Subject: Bush wants to rewrite endangered animal rules....
Date: Oct 11 12:45:18 2003
From: Blake Iverson - coopershwk at hotmail.com


I just wanted to point this out, it's off topic, but it's an
interesting story, it's also retorhical, so please don't respond.
I'm not going to express my opinion, just want people to think about
it. Thanks.

Blake
WA




Bush may rewrite rules on endangered animals

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is proposing far-reaching
changes to conservation policies that would allow hunters, circuses
and the pet industry to kill, capture and import animals on the
brink of extinction in other countries.

Giving Americans access to endangered animals, officials with the
Department of Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said,
would both feed the gigantic U.S. demand for live animals, skins,
parts and trophies, and generate profits that would allow poor
nations to pay for conservation of the remaining animals and their
habitats.

This and other proposals that pursue conservation through trade
would, for example, open the door for American trophy hunters to
kill the endangered straight-horned markhor, a wild goat, in
Pakistan; license the pet industry to import the blue fronted Amazon
parrot from Argentina; permit capture of endangered Asian elephants
for U.S. circuses and zoos; and partially resume international trade
in African ivory. No U.S. endangered species would be affected.

Conservation groups counter that killing or capturing even a few
animals is hardly the best way to protect endangered species, and
say the policies cater to individuals and businesses that profit
from animal exploitation.

"It's a very dangerous precedent to decide that wildlife
exploitation is in the best interest of wildlife," said Adam
Roberts, a senior research associate at the nonprofit Animal Welfare
Institute, an advocacy group for endangered species.

The latest proposal involves an interpretation of the Endangered
Species Act that deviates radically from the course followed by
Republican and Democratic administrations since President Nixon
signed the act in 1973. The law established broad protection for
endangered species, most of which are not native to America, and
effectively prohibited trade in them.

Kenneth Stansell, assistant director for international affairs at
Fish and Wildlife, said there has been a growing realization that
the Endangered Species Act provides poor countries no incentive to
protect dying species. Allowing American hunters, circuses and the
pet industry to pay countries to take fixed numbers of animals from
the wild would pay for conservation programs for remaining animals,
he said.

U.S. officials note that such trade is open to hunters, pet
importers and zoos in other Western nations. They say the idea is
supported by poor countries that are home to the endangered species
and would benefit from the revenue.

Officials at the Department of Interior and Fish and Wildlife, who
are leading many of the new policies, said the proposals merely
implement rarely used provisions in the law.




"This is absolutely consistent with the Endangered Species Act, as
written," said David Smith, deputy assistant secretary at the
Department of Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. "I think the
nature of the beast is such that there are critics who are going to
claim some kind of ulterior motive."

Animal-welfare advocates question the logic of the new approach,
saying that foreign countries and groups that stand to profit will
be in charge of determining how many animals can be killed or
captured. Advocates also warn that opening the door to legal trade
will allow poaching to flourish.

"As soon as you place a financial price on the head of wild animals,
the incentive is to kill the animal or capture them," Roberts
said. "The minute people find out they can have an easier time
killing, shipping and profiting from wildlife, they will do so."

The proposals also trigger a visceral response: To many animal
lovers, these species have emotional and symbolic value, and never
should be captured or killed.

The Endangered Species Act prohibits removing domestic endangered
species from the wild. Until now, that protection was extended to
foreign species. Explaining the change, Stansell said, "There is a
recognition that these sovereign nations have a different way of
managing their natural resources."

Indeed, many of the strongest advocates for "sustainable-use"
programs - under which some animals are "harvested" to raise money
to save the rest - have been countries that are home to various
endangered species. Foreign trade groups and governments have tried
for years to convince the United States that animals no longer are
in limited supply, or that capturing or killing fixed numbers would
not drive a species to extinction.

That could change after Friday, the end of the public-comment period
on one proposed change.

John Monson, a New Hampshire trophy hunter and former chairman of
that state's Fish and Game Commission, said the program would help
preserve rare animals. Monson applied for a permit in 1999 to shoot
and import a straight-horned markhor. He was turned down.

Monson is president-elect of Safari Club International, a national
hunting advocacy group. He agreed to an interview only in his
personal capacity.

Safari Club International gave $274,000 to candidates during the
2000 election cycle, 86 percent of it to Republicans. It also spent
$5,445 printing bumper stickers for the Bush presidential campaign.
Monson has made a variety of personal contributions, including
$1,000 to the Bush for President campaign.

Teresa Telecky, former director of the wildlife trade program at the
Humane Society, blamed lobbying by Safari Club International and
other special-interest groups for a "sea change" in conservation
policy. "The approach of this administration is it is all right to
kill endangered or threatened species or capture them from the wild
so long as somebody says there would be some conservation benefit,"
she said.

Stansell said conservation goals, not lobbying, drove the proposals,
which he said evolved through previous administrations.

Still, the application of "sustainable use" never has been so broad.
The United States in November reversed its long-held position and
voted to allow Botswana, Namibia and South Africa to resume trade in
ivory. Stansell said the sales, which have not begun, will support
elephant conservation.

But Susan Lieberman, former chief of the Scientific Authority at the
Fish and Wildlife Service and now director of the species program at
the World Wildlife Fund, said legal trade in ivory always triggers
illegal poaching. "Money doesn't always mean conservation," she
added. "To me, the theme is allowing an industry to write the rules,
which is a Bush administration pattern."

Smith, the administration official, said permits would be issued
only after foreign countries showed they had strong conservation
programs. "There is nothing else we have as a country to force other
countries to conserve their wildlife, other than being paternalistic
and saying 'no, no, no,' " he said.

_________________________________________________________________
High-speed Internet access as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local
service providers in your area). Click here. https://broadband.msn.com