A9huw5q1_am0ijq_7ro.tmp

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

Download: pdf

8/13/26, 1:18 PM

As of: 8/12/26 4:41 AM
Received: August 07, 2026
Status: Posted
Posted: August 10, 2026
Tracking No. msj-a24v-x30a
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-2026-1948-0008
Comment from Safari Club International

Submitter Information
Name: W. Laird Hamberlin
Address:
501 2nd Street NE
Washington, DC, 20002
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 202 543 8733
Organization: Safari Club International

General Comment
Safari Club International's comments and supporting materials are attached.

Attachments
2026 08 07 SCI Comments on Elephant Permit Collection Final Signed
2025 Petition for Revisions to Endangered Species Act Regulations
2023 03 20 - SCI Elephant 4d Rule Comment - Final
2024 04 04 SCI NOIS Elephant 4d Rule

file:///C:/Users/mbaucum/AppData/Local/Temp/1/c195a961-c977-465b-855e-423f36b76ea2_FWS-HQ-IA-2026-1948%202026-08-12%2004-41-10.zip.…

1/1

August 7, 2026
Via www.regulations.gov
Service Information Collection Clearance Officer
Attn: Docket No. FWS-HQ-IA-2026-1948
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: PRB (JAO/3W)
Falls Church, Virginia 22041-3803
Re:

Safari Club International Comments on Agency Information Collection Activities;
Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports—Requirements for
African Elephants; 91 Fed. Reg. 34639 (June 8, 2026)

Dear Ms. Baucum:
Safari Club International (“SCI”) respectfully submits these comments in response to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service’s (“Service”) request for information and comments regarding the
annual certification for African elephant range countries. SCI believes this information request is
unnecessary and encourages the Service to remove the enhancement permit requirement and
related annual certification, as explained in SCI’s prior comments in opposition to that proposed
rule.
The notice specifically asks whether the current information collection is necessary. SCI’s
response is a resounding “no.” It is undisputed that 81% of the world’s elephants inhabit the
seven countries where elephant hunting occurs and from which elephants are exported. These
countries should be commended for their conservation achievements, particularly when
compared to other elephant range states where populations are declining or remain depressed.
U.S. hunters play an important role in funding wildlife conservation efforts in these countries.
Accordingly, the Service should seek to facilitate, rather than impede, the continued importation
of legally harvested elephants and the conservation benefits generated by regulated hunting.
The current enhancement permit requirement does the opposite. It intrudes upon the sovereignty
of foreign nations. For example, if one of these countries imposed an information demand
comparable to the annual certification, it is doubtful the United States would respond favorably
to such a demand. While the Service may appropriately request information on a government-togovernment basis, it is quite another matter to mandate the submission of a one-size-fits-all
certification through regulation and withhold import authorization if the required document is not
provided. SCI objected 1 to this requirement when it was proposed and continues to do so

Attached and incorporated here is SCI’s comments on Proposed Rule, Revision to the Section 4(d) Rule
for African Elephant, 87 Fed. Reg. 68975 (Nov. 17, 2022), Docket No. FWS-HQ-IA-2021-0099, timely
submitted on March 20, 2023.

1

Safari Club International – The Hunters’ Embassy
501 2nd Street NE Washington, DC 20002 • 202 543 8733 • www.safariclub.org

SCI’s Comments on Information Collection
for African Elephants
August 7, 2026
Page 2
because it is unnecessary, particularly given these countries’ demonstrated conservation
successes.
SCI also continues to object to the Service’s characterization of the rule as merely a
“clarification” of how it evaluates the enhancement requirement in 50 C.F.R. § 17.40(e). In
practice, the certification requirement extends well beyond a determination that hunting enhances
elephant conservation. As SCI explained in prior comments, hunting (and elephant hunting
specifically) contributes to habitat conservation, anti-poaching efforts, and improvement of rural
livelihoods in Southern Africa. This is especially true in Zimbabwe and Botswana, the countries
with the world’s largest elephant populations.
For example, in a June 23, 2019 speech, the President of Zimbabwe confirmed that “Safari
hunting is a vital cog in successful wildlife economies. Proceeds obtained from hunting are
reinvested towards the provision of game water, fencing and law enforcement, among other
conservation initiatives. We continue to call for the free trade in hunting products as these have a
positive impact on the national and local economies of our countries.” 2 Likewise, the Director of
the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority explained that “ceasing the importation
of big game animals from Zimbabwe will not contribute in any way to the conservation of
ecosystems. In fact, it will have the exact opposite effect.” He further noted that hunting is a
critical part of Zimbabwe’s national elephant management plan and community-based
conservation program. 3
Botswana’s wildlife authority concluded in its Convention on the International Trade in
Endangered Species (“CITES”) non-detriment finding that, “[h]unting is conducted in marginal
areas where other land use activities such as photographic tourism or agriculture are not possible
or viable. Hunting is beneficial to elephant and their habitats because of the tangible and
intangible benefits it provides, such are revenues for Government and Communities, support to
Government in monitoring illegal activities and infrastructure development.” 4 Botswana further
determined that “[s]afari hunting provides a net benefit to the species, it does not pose a threat to
the species, and it is not a detriment to the survival of the species. Regulated and controlled
safari hunting of elephant in Botswana enhances the survival of the species.” Id. In short, the
same assurances demanded by the information collection are already provided by the range states
in other fora, including CITES. The Service’s information collection is cumulative, unnecessary,
and overly intrusive.
The certification is also inconsistent with congressional intent. According to Representative
John Dingell, widely regarded as the “architect” of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”),
Congress intended to limit circumstances in which the Service would “look behind an export
permit” for a non-endangered species. As Representative Dingell explained, “where
nonendangered trophy animals are being managed in such a way as to assure their continued and
Available at https://bulawayo24.com/index-idnews-sc-press+release-byo-164833.html.
F. Mangwanya, CECIL Act Would Destroy Local Conservation Programs, Washington Examiner (Sept.
18, 2019).
4
Republic of Botswana, Non-detriment findings for Loxodonta africana (African Elephant) Controlled
Hunting in Botswana (June 2021).
2
3

Safari Club International – The Hunters’ Embassy
501 2nd Street NE Washington, DC 20002 • 202 543 8733 • www.safariclub.org

SCI’s Comments on Information Collection
for African Elephants
August 7, 2026
Page 3
healthy existence, no barriers will be placed upon the continued harvesting of those animals by
the government.” 5 Congress enacted Section 9(c)(2) of the ESA specifically to circumvent
barriers to the importation of trophies from healthy and well-managed wildlife populations. 6 The
enhancement permit requirement creates precisely the type of obstacle Congress aimed to avoid,
ultimately to the detriment of the species the Service purports to protect.
Rather than recognizing these conservation benefits and adhering to Congress’ direction, the
Service has continued to demand increasingly detailed and, in many cases, confidential financial
information from the range states protecting the world’s largest elephant populations before
allowing imports. And despite the fact that the seven primary elephant countries have different
conservation traditions, governance structures, and land-use systems, the Service effectively
dictates a single model of conservation success through the questions on its certification. The
Service also imposes the National Legislation Project (“NLP”) criterion more stringently than
would apply if elephant were listed as an endangered species instead of a threatened species. As
SCI previously explained in its comments and Notice of Intent 7, this requirement is not a mere
“clarification.” It is a substantive regulatory barrier premised on arbitrary criteria.
The Service requests comment on how it might minimize the burden associated with this
information collection. The most effective solution is straightforward: repeal the rule and
eliminate the special regulatory requirements applicable to Appendix II elephant populations.
Doing so would acknowledge the conservation benefits generated by hunting and align the
Service’s regulations with Congressional intent. SCI submitted a petition in 2025 seeking
precisely that result, and reminds the Service to timely act on that petition. 8
Finally, SCI notes that the factual basis supporting these information collection requests is weak.
The international trade in live elephants is minimal. Trade in sport-hunted elephant trophies is
likewise limited, properly regulated through CITES quotas, and demonstrably sustainable given
the healthy—and in some instances overabundant—elephant populations maintained by the
affected range states.
For the foregoing reasons, SCI respectfully urges the Service to repeal the enhancement permit
requirement and related annual certification, and act on SCI’s pending 2025 petition to eliminate
the special regulatory requirements applicable to Appendix II African elephant populations. As
explained above and in the attachments, these requirements are unnecessary, inconsistent with
Congressional intent, and detrimental to conservation programs with a proven track record of
conserving elephants.
House Consideration and Passage of H.R. 37 with Amendments, U.S. Congressional Record (Sept. 18,
1973), p. 195.
6
Section 9(c)(2) presumes that the import of threatened-listed species, for non-commercial purposes,
otherwise governed by and compliant with CITES requires are legal under the ESA. 16 U.S.C.
§ 1538(c)(2).
7
Attached is SCI’s Notice of Intent to Sue on Final Rule, Revision to the Section 4(d) Rule for the
African Elephant, 89 Fed. Reg. 22522 (Apr. 1, 2024), sent to the Department of the Interior on April 4,
2024.
8
Attached is SCI’s Petition for Revisions to the Endangered Species Act Regulations (May 7, 2025).
5

Safari Club International – The Hunters’ Embassy
501 2nd Street NE Washington, DC 20002 • 202 543 8733 • www.safariclub.org

SCI’s Comments on Information Collection
for African Elephants
August 7, 2026
Page 4
SCI appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Should the Service have any
questions or require additional information regarding these comments or SCI’s petition, please
do not hesitate to contact SCI’s Legal Advocacy team at [email protected].
Respectfully,
W. Laird Hamberlin
CEO, Safari Club International

