May 16, 2016
Via Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov
Public Comments Processing
Attn: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
MS: BPHC
5275 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041-3803
Re:
Safari Club International Comments in Response for Request for
Information on Status Review of Petition to Reclassify African Elephants
from Threatened to Endangered Status: 81 Fed. Reg. 14058, 14062 (March
16, 2016); FWS-HQ-ES-2016-0010
Dear U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
Safari Club International (SCI) is strongly opposed to the uplisting of all or any portion of the
African elephant species (Loxodonta africana) from threatened to endangered status. The timing
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) decision-making is irrational and the available
scientific data does not support any elevation in the listing status of the African elephant. As
African elephants are not in danger of extinction in all or a significant portion of their range, they
cannot qualify for endangered status.
Safari Club International
SCI, a nonprofit IRC § 501(c)(4) corporation, has over 50,000 members worldwide, including
many who hunt elephants in Africa and import their legally hunted elephants into the United
States. SCI’s missions include the conservation of wildlife, protection of the hunter, and
education of the public concerning hunting and its use as a conservation tool. Through their
hunting of elephants in Africa, SCI members participate in the conservation of African elephants
by generating revenue for elephant management and conservation. Their hunting supports
hunting concessions that create jobs, protect elephants against poaching and that provide income
to local communities. Hunting gives local communities a reason to conserve elephants and
protect them from poachers. The hunting of elephants raises the value of the species for local
residents who may otherwise seek to destroy elephants as nuisance animals.
SCI is engaged in litigation against the Service to challenge the importation bans that the Service
has imposed against the importation of legally-hunted elephants from Zimbabwe and Tanzania.
SCI pursues this litigation because of the serious harm the importation bans are having on the
SCI Comments on African Elephant Status Review
May 16, 2016
Page 2 of 7
elephants in these countries. The bans discourage U.S. hunters from traveling to these countries
and from generating revenue that is essential to the continued conservation of elephants and the
fight against poaching.
The Timing of the Service’s Efforts to Engage in Any Rulemaking Concerning the
Uplisting of Elephants is Irrational
For the two petitions that prompted the status review announced by the Service on March 16,
2016, the Service did not make its “may be warranted” determination within 90 days. The
Service received one of these petitions on February 12, 2015 and the second petition on June 10,
2015. More than a year has passed since the Service’s receipt of the former and close to a year
since its receipt of the latter. For the petition submitted on February 12, 2015, the Service
violated the statutorily imposed deadline to issue one of the 12-month determinations (not
warranted, warranted but precluded, or proposed rule) within one year of receiving a petition
upon which it makes a “may be warranted.” 16 U.S.C. § 1533 (b)(3)(B). Despite the fact that it
is too late for the Service to avoid violating their Endangered Species Act (ESA) deadlines, the
Service appears to be moving forward with a listing determination at a time when doing so
makes little sense.
The Service chose to engage in the listing process just when multiple major scientific sources are
about to release potentially important updates on information crucial to the question of the
population and conservation status of African elephants. The Great Elephant Census, the first
pan-African survey since the 1970s, is currently underway, and the survey flights are expected to
be completed this year, with the final data soon to follow. http://www.greatelephantcensus.com/
In addition, on January 31, 2016, the IUCN finished collecting data for its 2016 Elephant Status
Report – the first to be published since 2007. http://www.elephantdatabase.org/add-data. That
data has yet to be published.
Instead of waiting for the publication of the extremely relevant and imminently available data,
the Service appears to be purposely engaging in decision-making before the data is available.
The Service’s haste in moving forward gives the appearance that the Service wishes to avoid
incorporating these important resources into its listing analysis. By choosing to engage in this
rulemaking now, as opposed to a year from now when the most recent and most comprehensive
elephant population surveys and analyses will be available, the Service appears to be determined
to make listing decisions that rely on data that the Service itself characterizes as out of date.
Curiously, at a time when the Service refuses to make a positive enhancement finding for the
importation of elephants sport-hunted in Zimbabwe, allegedly in great part due to the age of the
data upon which the Service believes Zimbabwe manages its elephant hunting program, the
Service itself seems determined to make crucial elephant listing decisions on data of similar
quality. Such action is irrational and hypocritical.
While the Service might rationalize that it will gain access to these updated sources of
information as it continues through the status review process, that solution does not rectify the
problem imposed on interested members of the public, who lack the recent data to review and
Safari Club International - Washington DC Office
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org
SCI Comments on African Elephant Status Review
May 16, 2016
Page 3 of 7
inform their comments on this status review. The Service’s decision to move forward while the
release of the information is imminent strikes two blows to those who wish to participate in the
public component of the rulemaking process: 1) the inability to use the data to make their
comments because the final Great Elephant Census data and IUCN Status Report are not
presently available; and 2) the likelihood that the Service will obtain that data and rely on it only
after the public has already weighed in on the status review.
