U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

71-290 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001

H.R. 643, H.R. 645 AND H.R. 700

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Thursday, March 15, 2001

Serial No. 107-5

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

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

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska,

Vice Chairman

W.J. ′′Billy′′ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Richard W. Pombo, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

C.L. ′′Butch′′ Otter, Idaho

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

VACANCY

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Robert A. Underwood, Guam

Adam Smith, Washington

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel

Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska

W.J. ′′Billy′′ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey,

Vice Chairman

Richard W. Pombo, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 15, 2001 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of Members:

Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate to Congress from American

Samoa ............................................................................................................ 12

Prepared statement on H.R. 643, H.R. 645, and H.R. 700 .................. 13

Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland ................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement on H.R. 643, H.R. 645, and H.R. 700 .................. 11

Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of

New Jersey ................................................................................................... 13

Prepared statement on H.R. 700 ............................................................. 14

Statement of Witnesses:

Berry, John, Executive Director, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation .. 49

Prepared statement on H.R. 645 ............................................................. 51

Foose, Dr. Thomas J., Program Director, International Rhino Foundation 84

Prepared statement on H.R. 643, H.R. 645, and H.R. 700 .................. 86

Hemley, Ginette, Vice President for Species Conservation, World Wildlife

Fund ............................................................................................................... 25

Prepared statement on H.R. 643, H.R. 645, and H.R. 700 .................. 27

Jones, Marshall, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................ 15

Prepared statement on H.R. 643, H.R. 645, and H.R. 700 .................. 17

Response to questions submitted for the record by The Honorable

Richard Pombo ....................................................................................... 42

Response to questions submitted for the record by The Honorable

Eni Faleomavaega ................................................................................. 46

Kirtland, John, Executive Director for Animal Stewardship, Feld

Entertainment, Inc., Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus .......... 80

Prepared statement on H.R. 700 ............................................................. 81

Rapp, James L., Executive Director, Salisbury Zoological Park ................... 20

Prepared statement on H.R. 643, H.R. 645, and H.R. 700 .................. 22

Robinson, Dr. John G., Senior Vice President and Director, International

Conservation, Wildlife Conservation Society .............................................. 75

Prepared statement on H.R. 643, H.R. 645, and H.R. 700 .................. 77

Response to questions submitted by The Honorable Eni

Faleomavaega ......................................................................................... 79

Steuer, Karen, Director, Commercial Exploitation and Trade Program,

International Fund for Animal Welfare ...................................................... 65

Prepared statement on H.R. 643, H.R. 645, and H.R. 700 .................. 67

Response to questions submitted by The Honorable Eni

Faleomavaega ......................................................................................... 71

Additional materials supplied:

Text of H.R. 643 ............................................................................................... 3

Text of H.R. 645 ............................................................................................... 6

Text of H.R. 700 ............................................................................................... 9

(1)

HEARING ON H.R. 643, THE AFRICAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION REAUTHORIZATION

ACT OF 2001; H.R. 645, THE RHINOCEROS

AND TIGER CONSERVATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2001; AND H.R. 700, THE ASIAN

ELEPHANT CONSERVATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2001

Thursday, March 15, 2001

House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

Committee on Resources

Washington, DC

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in

Room 1324 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T.

Gilchrest [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. GILCHREST. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the first

hearing for Fish, Wildlife and Oceans. We look forward to the hearing today and to the testimony from the witnesses, and I appreciate

all the hard work that my colleague, Jim Saxton, did while he was

Chairman of this Subcommittee for six years, with the able companionship of Eni Faleomavaega, whose name it took me a while

to pronounce, but I am doing a better job now.

We look forward over the next two years to carrying on the tradition that was most ably set by these two men who have a lifelong

interest and concern, with strength and compassion, to preserve

the world’s resources. This hearing today will focus to a great extent on all of that.

I was pleased to introduce legislation to reauthorize the African

Elephant and Rhino and Tiger Conservation Funds along with

what Jim and Eni have done in the past. In fact, these funds represent the only continuous source of money in the world and they

are, to quote the Fish and Wildlife Service, ‘‘not a hand-out, but a

helping hand.’’ So we will continue in that tradition as well.

During the past 13 years, the Service has approved 251 conservation grants to assist rhinos, tigers, and elephants in a number of

range countries. The total expenditure of Federal funds has been

2

$16.7 million, which has been matched by $56.9 million in private

money. While the list of approved projects is lengthy, it represents

less than 50 percent of the total number submitted to the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. The need is great and it is essential that

these funds are extended for an additional five years.

Furthermore, I have cosigned a letter to Secretary Gale Norton supporting a $1 million appropriation for each of the five accounts

under the Multinational Species Conservation Fund.

[H.R. 643, H.R. 645, and H.R. 700 follow:]

3

1

I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 643

To reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 14, 2001

Mr. GILCHREST introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘African Elephant Con5 servation Reauthorization Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF AFRICAN ELEPHANT CON7 SERVATION ACT.

8 Section 2306 of the African Elephant Conservation

9 Act (16 U.S.C. 4245) is amended by striking ‘‘1997’’ and

10 all that follows through ‘‘2002’’ and inserting ‘‘2001,

11 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007’’.

4

2

•HR 643 IH

1 SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

2 Part I of the African Elephant Conservation Act (16

3 U.S.C. 4211 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end

4 the following:

5 ‘‘SEC. 2104. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

6 ‘‘Of amounts hereafter appropriated to carry out this

7 part each fiscal year, not more than 6 percent, or $80,000,

8 whichever is less, may be used to administer this part.’’.

9 SEC. 4. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

10 (a) CONFORMING AND CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.—

11 The African Elephant Conservation Act is amended as fol12 lows:

13 (1) Section 2101(a) (16 U.S.C. 4211(a)) is

14 amended by striking ‘‘African Elephant Conserva15 tion’’.

16 (2) Section 2102 (16 U.S.C. 4212) is amended

17 by striking the section heading and all that follows

18 through ‘‘(d) ACCEPTANCE AND USE OF DONA19 TIONS.—’’ and inserting the following:

20 ‘‘SEC. 2102. ACCEPTANCE AND USE OF DONATIONS.’’.

21 (3) Section 2304 (16 U.S.C. 4243) is repealed.

22 (4) Section 2305(4) (16 U.S.C. 4244(4)) is

23 amended by striking ‘‘the African Elephant Con24 servation Fund established by section 2102’’ and in25 serting ‘‘the account established by division A, sec26 tion 101(e), title I of Public Law 105–277 under the

5

3

•HR 643 IH

1 heading ‘MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION

2 FUND’ ’’.

3 (b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Title I of section

4 101(e) of division A of Public Law 105–277 (112

5 Stat.2681–237) is amended under the heading ‘MULTI6 NATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND’ ’’ by striking

7 ‘‘Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act, subchapter I’’

8 and inserting ‘‘Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of

9 1994, part I’’.

Æ

6

1

I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 645

To reauthorize the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 14, 2001

Mr. GILCHREST introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To reauthorize the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act

of 1994.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rhinoceros and Tiger

5 Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF RHINOCEROS AND TIGER

7 CONSERVATION ACT OF 1994.

8 Section 9 of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation

9 Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5306) is amended by striking

10 ‘‘1996 through 2002’’ and inserting ‘‘2001, 2002, 2003,

11 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007’’.

7

2

•HR 645 IH

1 SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

2 Section 9 of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation

3 Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5306) is further amended by in4 serting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’ before ‘‘There are author5 ized’’, and by adding at the end the following:

6 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—

7 Of amounts hereafter appropriated to carry out this Act

8 each fiscal year, not more than 6 percent, or $80,000,

9 whichever is less, may be used to administer this Act.’’.

10 SEC. 4. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

11 (a) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—The Rhinoceros

12 and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 is amended as follows:

13 (1) Section 4(3) (16 U.S.C. 5303(3)) is amend14 ed by striking ‘‘Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation

15 Fund established under section 6(a)’’ and inserting

16 ‘‘the account established by division A, section

17 101(e), title I of Public Law 105–277 under the

18 heading ‘MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION

19 FUND’ ’’.

20 (2) Section 6 (16 U.S.C. 5305) is amended by

21 striking the section heading and all that follows

22 through ‘‘(d) ACCEPTANCE AND USE OF DONA23 TIONS.—’’ and inserting the following:

24 ‘‘SEC. 6. ACCEPTANCE AND USE OF DONATIONS.’’.

25 (b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Title I of section

26 101(e) of division A of Public Law 105–277 (112 Stat.

8

3

•HR 645 IH

1 2681–237) is amended under the heading ‘MULTI2 NATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND’ ’’ by striking

3 ‘‘Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act, subchapter I’’

4 and inserting ‘‘Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of

5 1994, part I’’.

Æ

9

1

I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 700

To reauthorize the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 14, 2001

Mr. SAXTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To reauthorize the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Asian Elephant Con5 servation Reauthorization Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF ASIAN ELEPHANT CON7 SERVATION ACT OF 1997.

8 Section 7 of the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of

9 1997 (16 U.S.C. 4266) is amended by striking ‘‘1998’’

10 and all that follows through ‘‘2002’’ and inserting ‘‘2001,

11 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007’’.

10

2

•HR 700 IH

1 SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

2 Section 7 of the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of

3 1997 (16 U.S.C. 4266) is further amended by inserting

4 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’ before ‘‘There are authorized’’, and

5 by adding at the end the following:

6 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—

7 Of amounts hereafter appropriated to carry out this Act

8 each fiscal year, not more than 6 percent, or $80,000,

9 whichever is less, may be used to administer this Act.’’.

10 SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

11 The Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997 is

12 amended as follows:

13 (1) Section 4(3) (16 U.S.C. 4263(3)) is amend14 ed by striking ‘‘Asian Elephant Conservation Fund

15 established under section 6’’ and inserting ‘‘the ac16 count established by division A, section 101(e), title

17 I of Public Law 105–277 under the heading ‘MULTI18 NATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND’ ’’.

19 (2) Section 6 (16 U.S.C. 4265) is amended by

20 striking the section heading and all that follows

21 through ‘‘(d) ACCEPTANCE AND USE OF DONA22 TIONS.—’’ and inserting the following:

23 ‘‘SEC. 6. ACCEPTANCE AND USE OF DONATIONS.’’.

Æ

11

Mr. GILCHREST. I do this morning look forward to the testimony

from our witnesses. It almost seems like there is barely this thin

thread between extinction and survival, and the thin thread are

those of you and those whom you represent who have come here

to testify, and the little pittance, although you have used it wisely,

of Federal money

I recently completed a book called ‘‘The Sea of Slaughter,’’ by

Farley Mowatt, the man famous for ‘‘Never Cry Wolf,’’ in which he

describes wildlife to a large extent along the East Coast of the U.S.

and Canada in a historical perspective from the 1500’s—actually,

he fixed the date, 1500 to the present, and what happened to the

ptarmigan, the golden eagle, the polar bear, the black bear, the

grizzly bear, the mink, the auk, a myriad of shore birds, and the

list goes on, because of our intrusion in a way that, looking back

now, was ruthless for the slaughter of profit, the habitat loss, the

vast starvation because of habitat loss, and fundamental stupidity,

arrogance, and ignorance.

I have a nephew who is a Presbyterian missionary in Ethiopia

and I saw him recently when he came back to visit. He said there

is a very widespread saying in Ethiopia and it goes like this: if all

you know you learned from your father and your father is ignorant,

what does that make you? It is pretty profound, not necessarily politically correct, but quite profound.

So we look forward to what we will hear this morning, and we

will do our darnedest to make sure the program not only survives

but gets as near fully funded as possible and expands.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Wayne Gilchrest, Chairman, Subcommittee on

Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

Good morning and welcome to our first legislative hearing of the 107th Congress.

I am Congressman Wayne Gilchrest and I represent the 1st District of Maryland.

Today’s hearing will focus on three wildlife conservation bills that will extend the

authority of the Secretary of the Interior to undertake grants to conserve the flagship species of African elephants, Asian elephants, rhinoceros and tigers.

I was pleased to introduce legislation to reauthorize the African Elephant and

Rhino and Tiger Conservation Funds because this small investment of U.S. money

is critical to the long term survival of these species and the ecosystems where they

live. In fact, these funds represent the only continuous source of money in the world

and they are to quote the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service not a hand out, but a helping hand.

During the past thirteen years, the Service has approved 251 conservation grants

to assist rhinos, tigers and elephants in a number of range countries. The total expenditure of Federal funds has been $16.7 million which has been matched by $56.9

million in private money. While the list of approved projects is lengthy, it represents

less than 50 percent of the total number submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. The need is great and it is essential that these funds be extended for an

additional five years.

Furthermore, I have co-signed a letter to Secretary Gale Norton supporting a million dollar appropriation for each of the five accounts under the Multinational Species Conservation Fund.

Finally, I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses and I hope

that they will address the benefits of these Acts and whether any modifications or

changes are necessary.

I am now pleased to recognize the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. GILCHREST. On that note, I would like to yield to the gentleman from American Samoa.

12

STATEMENT OF HON. ENI. F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE

TO CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Allow me to congratulate you on becoming the Chairman of the Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee. Certainly, I am sure

that myself and my colleagues wish you all the best in your new

responsibilities, as I am also confident that you will carry on the

business of the Subcommittee on the same bipartisan basis as your

predecessor, and certainly a dear friend and colleague, now the

Subcommittee’s Vice Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey,

Mr. Saxton.

I just want to compliment and certainly thank him for allowing

me to work with him in the past two years as his ranking minority

member on this Subcommittee. It has been an enriching experience

for me to learn so much, and I am still learning a lot concerning

these responsibilities that we now have under this Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, our ranking member, the gentleman from Guam,

Mr. Underwood, has asked me to pinch hit for him this morning.

He has had to get up at 4 this morning to catch a 6 a.m. flight to

his home district, which is only about 18 hours, a plane experience

that I am sure none of us here are envious of. But he does send

his regards and regrets for not being here, but certainly wishes and

hopes that what we consider here in our Subcommittee will be

fruitful and productive. Certainly, I don’t see any problems in the

passage of the proposed legislation that is now before us.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the conservation and protection of

wildlife resources is one of the major oversight responsibilities of

this Subcommittee. Consequently, I was pleased to join you and

Mr. Saxton in cosponsoring your legislation to reauthorize three

very important international wildlife conservation statutes—the African Elephant Conservation Act, the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act, and the Asian Elephant Conservation Act.

The grant programs initiated under these Acts have been responsive, effective and successful in supporting a diversity of conservation activities in various range states scattered throughout Africa

and Asia. In fact, these grant programs have been so successful

that the 106th Congress authorized two additional conservation

programs, one for great apes and a second for neotropical migratory birds.

Of course, no program is without its critics. I am sure that some

aspects of these programs can be improved. One question I do have

is whether or not these grant programs are funding the most critical priority needs in the field, as identified by the range states

themselves. In this respect, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this morning, and I look forward to working with you and

the ranking Democratic member of our Subcommittee, Mr. Underwood, and certainly swift, favorable consideration of these proposed

bills.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]

13

Statement of The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Delegate to

Congress from American Samoa

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and good morning. Allow me to congratulate you on

becoming the Chairman of the Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee. I wish you well and good luck in your new responsibilities. I am confident that you will carry on the business of this Subcommittee in the same bipartisan fashion as your predecessor, and now the Subcommittee’s Vice Chairman, Jim

Saxton.

As you know Mr. Chairman, the conservation and protection of wildlife resources

is one of the major oversight responsibilities of this subcommittee. Consequently, I

was pleased to join you and Mr. Saxton in cosponsoring your legislation to

reauthorize three very important international wildlife conservation statutes: The

African Elephant Conservation Act; the Rhinoceros/Tiger Conservation Act; and the

Asian Elephant Conservation Act.

The grant programs initiated under these Acts have been responsive, effective,

and successful in supporting a diversity of conservation activities in various range

states scattered throughout Africa and Asia. In fact, these grant programs have

been so successful, the 106th Congress authorized two additional conservation programs: one for great apes and a second for neotropical migratory birds.

Of course, no program is without its critics, and I am sure that some aspects of

these programs can be improved. One question I do have is whether or not these

grant programs are funding the most critical priority needs in the field as identified

by the range states themselves.

In this respect, I look forward to hearing suggestions from our witnesses today

on how Congress might be able to improve these vitally important conservation programs.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and with the ranking Democratic member on the Subcommittee, Mr. Underwood, on the swift consideration of

your legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. Saxton?

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say congratulations to you for assuming the Chairmanship of this great

Subcommittee. I have certainly enjoyed my tenure here and I have

enjoyed working with you. I guess through everybody’s career there

are bright spots, and one of the bright spots is knowing that you

will be here guiding this Subcommittee, and we certainly appreciate it.

There is good news and bad news, though. The good news is that

Wayne will be here doing a great job on this Subcommittee, but if

you look at this Chairmanship from the standpoint of a nutria, it

is probably a dark spot because they are in trouble.

For those of you who don’t know, nutria are little varmints that

were imported into the Eastern Shore of Maryland from someplace

in South America and they have kind of taken over parts of the

Eastern Shore. I know that they are now in trouble. So, anyway,

I look forward to working with you and to continuing to share in

the successes of this Subcommittee, and I know that the Subcommittee is in great hands.

Let me just say a word about one of the bills that we are going

to be discussing this morning, and that, of course, is the bill which

I introduced four years ago. It was a bill that had to do with preserving Asian elephants as I started to learn that there were less

than 40,000 Asian elephants living in the world and that nearly

14

50 percent of those elephants were living in various national parks

in India, while the remaining animals were scattered in fragmented populations throughout 12 other countries in South and

Southeast Asia.

The primary reason for this serious decline in population was the

loss of essential elephant habitat. So we introduced a bill known

as the Asian Elephant Conservation Act, which was passed and

authorized $25 million to be spent until the end of the authorization, which is September 30 of this year. Whereas we actually

made a start at spending some of that money, we sent a powerful

message, in my opinion, throughout the conservation community

and the rest of the world that this is an absolutely important issue

and an important step forward by the United States Government.

I thank you for your cooperation in the past. I know that we are

here to discuss this this morning.

I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be placed in the

record. Again, congratulations on your Chairmanship.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Jim. Without objection, your statement will be submitted to the record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Jim Saxton, a Representative in Congress

from the State of New Jersey, on H.R. 700

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you to

the witnesses for joining us here today. I appreciate you taking the time out of your

schedules to be here. I am pleased to be able to speak in support of the reauthorization of the Asian Elephant Conservation Act.

Four years ago, I introduced this bill, because I was startled to learn that there

were less than 40,000 Asian elephants living in the wild. Furthermore, nearly fifty

percent of those elephants were living in various national parks in India, while the

remaining animals were scattered in fragmented populations throughout twelve

other countries in South and Southeast Asia.

The primary reason for this serious decline in population was the loss of essential

habitat. It is no secret that elephants and man are in direct competition for the

same resources. In most cases, it was the elephants who lost in those confrontations.

In addition, Asian elephants are poached for their bones, hide, meat and teeth; they

are still captured for domestication; and conflicts between elephants and people are

escalating at an alarming rate.

Furthermore, it was clear that millions of people were not aware of the plight of

Asian elephants and that range countries lack the financial resources to help conserve this flagship species.

Without an international effort, the future of the Asian elephant was in serious

jeopardy. In response to this problem, I, along with a number of other Members,

proposed the establishment of an Asian Elephant Consortium Fund.

This concept was modeled after the highly successful African Elephant Conservation Fund, and the fundamental goal of my legislation was to obtain a small amount

of Federal assistance for on-the-ground conservation projects.

Fortunately, this important legislation was overwhelmingly approved by both

bodies, and it was signed into law on November 19, 1997. Under the terms of

P.L. 105-95, the Congress could appropriate up to $25 million to the Asian Elephant

Conservation Fund until September 30, 2002. In fact, some $1.9 million in Federal

funds has been allocated and those moneys have been matched by an additional

$1.1 million in private donations.

Those funds have been used to underwrite 27 conservation grants in nine different range countries. The type of projects funded have included: develop an elephant strategy in Sri Lanka; identification of a suitable managed elephant range

in Malaysia; molecular tools for the local population assessment of Asian elephants;

school education to support Asian elephant conservation in India and trace the mobility patterns of Sri Lankan elephants. These projects were carefully analyzed and

competitively selected from a list of nearly 100 proposals that were submitted to the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

15

While the early indication is that the worldwide population of Asian elephants has

stopped its precipitous decline, it is unrealistic to believe that $3 million can save

this species from extinction. Nevertheless, this law sent a powerful message to the

international community that we must not allow this flagship species to disappear

from the wild. The United States must continue to play a leadership role in this

effort.

I am pleased to have introduced this reauthorization and will push for its passage.

Mr. GILCHREST. I do want to make a quick comment about the

staff, past and present. There is a great staff on the Fisheries Subcommittee, both Democrat and Republican staff, and they do a lot

of the work that we sometimes get the credit for. I just want to

thank them for all their efforts.

This morning, we have Marshall Jones, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, accompanied by Dr. Ken Stansell. Welcome.

Mr. James Rapp, Executive Director of the Salisbury Zoological

Park. Jim, thank you for coming and making the trip here this

morning. It is a beautiful place on the Eastern Shore which is representative of the kind of work all of the groups here today are trying to do, and Jim has been a great contributor with his time and

talent to these efforts.

Ms. Ginette Hemley, Vice President of Species Conservation,

World Wildlife Fund.

Thank you all for coming this morning.

Mr. Jones, you may begin first.

STATEMENT OF MARSHALL P. JONES, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S.

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY KENNETH B. STANSELL, ACTING

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.S. FISH

AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great pleasure to

be here today, and since this is the first opportunity that the Fish

and Wildlife Service has to testify before this Subcommittee with

you as Chair, let me say how much we look forward to working

with you, as we certainly enjoyed working with Mr. Saxton.

We know you very well from your strong support for Blackwater

National Wildlife Refuge and for conservation issues on the

Eastern Shore of Maryland, and we are happy to see you have the

opportunity to take that philosophy and extend it to fish and wildlife issues nationwide.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Mr. JONES. It is also a great pleasure, Mr. Chairman, to be here

to talk about a program that I believe is one that has a demonstrated track record of success and one that, with a small expenditure of funds in the big picture, is having a huge effect on the

ground.

Mr. Chairman, I have a written statement and some attachments

which we have offered for the record. I will be brief this morning.

I have Mr. Stansell with me here, who is himself an expert in these

matters and has spent much time in the field.

This program is one that succeeds for several reasons, and I

would like to briefly outline, Mr. Chairman, what I believe are the

most important parts of that success. First of all, it has had biparVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:39 Jul 18, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 71290.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
16

tisan support since the first enactment of the African Elephant

Conservation Act in 1989 through the support of some of your very

able staff who are still with the Committee today. We appreciate

it very much. That tradition has continued with each of the succeeding pieces of legislation which built on the African Elephant

Conservation Act as the foundation, bipartisan support that grew

out of a need and a demonstrated track record of success.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, we believe this program is so strong because it is one that depends on partnerships. Those are partnerships with, first of all, the other countries which are the range

countries for the species we are talking about in Africa and in Asia.

We couldn’t succeed if those countries weren’t interested in working with us, or if those countries hadn’t demonstrated a commitment.

That is why we talk about, as you said, Mr. Chairman, this being

a helping hand, not a hand-out. These are people who want our

help. These are people who are ready and willing to put in the energy, but they are often not able to do that without financial assistance, training, equipment, and the technical assistance that we can

give.

And the ‘‘we,’’ Mr. Chairman, is not just the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but all of the organizations that you have invited here

today to testify at this hearing. So the partnership extends to nongovernmental organizations of all kinds like the World Wildlife

Fund, the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, the Wildlife

Conservation Society, the International Rhino Foundation, and the

International Fund for Animal Welfare. In addition, organizations

like Ringling Brothers, have shown that there is a corporate role

in this partnership; the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,

through its Save the Tiger Fund, which I am privileged to serve as

a member of the council, and funded by ExxonMobil, has also contributed. Others are now joining in to contribute to that, too. So

this is a partnership that is growing and growing, and we believe

it is all built on the foundation of the African Elephant Conservation Act.

Third, Mr. Chairman, we believe that this program enhances the

prestige and the credibility of the United States. It is easy for us

in the United States to sit back and criticize or tell other countries

what we think they should be doing. This is a program that says

we will work with you to help you.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, this is a program that works. These

small investments have huge effects. A $25,000 grant in a country

like Gabon, Cameroon, Nepal, or Thailand can have a huge effect

on the ground. What we would consider in the big picture of things

here to be a tiny program may be funding rangers, training people,

helping people keep elephants out of their crops, funding surveys,

or developing innovative ways for people to live with these animals

that are beautiful and inspiring, and also sometimes destructive or

dangerous.

So, Mr. Chairman, we believe that this is a program that has a

strong track record. Mr. Faleomavaega mentioned that programs

can always be improved. We have offered some technical amendments that we think would strengthen the program. We would be

very interested in working with you, Mr. Chairman, and all the

17

members of the Subcommittee and the Subcommittee staff to find

ways that we can make these programs even better.

I certainly would like to extend an invitation to you and to the

staff. Sometime, we hope that you will have the opportunity to

come with our staff and visit one of our projects on the ground in

Africa or in Asia, so that you can see the benefits for yourself.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]

Statement of Marshall P. Jones, Acting Director, United States Fish and

Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, on H.R. 643, H.R. 645, and

H.R. 700

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss H.R. 643,

the African Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2001; H.R. 645, the

Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2001; H.R. 700, the

Asian Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2001; and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service’s (Service) implementation of these three multi-species conservation

Acts. The Service fully supports the reauthorization of these Acts and looks forward

to working with the Subcommittee to consider several technical amendments to

make the grants program more efficient and encourage greater collaboration with

the private sector. My remarks today will focus on an overview of implementation

of the grant programs and these technical considerations. Attached to the Service’s

testimony are copies of the reports for each of the three grant programs. These attachments are also available on the Service’s website at http://International.fws.gov.

These reports provide a summary of various projects funded and include detailed

examples of how these funds help to conserve species in the wild.

As members of the Subcommittee may be aware, the Service has a long history

of proactive programs on behalf of foreign endangered species and their habitats.

Over the past two decades the Service’s conservation efforts in Asia have resulted

in the development of local institutional capacity and training, which in turn has

facilitated more effective resource protection by local wildlife researchers and managers. On behalf of rhinoceroses, tigers, and Asian elephants, we have been one of

the leaders in helping range countries address the problems affecting the continued

existence of these animals. The decade-long implementation of the African Elephant

Conservation Act in Africa has played a significant role in U.S. efforts to encourage

and assist on-the-ground projects aimed at conserving elephants.

As a Party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of

Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and a major consumer of species covered by the

Convention, the U.S. shares responsibility for supporting and implementing measures to provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened species both at

home and abroad. The African Elephant Conservation Act, Rhinoceros and Tiger

Conservation Act, and the Asian Elephant Conservation Act are designed to encourage and assist efforts to conserve some of the world’s most ecologically and sociologically important wildlife species. The key element of these Acts is the authorization

of financial resources, which is a reflection of the strong U.S. commitment to help

support local conservation programs of these species in the wild. Continued support

by the U.S. through reauthorization of the three Acts remains critical to the conservation of rhinos, tigers, African and Asian elephants.

In implementing these Acts, the Service has designed a streamlined process that

allows for timely approval of projects and that has the capacity to respond quickly

to emergency situations. Since no implementing regulations were deemed necessary,

there has not been any time lag from the initial receipt of funds and the implementation of the program. Furthermore, the grant programs are designed to provide

quick, short-term support for holding actions and other conservation measures, in

concert with existing or proposed long-range activities, or until such long-range activities are in place. During the early implementation of the African Elephant Conservation Act, it became apparent that there was a definite need for such a responsive grant program. Since that time it has become the hallmark of its success and

served as the model for subsequent Acts for rhinos and tigers, Asian elephants, and

most recently great apes and neotropical migratory birds.

All five Acts are administered through the Service’s International Affairs program

under the Multi-National Species Conservation Funds account. While each account

is maintained separately for each Act, a single fund allows the Service to maximize

coordination of these programs and minimize the administration costs. The Service

is currently reviewing ways to administer these programs consistent with the PresiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:39 Jul 18, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 71290.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
18

dent’s Budget to streamline government and operate more efficiently. After this review, the Service will be willing to work with the authors to revise those provisions

related to administration of these programs to address the true administration

needs of these programs.