Safari Club International – The Hunters’ Embassy
501 2nd Street NE Washington, DC 20002 • 202 543 8733 • www.safariclub.org

May 7, 2025
Via Federal Express and Email
The Honorable Doug Burgum
Secretary, Department of the Interior
1849 C Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
[email protected]
Re:

Petition for Revisions to the Endangered Species Act Regulations

Dear Secretary Burgum,
Safari Club International (“SCI”) respectfully petitions for amendment of regulations pursuant to
the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553, and its implementing regulation at 43 C.F.R.
§ 14.2. This petition is ripe for action in light of the deregulatory purposes of President Trump’s
Executive Orders “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” 1 and “Ensuring Lawful
Governance and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’
Deregulatory Initiative.” 2 Specifically, SCI requests that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(“Service”) repeal 50 C.F.R. § 17.8(a) and rules at 50 C.F.R. § 17.40 that conflict with Section
9(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1538(c)(2). This currently includes
rules at § 17.40(e) (African elephant), (j) (argali), and (r) (African lion). SCI’s proposed
amendments to these regulations are included as an addendum to this petition.
These regulations should be repealed for three primary reasons. First, they are inconsistent with
Congress’s intent and the language of the ESA’s deregulatory provision, as well as the
requirement that any rule for threatened species be “necessary and advisable.” Second, they run
afoul of the ESA directive to encourage foreign conservation programs. And last, they
“implicate matters of social, political, or economic significance that are not authorized by clear
statutory authority.” These regulations are opposed by the range states who conserve the world’s
largest populations of elephant, lion, argali, and many other species. It is best for these species,
as well as the United States, to remove these rules and advance Congress’s directive to facilitate
the import of animals from well-managed conservation hunting programs.
Safari Club International
SCI is an I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. SCI has
approximately 100,000 members and advocates worldwide and 152 chapters throughout the U.S.
and around the world. SCI members hunt internationally and often seek to import mementoes of
these hunts back to the U.S. These members contribute millions of U.S. dollars each year to the
wildlife management budgets and Gross Domestic Products of the countries protecting and
1
2

Executive Order 14192, 90 Fed. Reg. 9065 (Jan. 31, 2025).
Executive Order 14219, 90 Fed. Reg. 10583 (Feb. 19, 2025).
Safari Club International – The Hunters’ Embassy
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • 202 543 8733 • www.safariclub.org

Petition to Revise ESA Regulations
May 7, 2025
Page 2
managing the world’s largest populations of elephant, lion, argali, and many other species. Like
the United States, these countries rely on hunting as part of their conservation and wildlife
management programs.
SCI’s missions are to protect the freedom to hunt, educate the public about hunting and its role as
a conservation tool, and promote wildlife conservation worldwide. Along with its sister
organization SCI Foundation, SCI’s advocacy and conservation interests focus on the
“sustainable use” of wildlife. SCI is a leader in educating courts, elected officials, and
policymakers on the essential role of hunting in the science-based management of wildlife and
habitat. SCI works closely with range states and community organizations to protect sustainableuse hunting and its significant benefits, through its own work and the work of SCI Foundation,
which funds and participates in conservation and research projects around the world.
SCI regularly submits comments on proposed rules to list foreign species under the ESA. SCI
has submitted two petitions to repeal the special rules for the import of sport-hunted African
elephant and African lion. 3 SCI is also an active participant in meetings of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (“CITES”), which currently
governs the international trade in relevant species.
Need for the Petitioned Actions
1. The enhancement and permit requirements in the rules for threatened-listed species
contradicts Section 9(c)(2) of the ESA and Congress’s goal of reducing regulation of
trophy imports.
The regulations for argali, elephant, and lion—known as “special rules”— conflict with
Congress’s intent to protect the flow of hunting benefits by excepting threatened species already
protected under international law from further import restrictions.
The ESA implements CITES. 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b), § 1537a. CITES is an international
agreement between party governments with the aim of ensuring that international trade does not
threaten the survival of at-risk species. Parties may seek to list species on the CITES Appendices
(I – III), according to the degree of protection they need. International trade in CITES-listed
species is highly regulated. For species listed on Appendix I, all commercial trade is banned,
limited non-commercial trade is permitted, including in hunting trophies, and the exporting and
importing country must each find that the activity is “not detrimental to the survival of the
species” and issue a CITES permit for export or import, respectively. For Appendix II species,
commercial trade is not prohibited, and only the exporting country must find that the activity is
not detrimental to the survival of the species and issue an export permit; the importing country is
not required to issue any permits. 4

3

SCI submitted a “Petition for repeal of the special rule for threatened-listed lions, Panthera leo
melanochaita, as applied to sport-hunted trophies” on August 13, 2019, and a “Petition for repeal of the
special rule for the import of sport-hunted African elephant trophies” on December 18, 2020. The
Department and the Service have failed to respond to either petition.
4
The text of CITES is available at https://cites.org/eng/disc/text.php.
Safari Club International – The Hunters’ Embassy
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • 202 543 8733 • www.safariclub.org

Petition to Revise ESA Regulations
May 7, 2025
Page 3
Section 9(c) of the ESA is titled “Violation of the Convention,” referring to CITES. This title is
something of a misnomer, as Section 9(c)(2) is about compliance with CITES. Under this
section, when a non-endangered (i.e., threatened) species is also listed on Appendix II of CITES,
is imported for non-commercial purposes, and meets all the other CITES criteria, the ESA
presumes the legality of such an import. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(c)(2).5 The Service has repeated this
presumption of legality in regulation. 50 C.F.R. § 17.8. However, the Service has also
overridden this presumption, unnecessarily, for African elephant, lion, and argali.
That administrative overreach is unacceptable. In Section 9(c)(2), Congress sought to reduce the
regulatory burden on foreign species not in danger of extinction and otherwise protected and
managed through the CITES processes. According to Representative John Dingell, the
“architect” of the ESA, Congress intended to limit situations in which the Service could “look
behind an export permit” of a non-endangered species:
H.R. 37 has been attacked by some as a[n] anti-hunter bill; it has been attacked by
others as a prohunter bill. In reality, it is neither—it is a bill which has been
carefully drafted to encourage State and foreign governments to develop healthy
stocks of animals occurring naturally within their borders. If these animals are
considered valuable as trophy animals, and are not endangered, they should be
regarded as a potential source of revenue to the managing agency and they should
be encouraged to develop to the maximum extent compatible with the ecosystem
upon which they depend.
I have been informed by the Department of the Interior that they will carefully
review the status of animal stocks in foreign countries and that where
nonendangered trophy animals are being managed in such a way as to assure
their continued and healthy existence, no barriers will be placed upon the
continued harvesting of those animals by the government. This is as it should
be, because it is only in the understanding that these animals have a real and
measurable value that many of the less developed countries will agree to take
steps to assure their continued existence.
There is language in the legislation which incorporates a presumption of validity
as to export permits issued by governments of foreign countries for animals which
are not on appendix I of the international endangered species convention. This
will allow persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to accept export permits from the
5

Section 9(c)(2) states that “[a]ny importation into the United States of fish and wildlife shall” be
“presumed to be an importation not in violation of any provision of” the ESA or its implementing
regulations, if:
(A) such fish or wildlife is not an endangered species listed pursuant to section 1533 of
[the ESA] but is listed in Appendix II to the Convention,
(B) the taking and exportation of such fish or wildlife is not contrary to the provisions of
[CITES] and all other applicable requirements of [CITES] have been satisfied,
(C) the applicable requirements of subsections (d), (e), and (f) of this section have been
satisfied, and
(D) such importation is not made in the course of a commercial activity…
16 U.S.C. § 1538(c)(2).
Safari Club International – The Hunters’ Embassy
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • 202 543 8733 • www.safariclub.org

Petition to Revise ESA Regulations
May 7, 2025
Page 4
countries for animals which have legitimately been taken as trophies without the
fear that the U.S. Government will arbitrarily refuse to accept those permits as
valid.
We are assured by representatives of the Government that this is what they would
do in any case, but we felt it best to spell out just what could and should be done
at this time, in order to avoid future misunderstandings.
House Consideration and Passage of H.R. 37 with Amendments, U.S. Congressional Record
(Sept. 18, 1973), p. 195 (emphasis added). Simply put, Congress’s express purpose was to avoid
putting up barriers to hunting imports of healthy wildlife populations, such as African elephants
in southern Africa and argali in Tajikistan. These special rules put up exactly the type of barrier
that Congress worked to avoid—to the detriment of the species, as discussed below. SCI
respectfully requests that the Department reinforce Congress’s intent and repeal the enhancement
finding and permit requirements in the special rules discussed here.
2. The negative impact of requiring a permit and an enhancement finding conflicts
with the ESA’s directive to encourage foreign conservation programs.
The enhancement and permit requirements for importing sport-hunted trophies violate the ESA’s
directive to encourage foreign conservation programs. These regulations discourage foreign
countries’ reliance on hunting as a conservation tool, despite its proven track record. 6
Section 8(b) of the ESA directs the Service to “encourage foreign countries to provide for the
conservation of fish or wildlife and plants including endangered species and threatened species.”
16 U.S.C. § 1537(b)(1). This directive is consistent with the practices of a number of foreign
countries that rely on hunting to justify the protection of habitat, generate funding for antipoaching, and create incentives for community-based conservation. These benefits result in
larger and more secure populations of endangered and threatened species. That most of the
world’s elephant, lion, and argali (as well as many other species) inhabit countries where they are
hunted is not a coincidence. It is the result of national management plans that give these species
great value through their status as game.
For example, over 70% of the world’s giraffe, 75% of the world’s lions, 80% of the world’s
elephants, and 90% of the world’s rhino and leopard inhabit the countries where they are
hunted. 7 These countries maintain far more habitat in hunting areas than in parks, and far more
habitat than in countries without hunting.8 This is because of stakeholder buy-in. The benefits
6

