Tyler Calpito
Writing 39C
17 July 2018
U.S. Policies: The Ivory Trade
For almost as long as the United States has been a country, the government has failed to recognize the severity of hunting African elephants for the sake of optimizing the ivory market. The government has mistakenly underscored their restrictions on the global ivory trade and their ban on the interstate sale of ivory. These restrictions are located within rule 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act, which declares that ivory may only be commercially sold in the form of collectible items, or antiques. Along with the fact that ivory dating tests are expensive, sellers have found loopholes to this idea by simply labeling their ivory as antiques. Furthermore, only certain states have created policies that go beyond the scope of the government such as California, Hawaii, and New York. This has resulted in a large shift of the ivory market towards states that don’t strictly enforce these policies—surprisingly the nation’s capital, Washington D.C (Bale). I will also be analyzing the controversial debate of Trump’s recent repeal of Obama’s ban on ivory which, once again, allows ivory to be collected for trophy. The Trump administration believes the funds generated from wildlife hunting may be beneficial for conservation efforts agencies. However, this signifies a major decision in America’s direction in protecting the dying African elephant species. Nonetheless, the government needs to recognize the severity of the issue at hand and contribute more effort towards the African elephant before it is too late.
In the early 1800s, the African elephant species roamed the safari regions of Africa with a vast population of about 26 million. Today, that number has tremendously been reduced to an alarming amount of roughly 500,000 (Clark and Fears). According to the African Wildlife Foundation, over 35,000 elephants are killed per year. Not surprisingly enough, these animals are slaughtered merely for a single body part. For such a small artifact of an animal, ivory was valued to be approximately $1000 a pound in 2014 (Seligmann). The poaching by organized crime syndicates has fueled the growing trade in ivory for many countries, thus driving the African elephant towards the brink of extinction. Ranging from the widespread use of jewelry to piano keys and collectible items, the ivory market has grown popular in many countries; the U.S. was recorded to have the second largest ivory market behind China (Humane Society International source). Despite the fact that the African elephant was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and over 90% of the population has been lost, it wasn’t until 1989 when a worldwide ban on ivory was established to allow the species to rebound. Since then, the U.S. has shifted their efforts to conserve the species.
The U.S. government has greatly underestimated the damage they have caused upon the African elephant, which is reflected in their policies. In order to regulate the international trade of ivory, the government established the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wildlife Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 1975. CITES is responsible for regulating the international trade of animals and plants to ensure that endangered species are protected. In addition, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 was implemented, marking the possession, trade, or harm of endangered animals to be illegal. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary federal agency responsible for enforcing CITES and the ESA. Records from Humane Society International show CITES listing the African elephant as an Appendix I species in 1975, prioritizing the species to be heavily regulated from further endangerment. However, CITES was not efficient enough to prevent organized crime syndicates or terrorists from poaching these elephants. In fact, the elephant population still continued to decrease throughout the years against what was supposedly an effective regulated system. The idea was there, but the enforcement was not (include statistics here?). Yet, the ivory trade remains prominent on a global scale, known to be one of the top markets for exploitation by terrorists (Seligmann). They view the law to be imperfect, or not harsh enough against those who commit the crime. This is what led to the 1989 worldwide ban on ivory calling for a last resort measure to protect the elephants. Throughout the next decade, we see the elephant population rebound close to around 1 million. Meanwhile, most of the ivory available was dealt between states in the U.S.
After the worldwide ban on ivory, the U.S. had to deal with the markets within the states, especially California, Hawaii, New Jersey, and New York. Most states worked beyond the government’s scope by implementing their own bans on the sale of ivory. The results of this weren’t completely effective for the ivory market shifted towards states that don’t have such restrictions. Washington D.C., for instance, has now become a major hub for the trade of ivory. From antique shops to flea markets and even a tobacco shop, 658 pieces of ivory were recorded for sale. Further action was taken by the Obama administration, who enacted rule 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act: all ivory must be from before the year 1990 in order to be sold on the U.S. market (Humane Society International). This frightened many sellers out of the market, however others have found their way through a loophole that enables them to continue selling. Due to the fact that it is hard to keep records of every piece of ivory in the market, it’s easy for illegal ivory to be mistaken for antique. Also, ivory dating tests are extremely expensive, making it impractical to test every piece. Without these tests, it’s difficult to differentiate between properly obtained ivory and illegally obtained ivory. Thus, the policies implemented by the U.S. greatly undermine the power of the ivory market. To this day, the market for ivory is huge in some states, such as Hawaii. Although Hawaii has banned the ivory trade, it appears most sellers still get by through the online market. Within a week’s worth of investigation, almost 2,000 advertisements were found online holding over 4,500 items ranging from ivory jewelry to elephant toenails – worth more than $1.2 million. Once again, the lack of documentation for the vast abundance of ivory continues to allow retailers to sell ivory, even if most of it was illegally obtained (IFAW).
The ivory trade has yet to have been completely diminished in the midst of a worldwide ban and interstate bans in the U.S. Meanwhile, the topic remains controversial in the field of politics. With President Trump in office, the repeal of Obama’s interstate ban on ivory has been questioned by the general public. Last November, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Obama administration did not meet all of the guidelines of enforcing a ban. Due to this ruling, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had to recall early findings from the ESA back in 1995, striking the provision of individual permit determinations for imports of those sports-hunted ESA species (Dwyer). This sudden change in the Service’s outlook on the issue was a great surprise. In a document posted on the Federal Register, the Service stated that Zimbabwe has optimized its anti-poaching efforts in creating a systematic approach for the hunting of African elephants (Wamsley). This momentum has driven many conservative interest groups who have been pushing for the idea of repealing the commercial ban on ivory. Although the elephant population is still withering to this day, President Trump recently repealed the ban on importing sport-hunted trophies of elephants from certain African countries such as Zimbabwe and
Zambia. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke argues that money generated from big-game hunters could help fund conservation programs. However, there is a high potential for corruption within this system, even if Zimbabwe argues that they have a “scientific, systematic approach” to regulate the game for elephants (Dwyer). Nonetheless, they are saying that the African elephant can still be hunted. With 35,000 African elephants killed per year over the past decades, there is much doubt that there is a systematic approach that could offset these numbers.
Much of Trump’s and his administration’s decision to uplift the ban has been discussed behind closed doors. Previously in 2017, Trump was against the idea of hunting African elephants for trophy, stating that he “didn’t want elephants killed and stuffed and have the tusks brought back into this country” (Dywer). He backed out of his initial decision to uplift the ban, but three months later he acted against his own word. As big-game hunters are given the privilege to hunt African elephants once again, the species needs us now more than ever. Their numbers continue to decrease throughout the year due to the increased poaching of these creatures. Now the African elephant must both fear terrorist organizations and big-game hunters.