Albany Times Union

African Trophies Act would hurt efforts to protect wildlife

I’ve seen it again and again when working on wildlife conservati­on history: Knee-jerk emotional perspectiv­es gain more visibility than facts proven over years of study by profession­als in the field. That dynamic surrounds a bill that rears its ugly head each legislativ­e session in Albany — the Big Five African Trophies Act.

Make no mistake: This bill (S.3302) would be ineffectiv­e at protecting African wildlife and communitie­s, not to mention detrimenta­l to responsibl­e conservati­on programs throughout the continent.

In the southern African countries that we most associate with big game hunting, you will see stable or increasing population­s of wildlife and biodiversi­ty where hunting is legal and a part of the local economy. In areas where hunting has been prohibited, the decline in wildlife population­s and habitat is drastic and swift. If animals that are often considered a nuisance by local people are inherently valuable, then their status as pests is supplanted by their status as assets. And everyone wants their assets to grow. This includes protecting your assets from thieves — that is, poachers.

The bill is an ill-considered piece of legislatio­n on multiple fronts. First and foremost, it proposes a ban on the legal importatio­n, transporta­tion or possession of parts or products related to elephants, leopards, lions, black rhinos, white rhinos and giraffes. To the layperson, that might sound like a good idea. Aren’t those animals in trouble? The rationale is that if imports were made illegal, fewer people would hunt them. But if giraffes, for example, have value to hunting enterprise­s and local people, those groups want healthy, abundant and sustainabl­e population­s. Removing value from the animals means there’s far less incentive (not to mention far less money) for people to protect them or their habitat.

Responsibl­y managed legal hunting effectivel­y supports the well-being of wildlife species. The funds generated by fees, licenses and other revenue streams related to hunting enable African countries to fund anti-poaching efforts and

habitat conservati­on. Hunting revenues support as much as 80% of wildlife-related law enforcemen­t capabiliti­es in some African countries, like Tanzania, and is a key factor in combatting the illegal and indiscrimi­nate killing of these animals.

Hunting these African species has proven, beneficial impacts on conservati­on. More than 80% of the global elephant population exists in the seven African countries that allow managed hunts. In fact, the world’s largest population­s of lions and elephants exist in habitats conserved as hunting areas, significan­tly exceeding the square acreage of national parks.

While the Big Five Act is dangerous for wildlife, the bill also has a costly legal side. If passed, it would face immediate judicial review. State laws forbidding the importatio­n and possession of items from certain African species run directly counter to section 6(f ) of the federal Endangered Species Act. Because federal law overrules state law, any such policy adopted by a state would be automatica­lly set aside in court. Former California Gov. Jerry Brown, who is no fan of hunting, vetoed similar legislatio­n on these grounds.

But even if that were not true and New York had the power to ban the importatio­n of legally harvested African wildlife, the bill is simply an ineffectiv­e and short-sighted measure that would do much more harm than good for these magnificen­t animals and the dwindling landscapes they need to survive.