According to Dr. Dilys Roe, chair of the international Union for Conservation of Nature (“IUCN”)
Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group, “from a conservation perspective the evidence is
clear… [w]hen hunting is done properly, when it is well regulated, the overwhelming evidence is that it is
good for conservation and it can result in recovery of key species such as lions, elephants and rhinos.” A.
Woodyatt, Zimbabwe Lifts Ban on Buffalo Bow Hunting to Boost Tourism, CNN (May 22, 2019).
7
According to data from the IUCN specialist groups and Red Book.
8
As an example, comparing non-hunting and hunting countries, Kenya is approximately two-thirds the
size of Tanzania and banned hunting in the 1970s, but its elephant range is less than one-third the size of
Tanzania’s elephant range and its elephant population is less than half as large as Tanzania’s. African

Safari Club International – The Hunters’ Embassy
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • 202 543 8733 • www.safariclub.org

Petition to Revise ESA Regulations
May 7, 2025
Page 5
from hunting revenues 9 and game meat distributions 10 have incentivized the conservation of
hundreds of thousands of square kilometers on communal lands 11 and private lands. 12
The U.S. hunting market is the world’s largest. Moreover, U.S. hunters place a premium on
conservation hunting programs and are the most willing to invest in programs that include extra
fees for wildlife conservation.13 The extraneous and unnecessary regulation from these rules
obstruct the import of lawfully hunted animals and thereby reduces the benefits of hunting for
foreign countries and their citizens. U.S. hunters are less willing to pay a conservation premium
when they are unable to import the trophy mementoes of their hunts.
Range countries have repeatedly informed the Service that hunting benefits endangered and
threatened species and restrictions on trophy imports, such as permit requirements, harm the
species and interfere with national conservation programs.
For example, in a June 23, 2019 speech, the President of Zimbabwe confirmed that “Safari
hunting is a vital cog in successful wildlife economies. Proceeds obtained from hunting are
reinvested towards the provision of game water, fencing and law enforcement, among other
conservation initiatives. We continue to call for the free trade in hunting products as these have a
positive impact on the national and local economies of our countries.”14
Similarly, in response to the proposed ESA listing of lions, Tanzania’s government explained that
hunting generates conservation revenues and contributes to anti-poaching and habitat security. 15
It warned that hunting operators would be unable to secure their concessions if adoption of the
ESA listing reduced U.S. hunters’ willingness to book 21-day lion safaris, and huge hunting
areas would be at risk of conversion to agriculture or grazing by Tanzania’s rapidly expanding
human population. Id. Unfortunately, the Service’s implementation of the enhancement
Elephant Specialist Group, Elephant Database. “[W]ildlife numbers outside parks have declined in
Kenya since it banned hunting.” R. Emslie et al., Prince William Is Talking Sense—Trophy Hunting Is
Crucial to Conservation, The Independent (Mar. 18, 2016).
9
E.g., P. Lindsey et al., Economic and Conservation Significance of the Trophy Hunting Industry in SubSaharan Africa, 134 Bio. Conservation 455-469 (2007); R. Naidoo et al., Complementary Benefits of
Tourism and Hunting to Communal Conservancies in Namibia, 30 Conservation Bio. (Jan. 8, 2016), p.
632; I.R. Nkuwi, Conservation Status and Related Impacts of Elephants and Lion Trophy Ban to
Tanzania, Presented to International Wildlife Conservation Council (Sept. 2018) [in Service records].
10
P.A. White & J.L. Belant, Provisioning of Game Meat to Rural Communities as a Benefit of Sport
Hunting in Zambia, PLoS ONE 10(2) (2015).
11
E.g., N. Onishi, A Hunting Ban Saps a Village’s Livelihood, N.Y. Times (Sept. 12, 2015); CAMPFIRE
Ass’n, The Role of Trophy Hunting of Elephant in Support of the Zimbabwe CAMPFIRE Program (Dec.
2016); CAMPFIRE Ass’n, Press Statement on Lifting of the Suspension of Elephant Trophy Imports into
America (Nov. 21, 2017); R. Cooney at al., The Baby and the Bathwater: Trophy Hunting, Conservation
and Rural Livelihoods, 68 Unasylva 249 (2017/1); Namibian Association of CBNRM Support
Organisations, State of Community Conservation in Namibia (2023).
12
This includes areas that are not “scenic” enough to draw photographic tourists, including because rural
communities live on the same lands.
13
Southwick Assocs., The Economic Contributions of Hunting-Related Tourism in Eastern and Southern
Africa (Nov. 2015).
14
15

Available at https://bulawayo24.com/index-idnews-sc-press+release-byo-164833.html.

Available through Docket FWS-R9-ES-2012-0025.

Safari Club International – The Hunters’ Embassy
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • 202 543 8733 • www.safariclub.org

Petition to Revise ESA Regulations
May 7, 2025
Page 6
requirement has led to exactly this outcome, and tens of thousands of kilometers of hunting
concessions were returned to the government because of the huge decline in U.S. clients. 16 As
another example, in an article against proposed restrictions on elephant and lion import permits,
the Director of the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority argued that “ceasing the
importation of big game animals from Zimbabwe will not contribute in any way to the
conservation of ecosystems. In fact, it will have the exact opposite effect.” He explained that
hunting is a critical part of Zimbabwe’s national elephant management plan and communitybased conservation program. 17
In its CITES non-detriment finding, the wildlife authority of Botswana noted that, “[h]unting is
conducted in marginal areas where other land use activities such as photographic tourism or
agriculture are not possible or viable. Hunting is beneficial to elephant and their habitats because
of the tangible and intangible benefits it provides, such are revenues for Government and
Communities, support to Government in monitoring illegal activities and infrastructure
development.” 18 Botswana’s wildlife authority added: “Safari hunting provides a net benefit to
the species, it does not pose a threat to the species, and it is not a detriment to the survival of the
species. Regulated and controlled safari hunting of elephant in Botswana enhances the survival
of the species.” Id.
The same can be said for argali. Import bans and restrictions “jeopardize hunting tourism as the
main source of revenue of the overall successful incentive-based conservation of Argali.”19 The
National Resources Department of the Ministry of Nature and Environment of Mongolia has
asserted that “fees paid by sport hunters are the primary source of fundings for its argali
conservation program,” and if American hunters are barred from bringing home their argali
mementoes, “some hunters [would] not travel to Mongolia to hunt the argali, and the revenues
that support the conservation program [would] decline.” 20 Further, hunting represents a
substantial source of revenue in Tajikistan, with funds going back to the conservation of the
species in well-managed hunting concessions. 21

16

United Republic of Tanzania, Comment on ESA Status Review of the African Leopard (Panthera
pardus) in Tanzania (Nov. 30, 2016) (“Without operating or anti-poaching funds from the Safari
Operators, the habitat is already disappearing and in short order, this land will be occupied by livestock,
people, and snares. Tanzania’s ability to manage its wildlife is being impacted by the suspension of
import of hunting trophies.”); United Republic of Tanzania, Report on Decision 17.114 (May 2018), AC
Doc. 15, Annex 4. This negative impact is especially problematic because Tanzania “holds the most
important lion population in Africa.” Hunting revenues are the largest source of funding for the Tanzania
Wildlife Authority.
17
F. Mangwanya, CECIL Act Would Destroy Local Conservation Programs, Washington Examiner (Sept.
18, 2019).
18
Republic of Botswana, Non-detriment findings for Loxodonta africana (African Elephant) Controlled
Hunting in Botswana (June 2021).
19
Convention on Migratory Species, Implementation of the International Single Species Action Plan for
the Conservation of the Argali (Ovis ammon) (2014-2024) (Aug. 12, 2024).
20
Fund for Animals Inc. v. Norton, 332 F.3d 728, 731-33 (D.D.C. 2003).
21
IUCN Red List, Argali (Ovis ammon).
Safari Club International – The Hunters’ Embassy
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • 202 543 8733 • www.safariclub.org

Petition to Revise ESA Regulations
May 7, 2025
Page 7
The IUCN highlighted the importance of trophy hunting for argali and other species:
The incentives and revenue from trophy hunting programmes are not just
important for conservation of hunted species, but through site protection exercise
a “biodiversity umbrella” effect and may help conserve non-hunted species too
…In the Pamirs in Tajikistan, trophy hunting concessions for Argali and ibex are
showing higher densities of the threatened Snow Leopard than nearby areas
without trophy hunting, likely due to higher prey densities and reduced poaching
(Kachel, 2014).22
For all these reasons, hunting benefits conservation of these species. Restrictions on import do
the opposite. Thus, the Department of the Interior should require repeal of these regulations
imposing special rules and import burdens. These rules reduce the benefits of hunting—to the
detriment of the species and the local people who live alongside the species.
3. The enhancement and permit requirements should be repealed in accord with EO
14219 because they are unnecessary, overly burdensome, and inconsistent with
regulatory reform initiatives.
Executive Order 14192 and Executive Order 14219 make it the policy of the executive branch
“to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people” and “[e]nd[]
Federal overreach….” Executive Order 14219 directs each agency to identify regulations for
possible repeal that “implicate matters of social, political, or economic significance that are not
authorized by clear statutory authority.” 90 Fed. Reg. at 10583. The enhancement and permit
requirements in the special rules check these boxes.
First, by taking these species outside the presumption of Section 9(c)(2), these special rules have
increased the Service’s administrative burden. This is unnecessary given that Congress already
approved these imports and legislated an exemption to the permit requirement to avoid exactly
that burden. The Service will still have oversight over endangered- and Appendix I-listed
species. But those who benefit from sustainable use should be permitted to do so, as Congress
intended.
Second, the delay and uncertainty caused by administration of these special rules is overly
burdensome. These special rules impose costs that reduce the benefits of hunting. They deter
U.S. hunters from paying the highest prices or going on the most expensive, longest hunts.
These losses threaten the habitat, anti-poaching efforts, and community incentives generated by
hunting in range countries.
Third, the permitting process, which includes an enhancement finding, has significantly delayed
imports. 23 Hunters are left on “pins and needles” while they wait for the Service to make a

22

IUCN, Informing Decisions on Trophy Hunting (Apr. 2016) (updated in 2023).
Following the implementation of the lion special rule, the Service took almost two years to issue the
first import permits for lion trophies. More recently, when updating the information for the enhancement
findings for argali, the Service failed to issue an import permit for almost four years.