Regarding H.R. 643, H.R. 645 and H.R. 700, the Service would also recommend

the creation of an advisory group for each of the Acts to help increase public involvement and Federal and private partnerships. Both of the newly enacted multi-species

conservation Acts, the Great Ape Conservation Act and Neotropical Migratory Bird

Conservation Act, provided for advisory groups, and we believe that it would be a

positive addition to these Acts as well.

The Service would also recommend the inclusion of language to ensure that

grants supporting local capacity building and institutional development are among

the projects for potential funding. The intent here is to balance the needs for direct

species-focused projects with the need to develop human resources necessary to

achieve effective conservation over the long term. We have attached language to this

testimony that we believe will further benefit these species as well as help range

countries better manage their natural resources. In addition, while both the Asian

Elephant Conservation Act and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act include

language providing for consultation with the U.S. Agency for International Development, this language is absent from the African Elephant Conservation Act. With regard to this consultative role, the Service recommends amending the African Elephant Conservation Act with parallel language to make it consistent with these

other Acts. We believe that these minor technical amendments will serve to further

enhance these dynamic programs.

As the first of the multi-species conservation Acts, the African Elephant Conservation Act was enacted in 1989 and received its initial funding in Fiscal Year 1990.

The Act has now given us over 10 years of experience with African elephant programs in 23 of the 37 African range countries. The African Elephant Conservation

Act came into existence at a time when most African elephant populations were declining at an alarming rate, due primarily to poaching for a large illegal trade in

ivory. In response to this precipitous decline, the Act authorized a two-pronged conservation strategy. First, it required a review of elephant conservation programs

and established a process for implementation of strict ivory import controls; and second, it established a Fund for cooperative conservation projects in African countries.

Throughout the last decade, the African Elephant Conservation Act has been a critical link in enabling continued U.S. involvement in African elephant conservation,

through both its import control provisions and the grant program. African elephant

populations today are now stable in some countries and increasing in others. However there is still a need to help control poaching in many countries and assist those

countries with recovering elephant populations with their management. Much still

needs to be done to secure the continent’s elephant populations at sustainable levels.

Much of the success of the African Elephant Conservation Act has been a direct

result of the unique Small Project Conservation Fund that is targeted at cooperative, on-the-ground conservation projects in Africa. Implementation of this program

has had a positive impact on the conservation of the African elephant, and played

an indirect role in the conservation of numerous other species that benefit from the

conservation of this keystone species. To date, the Service has funded 123 different

projects in 23 African countries affecting over 300,000 elephants. Each project is a

cooperative effort with African CITES Management Authorities, other foreign governments, non-governmental organizations, or with private sector entities. No incountry project is approved unless it has the full support of and has been identified

by that country as a priority for conservation. Through this cooperative approach,

the actual on-the-ground resources directed at African elephant conservation is

nearly five times the $11 million allocated to the grant program since 1990.

In response to the growing concerns of the status of rhinos and tigers worldwide

and modeled after the African Elephant Conservation Act, Congress enacted the

Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994. Rhinos and tigers remain among

the most charismatic and some of the most endangered species on earth. However,

since its inception, the Service has been able to provide substantive support to range

countries to aid their efforts to conserve these species. Sustaining tigers and rhinos

in the wild depends on a number of factors including international and national

commitment to conservation, effective implementation of existing international and

national laws, upgrading the legal status of rhinos and tigers wherever necessary,

strict implementation of CITES by all tiger and rhino range countries, cooperation

between range countries in combating poaching and trade in tiger and rhino products, efforts to protect existing tiger and rhino populations and their habitat, and

international support for conservation in tiger and rhino range countries.

19

To date, the Service has funded 116 different projects in 16 Asian and African

countries. Each project is a cooperative effort with local range country governments,

non-governmental organizations, CITES Management Authorities, or with private

sector entities with experience in rhino or tiger conservation. No project is approved

unless it has the full support of and has been identified as a priority for conservation. Through this cooperative approach, the actual on-the-ground resources directed

at tigers and rhinos is twice the $4 million appropriated to the grant program since

1996. It is noteworthy to mention that in the previous two years, 51 percent of the

matching funds and in-kind contributions originated from range countries. Continued funding of this Act is crucial in order to help support efforts for these critically

endangered species.

Again in 1997, following the small grants model as a blueprint for success, Congress enacted the Asian Elephant Conservation Act. The Asian elephant shares a

land mass that contains some of the largest and poorest human populations in the

world. The combination of pressures on the environment brought on by these conditions has resulted in the conversion of forest cover to village and agriculture use,

thereby fragmenting elephant habitat and populations. It is believed that there are

only about ten elephant populations with over 1,000 elephants and half of these are

found in India. The majority of populations are small and consist of less than 100

elephants. The greatest threat, although not new, is the increased poaching of Asian

elephants.

The first funds were made available in Fiscal Year 1999. Following the successful

methods of implementation of the African Elephant Conservation Act and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act, the Service has developed a grants program encouraging proposals for protection to at-risk elephant populations, habitat and ecosystem conservation and management, applied research including surveys and monitoring, conservation education, protected area management, development of elephant conservation action plans, and support of efforts to decrease human-elephant

conflicts. Similar to the other two multi-species conservation fund programs, the

Service seeks cooperative efforts with in-country wildlife organizations, non-governmental organizations, CITES Management Authorities, and private sector entities

with Asian elephant conservation experience. While this grant program is only in

its third year of funding, 27 grants Asian elephant conservation activities have been

awarded involving nine range countries and leveraging a 1:1 financial match to the

$1.9 million appropriated.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the findings made by Congress in first enacting these

Acts are regrettably still true today. Many African and Asian countries do not have

sufficient resources to properly manage, conserve, and protect their rhino, tiger and

elephant populations. While much has been accomplished, much remains to be done.

The annual requests for support of high priority projects greatly exceed the funds

available, and we believe that reauthorization of the three Acts can make important

contributions to rhino, tiger and elephant conservation. The United States must

share the responsibility to provide for the conservation of these magnificent species.

The principles embodied in these Acts are sound. They provide catalysts for cooperative efforts among the governments of the world, non-governmental organizations,

and the private sector to work together for a common goal the conservation and continued healthy existence of populations of rhino, tigers and elephants. These are not

hand outs, but helping hands. For all of these reasons, the Service strongly supports

the reauthorization of these Acts.

We look forward to working with the Members of this Committee regarding reauthorization of the multi-species conservation acts. I would be happy to answer any

questions.

Suggested Language Regarding Formation of an Advisory Group This language is

modeled after Section 7(b) of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16

U.S.C. 6106(b), P.L. 106–247).

(1) In General—To assist in carrying out this Act, the Secretary may convene an

advisory group consisting of individuals representing public and private organizations actively involved in the conservation of [species name].

(2) Public Participation—(A) Meetings—The advisory group shall (i) ensure that

each meeting of the advisory group is open to the public; and (ii) provide, at each

meeting, an opportunity for interested persons to present oral or written statements

concerning items on the agenda.

(B) Notice—The Secretary shall provide to the public timely notice of each meeting of the advisory group.

(C) Minutes—Minutes of each meeting of the advisory group shall be kept by the

Secretary and shall be made available to the public.

(3) Exemption from Federal Advisory Committee Act—The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the advisory group.

20

Suggested Language Regarding Project Sustainability and Capacity Building A

section on Project Sustainability should be added to the African Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4211):

(e) Project Sustainability—To the maximum extent practical, in determining

whether to approve project proposals under this section, the Secretary shall give

consideration to projects which will enhance sustainable conservation programs to

ensure effective, long-term conservation of African elephants.

Section 5(e) of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C.

5304) should be amended to read:

(e) Project Sustainability—To the maximum extent practical, in determining

whether to approve project proposals under this section, the Secretary shall give

consideration to projects which will enhance sustainable conservation programs to

ensure effective, long-term conservation of rhinoceros and tigers.

Mr. GILCHREST. We would certainly take advantage of that opportunity. Thank you.

James Rapp, welcome.

JAMES L. RAPP, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SALISBURY ZOOLOGICAL PARK, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ZOO AND

AQUARIUM ASSOCIATION

Mr. RAPP. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for

the opportunity to testify this morning on three very important legislative reauthorizations, and thank you for your kind words about

the Salisbury Zoo.

My name is Jim Rapp. I am Director of the Salisbury Zoological

Park, in Salisbury, Maryland. Our zoo is a 12-acre facility that displays over 100 species of wildlife, over 350 specimens in our collection, and we host an annual attendance of about 250,000 visitors,

including 15,000 local school children who come for education programs.

The Salisbury Zoo has been an accredited member of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, the AZA, since 1972. I currently serve on the AZA Government Affairs Committee and am

representing the Association today.

AZA represents 191 professionally-managed and accredited zoological parks and aquariums that draw over 130 million visitors annually and have more than 5 million members combined. Collectively, our institutions teach more than 12 million people each year

in a living classroom setting, and dedicate over $50 million annually to conservation education programs that focus on the devastating effects of the loss of vital species habitat and the illegal

trade in endangered species parts and products.

In addition, AZA members invest over $50 million annually in

scientific research, and support over 700 field conservation and research projects in 80 countries. In addition to that, AZA institutions have established the Species Survival Plan, a long-term plan

that facilitate genetically diverse breeding, habitat preservation,

public education, field conservation, and supportive research to ensure survival for many threatened and endangered species.

Currently, AZA members are involved in 95 different SSP programs covering 124 species from around the world. A majority of

those species represented are listed under the Endangered Species

Act or CITES, including all of the great apes, Siberian and Sumatran tigers, African and Asian elephants, and four species of rhinoceros.

21

While AZA zoos and aquariums have become the last stronghold

for some species, we fully realize that we cannot save these animals by zoo propagation alone. AZA members continue to work

with Congress, the Federal agencies, conservation organizations,

the private sector, and the countries of origin to conserve our wildlife. It is in this context that AZA expresses its strong support for

the quick passage of H.R. 643, H.R. 645 and H.R. 700.

Before I briefly discuss these bills, I would first like to commend

the Subcommittee for your far-sighted vision in passing the Great

Ape Conservation Act and the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act during the last Congress. These Acts created two

very critical additions to the Multinational Species Conservation

Fund program.

Mr. Chairman, we have before us today three important pieces

of legislation that represent a significant portion of the Federal

Government’s direct contribution to preserving endangered wildlife

abroad. We are going to hear a lot today about declining species

populations and depleting habitat. In fact, according to recent estimates, 20 percent or more of the world’s biodiversity could disappear in the next two decades as a result of habitat fragmentation, alteration, and over-exploitation of threatened and endangered species. It is therefore vital that more people, governments,

institutions, and organizations become involved in these efforts to

conserve our imperiled environment.

Over the duration of the African elephant, Asian elephant and rhino-tiger funds, the U.S. Congress has appropriated over $14 million that have been leveraged with nearly $56 million in real dollars and/or in-kind services from host countries and local international non-governmental organizations. This is a significant partnership, especially in terms of Government programs. The funds

provided by Congress have served as the catalyst for the implementation of over 230 projects worldwide, ranging from highly sophisticated and innovative data collection, tracking and monitoring programs, to simply providing essential on-the-ground resources,

weapons, ammunition, vehicles, and communications systems to

game wardens and law enforcement officials who have been entrusted to protect these magnificent animals from the ravages of

civil unrest, poaching, and habitat exploitation.

What makes these programs highly effective is that the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service distributes the funds in a timely and efficient

manner with very few bureaucratic entanglements. The funds are

targeted to high-priority field conservation efforts that most directly benefit the species of concern.

Most importantly, the African elephant, Asian elephant, and

rhino-tiger funds have long recognized the value of promoting

cooperative projects among government entities, NGOs, and the affected local communities in the range states. This is essential because it is only through local action, local education and local support that realistic solutions for saving these species can be effectively devised and implemented.

I am going to just briefly touch on a few numbers with the African Elephant Reauthorization Act, H.R. 643. Currently, in the

wild, it is estimated that the population ranges from 300,000 to

600,000 individuals. That represents less than half of the elephant

22

population that existed in Africa in the 1970’s. Certainly, these

funds in the African Elephant Conservation Act have gone a long

way.

On H.R. 645, the Rhino-Tiger Act, since the 1940’s—some figures might be of interest to you—three tiger subspecies, the Caspian, Bali and Javan, have become extinct, and 95 percent of the

world’s remaining tiger population has disappeared since the early

1900’s, from about 100,000 tigers in the early part of the century

to less than 7,000 today.

The rhino population, as well, is also in serious decline, and the

rhino-tiger funds have done a great deal to help those populations

recover. As Representative Saxton said, the Asian Elephant Conservation Act has done a great deal for elephants in Asia, similar

to the African Elephant Conservation Act.

Basically, let me summarize here. The challenges before this

Subcommittee with regard to international wildlife conservation we

see as three-fold. One is to reauthorize these three highly effective

conservation funds. Second is to work to secure an appropriation of

$1.5 million for each of the five funds under the Multinational Species Conservation Fund; and, third, to look beyond the established

funds to examine new and innovative legislative mechanisms for

addressing ecosystem-wide management protection issues.

Again, Mr. Chairman, the AZA wholeheartedly supports

H.R. 643, 645 and 700. I want to thank you for the opportunity to

comment today and I would be happy to answer any questions, if

you have them.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rapp follows:]

Statement of James L. Rapp, Director, Salisbury Zoological Park, on

H.R. 643, H.R. 645, and H.R. 700

Thank you Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify this morning on three

very important legislative reauthorizations: H.R. 643, the African Elephant Conservation Act; H.R. 645, the Rhino-Tiger Conservation Act; and H.R. 700, the Asian

Elephant Conservation Act.

My name is Jim Rapp and I am the Director of the Salisbury Zoological Park in

Salisbury, Maryland. I have worked for the Zoo for 10 years serving in a number

of capacities. The Salisbury Zoo is a twelve-acre facility that displays over 100 different wildlife species over 350 specimens. We host an annual attendance of 250,000

visitors, including 15,000 local school children.

The Zoological Park has been an accredited member of the American Zoo and

Aquarium Association (AZA) since 1972. I currently serve on the AZA Government

Affairs Committee.

AZA represents 191 professionally managed and accredited institutions which

draw over 130 million visitors annually and have more than 5 million zoo and

aquarium members. Collectively, our institutions teach more than 12 million people

each year in living classrooms and dedicate over $50 million annually to conservation education programs that focus on, among other things, the devastating effects

of the loss of vital species habitat and the illegal trade in endangered species parts

and products. AZA members invest over $50 million annually in scientific research

and support over 700 field conservation and research projects in 80 countries.

In addition, AZA institutions have established the Species Survival Plan (SSP)

program a long-term plan involving genetically diverse breeding, habitat preservation, public education, field conservation and supportive research to ensure survival

for many threatened and endangered species. Currently, AZA members are involved

in 95 SSP programs featuring 124 species throughout the world. A large majority

of those SSPs cover species which are listed under the Endangered Species Act or

CITES, including all the great apes—chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and

bonobos, African and Asian elephants, Siberian and Sumatran tigers and black,

white, Sumatran and greater one-horned rhinos.

23

And while AZA zoos and aquariums have become the last stronghold for some species, we fully realize that we cannot save them by zoo propagation alone. AZA members continue to work with Congress, the Federal agencies, conservation organizations, the private sector and the countries of origin to conserve our wildlife heritage.

It is in this context that AZA expresses its strong support for the quick passage of

H.R. 643, H.R. 645 and H.R. 700.

Before I briefly discuss these bills, I would first like to commend the members

of this Subcommittee for their far-sighted vision in passing HR. 4320, the Great Ape

Conservation Act during the last Congress and creating a very critical addition to

the Multinational Species Conservation Fund program.

OVERVIEW

Mr. Chairman, we have before us today, three important pieces of legislation that

represent a significant portion of the Federal Government’s direct contribution to

preserving species-specific wildlife abroad. Twenty percent or more of the world’s biodiversity could disappear in the next two decades, primarily due to habitat fragmentation and alteration and the over-exploitation of threatened and endangered

species according to recent estimates. It is therefore vital that more people, governments, institutions and organizations become involved in efforts to conserve our imperiled environment.

Over the duration of the African Elephant, Asian Elephant and Rhino/Tiger funds, the U.S. Congress has appropriated over $14 million that has been leveraged with

nearly $56 million in real dollars and/or in-kind services from host countries and

local/international non-governmental organizations (NGO’s). This is a significant

partnership especially in terms of government programs. The funds provided by

Congress have served as the catalyst for the implementation of over 230 projects

worldwide ranging from highly sophisticated and innovative data collection, tracking

and monitoring programs to simply providing essential on-the-ground resources

weapons, ammunition, vehicles and communication systems to game wardens and

law enforcement officials who have been entrusted to protect these magnificent animals from the ravages of civil unrest, poaching and habitat exploitation.

What makes these programs effective is that the US Fish and Wildlife Service distributes the funds in a timely and efficient manner with very few bureaucratic entanglements. The funds are targeted to high-priority field conservation efforts that

most directly benefit the species of concern. More importantly, the African Elephant,

Asian Elephant and Rhino/Tiger funds have long-recognized the value of promoting

cooperative projects among government entities, NGO’s and the affected local communities in the range states. This is essential because it is only through local action, local education, and local support that realistic solutions for saving these species can be effectively devised and implemented.

Let me turn now to the three reauthorizations:

1) H.R. 643, the African Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act The African

elephant is the standard bearer for the conservation fund programs. At the time of

the enactment of the African Elephant Conservation Act in 1989, the population of

this magnificent species was declining at a perilous rate due to ivory poaching, habitat destruction and elephant-human conflicts. The Act has gone a long ways toward

stemming the dramatic decline in African elephant numbers, with wild population

estimates now ranging from 300,000 to 600,000 individuals. While this may seem

to be a stable size, it represents less than half of the elephants that inhabited Africa

in the 1970’s. The species is still not out of danger as increased pressures from the

ivory trade, ongoing civil wars and the evolving bushmeat crisis in Central and East

Africa continue to threaten populations. In addition, only about 20 percent of the

more than 2.2 million square mile range of the African elephant is under some form

of protection.

Since the late 1980’s, the African Elephant Conservation Fund has generated 123

projects in 22 range countries. These projects have provided critical assistance to

range countries and NGO’s for anti-poaching/anti-smuggling law enforcement efforts, population surveillance and monitoring, habitat protection and management,

conservation education, cross-border cooperation and elephant-human conflict resolution.

2) H.R. 645, the Rhinoceros/Tiger Conservation Reauthorization Act As this Subcommittee is well aware, the situation facing all species of tigers and rhinos in the

wild has reached crisis levels. Since the 1940’s, three tiger subspecies the Caspian,

Bali, and Javan have become extinct, and the South China tiger is now among the

most endangered mammals on earth. Ninety-five percent of the world’s tiger population has disappeared since the early 1900’s. At that time, an estimated 100,000

tigers roamed India, Indochina and other parts of Asia. Today, approximately 7,000

tigers are left in the wild and those numbers continue to drop. The estimated wild

populations of the five subspecies of tiger in the wild are as follows: South China

24

tiger 20–30 individuals; Amur/Siberian tiger: 360-400 individuals; Bengal tiger:

3200–4500 individuals; Indo-Chinese tiger: 1200-1800 individuals; and Sumatran

tiger: 400–500 individuals. While pressure from an expanding human population

and the development of natural resources to support a burgeoning Asian economy

have contributed to the decline in tiger populations, poaching and the use of tiger

parts in traditional Asian medicines have clearly taken center stage since the 1980’s

as the primary reasons for this species decline.

The situation facing the three Asian and two African rhino species is also extremely serious. Populations were abundant and rather widely distributed in Asia

through the mid–1800’s. Today fewer than 100 Javan rhinos, 300 Sumatran rhinos

and 2400 Indian rhinos remain in the wild. In Africa, wild populations of black

rhinos have declined by over 95 percent (to approximately 2700 individuals) over the

past two decades while over 10,400 white rhinos still remain. The precipitous decline in the black rhino numbers can be directly attributed to poaching for the trade

in traditional medicines and ornamental dagger handles. Obviously these population

numbers are not sustainable. Conservation biologists contend that a population size

of 2000–3000 individuals within each species is necessary for long-term viability.

Most rhino species are near or well below this level. While poaching for the horn

is the major threat for all five species, habitat degradation is also a significant

threat for the Asian species due to unsustainable exploitation of timberlands, unchecked conversion of land to agricultural use and human over-population.

The Rhino/Tiger Conservation Fund created in 1994 has generated 116 projects

in 16 countries. The fund has proven itself effective for critical conservation programs in Africa and Asia for the highly endangered species and subspecies of rhinoceros and tiger. The fund has delivered immediate results by assisting range

countries and conservation NGO’s on the front lines through critical field conservation work, in situ breeding programs, monitoring and surveillance, habitat management, and anti-poaching/anti-smuggling efforts. Conservation education programs

designed to address animal-human conflicts, consumer awareness of rhino/tiger

products and the intrinsic value of these species to local communities have also been

effective.

3) H.R. 700, the Asian Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act The number

of Asian elephants in the wild varies between 35,000 and 50,000 individuals in over

13 countries. With a population that is 1/10th the size of their African relatives,

Asian elephants can ill-afford a prolonged decline in their numbers. Yet, with the

tremendous increase in the human population of Asia and the resulting increase in

elephant-human conflicts due to shrinking critical habitat, the prognosis for the

Asian elephant is guarded at best.

The Asian Elephant Conservation Fund created in 1997 has generated 27 projects

in nine range countries. Like its African elephant counterpart, these projects have

primarily focused on habitat and protected area management, surveillance and monitoring of populations, cross-border cooperation, conservation education in the local

communities and the resolution of elephant-human conflicts.

Mr. Chairman, the endangered status of the wildlife species highlighted by these

three conservation funds represents an ecological and societal problem of enormous

proportions. It is a problem of political unrest compounded by unregulated resource

exploitation and habitat degradation through logging, mining, farming and poaching. It is also a problem that is not specifically limited to the species we have discussed today. In Borneo, for example, the orangutan population has declined by 90

percent. Then there are also lesser-known species such as the Rodrigues Island fruit

bat a highly endangered species that is essential for seed dispersal and pollination

on the Rodrigues Island in the Indian Ocean.

We are now facing what is popularly referred to as the Empty Forest Syndrome,

where the trees in the forest may be left standing but the endemic wildlife is long

removed. And if the essential wildlife—the predators, the prey, the seed spreaders,

the natural fertilizers are gone, the question of ecological balance becomes paramount.

During the last Congress, AZA and many of the NGO’s beside me today testified

on a bill entitled the Keystone Species Conservation Act, a measure that is no less

critical or time-sensitive than the reauthorizations before us today. In the United

States, our cornerstone piece of wildlife conservation is the Endangered Species Act

(ESA) of 1973. Under the ESA, over 1,050 animal species worldwide have been designated as either threatened or endangered 555 of those are foreign species. However, foreign species do not receive the key protection mechanisms inherent in the

ESA such as critical habitat designation or species recovery plans.

Similarly, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora (CITES), lists over 30,000 species that receive protection through

25

restrictions on trade in parts and products. However, CITES is not designed to offer

in situ conservation measures for threatened and endangered species.

The Keystone Species bill would have created a conservation fund account that

built upon the strengths of the existing elephant and rhino/tiger funds. Funding

would be prioritized based on 1) projects that would enhance programs for the conservation of species that are most imperiled and that are supported by the relevant

wildlife management authority in the country where the program will be conducted;

2) projects that would receive the greatest level of matching assistance from nonFederal sources; and 3) projects that would enhance local capacity for the conservation of the species. The bill had some shortcomings but there was substantial interest and support for an indicator-species, ecosystem-wide approach to wildlife conservation. In addition, the establishment of this type of legislation would obviate the

need to return in two or four years to fight for other species-specific bills.

In conclusion, the challenges before this Subcommittee with regard to international wildlife conservation are three-fold: 1) to reauthorize these three highly effective conservation funds; 2) to work to secure increased appropriations levels for

all of the funds under the Multi-National Species Conservation Fund program,

which includes African elephants, Asian elephants, Rhino/tiger, Great Apes, and

neotropical migratory birds; and 3) to look beyond these established funds to new

and innovative legislative mechanisms for addressing ecosystem-wide management

and protection issues.

Again Mr. Chairman, AZA wholeheartedly supports H.R. 642, H.R. 645 and

H.R. 700 and we look forward to working with you and the Subcommittee to secure

swift passage of these bills this year. In addition, AZA member institutions will continue to raise the awareness of our 130 million visitors each year to bring focus on

threatened and endangered species worldwide for it is public awareness of their

plight that has helped engage the U.S. as a major catalyst for world concern.

Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on these important wildlife conservation measures.

I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Jim.

Ms. Hemley?

STATEMENT OF GINETTE HEMLEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF

SPECIES CONSERVATION, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND

Ms. HEMLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Saxton, Mr.

Faleomavaega, for inviting World Wildlife Fund to testify today.

We very much look forward to working with you and all the Subcommittee members and staff on a number of wildlife conservation

issues. We have greatly appreciated your support in the past and

we look forward to working with you on the programs under discussion today.

World Wildlife Fund strongly supports reauthorization of the

African and Asian Elephant Conservation Acts and the Rhino and

Tiger Conservation Act, for two simple reasons. They are urgently

needed and they are extremely cost-effective. I would like to elaborate briefly on these points.

All of the species under consideration today that are affected by

these bills are better off today than they were 10 years ago, in part

because of the U.S. programs established to help them. The African

Elephant Conservation Fund, which has the longest track record of

the programs we are discussing, has been instrumental in reducing

poaching in many parts of Africa and has helped to equip

struggling governments in their efforts to conserve and begin to rebuild remaining elephant populations.

The Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act and the Asian Elephant

Conservation Act have achieved similar results. In the last few

years, tiger poaching has been reduced in parts of Russia, India,

Nepal, and elsewhere. For the first time in two decades, African

26

rhino numbers are showing a modest but overall upward trend in

most places. The Asian elephant is being secured in the few remaining areas where it has the best chance of long-term survival,

thanks in part to the support of the Asian Elephant Conservation

Fund.

There is no question that these programs have been instrumental

in the conservation progress that we have seen, modest as it might

be, in the last decade. We greatly appreciate your support and this

Subcommittee’s support in reauthorizing these, but I want to just

elaborate a bit on why Congress should continue to support them

in the future.

First, this is no time to let up our guard. Many populations of

these species remain seriously at risk. We have learned the hard

way with endangered species that have big price tags on their

heads that they need sustained, direct support if they are going to

survive. As you said, Mr. Chairman, these programs offer the only

international fund that has been sustained in supporting conservation programs for these species.

Second, the role that these programs play is often a catalytic one.

Many of the projects they support are effective because, as Mr.

Jones pointed out, they bring together multiple partners that leverage additional conservation funding and assistance. They truly

have a multiplier effect.

Third, a strong emphasis of these programs is training, and that

is a very key thing, I think, because by focusing on training park

guards, wildlife managers, and scientific researchers, these programs have lasting value and really build conservation capacity in

the countries where they operate.

Fourth, by conserving these large mammals which we sometimes

call flagship species—these are species that require relatively large

areas to survive—these programs are also able to conserve thousands of other species sharing their habitats. Their conservation

benefits extend well beyond the individual species to whole communities and ecosystems, and many of these ecosystems are highly

threatened.

Fifth, the conservation community, in part thanks to the support

of these programs, has begun to implement long-term strategies for

the conservation of these species. We are no longer just reacting to

poaching crisis, as we were in the last 10 to 15 years. Our conservation approaches have become more advanced, so that we now

can determine just where in a strategic sense these species have

the best chance of long-term survival so that these areas can receive priority attention. We are probably not going to be able to

save all of these species everywhere they live. We have to be strategic, we have to make some hard decisions.

Finally, elephants, rhinos, and tigers are important to the American public. The diversity of organizations represented here today

is testament, I think, to the broad public interest in saving these

species. Together, all of our organizations represent millions of

Americans. We all support programs working together with the

U.S. Government to conserve these species in the wild. They are

excellent examples of effective public-private partnerships.

