the-ground local actors who are on the front lines of 

this fight, who have a stake in the fight, and realizing the impact 

that local community engagement could bring to conservation and 

we went forward and authored the Congo Basin Forest Partnership 

Act. 

Now, with our wildlife trafficking crisis, what unique role does 

community-based conservation play and what is their potential 

here for reducing wildlife poaching and how could we better work 

with these local community groups who now have a stake all right 

in—you know, through their sustainable development practices of, 

basically, monitoring the population there—the elephant populations and so forth. 

How might we be able to work with those community-based organizations? Director Ashe. 

Mr. ASHE. Again, I think working collaboratively is the key to 

that and that is this—the power in this all of government approach. 

Certainly, we have—we have had within the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, within our international affairs program we have for decades now focused on building capacity within range state nations 

and I think that that is what we have to do and we have to build 

local incentive for the conservation of these species, and the State 

Department has been a great partner in that effort. 

Again, it is resource limited. We have great NGO partners, many 

of whom will be stepping up their efforts as well. 

But I think what you reference, Mr. Chairman, is the key that 

we have to—we have to work at the community level. We have to 

build capacity, law enforcement, economic development capacity related to these issues. 

40

We can’t do that—any one of us cannot do that alone. We have 

to—we have to do that together. We have to have many, many 

more resources to get the job done. 

Chairman ROYCE. The last issue I was going to ask your collective support for is an aspect that wasn’t mentioned in the strategy 

and that is the role of the Defense Department. 

Many of the park rangers in these African countries don’t have 

the capacity to fend off poachers because they are outgunned and 

many of these African countries depend on their militaries, frankly. 

They use the military there to protect the wildlife and to protect 

the borders. 

So the DoD has a long relationship with some of these armed 

forces, leveraging those relationships by having them provide the 

training to these military forces, or advising them could be very 

helpful in combating poaching. 

But I can tell you there has been a lot of—there has been a lot 

of push back from the DoD in the past when I have talked to them 

about this or we have floated this issue. 

I think it would be very helpful if the three of you would sort 

of expand this strategy to include that component because if we are 

serious about preparing these park rangers they are going to need 

a little bit more help than just what we are talking about here. 

You are going to have to bump it up, and I think you are going 

to find that the DoD has provided technical assistance to African 

armed forces. It would just be changing the attitudes of DoD to get 

them to understand that this is part of subverting transnational 

crime and some of these terrorist groups and others who are benefitting out of this by cooperating. 

What do you think about that, Director Ashe—whether the three 

of you think that is possible. 

Mr. ASHE. I think, again, the opportunity for increased intelligence capacity, increased information sharing, training on the 

ground can certainly be enhanced by the involvement of the U.S. 

Defense Department. 

I would say, Mr. Chairman, I think one of the tragedies in all 

of this is, you know, if you will recall about 18 months ago we 

lost—we, the collective we—lost a park ranger at Mount Rainier 

National Park in an unfortunate incident and caused a moment of, 

certainly, within the entire Department of the Interior and I think 

within the nation as a whole, a moment of grief. 

Well, we see, you know, that one national park—Virunga National Park in the Congo—over the last decade they have lost 100 

rangers trying to protect these animals. 

So we need better—we need to better equip and train them and 

we need to provide mechanisms of support for their families because when those rangers are lost that is a family’s income, a family that is essentially put at risk. And so we need better tools to 

deal with that aspect of this. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, what I am trying to get you to focus on 

is if the DoD is going to provide technical assistance to African 

armed forces, if you expand this to the park rangers and get them 

that capacity. Right now, they are outgunned. 

So I think you need to be—you need to convey that and see if 

you can’t get us a little bit—if we get the administration to support 

41

that, frankly, that would be very helpful because we just went 

through a round here late last year on this. So that is, I guess, 

what I am asking you to do. 

Dr. Jones, if you could convey that and——

Ms. JONES. Yes. 

Chairman ROYCE [continuing]. Try to—the three of you rally 

around that I think it would be helpful. 

Ms. JONES. If I may, Chairman, one of the strengths—I think it 

was—is this on now? One of the strengths of the approach that we 

have in the task force is that DoD is a member of this task force 

and we have been in discussions with DoD and with AFRICOM 

and we——

Chairman ROYCE. Right. Right. 

Ms. JONES [continuing]. And we will continue those and I——

Chairman ROYCE. And there is no mention of the strategy or role 

for the Defense Department in this document. That is why I am 

pushing you. I am saying we got push back last year. 

I am just saying if they are outgunned, you know, you have got 

some people out there that can give them that capacity and the 

intel and sort of level the playing field and we want you to really 

push on that. 

My time has expired and I am going to go to Karen Bass. Thank 

you very much. 

Ms. BASS. I just want to follow up on that because I know in the 

discussions that I have had with AFRICOM while traveling and 

with DoD there just didn’t seem to be—just didn’t seem to be a real 

high priority. So I would definitely appreciate that message being 

sent. 

Along with that, you know, I also think of equipment that we 

might be able to be helpful with. I know in one country we talked 

about the use of drones. 

In Gabon, for example, that wouldn’t work because of the rain 

forage—rain forests. But in other countries, you know, it might be 

a very appropriate use. 

I wanted to ask some questions, following up from the conversation that we were having before the hearing started, about the U.S. 

in terms of the—you mentioned before how most of the ivory is 

passing through but then there are also consumers in the U.S. 

I, prior to this, didn’t really view our country as a problem. I 

thought it was more overseas, and so I wanted to know your opinion about what we should do here in terms of current law, increasing penalties, deterrents, et cetera. 