23

Safari Club International – The Hunters’ Embassy
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • 202 543 8733 • www.safariclub.org

Petition to Revise ESA Regulations
May 7, 2025
Page 8
determination on their import permits. The Service can take months to respond to emails or
process permits. 24
In sum, once these regulations are repealed, the Service can administer the ESA more efficiently.
Range countries can focus on protecting and managing their species instead of diverting attention
and resources to satisfy the Service’s information requests. U.S. hunters can confidently support
these range nations’ programs, keep range nation and community revenues high, and fund
operators’ anti-poaching and habitat protection efforts. Most importantly, elephant, lion, and
argali can continue to benefit, without interruption, from the enhancement that hunting provides.
Repealing these special rules is consistent with the ESA and regulatory reform initiatives.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, SCI requests the Service repeal 50 C.F.R. § 17.8(a) and rules at 50
C.F.R. § 17.40 that conflicts with ESA § 9(c)(2), as provided in the addendum. If you have any
questions, please contact SCI’s Legal Advocacy team at [email protected].
Sincerely,

W. Laird Hamberlin
CEO, Safari Club International

24

Ironically, permit applicants are required to answer questions from the Service within 45 days while the
Service is under no similar obligation. The Service recently contracted with an outside company to
conduct a “comprehensive needs analysis” on the Service’s permitting program “with the aim of
identifying opportunities to innovate and optimize [the Service’s] process to better serve [ ] permit
applicants and maximize conservation outcomes.” Adopting the changes requested in this petition would
significantly reduce the Service’s permitting workload and allow staff to focus on other tasks.
Safari Club International – The Hunters’ Embassy
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • 202 543 8733 • www.safariclub.org

Addendum
Proposed Amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations
50 C.F.R. § 17.8 Import exemption for threatened, CITES Appendix-II wildlife.
(a) Except as provided in a species-specific rule in §§ 17.40 through 17.48 or in paragraph
(b) of this section, all provisions of §§ 17.31 and 17.32 apply to any specimen of a
threatened species of wildlife that is listed in Appendix II of the Convention.
(b) Except as provided in a species-specific rule in §§ 17.40 through 17.48, Any live or dead
specimen of a fish and wildlife species listed as threatened under this part may be
imported without a threatened species permit under § 17.32 provided all of the following
conditions are met:
(1) The specimen was not acquired in foreign commerce or imported in the course of
a commercial activity;
(2) The species is listed in Appendix II of the Convention.
(3) The specimen is imported and subsequently used in accordance with the
requirements of part 23 of this subchapter, except as provided in paragraph (b)(4)
of this section.
(4) Personal and household effects (see § 23.5) must be accompanied by a CITES
document.
(5) At the time of import, the importer must provide to the FWS documentation that
shows the specimen was not acquired in foreign commerce in the course of a
commercial activity.
(6) All applicable requirements of part 14 of this subchapter are satisfied.

50 C.F.R. § 17.40 Species-specific rules—mammals.
…
(e) African elephant (Loxodonta africana). This paragraph (e) applies to any specimen of
the species Loxodonta africana whether live or dead, including any part or product
thereof. The African Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201 et. seq.), and any
moratorium under that act, also applies. The provisions of Section 9(c)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act (16. U.S.C. § 1538(c)(2)) and 50 CFR § 17.8 apply to any
African elephant also listed on Appendix II of the ConventionExcept as provided in
paragraphs (e)(2) through (11) of this section, all of the prohibitions and exceptions in §§
17.31 and 17.32 apply to the African elephant. Persons seeking to benefit from the
exceptions provided in this paragraph (e) must demonstrate that they meet the criteria to
qualify for the exceptions.

…
(6) Sport-hunted trophies.
(i)

African elephant sport-hunted trophies may be imported into the United
States without a threatened species permit provided all requirements of 50
C.F.R. § 17.8(b) are met.

(ii)

(i) African elephant sport-hunted trophies for which the species is listed on
Appendix I of the Convention may be imported into the United States
provided:
(A) The trophy was legally taken in an African elephant range country that
declared an ivory export quota to the CITES Secretariat for the year in
which the trophy animal was killed; andThe requirements in 50 CFR
part 23 are met.
(B) A determination is made that the killing of the trophy animal will
enhance the survival of the species and the trophy is accompanied by a
threatened species permit issued under § 17.32;
(C) (B) The trophy is legibly marked in accordance with 50 CFR part 23;.
(D) The requirements in 50 CFR parts 13, 14, and 23 and paragraph €(11)
of this section have been met; and
(E) No more than two African elephant sport-hunted trophies are imported
by any hunter in a calendar year.

(ii)

For African elephant sport-hunted trophies taken on or after May 1, 2024,
to make an enhancement determination under paragraph (e)(6)(i)(B) of
this section and § 17.32, the Service must possess a properly documented
and verifiable certification by the government of the range country dated
no earlier than 1 year prior to the date the elephant is taken that:
(A) African elephant populations in the range country are biologically
sustainable, as well as sufficiently large to sustain sport hunting at the
level authorized by the country.
(B) Regulating authorities have the capacity to obtain sound data on these
populations using scientifically based methods consistent with peerreviewed literature.
(C) Regulating authorities recognize these populations as a valuable
resource and have the legal and practical capacity to manage them for
their conservation.

(D) Regulating governments follow the rule of law concerning African
elephant conservation and management.
(E) The current viable habitat of these populations is secure and is not
decreasing or degrading.
(F) Regulating authorities can ensure that the involved trophies have in
fact been legally taken from the specified populations.
(G) Funds derived from the involved sport hunting are applied
significantly toward African elephant conservation, including funds
used for:
(1) Managing protected habitat, securing additional habitat, or
restoring habitat to secure long-term populations of elephants in
their natural ecosystems and habitats, including corridors between
protected areas;
(2) Improving the quality and carrying capacity of existing habitats;
(3) Helping range country governments to produce or strengthen
regional and national elephant conservation strategies and laws;
(4) Developing capacity within the range country to survey, census,
and monitor elephant populations;
(5) Conducting elephant population surveys;
(6) Supporting enforcement efforts to combat poaching of African
elephants; and
(7) Supporting local communities to help conserve the species in the
wild through protecting, expanding, or restoring habitat or other
methods used to prevent or mitigate human-elephant conflict.
….
(11) CITES National Legislation Project and African elephants. On or after January
1, 2026, live African elephants, sport-hunted trophies, and parts or products other
than ivory and sport-hunted trophies may not be imported into the United States
under the exceptions for importation provided in § 17.32 or paragraphs (e)(2),
(e)(6), or (e)(10) of this section except when:
(i)

All trade in the specimen has been and is accompanied by a valid CITES
document issued by the Management Authority of a Party with a CITES
Category One designation under the CITES National Legislation Project
(see § 23.7 of this chapter and http://www.cites.org); or

(ii)

When importation under paragraph (e)(2) of this section is for law
enforcement purposes and meets the requirements as set forth at paragraph
(e)(7) of this section for the import of ivory or is for genuine scientific
purposes and meets the requirements as set forth at paragraph (e)(8) of this
section for the import of ivory.

…
(j) Argali (Ovis ammon) in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and Tajikistan.
(1) Except as noted in paragraph (j)(2) of this section, all prohibitions of § 17.31 of this
part and exemptions of § 17.32 of this part shall apply to this species in Kyrgyzstan,
Mongolia, and Tajikistan
(Note. In all other parts of its range the argali is classified as endangered and covered
by § 17.21).
(2) Upon receiving from the governments of Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and Tajikistan
properly documented and verifiable certification that
(i)

argali populations in those countries are sufficiently large to sustain sport
hunting,

(ii)

regulating authorities have the capacity to obtain sound data on these
populations,

(iii)

regulating authorities recognize these populations as a valuable resource and
have the legal and practical capacity to manage them as such,

(iv)

the habitat of these populations is secure,

(v)

regulating authorities can ensure that the involved trophies have in fact been
legally taken from the specified populations, and

(vi)

funds derived from the involved sport hunting are applied primarily to argali
conservation, the Director may, consistent with the purposes of the Act,
authorize by publication of a notice in the Federal Register the importation of
personal sport-hunted argali trophies, taken legally in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia,
and Tajikistan after the date of such notice, without a Threatened Species
permit pursuant to § 17.32 of this part, provided that the applicable provisions
of 50 CFR part 23 have been met.

