Tuesday October 21, 2003 at 11:12 PM
Bush Policy Major Threat to Endangered Animals
Appearing in The Environment
As reported by Shankar Vedantam in the October 11th edition of the Washington Post, the Bush Administration recently proposed a fundamental shift in policy effecting the conservation of endangered species in the developing world. If adopted, the Bush proposal will open the door for American trophy hunters, circuses, and exotic pet collectors to kill, capture, and import endangered animals from the developing world.
Consistent with the administration’s philosophy of valuing environmental assets in purely economic terms, the policy contends that the substantial demand for live, dead, and dismembered animals can be used to fund conservation efforts. Put another way, the policy assumes that the most effective way to save endangered animals is through economic exploitation. That the United States is an original signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and has ongoing international commitments to that agreement, seems to be of little consequence to those supporting a shift in policy.
While the arguement for exploitation seems to defy the laws of logic, it is not without its advocates, John Monson is one example. The former chairman of New Hampshire’s Fish and Game Commission, president-elect of Safari Club International, Mr. Monson is also an avid trophy hunter who has killed leapords in Namibia and antelopes in South Africa.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Monson contributed $1,000 to the Bush for President campaign while Safari Club International donated $274,000 in the 2000 election cycle, 86% of it to Republicans.
Self-declared as “the world leader in protecting the freedom to hunt”, SCI echoes familiar refrains of the NRA by weaving together the themes of hunting and traditional family values: “We are committed to passing the hunting tradition on to our youth through educational programs, hunting experiences and wildlife conservation projects. The community of SCI hunters promotes strong family values and teaches young hunter’s about hunting and the role hunters play in sustainable wildlife conservation.”
Universally condemed by environmental groups including Defenders of Wildlife, the Endangered Species Coaltion, and Jane Goodall, the position of SCI and the Bush Administration flies in the face of conservation science, field research, and past experience.
Going beyond the basic facts reported by the Washington Post, Joanne Mariner, opined on on this issue in a recent article entitled, Saving Endangered Wildlife by Killing It?. Focusing on the text of the draft policy, Ms. Mariner highlights the enormous hypocrisy and cynicism contained in the justification of a market-based approach. That justification refers to the limited ability of the U.S. government to effect changes in “other sovereign countries that have their own national laws and policies.”
Mariner highlights a variety of situations related to drug trafficing, terrorism and illegal trade where this administration has been more than willing to utterly ignore the soverignty of other nations in pursuit of its own goals. Although she doesn’t take it this far, I would add that such modesty is at best disengenious considering that the administration is currently engaged in an unprecedented project to remake the political and cultural frameworks of the entire Middle East.
Clearly the Administration has the political power and economic ability to act on this issue in any manner they deem fit. Unfortunately, the manner in which they intend to proceed is virutally guaranteed to increase poaching and illegal trade, placing further pressure on a host of species already on the brink of extinction.
Finally, although the proposed policy is itself alarming enough, what is even more disturbing is the degree to which the Bush Administration continues to release policies crafted by and for those groups and industries pursuing the economic exploitation and extraction of our shared environmental resources while simultaneously thwarting public input by limiting comment periods, failing to make draft policies adequately available, and flat-out ignoring public sentiment.