What are your ideas that we should do here? 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you, Congresswoman Bass. 

I think the first step is to end commercial trade in the United 

States. So as you mentioned, you know, in Los Angeles you can 

visit probably dozens of antique stores. You can do that here in 

Washington, DC, New York City, Seattle. Any major U.S. city you 

can go into an antique store and see items like this for sale. 

It is very difficult from a law enforcement perspective to tell the 

difference and tell that this is an antique—it is 100 years old—

something else is not. And so we need to end the trade and so that 

is one step we can take. 

42

Ms. BASS. Well, you know, actually the stores that I was mentioning are not antique stores. 

Mr. ASHE. Right. They are just bazaars. You can go to the Dulles 

bazaar, the monthly bazaar here at Dulles Airport and there will 

be probably a dozen, you know, stalls where people are selling 

ivory products and so——

Ms. BASS. It is kind of hard to say if you have 100 items that 

are exactly the same that they are antiques. 

Mr. ASHE. And so what we have—what we have found is the 

legal trade in ivory has become a smokescreen effectively for a burgeoning new trade because the value of these products is so high 

and has escalated so dramatically. 

So we need to take that step and it is not just important from 

the standpoint of ending the trade. It is important from the standpoint of establishing U.S. leadership on this issue. 

So the next big step is to use diplomacy on the global level to 

reduce demand and that is—long term that is the most important 

ingredient and the U.S. has to be able to speak from a position of 

leadership and I believe our ban on ivory trade in the U.S. sets an 

example for the world as our crush of ivory did back in November. 

It allows us a position of leadership in the world and a voice of 

leadership. 

Ms. BASS. Any other comments? Thank you. 

Ms. JONES. I think that Director Ashe’s point about the leadership is one that we have a real opportunity to move forward on 

now. Just a short while ago, the Prime Minister of Vietnam went 

out to all of his ministries and said you need to now pay more attention to wildlife trafficking, very similar to what we did with 

the—President Obama did with his Executive order, and Secretary 

Kerry had raised this with the Prime Minister during a visit and 

talked about this issue. 

So I think that our ability to sort of have a full court press in 

all of our diplomatic engagements and being very credible about 

what we are doing at home and also talking about how we can 

work together will begin to bring down both the supply and demand. 

But our challenge now is to maintain momentum and I think 

with this strategy and the implementation plan that will come from 

it we will be able to do that. 

Ms. BASS. You know what? In thinking about my trip to Botswana and how they were able to—actually, the same villagers that 

understood that this was part of their economic development prior 

had been participating in poaching. 

And I am just wondering if there is, you know, some role that 

the U.S. might play in either technical assistance, education in 

other communities around the continent where you have people 

who are actually participating—you know, the residents in the 

community that lives nearby because they are desperate because of 

the poverty. 

They are seeing it from a very shortsighted perspective and if 

that might be a role that the U.S. could play is to go around and 

provide that technical assistance to show how this could actually 

improve your development and not view it so shortsightedly. 

43

Ms. JONES. Well, I had the opportunity to travel to Tanzania 

where I visited some of the USAID programs that try to do that. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. 

Ms. JONES. They have programs called Wildlife Management 

Areas where a community actually looks at the economics of being 

able to have tourism in their area and it is a jointly-owned process. 

I sat in a room where they looked at income from tourists coming 

in and there was a real sense of what the value of the wildlife and 

their whole environment was to that community. And so there is 

a long history of doing that and I think there are more examples 

of that spreading in different countries through different activities 

of USAID. 

Connecting that then to national policies which have more protection and also have better national policies will, I think, make a 

big difference from local all the way up to the national. 

Ms. BASS. And I know I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. Just 

quickly, what about the African Union? Do you think the African 

Union is aggressively taking this issue on? Are we working with 

them? 

Ms. JONES. Yes. We are—we are working with them. We have 

raised it with them and we continue to raise it with them. I would 

think that it is something that they have responded to. 

My former boss, Under Secretary Hormats, raised it with the 

leader of the African Union and we will continue to do that. 

I think our approach has been, from a diplomatic standpoint, to 

work at this bilaterally, regionally, through international organizations, through every channel we can. And so that is the approach 

we are going to keep. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Rohrabacher of California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Couple of—just look at some specific suggestions, and Mr. Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General, would you—I think you 

mentioned asset forfeiture and could we have—today if the assets 

are seized from these people who are breaking the law and are 

poaching and are being destructive of this natural resource, does 

that then go into the fund for preserving them and enforcing the 

law or does the asset forfeiture just go into a general law enforcement fund? 

Mr. DREHER. There is some opportunity to direct funds that are 

seized or assets that are seized into law enforcement funds that 

can have some benefit for us. The Endangered Species Act, for example, has a fund program that lets us use it for some limited purposes. 

There isn’t—there isn’t an ability to really direct the assets that 

are seized directly to law enforcement in a larger way. It is a very 

limited opportunity, and in many cases when we seize assets under 

other statutes, when we, for example are charging crimes involving 

smuggling, you know, the assets will go directly to the Treasury 

and not to law enforcement activity. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that perhaps 

a source of revenue for this effort would be that we direct the assets that are seized from people who are breaking the law by murdering these species that that be directed specifically to that fight. 

44

That might increase the capabilities of those who are enforcing the 

law. 

In terms of technology, is there—we have incredible intelligence 

technology today. We can zero in, and do these countries that are 

trying to oversee large areas where you have poachers actively 

murdering these elephants and rhinoceroses—do they have the capability—do they have technological capability that would be affordable to them to get that job done? Whichever—Mr. Ashe. 