Just to comment briefly, Mr. Chairman, on the cost-effectiveness

of these programs, as you have heard, they leverage a significant

27

amount of conservation funding and support of about $13-$14 million worth of grants expended over the last 10 years. You mentioned over $56 million in matching funds and in-kind contributions have been leveraged. That is a four-to-one return. That is

very impressive. World Wildlife Fund works with a lot of international aid programs. I am not aware of any that generate this

level of matching or collateral support.

These programs are also administered at minimal cost. In fact,

they probably aren’t getting enough funding to cover the administrative costs, and World Wildlife Fund would support a modest

amendment to these bills to make sure that the costs are effectively addressed. We think the Fish and Wildlife Service has done

an excellent job at keeping the program bureaucracy streamlined,

but could probably use a little bit more funding to make sure the

program is run well.

I also would like to note that these programs have helped generate additional interest in funding from government institutions

around the world. The European Union, Japan, the Global Environment Facility, aid agencies in countries like the Netherlands,

Sweden, and Germany are all supporting efforts to protect elephants, tigers, and rhinos. This is, in part, I think due to the leadership the U.S. has provided, the attention the U.S. has drawn to

the status of these species, and the catalytic small grants that have

been provided by the elephant, rhino, and tiger programs.

Finally, in closing, just to touch briefly on the appropriations

issue, we greatly appreciate this Subcommittee’s support in getting

an increase to the appropriations for these programs. Last year,

the total funding was $3.25 million. There are now two new funds,

as was pointed out. The Fish and Wildlife Service receives twice as

many proposals as it can fund with the current budget.

We recommend that each of the five species funds that are part

of the multinational program be appropriated at a level of at least

$1.5 million, for a total of $7.5 million. We do appreciate the Subcommittee’s support in our effort to secure this increase. It is very

clear from the record established so far that the funding will be put

to very good use.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time. I will be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hemley follows:]

Statement of Ginette Hemley, Vice President of Species Conservation,

World Wildlife Fund

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to testify today. I am Ginette Hemley, Vice President for Species Conservation at

World Wildlife Fund. WWF is the largest private conservation organization working

internationally to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats. We currently sponsor conservation programs in more than 100 countries, thanks to the support of 1.2 million

members in the United States and more than 5 million members worldwide.

We are here today to discuss conservation programs for some of the world’s most

threatened species rhinos, tigers, and elephants. The United States, primarily

through programs administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service, has played a critical role in the protection and conservation of these highly endangered species.

World Wildlife Fund strongly urges that these programs be reauthorized, for the

reasons outlined below.

Why These Programs Are Important

During the 1970’s and 1980’s, a major poaching crisis swept through parts of Africa and Asia, decimating populations of the African elephant, African and Asian

28

rhinos, and the tiger. This poaching was driven primarily by a dramatic increase

in global market demand for ivory for use as carvings and trinkets, and for rhino

horn and tiger bone, which are highly valued ingredients in traditional Chinese

medicine. The crisis was made worse in the 1990’s by declining economies and political instability in many African and Asian range countries.

The statistics surrounding the wildlife losses were staggering. During the 1980’s,

half of Africa’s elephants perhaps half a million animals were lost to poaching.

Black rhinos dwindled from about 70,000 in 1970 to fewer than 2,500 animals by

1992, an astounding 95 percent loss in just two decades. The tiger population in

India was reduced to fewer than 3,000 animals by the late 1980’s, while Russia’s Siberian tigers took a major hit in the early 1990’s, with numbers falling by perhaps

40 percent to 250 animals by 1993. Although less in the media spotlight, the Asian

elephant population in the wild has declined to about one-tenth the size of its African cousin, to fewer than 50,000 animals, due to growing human population pressures in South and Southeast Asia.

Thanks to a broad international response, the situation for most of these species

began to improve in the 1990’s. CITES, the Convention on International Trade on

Endangered Species, banned the ivory trade in 1989 and started to beef up enforcement efforts to stop the illegal trade of rhino and tiger parts. But stopping the trade

was not enough. Direct action was needed on the ground to protect dwindling populations of these species, and the United States stepped in to help. Congress passed

the African Elephant Conservation Act in 1988 to provide small grants to help African countries conserve their remaining elephant populations and help rebuild them.

Since the African Elephant Conservation Fund was initiated in 1990, more than 120

grants have been awarded for projects in 22 countries, strengthening enforcement

and trade control measures, protecting critical habitat, aiding training programs for

park guard and wildlife managers, and assisting important elephant research, monitoring and survey efforts.

After 10 years, these scientific and conservation efforts, together with the CITES

ivory ban and collaborative programs supported by other governments, aid agencies,

and NGO’s, have helped African elephant populations begin to rebuild in some countries. Poaching levels are significantly reduced in some areas and illegal trade has

slowed. In short, the African elephant is better off today than it was a decade ago,

in part because of U.S. Government support. Significant challenges remain, however, in part because of the eroding ability of many African governments to mount

their own conservation efforts due to economic and political strife.

The success of the African Elephant Conservation Act led Congress to pass the

Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act in 1994. With the establishment of the

Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund, a steady stream of small but well-targeted

grants have helped avert further losses of these species as well. In the past five

years, we have seen signs of improvement in the status of tiger populations in Russia, Nepal, India, and elsewhere. Africa’s black rhino has, for the first time in several years, experienced a modest increase in number in several places, and the

white rhino, once threatened, is actually thriving in South Africa. Asian rhinos, representing some of the most endangered large mammals on Earth, have received invaluable assistance from the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund but remain severely at risk in parts of their remaining habitat fragments in South and Southeast

Asia.

There is little question that the U.S. programs for tigers, rhinos and elephants,

modest as they are, have helped avert disaster for these species even possible extinction in some cases. They have helped developing country governments and

NGO’s build more effective conservation programs. They have truly had a multiplier

effect, leveraging an impressive return on partner investments and providing an excellent example of public-private collaboration. But the task is not done. While we

have begun to emerge from a period of crisis for some of these species, their longterm survival is still seriously at risk.

It is important to note that these conservation programs are critical not just to

the species concerned, but also to Americans who appreciate and use them as symbols of strength and endurance. The Republican Party should be first among those

to acknowledge the benefit of the elephant to its image. Saving these species is not

just a biological imperative elephants, tigers, and rhinos also have important social,

economic, and cultural roles to play in American society.

The Broad Impact of Elephant, Rhino and Tiger Conservation Efforts

Elephants, rhinos, and tigers are not only threatened in their own right, they are

flagships for the threatened habitats and ecosystems in Africa and Asia in which

they live, including some of the world’s most unique and biologically diverse systems, such as tropical lowland forests. These large mammals require relatively large

29

areas to survive, so by protecting them, thousands of other plant and animals species also are conserved. They are true ‘‘umbrella’’ species whose conservation benefits extend well beyond their own to whole communities of species.

Some of these large mammals also play an inordinately important role in the ecosystem they are keystone species and their survival is crucial for the survival of the

system as a whole. Tigers, for example, are top predators, keeping populations of

prey species in check, which in turn keep in balance the populations of the plants

upon which they feed. By virtue of their size, feeding habitats, and movements, elephants actually shape the physical environment in which they live and so have a

major influence on the plant and animal species around them. In short, when tigers

and elephants thrive, the whole ecosystem thrives. When they suffer, the entire ecosystem suffers, including the people that live in or around it.

Recent Advances in Elephant, Rhino, and Tiger Conservation

Given the significant declines these species have experienced in recent years, a

logical question to ask is, are their remaining populations and are the ecosystems

in which these species live still viable? Significant study and debate surround the

question of biological viability, and clearly massive declines or extirpation of a population in a particular area can be disruptive. But several points are important to

consider. First, we have learned with both tigers and rhinos that a species can recover if habitat and food availability is sufficient and poaching is controlled. For example, the tiger population in the Russian Far East was once reduced to fewer than

40 animals in the 1940’s due to uncontrolled hunting. Strict protection in an area

where habitat and prey was abundant allowed the population to recover to around

400 by the 1980’s. Similarly, the white rhino population in South Africa has grown

to an astounding 9,700 animals today the largest rhino population on Earth from

fewer than 100 animals at the turn of the century. Likewise, greater one-horned

rhinos in Nepal, reduced to 100 or so in the 1960’s due to overhunting, now thrive

at more than 600 animals, enough to begin repopulating areas where they were extirpated thanks to strong protection by the Nepalese government and effective community-based conservation efforts. These success stories demonstrate that a species

can come back, if sufficient and sustained protection is provided.

Thanks to increased international support for conservation activities, including

from the FWS programs, the conservation community has begun to implement longterm strategies for the conservation of tigers, rhinos, elephants, and other large

mammals. We are increasingly able to determine where our conservation investments will have the biggest long-term payoff. For example, a ground-breaking analysis undertaken by WWF, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and the National Fish

and Wildlife Foundation/Exxon-Mobile Save the Tiger Fund, shared previously with

this subcommittee, has prioritized remaining tiger populations and habitats across

Asia based on habitat type and integrity, levels of disturbance, and other factors related to long-term viability. This analysis is helping to guide global tiger conservation efforts so that the most promising areas and populations receive priority attention. We know that we cannot save tigers everywhere, and that we must make

tradeoffs in our decisions. Similar analyses have been undertaken for Asian elephants and rhinos, and comparable regional efforts are underway for African elephants.

The conservation community has also come to recognize that, for many large

mammals like tigers, rhinos, and elephants requiring large areas to maintain

healthy populations, the current universe of parks and protected areas does not provide sufficient habitat for their long-term survival. That is, a large proportion of

their populations in some cases 50 percent or more are found outside areas that receive official protection, so effective conservation efforts must extend throughout the

entire landscape where the species lives and moves. New approaches to conservation

are encompassing larger areas than ever before ecoregions and landscapes and

bringing together habitat protection, land-use planning, managed resource use, and

community-based conservation in an integrated fashion that benefits both wildlife

and people. In some cases, this includes undertaking efforts to restore forest

corridors that connect parks and protected areas so that species like tigers, rhinos,

and elephants can more easily disperse, breed, and establish new populations, enhancing their genetic viability and prospects for long-term survival.

The Unique Value of the Elephant, Rhino, and Tiger Funds

The situation for elephants, rhinos, and tigers remains serious, but it is far from

hopeless. The progress of the last few years, thanks in part to the programs authorized by the African Elephant, Asian Elephant, and Rhino and Tiger Conservation

Acts, demonstrate that, when reliable financial support is available and is used

wisely, improvements can be rapid and dramatic. We know what needs to be done

30

to save these species, and our conservation approaches and methodologies are becoming more effective and innovative every day. We have better data on these species and their critical habitats and stronger international collaboration than ever before. We must build on this important momentum.

The FWS programs for tigers, rhinos, and elephants have a number of unique features that underpin their effectiveness. These include:

Leveraging Significant Conservation Funding and Support

The FWS reports that from 1990 through January 2001, about 240 grants totaling

some $13.5 million have been awarded for elephant, tiger, and rhino projects. These

together have leveraged almost $56 million in matching funds and in-kind contributions, a 4:1 return. In 1999 and 2000, 51 percent of the matching funds and in-kind

contributions for tiger and rhino projects originated from the range countries. Few

international conservation or aid programs are able to generate this level of matching or collateral support.

Program Administration with Minimal Bureaucracy and Cost

To date, the elephant, rhino, and tiger grant programs have been administered

at minimal cost for less than 4 percent of the monies appropriated for the grant programs from 1990 to 2000. In fact, this amount has proven inadequate to cover the

costs of full program administration, and subsidies have been needed from other

FWS programs. Although these grant programs are relatively small, they include

several important activities, such as developing and reviewing proposals and reports, issuing and tracking project contracts and payments, communicating with

grantees and host governments, and tracking and monitoring projects. WWF supports amending the elephant, rhino, and tiger acts to ensure a modest increase in

the allowance for administrative expenses so that the grant funds are administered

with maximum effectiveness. We encourage the subcommittee to include the same

language pertaining to administrative expenses as contained in the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000, i.e. that the Secretary ‘‘may expend not more than 3 percent,

or up to $80,000, whichever is greater, to pay the administrative expenses necessary

’’ We believe this is a more appropriate formula than now contained in the reauthorization bills under consideration today.

Strengthening Collaboration Among NGO’s and Governments

As both a partner donor and implementing organization for various FWS-supported projects, WWF is acutely aware of the important role the elephant, rhino,

and tiger programs have played in fostering collaboration among NGO’s and governments. Many of the projects supported by these conservation funds involve multiple

partners, and grants provided to NGO’s receive approval from range country governments before they are awarded. The FWS programs have thus acted as a catalyst,

not only for leveraging funding, but also for bringing important conservation players

together in ways that enhance collaboration and conservation impact.

Providing International Leadership

By passing the African Elephant, Asian Elephant, and Rhino and Tiger Conservation Acts and implementing the programs they authorize, the U.S. Congress and

FWS have together staked out important leadership roles in international conservation. This has helped bring the plight of these endangered species to the attention

of governments worldwide, including both range and donor countries, which have increased their support for conservation programs accordingly. It has helped strengthen the activities of CITES in addressing key threats to these species. It has helped

make these species a higher priority on policy and philanthropy agendas in the private sector, leading to increased public support for conservation programs.

Increasing Public Awareness

Over the past decade, the American public’s interest in and concern for the future

of these endangered species has grown. This is clearly the result of the combined

efforts of non-governmental organizations such as those testifying here today and

the efforts of the FWS and Congress. All of us receive a regular stream of letters

of concern about and in support of these species. There is little question that the

American public cares deeply about the future of elephants, tigers, and rhinos, and

expects and encourages us all to do more on their behalf. Public contributions to

many of the organizations here today are a strong sign of the importance the public

places on efforts to protect these species, and have enabled the private sector to

work hand-in-hand with the government on conservation efforts.

31

The Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act

Recognizing the importance of the United States as a market for Asian medicinal

products purporting to contain rhino and tiger ingredients, Congress amended the

Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act in 1998 to include a specific prohibition on the

import, export, and sale of any product for human consumption that contains or is

labeled or advertised to contain tiger or rhino parts. This new law, consistent with

a recommendation by CITES, was intended to facilitate enforcement efforts by shifting the burden of proof that a product actually contains these ingredients from the

government to the trader or salesperson. The law also required, within 180 days of

its passage, the initiation of an education program to inform consumers about the

law and the plight of the species it is intended to protect. To date, we are aware

of few activities undertaken by the FWS to begin such an education program, although several NGO’s have offered to collaborate in these efforts in order to minimize the cost to the government. WWF encourages the subcommittee to confer with

FWS on their plans for developing such a program in the future.

The Need for an Increase in Appropriations for the Multinational Species Fund

From 1990 to 2000, over 650 proposals have been submitted for funding by the

elephant, rhino, and tiger programs. Of these, some 240 grants have been awarded.

Clearly, the number of projects in need of funding outstrips the capacity of the FWS

to support them. With the addition of two new programs the Great Ape Conservation Fund and Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund the total combined

amount of funding authorized by Congress is $30 million. Last year, just $3.25 million was appropriated. WWF and other NGO’s are seeking an increase in appropriations to $1.5 million for each fund, for a total $7.5 million. We believe that this increase is fully warranted because of the urgent conservation needs these species and

their habitats face, the number of worthy projects that have gone without support,

the addition of the two new funds, and the outstanding record of the FWS in administering the programs to date and the conservation results they have achieved.

It may interest the subcommittee that several of the NGO’s represented here

today are pursuing an initiative to augment the funding provided for these programs through a possible series of wildlife ‘‘semi-postal’’ stamps produced by the

U.S. Postal Service. Modeled after the highly successful Breast Cancer Research

Stamp, which has generated over $19 million in funding for government breast cancer research programs since its introduction in July 1998, a ‘‘Vanishing Wildlife’’

stamp series could help raise additional funds for these FWS programs. This could

help shrink the gap between the Congressionally authorized funding ceiling and the

actual appropriation. Last year, Congress transferred authority for the approval of

semi-postal stamps to the Postal Service, which is now preparing guidelines and criteria for a 10-year program. We would be grateful for the subcommittee’s support

in pursuing the wildlife semi-postal initiative and will keep you informed accordingly.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee

today. I will be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Ms. Hemley, and thank

all three of you for your testimony.

I would like to start with Mr. Rapp. In your full testimony, you

used a phrase called ‘‘empty forest syndrome.’’

Mr. RAPP. Yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. Could you explain that?

Mr. RAPP. Certainly. Empty forest syndrome refers to the fact

that the future for wildlife could very well be in empty forests

where the trees remain and some of the smaller species, but the

predators, the prey species, seed disbursers, and fertilizers are vacant. And it wouldn’t be the same forest as we have today, and I

think the funding from these Acts goes a long way in keeping those

species in the forests and the habitats where they are from.

Mr. GILCHREST. So an empty forest syndrome disrupts the natural mechanics of the ecological system in ways that we probably

would find it difficult to predict what that forest would look like

in the future?

32

Mr. RAPP. Very well said, and the way they would behave. I

mean, you take out these key species and things change dramatically and it is not the same forest. Especially animals like rhinos,

elephants and tigers are extremely important to habitats where

they live in all sorts of ways that if you remove them from the

habitat, it is very much different; it is not the same place.

Mr. GILCHREST. That phrase ‘‘empty forest syndrome’’ has a

deep, hollow loneliness to it.

Mr. RAPP. It does. It reminds me of ‘‘Silent Spring.’’ Mr. GILCHREST. Right. Jim, can you give us some idea of what

roles zoos play and might continue to play in the propagation of

threatened or endangered species as far as that impact on releasing them to the wild and increasing species populations?

Mr. RAPP. Absolutely. Our first goal truly is to prevent that. I

think the zoos are a stronghold in the very end as a tool to preserve animal species from becoming extinct. Some of the species we

have talked about today—Sumatran tigers, Javan rhinos—are in

extreme decline. Less than a few hundred individuals remain in

those populations. For good genetic viability, I think scientists

would say that 2,000 to 3,000 are needed to really remain healthy.

Of course, if you fragment populations, it gets even worse.

Zoos fundamentally, I believe personally, are really education institutions first. I think our strongest asset lies in the 130 million

visitors—American citizens, tourists, people from abroad—who

come to see our collections. You multiply that by the zoos worldwide and it can become a pretty dramatic effect in bringing these

concerns and problems to light.

However, on the scientific side of the zoo community, there is a

lot of work being done, all sorts of new technologies available—in

vitro fertilization, the frozen zoos—again, last-ditch efforts that can

be used to prevent animals from becoming extinct. But when you

take an animal like that and try to release it back into the wild,

it comes with costs. It is not easy just to take an animal from a

zoo, a captive-born animal, and take it back to the wild. But in certain instances it becomes quite effective to at least boost genetic viability in wild populations.

So it is a last-ditch effort we would rather see not happen, one

reason why these funds are so important, but we are involved very

much in creating the technology today that can help the wild and

help field technicians in the work they are doing in the countries

where these animals live.

Mr. GILCHREST. Jim, in recent decades a number of conservationists and biologists have had fairly strong negative comments, and

I think in the present-day situation— at least in most instances in

the United States, it is not true, but a number of conservationists

have had very negative comments about zoos and the number of

species that were—the manner in which those species were collected to bring to zoos and the number of species that were threatened or endangered at the time. And then because they were

caught to bring to zoos, their populations further declined.

Do you have any comment to those statements?

Mr. RAPP. Certainly. I think decades ago, zoos were consumers

of wildlife. ‘‘Bring Them Back Alive’’ Frank Buck and characters

like that going overseas to bring animals to this country were the

33

founding stock for a lot of animals in collections in zoos and aquariums today.

At this point, I feel pretty safe to say that in this day and age,

when animals are brought into captivity, it is only because the scientific community has suggested as a last-ditch effort to bring animals from the wild into captivity for captive breeding—California

condors, black-footed ferrets, a lot of the programs managed by

Fish and Wildlife. The zoos have had a tremendous impact in working with the technology in situ in the zoo collections, out of the

field, of course, also educating the public.

I think the role has changed quite a bit. I know at our collection

at Salisbury, the only true wild animals we have in our collection

are animals that are brought to us for injuries. We have bald

eagles on exhibit. We have an orphaned river otter that helped

make up our collection. But I know for the majority of zoos in this

country, I think it is like 90 to 95 percent of animals in collections

today have been captive-bred.

Indeed, the technology for captive breeding is so far advanced

these days there really isn’t a need to go to the wild to supply zoos

with animals. But, certainly, the history was that. That is how zoos

got started. We are much more involved today than we were then.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. Sort of an assisted living facility for

injured or aged animals.

Mr. RAPP. Very well said.

Mr. GILCHREST. That is good. I think we may have a second

round because I have some other questions, but I will yield now to

recognize Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly want

to thank our witnesses for their testimony. I do have a couple of

questions.

Mr. Jones, in your efforts on behalf of our Government, and I

guess in your efforts in coordinating these three important programs with the host countries, other than just to say that we admire the beauty of these animals, can you share with the Subcommittee why they are so important to the ecology? Why do we

have to look at protecting the elephants and the rhinos and the

tigers? Tigers eat other animals. Can you tell us how they protect

the biodiversity of the environment in which they live?

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega. I would be pleased to

do that, and I would like to build on the response Mr. Rapp just

gave because if you think about that empty forest, or you could

think of it in the same way, an empty marsh or an empty zone next

to an island—if the coral reefs were gone or if the migratory birds

didn’t come back every fall, that would be an empty habitat. It is

not the same thing.

In the same way, the habitats we are talking about for these animals are all part of a web. If these, the major species, sometimes

referred to as keystone species, are not present, everything else in

that habitat suffers. Some species that depend on them may indeed

disappear. Others may actually over-populate. If there are no tigers

to keep deer numbers in check within the habitat, then the deer

may overpopulate and eat the vegetation, and the result is then

starvation and population collapse. Birds, monkeys, and other species may in turn suffer.

34

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. What animals suffer if, let’s say, the elephant becomes extinct?

Mr. JONES. Elephants, for example, Mr. Faleomavaega, maintain

water holes. Elephants can dig for water, and in a time of drought

they will go to the dry riverbed. They dig, they get to the water,

they drink themselves. They are prodigious drinkers of water, but

they also make a place where other animals then can come.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. What about tigers?

Mr. JONES. Tigers are part of a natural fabric. They certainly are

predators. They even sometimes are predators on humans, but they

also are critical to the functioning of that ecosystem.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I have got a picture here, I think, on the

Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act, and you have got a poacher

here taking care of these ungulates that are supposed to be one of

the favorite species for tigers to eat. Shouldn’t we also be concerned

about conserving this ungulate that the tiger feeds on?

Mr. JONES. Absolutely. Mr. Faleomavaega, if there is no prey

species for tigers—if humans, for example, come in and poach all

of the deer or pigs out of an area, then regardless of how good it

may look to our eyes, to a tiger there is nothing to eat. Those are

all issues that we, working with the partner organizations that are

here today and with the range countries, are working on to make

sure there is an ecological balance in these communities—that is,

biological communities—where these animals live.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You suggested earlier that you have some

suggestions on how we might better improve the reauthorization of

these legislations. Can you share with us in substance if there are

any critical areas that we really need to look at in terms of improving the provisions of these proposed bills?

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. One of the suggestions we have made is to

pick up language which is in one, but not all of the bills—it is

called Project Sustainability, but there is a lot more to it than you

might think just by seeing those words.

What we want to do is to have the authority to fund projects

which will be broadly sustainable. For example, training programs

where many of the participants are people who are involved with

rhinos or tigers or elephants, but maybe some of them aren’t.

Would we want to train the game guards from nine parks in a

country which have elephants and say to the tenth park, you don’t

have any elephants, so your game guards can’t come to the training? Tomorrow, the game guard who is at that park may well be

reassigned to another one.

Broad ecosystem projects which would result in benefits to the

habitat that is essential for the survival of the elephant or the

other species. These are the kinds of projects where we may have

funded some of those already, but we have been kind of careful and

we would like to have a more explicit congressional recognition.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Now, in response to some of these countries

that we are working in with these programs, do you sometimes get

the idea that we are telling these countries what to do? How receptive have they been in our efforts in trying to work with them

closely and making sure that we are not overbearing and saying we

know better what should be done with these animals? Perhaps

these animals live the way they do as best suited with the way

35

those host countries provide for them. I don’t know. Tell us which

countries have been the most critical of these programs.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Faleomavaega, I am not sure that I know of any

country that has been critical of these programs. We have some

countries that we don’t work in right now, but they are mostly

countries that are too dangerous for us and countries that the U.S.

State Department has advised us not to go into.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Like?

Mr. JONES. Angola is a country that is still in civil war with

mine fields and other dangers. We want to work there.

But going to your main point, we have learned from our experience that it doesn’t work to go into a country and try to tell them

how their wildlife should be managed. That does not work. We

work with partners to respond when they come to us. A partner

may come to us and say, we are interested in a project in country

‘‘x.’’ Let’s say it is Nepal. We are not going to go ahead and fund

that project unless we know that the government of Nepal agrees

that this is a good project that fits within their view of the cultural

and biological priorities for their country. If Nepal says no, regardless of what we may think, that is not a viable project and we won’t

fund it. We will say instead to Nepal, well, what kind of projects

might be a priority for you, and then work to structure a program

that meets their needs.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The other concern I may have also, Mr.

Jones, is that a country may have a critical need, but we are putting the carrot out there, like if you don’t conform to what we expect you to do, then we won’t give you the funding. Do you find

that perhaps this is something that we could also learn to adjust

in terms of how we can best assist these countries?

Mr. JONES. There is no doubt, Mr. Faleomavaega, that we can always learn to do things better, and we are always looking for ways

that we can make sure that we are a good partner and not a dictator. So we would be pleased to talk to you further or to get any

advice that you might have from your experience about how we can

make sure that that doesn’t happen.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, there is an African proverb—I know

my time is almost up—that I want to share with the Chairman

that says that when two African elephants fight, the grass is trodden. But those of us from the islands say when two elephants make

love, the grass is still trodden.

[Laughter.]

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. I think the grass will grow back, Eni.

We are joined by the gentleman from California, Mr. Pombo.

Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think, to follow up on

what Mr. Faleomavaega was talking about, unquestionably there

are times when other countries feel like if they don’t do it our way,

they are in trouble. But I do think that, in the aggregate, these

programs have been very worthwhile.

Something Mr. Jones just said was that the purpose of this program is not to dictate to other countries how to manage their wildlife, but to assist them in managing their wildlife, which is very

much, in my opinion, the basis for CITES, not to dictate to an

36

individual country what they can and can’t do, but to assist them

in conserving their endangered species.

I wanted to start with Ms. Hemley. Your organization or the organization that you represent has done some very good things to

help with conservation, and I am familiar with some of the things

that they have done in Africa. I was wondering if you could explain

to the Subcommittee how some of these grants are used. Give me

an example of a specific project, how the money was used, and

what the result was of that particular project, just so that we understand exactly how this money is being used.

Ms. HEMLEY. I would be happy to, Mr. Pombo. World Wildlife

Fund is both a recipient organization for some grants and we also

are a co-funder in many places in the world, which I think is an

example of how well these programs work. They are helping us to

get matching amounts of support.

In parts of Asia, we have received funds, for example, in Vietnam

to protect a very, very endangered population of Javan rhino. It is

the vestigial population that was only recently rediscovered by

Western scientists in the last 10 years. It is such a dire situation

that there are needs across all fronts, helping to develop an education program for local people to appreciate this heritage they

have left in this rhino that has only recently been rediscovered.

We have been helping with training of wildlife managers around

the area in Vietnam, and we have been helping with the government to get stronger legislation passed, as well, to ensure that this

critical habitat is protected well into the future. So, that is one

area where we have, I think, been able to cross various types of

project activities.

Mr. POMBO. One of the things in your testimony that you talked

about was you used the phrase that the habitat is highly threatened. I know in every different habitat there are different threats

to that habitat. Can you give the Subcommittee an idea of what

some of those threats are in particular places?

