A9n0orsb_am0iiq_7ro.tmp

Status: Original and derived artifacts are available for this document.

Download: pdf

8/13/26, 1:15 PM

As of: 8/12/26 4:41 AM
Received: August 07, 2026
Status: Posted
Posted: August 10, 2026
Tracking No. msj-9sav-oe1o
Comments Due: August 07, 2026
Submission Type: Web

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

Docket: FWS-HQ-IA-2026-1948
Agency Information Collection Activities; Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports--Requirements for African Elephants
Comment On: FWS-HQ-IA-2026-1948-0001
Agency Information Collection Activities; Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports--Requirements for African Elephants
Document: FWS-HQ-IA-2026-1948-0007
Comment from Animal Counsel

Submitter Information
Name: Allyson Koop
Organization: Animal Counsel

General Comment
Please see attached file

Attachments
Animal Counsel Comment 8.7.26

file:///C:/Users/mbaucum/AppData/Local/Temp/1/a7bfe9e1-4189-4c02-b713-8e5e3d5a92ea_FWS-HQ-IA-2026-1948%202026-08-12%2004-41-10.zip.…

1/1

Submitted via Regulations.gov
July 20, 2026
Madonna Baucum
Information Collection Clearance Officer
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Re: Agency Information Collection Activities; Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit
Applications and Reports--Requirements for African Elephants
91 Fed. Reg. 34639 · Docket No. FWS-HQ-IA-2026-1948-0001

Dear Officer Baucum,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide information on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s
Collection Activities regarding African Elephants. My name is Allyson Koop, and I am a
volunteer writing on behalf of Animal Counsel, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to
protecting animals and their habitats through law and policy. We seek to conserve wild
populations while simultaneously promoting individual animal welfare.
We would first like to express gratitude to the agency for its conservation efforts. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service has taken procedural steps through this application process to better protect
African Elephants from extinction.1 With the animals’ best interest in mind, the goal of
conservation is paramount but there should also be consideration for the wellbeing of the
individual elephants in addition to the survival of the species. There are some minor steps that
could be taken to further this goal of conservation and ensuring the wellbeing on individual
elephants.

I.

The information being collected is necessary and carries practical utility.

Currently, applicants are required to provide information on where the permit is to be mailed,
whether the applicant or any owners of the business (if applying as a business, corporation, or
institution) have been assessed a civil penalty or convicted of any criminal provision of any
statute or regulation relating to the activity for which the application is filed, the type of activity

1

89 FR 22522.

requested (interstate commerce, transfer, export, or foreign commerce), the current location of
the animal(s) along with other identifying information.2
Additionally, for each animal involved in the export/transport, the applicant must provide the
following information:3
Scientific name (genus, species, and if applicable, subspecies);
Common name;
Approximate birth date (mm/dd/yyyy);
Wild or captive-bred;
Quantity;
Sex (males, females, e.g., 10, 2);
Permanent markings or identification (microchip #, leg band #, tattoos, studbook #, etc.);
Information regarding source of specimen(s);
A description and justification for the requested activity;
Information regarding technical expertise and facilities;
Information confirming that the receiving facility meets the CITES “suitably equipped to
house and care for” requirements;
o The transportation/shipment condition of the live animals.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Animal Counsel supports the collection of this information. This information is critical for the
Service to make an appropriate determination. The applicant must be able to provide context as
to what they plan to do with the elephant if the Service is going to make effective conservation
efforts. Arguably, the most important information in this list is a description and justification for
the requested activity and information confirming that the receiving facility meets the CITES
suitability requirements. That information is necessary to determine whether the applicant has a
justified reason and the capabilities to properly care for an elephant. 4
My recommendation is for the Service to require corroboration for the description of the
requested activity. Corroboration could take numerous forms: a letter of reference, photos of the
facility where the animal will be housed, or even a detailed care plan for the elephant. The
Service could either (1) allow applicants to choose how they wish to corroborate their application
or (2) could require a specific form of corroboration (such as the detailed care plan). This
corroboration may be similar and, in some cases, even overlap with what the applicant provides
to confirm that they are in accordance with the CITES suitability requirements. However, the
possibility of redundance is outweighed by the threat of harm that could be done if these animals
are transported to an inadequate facility or individual. Without requiring this additional
information, applicants may acquire an elephant without ever having to prove that they have
considered the wellbeing of the elephant. That could result in cases of neglect or in extreme
cases even abuse of these animals that the Service and Animal Counsel wish to protect.