Mr. ASHE. I would say across the board, Congressman, no. I 

mean, as Chairman Royce indicated in his opening statement that 

what we have seen, because of the escalation in value and demand 

for these products the—you know, criminal networks have upped 

their game. 

And we used to deal with poaching, which is—you know, much 

like we deal with poaching in the United States, it was opportunistic. It was locally driven by local economies. 

We now see organized syndicated trafficking networks and they 

have—they are very sophisticated. They have access to technology 

and arms and equipment that our—that our colleagues in these 

range states do not have. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So in terms of overseeing a large animal reserve in Africa, we have people who are at a great disadvantage 

because they do not have what perhaps an infantry squad in Afghanistan would have——

Mr. ASHE. Correct. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. Available to them. All right. 

That is—we have a lot of—Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of excess 

military equipment that—left over from these adventures in the 

Gulf that might be available to these people at a very low cost because we have it there. 

And who would—Secretary Jones, what countries would you give 

gold medals to and what countries would you put on the dirty guys 

list? 

Ms. JONES. That is a very good question. What I have been seeing in my travels is that the governments—many of the governments are trying to do the right things and much of the poaching 

and the activity is coming from groups that cross borders. 

I think that a country like Tanzania is trying very hard to do the 

right things. I think that South Africa is trying. I think Kenya is 

trying. I know that there has been an effort with the legislators in 

Kenya to look at policies. 

So in terms of engagement and our discussions, we are seeing a 

lot of leaning into the right policy directions. It is the implementation question. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am going to put you on the spot because 

what happens quite often—I always ask the question is what are 

your most highest priority for budget issues, which are lowest priority, and everybody is always willing to give their high priorities 

but they are never willing to tell us the low priority because they 

know that that is where we will cut. In terms of the question I just 

asked——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Rohrabacher, my lowest priority in the budget is defunding Obamacare. 

45

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. Madame Secretary, you gave us 

some good countries. 

Do you have any bad boy countries that we should put on our 

list of people who are not doing the adequate job and perhaps intentionally not, maybe through corruption or whatever? I notice 

you didn’t mention Zimbabwe or any other country like that. 

Ms. JONES. No, I don’t have—I mean, honestly, I don’t have a 

country I would put on that list and it is—from my perspective, it 

is not a budget issue. I mean——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Oh, no. I am not talking about budget. I am 

just saying who you are telling us we got to watch out for these 

guys because they are not—they are not only not doing a good job, 

they may be in cahoots with the bad guys, versus you gave us a 

few lists there of people that deserve a gold medal, and which one 

deserve the, you know, bad recommendation? 

Ms. JONES. I think—I don’t think I can answer that question because I am—seriously, you know, I would turn to Director Ashe to 

maybe say what he is seeing on the ground. 

But from a policy perspective, what I am hearing is that the governments are trying to take the right actions. So I would turn to 

Dr. Ashe and maybe he is going to say on the ground. 

Mr. ASHE. Congressman, I guess I would say that the most important thing right now is we have the opportunity to learn that. 

I think what we are finding is that these—because of the value of 

these products they are finding the path of least resistance and 

often times that is not the range state. The range state is taking——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I see. Yes. 

Mr. ASHE. So I think the important thing is for us to learn the 

answer to your question. I think right now we don’t know that. It 

looks like the bad guy might be Zimbabwe or it might be Congo or 

it might be—but really, they may be doing everything they can do 

within their power. So I think we need to learn that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I know if we are talking about fish and 

sharks that the Chinese like to have their shark fin soup and they 

are destroying—I—we used to when I was a kid—I am a surfer and 

all that—I used to spend a lot of time and I—frankly, surfers and 

sharks don’t get along. But I like to eat shark. I mean, I—we used 

to barbecue it. 

But the fact is that the Chinese, with their consumption patterns 

are destroying sharks—the whole shark population around the 

world and that is an issue of concern and I would—Mr. Chairman, 

I would think that whether it is China or elsewhere, the consumers 

of these products—those governments need to be brought to task 

as well. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ROYCE. And take shark fin soup off the menu. 

Let us go to Gerry Connolly of Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to 

pick up on Mr. Rohrabacher’s question because what he is getting 

at is the word efficacy. 

It is not—it seems to me, if we care about this subject it is not 

satisfactory that somebody is bending into the right policies—doing 

the best it can. 

46

The question is, is it effective? Are we losing this battle or are 

we winning it, and what are the metrics that get us to winning? 

And Mr. Rohrabacher’s question has to do with bench marking. 

What are the best practices and, bottom line, are they working? 

Otherwise, they are not best practices. 

So, Dr. Jones, let me reframe the question. As we look for models 

where there are clear metrics, where there is the commitment of 

the government, there are the resources in place and in fact we are 

seeing trafficking go down and the organized traffickers moving on 

somewhere else because it is just too hard there, what would you 

cite? Where would you cite? 

Ms. JONES. Thank you, Congressman. 

I think that question gets at the two parts of this problem—the 

supply and demand—because we have been talking about both 

market countries and range states. And, certainly, the U.S. and 

China are two of the biggest markets for these products. 

And shark fin soup was also mentioned and there have been 

campaigns that have shown that there has been an effect in reducing the demand for that by outreach. 

So we have been increasingly engaged with the Chinese to work 

on market demand because the reason these prices are so high is 

because people will put out the money for this. 

So I would say that we do need benchmarks. We are at the turning point. 

I can’t—I can’t tell you exactly how much we have done with 

China to reduce demand of ivory right now but I think what we 

need to do as we move into this implementation plan is look at how 

the outreach going to affect demand, how are we going to increase 

seizures, how many more rangers are we going to have on the 

ground and how many national policies do we have. 