Ms. HEMLEY. Sure. I think perhaps one good example, because

the situation is so critical, is in Southeast Asia, particularly in Sumatra, where in the last few years, according to World Bank satellite imagery data, the rate of forest conversion is probably twice

as great as we thought it was three or four years ago today. I

mean, it is changing so quickly, and the biggest force behind that

change is conversion to develop oil palm plantations and paper

pulp plantations.

These are areas that are critical not for just one of these species

under consideration, but for three—Asian elephants, the tiger, and

the Sumatran rhino. A lot of the conversion is the result of increased trade and importation of these products to East Asia,

China, Japan. But this, for us, is one of the most urgent situations

in terms of critical habitats today. This is tropical lowland forest,

of which there is very little remaining in Southeast Asia, and it

happens to be areas where three of these very important species

live. So, that is one good example.

Similarly, in other parts of Asia—in India, where you have got

now over 1 billion people, wildlife is left in a handful of parks. They

have been established and in place for a good while, but these

parks—there is very little buffer zone around most of these parks

37

in India. Yet, they are perhaps the last hope for the Bengal tiger,

for example.

The encroachment from human populations for agriculture and

development related to human survival is really the big threat to

the habitats there. So it is essentially human population pressures,

together with pressures resulting from exploitation for commercial

purposes, are the two big threats to a lot of the habitats that these

species live in.

Mr. POMBO. The Committee had the opportunity, a number of us,

to go to Africa and look at different management schemes for wildlife, and we looked at national parks and the management tools

that they use at highly managed national parks. We looked at

privately-run parks or game preserves and the ability that they

had to maintain the wildlife in those areas. Then we looked at

some of the broader areas, particularly in places like Zimbabwe

where the people in those particular regions had the ability to

manage the wildlife in their particular areas.

In all three of the different management schemes that we looked

at, they were able to preserve the wildlife in those particular areas,

and in most instances had the ability to build on their numbers,

in some cases to the point where they had more animals than the

carrying capacity of the land.

Do you look at all those different options for managing habitats

as a way of returning some value to the people who live in those

areas so that they don’t have to go in and bulldoze thousands of

acres to plant some kind of agriculture? Is that an option that you

are looking at in terms of some of the work that your organization

has done?

Ms. HEMLEY. Absolutely, and I think there are two areas in the

world that highlight that type of approach which essentially we

would call community-based conservation involving the local communities that live around the protected areas where these animals

live.

In Zimbabwe, as you say, the national law allows limited hunting

and the fees from hunting are returned to local communities in a

managed way. That is one place where that kind of approach might

work.

Another country where community-based conservation has been

very effective is Nepal, where ecotourism has been very much a

revenue generator. One of the great values of the system in Nepal

is that the national law allows for the recycling of tourist revenues

back into local conservation, which is not usually the case. Usually,

those monies go into the national treasury. But in Nepal they have

got a model law that allows the funds to go back into the communities to develop agriculture that is consistent with conservation

and different approaches for even limited harvesting of timber in

these areas.

So it is absolutely important, in our view, in virtually every place

we work that you have got to involve local communities and find

incentives for conservation, and those incentives can take a range

or different forms.

Mr. POMBO. Thank you very much.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Pombo.

38

Mr. Jones, having a long history of CITES, and certainly with

this issue and the development of this issue, and having some idea,

I guess, of the land area that is now set aside or proposed to be

set aside for these various species that we are talking about this

morning, do you have some idea—and this relates a little bit to Mr.

Pombo’s question about carrying capacity—do you have some idea

of the maximum population that we can expect to sustain in the

areas that you are now working with for the African elephant, the

Asian elephant, the tiger, the rhino, and perhaps other species?

I guess I ask the question, do you have some idea of an area that

100 elephants need or 1,000 elephants need, or the rhinos in

Southeast Asia or in India or Africa? Has there been any type of

study to understand carrying capacity for these animals, and if

there has been, can that population that we have heard this morning is very fragmented, greatly diminished, sustain itself without

the burdens of in-breeding?

Mr. JONES. That is an excellent and a pretty complicated question, Mr. Chairman, since we are talking about a number of different species that occur in different areas.

We have had the privilege of having Mr. Pombo with us the last

two CITES Conferences of the Parties, in Zimbabwe and then in

Kenya. Just between those two countries, there are some ecological

differences, so that an area of the same size in the lower Zambezi

Valley of Zimbabwe might support more elephants, for example,

than an equal-sized area in a very dry part of Kenya way up near

the northern border where you are almost into a desert.

When you expand that to look at rhinos and other species, I am

certainly not the one who is best qualified probably to comment on

this. I am going to turn to Mr. Stansell in just a minute, but I

would say that all of the organizations here have been involved in

these kinds of studies—the World Wildlife Fund, the AZA, the

Wildlife Conservation Society, and others—scientific studies to look

at that very question because it is also often a question of the

human population in the area.

Elephants, for example, are a species that is very dangerous.

Tigers are also dangerous. But elephants overall are probably one

of the most dangerous species on Earth, not just to human life but

also to property, because elephants can destroy crops. And in an

area where there is a high human population, the elephants, in

fact, might do just fine. They will be very pleased to come in every

night and eat the farmer’s corn, but the farmer isn’t going to survive.

So we need to find the right balance and have areas where elephants can have the natural food they need, and then find innovative ways where elephants and people can coexist. Because of fragmented habitat, there are some areas where elephant populations

just are not viable anymore, not because the elephants wouldn’t

live there but because the human presence is too great to be able

to deal with them.

But, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, let me ask Mr.

Stansell to comment for a second about his experience. He has

spent a lot of time in Africa himself and probably has some

thoughts on this.

39

Mr. STANSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Marshall has

covered the issue. Particularly under our various grant programs,

I think it is very important to recognize that we really do look to

the range countries and what their priorities for their resources

are.

There is a tremendous amount of information out there and we

would be happy to provide that to the Subcommittee as far as varying estimates of population levels by species. There is a lot of information available on that and all of that information is taken into

account as we are trying to identify projects to help support the

conservation of those species.

But as Marshall indicated, carrying capacity is one factor. You

certainly want to be at a little bit below carrying capacity to make

sure that you don’t get into habitat damage. With a species as big

as elephants, they modify the landscape, and so it is important that

we understand those factors as we are trying to help through this

grant program to provide that additional funding.

Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Ms. Hemley, do you care to comment on that question and then

the concept of a conservation corridor? Is that suitable for these

large species? Would it have any positive effect to link certain

areas that are set aside?

Ms. HEMLEY. To answer that question first, as I said in my comments, a number of conservation organizations are taking a new

approach to conservation that involves looking at larger scales of

areas spatially than ever before, for the reason that these large

species—elephants, tigers, and rhinos are paramount among

them—need these areas.

When you have a species like the tiger which, depending on the

density of the prey, may require several hundred square miles for

its home range, it needs to be able to move between forest areas

in order to hunt, to breed, reproduce, and then rebuild new populations.

Mr. GILCHREST. So you are saying that a tiger might take advantage of a corridor?

Ms. HEMLEY. A tiger is a good species; in fact, a species that we

are using in some of our work in Asia to design and look at landscape needs for conservation. If you can address the needs for a

tiger’s survival, you are effectively conserving a broad landscape

that then will, of course, benefit many other species.

In Nepal, in one area, we are actually looking at a very large— what we are calling one grand wildlife corridor, what we call the

Terai Arc, that aims to link 11 protected areas. It is a very big, ambitious project. It will involve a lot of forestry and reforesting these

corridors and working with local people to make sure— Mr. GILCHREST. Does it involve purchasing land, then?

Ms. HEMLEY. It will in some cases, but most of this land is, in

fact, state land, and we are now working with the government to

come up with agreements that work for the local people and will

allow them to use the strips of land alongside these corridors to

continue to harvest the forest products in these areas so that they

can still benefit from it. We are right now undertaking analyses to

identify the bottlenecks that need to be addressed first.

40

Mr. GILCHREST. How wide would this corridor be, or how wide

would you like to see it?

Ms. HEMLEY. Well, it will vary in different places, but it could

be as small as a couple of miles wide in one area and then larger

in other areas. But it straddles the Nepal-India border and is something that is a high, high priority for us. We hope in the next couple of years to have more to report on how this big, ambitious effort

is going.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. I guess we could continue this, but

the hearing room is needed by another Subcommittee eventually.

Mr. Faleomavaega, any follow-up questions?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. A real quick question, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Hemley, I was fascinated by your testimony in terms of looking at the big picture. As you may be aware, two-thirds of the

world’s population is in the Asia-Pacific region, and so the density

of the population per whatever area and how you may want to

measure—looking at the climate now even among the industrialized countries, the global economy and globalization of this and

that, where are we going to find the forests to provide for the species of these animals, not just the tiger and the rhino and the elephant?

You are saying something that is understandable, but when the

human species comes to the forefront and says, look, I need that

extra space to live—we have got 1.2 billion people living in China,

over 1 billion in India. When you talk about reality, when the rubber meets the road, who should be preserved, the humans or the

animals?

Ms. HEMLEY. That is kind of the big question, isn’t it? I appreciate that. I guess one response would be that I think the conservation community certainly recognizes that, and Asia is a huge challenge because of the human population growth there. That is why

we are becoming more strategic than ever before in our efforts.

I mentioned a report that the World Wildlife Fund and the Wildlife Conservation Society prepared, with support from the Save the

Tiger Fund, a few years ago. It was the first ever analysis that

really took a large mammal, in this case the tiger, and looked at

all of its critical habitats. The tiger lives in 13 or 14 countries in

Asia. We know we probably can’t save the tiger everywhere. We

have to be strategic, and what we have done is we have picked 25,

26 areas that we consider the highest priorities, but we are recommending that greatest attention be put on these areas across Asia.

And perhaps we have to say that in some areas the tiger will not

survive, but in these areas that we have identified we believe the

tiger does have a good chance of long-term survival.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Let me share with you a reality. I know my

time is running, but Senator Inouye from Hawaii, I think, two

years ago went to North Korea. Here is the capital of this country,

in the millions. There were no birds; he could not see one bird flying, and then when he went out into the country, no trees. I mean,

can you just imagine what that state of existence must be like?

I know the island of Guam, Mr. Chairman, is having real problems with brown tree snakes. That whole ecosystem in terms of the

birds there in Guam is almost gone because of this predator, the

41

brown tree snake. Should we be concerned about conserving the

brown tree snake, or should it be the birds?

Ms. HEMLEY. In Guam?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. In Guam.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. Pombo?

Mr. POMBO. Thank you.

Mr. Jones, although I think these programs have done some good

and will continue to do some good, it seems apparent to me that

no matter how much money we spend, we can’t save these species,

other than actions that are taken in the host countries of those

particular species. That is really what is going to turn it around.

We can be helpful, we can give them advice, we can help them to

develop management programs. But unless they are willing to do

that and have a real incentive to do that, we are not going to turn

these species around.

One of the things that struck me the most in Africa was that as

you went from country to country, you saw a huge difference in the

habitat just across a fence, across a border, and a lot of that was

driven by not the particular management schemes that the countries employed, but the political stability of those particular areas.

I know you have seen it because you have spent time over there

as well, but I just think that as we move ahead with this legislation, I don’t know how we do any more to bring political stability

and a willingness on the part of some of our partners in this. But

I think that is going to be the key to the survival of a number of

these species.

We saw the difference between Southern Africa and Kenya in the

way that they managed their large-mammal populations, particularly elephants, and the difference in poaching and the difference

in the carrying capacity that they had to deal with. I just think

that we can do some good with this, but being able to, by ourselves,

reach out to these countries is just not going to happen. I know

that you know that and have been through this.

But as we get into the future, Mr. Chairman, hopefully you will

have the opportunity to see some of these areas because the political stability in an area and the incentives that we give or the

countries give the local people that live there make a bigger difference than anything we can say or do here.

I do have additional questions for Mr. Jones. I would like to submit those in writing. I know we have another panel, but thank you

very much.

Mr. GILCHREST. Well said, Mr. Pombo.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I also would like to submit

additional questions for the members of the panel for follow-up for

the record.

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection, both sets of questions will be

submitted to the record and sent off to our witnesses.

[The response to questions submitted for the record by Mr.

Pombo follow:]

42

43

44

45

[The response to questions submitted for the record by Mr.

Faleomavaega follow:]

46

47

48

49

Mr. GILCHREST. We will do all we can. I certainly would enjoy

traveling to the areas that you think would be in most need of our

attention. We will make every attempt to do that during this session of Congress.

I want to thank all of you for your energy, your knowledge, your

patience, your persistence, and your lifelong effort in this most worthy cause. Thank you all very much.

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RAPP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. HEMLEY. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Our next panel will be Mr. John Berry, Executive Director, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; Ms. Karen

Steuer, Director of the Commercial Exploitation and Trade Program, International Fund for Animal Welfare; Dr. John Robinson,

Senior Vice President, Wildlife Conservation Society; Mr. John

Kirtland, Executive Vice President of Animal Stewardship, Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus; and Dr. Tom Foose,

Program Director, International Rhino Foundation.

I think we have a vote. I ask unanimous consent from the Members and the witnesses—don’t object, I hope. We are going to take

a 10-minute break. Relax, have a cup of coffee. I will be back in

10 minutes.

[Recess.]

Mr. GILCHREST. The hearing has already come to order. One of

the former Merchant Marine and Fisheries staff members who, I

guess, is still here was encouraging me to crank this up, so we will

get them moving.

Thank you for coming this morning, and we look forward to your

testimony to add to the information and the knowledge that we

have acquired this morning. Once again, in case I miss saying this

at the end of the hearing, we appreciate all your efforts in this

issue, and we will continue to be optimistic that we will be successful as humans to preserve some of the wildlife heritage that this

planet has been so blessed with for so long a period of time.

We will start with Mr. John Berry.

STATEMENT OF JOHN BERRY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION

Mr. BERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to

appear before you today in support of H.R. 645, and I would especially like to thank you and the members of the Committee for the

leadership and vision that you have brought to this important conservation issue, as well as the professionalism and dedication of

your excellent staff. It has been a real pleasure working with them.

My name is John Berry and I am the Executive Director of the

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, a nonprofit foundation created by the Congress to foster healthy populations of fish, wildlife,

and plants for the next generation.

One of our most important programs has been the Save the Tiger

Fund, which was created in partnership with an outstanding corporate leader, ExxonMobil, whose generosity will have provided by

the end of next year over $9 million to the Save the Tiger Fund,

an investment that I believe is unrivaled in corporate conservation

philanthropy.

50

It took a great deal of courage for ExxonMobil to initiate this

project in 1995, in the face of dire expert and widespread press predictions that the tiger would likely be extinct by the year 2000.

Both the Federal funding provided by the Rhinoceros and Tiger

Conservation Act to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the private dollars brought to bear by ExxonMobil, our Foundation, and

other conservation organizations have seamlessly woven together to

reverse those dire predictions and give renewed hope that the tiger

can survive in the wild.

The Save the Tiger Fund has proven the old model of keeping

tigers and humans apart does not work. If we are to succeed, tigers

must be seen as an integral part of a healthy landscape and important to human prosperity in Asia and Russia. Long-term, sustainable habitat management also protects key watershed areas, helping not only tigers, but all who live and rely upon those waters

downstream. Sustainable forestry practices save tigers and jobs, as

does careful ecotourism.

We are here today with good news, Mr. Chairman. Your investment and that of ExxonMobil have made a real difference. Tiger

populations have stabilized in every area where funding has been

intensely invested.

In the Russian Far East, for example, poachers had nearly wiped

out all remaining Siberian tigers, leaving only approximately 200

alive in the mid-1990’s. After targeting more than $1.5 million of

investments in this region, in a multi-layered approach that included forming anti-poaching patrols with retired and unemployed

Russian military personnel, educating schoolchildren and families

in adjacent communities, acquiring and protecting key habitat parcels, and pursuing better science, today’s population now stands at

more than 400 tigers, steady, and we hope, growing.

In India and Nepal, community woodlots have been created to

eliminate the need to take firewood from protected tiger habitat

areas. In China and across Asia, working with practitioners of traditional medicine and with culturally-sensitive advertising campaigns, we are beginning to reduce the demand for tiger parts, so

that, as Jackie Chan says in one of the advertising campaigns

′′When the buying stops, the killing can, too.′′

The fight is far from over. We know almost nothing of the South

China tiger, and given the lack of conservation capability in China,

the South China tiger may well already be lost. In Burma/

Myanmar, biologists found incredibly rich tiger habitat recently,

but no tigers. You heard the previous panel discuss the empty forest syndrome. This is the ghostly result of continued black market

poaching in those areas.

Logging and growth pressures continue to press forward. But at

the same time, good news has been found in Cambodia, for example, and great tiger partnerships are underway, forming along the

very rich Terai Arc on the border between India and Nepal. I believe that success is within our grasp if we can stay the course. We

must make tigers worth more alive than dead.

We must build the support of people who live near tigers and of

political and economic leaders in those nations. We need to continue to build and grow partnerships with local communities, and

we will continue to need money. From the nickels raised by school

51

kids in Arizona selling pickles to contribute their $135 to the Save

the Tiger Fund, to the millions provided by ExxonMobil and this

Congress, every penny is making a difference in creating a world

where mystery, wildness, beauty, and tigers can continue to burn

bright.

Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berry follows:]

Statement of John Berry, Executive Director,

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the

opportunity to testify today in strong support of H.R. 645, the Rhinoceros and Tiger

Conservation Reauthorization Act. I am John Berry, Executive Director of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which is a nonprofit foundation established by

the 98th Congress. The Foundation was created to support a growth economy for

conservation solutions by connecting the skills, resources and goals of private and

public partners in innovative ways. Our program with ExxonMobil, the Save The

Tiger Fund, is the perfect example of a successful public-private partnership for conservation, and I am pleased to provide you testimony on behalf of both the Save

The Tiger Fund and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. We have worked

closely and cooperatively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over the past several years. Our direct experience in tiger conservation experience leads us to believe

that the ongoing congressional appropriations for this Act are a sound investment.

The following testimony, which is excerpted from a report recently prepared by the

Foundation on behalf of the Save The Tiger Fund, provides a detailed overview of

the status of wild tigers and the impact of such conservation efforts as those of the

Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act and the Save The Tiger Fund.

Saving tigers is about people. Humans and tigers are neighbors and it is a relationship fraught with hazards for both sides. It is at once a simple truth—and a

complicated notion—that saving Asia’s remaining wild tigers requires engaging the

millions of people who live near the tiger. The challenges facing the tiger are as diverse as the many languages of the people who live near it, but the reasons for saving the tiger are remarkably straightforward: to preserve this keystone predator is

to conserve its habitat, which in turn benefits the cornucopia of other species that

share the same home, including humans.

Support for tiger conservation is dependent on people who coexist with tigers believing that this effort enhances the prospect for a more materially, emotionally and

spiritually worthwhile life for themselves, their families and communities. For many

people, tigers are the stuff of ancient myth and legend. They also are powerful predators who live on- land that provides some of the most fertile and abundant natural

resources for humans and wildlife alike. Often referred to as an umbrella species,

this large carnivore ranges over vast territory that typically supports a myriad of

complex flora and fauna. Save the tiger and you save an entire ecosystem.

TIGERS ON THE EDGE

In 1995, Asia’s wild tigers were in alarming and widespread decline throughout

their range. At the beginning of the 20th century, when William Blake immortalized

the tiger in poetry and Rudyard Kipling introduced Shere Khan to the literary

world, an estimated 100,000 tigers roamed the Asian continent. But the ensuing

decades treated the tiger no more kindly than so many other species of large predators. Human population growth and the resulting loss of habitat drove tigers from

their former homes, while the over-harvest of prey species starved the cat and trophy hunting, followed by rampant poaching, took its toll.

Initial conservation efforts centered on passing game laws and creating reserves,

but problems for the tiger grew steadily. Three of the animal’s eight subspecies were

extinct by 1980. In the early 1990’s, crisis flared and the possibility of species extinction seemed more than prophecy. Many conservationists and biologists—working

mostly in isolation from one another and focusing their energies narrowly on tiger

biology and petty turf tussles—had become complacent and were caught off guard

by the wave of poisoning, poaching and trafficking in wild tigers. Respected biologists glumly predicted extinction by the year 2000. A 1994 Time cover story shouted

that the tiger was ‘‘Doomed!’’ An estimated 5,000-7,000 tigers remained in all of

Asia—fewer tigers on an entire continent than there were humans in a few city

blocks of New York City or Calcutta.

52

Consider the ‘‘official’’ tiger population numbers in 1994-95 (quoted in Tilson

1996):

South China: 30 or fewer

Amur: 150-200

Sumatran: 500

Indo-Chinese: 1,050-1,750

Bengal: 3,250-4,700

In 1995, the Save The Tiger Fund (STF) was created by the Exxon Corporation

and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The two organizations had first

joined to support research on the Amur tiger in the Russian Far East in 1991. But

the tiger crisis of the early 1990’s made it clear that something more substantial was needed. Exxon agreed to commit a minimum of $5 million over five years and

bring to bear its worldwide network of companies, shareholders, and customers to

support tigers through the STF. Exxon’s commitment marked one of the largest corporate financial commitments to saving a species ever made. In turn, the Foundation anted up its conservation credibility and grantsmanship competence. Recognizing the need for direct tiger expertise, the Foundation formed the Save The Tiger

Fund Council, a panel of volunteer experts, to assist the Foundation in guiding the

overall direction of the STF and its project investments.

Proclaiming an intent to ‘‘save’’ the tiger was a bold and far-reaching goal amidst

the tiger crisis of the mid 1990’s. Until the STF began increasing investments in

basic monitoring and research, no one could make more than an educated guess as

to how many tigers might remain in corners of Asia. Until the STF used its influence to encourage cooperation among tiger biologists, there was little collaborative

work underway and no overall assessment of tiger conservation priorities existed.

The Save The Tiger Fund’s six-year history has marked its growth from a bold concept to a cornerstone of tiger conservation initiatives. Calling the Save The Tiger

Fund ‘‘catalytic’’ in the conservation world, Kathryn Fuller, President of World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and STF partner observed: ‘‘The Fund has encouraged non-governmental organizations to cooperate, pool resources, and share the limelight: tiger experts are now talking to one another and

joining forces more often, giving rise to larger landscape-level programs that are increasing the tiger’s chance for long-term survival in the wild.’’

Against the odds and all predictions, wild tigers survive today. They still prowl

the western Terai of India and Nepal, the mangrove swamps of Bangladesh, the untamed borderlands of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and the vast boreal forests of

the Russian Far East. It is neither bold nor boastful to say that the STF has played

a pivotal role in helping to secure this stability.

Despite these gains, optimism must be tempered with vigilance for the tiger’s status remains tenuous and fragile. It is both an urgent and hopeful forecast to predict

that the continued investment and stability of the Save The Tiger Fund and other

similar efforts will be critical to ensuring a future for the tiger and its many human

neighbors. It is a measure of the STF’s success that the present has been secured

for this majestic species. And it is the Foundation’s belief that this unique partnership provides a genuine opportunity to create a sustainable future for wild tigers

and their landscapes.

A MODEL OF SUCCESS

In six years, the Save The Tiger Fund has invested more than $8.3 million in 142

projects throughout 12 of the 14 tiger range states. The STF has taken a multilayered approach to tiger conservation, providing flexible grants to tackle the diverse problems of multiple cultures and regions throughout the tiger’s range. These

grants have ranged from health clinics in rural Indian villages and educational programs for schoolchildren in China, to anti-poaching teams in Thailand and habitat

acquisitions in Russia.

The largest amount of STF funding—more than $3.3 million—has gone to field

study and management projects. The Save The Tiger Fund has directed $1.3 million

to 31 projects supporting anti-poaching, conflict resolution and tiger trade reduction.

More than $2.1 million has gone to conservation education and $773,000 has been

earmarked for habitat restoration and protection to date. By region, STF funding

has been split nearly evenly between the Indian subcontinent, at $1.85 million, and

the Russian Far East, at $1.71 million. STF projects in Southeast Asia have topped

$1.3 million; in Sumatra, nearly $870,000.

But conservation success does not merely reside in tabulations of numbers and

project listings. Rather it lies in the thoughtful and cooperative efforts behind them.

The Save The Tiger Fund’s investments, along with the vision and commitment behind them, reinvigorated the tiger conservation community at a time of great crisis,

53

when some were tempted to give up. It also helped to vitalize tiger conservation by

focusing on the human side of the equation. For 25 years, conservationists tried to

save tigers by keeping people and tigers apart. Thoughtful, diversified investments

by the STF have assisted conservationists as they devise ways to keep people and

tigers together, so both prosper in the future Asian landscape. The STF has drawn

upon its Council members, ExxonMobil, and numerous conservation organizations

and individuals to develop a program that:

1. Increases the impact and availability of funding for priority tiger projects.

2. Invests in a diversified and sustained conservation portfolio.

3. Forges partnerships to create new breadth and depth in tiger conservation.

4. Addresses the root of tiger conservation problems.

5. Tolerates risk and remains flexible to accommodate new opportunities.

6. Invests in conservation leadership throughout tiger range.

7. Lays the groundwork for future tiger conservation.

This report examines each of these attributes to appraise the activities of the Save

The Tiger Fund, ascertain the conservation impact of its actions, and glean the lessons learned for future activities. 1. INCREASE FUNDING IMPACT AND AVAILABILITY. ‘‘We believe that [partnerships] provide opportunities for creative solutions to a

wide range of conservation and environmental challenges. Exxon is committed to

tiger conservation—helping to save a legendary beast.’’ Lee Raymond, Chairman,

ExxonMobil Corporation

Today, according to a study by the Zoological Society of London (Christie 2000,)

the STF provided more than 28 percent of all tiger conservation funding worldwide

in the past two years. ExxonMobil’s initial $5 million pledge in 1995 has grown to a $9 million pledge through 2002. To date, ExxonMobil has contributed more than

$8.2 million to the Save The Tiger Fund. This commitment permeates the corporation’s worldwide operations, from corporate headquarters to Asian subsidiaries to

local service stations, to employee volunteers.

Through collaborative efforts between the Foundation and ExxonMobil, the STF

has offered an unprecedented opportunity for public and private sectors to participate directly in a global effort to save wild tigers, raising snore than $1.4 million

to date. Special marketing promotions and targeted international contributions from

ExxonMobil marketing efforts and international Esso operations have attracted

more than $600,000. ExxonMobil employees have volunteered their time and energy

for STF events and activities. Walt Disney, the Discovery Channel, and other private corporations, foundations and organizations have donated more than $200,000.

Some 15,000 individual donations have been made to the STF, totaling more than

$580,000. These gifts have ranged from a $68,000 anonymous donation from Switzerland, to $400 raised by an elementary school bake sale in New Jersey, to a $20

check sent by an elderly woman from Wisconsin, who accompanied her contribution

with a hand-written elegy to the tiger. Boyfriends have honored their sweethearts

with contributions, office colleagues have donated in the name of a hard-to-buy-for

boss, and children have sent poems and crayon drawings with their dollars.

Twice yearly ExxonMobil distributes 150,000 copies of its Tiger Watch newsletter

to teachers, students, shareholders and other tiger fans throughout the world. The

response can be poignant and heartening. Nine-year-old Nicole Gaither of

Southlake, Texas just completed her third annual book sale. Using her own tigerstriped flier to urge residents to donate books, Nicole has raised more than $1,800

so far for tigers. Sixth-grade students in Gulf Stream, Florida, raised $102 for the

STF with a raffle and meatball sale. In Phoenix, Arizona, elementary school students sold pickles for 50 cents each, raising another $153 for the Save The Tiger

Fund.

The Save The Tiger Fund has become a catalyst for tiger fund-raising both directly and indirectly. Donations to the Russian Far East increased as a result of

publicity arising from the 1998 Year of the Tiger Conference, sponsored by the STF

and ExxonMobil (Christie 2000.) Internationally renowned entertainers, Siegfried &

Roy, have joined the STF in promoting tiger conservation. And tiger mascots are

helping real tigers through the alumni and students of the University of Missouri.

Finally, the Foundation’s historical involvement in leveraging legal settlement funds

for conservation has resulted in the payment of restitution funds from a Federal investigation into tiger trafficking to the STF to enable and promote high priority

tiger conservation.