…
(r) Lion (Panthera leo melanochaita).

(1) General requirements. All prohibitions and provisions of §§ 17.31 and 17.32 apply to
this subspecies.
(2) The import exemption found in § 17.8 for threatened wildlife listed in Appendix II of the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) does not apply to this subspecies. A threatened species import permit under §
17.32 is required for the importation of all specimens of Panthera leo melanochaita.
(3) All applicable provisions of 50 CFR parts 13, 14, 17, and 23 must be met.
…

March 20, 2023
Via www.regulations.gov
Public Comments Processing
Attn: FWS-HQ-IA-2021-0099
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
MS: PRB/3W
5275 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, Virginia 22041-3803
Re:

Safari Club International Comments on Proposed Rule, Revision to the
Section 4(d) Rule for the African Elephant, 87 Fed. Reg. 68975 (Nov. 17,
2022), Docket No. FWS-HQ-IA-2021-0099

Dear Dr. Cogliano,
Safari Club International (“SCI”) respectfully requests that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(“Service”) withdraw the proposed revisions to the special rule for the import of sport-hunted
African elephant trophies, 50 C.F.R. § 17.40(e)(6) (“4(d) Rule”). For many reasons, including
those explained below, the proposed rule should be withdrawn. Perhaps most importantly, these
revisions will not resolve any conservation concern, but will only reduce the funding and
incentives available to African range states to conserve elephants.
Over 81% of the world’s elephants inhabit the seven countries where they are hunted and from
which they are exported. These countries should be lauded for their many constructive efforts—
especially compared to the rest of elephant range, where elephant populations are declining or
depressed. U.S. hunters play an important role in funding the conservation of wildlife in the
seven countries from which elephants are exported. The Service should not make imports any
more difficult than they already are. Rather, it should do everything in its power to ensure that
imports continue and that hunting continues to benefit elephants and other species.
Not only should the Service not adopt this proposed rule, but doing so is a violation of the
Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). Under the ESA, the Service is only permitted to adopt
regulations that are “necessary and advisable” for the conservation of threatened-listed species
like elephant. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(d). The proposal is neither necessary nor advisable. It is not
necessary because of the low volume of trade in elephant hunting trophies, and the demonstrated
benefits to elephants from hunting conservation programs. It is not advisable because it will
reduce these demonstrated benefits and ultimately, harm the conservation of elephants. Further,
not only is the proposed rule unnecessary and inadvisable, but it is a direct affront to the oftexpressed desires and sovereignty of the impacted range nations.

SCI Comments on Proposed Revisions to 4(d) Rule for African Elephant
March 20, 2023
Page 2
Safari Club International
SCI, a nonprofit IRC § 501(c)(4) corporation, has approximately 50,000 members and advocates
worldwide. Its missions include the conservation of wildlife, protection of the hunter, and
education of the public concerning hunting and its use as a conservation tool. SCI members
frequently hunt elephant in southern Africa, and seek to import trophy mementoes of these hunts
back to the U.S. These members contribute millions of dollars per year to the wildlife
management budgets and Gross Domestic Products of the countries which rely on elephant
hunting as part of their conservation programs. SCI also works closely with African range
countries and community organizations to, among other things, promote sustainable use hunting
and demonstrate its benefits in various fora around the world. SCI’s sister organization, SCI
Foundation, also contributes funding to, and directly participates in, wildlife conservation and
research projects around the world, including southern Africa. SCI Foundation hosts an annual
“African Wildlife Consultative Forum” to bring together range states, rural and local community
organizations, outfitter associations, and other stakeholders to discuss important issues related to
conservation, wildlife management, and hunting. The Service is a regular participant at this
Forum.
The proposed rule should be withdrawn because the Service failed to consult meaningfully
with range states.
SCI requests that the Service withdraw the current proposal and comply with its obligation to
consult meaningfully with impacted sovereign range states before proposing any stricter
domestic measure. Consultation is an essential part of the Service’s obligations under the ESA
and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(“CITES”). CITES Res. Conf. 6.7 encourages an importing state to “make every reasonable
effort” to consult with affected range states before adopting any stricter domestic measures, like
the proposed rule. The Service must make every reasonable effort to engage the range states in
southern Africa in meaningful consultation regarding their conservation programs and any
alleged need to revise the 4(d) Rule.
The process and procedure that the Service used to promulgate this proposed rule does not
represent meaningful consultation or comply with CITES Res. Conf. 6.7. And although CITES
resolutions are non-binding, the Service regularly treats certain CITES resolutions as binding. In
fact, the Environmental Assessment (“EA”) prepared along with the proposed rule spends
multiple pages discussing CITES resolutions and non-binding guidance for live trade in
elephants and for the National Legislation Project. The Service should acknowledge and support
all the CITES processes regarding regulation of importation of foreign wildlife, including Res.
Conf. 6.7.
Service staff attended SCI Foundation’s African Wildlife Consultative Forum in October 2022,
only a few weeks before the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register. Ten African
elephant range states also attended that meeting, and yet the Service did not raise these issues
even once to initiate consultation with the range state representatives prior to publication of the
proposed rule. The Service also did not take full advantage of the consultation opportunities
Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

SCI Comments on Proposed Revisions to 4(d) Rule for African Elephant
March 20, 2023
Page 3
presented during the Nineteenth Conference of the Parties to CITES, held in mid/late November,
which could have facilitated robust discussions prior to publication of the proposed rule.
To their credit, Service staff did attend SCI’s annual Convention in February 2023, during which
they met with southern African range state representatives. However, these meetings were
insufficient for fulsome consultation, and certainly did not comply with CITES Res. Conf. 6.7.
First, these meetings occurred after publication of the proposed rule, after the Service’s decision
was announced and likely mostly finalized. It simply is not enough for the Service to treat
sovereign range states like any other public commenter and accept feedback after the proposed
rule is published. No other stakeholder has as much to lose as the range states and rural and local
communities that will be impacted by the proposed rule. Consultation should have occurred
prior to formulation of the proposed rule, let alone publication of it. And the Service should
have made every reasonable effort to travel to relevant range states to learn first-hand about their
conservation programs.
Second, the Service did not meet with all impacted range states. Notably, Botswana, the range
state with the largest elephant population in the world, was unable to send representatives to
SCI’s Convention. Perhaps more than any other range state, Botswana will be directly impacted
by adoption of the proposed rule. To SCI’s knowledge, the Service still has not engaged in
direct consultation with Botswana, despite the importance of this issue and the fact that the
proposal will likely shut down all elephant trophy imports from this country. The Service’s
oversight is not only inexcusable—a clear disregard of Botswana's acknowledged successes and
sovereignty—but a violation of the ESA.
The proposed rule will harm conservation of elephants and other species in southern
Africa.
Regulated hunting generates significant benefits, with low environmental impact. The seven
countries where elephants are hunted and exported to the U.S. sustain over 81% of the global
elephant population. The four countries which export almost 90% of all elephant trophies
conserve over 60% of the world’s elephants. A table showing the elephant populations of these
countries and the regulated hunting offtakes is included at the end of this comment.
Normally, when a community has achieved some impressive metric—a school district with high
test scores, a town with high incomes—we admire this success and try to replicate it. Instead,
through increased regulation, the Service will reduce the benefits of hunting and ultimately, harm
elephant conservation.
The proposed rule disingenuously plays down its detrimental impact to these successful
conservation programs. 1 It purports to “clarify” how the Service analyzes the “enhancement”
provision in 50 C.F.R. § 17.40(e) by requiring that range states certify, on an annual basis, a
number of specific points—none of which have been required previously. The Service has
1

C. Semcer, Testimony before the House Natural Resources Committee (July 18, 2019),
https://www.perc.org/2019/07/18/the-role-of-hunting-in-conserving-african-wildlife/#_ftnref20.
Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

SCI Comments on Proposed Revisions to 4(d) Rule for African Elephant
March 20, 2023
Page 4
defined “enhancement” for elephant imports based on the benefit to the species: did hunting help
support anti-poaching? Did it help improve community livelihoods? Now the Service is micromanaging how the range states monitor their elephant populations, protect their habitat, and
spend their conservation dollars. There is no reason for the Service to do this, when it has
already been repeatedly demonstrated—by the range states, community organizations, and ample
scientific research—that hunting generates significant benefits.
Habitat: The primary threat facing elephants—and almost all species—is loss of habitat.
Hunting justifies the preservation of large tracts of intact habitat. Hunting areas protect far more
land than national parks in the relevant range states, from 1.5 times as much land to more than
five times as much land. A table showing the size of hunting areas versus national parks, as well
as elephant population estimates, is included at the end of this comment. Hunting areas also
conserve far more habitat than national parks in popular photo-tourist destination countries that
do not permit hunting, such as Kenya. 2
A 2007 study found that hunting areas protected over 22% more habitat than national parks, 3 but
that figure does not account for the growth of communal conservancies, private ranches, and
trans-frontier conservation areas (“TFCAs”) since 2007. For example, 50 communal
conservancies in Namibia protected 118,000 km2 in 2007. As of the end of 2021 (in the middle
of the international Covid-19 pandemic), in Namibia alone, 86 conservancies protected over
180,000 km2. 4 Communal lands are of special importance, with the majority of elephant range in
southern Africa on communal lands, outside strictly protected national park boundaries. 5 The
incentives from hunting (such as revenues, infrastructure projects, employment, and meat) help
maintain this land as habitat and prevent its conversion to crops, livestock grazing, and other
human purposes. 6
2