So it is from the ground up to the policy that we have to have 

benchmarks and we will just have the strategy out and we are 

going to get to that with the implementation plan, but to make the 

point that it is both pieces of this. 

It is the supply, demand and transit and so we have to have 

benchmarks for each piece of that and that is what we are working 

toward. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Dr. Jones, I appreciate that commitment but this 

problem is not a new problem. One could infer from what you just 

said that we are pretty far behind the curve here in—and we are 

not—we don’t even have an implementation strategy to set benchmarks or metrics? We are just getting around to that? 

Ms. JONES. Well, we are just getting to an implementation plan 

based on this recent strategy. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Is there a single country of origin, hold in abeyance China or the United States as consumer countries, but is 

there a single country of origin you can point to where substantial 

progress has been achieved, where poaching is down and animal 

populations are either stabilized or, in fact, growing? 

Mr. ASHE. Mr. Connolly, I would—I would suggest Namibia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Namibia. 

Mr. ASHE. Namibia is an excellent example of a country that has 

an exceptional program and record. There are 5,000 black rhinoceroses left in the world. Eighteen hundred of those are in Namibia. 

47

Mr. CONNOLLY. We might not—we might not want to bring too 

much attention to that. 

Mr. ASHE. Right. That is right. And so we—what we owe those 

countries is support. So, for instance, I mean, Namibia right now 

is, you know, going through a process of allowing the harvest of a 

black rhino. 

They can—they have a—they have a quota of up to five per year. 

They have never filled their entire quota and right now it is very—

it has become very controversial because they are going to allow 

the harvest of a single black rhino. But we owe them support——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah. 

Mr. ASHE [continuing]. Because they are the gold standard. And 

so I would suggest Namibia and so that we can expand that example throughout Africa. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And I think you have just put your foot—your 

finger on something that I think is really important. Look, we have 

got to be bottom line focused here, including the State Department. 

Are we making progress or are we falling behind? 

You can have the best strategy, best policy, the best aspirations 

in the world and still lose the game, and where we find a good 

actor who is not only trying to do the right thing but actually making progress, I agree with you—then let us get behind them big 

time to show others the reward system that faces them if they start 

to put the resources in to try to, you know, fight back against the 

poachers and the traffickers because I have to say, Mr. Chairman, 

I am alarmed at what I am hearing in this hearing. 

Not lack of effort, not lack of commitment but we are losing this 

game. We are not—we are not making progress and we are up 

against actually something far more organized, far better financed, 

far more violent and dangerous on the ground than most of the 

local governments or even military can, frankly, handle. 

And we are going to have to think through our strategy here and 

make it a lot more robust if we are going to begin to turn the tide. 

Otherwise, we are going to lose this battle. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Connolly, I think you are right. On a lot 

of fronts we are—we are losing. In Namibia, we are winning or Namibia, I should say, is winning and part of that is because they 

have a community-based local conservation program of the first 

rank there and it is something of a template. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes. 

Chairman ROYCE. And if that can be expanded then on other 

fronts I think the tide can be turned. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And Mr. Chairman, just to underscore—just to 

underscore what you said, because you are putting your finger 

exact, we have got to look at benchmarks. 

We have got to look at best practices and try to encourage them 

elsewhere. Otherwise, we can have a lot of international agreements and strategies and goals and policies but meanwhile we are 

losing—we are losing the game. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

Randy Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

48

In reading through this report it brings up a whole lot of questions and I guess it does get the bench marking and what my 

friend, Mr. Connolly, was saying, trying to get a benchmark and 

trying to make progress. 

So I have got some questions. In our report—and this is not from 

you all’s testimony but I do want you all to answer the questions 

if you can—we talk about eyewitness accounts from the Lord’s Resistance Army, LRA, which talks about some of the abductees, for 

example, Joseph Kony has ordered his fighters to get elephant 

tusks and they are going to terrorist groups. 

Are we building a database of the terrorist groups that are involved in this kind of trafficking? 

Ms. JONES. Thank you for the question. 

We are closely following all of the activities and the different 

kind of illicit groups that are involved. So there are terrorist 

groups. There are militia groups. There are some just rogue military and then you have that collection tied into organized and syndicated crime. 

And so yes, we are certainly doing more to have information on 

some of these issues and to also work with our partners to get more 

information. So yes, we are trying to move forward on that. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Are we communicating those terrorist groups 

to our military forces, those who are responsible for the war on terror? 

Ms. JONES. We are sharing our information with the appropriate 

players. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. And have they taken any action that you 

know of against these groups based on the information that you 

have sent them, Dr. Jones? 

Ms. JONES. I can’t speak to that at this time here. 

Mr. WEBER. You do know that this is not the appropriate setting? 

Ms. JONES. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Then we will talk offline. And then keeping 

in line with that questioning, of those terrorist groups that we are 

identifying with the database, are we rating and ranking them in 

what order are the most—the most active and second most active? 

Ms. JONES. It is difficult to talk about all the details at this—

in this setting. There is a lot of information we are trying to gather 

and also share that with partners and other players and we are 

continuing to sort of raise the importance of this issue as how it 

ties into all of these networks and their activities. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Because we are talking about funding but—

in the war on terror. You know, once we have identified these 

groups and you even—in our report it talks about there are certain—seems to be certain routes that they use in smuggling across 

the different countries. 

You talk about them traversing country lines, state lines, borders. Have we identified those routes? Are we, you know, staking 

out those routes? 