In addition to raising funds and grant making, the Save The Tiger Fund is committed to accountability. Conscious of a longstanding criticism that large sums of

money are raised on the back of the tiger without ever making it to the ground for

tangible conservation efforts, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation takes a 10-

percent management fee while investing all remaining contributed funds and acVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:39 Jul 18, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 71290.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
54

crued interest straight into projects. STF accounts are audited as part of the Foundation’s annual audit. 2. DIVERSE AND SUSTAINED CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS. The Russian Far East provides an excellent example of the Save The Tiger Fund’s return on investment and its lasting conservation impact. It is a case study of the

diverse and effective conservation efforts the STF is facilitating throughout tiger

range. First, a few statistics to set the tiger conservation stage:

1. In the period 1990-1993, it is estimated that poachers killed one-third of

Russia’s remaining tigers. Just 200 to 250 tigers existed in 1994. Poachers

were killing tigers at a rate of 50 to 75 a year. Simple math added up to

tiger extinction by the year 2000.

2. Although Russian biologists were sounding the alarm, conservation

groups were finding it nearly impossible to gain traction on the ground and

maneuver through the political thicket of the turf wars raging among politicians and conservationists alike.

In 1991, the Foundation and Exxon began supporting Amur tiger studies conducted by Hornocker Wildlife Institute (now part of the Wildlife Conservation Society) in the Russian Far East. But as tiger poaching escalated, scientists working in

Russia confronted the horror of seeing their study tigers killed almost in front of

their eyes. If they were ever to learn about tiger ecology, they would have to address

the complicated issue of demand for tiger parts. With the creation of the Save The

Tiger Fund, the investments in the Amur region increased and gained greater focus.

The STF continued its support of the Hornocker Institute, believing they had the

strongest connections with Russian scientists and the most experience tracking and

monitoring tigers. In addition, the Save The Tiger Fund branched out, awarding a

grant to a relatively obscure operative in the conservation community, Steve

Galster, of Global Survival Network (now Wi1dAid) who had managed to gain local

buy-in for aggressive anti-poaching teams. The STF also invested dollars for land

acquisition, expanding the boundaries of Sikhote-Alin Reserve, at the core of prime

tiger habitat in the region. The STF further supported Russian-based community

outreach programs and publications such as Zov Taigi, which targeted educational

programs to school children and forest communities most affected by tigers. The

STF underwrote its grantees to reach out and cultivate local leadership and build

local capacity as an integral part of project design. Finally, the STF worked to encourage partnerships between all of these groups and the people and governments

they worked with. In all, the Save The Tiger Fund has targeted more than $1.71 million in six years

to the Russian Far East, making STF the region’s second largest investor in tiger

conservation (second only to WWF/GEF.) Central to this support was the conscious

effort to diversify grant commitments, attempting to pinpoint what Council Chairman John Seidensticker labels as the ‘‘Four C’s‘‘—carnivores, connections, core habitats, and community support. Absent diligent and adaptive attention to each of

these critical components, conservation efforts in the Russian Far East and elsewhere are ultimately doomed to failure.

As a result of these ongoing investments, STF’s Russian Far East portfolio in

2001 includes:

1. Support for the Hornocker Wildlife Institute/WCS for undertaking solid,

biology-based conservation projects. The work has broadened to include an

intimate working relationship with the dozen preeminent Russian biologists

in the region. Collectively, these scientists have one of the most comprehensive understandings of tiger behavior in all of the tiger range.

2. Operation Amba—the Russian anti-poaching teams—succeeded beyond

anyone’s expectations, convincing former poachers to cross the line to work

for the good guys, protecting tigers from the guns, snares and poisons of

other poachers. Tiger poaching plummeted by 60 percent, and many credit

Operation Amba with saving the Amur tiger from extinction. Understanding the price for complacency, Operation Amba and it partners recently stepped up patrols and arrested an aggressive poaching ring in an

undercover sting operation. WildAid is working to expand the Operation

Amba model to create new anti-poaching projects in Cambodia and Thailand with the Save The Tiger Fund’s support.

3. Carrying the investment formula to its logical conclusion, Dale Miquelle

of Hornocker/WCS worked with Steve Galster of WildAid to help the antipoaching teams set up their own local organization, the Phoenix Fund, and

transfer the anti-poaching project into the hands of Russians. The Save The

Tiger Fund continues to support the Phoenix Fund and is working to help

them expand their own fund-raising capabilities as they move toward becoming a self-sustaining, locally driven program that won’t go away when

55

the foreigners do. In the years since the launch of the STF, the dollar investment in Russian tiger conservation has grown steadily. More importantly, the growth in investments in Russian agencies and local leadership

has accelerated as well.

4. Zov Taigi is now considered the authoritative source of environmental

news for the Russian Far East. They have sponsored photo and art contests, produced public service announcements, and generated a twicemonthly, 20-minute TV series that reaches 50,000 viewers. The group has

translated some 100 tiger articles into Russian and English, making them

available in government archives as well as on their sophisticated web site.

The local efforts of this group to educate Russian forest communities and

reduce human/tiger conflicts have touched thousands of rural schoolchildren

in tiger range villages. Entire communities draw together each year to celebrate the tiger in events such as a Tiger Day parade in Vladivostok.

Today the wild tiger population of the Russian Far East holds steady at 400-plus

animals. Official Russian Federation customs data show that the volume of illegal

contraband produced for the Chinese market (tiger skins, bones and derivatives) has

decreased dramatically. The Russian Federation special forces anti-poaching team

claims that tiger poaching has been reduced by more than 60 percent. And regional

law enforcement data reveals that the number of people killed in direct confrontation with tigers has dropped significantly. Presently, the tiger population in the

Russian Far East is considered the most stable in the world. ‘‘Much of our work would simply not be possible without the support of Save The

Tiger Fund,’’ says Dale Miquelle, a Russia-based biologist with WCS. ‘‘The Fund has

been a guiding force in tiger conservation at a critical juncture in the worldwide

conservation movement. In providing support for tiger conservation, the Fund has

become a key player in the overall conservation of Asia’s biodiversity.’’ 3. FORGING PARTNERSHIPS TO CREATE BREADTH AND DEPTH. Partnerships are a central tenet of the Foundation and the Save The Tiger Fund.

The Foundation has more than 12 years of solid, quantifiable experience working

with more than 1,200 local, state, and Federal organizations and agencies on the

national and international level. The Foundation has involved universities, industry,

philanthropies and individuals in conservation partnerships. This cooperative approach to conservation is a central feature of the STF. The Save The Tiger Fund

is committed to bringing conservation interests to the table to collaborate and create

an unprecedented impetus for tiger conservation. With a $5 million commitment from Exxon in 1995, the Foundation and the Council surveyed the tiger problem and were astonished to find that no assessment of

tiger populations and habitats existed under a single cover. Assuming sound tiger

conservation must be based on good information, how could the STF hope to fund

priority tiger conservation if no analysis of needs existed? At the request of the Save

The Tiger Fund, WWF and WCS agreed to jointly produce the first-ever, range-wide

assessment that mapped habitat, tiger occupancy, spatial relationships, and threats.

Published in 1997, A Framework for Identifying High Priority Areas and Actions for

Conservation of Tigers in the Wild was grounded in two strengths: good science and

collaboration.

‘‘It was a religious experience, seeing those maps for the first time,’’ recalls Council Chairman John Seidensticker, ‘‘here was the big picture, spread out before us,

leading us into the future.’’ For the first time, tiger researchers around the world

had a reference, a catechism, on which to analyze the opportunities and barriers for

the future of wild tigers.

The STF has played a central role in fostering the sharing of information—beginning with a 1997 Zoological Society of London tiger conference and continuing with

the Year of the Tiger Conference held in 1998. Following on the heels of the London

gathering, John Seidensticker, Peter Jackson and Sarah Christie worked for a full

year to synthesize the proceedings into a coherent vision that translated the many

different languages used in tiger conservation into one—the language of conservation biology. Riding the Tiger, published in 1999, has become the central primer for

tiger conservation. Taking advantage of the momentum from 1997 and the timing

of the Chinese calendar, the Year of the Tiger Conference in 1998 marked the largest meeting of tiger conservationists ever assembled. Representatives from 13 of the

14 tiger range countries participated, along with their colleagues from the United

States, Canada and Europe. For the first time, conservation groups with an interest

in saving tigers came to a consensus on a vision for a realistic future for wild tigers.

Securing a Future for the World’s Wild Tigers was published in 2000 as a summary

of the Year of the Tiger Conference’s findings.

Conservation planning did not end with the hosting of two major meetings but

has returned home to tiger range. Countries previously wrought with political, ecoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:39 Jul 18, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 71290.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
56

nomic, and social strife have begun to realize the significance of the tiger and its

role in biologically diverse ecosystems. Many of the developing nations in tiger range

are eager to get involved with this prized natural resource and have solicited guidance and support from experienced organizations in this field. The STF has consistently supported tiger action planning from the national level in countries such as

Myanmar and Burma to more regionally specific plans for areas such as national

parks.

The partnerships of the Save The Tiger Fund have expanded well beyond the scientific community. A partnership with the Minnesota Zoo offers one-stop tiger information geared to young and old alike through the worldwide web. The 5Tigers.org

web site attracted more than 4 million ‘‘hits’’ per month by the end of the year 2000,

or an average of 20,000 page views per day. Among other accolades, the web site

was named a five-star site by the Electric Schoolhouse Digital Library; and the Education Index, a guide to the best educational Internet sites, named it ‘‘an outstanding educational resource.’’

In 1996, National Geographic World magazine joined ExxonMobil and the STF to

sponsor a Save The Tiger poster contest that drew an impressive 3,100 entries.

‘‘Kids love cats,’’ said World magazine’s Eleanor Shanahan. ‘‘And they love to help

endangered species.’’ Another joint project with National Geographic produced Habitats: Realm of the Tiger, a comprehensive teaching kit for middle school teachers

that has reached at least 6,500 classrooms in the United States and the thousands

of students in them.

The Save The Tiger Fund has touched untold other tiger lovers through the

Smithsonian National Zoo ‘‘Great Cats!’’ exhibit, a traveling American Zoo and

Aquarium Association exhibit, exhibits at Disney’s Epcot Center and the

Smithsonian’s Museum of Natural History, and in special Zoo Day events in such

cities as Houston, Baton Rouge, Philadelphia, New York, Memphis, Philadelphia

and Las Vegas.

The educational outreach and innovative partnerships also touch the upper rungs

of academia. In February 2001, the University of Missouri joined the Save The Tiger

Fund to create a model tiger-mascot program aimed at reaching the 68 U.S. colleges

and universities that carry the tiger banner over their athletic programs. This is the

first-ever sustained effort by an university to put money and educational efforts

from a tiger-mascot program directly into on-the-ground tiger conservation. ‘‘We

want there to be wild tigers as long as there are Mizzou Tigers,’’ says Chancellor

Richard Wallace of the University of Missouri. He adds that the STF ‘‘brings great

credibility to the table, years of commitment and expertise, established and respected relationships in tiger-range countries, the potential for greater leverage of

our own resources, and a passion for conservation that we want to pass on to our

students.’’

In 1998, the famed illusionists, Siegfried & Roy joined the STF in its conservation

mission. Siegfried & Roy are using their signature white tigers and popular Las

Vegas act to serve as Ambassadors for their wild relatives in Asia. Siegfried & Roy

worked with ExxonMobil to produce a commercial for the Save The Tiger Fund,

which ExxonMobil placed in strategic markets as part of its national advertising

budget. ‘‘We strongly believe that we must do everything we can to help save tigers

in the wild,’’ said Roy. ‘‘As powerful as tigers are, they need our help. It would be

a tragedy if this magnificent creature were to vanish from the earth.’’

The outreach of such high profile partnerships has been significant. Following the

announcement of the Save The Tiger Fund partnership with Siegfried & Roy in

May, 1999, the ensuing media campaign reached an international audience of well

over 70 million. Over the past six years, reports on the work of the STF have been

featured by Parade Magazine, Life Magazine, the New York Times, the Baltimore

Sun, the Kansas City Star, CNN, the Today Show, Discovery Channel, network

radio and television, as well as a special PBS production of ‘‘The Visionaries.’’ Overall, extensive national and international media coverage of the Save The Tiger Fund

has reached populations throughout the U.S., Russia, Western Europe, Asia, Australia and China.

In the business community, the Save The Tiger Fund has become emblematic of

corporate environmental stewardship, leadership and responsibility. In a recent article on corporate philanthropic giving, Worth magazine held up the Save The Tiger

Fund as a notable example of ExxonMobil’s charitable efforts. The results-driven

and accountable work of the STF has built a solid reservoir of good will and created

the capacity to expand this public/private partnership to higher levels of international visibility. Observes Ed Ahnert, President of ExxonMobil Foundation: ‘‘The

Foundation provides a forum where business, government and non-profit organizations can work together harmoniously on conservation projects. By acknowledging

57

that human activity and preservation of the environment have to co-exist, it operates in an area of shared values and on strong middle ground.’’

4. ADDRESSING THE ROOTS OF TIGER CONSERVATION PROBLEMS. An abiding belief in a tiger’s power to protect and cure is as ancient as Asia itself.

Often revered as gods, tigers occupy a central place in the myth and medicine of

traditional Asian culture. Images of tigers guard homes and temples from evil while

tiger parts, when eaten, applied, or worn, are believed to treat ailments, confer courage, and even immunize against snakebite and bullets. But wild tigers and stockpiles of tiger bones have been largely depleted in the past two decades. If the demand continues, so will the tiger poaching. To reach the goal of making live tigers

worth more than the sum of their parts, the Save The Tiger Fund has supported

efforts to reduce demand for tiger parts and to curtail trafficking.

Responding to this critical issue, the Save The Tiger Fund supported

groundbreaking work by WWF and TRAFFIC resulting in the report, Far From a

Cure: The Tiger Trade Revisited (Nowell 2000,) which completed an earlier look at

this black market by Council Member Peter Jackson and WWF’s Judy Mills. Their

analysis is the backbone of ongoing tiger trafficking work aimed at arresting the

growth of tiger bone consumers from Shanghai to New York and San Francisco to

Toronto. ‘‘The Fund had the foresight to fund these efforts well before they were embraced by the conservation community as a whole, and significant progress continues as a result,’’ says Ginette Hemley, vice president for species conservation at

WWF.

The following are examples of ongoing projects supported by the STF directed at

trade:

1. Support for WWF’s and TRAFFIC’s work with the Traditional Chinese

Medicine community to educate practitioners and endorse medical substitutes for tiger derivatives. The approach—concern tempered with respect

for traditional Asian cultural practices—has made the first serious inroads

to staunching the medicinal demand for tiger parts.

2. In China and other southeast Asian markets, Wi1dAid is using support

from the STF to target the region’s general population through popular

media. They have enlisted the backing of such Asian luminaries as Jackie

Chan to produce commercials and public service announcements that reach

millions through programming on the Discovery Channel and popular Asian

television networks.

3. In the United States, recent investigations have uncovered a sizable market for tiger pelts and other parts fueled by a variety of market forces including unscrupulous trophy hunters and the ongoing demand for traditional Asian medicine with tiger derivatives. (FWS, personal communication.) Court-ordered restitution funds will be directed by the STF Council

in support of trade-related projects.

Another issue at the root of tiger conservation is the simple need to build recognition of tiger conservation issues in politically sensitive regions. Conservationists face

stiff challenges when working with countries whose past and present political instability deeply cloud the ability to focus on tiger conservation. Be it Russia,

Myannmar or Indonesia, the STF targets grants to support a wide range of tiger

research and conservation efforts in these countries, focusing on building stability

and capacity from within.

In Sumatra, for example, a tiger team fielded by Flora and Fauna International

is working day-to-day in a land riddled with the dangers of disease, isolation, poachers and the difficulties of mediating the often-deadly results of conflicts between villagers and neighboring tigers. Even so, conservationists are hopeful about the tiger’s

future. In the words of Margaret Kinnaird and Tim O’Brien, WCS biologists who

are working with STF support in Sumatra; ‘‘without grants from the Save The Tiger

Fund, we would have been unable to accomplish our research on Sumatran tigers

in the Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park. Before we started our work, the government did not believe the park was an important conservation area for tigers and

other wildlife. Now we believe it may harbor some of the largest remaining populations of tigers, rhino and elephant in Sumatra. STF provides significant and very

flexible grants that allow us to put young Indonesians into the field, provide on-thejob training and in doing so, boost capacity and build professionalism.’’

The Save The Tiger Fund continues to expand into new territory, making its first

grant in Vietnam in 2000. The Bach Ma National Park will monitor tiger and prey

density and movement within the Park and its buffer areas to get a better reading

of species decline. Political strife and unchecked poaching in Vietnam has made it

difficult for many conservation groups to work in the tiger’s habitat. Until 2000, the

capacity and infrastructure to manage such a project just was not there. A similar

58

situation persists in Bangladesh, where tigers are being lost to poaching at alarming

rates and human-tiger conflicts are quite frequent. The Sunderbans, which straddles

the border between India and Bangladesh, represents the last remaining mangrove

forest ecosystem in all of tiger range. This area is of international importance for

tiger conservation and the STF awarded its first grant to a collaborative

Sunderbans tiger conservation project in 2001. 5. FLEXIBILITY TO ACCOMMODATE RISK AND INNOVATION. The Save The Tiger Fund Council has made it clear that the STF needs to include

grants to the unknown and the untested in its portfolio. Like the Foundation’s Board of Directors, the Council has stressed a willingness to consider small and

non-traditional grants because a project’s conservation value is unrelated to its

price, and the line between innovation and speculation is often indiscernible at first

glance.

For example, in 1998, the STF took a chance on a young Indian graduate student

who wanted to work in a largely unstudied tiger reserve in central India. Harsha

Reddy took the first photographs of wild tigers in the area and undertook the challenging, and often frustrating, task of working with local villagers who lost livestock

to tiger kills. Today, Reddy is a graduate student at Harvard Medical School who

hopes to go back to India as a doctor and continue the fight to save wild tigers.

‘‘Please know how much the STF has affected me. Those two years in India were

the most rich experiences of my life,’’ writes Reddy. ‘‘The contribution I could make

at the time was sincere but small. However, the motivation to continue the good

work is still very much alive within me. I strive to repay the trust the Save The

Tiger Fund put in me by staying active in the tiger cause.’’ Asia holds a number of areas that appear to be suitable habitat for tigers but the

requisite research has not been conducted. A look at the WWF/WCS Assessment

map suggests that the northern tier of Myanmar should be a key area for tigers.

With the Save The Tiger Fund’s support, WCS was able to successfully make inroads into the political quagmire of Myanmar in order to conduct a serious appraisal

of the status of tigers. Sadly the survey results suggest that there are few or no

tigers left in these rich habitats of former Burma. The knowledge, however disappointing, is vital and similar scientific assessments of the baseline biological data

are invaluable to conservationists as they set priorities for future conservation investments.

Camera trapping techniques have greatly enhanced census work in India and

Southeast Asia. But this technique is not as useful in the Russian Far East where

the tiger’s territory is too vast to be covered by camera traps. The potential of training dogs to find scats and identify individual tiger scents as a method for tiger census has been proposed for STF funding. It is an unproven technique for tigers, but

the Foundation has previous experience with similar methods used successfully for

large carnivores in the U.S. Rather than turn down the proposal, the STF is working with the Russian scent-dog researchers to more fully develop the technique and

have it peer-reviewed.

6. BUILDING LOCAL LEADERSHIP AND CAPACITY.

Tiger Wallahs is a term of respect for the tiger men who have devoted their lives

over the past century to the struggle to save the tiger from extinction. ‘‘They all

share certain qualities—courage, independence and territoriality among them -and

all of them are as remarkable in their way as the magnificent animals for whose

survival they have risked, and sometimes lost, everything,’’ says noted author Geoffrey Ward (Ward 1993.) The Save The Tiger Fund is fortunate to have benefited

from the advice and counsel of several Tiger Wallahs who sit on its Council and

serve as its advisors. From the start they have emphasized the need to build local

capacity and train the next generation of young men and women to carry on the

future of tiger conservation.

Along the Terai Arc, a fragmented strip of forest and tall grasslands strung between the base of the Himalayas and the densely populated Ganges Plain, the King

Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation in Nepal has successfully engaged local

communities in conservation and environmental stewardship. Council member

Hemanta Mishra was the visionary who saw that without the support of local people

all would be lost. He was founding secretary of the Mahendra Trust, which focuses

on making conservation a way to improve human life in the Chitwan Valley and

throughout Nepal.

In Cambodia, where years of border wars have created a hostile, nearly impenetrable terrain, researchers have made their way into its trans-boundary forests and

found evidence of a robust tiger population as well as a rich diversity of other flora

and fauna. A small grant from the STF allowed Cambodian university students like

Sun Hean to get involved in the early exploration, leading to their current roles as

conservation leaders who are making a difference for tigers in what is fast becoming

59

a key conservation area known for its unique biodiversity. STF support in Cambodian conservation projects also has fostered collaborative partnerships between researchers, conservationists, local citizen and Cambodian officials in an area that

continues to suffer from a lack of political and social support for conservation.

In Malaysia, the STF is actively working to increase the capacity of the wildlife

department and improve the agency’s ability to plan and implement tiger conservation activities. STF Council member Mohammed Khan has long been a recognized

leader of Malaysian conservation. He has helped the Save The Tiger Fund to understand the importance of supporting leaders and building capacity in Malaysia. Similar leadership is found in neighboring Indonesia where STF supports three different

groups on the ground. As one of Indonesia’s foremost conservation leaders, Council

member Effendy Sumardja understands first-hand the crucial importance of building capacity and investing in people.

For several years now, the Save The Tiger Fund has supported a small, community-based project outside the famed Ranthambhore National Park in India. Some

200,000 people live in the 74 villages that lie within a three-mile radius of the park.

The ‘‘buffer zone’’ that once separated park and people is mostly gone. The

Prakratik Society is engaging local villagers in tiger conservation through a health

clinic, reforestation projects and other community outreach. Dr. Goverdhan Singh

Rathore, an earnest young Indian who leads the Prakratik Society, has this to say

of their work: ‘‘We’re like missionaries. We cure people and convert them.’’ Rathore’s religion is tigers, trees, and the Park. He exhorts his grateful patients

to report tiger poachers, to plant trees, and to practice family planning to ease population growth around the park. Dr. Rathore is an evangelist for tree plantations and

there is at least one plantation in each of the 40 villages he works in. But it’s been

an uphill battle over more than six years to achieve this. It’s difficult to persuade

people to plant trees that take several years to yield fuel or fodder when both are

available today in the park. ‘‘You have to change a mind set,’’ he says with more

than a hint that he’s prepared to do just that.

These and other Tiger Wallahs are at the very root of the STF’s efforts; their selfless and voluntary contributions are at the heart of the Save The Tiger Fund’s suc- cess to date. The Foundation also recognizes all its Council members for their invaluable contributions to the shaping and operation of the STF. 7. LAYING GROUNDWORK FOR FUTURE CONSERVATION. The Save The Tiger Fund has identified geographic areas with the potential to

serve as prototypes for community-based conservation programs with direct benefits

for tiger conservation. ‘‘The bottom line is not about saving the world, but about how

we can fit into this world more fully with our fellow species intact,’’ explains Council

Chairman John Seidensticker. ‘‘The Save The Tiger Fund is committed to making

tigers star in efforts to implement actions that enable people to live in balance with

natural resources.’’

One such model project is Nepal’s Royal Chitwan National Park, which anchors

the western end of a 1,000-mile-long green ribbon of forest and tall grassland

stretched along the base of the outer ranges of the Himalayas. The Terai is not only

excellent tiger habitat, but is also home to leopards, sloth bears, Asian elephants,

greater one-horned rhinoceros and sambar, to name a few. But in the last half-century, people have cut through the ribbon and frayed the Terai’s edges to meet needs

for land, food, fuel, and fodder. Fortunately, the damage is not complete or irrevocable—the beads remain and can be polished. Investing in the Terai and tiger conservation is one of STF’s highest priorities.

Once a royal hunting reserve, Chitwan was established as a national park in 1973

to protect the tigers, rhinos, and other species that were rapidly declining as people

in search of new land replaced and degraded the habitat. The study and monitoring

of tigers and other species began immediately, with the Nepal-Smithsonian Tiger

Ecology Project and has continued without interruption to this day. The park is renowned as a tourist destination, attracting more visitors than any other park in

Asia. Early on, park leaders also recognized the importance of local support and permitted villagers to collect thatch grass, essential for roofing their homes, in the

park. This helped to reduce resentment at the loss of access to other natural resources.

Still, problems remained. As the local population grew, the protected area became

the only source of firewood for many local people, and the temptation to graze cattle

there was great. The poaching crisis affected Chitwan, peaking in 1992, with poachers taking both tigers and rhinos in large numbers. Except for thatch grass, villagers were receiving little benefit from the park; for instance, only a small fraction

of the income from tourism found its way to the local populace. And, like parks

throughout Asia, Chitwan is too small. If tigers were to survive in Nepal, people

would have to make room for them outside of protected areas.

60

Today, Chitwan National Park is emerging as a positive feature in the local landscape, tiger and rhino numbers are increasing, and new forest habitat is being

added at the edge of the park. Local people are becoming guardians of wildlife and

wildlife habitat. For the first time, economic incentives have given villagers a direct

stake in the park. New legislation dictates that a third to a half of all revenues

earned from park entrance fees be returned to villages in the surrounding buffer

zone to use for community development, such as building schools and clinics. Equally important are events in the buffer zone itself, where nearly 300,000 poor people

live in 36 villages still largely dependent on forest for firewood and fodder. After

years of destroying the tiger’s habitat, people are now creating and managing it. A

large, hand-painted sign set in the middle of a newly planted community forest area

called Chitrasen credits the organizations involved in this ground-breaking habitat

restoration effort, widely considered the most successful community conservation

program in Asia. Prominent among these names is the Save The Tiger Fund.

As the community forestry project expands to additional parts of the buffer zone,

another challenge is to create habitat links between the restored forest plots and

other forest blocks in the buffer zone so tigers can move through the larger landscape. The STF is also supporting surveys in other parts of Nepal to find additional

places where tiger habitat can be restored with local participation. Finally, conservationists from other parts of the tiger’s range are viewing the Chitwan experience firsthand to see how they can apply this model to their own particular circumstances.

A second model conservation example lies amidst the moist tropical forest of

southwest India. The Western Ghats forest complex rivals Chitwan for the title of

world’s best tiger habitat and is home to a similar richness of wildlife. Covering

more than 9,000 square miles (24,000 square kilometers,) the conservation landscape includes several protected areas, including Nagarahole National Park and

Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary. Led by Dr. Ullas Karnath of the Wildlife Conservation

Society, the Karnataka Tiger Conservation Project works in these areas in another

Indian subcontinent initiative supported in part by the Save The Tiger Fund for the

past three years. The Karnataka Tiger Conservation Project promotes community

interest in tiger conservation through education programs for local students, teachers, and interested adults. It further focuses on anti-poaching efforts, including

training, providing park protection staff with jeeps for patrolling, and provisioning

front-line forest guards with insurance and new uniforms. These sorts of benefits,

which Americans and Europeans take for granted, help to improve morale of men

whose jobs are dangerous and often lonely.

As is the case almost everywhere in Asia, people ring these protected areas, and

many people actually live within them. About 7,500 landless people live inside the

boundaries of the 644 square kilometer Nagarahole National Park, for instance,

where they lack schools, health care, and other basics. To meet the needs of these

people for a better life, the Karnataka Tiger Conservation Project is assisting in the

voluntary resettlement of 51 families to land outside of the park. If this resettlement goes as expected, many more families will join the exodus from Nagarahole

setting an example for others on the benefits of thoughtful resettlement.

Dr. Karanth also leads efforts to rigorously monitor the numbers of tigers and

prey species in his study sites so progress can be measured. Karanth believes that

‘‘without applying good science it is impossible to evaluate whether the efforts to reverse the tiger’s decline are succeeding or failing.’’ A unique feature of the

Karnataka project is that it is staffed almost entirely by volunteers. ‘‘What it takes

is a number of committed people. And that can’t be bought with money,’’ says

Kararnth. ‘‘Tigers aren’t going to be saved if local people aren’t involved.’’