For reference, Kenya is approximately two-thirds the size of Tanzania, but its elephant range is less than
one-third the size of Tanzania’s elephant range, and its elephant population is less than half as large as
Tanzania’s. African Elephant Specialist Group, Elephant Database, https://africanelephantdatabase.org/.
“[W]ildlife numbers outside parks have declined in Kenya since it banned hunting.” R. Emslie et al.,
Prince William Is Talking Sense—Trophy Hunting Is Crucial to Conservation, The Independent (Mar. 18,
2016), https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/prince-william-is-talking-sense-trophy-huntingis-crucial-to-conservation-a6940506.html.
3
P. Lindsey et al., Economic and Conservation Significance of the Trophy Hunting Industry in SubSaharan Africa, 134 Biological Conservation 455-469 (2007), https://www.perc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/08/Economic-and-conservation-significance.pdf.
4
Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organisations, State of Community Conservation in
Namibia (2021) (“State of Community Conservation in Namibia”),
http://www.nacso.org.na/resources/state-of-community-conservation.
5
C.R. Thouless et al., African Elephant Status Report 2016 (“Elephant Status Report”), p. 138,
https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/SSC-OP-060_D.pdf. Communal areas protect
well over half a million square kilometers of habitat across southern Africa.
6
R. Cooney at al., The Baby and the Bathwater: Trophy Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods, 68
Unasylva 249 (2017/1), https://www.fao.org/3/i6855en/I6855EN.pdf; A. Dickman, Ending Trophy
Hunting Could Actually Be Worse for Endangered Species, CNN (Nov. 24, 2017),
Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

SCI Comments on Proposed Revisions to 4(d) Rule for African Elephant
March 20, 2023
Page 5
Since 2007, TFCAs have formed to protect habitat across national borders. TFCAs connect
parks, hunting areas, and communal and private lands to collaboratively manage natural
resources across international borders, “for improved biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic development.” 7 As one example, the Kavango-Zambezi TFCA is twice as large as the
United Kingdom and encompasses crucial elephant range across Botswana, Namibia, Zimbabwe,
and Zambia. 8 Over 81% of the world’s elephants inhabit southern Africa, and “nearly 75% of
[these] occur as part of a single population in the Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation
Area.” 9
Anti-Poaching and Conservation Revenues: Hunting raises substantial revenue from concession
leases, trophy fees, conservation fees, taxes, and other charges levied by national and local
governments and landholders. Prior to trophy import restrictions imposed by the U.S. and other
western countries, elephant hunting was the highest or among the highest sources of hunting
revenue. 10 A large percentage of this revenue is used for law enforcement and anti-poaching by
national wildlife authorities. 11 For example, in Zimbabwe in 2014, hunting revenue funded onequarter of the wildlife authority’s budget, and over 60% of this revenue was dedicated to antipoaching efforts. 12
Further, hunting operators frequently run their own anti-poaching patrols, which reduce the
national government’s law enforcement burden and expand the “boots on the ground”. 13 It is not
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/24/opinions/trophy-hunting-decline-of-species-opiniondickman/index.html.
7
SADC, Transfrontier Conservation Areas, Website, https://www.sadc.int/themes/ naturalresources/transfrontier-conservation-areas/.
8
Kavango-Zambezi TFCA, Website, https://www.kavangozambezi.org/en/.
9
Elephant Status Report, p. 138.
10
P.A. Lindsey et al., The Significance of African Lions for the Financial Viability of Trophy Hunting
and the Maintenance of Wild Land, PLoS ONE 7(1) (2012),
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029332.
11
E.g., Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, Zimbabwe National Elephant Management
Plan (2021-2025) (“Zimbabwe Elephant Plan”), pp. 11, 12, 14 (“Financial resources deployed in the
management and general conservation of elephant during the years 2016 to 2019, averaged approximately
$5.6 million per year or about $90.00 per km2 excluding administrative costs.”); I.R. Nkuwi,
Conservation Status and Related Impacts of Elephants and Lion Trophy Ban to Tanzania, Presented
During International Wildlife Conservation Council (Sept. 2018) (“Conservation Status of Elephant and
Lion in Tanzania”).
12
The Service has this information in its possession in non-detriment and enhancement findings and
responses to Service questionnaires provided by the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management
Authority; see also Showcasing Implementation of Zimbabwe's National Elephant Management Plan
(2015-2020) and Its National Action Plan, CoP18 Inf. 32 (2019),
https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/ 18/inf/E-CoP18-Inf-032.pdf.
13
Zimbabwe Elephant Plan, p. 12 (“The presence of regulated hunting can also reduce illegal activities.
Many hunting operators in Zimbabwe have specialised anti-poaching units. Private operators’ lease
Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

SCI Comments on Proposed Revisions to 4(d) Rule for African Elephant
March 20, 2023
Page 6
uncommon for hunting operators to spend $70,000 to $100,000 a year (or more) on antipoaching (as the Service is well aware, from the anti-poaching expenditure information provided
in the Form 3-200-20 operator enhancement questionnaire).
In the same vein, community game scouts, employed using revenues from safari hunting, extend
poaching control into communal areas. For example, there are over 750 community game scouts
in Zambia, funded by hunting revenues. 14 Similarly, from 2010 to 2015, rural district councils in
Zimbabwe spent $1.77 million on law enforcement activities in CAMPFIRE areas. 15
These efforts are working—far better in hunting areas than in other parts of Africa, in which
hunting is not part of the conservation regime. One key indicator of the level of elephant
poaching, the Proportion of Illegally Killed Elephant (“PIKE”), shows both a consistent
downward trend in elephant poaching in southern and eastern Africa, and that poaching is well
below the “unsustainable” threshold. 16 On the other hand, the PIKE in central and western
Africa is considerably higher and above the “unsustainable” threshold. Faced with these metrics
of success, it is difficult to understand why the Service is seeking to impose additional regulatory
barriers that will reduce the benefits of hunting.
Hunting revenue is crucial to the operating budgets of range state wildlife authorities. For
example, Tanzania has repeatedly informed the Service that, prior to the suspension of elephant
trophy imports, approximately 80% of the wildlife authority budget came from hunting fees. 17
agreements include anti-poaching as an obligation of the concessionaire.”); Conservation Status of
Elephant and Lion in Tanzania.
14
The Service has this information in its possession in non-detriment and enhancement findings and
responses to Service questionnaires provided by Zambia’s Department of National Parks and Wildlife.
15
The Service has this information in its possession in non-detriment and enhancement findings and
responses to Service questionnaires provided by Zambia’s Department of National Parks and Wildlife and
the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority.
16
The CITES “Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephant” (“MIKE”) program collects data on elephant
mortalities and causes of death, and evaluates relative poaching levels based on the PIKE, calculated as
the number of illegally killed elephant divided by the total number of elephant carcasses observed. A
PIKE value of 0.5 or above implies that more elephant died from illegal killing that any other causes. The
2022 MIKE report for eastern Africa shows “strong evidence for … a downward trend [in poaching] from
2011 to 2021,” and that “[t]he trend [in poaching] in the last five years, from 2017 to 2021, is downward.”
The PIKE for eastern Africa for 2021 was estimated at 0.28, which is well below the “unsustainable”
threshold of 0.5 and well below the continental average of 0.40. CITES Secretariat, Report on
Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE), CoP19 Doc. 66.5 (2021), ¶ 23. Likewise, “[i]n the
last five years, from 2017 to 2021, there is strong evidence of a downward trend” in poaching in southern
Africa, and the PIKE was estimated at 0.27, below the average continental PIKE estimate of 0.40.” Id.
¶ 25. Notably, the high PIKE of 0.70 in western Africa, where there is no regulated hunting, increased
the continental estimate. But the low elephant population and small sample size means the reliability of
this PIKE estimate has “a high level of uncertainty” Id. ¶¶ 26-27.
17
The Service has this information in its possession in non-detriment and enhancement findings provided
by Tanzania’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism et al.; additional information is provided in:
United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Report on Decision 17.114
Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