Ms. JONES. We are beginning to track those routes and we are 

beginning to sort of use that information in how we respond and 

share it with partners in sort of the coordinated operations that I 

was mentioning in my testimony, these different sharing of inforVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:27 Jun 14, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\022614\86869 SHIRL
49

mation between all of the countries involved in Africa and Asia to 

understand those routes. 

So I think we are in the process of getting more information on 

how all of these different illicit activities are coming around this 

activity because this is just about—this is about money and so we 

are tracking the money. 

We have to follow the money and that is one of the things we 

are really working on from both——

Mr. WEBER. Okay. That is a great segue to my next question 

about the money because we have instituted a rewards program. 

How successful has that been? Is it paying out? Are we—how successful has that been? 

Ms. JONES. Well, we have just started that as the legislation expanded that reward system to include wildlife crime. So it is just 

in November that we have announced the first reward and I 

haven’t heard—I haven’t gotten any feedback on that yet. But I can 

get more and get back to you. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. And then you mentioned Namibia, I think, as 

being a success story. On the scale of countries—on the scale of the 

amount of trafficking, where do they fall? Are they number two? 

Are they number 22? 

Mr. ASHE. I would put them at the top of the scale. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, now, that is in success. 

Mr. ASHE. Right. 

Mr. WEBER. But in terms of volume. 

Mr. ASHE. Volume—well, they have little trade and so from a—

from the standpoint of risk they are low on the scale. So they have 

a very effective management and customs control regime so——

Mr. WEBER. Okay. And then last question—I am running out of 

time—so, I mean, I don’t mean to disrespect them or the assessment that they are a success story but if they have little traffic—

if they are a small country and they didn’t have a whole lot to fight 

then it would have been easier for them to be able to fight that. 

Are we rating countries’ governments on how they respond to 

this problem—some of them are cooperating, some are not? Are we 

rating those governments? 

Mr. ASHE. We are—we have not to date. I think that is the point. 

I can go back to a statement Mr. Connolly made that, you know, 

this has been going on for a long time. I guess I would say it has 

not. 

I mean, what we have seen in the last 24 months is a dramatic 

escalation, 7,000 percent rise in the value of rhinoceros horn. And 

so what we have seen in just the last 24 months is that these 

things have become so lucrative that these syndicated networks 

have rushed in. 

And so we are just learning about that and so the routes of 

trade, for instance, what—our traditional approach to dealing with 

wildlife poaching is you go after the poachers. You get the poachers. 

And so what we now need to do is we need to let these things 

move so that we can discover their routes of trade and who is making the money and where they are. And so we are—we are just beginning and the questions you are asking are the right questions 

and we need to—we need to do that. 

50

We need to identify which countries are the risk, both the source 

countries, the transit countries and then the demand countries—

where are the highest risks and how can we stack and attack 

those. 

Chairman ROYCE. Maybe—Mr. Weber, maybe I could answer 

some of that because in the case of al-Shabaab, to go right to your 

question, in September 2013 al-Shabaab, of course, attacked the 

Westgate Shopping Mall in Nairobi. 

Sixty-seven people were killed there and 200 people were wounded, and shortly after that attack the Kenya President Kenyatta 

identified illegal trade in ivory as a source of funding for the terrorist group. 

And President Kenyatta made it very clear—I think I—I think 

this was in the Wall Street Journal where I read this—where he 

said al-Shabaab acts as a facilitator and broker, you know, in ivory. 

One of the reports we have shown that al-Shabaab gets up to 40 

percent of the funds necessary for its operating expenses through 

the ivory trade. The calculation of the quantity on the black market 

is up to 600,000 monthly. 

So when a terrorist organization like that is looking for hard currency and they are demonstrably involved in this activity and the 

consequences of this is that they are able to sustain an operation 

in which they, you know, create casualties to this extent, and as 

the President said this cannot be curtailed without an offensive 

against overseas buyers and he said we need a global plan to end 

a business that endangers our wildlife and bankrolls a tax on our 

people in Kenya. 

That would be one example, but also from 2012 we had the situation with the Janjaweed and many of us are monitoring what they 

have done not just in Darfur, of course, and in Chad but in the 

Central African Republic. 

But in—on March 2012 the Janjaweed perpetrated one of the 

worst elephant slaughters in recent history anyway, riding over 

600 miles from Sudan all the way to the national park in Cameroon. There, they slaughtered more than 300 elephants—more 

than 300 elephants. 

That is the just the attack on Cameroon. They also attacked 

Chad. They also attacked several other countries. They went 

through Kenya on an attack. So you have these terrorist organizations that aren’t just a threat to wildlife. 

I mean, they are carrying out ethnic cleansing, frankly, or carrying out military operations against those who they feel are their 

enemies. 

But one of their sources of hard currency is what they are doing 

in the rhino and ivory elephant trade. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. And so that is why I want to give you the specifics on that. But we go now to Grace Meng of New York. 

Ms. MENG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for 

holding this important hearing. 

As you know, China in recent months publicly destroyed large 

quantities of ivory, and sort of a two-part question. The first part 

is I wanted to get your take on whether you think there has been 

51

enough action behind this great symbolism, and second, we talked 

about shark finning before. 

I have been a very small part of a national effort to eliminate the 

consumption of shark finning. We have been successful as of last 

year in New York State, not only via law enforcement methods but 

also in terms of education and increasing cultural awareness. 

And I also would like to get your take on the cultural elements 

affecting the demand side here in the U.S. or abroad and what are 

some strategies we can use to reach out to communities where demand for ivory is high. 

Ms. JONES. Thank you. 

The Chinese did destroy about—I think it was six tons maybe of 

ivory recently and we took that as a very good sign but is a sign—

it is a symbolic sign of moving away from sort of a national support 

of this kind of trade. 