BUILDING ON SUCCESS

‘‘Daring ideas are like chessmen moved forward; they may be beaten, but they

may start a winning game.’’ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

The Save The Tiger Fund is making a critical difference in the plight of the endangered wild tiger. Seven years ago, the headline was ‘‘Doomed.’’ Last year, the

New York Times’ headline read ‘‘The Tiger. Improbably, It Survives.’’ Where the

Save The Tiger Fund has invested intensely, the tiger’s population is considered stable today. As the STF evolves and grows, .it is positioned to move conservation forward; to secure a long-lasting future for tigers. This prophecy will require an increased commitment to habitat restoration linked with community involvement on

landscape levels; sustained anti-poaching efforts; and sustained underwriting of capacity building and public education. With ExxonMobil’s continued leadership, the

STF will focus increasingly on human infrastructure; entrepreneurial enterprises in

tiger ranges; leadership, education and training. The future calls for investments in

61

people and projects that link tiger conservation to the uplifting of rural communities

in terms of economy, health and education. The results will be well worth the effort.

For example, it is optimistic, but certainly plausible, to set a goal of a doubled tiger

population in the Russian Far East and in Nepal over the next 10 years.

Once predicted as the date of reckoning for the wild tiger, the year 2000 has come

and gone and the tiger remains. So. too, do the forest guards and biologists and

communities who are working together to make the wild tiger worth more alive

than dead; and, equally important, working together to make the lives of villagers

from India to Malaysia to Sumatra to the Russian Far East richer and fuller for

the presence of tigers. In the words of STF Council member Hemanta Mishra: ‘‘We

must invest in conservation solutions that bring smiles and laughter, not frowns

and tears.’’ Our efforts to secure the tiger’s future must be as adaptable as the animal itself. It is tempting to say that the battle to save tigers must be fought on

many fronts. But likening tiger conservation to a battle is to suggest that we can

press for a victory and send the troops home. Securing a future for wild tigers, however, requires pressing to win the short-term skirmishes while committing to constant care and vigilance for the long term. If tigers survive, it will be because the

troops—the people who live with tigers and care enough to save them—are at home.

REFERENCES

Christie, S. 2000. The ZSL/WWF Global Tiger Projects Data base- and interim report to the WWF Global Tiger Conservation Strategy meeting in Anyer, West Java,

September 2000. London: Zoological Society of London. 9 pp.

Dinerstein, E. et al. 1997. A Framework for Identifying High Priority Areas and

Actions for the Conservation of Tigers in the Wild. Washington, DC, World Wildlife

Fund-US with the Wildlife Conservation Society. 72 pp +.

Nowell, K. 2000. Far from a Cure: the Tiger Trade Revisited. Cambridge, UK:

Traffic International. 100 pp.

Seidensticker, J, S. Christie, and P. Jackson, eds. 1999. Riding the Tiger, tiger

conservation in human-dominated landscapes. London: Cambridge University Press.

383 pp.

Tilson, R. 1996. A Tiger White Paper: 1995. Report prepared for Save The Tiger

Fund, Washington, DC: Save The Tiger Fund, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 15 pp.

Tilson, R. P. Nyhus, P. Jackson, H. Quigley, M. Hornocker, J. Ginsberg, D.

Phemister, N. Sherman, and J. Seidensticker, eds. 2000. Securing a Future for the

World’s Wild Tigers, Executive Summary Year of the Tiger Conference. Washington,

DC: Save The Tiger Fund, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 24 pp.

Ward, Geoffrey C. with Diane Raines Ward. 1993. Tiger-Wallahs: encounters with

the men who tried to save the greatest of the great cats. Harper Collins Publishers,

Inc., New York. p. x.

62

63

64

65

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Berry.

Ms. Steuer?

STATEMENT OF KAREN STEUER, DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL

EXPLOITATION AND TRADE PROGRAM, INTERNATIONAL

FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE

Ms. STEUER. Thank you, Congressman. I am pleased to be here

with the Committee again, but I have to tell you sitting on this

side of the dais takes a little bit of getting used to.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is it more interesting on that side of the dais?

[Laughter.]

Ms. STEUER. I am pleased to be here today and to offer testimony

on the reauthorization of these statutes which IFAW believes have

contributed significantly to the conservation of all the species involved.

But at the risk of being a wet blanket, in answer to the Subcommittee’s specific question about the future viability of these species, we are of the view that all of our efforts, including the excellent work being done through the international species conservation funds, may not be enough to save some elephant populations

from crossing over the brink into extinction if we can’t find better,

more effective and cooperative ways of supporting the basic communications and infrastructure needs of nations whose elephant

populations are continuing to fall victim to poaching, habitat destruction, and conflicts with humans.

We think that if the Acts could be improved in any way, in our

view it would be to set top funding priorities for these most basic

of needs, particularly in Western and Central Africa and Southeast

Asia.

Next year, the 152 member nations of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species are going to meet at the

12th Conference of the Parties in Santiago, Chile. Among the items

on the agenda—and there will be hundreds of items on the agenda—will be whether to allow further international trade in elephant ivory. Those supporting more trade will focus on how many

elephants there are in South Africa, Namibia, and Botswana,

where elephants live primarily or in some of those countries entirely on protected and fenced-in lands, and admittedly where populations are doing well, as Congressman Pombo alluded to earlier,

where the populations are healthy and growing.

But this debate and this issue also needs to address the desperate need for additional anti-poaching and enforcement support

in Central and Western Africa, where illusive forest elephants living largely outside of protected areas in some of Africa’s poorest nations may be the most threatened victims of illegal ivory trade.

In countries like the Ivory Coast, Cameroon and Chad where

IFAW has support projects, funds for wildlife conservation and enforcement are so limited that governments are only guessing at the

number of elephants within their borders, let alone how many

might fall victim to the illegal ivory trade every year.

Assisting these countries to communicate and cooperate on conservation efforts, we believe, is critical to ensuring the future of

elephants in Africa. And we believe that the most important takehome message of today’s hearing should be that many of these

66

countries don’t have even the most basic computer equipment and

radio transmitters for their field offices. Yet, we are expecting them

to report poaching incidents to the CITES secretariat on a daily or

timely basis.

They don’t have functional four-wheel-drive vehicles most of the

time, but we are expecting them to find the carcasses of illegally

killed elephants on a timely basis. They don’t have sophisticated

x-ray equipment in their airports and we are expecting them to

find illegal ivory as it leaves the country.

Now, add to these conditions the sheer volume of wildlife trade

in a world where 350 million wild plants and animals are traded

every year, in a market worth $20 billion, 25 percent of which is

illegal trade. It is the second largest illegal trade market in the

world, second only to the illegal drug trade in terms of value. And

without a doubt, it is continuing to have a devastating impact on

the species we are discussing today.

For these reasons, we fully support your efforts to ensure that

each one of these programs receives at least $1 million in appropriated funds in the coming fiscal year, and we would suggest that

when considering top priorities for funding support, the Fish and

Wildlife Service should consider more projects that provide park

rangers, CITES authorities, and customs officials with basic support. In that regard, we would fully support the concept of the language that the Fish and Wildlife Service has put forward today.

Regarding the Rhino-Tiger Act, we would strongly urge that

more funding be provided for desperately needed law enforcement

regarding traditional medicine products. In our view, the steadily

increasing demand for TM products containing powdered rhino

horn and tiger bone represents the current largest threat to these

particular species, and it has disastrous results for more than 80

species in the world that are currently involved in the use of TM.

According to the World Health Organization, more than 80 percent of the world’s population currently relies on some form of traditional medicine for its health care. Yet, there is no regulatory

mechanism that requires TM products in international trade to be

labeled according to species.

In the case of tigers, products may come into this country labeled

‘‘Felis’’ without identifying whether that means tiger bone, leopard

bone, or the bones of a house cat. Conversely, products labeled

‘‘tiger bone’’ may contain no cat products at all.

We would strongly urge the Fish and Wildlife Service to use

some of the funds in the conservation fund to support our efforts

to have the CITES parties require all traditional medicine in international trade to be labeled with contents by species. Not only

would this benefit rhinos and tigers, but dozens of other species as

well, and we think it would be the first major step forward in controlling and enforcing the mostly illegal use of CITES-listed species

in traditional medicine.

I want to thank you for all your efforts on behalf of all these

funds, and I look forward to working further with you and to answering any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Steuer follows:]

67

Statement of Karen Steuer, Director, Commercial Exploitation and Trade

Program, International Fund for Animal Welfare, on H.R. 643, H.R. 645,

and H.R. 700

My name is Karen Steuer and I am the Director of the Commercial Exploitation

and Trade Program for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). IFAW

is a non-profit organization with over two million supporters around the world. Our

global headquarters is in Massachusetts, and we have offices in Australia, China,

Japan, Russia, Germany, France, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Canada,

Belgium, Kenya, South Africa, Mexico, and in Washington.

IFAW’s mission is to work to improve the welfare of wild and domestic animals

throughout the world by reducing commercial exploitation of animals, protecting

wildlife habitats, and assisting animals in distress. IFAW seeks to motivate the public to prevent cruelty to animals and to promote animal welfare and conservation

policies that advance the well being of both animals and people.

I am pleased to be here today and to offer testimony on the reauthorization of

the Asian Elephant Conservation Act; the African Elephant Conservation Act; and

the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The Subcommittee’s letter specifically

requested our views on the impact of the conservation funds; the future viability of

the species involved; whether the law has encouraged additional international conservation efforts; and whether the laws should be amended. Those are fair questions, without easy answers.

IFAW is a strong supporter of both the African and Asian Elephant Conservation

Acts. I believe we are in a fair position to evaluate their effectiveness in that, rather

than receive government funding for our own elephant conservation programs, we

have traditionally assisted governments in their conservation needs. None of our

funding has come from government sources. In addition, we have offices or partner

organizations in the regions most affected by these statutes, all of which are staffed

entirely by nationals of the region, including former park rangers and law enforcement specialists Do we believe these two statutes contribute significantly to elephant conservation and encourage additional conservation efforts? Absolutely. IFAW

has jointly funded several of the projects that were also assisted by the funds established under these laws. For example, the African Elephant Conservation Fund and

IFAW are the two top sources of funding for the Cornell University Bioacoustics Research Program of acoustic monitoring of forest elephants in the Central African Republic.

In addition, we have supported or conducted programs that further the work or

intent of these statutes. While the African Elephant Conservation Fund has supported post-war rehabilitation of the infrastructure of the Reserve de Faune d’Okapi

in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, IFAW has supported ranger relief efforts

for the war-torn Kahuzi-Biega Park, a World Heritage Site in the Congo which contains forest elephants, lowland gorillas, and one of the few remaining populations

of bonobos on the planet.

In answer to the Subcommittee’s question about the future viability of these species, IFAW is of the view that all of our efforts, including the excellent work done

through the international species conservation funds, may not be enough to save

many wild elephant populations from crossing over the brink into extinction if we

cannot find more effective ways of supporting the basic communications and infrastructure needs of nations whose elephant populations continue to fall victim to

poaching, habitat destruction, and conflicts with humans. If the acts could be improved in any way, in our view it would be to set top funding priorities for these

most basic of needs, particularly in Western and Central Africa and Southeast Asia

Next year, in November of 2002, the 152 member nations of the Convention on

International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) will meet at the 12th Conference of the Parties in Santiago, Chile. Among the hundreds of items on the agenda will be a decision on whether to allow further opening of the international trade

in elephant ivory. Those supporting more trade will focus the debate on how many

elephants there are in South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia, where elephants live

primarily on protected fenced lands, and populations appear to be healthy and growing.

But the debate should also focus on how many elephants have managed to survive

the ravages of civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where both rebel

forces and government troops kill them for their meat and ivory. It should focus on

the rangers throughout Africa and Asia who gave their lives in the ivory wars of

the 1980’s and the rangers who continue to lose their lives in gun battles with

poachers today.

The debate should address the desperate need for additional research, anti-poaching and enforcement support in Central and Western Africa, where elusive forest

68

elephants, living largely outside of protected areas in some of Africa’s poorest nations, may be the most threatened victims of the illegal ivory trade. In countries like

the Ivory Coast, Cameroon, and Chad, funds for wildlife conservation and enforcement are so limited that governments are unable to do more than guess at the number of elephants that live within their borders, let alone be able to accurately estimate how many of those animals may fall victim to illegal ivory trade each year.

Assisting these countries to communicate and to cooperate on conservation efforts

is critical to ensuring the future of elephants in Africa. Through the Game Rangers

Association of Africa, IFAW recently sponsored 34 delegates from 17 African nations

to attend the International Ranger Federation Third World Congress held in South

Africa. One of the most positive outcomes of the conference was an agreement

among African rangers, the Game Rangers Association, and the International Ranger Federation to establish local ranger associations. IFAW will be assisting those associations in purchasing computers so they can communicate with each other and

with the outside world.

Mr. Chairman, we believe the important take-home message should be that many

of these countries do not have even the most basic computer equipment and radio

transmitters for their field offices and ranger stations, yet we expect them to report

poaching incidents to the CITES Secretariat on a timely basis. They do not have

functional four-wheel drive vehicles much of the time, yet we expect them to find

the carcasses of illegally killed elephants. They do not have sophisticated X-ray

equipment in their airports, but we expect them to find ivory leaving the country

illegally. These are the conditions under which these countries must operate.

Now add to these conditions the sheer volume of wildlife trade in a world where

350 million wild animals and plants are bought and sold each year. That represents

a market worth more than $20 billion. It has been estimated that approximately

25 percent of this trade is illegal: a black market second only to the illegal drug

trade in terms of dollar value. Without a doubt, this trade continues to have a devastating impact on the species we are discussing today.

For these reasons, IFAW urges the Members of the Resources Committee to work

with the Appropriations Committee to ensure that each of these programs receives

$1 million in appropriated funds in the coming fiscal year. And I would suggest that

when considering projects for funding support, the Fish and Wildlife Service should

give top priority not to proposals that promote sustainable use, as the Act currently

states, but to proposals that provide the greatest amount of immediate aid to those

countries whose elephants are the most threatened, and to consider more projects

that provide park rangers, CITES authorities, and customs officials with support.

In the end, the survival of many elephant populations in Asia and Africa may depend entirely on successful law enforcement.

In that regard, IFAW would like to continue to work with the Fish and Wildlife

Service to support worthy projects which the African and Asian Elephant Funds are

unable to support; to partner with the Service to provide the additional funding or

logistical support necessary to get projects off the ground; and to work with the Fish

and Wildlife Service, the CITES Secretariat, and other governments to support law

enforcement, ranger training, and customs training programs. We would also urge

more support from the Asian Elephant Conservation Fund for programs in China,

where IFAW is working with the Beijing Normal University and local communities

surrounding the Cai Yang He Nature Reserve to resolve conflicts between human

populations and the last remaining 200 wild elephants in China.

Regarding the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act, we would strongly urge

that funding be provided not only for onsite conservation programs, but for desperately needed law enforcement and consumer education efforts regarding traditional medicine products. In our view, the steadily increasing demand for traditional

medicines (TM) containing powdered rhino horn and tiger bone represents the No.

1 threat to the survival of these species. In addition, the shortage of tiger bone for

TM has led to a growing demand for powdered bone from other wild cats, representing a new threat to other endangered species such as the leopard.

According to the World Health Organization, more than 80 percent of the world’s

population relies on some form of traditional medicine for their primary method of

health care. This steadily growing global market is largely unregulated and

unmonitored, with sometimes disastrous results for the more than 80 species worldwide that are currently used in TM. Some conservationists are now calling traditional medicine a leading cause of endangerment, affecting species ranging from

snakes and tortoises to deer, as well as tigers and rhinos.

There is currently no regulatory mechanism that requires TM products in international trade to be labeled according to species. In the case of tigers, products may

be labeled as containing Felis without identifying whether that means tiger bone,

69

leopard bone, or the bones of a common domestic cat. Conversely, products may be

labeled as Tiger bone and contain no cat products whatsoever.

This is an issue of concern not only for rhinos and tigers but for many other species as well. For example, dried processed TM products may be labeled as containing

musk without having to identify whether the musk is the natural product of the

musk deer, or synthetic. Musk deer are currently listed on either Appendix I of

CITES, which does not permit international trade, or on Appendix II, which allows

limited trade. In recent years, the US and other nations have attempted to transfer

those musk deer populations currently on Appendix II to Appendix I due to growing

concerns about the impact of the musk trade on deer populations in Russia, Mongolia, and China. To date, those efforts have failed in part because we simply cannot

account for the balance of natural versus synthetic musk in global trade. Accurate

labeling would help us to achieve that.

While the 1998 revisions to the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act addressed the

problem of enforcement related to products labeled as tiger bone, regardless of their

actual contents, it did not address the problem of products labeled in a more general

manner, or not labeled with species identification in any way. At the most recent

Conference of the CITES Parties in Nairobi last April, a document was presented

by the CITES Secretariat expressing ongoing concerns, which IFAW shares, regarding the impact of TM on CITES-listed species. We would therefore strongly urge the

Fish and Wildlife Service to support our efforts to have the CITES Parties require

all traditional medicines in international trade to be labeled with contents by species, using standard scientific names. Not only would this benefit rhinos and tigers,

but dozens of other species. We believe it would be the first major step forward in

controlling and enforcing the use of CITES-listed species in traditional medicine.

To further these efforts, IFAW’s China office is working with TM practitioners in

China to find alternatives to the use of threatened wildlife species, and our U.K.

office recently partnered with the British government to support a similar project

in the U.K., where TM use has increased by 70 percent over the last five years. In

the United States, TM use has grown by 280 percent in the past decade, making

the U.S. the second largest user of traditional medicine products in the world. Here

we have been working with TM suppliers in California to create vendor associations

or use existing associations that would establish certification standards for their

products. Those standards would include voluntarily submitting their products to

the California Department of Health, working cooperatively with the inter-agency

Herbal Task Force, to ensure their products contain no protected wildlife species.

As you know, the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act contains a requirement that

efforts be made to educate the public regarding alternatives for traditional medicine

products. IFAW is currently in discussions with the Fish and Wildlife Service to

jointly produce an educational point-of-sale brochure for consumers discouraging the

use of wildlife products in traditional medicine. IFAW supports these efforts by the

Fish and Wildlife Service to work in cooperation with the TM communities, and

would encourage the continuation of this outreach program.

I wish I could report optimistically on the future viability of rhino and tiger populations around the world. But poaching and illegal trade continue to take a huge

toll on these species. All five species of rhinos are listed on Appendix I of CITES,

and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature lists four of the five as

critically endangered. The black rhino (Diceros bicornis), estimated to number

14,785 animals in 1980, is now down to about 2,800 animals in widely scattered

populations. The southern white rhino (Ceratotherium simum) currently numbers

over 8,000, following strong conservation efforts by South Africa. The great Indian

rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis) is holding at 2,000 animals. The two southeast Asian

species are in far worse shape, with the Sumatran rhino (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis)

estimated at only 270 animals in 1995, and the Javan rhino (Rhinoceros sondaicus)

now extinct in most of its former range, and estimated at 75 animals in 1995. We

expect the Javan rhino to become extinct in the wild by the time my 7-year-old

daughter is old enough to spell rhinoceros.

All five remaining subspecies of tigers are also listed on CITES Appendix I. I

want to emphasize the word remaining, since three subspecies the Caspian tiger,

the Javan tiger, and the Bali tiger have gone extinct in the last 60 years, and the

South China tiger now numbers fewer than two dozen animals and is likely to become extinct within the next few years. The world’s approximately 5,000 remaining

tigers are subject to poaching and illegal trade throughout their range every day.

As with the two elephant funds, we would like to see increases in support for

basic infrastructure and law enforcement needs. Russian customs officials and park

rangers have told us that the broad, largely unpatrolled expanse of the border between China and Russia has resulted in an ongoing illegal trade of Siberian tiger

pelts and bone from Russia’s Far East into China. We believe that Russia’s CITES

70

officials and park rangers are certainly willing to conduct better law enforcement

operations along this border, but lack the necessary financial support, basic equipment, or even species identification manuals. Much of the support reaching those

border guards is currently coming from non-governmental organizations, including

IFAW. Assistance from the Fish and Wildlife Service, either through the Rhino and

Tiger Conservation Fund, or through other training programs, would be extremely

helpful in curbing this smuggling.

In closing, I would like to thank those members of the Committee, particularly

Chairman Gilchrest and Congressman Saxton, who have been so supportive of these

statutes over the decade since the African Elephant Conservation Fund was first enacted. Your dedication to these species and to the many others protected under the

U.S. Endangered Species Act and its international programs has been a critical factor in providing assistance to important conservation efforts around the world. I

would be happy to answer any questions you or the other Committee members may

have.

[Ms. Steuer’s responses to written questions submitted for the

record follow:]

71

72

73

74

75

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Ms. Steuer.

Dr. Robinson?

STATEMENT OF JOHN ROBINSON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT

AND DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY

Dr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Chairman Gilchrest and members of

the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to comment on the reauthorization of these Acts.

I am John Robinson, Senior Vice President and Director of International Conservation for the Wildlife Conservation Society, which

was founded in 1895 as the New York Zoological Society. WCS conserves wildlife and wild lands throughout the world, as well as

managing animal collections at the Bronx Zoo and other living institutions in the New York area. Given a long history of field conservation, with nearly 300 field projects in 50 countries throughout

the Americas, Asia, and Africa, we have a keen interest in all three

pieces of legislation.

WCS would like to thank the Subcommittee, Chairman Gilchrest

and Congressman Saxton, for recognizing the need and urgency to

provide additional support for wildlife protection in lands beyond

our borders. Animals like rhinos, elephants and tigers are culturally important to us Americans and to people around the world,

and their conservation is a global priority.

Unfortunately, there is a need for active conservation of these

species. All five species of rhino are under siege, with estimated

populations of 100 for the Javan rhino and somewhere around

10,000 for the white rhino, but even there with no guarantee of

continued survival.

With the African elephant, the concern is not about numbers, but

for the potential for decline. The dramatic decline in numbers in

the 1970’s and 1980’s was halted by vigorous conservation action,

including the ivory trade ban, but recent increases in hunting for

ivory and bush meat threaten the stability of these populations.

With the Asian elephant, the situation is even more severe, with

less than 50,000 wild Asian elephants remaining, fully half of

which occur in India. In Vietnam, China, and much of Laos and

Cambodia, populations have declined to the point of near extinction.

Tiger numbers are at perilously low levels, with a global population certainly less than 10,000. India remains a stronghold for

tigers, and strong U.S. Government support in the past has been

critical in shoring up those populations. Tigers have vanished from

most of Indochina and are critically threatened throughout Southeast Asia.

This summary is not to say that these species are inevitably declining toward extinction. White and Indian rhino are recovering.

Many populations of tiger, elephants and rhinoceros have stabilized. In the Russian Far East, with consistent U.S. Government

support, tiger populations have stabilized at something under 100

individuals, and there are indications of further recovery. These

changes have been brought about through conservation action, and

programs supported by the Acts under discussion have been critical.

76

The existing grant programs for tigers, rhinos and elephants

have been enormously successful. Because these programs are nonbureaucratically and efficiently run through the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and provide timely, direct financial support and leverage to high-priority field efforts, we therefore encourage the use

of similar operational mechanisms for the administration of future

appropriations, though I would note parenthetically that the existing caps on administration are probably too low.

The impacts of these programs on the conservation of these species has been real and significant, especially in the light of catastrophic civil war and social unrest that many of the range states

have had to grapple with over the last 10 years.

The leadership provided by the U.S. Government has stimulated

action from the international community to conserve these species.

For instance, the initiative to monitor the illegal killing of elephants initially supported by the United States has now received

significant support from the European Union. National governments of the range states of these species are increasingly investing their own scarce resources in conservation efforts, although I

would underline the comments of my colleague to the right.

The support provided by the U.S. Government has underscored

the importance of these endeavors, and allowed conservation organizations like WCS to secure additional private and philanthropic

support for the conservation of these species.

The Wildlife Conservation Society is strongly supportive of conservation strategies that focus on individual species, and this Subcommittee has heard previous testimony from the Society at hearings last year on the Keystone Species Conservation Act and the

Great Ape Conservation Act. We know that species-based approaches are appropriate on scientific grounds, rational and administrative grounds, and effective on the ground. The public can relate to charismatic species more easily than they can to the conservation of biological communities and ecosystems.

We would recommend the Subcommittee to move swiftly on these

bills. We strongly recommend the reauthorization of these three

Acts. Funding these bills has been a sound investment of tax dollars. We, together with a number of other conservation NGO’s,

strongly recommend increasing funding of these bills. Annual appropriations of at least $1.5 million for each bill in Fiscal Year

2002 must surely be considered a minimum. We strongly recommend that these funds remain flexible in the range of conservation activities for which they can be used.

The very survival of species like rhinos, elephants and tigers

rests in the hands of our generation. Given the enormity of this responsibility and the urgency of the need for increased conservation,

we therefore urge the Subcommittee and the Congress as a whole

to act quickly and positively on the reauthorization of these Acts.

I thank you again for the opportunity to comment and I would

be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Robinson follows:]

77

Statement of Dr. John G. Robinson, Senior Vice President and Director,

International Conservation, Wildlife Conservation Society, on H.R. 643,

H.R. 645, and H.R. 700

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the African Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act,

the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Reauthorization Act, and the Asian Elephant Conservation Act . I am here today to represent the views of the Wildlife Conservation Society, founded in 1895 as the New York Zoological Society, a 105-year

old US-based membership organization. The Wildlife Conservation Society conserves

wildlife and wild lands throughout the world, as well as managing animal collections at the Bronx Zoo and other living institutions in the New York area. Given

a long history of field conservation and the largest professional field staff of any

international conservation organization—with nearly 300 field projects throughout

the Americas, Asia, and Africa we have a keen interest in all three pieces of legislation.

The Wildlife Conservation Society would like to thank the Subcommittee, Chairman Gilchrest and Congressman Saxton for recognizing the need and urgency, expressed in all three bills, to provide additional support for wildlife protection in

lands beyond our own borders. These bills reflect the importance that American citizens place on conserving the wild, wonderful, inspiring creatures of this earth. Animals like rhinoceros, elephants, and tigers are culturally important to us Americans

and to people around the world, and their conservation is a global responsibility.

Their loss would be a diminution of our biological richness, our natural heritage,

and our own spirits.

Unfortunately, there is a need for active conservation of rhinoceros, elephants and

tigers. All five species of rhinoceros are under siege. The Javan and Sumatran species of rhino are critically endangered and their numbers continue to dwindle, a situation not helped by the political instability in Southeast Asia. In Africa, numbers

of the formerly numerous black rhino have declined from perhaps 65,000 in 1970

to about 2,500 today, and the species has been extirpated over large areas of Africa.

This decline continues: We have recently learned that the famous and well-known

population of black rhinos in the Ngorongoro Crater of Tanzania is now almost gone.

The news is better for the white rhino and the Indian rhino, whose numbers have

increased substantially during this century, but even for these species the total

world populations are only in the low thousands, and their continued survival is not

guaranteed.

Population numbers of elephants are much greater. Here the concern is with the

decline in numbers. For the African elephant, the dramatic decline in numbers from

about 1.2 million to 600,000 in the 1980’s was halted by vigorous conservation action, including the ivory trade ban. Numbers over the last few decades have been

more stable, but recently an increase in hunting for ivory trade and for bushmeat

is affecting populations in many parts of Africa. For the Asian elephant the situation is far more severe. There are less than 50,000 wild Asian elephants remaining,

fully half of which are found in India. In Vietnam, China, and much of Laos and

Cambodia, populations have declined to the point of near extinction. In Southeast

Asia, habitat loss and hunting continue to threaten fragmented populations.

Tiger numbers are at perilously low levels, with a global population certainly less

than 10,000. India remains a stronghold for tigers, and strong U.S. Government

support in the past has been critical in shoring up populations. Future support

should not be linked to geopolitical issues if at all possible. Tigers have vanished

from most of Indochina and are critically threatened in Southeast Asia. The situation however is not universally bleak. In the Russian Far East, with consistent U.S.

Government support, tiger populations have stabilized at something under 500 individuals, and there are indications of further recovery. A recent workshop, sponsored

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, brought together government officials from

both China and Russia in an effort to expand cross boundary protected areas and

address poaching threats.

