Hey y'all, I was wondering how people on here feel about H.R. 2603 ("SAVES" Act), the bill currently in U.S. Congress as part of a package of Republican-led reforms to the Endangered Species Act. It's particularly relevant to this group because H.R. 2603, if passed, would "de-list" all non-native species currently protected under ESA regulations. In practical terms, it would mean a reduction in regulations on inter-state trade in non-American species. AZA seems to have come out against the bill, since inter-state trade in these species is currently governed by the Captive-Bred Wildlife permitting process which vets each transaction across state lines to ensure that it is benefiting species conservation. The African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) and the Association of Avian Veterinarians (AAV) are some other conservation organizations that I found in opposition to the law. Jeff Corwin spoke against it in the Congressional Committee hearing, and the Fish and Wildlife Service representative mentioned that it might make it harder to police illegal wildlife trafficking. I was heavily against this bill earlier, based on reading a lot of the arguments from these groups, and was wondering how Zoochatters in this forum feel about it. Most of the pro-2603 arguments I've read from private breeding organizations and politicians seem to suggest that the current regulations are duplicative and unnecessary. I haven't been able to tell whether the "duplicative" part comes from the idea that CITES regulations already govern potential illegal import (although the CITES & ESA lists do not overlap 100%, e.g. for Galapagos giant tortoises, iirc) or if there is some other due diligence already involved - thought you guys might be helpful in that regard. Also, what issue do private breeders have against the current CBW permit process? And are most of you here in favor or against HR 2603... I'm trying to get a sense of responsible, conservation-minded private breeder opinion on this. Thanks for your takes!
I will first admit an amount of ignorance as to what the intent of this legislation is or the effect it would have...however I will offer two anecdotal observations: 1) A few years ago, an animal rights organization tried to use the ESA to shut-down the private breeding of the Addax and Scimitar-horned Oryx in Texas. Quite obviously an attack on the fact that the large populations of these two species in Texas was funded in no small way by “hunting” of the animals. Such a move would be a disincentive to breeding the large and sustainable populations on private estates. I won’t digress into a defense or condemnation of hunting as a conservation tool except to say if one does not see regulated and sustainable hunting as a valuable conservation tool, then science has been left out of the argument. Ungulates bred on private estates almost saved the Aurochs...and has saved a score of other species. The proposed legislation seems to perhaps be a reaction to that move to use the ESA regulatory obligations to shutdown “hunting endangered species” and destroy the captive populations in private hands. Inadvertently this legislation might also curtail some of the worst aspects of the anti-Zoo crowd. 2) Jeff Corwin once did a special on “Alaska” where he had to get out and see for himself “the herds of Wood Bison he learned we’re roaming the grasslands below Portage Glacier”. He found these animals right where everyone else finds them...at the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center...being bred in captivity for eventual reintroduction into the state (a process ironically enough greatly complicated by the ESA), without Jeff of course ever once pointing out in his breathless bush whacking that he was at a Zoo! Not a fan...at all. I guess in my opinion this legislation is the result of a good thing (the ESA) being poorly wielded by uninformed zealots and unscientific boobs in such a manner as to create a bad thing (disillusionment and a backlash against the original good thing). My opinion only. Also, just to be clear, I’m not a hunter.
1) Super interesting, and I'll def look more into the addax/oryx situation. IIRC, FWS provided an exemption to the "no hunting of endangered species" for captive-held addax/oryx, and then there was an effort to overturn that exemption. Is that what you're referring to? I feel like with the proper, science-based exemptions in place, the CBW permit process would be enough to keep the ranch-based ungulate breeding programs alive, no? Surely once the hunting bit is taken care of (which I realize is the source of all the stickiness), the conservation value is easy enough to prove... or am I missing something more? Genuine question! 2) Weird about Corwin. I'll admit to being a big fan all through my childhood. He has an episode in India where he goes to Madras Crocodile Bank to see lots of our reptile species, including gharial that the MCB basically saved from extinction through captive breeding. I thought he was pretty open about it being a reptile zoo when he visited, so it's weird that he's being cagey about the wood bison situation. Maybe it was one of those wildlife-doc things where they're trying to create an illusion of things being wilder than they really are.
Yes exactly right. Summarized very nicely. The conservation value is not in doubt by reasonable people. The issue in this case was wether or not many private landowners would continue to bred/hold the animals if they were prevented from benefiting economically. Some would, but probably not in the numbers they currently do. I thought the press interviewing the person behind the lawsuit to have the ESA applied to the breeding/harvesting of the Addax and Scimitar Horned Oryx was actually pretty fair. They actually asked and compelled the answer that the group would actually prefer to see the species extinct before it was bred in captivity or hunted. Again, I am not really familiar with the legislation or the motivations behind it...I can only imagine that economics plays a role, along with a desire to de-regulate. Possibly, and I’m using the experience of the non-essential / experimental designations giving to reintroduced populations of wolves and bison, the motive to deregulate is actually a preventive to a time when introduced populations are suddenly protected under the ESA because they represent the largest most sustainable populations of the species in its entire range (native/introduced/invasive)? For example refer to the Chinese Water Deer in Britain, the Banteng in Australia, or the Blackbuck in Texas (lore has it that the species is more common in Texas than India...not sure this is actually true). Didn’t New Zealand Wildlife Officials suffer a minor panic attack when a population of Wallabies they hoped to cull was briefly thought to be the last surviving population of an extinct in its native range species? Here in the United States you can sometimes get a hint of something similar when advocacy groups try to identify our feral horses and asses as reintroduced natives... I don’t want to be unfair to Mr Corwin. I actually did purchase one of his books long after I watched his Alaska special. I believe he does good work. I was, however turned off by the implication made in the episode.