But more substantively, we have been working closely with the 

Chinese and we have been seeing a strong interest on their part 

to partner with us on a number of ways of looking at this. 

So they have been very active, as I mentioned, in this international operation to look at all of the different points along the 

trade route, those COBRA operations where COBRA II recently, I 

think, had something like an increase of 400 arrests and 350 seizures and China was a partner in that activity. 

Now, that is in a multilateral setting but we are also seeing—

we have engaged the Chinese through the strategic and economic 

dialogue, which is one of our main bilateral engagements, to discuss issues with them. 

And last year for the first time we discussed wildlife trafficking 

in this forum for our strategic relationship and our economic dialogue which show the importance of it and it was a very engaged 

discussion and we have been having very good follow-up on this. 

So there is engagement and there is interest. There is also—we 

have been working with the China-U.S. joint liaison group on law 

enforcement because there are all these different pieces of the problem that have to get attention. 

So, clearly, China realizes that it is a large market for these 

products. We are also a large market so we have been trying to assume a leadership together on this and engage in every way that 

we can. 

We have a lot of work to do but I do think that there has been 

some progress and I personally have been involved in the discussions. We also see it in our relationship on illegal logging, which 

is related to this issue. 

Now, the point about changing demand, we have been talking 

about that because there is a cultural issue. There is a younger 

generation coming up in our country and around the world that is 

very conservation minded and we are working with the Chinese 

about messaging how do you get this out. That was a very important part of the whole shark fin campaign. 

So I think there is a lot we can do and we are getting, as I said, 

a very positive response. 

Mr. ASHE. Ms. Meng, I would say one thing about the ivory crush 

and the elimination of confiscated stockpiles is that we have seen 

encouraging results initially at the—at last year’s conference of the 

52

parties for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 

Species. 

There was agreement that all parties to the convention, 179 

member nations, should report on their stockpiles and that is due 

by the end of February. And so by the end of February, we will 

have a sense of what are nations carrying in terms of stockpiles. 

The U.S. stockpile, which we destroyed in November, was about 

six tons. A country like China would have many times that, and 

so having that information we will then be able to put that in context because it is not just the symbolism. It is the risk that that—

those stockpiles represent because they have to be secured. 

In the U.S. our stockpiles are very secure. In other European nations they would be very secure but in many of the range and demand countries the security of those stockpiles is an issue. 

Ms. MENG. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

We will go to Ted Yoho of Florida. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate you being here 

today, and it just—I never cease to be amazed at the stupidity, ignorance and brutality and greed of my fellow man on something 

like this. 

I want to build on Ms. Meng’s questioning on the cultural elements. You are seeing that change in the Asian countries where 

the big demand is. We can only hope that we do more of that. 

I assume you have videos of these animals slaughtered, the remnants of that, and I assume this goes through a regular business 

transaction. 

You have the supply side, which is the animal, and then you 

have the facilitator, the poacher, then the facilitator, the broker 

and eventually the buyer. 

What is the poacher on an average—is there an average figure 

that they receive out of this and is there an economic incentive we 

can say don’t do it—we will give you the money? 

Ms. JONES. I can sort of give you an estimate for one that I remember when we were discussing this with the Kenyans. I think 

the amount that the poacher was getting was like five times the 

annual salary of a ranger. It was some inordinate factor. 

But that may be off. I mean, Dan may have a better number on 

that. 

Mr. ASHE. Like, in terms of the value—the end value of the product they are getting very little. But in terms of the comparison to 

their—what they could otherwise make they are making very 

much. 

Mr. YOHO. So they are making thousands? 

Mr. ASHE. By equivalent, yes. 

Mr. YOHO. Yes. 

Mr. ASHE. And so I think that is the issue that the chairman 

mentioned, the community-based approaches to these challenges. It 

is very important that the people see a value in an elephant tusk 

that is beyond the immediate harvest because that represents a 

dead elephant. That represents a dead rhinoceros. So that is a onetime harvest. 

Mr. YOHO. Right. And that also represents a lifestyle for somebody for 2 or 3 years probably in those countries, right? 

53

Mr. ASHE. Correct. 

Mr. YOHO. Yes. And they are looking at their family or lifestyle. 

The demand side, again, I just, through education, you know, it 

just—it is mind boggling that somebody thinks that, you know, 

they are going to get a hangover and they are going to crush up 

some rhino horns and make a powder and, you know, instead of 

just educating them a better way to deal with their problems instead of getting rid of our resources. 

And if you look at the life span of a rhinoceros, it is, what, 45 

to 60 years and, you know, sexual maturity of the female is, I 

think, 6 to 8 years of age and the males 10 to 12 and they have 

got about a year and a half gestation period. 

Is anybody looking at, and I don’t even know if I want to go here, 

but animal husbandry to raise them and then harvest the ivory? 

Because you were saying in Namibia that they allow for the harvesting of a male. 

I mean, are they using a tranquilizer gun or is it it is killed—

shoot to kill and then have your picture taken with it? I mean, are 

they looking at using tranquilizers and then removing the antler 

or the horn versus killing the animal? 

Mr. ASHE. There have been a lot of—of course, elephants you 

can’t remove the tusk. Any kind of ranching or farming of elephants is difficult because they are slowly reproducing long-lived 

animals. 

Mr. YOHO. They sure are. 

Mr. ASHE. Rhinoceros, they are—you can remove the horn from 

a rhinoceros. There has been some experimentation with doing that 

but they grow back and at the value of these horns if you cut the 

horn off, you know, low even that little bit is extremely valuable. 