Nevertheless, despite the threats to these species, conservation action is changing,

and can change the situation. We congratulate you on bringing these bills up for

reauthorization. As you have clearly recognized, the existing grant programs for tigers, rhinoceroses, and Asian and African elephants have been enormously successful. Because these programs are non-bureaucratically and efficiently run through

the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and provide timely direct financial support and leverage to high priority field efforts, we therefore encourage the use of similar operational mechanisms for administration of future appropriations.

The impacts on these programs and the conservation of these species has been

real and significant. The accomplishments are all the more impressive when one

78

considers that many of the range states have had to grapple with catastrophic civil

war and social unrest during the last 10 years. The Wildlife Conservation Society

is proud to have been a partner in many of the projects supported through these

programs.

The leadership provided by the U.S. Government has stimulated actions from the

international community to conserve these species. For instance, the initiative to

monitor the illegal killing of elephants, initially supported by the United States, has

now received significant support from the European Union. National governments

of the range states of these species are increasingly investing their own scarce resources in conservation efforts. And the support provided by the U.S. Government

has underscored the importance of these endeavors, and allowed organizations like

the Wildlife Conservation Society to secure additional private and philanthropic

support for the conservation of rhinoceros, elephants and tigers.

The Wildlife Conservation Society is strongly supportive of conservation strategies

that focus on individual species, and this subcommittee has heard previous testimony from Richard Lattis and Dr. Amy Vedder at hearings last year on the Keystone Species Conservation Act and the Great Ape Conservation Act. We recognize

that the conservation of individual species is a concern that the public can relate

to more easily than they can to the conservation of biological communities or ecosystems. And we also know that species-based approaches are appropriate on scientific grounds, rational on administrative grounds, and effective on the ground.

The Wildlife Conservation Society, for instance, focuses considerable conservation

effort on a set of species known as Landscape Species . These are species, like rhinoceros, elephant and tiger, that use large, ecologically diverse areas and often have

significant impacts on the structure and function of natural ecosystems. Their requirements in space and time make landscape species particularly susceptible to

human alteration and use of their habitats, and these species are among the most

rapidly vanishing elements of biodiversity worldwide. Yet a conservation strategy

that focuses on the conservation of this set of species is responsible, efficient, and

cost-effective.

• Conservation of landscape species, because of their large area requirements, secure the conservation needs of many other species, species assemblages, and

larger-scale ecological processes;

• The use of a small set of selected species to achieve a broader set of conservation

goals is highly efficient;

• The important functional role of landscape species provides a way to link species

to landscapes and vice versa in functional ways;

• Landscape species provide a cost-effective way to achieve a significant set of conservation goals in the face of the challenge of addressing multiply threatened

species and communities, and the difficulty in adequately understanding highly

complex ecosystems and landscapes in a timely fashion.

We would therefore urge the Subcommittee to move swiftly on these bills:

We strongly recommend that reauthorization of the African Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act, the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act, and the Asian

Elephant Conservation Act. Funding these bills has been a sound investment of tax

dollars.

We, together with a number of other conservation NGO’s, strongly recommend increased funding of these bills. Annual appropriations of at least $1.5 million for each

in Fiscal Year 2002 must surely be considered a minimum.

We strongly recommend that these funds remain flexible in the range of conservation activities for which they can be used, including but not limited to, research,

monitoring, planning, training, conservation education and on-the-ground implementation.

The very survival of species like rhinoceros, elephant and tiger rests in the hands

of our generation. How much poorer would our world be without these animals, and

what accountability will we be held to by our children, and by our children’s children if they were to vanish? Given the enormity of this responsibility, and the urgency of the need for increased conservation, we therefore urge the Subcommittee

and the Congress as a whole to act quickly and positively on the reauthorization

of these acts.

I thank you again for the opportunity to comment and to work with you on these

bills. I would be happy to answer any questions.

[Mr. Robinson’s responses to written questions submitted for the

record follow:]

79

Responses from Dr. John Robinson, Senior Vice President and Director,

International Conservation of the Wildlife Conservation Society, to Additional Questions from Mr. Faleomavaega, March 29, 2001.

Question 1: Would you please explain how this concept is distinguished from other

management schemes based upon geographic units, such as by watersheds or by

drainage basins?

The landscape species approach uses the biology of certain species, landscape species, to map the area over which populations must be managed. Just as watersheds

may be the most relevant units for management of pollution or water development,

wildlife conservation requires ecologically relevant units in which to manage populations. This is necessary because wildlife do not recognize political boundaries and

often move between watersheds, land parcels, or other units. Their conservation requires management across these boundaries. This is particularly true for landscape

species, which range widely and use a variety of habitat types. By characterizing

their movements and identifying the requirements of healthy populations, we identify the resources, and thus the area, to be managed for their effective conservation.

Not surprisingly, the boundaries and management units identified by this process

often differ from those prescribed by other management schemes focusing on jurisdictional boundaries, land use units, drainages or watersheds.

Question 2: How does the conservation of landscape species enable or promote the

conservation of biodiversity more broadly?

Abundant field data demonstrate that wide-ranging species are more likely to be

extirpated from protected areas (national parks, reserves, wildlife sanctuaries, etc.).

Meeting the spatial requirements of wide-ranging species provides sufficient space

for other, less widely ranging species, a process known as an umbrella function. The

landscape species approach takes this strategy one step further. Most notably, landscape species require large areas and a diversity of habitat types. This means that

conservation planning must incorporate multiple habitat types, and that these must

be effectively connected. Therefore, conserving landscape species provides an even

wider umbrella. This will not only lead to lasting protection for other species; it will

ensure that the ecological processes maintaining healthy ecosystems are allowed

continue.

Question 3: Under a landscape species scenario, what is the involvement with indigenous human populations? Does the implementation of such a scenario impose

greater operations and administrative burdens on range states?

The landscape species approach provides a framework for integrating human use

and wildlife conservation. By clearly identifying and mapping the requirements of

landscape species, the approach provides unambiguous criteria for recognizing conflicts as well as conservation-compatible activities. This helps land managers to

focus conservation action on key conflicts, rather than categorically opposing all

human activities. Consequently, indigenous populations are able to continue sustainable use of wild areas. Our expectation is that this more focused approach will

actually reduce the management burden on range states and minimize conflicts with

indigenous people.

Question 4: Some critics allege that landscape species conservation only diverts

more and more funding to charismatic megafauna, and only serves to siphon scarce

conservation dollars away from other deserving wildlife, especially non-game threatened and endangered species. Is this a fare criticism or do conservation efforts for

these landscape species benefit the ecosystem at large?

Landscape species are not simply charismatic megafauna. They are selected based

on ecological criteria specifically designed to maximize the umbrella function mentioned above (question 2). This is an effective strategy for biodiversity conservation

as it conserves healthy populations and functioning ecosystems.

In some cases large charismatic species may be selected as landscape species, but

in many cases they are not. In the sites where this approach has been developed,

landscape species range from a 20 gram hummingbird to forest elephants. In fact,

most are non-game species and many are threatened or endangered. Because the

approach is focused on key threats, it allocates conservation resources more efficiently than crisis-driven conservation strategies. Ultimately, this will free-up scarce

conservation resources for other sites or ecosystems.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Dr. Robinson.

Mr. Kirtland, welcome.

80

STATEMENT OF JOHN KIRTLAND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR

ANIMAL STEWARDSHIP, FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., AND

FOUNDER, RINGLING BROTHERS CENTER FOR ELEPHANT

CONSERVATION

Mr. KIRTLAND. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the

Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today

in support of H.R. 700, the Asian Elephant Conservation Act.

My name is John Kirtland and I am the Executive Director of

Animal Stewardship for Feld Entertainment, Incorporated, which

is the producer of Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey, and

the founder of Ringling Brothers’ Center for Elephant Conservation, both of which I will collectively refer to as Ringling Brothers.

Ringling Brothers strongly endorses H.R. 700. The need for and

value of such a program cannot be denied. Even though the Asian

Elephant Conservation Act is still relatively new and to date has

received only modest funding, the contribution it has made and will

continue to make toward the long-term survival of the Asian elephant is invaluable.

Ringling Brothers veterinarians, trainers and other specialists

are among the leading experts in animal care and behavior, and

nowhere is this more true that in the case of elephants. Consequently, Ringling Brothers has a long-established commitment to

the conservation of the Asian elephant and other endangered species.

In 1995, Ringling Brothers established the Center for Elephant

Conservation, known as the CEC, to help assure the present and

future well-being of the Asian elephant species. The CEC provides

a safe and healthy environment in which elephants feel secure and

comfortable enough to breed. In its five-year existence, there have

been 10 births at the facility, and we are currently expecting the

birth of a new calf any day. Additionally, there are four more confirmed pregnancies. Ringling Brothers’ elephants constitute the

largest and most diverse Asian elephant gene pool outside of

Southeast Asia.

The CEC is also actively engaged in an elephant exchange program with several zoos throughout the country. This will enable us

to strengthen and diversify not only the CEC’s gene pool, but also

that of the United States as a whole. Moreover, every successful

breeding brings us a little closer to being able to improve the propagation of captive elephants and of wild populations in their range

states. With its unparalleled database, the CEC has become a global focal point for the worldwide study of Asian elephant behavior

and reproduction, and the site for some of the most important research done on Asian elephants.

Ringling Brothers has also helped to finance the Mahout Training School in Lampang, Thailand. This school is a residential program that trains Asian elephant handlers in humane and skilled

treatment and care, and also rehabilitates elephants that have become dangerous and uncontrollable as the result of mistreatment

and abuse. The school’s comprehensive approach, encompassing

training of both humans and elephants, has led to significant improvements to the well-being and continued survival of domestic

Asian elephants.

81

It is no secret that Asian elephants inhabit some of the most

densely populated regions of the world, meaning that elephants

and people are in direct competition for the same resources. The

AECA emphasizes remedies that address human/elephant conflict

resolution, and assists initiatives in Asian elephant range states by

providing financial resources for these programs that directly or indirectly promote the conservation of Asian elephants and their

habitats.

Working with relatively modest funds, the Asian Elephant Conservation Fund has been able to contribute to an impressive number of research and conservation projects. Grants under the Fund

often focus on projects that directly support and promote wild elephant management practices. Funding is also available for research and other projects that address the use of domesticated elephants, as such use relates to the conservation of Asian elephants

in the wild.

Many of these projects also involve funding from local and international non-government agencies such as the International Elephant Foundation. This private foundation is a collaborative effort

of Ringling Brothers, the Fort Worth, Columbus and Indianapolis

Zoos, and other groups to support and operate in situ elephant conservation and protection projects. It is also involved in and supports propagation and other programs involving domestic elephant

populations around the world.

There is, of course, much more that can and should be done. Full

funding of the amount authorized for the Fund would significantly

enhance the beneficial impacts of the AECA. Changes in the implementation of CITES to facilitate international breeding programs

would be of immeasurable value, and the range states still need to

do more themselves to protect the elephants and their habitats.

Nonetheless, the AECA has made a valuable contribution toward

the preservation of this species and should be continued. The need

for the AECA remain unchanged from when it was established just

a few years ago. The threats to Asian elephants and their habitat,

both direct and indirect, remains perilous. The Asian Elephant

Conservation Fund continues to be a necessary and vital tool for

ensuring the survival of this magnificent animal.

Ringling Brothers, along with the other groups here today, remain as committed as ever to doing what we can to help, but this

is an international problem and the small amount from private

sources cannot satisfactorily address the overwhelming and urgent

need. The Asian Elephant Conservation Act provides the additional

assistance that those of us working to protect the Asian elephant

desperately need to ensure its survival.

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kirtland follows:]

Statement of John Kirtland, Executive Director for Animal Stewardship,

Feld Entertainment, Inc., Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey and the

Founder of Ringling Bros. Center for Elephant Conservation, on H.R. 700

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is John Kirtland. I

am the Executive Director for Animal Stewardship for Feld Entertainment, Inc.,

which is the producer of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey and the founder of

the Ringling Bros. Center for Elephant Conservation, both of which I will collectively refer to as Ringling Bros. I am testifying in support of H.R. 700, the Asian

Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act.

82

Ringling Bros. strongly endorses H.R. 700. The Asian Elephant Conservation

Fund has only recently begun to have a tangible presence. Yet the need for and

value of such a program can’t be denied. Even though it is still relatively new and

to date it has received only modest funding, the contribution it has made and will

continue to make toward the long-term survival of this species is invaluable.

Introduction

Ringling Bros. embodies 131 years of experience working with Asian elephants

and other exotic animals. Our veterinarians, trainers and other specialists are

among the leading experts in animal care and behavior and nowhere is this more

true than in the case of elephants. These magnificent animals are today and have

always been an integral part of the circus experience. Not only have they entertained generations of families, but their presence in the live performances has done

so much to teach us all about elephants, their place in the natural world and the

need to ensure their survival. As a result, Ringling Bros. has a long-established

commitment to the conservation of the Asian elephant and other endangered species.

In the mid-1990’s this commitment saw its two most significant events, the establishment of the Ringling Bros. Center for Elephant Conservation and the passage

of the Asian Elephant Conservation Act. I am proud to say Ringling Bros. was

among the earliest and leading proponents of this legislation, along with several of

the other groups testifying here today. Thanks to our collective work and the tireless efforts of a number of Members of Congress, including several from this very

Subcommittee, the AECA was enacted and a mechanism was put in place to address

the desperate needs of this species.

Ringling Bros. Center for Elephant Conservation (CEC)

While Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey is known worldwide as a leading live

entertainment entity, the December 1995 opening of its Center for Elephant Conservation, known as the CEC , grew out of one of its more serious missions: to assure the present and future well-being of the Asian elephant species.

The CEC is located in Polk County Florida and is the most comprehensive facility

of its kind. It incorporates experience and expertise gained from 131 years of traveling and working closely with Asian elephants and other exotic animals on tour.

Ringling Bros. personnel know how to interact with the animals and how to keep

them healthy, comfortable and well nourished. This unique experience and understanding was used in determining facility features ranging from the size and configuration of paddock areas and buildings to the design of innovative gate systems,

drinking troughs, shading areas and other amenities.

Ringling Bros . century of hands-on experience caring for Asian elephants has provided valuable insights in many areas of elephant husbandry, such as diet, waste

removal, grooming and transportation of the animals. A familiarity with and respect

for the lifestyle of breeding elephants was a determining factor in the selection of

the secluded Florida site, as well as the CEC’s selective visitation policy.

The CEC provides a safe, healthy environment in which the elephants feel secure

and comfortable enough to breed. The births of Romeo and Juliette in 1992 and

1993 marked the first successful Asian elephant conceptions and births in the Ringling Bros. breeding program, and they were only the beginning. We have celebrated

two more births, bringing the total since the CEC’s opening to 10. Currently we are

expecting the birth of a new calf any day and have four more confirmed pregnancies.

As a result, the herd at the CEC, together with the approximately 40 elephants currently traveling with the two touring units of The Greatest Show on Earth , constitute the largest Asian elephant gene pool outside of Southeast Asia.

The CEC is also actively engaged in a breeding loan/exchange program with several zoos around the country. This will enable us to strengthen and diversify not

only the CEC’s gene pool, but also that of the United States as whole. Moreover,

every successful breeding brings us a little closer to being able to improve the propagation of captive elephants and wild populations of elephants in their range states.

In order to ensure the greatest benefit to the species, Ringling Bros. is firmly committed to ensuring that the knowledge and experience gained at the CEC is shared

with interested veterinarians, scientists and scholars from around the world. With

its unparalleled data base, the CEC has become a global focal point for the worldwide study of Asian elephant behavior and reproduction and the site for some of

the most important research done on Asian elephants. Exhibit A to my testimony

consists of a synopsis of the various research projects that are underway at the

CEC. The knowledge and understanding gained from these and the other work of

the CEC will go a long way in advancing this multi-nation conservation effort.

83

Ringling Bros. has also helped to finance the Mahout Training School in

Lampang, Thailand. The Mahout Training School trains mahouts, Asian elephant

handlers, in humane and skilled elephant treatment and care. The school is a residential program that teaches the humane Northern Thai techniques for riding, controlling and caring for elephants. Since its establishment, the school has successfully

trained mahouts from numerous regions of the world, including Thailand, Malaysia,

Sumatra, Indonesia, Africa and the West. The school also rehabilitates elephants

that have become dangerous and uncontrollable as a result of mistreatment and

abuse. Through the use of consistent and humane treatment at the school, the elephants become safe and employable, thereby increasing their chances of survival.

The school’s comprehensive approach encompassing training of both the mahouts

and the elephants has led to significant improvements to the well-being and continued survival of captive Asian elephants.

Asian Elephant Conservation Fund

As this Subcommittee is no doubt aware, the Asian elephant has been and is increasingly in grave danger of extinction. In 1997, the surviving populations in the

wild were found in south and southeast Asia and numbered between 35,000 and

45,000. In addition, there are approximately 16,000 domesticated elephants. The

Asian elephant is currently listed as Endangered under the United States Endangered Species Act, the IUCN Red List of Mammals and on Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora,

known as CITES. The Asian Elephant Conservation Act, known as AECA, was

passed by Congress in 1997. The AECA reflects what is now a universally accepted

concept: that, in order to preserve this or any endangered species, the effort must

focus on the area’s of the world that provide the species natural habitat.

Asian elephants inhabit some of the most densely populated areas of the world.

The ever-increasing pressures created by the exponential growth of human populations on natural habitats in the form of encroachment by human populations and

forest clearance for large-scale agricultural crops has resulted in a dramatic loss of

forest cover. This, in turn, has meant that elephants and people are in direct competition for the same resources everywhere.

The AECA emphasizes remedies that address human/elephant conflict resolution

and assists initiatives in Asian elephant range states by providing financial resources for those programs that directly or indirectly promote the conservation of

Asian elephants and their habitats. Working with relatively modest funds, a little

over $1 million to date, the Asian Elephant Conservation Fund has been able to contribute to an impressive number of research and conservation projects. Grants

under the fund often focus on projects that directly support and promote wild elephant management practices. Such projects include: (a) monitoring population

trends of known populations; (b) assessing movement and ranging patterns of

known populations; (c) developing management plans for managed elephant ranges;

(d) resettlement of elephants; (e) anti-poaching assistance; and, (h) range state community outreach and education. Funding is also available for research and other

projects that address use of domesticated elephants as such use relates to the conservation of Asian elephants in the wild.

Many of these projects also involve funding from local and international non-government entities like World Wildlife Fund and Wildlife Preservation Trust International. Another such entity is the International Elephant Foundation (IEF). This

private foundation is a collaborative effort of Ringling Bros., the Fort Worth, Columbus and Indianapolis Zoos and other groups to support and operate in situ elephant

(African and Asia) conservation and protection projects. It also is involved in and

supports propagation and other programs involving captive elephant populations

around the world. The IEF has already received an AECA grant for a project for

the Support for the Improved Health and Health Care management of Captive Elephant Populations of Sumatran Asian Elephants.

There is, of course, much more that can and should be done. Full funding of the

amount authorized for the fund, as well as the other species conservation funds,

would significantly enhance the beneficial impacts of the AECA. However, there are

also problems that go beyond the reach of the AECA. Changes in the implementation of CITES to facilitate international breeding programs could be of immeasurable value. And the range states still need to do more themselves to protect the

elephants and their habitats. Nonetheless, the AECA has made a valuable contribution toward the preservation of this species and should be continued.

Conclusion

The need for the AECA remains unchanged from when it was established just a

few years ago. The threats to Asian elephants and their habitat, both direct and inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:39 Jul 18, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 71290.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
84

direct, remain perilous. The Asian Elephant Conservation Fund and the other components of the Multinational Species Conservation Fund continue to be necessary

and vital tools for ensuring the survival of the targeted species around the world.

Ringling Bros., along with the other groups here today, remain as committed as ever

to doing what we can to help, but this is an international problem and the small

amount from private sources cannot address the overwhelming and urgent need.

The Asian Elephant Conservation Act provides the additional assistance those of us

working to save the Asian elephant need to ensure its survival.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Kirtland.

Dr. Foose?

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. FOOSE, PROGRAM DIRECTOR,

INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION

Mr. FOOSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The rhino organizations

that I represent, which includes the International Rhino Foundation and the Asian and African Rhino Specialist Groups of IUCN,

greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee on rhino conservation in general, and specifically in support of H.R. 645 to reauthorize the Rhino and Tiger Conservation

Act. These organizations also support strongly H.R. 643 and

H.R. 700 because rhinos often live in the same places as elephants

and tigers, and indeed all three of these Acts and Funds have been

very beneficial to rhino conservation.

The Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act was passed in a time

of great crisis for these rhino species. This crisis continues, but has

been ameliorated because of the crucial and catalytic support from

the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund. The efforts of Congress to

provide funds for conservation of rhinos, as well as tigers and elephants, is most commendable, much appreciated, and has indeed

been very effective.

The continuing crisis for rhinos is most cogently and poignantly

conveyed by the current estimates of numbers of the 5 species and

11 subspecies of rhino. There are about 16,000 of rhinos, of the 5

species and 11 subspecies, in the wild, but over two-thirds of those

are of just one subspecies, the Southern White Rhino. The other

subspecies of White Rhino, the Northern White Rhino, is down to

about 30 individuals.

The numbers of the other four species—the Black, Indian, Sumatran and Javan—combined are fewer than 6,000. Indeed, there are

fewer Sumatran and Javan rhino combined than there are Members of the House of Representatives. In fact, their numbers would

probably constitute little more than a comfortable majority for either party in the House.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. We will take it.

[Laughter.]

Mr. FOOSE. The status and prospects of most of the rhino species

and subspecies is better than when the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act was last reauthorized, and far better than when the Act

was originally passed. This is due in no small part to the substantial and crucial support that has been received from the Rhino and

Tiger Conservation Fund.

I will just mention some of the notable improvements. The populations of black rhino in Africa have not only stabilized, but they

have recovered from a low point of 2,300 in the mid-1990’s to 2,700

85

today. There has been continued increase of the Southern White

Rhino, as well as the Indian Rhino populations. There has been the

establishment, again with significant support from the Rhino and

Tiger Conservation Fund, of anti-poaching teams, known as rhino

protection units, for Sumatran and Javan rhino in Southeast Asia.

However, there remain critical and precarious areas and trends

for rhino conservation, and I have discussed a number of those in

my written testimony. The bottom line is that there should be no

relaxation of, or complacency about, rhino conservation efforts. The

next 5 to 7 years are going to be critical in terms of whether rhino

species and subspecies survive.

The United States has provided unique and unprecedented leadership in the global efforts to save the rhino species. Other speakers have mentioned how significant the amounts of money have

been, but more is needed. Basically, over the next 5 to 7 years,

there is a need for at least $5 million in external support for rhino

range states in Asia, and an equal amount in Africa. Therefore, the

organizations I represent would encourage an increase in appropriations for the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund to at least

$1 million in Fiscal Year 2002, and perhaps $1.5 million in subsequent years. Just to provide a little perspective, if the $750,000 that was appropriated in Fiscal Year 2001 is equally divided among tigers,

Asian rhinos and African rhinos, that would mean that Asian

rhinos would get $250,000. The anti-poaching teams that I mentioned require about $20,000 each per year for support. There are

currently about 40 of them operating in Southeast Asia for Sumatran and Javan rhinos. So the amount of money that Asian rhinos

might currently receive under the levels of appropriation would

only support four of those, and there is need for at least 80 of those

anti-poaching teams.

In summary, rhinos are still in crisis, but stabilization and some

recovery of numbers have commenced. The support from the Rhino

and Tiger Conservation Fund has been a critical and catalytic factor in this improvement. There is need for the support from the

Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund to continue and, if possible, to

increase.

Therefore, the organizations I represent are encouraging Congress to reauthorize the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act, to work

with other Members of Congress to increase the amount of appropriations to at least $1 million for Fiscal Year 2002, and perhaps

an eventual goal of $1.5 million, and to reauthorize the African and

Asian Elephant Conservation Acts.

If I might just have one final comment, I would like to observe

that another reason that support from the United States for rhino

conservation in Africa and Asia is both appropriate and ironic considers the history of the rhino family. The United States was long

ago a center of rhino distribution on this planet. Rhinos were the

most common large mammal in North America from about 40 to

about 5 million years ago, long before the bison or the nutria arrived.

Native American rhinos disappeared because of ecological

reasons now well-known. However, through the Rhino and Tiger

Conservation Fund, as well as the efforts of AZA and its Species

86

Survival Programs for rhinos and the IRF, the United States has

the opportunity to help save the surviving species of this venerable,

and once American, family of mammals from extinction.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Foose follows:]

Statement of Thomas J. Foose, Ph.D., Program Director,

International Rhino Foundation

I am Dr. Thomas J. Foose. I am the Program Director of the International Rhino

Foundation (IRF), which is a non-governmental organization (NGO) exclusively concerned with rhino conservation worldwide, both in situ and ex situ, and especially

with linking the two approaches. The IRF is directly contributing $700,000/year and

is coordinating or administering another $300,000/year for a total of $1,000,000 per

year on rhino conservation projects. I also serve as the Program Officer for the

Asian Rhino Specialist Group (AsRSG) of the Species Survival Commission (SSC)

of IUCN - The World Conservation Union, and as a member of their African Rhino

Specialist Group (AfRSG). Finally, I am Secretary of the Rhinoceros Taxon Advisory

Group (Rhino TAG) and am the North American Rhinoceros Studbook Keeper for

the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA). Today, I am representing the

IRF, both Rhino Specialist Groups, and the Rhino TAG.

The organizations I represent greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify before

this Subcommittee on rhino conservation in general and specifically in support of

HR 645 to re-authorize the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994. These

organizations also support HR 643 & HR 700 to reauthorize the African Elephant

and Asian Elephant Conservation Acts. My comments will refer mostly to rhinos

and hence apply mostly to HR 645. However, rhinos, elephants, and tigers frequently occupy the same areas and habitats. All three of these multinational species

conservation funds have assisted rhino conservation, directly or indirectly.

The Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 was passed in a time of great

crisis for these species. This crisis continues. The Act was also passed at a time of

particular budgetary stringency for the U.S. Congress. The current proposal for reauthorization is also occurring at a time when federal government budgets are

under great scrutiny and strictures because of other major priorities. The efforts of

many members of Congress to provide funds for conservation of rhinos, tigers, and

elephants in a time of budgetary austerity is most commendable, much appreciated,

and very effective.

The continuing crisis for rhinos is most cogently and poignantly conveyed by the

current estimates of numbers for the 5 species and 11 subspecies of rhinoceros:

(Tables 1–2, Figures 1–5): (1) About 16,000 rhinos of 5 species and 11 subspecies

survive in the wild. (2) However, two-thirds (10,400) of these rhinos are of one subspecies, the Southern White Rhino. The other subspecies of White Rhino, the Northern White Rhino, is estimated at 30 individuals. (3) The numbers of the other four

species (Black, Indian, Sumatran, and Javan) combined are fewer than 6,000. (4)

The numbers of the 3 Asian species of rhino combined (2,700+) are about equal to

the rarer of the 2 African species, i.e. the black rhino. (5) There are fewer Sumatran

and Javan Rhino combined than there are members of the U.S. House of Representatives.For perspective, it should be observed that conservation biologists believe that

a population of at least 2,000–3,000, and preferably 5,000 or more, of each distinct

kind (i.e., subspecies or geographical variety) of rhino is necessary for long-term viability. Most of the species and all but two of the subspecies of rhino are far below

this viability level.

Rhinos are capable of recovery if provided with a reasonable opportunity. It

should be noted that the two kinds of rhino which have prospered the most in recent

years, the southern white and the Indian, were almost lost around the start of the

20th Century through over-exploitation. Stringent protection in South Africa, India,

and Nepal recovered these species in each case from about 20–40 individuals.

The status and prospects for most of the rhino species and subspecies are better

than when the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act was last reauthorized in 1998

and far better than when the Act was originally passed in 1994.

Among the notable improvements are:

• The stabilization and recovery of the Black Rhino as a species from a low point

of 2,300 in the early 1993 to well over 2,700 today, an increase of at least 20%,

but still far from the 60,000+ that existed in 1970.