2

Id.
Id.
4
Id.
3

The collection of this information is grounded in law. 5 When applying for a U.S. import permit,
the applicant must provide sufficient information for the Service to find that the applicant is
suitably equipped to care for any wildlife imported.6 It is reasonable to believe that the Service
may require corroboration in order to make that necessary determination. As the number of
African Elephants dwindles, the Service’s conservation goals change. That may mean the
Service requires more information to determine whether an applicant is suitably equipped. The
argument here is that, the requirement of corroboration is supported by the law if it improves the
Service’s ability to make the determination.

II.

The burden on the applicant is not unreasonable here because the information is
used to assess the applicant’s caretaking capabilities.

In weighing the interests of the individual animals with the possible burden on the applicant, the
scale must tip in favor of the animals being transported. An applicant could reapply if needed,
but an animal only has one life and the decision on what to do with that animal’s life is not a
light one. We acknowledge that there will be some burden on the applicants in supplying this
information to the Service. However, any burden that the applicant may face in providing this
particular information is justified and should not be lessened.
The Service’s burden estimates exemplify its aim in protecting conservation efforts alongside
effective procedure.7 The estimates seem to be well thought out and a genuine approximation of
the time it takes applicants to properly file. However, as we have mentioned previously,
protecting the interests of individual elephants may require additional burden on applicants, such
as further corroboration of activity. There should be some burden on applicants, otherwise it
would be too easy for any one person to apply for the importation of an African Elephant even
when they cannot effectively care for one. We do not intend to needlessly burden applicants;
however, some additional burden will increase the information available to the Service and will
also serve as a front-end filter to remove less responsible importers unwilling to even do the
required paperwork. Such a person or organization cannot be trusted to properly care for an
elephant. Thus, if the burden is supported by justification, it is appropriate. Here, the burden that
the agency imposes is entirely justified by the need to conserve the species and ensure these
animals can be adequately cared for. The burden that we additionally suggest is similarly
justified and thus is not unjust to the applicants.
In terms of the technological collection of this information, there should be numerous routes for
applicants to utilize. Electronic applications are likely less burdensome, as the agency’s estimates
suggest.8 The electronic application option gives entities a more streamlined route that may be
easier to keep track of than the hardcopy application. We thus support the creation of additional
routes through which applicants may apply. And, as addressed earlier, the burdens imposed on
applicants should be justified and aimed towards protecting African Elephants. Forcing
5

50 C.F.R. § 23.35.
50 C.F.R. § 23.35(c).
7
89 FR 22522.
8
Id.
6

applicants to fill out paperwork for its own sake does not accomplish those goals. But allowing
easier electronic applications will potentially give the applicant time to provide more valuable
information to the Service. Thus, we have no issue with applicants being able to apply
electronically if that will save them some time and resources. However, in alleviating that
burden, the Service should require the corroboration of proposed activity because that could
actually provide insight into the ability of the applicant to adequately care for the animal.
III.

Conclusion

The Service is taking the proper steps to ensure the conservation of African Elephants by
requiring applicants to provide meaningful information. However, we ask that in addition to
protecting the species from extinction, that the agency also deeply consider the wellbeing of the
individual elephants being applied for. To do that, we believe the Service should require
corroboration from applicants on their planned activity and purpose for the application. In doing
this, the Service will have a better sense of why the applicant wants the elephant and the faculties
that the agency has to provide the elephant with. This requirement will not be unjustifiably
burdensome for applicants because it could provide the Service with crucial insight into the
ability of the applicant to care for the elephant. Additionally, the Service alleviates some burden
by allowing applicants to use an electronic application process which is less time consuming than
the hardcopy application. Prohibiting the electronic application is a burden without any
substantive benefit to the animals, unlike the additional requirement proposed here.
We appreciate the Service’s attention to the conservation of African Elephants and welcome the
opportunity to provide any further information that would assist the review.

Respectfully submitted,
Allyson Koop
Animal Counsel
AnimalCounsel.org