And so there have been attempts to—at what we would call traditional management approaches to this and because of the value of 

the products they are—they have been largely unsuccessful. 

That doesn’t mean we can’t try in the future. The case I mentioned in Namibia is a sport harvest so that would be—that is a, 

you know, post-reproductive male that is essentially outcompeting 

reproductive males. 

They need to take it out of the population for good management 

purposes. The individual who would harvest that has, you know, 

purchased the—you know, the privilege to do that for, I think, close 

to $300,000. All of that money would go back into management. 

That is why Namibia has such an exemplary program. 

Mr. YOHO. Let me get your opinion on doing the ivory crush and 

breaking the supply side. Is that going to increase the value of 

them, obviously, and is that going to create more demand and a 

more black market? I guess you can’t get any much more of a black 

market. 

Mr. ASHE. The material that we crushed was confiscated—is contraband. 

Mr. YOHO. Right. 

Mr. ASHE. So it would never go into trade. So destroying it would 

have no——

Mr. YOHO. But it decreases the supply side so the demand or the 

value is going to go up on the stuff they can get, right? 

54

Mr. ASHE. No, because it would have never been in trade anyway. 

Mr. YOHO. But I am talking about future procurement of the 

horns. 

Mr. ASHE. Presumably, but if you end the demand—if you end 

the trade and you end the demand then that is the way, I think, 

we have to deal with it. We have——

Mr. YOHO. I agree. I mean, that would be the best way and just 

get people off of this stuff. I just find it horrendous that people are 

doing this in the 21st century. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Yoho. 

We go now to Mr. Matt Salmon of Arizona. 

Mr. SALMON. Thanks a lot, Mr. Chairman. I think it goes without 

saying that we all support the idea of protecting and preserving 

and cultivating endangered species all around the globe, particularly elephants and rhinoceroses. 

This hearing is really helpful as we look toward the best models 

of how to access and address—excuse me, address this program 

globally. Mr. Ashe and Dreher, as you are working on new regulations on the domestic sale of ivory—I am talking about ivory that 

is already legal and here, not the future stuff—I think it is important that we avoid the trap of intended consequences. 

Specifically, I would like to urge you to adopt rules that do not 

harm U.S. collectors—I mean, people that already have it within 

the family. 

I am particularly concerned about families that might have a 

family heirloom currently that is ivory, which could be, you know, 

a gun handle or a knife handle or a statue which has been passed 

down from generation to generation with little regard of paperwork 

sometimes. 

And so I am hoping that as we develop the rules we don’t get 

a situation where we are essentially taking family heirlooms and 

making them worthless. And so while I completely support going 

forward and making sure that, you know, that folks that are acting 

in an illegal way that we prosecute them to the nth degree of the 

law and that we make sure that, you know, that we do this for the 

future. 

But how can we balance in rule making to make sure that people 

that have had legal ivory in their homes for years—from years and 

years and years aren’t hurt by the, you know, law of unintended 

consequences? 

Mr. ASHE. It is a difficult proposition although I would say unequivocally that people who have a family heirloom that has been 

passed from generation to generation can continue to pass that 

heirloom. They can own it. They can possess it. They can move it. 

Mr. SALMON. They can’t sell it, though. 

Mr. ASHE. They cannot sell it. 

Mr. SALMON. And that, to me—I mean, it renders the thing basically valueless. 

Mr. ASHE. If it is a family heirloom it strikes me that the value 

is in the generational value of the product. The challenge for us is 

that these products are—it is very difficult to judge the authenticity of them because of the value of them and the relatively low 

penalties associated with trafficking in them that the risk is low, 

55

the value is high and so legal trade is a significant smokescreen 

for effective law enforcement. 

Mr. SALMON. I understand that it might be difficult. But what I 

am saying is not all—I mean, I might have an heirloom. What if 

I have a Picasso that is left to me but maybe my folks leave it to 

me and we come on economic hard times and we decide, you know, 

I need to sell that Picasso because of the value of the product. 

I am saying something that has been in the family for a long, 

long time is there a way to do rule making so that we prosecute 

the bad guys that are trying to exploit, you know, new ivory, exactly what you are trying to accomplish. 

Your goal is not to punish people that have owned legal ivory for 

the last 100 years. Your goal is to make sure that for the future 

that we don’t have bad actors and further, you know, dealing with 

causing extinction or, you know, a dwindling of those resources. 

So is there a way to develop the rule so that people that have 

had legal ivory don’t get caught in the cross hairs? 

Mr. ASHE. I think there is a statutory exemption in the Endangered Species Act for antiques over 100 years of age and but what 

we will have to do is ask for rigorous documentation. 

Now, if you own something that is extraordinarily valuable like 

a Picasso or a, you know, a Steinway you are going to have that 

documentation because you will be able to show a trail of transaction over many periods because they are extremely valuable. 

And so I think that people will be able to document that for 

things that are—that have extraordinary value. 

Mr. SALMON. What if I—what if I owned a firearm that had ivory 

grips on it and perfectly legal, but I sold the firearm? Am I going 

to be in the cross hairs of the government because I am—you know, 

I am selling something that I have owned for several years but I 

have decided I want to sell it? 

Mr. ASHE. Well, I guess I would—from the standpoint of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, our priority for law enforcement is syndicated commercial-scale trafficking. 

Mr. SALMON. Okay. 

Mr. ASHE. We are not looking for the average American, although it would, under our proposed ban, if that firearm is not an 

antique then it would be illegal for you to sell it and the—and you 

would need to be aware of that. 

And so I think that is—we do—it is our opinion that we do need 

to end the legal commerce in ivory and we need to do that at some 

point in time. 