SCI Comments on Proposed Revisions to 4(d) Rule for African Elephant
March 20, 2023
Page 7
Zimbabwe and Zambia have reported that between 25-40% (depending on the year) of their
wildlife authority operating budgets come from hunting leases and fees. 18 As the Zimbabwe
Parks and Wildlife Management Authority has explained:
Revenues from hunting are vital because there are not enough [non-hunting]
tourists to otherwise generate income to support all protected areas. Eco-tourism
revenues are typically sufficient to cover the costs of only some of the parks and
certainly not to justify wildlife as a land use outside of protected areas. Hunting is
able to generate revenues under a wider range of scenarios than eco-tourism,
including in remote areas lacking infrastructure, attractive scenery, or high
densities of viewable wildlife. 19
Elephant hunting revenues also comprise a large part of the operating revenues for private and
communal landholders. A model simulating a ban on hunting in Namibia found that over 80%
of communal wildlife conservancies would be unable to cover their operating costs, putting that
habitat at risk of conversion to other uses. 20
Livelihoods: Hunting, especially elephant hunting, benefits the rural communities who live
alongside elephants (and other species) and who are most impacted by this wildlife. Humanelephant conflict is a major issue in southern Africa. Communities are increasingly exposed to
loss of crops, damage to water supplies and fences, and even physical harm to humans. 21 For
regarding African Leopard (Panthera pardus) Quotas Established under Res. Conf. 10.14 (rev. CoP 16),
CITES AC30 Doc. 15, Annex 4 (May 2018), https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/com/ac/30/E-AC3015-A4.pdf; I.R. Nkuwi, Conservation Status and Related Impacts of Elephants and Lion Trophy Ban to
Tanzania, Presented During International Wildlife Conservation Council (Sept. 2018) (“Conservation
Status of Elephant and Lion in Tanzania”). Although this document is no longer available on the
Service’s website, it should remain within the Service’s files.
18
The Service has this information in its possession in non-detriment and enhancement findings provided
by the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority and the Zambia Department of National
Parks and Wildlife.
19
Zimbabwe Elephant Plan, p. 12; the Service also has information on this point in its possession in nondetriment and enhancement findings and responses to Service questionnaires provided by the Tanzania
Wildlife Management Authority.
20
R. Naidoo et al., Complementary Benefits of Tourism and Hunting to Communal Conservancies in
Namibia, 30 Conservation Biology (Jan. 8, 2016) (“Complementary Benefits”), p. 632,
https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/cobi.12643. Notably, this study also concluded
that removal of hunting derived revenues would have a far greater negative impact on communal
conservancy funding than if photo-tourism revenues were removed.
21
Botswana Department of Wildlife and National Parks, Botswana Elephant Management Plan and
Action Plan (2021-2026), CoP19-Inf-102 (“Botswana Elephant Plan”), p. 15; CAMPFIRE Association,
The Role of Trophy Hunting of Elephant in Support of the Zimbabwe CAMPFIRE Program (Dec. 2016)
(“CAMPFIRE Role of Trophy Hunting”); CAMPFIRE Association, Press Statement on Lifting of the
Suspension of Elephant Trophy Imports into America (Nov. 21, 2017) (“CAMPFIRE Press Statement”),
https://campfirezimbabwe.org/article/press-statement-21-november-2017; N. Onishi, A Hunting Ban Saps
a Village’s Livelihood, The New York Times (Sept. 12, 2015).
Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

SCI Comments on Proposed Revisions to 4(d) Rule for African Elephant
March 20, 2023
Page 8
example, in the Zambezi and Erongo-Kunene regions of Namibia’s communal conservancies,
there was an average of 700 elephant conflict incidents reported between 2015-2019. 22 When
hunting was suspended in Zambia (2012-2014), the wildlife authority received over 5,440 reports
of crop or property damage and human injury caused by elephants. 23 In ten communal districts
in Zimbabwe, an estimated 50 people were killed, and more than 7,000 hectares of crops were
destroyed by elephants between 2010 and 2015. The financial losses of the crops were estimated
to be as high as $1 million. 24
Hunting can help boost community tolerance for elephants through creating clear and direct
benefits from wildlife. For example, in the national elephant management plan, the Zimbabwe
Parks and Wildlife Management Authority explains,
When it is viewed as a valuable asset, wildlife becomes an economically
competitive land use in Zimbabwe, which leads to habitat preservation instead of
habitat destruction and conversion to agriculture or livestock production. Game
animals have a survival advantage because of user-pay stewardship systems
where use revenue generated from tourist hunters is paid through to wildlife
authorities and local communities. 25
Prior to the Service’s suspension of elephant trophy imports from Zimbabwe in 2014, hunting
revenues averaged $2.2 million/year in CAMPFIRE Areas, and elephant hunting alone generated
approximately $1.6 million/year (~70% of the total on average). 26
Opposing potential restrictions on trophy imports in the state of Connecticut, the Director of
Zambia’s Department of National Parks and Wildlife explained,
the benefits of regulated hunting are crucial to maintaining rural community
support for growing populations of dangerous game such as elephants, lions, and
leopards. … [S]ome of Zambia’s poorest communities bear the greatest impact of
crop-raiding elephants … But these communities tolerate the wildlife largely
because they derive income, social services, and much-needed game meat from
regulated hunting. 27
Under Zambia law, at least half of all hunter harvested game meat must be shared with local
communities, resulting in approximately 130,000 kg of fresh game meat provisioned each year to
22

State of Community Conservation in Namibia, pp. 63-64.
The Service has this information in its possession in non-detriment and enhancement findings provided
by the Zambia Department of National Parks and Wildlife.
24
CAMPFIRE Press Statement.
25
Zimbabwe Elephant Plan, p. 12.
26
CAMPFIRE Role of Trophy Hunting; CAMPFIRE Press Statement.
27
C. Simukonda, CT’s Ban of 6 African Species Would Hurt, Not Save, Wildlife, Stamford Advocate
(Apr. 19, 2021), Stamford Advocate, https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/opinion/article/Opinion-CT-sban-of-6-African-species-would-16105621.php.
23

Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

SCI Comments on Proposed Revisions to 4(d) Rule for African Elephant
March 20, 2023
Page 9
local communities. 28
Similarly, approximately 55% of the hunting revenues in Namibia’s communal conservancies
come from elephant hunts alone. The conservancies secure otherwise unprotected habitat across
180,000 km2 and benefit 238,700 people. 29 Revenue from hunting is reinvested into badly
needed rural infrastructure, like construction of clinics and schools, improvements in drinking
water, building and improving roads, and much more. 30
In addition, when rural communities live near hunting areas (common in some countries, less
common in others), elephant hunting provides much-needed protein. Hunting operators and
conservancies are also major sources of employment in the remote areas where hunting takes
place. 31
The Service is well aware of these benefits and of the negative impacts of import restrictions.
Tanzania’s wildlife authority has repeatedly informed the Service of the quantifiable negative
impact of harvest restrictions. 32 Namibia’s cabinet initiated a “ban on hunting bans.” 33
Botswana’s President took to international media to explain why Botswana was reopening
hunting after a moratorium; 34 this is further explained in Botswana’s national elephant
management plan:
The hunting moratorium [in Botswana] resulted in ill-feeling in a number of
communities and settlements, especially from members of the local population
who regard hunting as a traditional way of life. Many local people were formerly
reliant on controlled hunting for food, income and employment especially on
marginal lands where elephant occur but where land that is not suitable and
financially viable for photographic tourism and other economic options, such
agriculture is very limited. … When hunting was suspended in 2014, many

28

P.A. White & J.L. Belant, Provisioning of Game Meat to Rural Communities as a Benefit of Sport
Hunting in Zambia, PLoS ONE 10(2) (2015),
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117237.
29
Complementary Benefits, p. 635; State of Community Conservation in Namibia, p. 11.
30
E.g., E. Koro, Significant Benefits: The Reason Why Hunting Will Not Stop in Africa Despite Foreign
Opposition, The Chronicle (Feb. 22, 2023), https://www.chronicle.co.zw/significant-benefits-the-reasonwhy-hunting-will-not-stop-in-africa-despite-foreign-opposition/.
31
R. Cooney at al., The Baby and the Bathwater: Trophy Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods,
68 Unasylva 249 (2017/1), https://www.fao.org/3/i6855en/I6855EN.pdf.
32
E.g., Conservation Status of Elephant and Lion in Tanzania; non-detriment and enhancement findings
and responses to Service questionnaires from the Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority/Wildlife
Division/Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (in the Service’s possession).
33
E.g., A. Nakale, Trophy hunting ban will impact conservation, New Era (Namibia) (Feb. 21, 2020),
https://neweralive.na/posts/trophy-hunting-ban-will-impact-conservation.
34
H.E. M. Masisi, Hunting Elephants Will Help Them Survive, Wall Street Journal (June 19, 2019),
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hunting-elephants-will-help-them-survive-11560985152.
Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

SCI Comments on Proposed Revisions to 4(d) Rule for African Elephant
March 20, 2023
Page 10
community Trusts in northern Botswana experienced large declines in income. 35
The proposed rule will not benefit elephant, because it will reduce the benefits of elephant
hunting which, in turn, are essential to habitat protection, anti-poaching, and community support.
For these reasons, SCI requests that the Service withdraw the proposed revision to the 4(d)
Rule. 36
The proposed rule runs counter to the intent of Congress in enacting the ESA.
Over 60% of the world’s elephant inhabit four countries: Botswana, Zimbabwe, South Africa,
and Namibia. These countries also account for almost 90% of the trade in sport-hunted elephant
trophies. As the Service knows, African elephants are listed as threatened under the ESA, and all
four of these elephant populations are listed on Appendix II of CITES. Thus, Section 9(c)(2) of
the ESA presumes the legality of elephant trophy imports from these countries because the
elephants are listed as threatened, are on Appendix II, and the import is for non-commercial use.
16 U.S.C. § 1538(c)(2).
The proposal—and the Service’s enhancement requirement in the first place—run contrary to
Congress’ intent in the ESA to facilitate the import of elephant hunting trophies from these
countries. Rep. John Dingell, the architect of the ESA, stated the following in the ESA’s
legislative history:
H.R. 37 has been attacked by some as a[n] anti-hunter bill; it has been attacked by
others as a prohunter bill. In reality, it is neither—it is a bill which has been
carefully drafted to encourage State and foreign governments to develop healthy
stocks of animals occurring naturally within their borders. If these animals are
considered valuable as trophy animals, and are not endangered, they should be
regarded as a potential source of revenue to the managing agency and they should
be encouraged to develop to the maximum extent compatible with the ecosystem
upon which they depend.
I have been informed by the Department of the Interior that they will carefully
review the status of animal stocks in foreign countries and that where
nonendangered trophy animals are being managed in such a way as to assure
their continued and healthy existence, no barriers will be placed upon the
35