• Continuation of the vigorous growth of the Southern White Rhino population to

over 10,000. Most of them are in a single country, the Republic of South Africa.

This country has performed magnificently in recovering the Southern White

87

Rhino from near extinction around 1900 to its prosperity today. However, there

are always risks possible when an endangered species is located in a single political unit.

• Continued increase in the populations of Indian rhino in India and Nepal, despite substantial poaching pressure and extreme budgetary limitations in these

countries.

• The establishment of a system of effective anti-poaching teams known as rhino

protection units (RPUs) in South East Asia which seems to be ameliorating the

poaching problem for Sumatran Rhino in Indonesia and Malaysia and for Javan

Rhino in Indonesia and Vietnam.

The Rhino & Tiger Conservation Act has contributed substantially and crucially

to these improvements.

However, there remain critical and precarious areas and trends for rhino conservation:

• The Northern White Rhino is literally on the brink of extinction with only 30

surviving in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, which has been a war

zone since 1997.

• The Northwestern Black Rhino, which survives only in Cameroon, is almost extinct.

• Numbers of Sumatran and Javan Rhino remain precariously low and at best are

only now stabilizing, with potential recovery still in the future.

• Pressures on the Indian Rhino remain high and seem to be intensifying again,

e.g. in Nepal.

• Moreover, virtually all of the rhino range states in both Africa and Asia are confronting enormous problems in terms of human needs and many of these nations

are or soon will be in economic, political, social difficulty and even turmoil.

• Indeed, it should be noted how linked rhino conservation has become with global

political and economic events, e.g.

* The northern white rhino in the DRC with the civil and regional wars and

strife in this region.

* The Sumatran and Javan rhino with the economic and political crises in S.E.

Asia.

The bottom line is that there should be no relaxation of or complacency about

rhino conservation efforts. The next 5–7 years are going to be critical in terms of

whether the rhino species and subspecies survive.

Rhinos are part of the planet’s heritage of biodiversity. Hence, rhino conservation

should be a global endeavor. Moreover, the close linkage of rhino conservation with

geopolitical events reinforces the justification for global efforts to help these species.

The United States has provided unique and unprecedented leadership in such

global efforts. Since 1994, the approximately $3 Million provided by the Rhinoceros

and Tiger Conservation Fund (RTCF) has been catalytic and crucial to many rhino

conservation programs. These RTCF funds have also been direct leverage for over

$4 Million in matching and in-kind support from other sources and have been an

indirect stimulus for probably another $4–5 Million.

Moreover, in addition to the benefit of the funds, the RTCF has served an extremely significant function to help better coordinate and improve the quality and

rigor of many rhino conservation programs. In this regard, the organizations I represent commend the USFWS for the manner in which it has administered the

RTCF.

It should also be noted that the private sector in partnership with range state

governments has played and will continue to play a vital role in rhino conservation

in both Africa and Asia, e.g.- The private sanctuaries in Asia and the conservancies

and ranches in southern Africa.- The involvement of NGOs and private partners in

S.E. Asia to support rhino conservation and develop its financial sustainability.

The USFWS through the RTCF has become an important partner to both range

state governments, NGOs, and private parties in these endeavors.

The Rhino Specialist Groups (AsRSG and AfRSG), IRF, WWF and other NGO

partners have assisted rhinoceros range states to formulate continental and national

action plans, to prioritize specific programs and projects, and to calculate the costs

of rhino conservation and particularly the needs of range states for external support.

Details are available in the Action Plans developed by the AsRSG and AfRSG.

Basically, over the next 5–7 years, there is need for at least:

• $5 million/year in external support per year for rhino range states in Asia

• $5 million/year in external support per year for rhino range states in Africa.

The private sector can provide some of these funds but it is vital that the U.S.

Government and the RTCF also continue to contribute, and if possible at an increased level.

88

Therefore, the organizations I represent would encourage an increase in appropriations for the RTCF to at least $1 million in Fiscal 2002 and perhaps $1,500,000

in subsequent years. This amount would complement and stimulate continued

matching funds from other NGOs and private partners to achieve the levels of external funding the range states need. Although the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation

Act has been authorized for up to $10 million/year, the largest appropriation from

Congress has been $750,000 in Fiscal 2001. There are indications that the request

in the Fiscal 2002 Budget submitted by the President may revert to Fiscal 2000 levels, i.e. $700,000. While this level of funds is vital and most appreciated, it increasingly is insufficient to satisfy the need, particularly as range state budgets for rhino

conservation decline because of other, more human-oriented problems. For perspective, just consider that RTCF funds must assist 5 species and 11 subspecies of rhino

as well as at least 5 subspecies of tiger. If the funds are distributed equally among

regions and species, then one-third, i.e., about $250,000 would be available for Asian

rhinos, $250,000 for African rhinos, and $250,000 for tigers. In Asia, such a distribution could provide only about $80,000 for each of the three species of rhino. For comparison, the cost of 1 anti-poaching team for Sumatran rhino is about $17–20,000/

year. So $80,000 might support 3 or 4 RPUs. There are currently 40 RPUs operating

for Sumatran rhino and there is need for twice that many. Similar cost/need analyses could be provided for the other 2 Asian and the 2 African species with their

numerous subspecies.

Of course, all appeals to the Federal Government for funding are considered important and immediate by their advocates. However, some needs are intrinsically

more immediate than others. The simple fact is that substantial support for rhinos

and tigers is needed now. If adequate funds cannot be provided, the need will disappear because the rhinos and tigers will have vanished.

In summary,

• Rhinos are still in crisis but stabilization and some recovery of numbers have

commenced.

• Support from the RTCF has been a critical and catalytic factor in this improvement.

• There is need for support from the RTCF to continue and if possible to increase

over the next 5–7 years.

• Therefore, the IRF, the IUCN/SSC Asian and African Rhino Specialist Groups,

and the AZA Rhino Advisory Group encourage Congress to:

• Reauthorize the Rhino and Tiger Act through the Year 2007 as proposed in HR

645.

• Increase the amount of the appropriations to at least $1 Million for Fiscal 2002,

toward a goal of $1,500,000/fiscal year in the near future.

• Reauthorize the African and Asian Elephant Conservation Acts, which provide

substantial support for rhinos as well as the species for which they are designated.

As final comment, may I observe another reason that support from the United

States for rhino conservation in Asia and Africa is both appropriate and ironic considering the history of the rhino family. The United States was long ago the center

of rhino distribution on this planet. Rhinos were the most common large mammal

in North America from about 40 until about 5 million years ago, long before the

bison arrived. Native American rhinos disappeared because of ecological reasons not

well known. However, through the RTCF, as well as the efforts of IRF and the AZA

and its Species Survival Programs for rhino, the United States has the opportunity

to help save the surviving species of this venerable and once American family of

mammals from extinction.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee.

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Dr. Foose. I am not sure what Farley

Mowatt would think of the plan for the nutria over the next couple

of years.

I guess I would like to start with Mr. Berry. First of all, each

of you had extraordinary testimony, from the wildly optimistic to

the despair of pessimism. We will take your message to our colleagues, the appropriators, and will work very hard to increase as

dramatically as we can this funding.

One of the potential targets for dollars is an unnecessary core

project which might be about $100 million that we could bring into

this program, if we could just convince the energy and water appropriators that this particular core project is unnecessary. So maybe

Neil and I will go after one. We will get our Subcommittee to target

that.

Mr. Berry, you mentioned a poem by William Blake about tigers.

Do you have that with you?

Mr. BERRY. I can get that for you for the record, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Now, that is not the—

Mr. BERRY. ‘‘Tiger, tiger, burning bright’’ that we all remember

from school and childhood. I will be sure we get that in to you

today.

Mr. GILCHREST. You could e-mail that to the Subcommittee and

our respective offices, I guess.

Is that William Blake?

Mr. BERRY. Yes, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. William Blake?

Mr. BERRY. William Blake.

Mr. GILCHREST. You mentioned the problems in China, but the

successes in Cambodia. Could you give us some idea about the differences in the local people, the political climate, the government,

the university people you may have talked to? Why are you being

successful in Cambodia and not in China?

Mr. BERRY. I should say we have just begun work and found

signs of hope in Cambodia, Mr. Chairman. Recent surveys through

some of the projects that we have been able to fund in some of the

mountain regions of Cambodia found numbers of tigers in populations that we estimate between 500 and 700 in that region, and

very good habitat, good prey base, a good habitat situation.

I don’t think that those numbers are the result of any project

specifically that has been underway as a result of the efforts of the

past 5 to 10 years. I think it is more a result of the past history

of Cambodia and the fact that they don’t have the human population pressures in those regions that we found. The poaching situation obviously has not impacted on that region as significantly as

it has, for example, in Burma, where similar studies, like we said,

found no tigers in those areas.

I think some of the most optimistic work that is being done—and

you hear the World Wildlife Fund talk about it—is this concept of

corridor and linkage that is underway. And a critical area that we

are working in partnership with WWF and the Fish and Wildlife

Service is the Terai Arc, which is a very huge region on the border

of Nepal and India. It is wonderful habitat of both forest, tall grass,

low mountains. It is the foothills of the Himalayas.

97

We have a number of protected reserve areas in existence already. For example, it is anchored in the southeast by the Chitwan

Reserve, and there are a number of others. Working with the King

Mahendra Trust and the Nepal and the Indian governments, we

are developing that concept of corridor protection with those local

communities between the reserve areas to provide much broader

habitat potential for the future. That is an area rich in tigers that

really has great hope for the future.

I think our most productive work to date I would put in India,

Nepal, Indonesia, and the Russian Far East. I think with the results that we got from some of the initial science in Cambodia, we

are going to try to continue to do work with WildAid and others

there because I think obviously that population—if we can protect

that and continue the growth rate there, it might spell hope for the

future in reintroducing the tiger to Burma.

Mr. GILCHREST. It is amazing they survived the Khmer Rouge in

the 1970’s. When I was in Vietnam in the 1960’s, on the Cambodian border, a fairly remote region, it wouldn’t be uncommon for

us at night to hear tigers. It fascinated us and gave us a cold chill

at the same time.

Are there any tigers left, then, in any area of Vietnam, if they

are in Cambodia?

Mr. BERRY. I am not aware. Tracy Walmer is our chief staff on

the Save the Tiger Fund and our in-house expert on this, and we

can provide you some more information.

Mr. GILCHREST. I know you are doing it with India and Nepal.

With the tigers in Cambodia, is there any effort for a regional approach to connect what you are doing in Cambodia with possibly

Vietnam and then maybe Laos and China?

Mr. BERRY. I think there is no question there is hope for that in

the future. China may already be too far gone to recover.

Mr. GILCHREST. But if China is too far gone to recover, is there

any area in China, if you can push a regional approach, that would

be suitable habitat?

Mr. BERRY. There is no question the habitat potential is there in

certain places in eastern China. But I think you heard from World

Wildlife, because resources are limited, we really need to focus the

resources on those areas where we can have the highest probability

of success.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. Is it worth, let’s say, the government discussion, a group of government officials from our country and university people discussing this issue with the Chinese and their university people?

Mr. BERRY. Absolutely, and a lot of those discussions, for example, are underway now with, for example, on tiger parts and traditional medicine with the College of Traditional Medicine in China.

We are trying to approach those discussions. That is going to be

critical.

I think our most productive success we can have in China,

though, is dealing with that issue and the issue of demand on the

trade because that spells the future on the whole issue of poaching

and the black market. So our campaign there is more focused in

that regard than it is on reintroduction programs in that effort,

98

because again trying to preserve them where those wild populations are sustainable now is really the primary focus of the funds.

Mr. GILCHREST. I have some more questions, but I am going to

yield now to Mr. Abercrombie.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Just a couple, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Berry, it is nice to see you and I am pleased that you are

in this position. I am sure you are going to do a terrific job. With

the Chinese question, did I understand you correctly that because

of the interest in China in the commercial products associated with

tigers that that might be the angle to approach this, that they will

rapidly not have anything? They can fake it, of course, and I don’t

doubt that there will be plenty of that, but that would probably get

around even in China in fairly rapid fashion.

Am I correct, then, that you are saying that the angle to come

in at this is that they need to be working with us and other organizations in order to have a supply of tigers at all? And if that is the

case, would they be talking about tigers in the wild or talking

about tigers effectively being domesticated for harvesting?

Mr. BERRY. We are trying to encourage, working with practitioners of alternative approaches, to accomplish the same effective

means without using tiger parts at all. The sustainable harvesting

approach—there is clearly nothing to produce that in China now,

and so what it is doing is fueling black market poaching in tigers

in all of the other places in the world that are under pressure.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. For import?

Mr. BERRY. Right, and so the efforts now that we are undertaking in China are a two-prong approach. One is working with the

traditional practitioners, and the other is undertaking culturallysensitive advertising campaigns to convince populations that their

use of these products is having the impact of forcing these species

into extinction.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Excuse me, Mr. Berry, because my time is

short. The only problem with that is if I understand the way it is

operating in China, that will be used by the merchants to say you

better buy it now and get it quick because it is going away and we

are going to charge you more. And they could care less whether

every tiger in the world is decimated; they will keep on going, and

after that they will lie.

We don’t need to pursue it further, but, Mr. Chairman, I think

possibly in relation to contacting the Chinese or making some efforts, I think the only way we can make this work, including having survival in the wild, which I hope could possibly have some

ecotourism implications or something—I don’t know—phototourism

or something, if the Chinese would ever allow it; that is so far

down the line as to probably be almost abstract.

But it probably has to be in the line of, look, you are going to

run out of this stuff and you are going to have everything else

killed in short order anyway, so why don’t we work toward the idea

of domestication—and I don’t mean that in any pejorative sense at

all—maybe reserves or preserves or something of that nature, if

only with the idea of some kind of harvesting, if you get enough

to be able to do that.

I hope that doesn’t offend anybody. I am trying to think how to

save—it does offend you?

99

Ms. STEUER. May I?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Certainly.

Ms. STEUER. ‘‘Offense’’ is probably the wrong word, but I think

I just take a different angle on it. IFAW has a very active office

in China, in Beijing, where we work very closely with the Chinese

government on the traditional medicine issue, in particular, not

only as it relates to tigers, but as it relates to other Appendix I

CITES-listed species like bears.

What we have found to be the really successful approach in this

regard is that if you get to the practitioners and convince them

that—and we have done so in the case of bears and are working

on it in the case of tigers—that their approach— Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Run that last sentence by me again. I am

sorry.

Ms. STEUER. That is all right. If you work with the Chinese medicine practitioners, not just in China but elsewhere in Asian communities around the world, as we are doing in the United Kingdom

and in the United States, which is now the second largest consumer of traditional medicine products in the world and where the

demand has grown 280 percent in the last decade for traditional

medicines, which are uncontrolled for the large part— Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I understand.

Ms. STEUER. If you can get to the practitioners, what we have

found in China, particularly in relation to bears, is that they can

be convinced, and in the case of bear gall bladder products have

been convinced to an increasing degree, that there are alternatives

which work just as well for them and which don’t, for lack of a better term, embarrass them into being the source of an

endangerment, and in the case of the tiger for a species that has

been an emblem for their nation and part of their nation’s heritage

for hundreds and hundreds of years. So we do think that the alternatives approach can work, but it takes time, and I think the turnaround is occurring in China and elsewhere.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, obviously, at this hearing we won’t be

able to pursue that in the length and depth that it requires, but

perhaps on the funding side, Mr. Chairman, that is something that

we need to look at and then need to figure out what to do.

You understand my motivation? I am trying to figure out how to

make it work. Can you indulge me a moment more, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I want to make a transition, then, to Mr.

Kirtland and I want to commend Feld for the work that it is doing

in this regard.

Mr. KIRTLAND. Thank you.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. It would not have ordinarily been thought of

that Ringling Brothers could be a catalyst in this, and I think that

that is one of the things that helps me think about, okay, how can

we make this work, how can we induce others for their reasons.

I will tell you why. In politics, I have discovered the only way

you get votes is to get people to vote with you for their reasons.

Very seldom do people vote with you for your reasons. If they do,

that is wonderful.

Mr. GILCHREST. That is how I got elected.

[Laughter.]

100

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So what I was looking for especially in this

context is what can we do to make a presentation that doesn’t look

like we are imposing something on them because it suits us, as opposed to working with them on something that they consider to be

in their interests and that we are being supportive of them in that

regard—and that includes not only other cultures, but I mean the

private interests and non-profit interests in our own Nation and in

the Western world—and to make it be something more than just

recompense for the fact that Western society entered into all of

these nations, after all, and set loose the forces of modernity which

are now running rampant over traditional cultures without necessarily the sufficient time and capacity to make the transition to

preserve those areas both physically and psychologically that

helped to sustain the previous culture.

With that in mind, with the Center for Elephant Conservation,

are you doing breeding with zoos in the United States and around

the world with the Ringling Brothers elephants?

Mr. KIRTLAND. We would certainly like to. We have entered into

a number of projects with other zoos. In fact, we have had very preliminary discussions with the Honolulu Zoo, in your own home

State, about sending an elephant to Honolulu when they have

the—

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. When we do the reauthorization and we go to

the appropriators, is there any contemplation that perhaps we

could put money up to work with you and similar private and public organizations to do cross-breeding in a serious way around the

world?

I don’t want to see non-profit organizations or even foundations

set up from a profit-making organization like Ringling Brothers to

have to sustain all of the expenses of sending animals to be able

to do cross-breeding, because you want to get the genetic pool as

broad as possible, right?

Mr. KIRTLAND. Absolutely.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. And to move an animal is a traumatic experience for that animal, so it has to be done in a very sensitive way,

and probably expensive as a result, right?

Mr. KIRTLAND. It is expensive. It is not necessarily traumatic.

Our elephants move all over the country on a virtually daily basis.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, the elephants in South Asia, I notice,

are willing to put up with human beings. That is remarkable on

their part.

Mr. KIRTLAND. But it is expensive, as you said, and it is timeconsuming. We do need to look at easier ways to be able to move

animals across national and international borders in terms of captive propagation because in many cases the captive propagation is

going to be the only thing that is going to ensure the survival of

some of these species.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. But the Center is willing to utilize the existing elephant population in the Feld organization for this purpose,

is that right?

Mr. KIRTLAND. Absolutely. We have animals there that are dedicated to breeding, and we will continue to do that.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. It is kind of an interesting phrase. You are

dedicated to breeding. Yes, I imagine they are.

101

[Laughter.]

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Only in my imagination, though.

Do you have volunteers? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. KIRTLAND. We are working with other zoos and we would

continue to work, and we would certainly look for other opportunities to broaden the relationships we have with other public display

entities throughout North America and the world.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, one of the things I would like

to suggest is perhaps in the funding side of it we look to that angle

because I don’t think we can necessarily expect the non-profit and/

or foundation area supported by profit-making entities to necessarily be able to swing all of the expenses. That might be part

and parcel of some of the leveraging money that we take.

The last question I have is—and anybody can answer this—am

I correct that, like, say with the rhinos—Dr. Foose, when I had the

opportunity to travel with Mr. Pombo on the CITES oversight and

the Campfire program and we saw the rhino preservation and

breeding activities that are taking place in southern Africa, it was

very impressive. But the amount of money that you are talking

about is so modest. I take it what you are saying is that that little

bit of money leverages other dollars. Is that correct?

Mr. FOOSE. Very much so, yes.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So if we could increase even to some modest

degree the base funding there, would that have the effect of being

able to leverage additional dollars, do you think?

Mr. FOOSE. Without doubt, without doubt, it would.

If I might just comment on the discussion that you were previously conducting, the funds that are available for rhino and tiger

and elephant are so limited and the highest priority, as some of the

other witnesses have commented, is really to prevent the poaching

that is occurring in the wild. And I don’t pretend to know if something like this would be possible, but maybe to achieve what you

were proposing in terms of trying to provide support to assist captive propagation, which we believe is also a very integral component of diversified strategies for conservation of all of these species,

maybe there could be tax breaks for companies like Fed Ex, which

has moved rhinos and elephants in the past.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, Fed Ex got a huge thing with moving

the pandas, tremendous publicity.

Mr. BERRY. They have got a lot of publicity, but perhaps as this

would become more routine and more frequent, if there could be

some provisions that would—

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, we are giving tax breaks to everybody

else just for showing up and breathing, so I don’t see why we

couldn’t do it when you are actually accomplishing something

worthwhile.

Mr. GILCHREST. We will add that to the text when it gets to the

House Floor.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That is a good point, but the Chairman has

overindulged me for the moment and I am very appreciative of

that. I just want to say how much I appreciate all of that.

I hope you are all supportive of the Campfire system. I was very,

very impressed by that, and they have got terrible trouble now

there from the politics in the area and I hope that this may be one

102

way for the average person over there, as well as the animals we

are seeking to work with and help survive, to survive all the rest

of it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Well, thank you, Mr. Abercrombie. It would be

helpful and conducive, I guess, if we could recess to a large, open

space, have lunch together and continue this conversation for the

rest of the afternoon, but I have other commitments that are crying

out for attention, as well as many of the rest of you. But I appreciate those questions and we will have further discussion on that,

and some of those specific recommendations certainly will be put

into the pieces of legislation that pass through here that would be

appropriate to make all of this happen.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Just before we conclude, could we ask if there

are some suggestions on—

Mr. GILCHREST. I have just got a couple of more questions.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I beg your pardon. I thought you were concluding.

Mr. GILCHREST. I am just going to sort of move through these expeditiously.

Ms. Steuer, can you comment on the recent African ivory sales

that, on the one hand, seem to provide funds for that government

to continue to help in the conservation efforts, versus the potential

incentive for more poaching?

Ms. STEUER. A loaded question. The relatively small amount of

funding that came out of the most recent set of ivory sales, which

is the 1997 sale for Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe, did, from

all the follow-up investigation, appear to go back into conservation

programs in Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe. As Congressman

Abercrombie just referred to the problem in Zimbabwe, I am not

sure what we are going to be seeing from them in terms of conservation in the near future of their elephants.

We do expect additional requests for ivory sales to come at the

next CITES Conference of the Parties from Zimbabwe, Botswana,

Namibia, and we expect South Africa, potentially Tanzania as well.

The issue all along, as you alluded to in your question, Mr.

Gilchrest, is that whenever you fuel a demand, or for lack of a better term put a stamp of approval on a demand, it becomes extremely difficult to tell anybody living in western or central Africa

or anywhere in Asia that while demand for ivory related to elephants living in Botswana, Namibia, Zimbabwe and South Africa

is fine, demand for ivory from elephants in Cameroon, Chad, Ivory

Coast, India, China—pick one—is not good.

Our information and the history is that the minute poachers and

ivory traders believe that legal sales will begin again, they stock

up. So all along our issue has not been technically what is going

on in the countries that want to sell their ivory. It has been the

impact of that on the rest of Africa and Africa’s elephants, and the

rangers are giving their lives everyday because of it.

Mr. GILCHREST. Dr. Robinson, at the beginning of Ms. Steuer’s

testimony she sort of brought us back to reality with the potential

for real extinction of these species over the next few years. The way

the program is presently structured and funded, which is pretty

103

minimal, I guess, if nothing changes, do you see some of these species becoming extinct even with the program that we now have?

Dr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think what we are

grappling with at the present time is minimal funding which is

supporting on-the-ground conservation efforts in a number of locations. With our present level of funding, we will tend to slowly lose

populations. They are going to slowly wink out across the population.

However, if we can take the available funding and really leverage it in a much more effective way, I am fairly optimistic that we

are going to be able to hold on to all of these species. It is a statement of faith that I don’t think we have to lose any of these species. We have been subject to years of gloom and doom about these

species, and yet we have been able to hold on to them.

Species like the Javan rhino are really at the edge. If there is

a species which is vulnerable, it is that kind of species. But even

for that species, with effective conservation, I think we can actually

hold on. So the situation is not optimistic. We are slowly losing a

lot of fights across the landscape, but I don’t think that is cause

for loss of hope.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Kirtland, are there any artificial insemination activities with any of these animals?

Mr. KIRTLAND. Yes, there is, and it is starting to show some success. But artificial insemination should not be really looked at as

the answer to replace natural breeding, but there has been some

success. The Indianapolis Zoo, for instance, has just had a couple

of elephants born through artificial insemination; I think the Pittsburgh Zoo, as well. But it is limited and it is far more difficult in

reality than letting the male and the female get together and do

what they need to do.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is there ever any difficulty moving animals from

one country to another?

Mr. KIRTLAND. Yes, there is, and that is one of the issues that

we addressed earlier. We would like to see more cooperation between governments. In fact, Ringling Brothers tried to import an

animal from Canada several years ago. The permit languished for

almost 18 months. It was never formally denied, and the end result

was the animal ended up in Europe, where he promptly impregnated several females over there.

Mr. GILCHREST. What was the reason for the delay in this country?

Mr. KIRTLAND. I think the problem is in CITES, which unfortunately does not make a distinction between wild populations and

domestic population. The Asian elephants in North America are domestic elephants; they are not wild elephants. And by prohibiting

their propagation, it does absolutely nothing to ensure the survival

of the wild populations. But because CITES prohibits breeding for

commercial purposes, it interferes and impedes the propagation of

the domestic population.

Mr. GILCHREST. How was the animal able to be transferred to

Germany and impregnate females there but not impregnate females here?

104

Mr. KIRTLAND. The Canadian government authorized the export

from Canada to the United States immediately, but our permit request sort of died in the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Mr. GILCHREST. So that is an area that needs some attention

from us?

Mr. KIRTLAND. Absolutely.

Mr. GILCHREST. Dr. Foose, you said the next 5 to 7 years are critical with Asian rhinos. What will happen in the next 5 to 7 years?

Does the program that we now have need to increase the funding?

Are there political obstacles, monetary obstacles, habitat problems?

If we get past the next 5 to 7 years, does it look bright?

Mr. FOOSE. It doesn’t look bright, but there certainly is some

basis for optimism. As Dr. Robinson commented, there really is no

reason to lose these species, and the history of rhinos actually does

provide some encouragement.

I alluded briefly to the fact that the most abundant kind of rhino

on the planet today, the Southern White Rhino, which now is over

10,000 individuals, was down to fewer than 40 in 1900. And

through very, very strict protection, they have been able to recover

to the number that exists today. The same is true of the Indian

Rhino. The Indian Rhino was probably down, certainly in India, to

fewer than 40 individuals, maybe as few as 20, and a similar situation in Nepal, and they have been able to recover to a couple of

thousand individuals.

Mr. GILCHREST. When you get to that few animals, you have

such a small gene pool there that that seemingly doesn’t have an

effect on the species?

Mr. FOOSE. It can, but it is more important how long the population remains small rather than how small it gets. If a population

becomes very small but is permitted to recover very rapidly, all of

the evidence, both theoretical and experimental, indicates that you

do maintain a viable gene pool.

We still have the potential of conserving viable populations of all

of the taxa of rhinos, but it is going to require even greater commitment than has occurred in the past, and a very important contribution to that would be increased appropriations for the Rhino and

Tiger Conservation Fund.

Mr. GILCHREST. Well, Neil and I will look for that core project.

I wish we had more time.

Mr. Berry?

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be a disservice to

this Committee—and I have not heard it raised today and Karen

and I were discussing this. All of these issues are interconnected,

but there is one issue in Africa, the issue of AIDS in Sub-Saharan

Africa, that is also inextricably linked, I believe, with the conservation of these species.

Mr. GILCHREST. The issue of what?

Mr. BERRY. Of AIDS in the human population. Its impact in SubSaharan Africa and the economic impact, the pressures it places for

increased demand on black markets, on poaching, down to the ability to maintain anti-poaching staff and personnel, is one that we

are finding, and I know many conservation organizations are finding increasingly hard. So I think as the Congress deals with these

issues, we would be remiss not to raise also—

105

Mr. GILCHREST. We will take a close look at that.

Thank you all very much. Again, I wish we had a lot more time

to deal with this, but we will make an effort to stay in touch with

all of you and pursue these efforts very strongly and, with some of

your recommendations, travel to distant and beautiful parts of the

globe and take a look at it.

Thank you all very much.

I have got a couple of housekeeping chores here. The record will

remain open for 10 business days for anybody to include anything

into the record.

I would also like to say that Macy Bell and Kevin Frank did a

great job, a great job.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:46 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