African Elephants Do Not Qualify as Endangered
To qualify as “endangered,” a species must presently be in danger of extinction throughout all or
a significant portion of its range. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(6). As the Service has further explained in a
recent threatened final rule:
The Service has further determined that the phrase “in danger of extinction” can
be most simply expressed as meaning that a species is “on the brink of extinction
in the wild.” See December 22, 2011, Memorandum from Acting FWS Director
Dan Ashe Re: Determination of Threatened Status for Polar Bears [hereinafter the
“Polar Bear Memo”]. In at least one type of situation, where a species still has
relatively widespread distribution, but has nevertheless suffered ongoing major
reductions in numbers, range, or both as a result of factors that have not been
abated, the Service acknowledges that no distinct determination exists between
“endangered” and “threatened.” In such cases:
Whether a species . . . is ultimately an endangered species or a threatened
species depends on the specific life history and ecology of the species, the
nature of the threats, and population numbers and trends. Even species that
have suffered fairly substantial declines in numbers or range are
sometimes listed as threatened rather than endangered (Polar Bear Memo,
p. 6).
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for the Northern
Long-Eared Bat With 4(d) Rule, 80 Fed. Reg. 17974, 18020 (April 2, 2015). The best data
currently available to the Service demonstrates that neither the species as a whole, nor any
significant portion of the species range meets the criteria for an endangered listing.
The data currently available to the Service includes the 2013 IUCN Elephant Database Report.
Even if it relies on this soon to be outdated source, the Service must still acknowledge that the
African elephant population includes 401,732 elephants that the IUCN classifies as “definite,”
71,736 “probable,” 98,895 “possible,” and 62,429 “speculative.” (Note that the four
classifications apply to the nature of the survey methods used to count the elephants.)
The 2013 IUCN Elephant Database Report explains that several elephant populations not only
have not declined, but have grown since 2007. “Elephant populations appear to have increased
in South Africa, Namibia and Uganda since the African Elephant Status Report 2007. Id.
Safari Club International - Washington DC Office
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org
SCI Comments on African Elephant Status Review
May 16, 2016
Page 4 of 7
Southern Africa is the location of almost 70% of the elephants on the continent that the 2013
IUCN Elephant Database classifies as definite. According to that database, the elephant
population in Southern Africa experienced only a modest decline between 2007 and 2013 from
297,487 to 278,520. Consequently, the portion of the species’ range that includes the largest
population shows significant stability.
Even if the Service considers only those elephants in the IUCN’s “definite” category, there
would be no support for a finding that the African elephant species is endangered throughout its
range. To list African elephants as endangered, the Service would have to determine that a
population of over 400,000 elephants, with some populations stable and others increasing in size,
is at the “brink of extinction.” SCI is unaware of any other circumstance where the Service has
determined that a wide ranging species with a population of over 400,000 animals is “on the
brink of extinction.” Regardless of population declines, a species cannot be listed as endangered
without an imminent extinction risk. It is even questionable whether at least some African
elephant populations should remain listed as threatened.
The formal declaration of the Kavango-Zambezi Trans-Frontier Conservation Area (KAZA
TFCA) by a treaty signed in 2011 provides significant strategies to ensure the continued growth
and protection of a major portion of the Southern African elephant population. KAZA secures
habitat and movement corridors for that largest population of African elephants among five
countries: Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The area involved is larger than
Germany and Austria combined, and is home to over 200,000 of the Southern Africa population
of elephants, which have (theoretical, but increasingly actual) freedom to move among those five
countries. http://www.kavangozambezi.org/publications-protocolsThe ineligibility of African elephants for endangered status becomes even more apparent if the
Service factors in recently released data from the Great Elephant Census. Although the Census’
final results are not yet available, information about individual country populations has already
appeared in several sources. While the Census noted declines in some populations, other very
significant populations remain stable or have increased. Zimbabwe’s elephant population, about
which the Service expressed such great concern that the Service chose to ban the importation of
all legally sport hunted elephants into the United States, has changed very little in the last decade
and a half. The Great Elephant Census reports that Zimbabwe’s population declined only 6%
since 2001. While not all of Zimbabwe’s elephant populations are faring equally, Zimbabwe’s
overall elephant population has not suffered the decline that prompted the Service to ban
importation. Largest Wildlife Census in History Makes Waves in Conservation, Wildlife Watch,
National Geographic, Paul Steyn, January 4, 2016.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/160104-great-elephant-census-vulcan-paul-allenelephants-conservation/. Moreover, the movement of elephants through the KAZA TFCA makes
it likely that the “decline” of Zimbabwe’s elephants by 6% over the past 15 years may not
indicate a real decline in southern Africa’s elephant population at all, but rather the movement of
elephants out of an over-populated area into areas of lower density within the same large
Safari Club International - Washington DC Office
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org
SCI Comments on African Elephant Status Review
May 16, 2016
Page 5 of 7
ecosystem. This movement of elephants could also mean that individual national surveys of
elephants are increasingly less significant, as elephants move between the countries of KAZA.
Other Southern African elephant populations similarly demonstrate how African elephants do
not qualify for endangered status. For example, Botswana, whose elephant population is the
largest on the African continent, has also maintained stable population numbers – estimated in
2014 at 129,939. Id. Namibia’s population grew by more than 70 percent, between 2002 and
2013, from some 9,600 to more than 16,000 elephants. Homegrown African Solutions to
Elephant Poaching, National Geographic, A Voice for Elephants, October 25, 2015.