Mr. SALMON. Okay. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Ted Poe—Judge Poe of Texas. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here. 

I am very concerned, like a lot of folks are, about this actual disappearance of some of the world’s animals because of these outlaws 

that are killing them and selling them for money. It is all about 

that filthy lucre, money, and it involves a lot of bad guys—terrorists, criminal gangs, you know, solo thieves and bandits. 

But it is all about the money, and I am really concerned that 

they may be actually eliminating species, that they are so successful that they are not breeding enough of these animals to catch up 

with the robbers of their lives. 

56

Lacey Act—I want to talk about that. Hypothetical question and, 

really, I am looking for some answers on what we can do, Congress, 

to go nail these people. Maybe that is not polite language, certainly 

not diplomatic language. 

But anyway, we got a company—let us use the hypothetical—operating in Africa, and they are a conservation company and they 

trade in endangered animals. They violate the Lacey law. 

If they are an American company they are subject to the Lacey 

law in the United States. Is that correct? American company, they 

are violating the Lacey law, operating in some African country and 

they could be prosecuted under the Lacey law. Is that correct? 

Mr. DREHER. I think the predicate offense in a Lacey Act violation is putting into commerce or importing into the United States 

an article that is taken in violation of foreign law. 

Mr. POE. Oh, yes. That is assumed. 

Mr. DREHER. So they would have to be bringing it into the 

United States. Yes. 

Mr. POE. They are bringing in—they are bringing it to America. 

Mr. DREHER. And if they are doing that in violation of the host 

country’s wildlife laws, yes, that would be a Lacey Act violation. 

Mr. POE. Go after them. Nail them. But you got a foreign country 

doing exactly the same thing in the fact that they recruit. They are 

in violation of the Lacey law in other areas. 

But let us say they advertise in the United States. They recruit 

hunters to go to their little game ranch wherever it is in Africa but 

they are notorious for operating and trading in illegal, you know, 

ivory or whatever it is. 

But they still are able to get access to American hunters and advertising because the Lacey law doesn’t apply to them. Is that—is 

that correct? 

Mr. DREHER. Again, I think unless the American participants are 

bringing in to the United States——

Mr. POE. They are not doing that. They are not bringing it in. 

Mr. DREHER. They are not bringing back trophies? 

Mr. POE. No. But you got this corporation—foreign corporation 

operating, doing the same thing only they are operating in another 

country. 

The only thing they do in the United States is recruit hunters 

to go and they—you know, hunters go and, you know, don’t bring 

the trophies back—illegal trophies back in the country. 

My real question is how can we get the Lacey law or some type 

of action to go after these independent foreign corporations that are 

doing this and really competing with the, you know, good corporations of the United States that have vast amounts of land that they 

conserve, doing the right thing, but they compete with these guys 

that are involved in the trade? 

I don’t know that I framed the question very well. What can we 

do to go after those folks I guess is really my question. What can 

we do legally—legislatively? Ideas—I am open to ideas, Dr. Jones. 

Ms. JONES. Yes. There are a couple of things that come to mind, 

Congressman. I think you raise a very good dimension of this. One 

is the typical diplomatic route. We work with these countries to 

show them how the Lacey Act works and sort of try to encourage 

them to have laws just like it. So we do try to do that. 

57

The second thing is in trade agreements, that we have environmental provisions that elevate this and try to ensure that countries 

involved in trade relations are dealing with issues like this and following international agreements like CITES and that is part of the 

requirement in the trade agreement. 

And so we do have environmental sections of our trade agreements and we are in the process of trying to put these into some 

of the new agreements that are under negotiation. 

Mr. POE. Can’t we at least prohibit those companies—we know 

about their—what they are doing in another country. We can’t 

reach them because they are a foreign company. Can we prevent 

them, since they are doing this activity, from at least advertising 

and recruiting in the United States? 

Mr. ASHE. If they are—I think, as Dr. Jones mentioned, we have 

other international instruments like the Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species and if their activities are 

undermining the implementation of those other international instruments then we can bring an action. 

We can sanction those countries under the Pelly Act so we 

have—we do have mechanisms to ensure that international instruments are being effectively implemented. They are not being undermined. And so perhaps we should look at the Pelly Act. But I 

would applaud you, Congressman, for your reference to the Lacey 

Act. 

It is the workhorse of national and international wildlife law enforcement and I would just, you know, say to the committee tomorrow there is a hearing before another committee of this House of 

Representatives where some significant actions are being considered that will weaken our ability to enforce the Lacey Act. 

And so we need effective voices to not just maintain the Lacey 

Act but strengthen the Lacey Act as a means of enforcement. 

Mr. POE. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Yes. Thank you, Judge Poe. 

And, again, we thank our three witnesses here. We especially 

want to thank also the NGO community that are really integral to, 

frankly, the partnership that has got to be put together here to 

bring the amount of tension necessary to elevate this issue before 

it is too late, as I indicated in my opening statement, before we 

reach the point where these species have been slaughtered to the 

point of extinction. 

So thank you all for your efforts here, and we will be back in 

touch because we do need that draft language, your assistance on 

that front, and thank you again to our witnesses. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(59)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

60

f


86869n.eps
61


86869m-1.eps
62

f


86869m-2.eps
63

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE EDWARD R. ROYCE, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS


86869d.eps
64


86869e-1.eps
65

f


86869e-2.eps
66


86869f-1.eps
67

f


86869f-2.eps
68


86869j-1.eps
69


86869j-2.eps
70

f


86869j-3.eps
71


86869k-1.eps
72

Æ


86869k-2.eps