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/25/african-seeds-of-hope-amid-the-poachingcrisis/.
While the preliminary data from the Great Elephant Census does not reveal only positive news, it
shows stability and increases in several key elephant populations. By considering this data, the
Service cannot possibly reach the conclusion that the African elephant species is currently in
danger of imminent extinction throughout its range.
African Elephants Are Not Endangered in a Significant Portion of Their Range
A species also qualifies for endangered status if it is in danger of extinction in a significant
portion of its range. African elephants do not meet this standard.
Before considering the status of particular portions of the species’ range, the Service must first
decide whether those portions qualify as significant. The IUCN divided the range of African
elephants into four portions: Central Africa, Eastern Africa, Southern Africa and Western
Africa. As of 2013, almost 70% of the elephants surveyed by techniques for which the IUCN
identified elephant population numbers as definite were located in Southern Africa (278,000 out
of 401,650). The 2013 IUCN Elephant Database identified only 12,332 (definite) in Central
Africa, and 7,543 (definite) in West Africa. The same database identified the population in
Eastern Africa as 89,860 (definite).
To determine whether a portion of a species range qualifies as “significant,” the Service
evaluates whether the species would, without that portion, qualify as endangered or threatened.
79 Fed. Reg. 37578 (July 1, 2014). In other words, if the absence of that portion would cause the
remainder of the species to be in danger of extinction, then that portion qualifies as “significant.”
According to the best data available, the largest elephant population, living in Southern Africa,
remains stable and in some areas shows evidence of increasing in size. Although this population
might qualify as “significant” its status does not meet the criteria for “endangered” status and
therefore there is no reason to conduct a significance analysis for the Southern Africa population.
Neither the Central nor Western African portions of the species’ range qualify as significant
because the complete loss of either of these populations would have little impact on whether the
African elephant species as a whole is on the brink of extinction. Similarly, the Eastern African
portion of the African elephant’s range would not qualify as significant. The Eastern Africa
Safari Club International - Washington DC Office
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org
SCI Comments on African Elephant Status Review
May 16, 2016
Page 6 of 7
population, which according to the 2013 IUCN Elephant Database represented approximately
22.5% of the African elephant population, could disappear entirely, yet leave a population of
over 310,000 elephants that are components of stable and in some cases increasing populations.
Consequently, the fact that the Eastern Africa elephant population (which includes Tanzania) is
not faring as well as populations in other portions of the species’ range, provides no reason to
uplist the status of elephants.
Nothing Positive Can Be Achieved Through Listing the African Elephant As Endangered
Although the Service’s statutory obligation to list does not expressly require an assessment of
whether listing will have any impact on the conservation status of the species, any analysis that
fails to evaluate the listing’s efficacy would be irrational. Unlike other foreign species for which
the Service has received uplisting petitions, the African elephant, as a threatened species, already
is subject to the majority of the conditions associated with an endangered species. Consequently,
an uplisting would not achieve any significant conservation benefit. In fact, to the extent an
endangered listing further discouraged conservation through well-managed sport hunting, it
would undermine the goals of the Act. For further evidence of the benefits of sport hunting to
elephant conservation and anti-poaching efforts, the Service should refer to the administrative
record in the cases of Safari Club International v. Jewell, 14-670 & 15-1026 (D.D.C.).
The Service promulgated a special 4(d) Rule for elephants that imposes significant restrictions
on the importation of legally-sport hunted elephants. For example, the Service already requires
positive enhancement findings as a prerequisite to the importation of African elephants from all
countries. The Service has recently proposed a permit requirement for the importation of all
African elephants and a limitation on the number of elephants that any individual can import into
the U.S. In addition, the African Elephant Conservation Act authorizes the Service to establish
moratoria on the importation of raw and worked ivory. 16 U.S.C.§ 4222. Recently, the Service
proposed modifications to its 4(d) rule to further restrict the importation and trade of ivory.
The Service has taken numerous actions to limit the importation of sport-hunted elephants and
impose restrictions on the importation and trade of ivory. Other than discouraging conservation
through sport hunting, little can be achieved by uplisting of African elephants from threatened to
endangered. The status review is an empty exercise that wastes the agency’s and the public’s
resources.
Conclusion
The timing of this status review deprives the Service and the public of the benefit of important
data needed for the Service’s consideration and the public’s analysis and comment. The status of
elephants, based on the best available data, does not meet the criteria for endangered status. A
reclassification will undermine the conservation of the species by range countries and will do
nothing to enhance the Service’s ability to conserve the species. For these reasons, Safari Club
International recommends that the Service find that the uplisting of the African elephant species
as endangered is not warranted.
Safari Club International - Washington DC Office
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org
SCI Comments on African Elephant Status Review
May 16, 2016
Page 7 of 7
We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Should you have any questions about this letter,
please contact Anna M. Seidman, Director of Litigation, Safari Club International at
[email protected].
Sincerely,
Larry Higgins
President, Safari Club International
Safari Club International - Washington DC Office
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org