Botswana Elephant Plan, pp. 21, 23; see also E. Koro, Inside Botswana Communities’ 21st Century
International Hunting Windfall, Zimbabwe Independent (Mar. 15, 2023),
https://www.theindependent.co.zw/local-news/article/200008854/inside-botswana-communities-21stcentury-international-hunting-windfall (discussing benefits to Botswana communities from reopening of
regulated hunting).
36
Additional citations regarding the benefits of hunting and harm caused by import bans are included at
the end of this letter. They collectively demonstrate that the Service’s proposed rule will hinder elephant
conservation efforts to the detriment of elephants and other wildlife, local communities, and the range
states that successfully manage their wildlife.
Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

SCI Comments on Proposed Revisions to 4(d) Rule for African Elephant
March 20, 2023
Page 11
continued harvesting of those animals by the government. This is as it should
be, because it is only in the understanding that these animals have a real and
measurable value that many of the less developed countries will agree to take
steps to assure their continued existence. . . . 37
Congress’ express purpose was to avoid the placing of barriers on import of sport-hunted
trophies from healthy wildlife populations, such as elephants in southern Africa. The proposed
rule does the opposite and should be withdrawn.
The practical effect of the proposed revisions further demonstrates that the Service’s proposal
contravenes Congress’ intent. Implementation of the proposed rule would irrationally impose
stricter trade restrictions for the threatened-listed elephants than for endangered-listed species.
Import of endangered-listed species is allowed with an ESA import permit. As the Service is
aware, import of such species is not dependent upon annual certifications from range states—
regardless of species—or designation as “Category One” under the CITES National Legislation
Project (“NLP”). Although the Service asserts that the Secretary’s authority to promulgate
regulations related to threatened-listed species is effectively limitless, Congress surely did not
intend that the Service would impose more stringent restrictions on threatened species than those
Congress thought necessary for endangered species. Indeed, Section 4(d) states that the Service
“may by regulation prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited … with
respect to endangered species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1533(d). Congress did not intend for the Service to
promulgate regulations that go above and beyond the restrictions placed on endangered species.
The proposed certification requirement is unnecessary and unduly burdensome on the
range states.
The proposed rule attempts to solve problems that do not exist. There is no evidence that
elephant populations are threatened by legal international trade in hunting trophies. As
explained above, elephant populations are healthiest, largest, and most secure in southern
Africa—undoubtedly, because of their hunting conservation programs and the benefits that
justify the protection of habitat, fund law enforcement activities, and encourage rural and local
community tolerance. The Service refers to “concerns” about the impact of trade in live
elephants, but the proposed rule points to no similar “concerns” for the trade in hunting
trophies. 38 In short, the Service provides no substantive justification for the proposed revisions
that would require annual certification from range states.
The Service claims to be “clarifying” the enhancement standard for import. That simply is not
true. The Service is imposing additional requirements on range states before the U.S. will allow
37

House Consideration and Passage of H.R. 37 with Amendments, U.S. Congressional
Record (Sept. 18, 1973), p. 195 (emphasis added).
38
Moreover, recent studies indicate that the commercial poaching of the mid-2010s has been diminished,
and elephant populations are recovering. See, e.g., https://newsroom.wcs.org/NewsReleases/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/18185/Extensive-Wildlife-Survey-in-Tanzania-ConfirmsElephant-Recovery-in-Key-African-Wildlife-Stronghold.aspx.
Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

SCI Comments on Proposed Revisions to 4(d) Rule for African Elephant
March 20, 2023
Page 12
individual hunters to import. The proposed rule is not a clarification of an existing requirement,
but a further restriction that, as explained above, does nothing to support conservation.
An annual certification to the United States is unnecessary (and therefore, not authorized by
Section 4(d) of the ESA). The range states already make certifications through the CITES export
permit process. CITES only allows a range state to issue an export permit when the activity is
“not detrimental” to the survival of the species—meaning the hunting is at a level which is
sustainable—and the offtake was legal. 39 Thus, range state export permits are already
certifications of sustainability and legality. The range states also announce export quotas for
elephants to the CITES Secretariat. Those quotas are published online and open to review by all
CITES Parties, any of which could raise concerns or otherwise object to the quotas. This process
is also a certification of the level of international trade which is not detrimental to the survival of
the species. 40
Second, the proposed certification requirement would impose a standard far greater than
“enhancement.” Instead, the Service would essentially require range states to certify that their
conservation programs “ensure” the survival of the species, rather than “enhance” it. The term
“enhance” (or “enhancement”) is not defined in the ESA, ESA regulations, or in any CITES
documents. The dictionary defines “enhance” as “heighten, increase; especially: to increase or
improve in value, quality, desirability, or attractiveness.” 41 The certification is a departure from
the Service’s previously stated standards for enhancement, a fact not stated within the proposed
rule.
In 1992, the Service noted that importation of a sport-hunted elephant required “a determination
that the killing of elephants for sport-hunting enhances the survival of the species by providing
financial support programs for elephant conservation.” 57 Fed. Reg. 35473, 35485 (Aug. 10,
1992). In 1995, the Service stated that it “believes that when revenues are directed to
management or enforcement activities or when there is long-term benefit to individuals or groups
with proprietary interest in ensuring a viable elephant population, there is benefit to the survival
of the elephant.” 60 Fed. Reg. 12969, 12970 (Mar. 9, 1995). And in 2015, the Service stated
that its enhancement determination is made based on: “[1] if a country has sufficient numbers of
elephants to support a hunting program, [2] if the country has a management plan and adequate
laws and regulations to effectively implement a hunting program, and [3] if the participation of
U.S. hunters in the program provides a clear benefit to the species…” Safari Club Int’l v. Zinke,
878 F.3d 316, 327 (D.C. Circ. 2017) (quoting the Service’s March 2015 negative enhancement
finding for Zimbabwe elephants). The Service’s newly-proposed certification factors are clearly
an unreasonable expansion of the previous factors the Service considered when determining
enhancement. 42
39

Article IV of the CITES Convention.
Res. Conf. 14.7 and Res. Conf. 10.10.
41
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enhance.
42
As set forth above, the Service has previously considered this clear benefit to include contributions to
habitat protection, anti-poaching, and improvement of community livelihoods.
40

Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

SCI Comments on Proposed Revisions to 4(d) Rule for African Elephant
March 20, 2023
Page 13
Further, the required certification is disconnected from the requested activity of importing a
sport-hunted trophy. The current 4(d) Rule requires a finding “that the killing of the [elephant]
will enhance the survival of the species.” 50 C.F.R. § 17.40(e)(6)(i)(B). Rather than focusing on
whether hunting improves conservation outcomes within the range state, the Service would
require range states to certify a number of broad “factors” that may or may not have anything to
do with hunting in particular. For example, whether current viable elephant habitat is not
decreasing or degrading may be wholly outside the control of the hunter and the hunting
conservation program. Hunting does secure wildlife habitat, as reflected above, but it does not
prevent the inescapable realities of climate change, drought, or continent-wide population growth
that will surely continue to diminish “viable habitat” outside of hunting areas and national parks.
Likewise, the question of whether “elephant populations in the range country are stable or
increasing,” on the whole, is distinct from the question of whether the elephant populations are
“sufficiently large to sustain sport hunting at the level authorized by the country,” and even more
distinct from the question that should be asked: whether the elephant population from which the
trophy was hunted is sufficiently large such that the hunting was not detrimental/sustainable.
Third, the required certification effectively imposes an unfunded mandate on sovereign nations.
The Service requests that range state management authorities expend time and resources—which
the Service knows are already limited due to existing trade restrictions—but provides no funding
or other provisions to implement the annual certification. Such unfunded regulatory mandates
are frowned upon in the United States. It is unnecessary and ill-advised for the Service to cause
sovereign nations to expend valuable resources at its direction.
In effect, the Service is creating a wholly new and unduly burdensome requirement that
(1) changes the standard for enhancement and is not simply a clarification of an existing
requirement, (2) cannot be met by the individual hunters who submit import permit applications,
and (3) may never be met by range states up to the Service’s unreasonably high standard. The
proposal is not only unnecessary, but far from advisable—it may be impossible.
Aspects of the proposed certification requirement are unsuitable for southern Africa.
In addition to being unnecessary and overly burdensome, the certification requirement ignores
the realities of southern Africa and the elephant populations therein.
First, although elephants are listed as threatened across their range under the ESA, their
distribution is not uniform. In the countries where elephants are hunted, they are not only
abundant but, in some countries, overly abundant. Again, over 81% of the world’s elephants
inhabit the seven countries that account for all trophy exports. In these countries, elephant are
not considered threatened; in fact, they are sometimes not even specially protected but are treated
as a wildlife resource which, through sustainable use, can generate conservation benefits.
Ignoring these facts, the Service proposes to require certification that (1) elephant populations
are stable or increasing, and (2) funding derived from sport hunting is applied specifically to
elephant conservation. But the range states should be permitted to adaptively manage their

Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

SCI Comments on Proposed Revisions to 4(d) Rule for African Elephant
March 20, 2023
Page 14
elephant populations and decrease them in certain instances. 43 Similarly, range states should be
able to utilize funding from elephant hunts for other species of greater conservation concern. It
makes little sense for the Service to require these two factors in instances where elephant
populations are overly abundant.
Second, habitat is at risk across the world, including in the United States. As explained above,
hunting secures habitat for wildlife, including elephants, but it is not a cure for all threats to
habitat throughout each country. Climate change, human population growth, increased demand
for other natural resources, and overregulation that disincentivizes conservation of habitat for the
benefit of wildlife all work against the range states’ ability to secure habitat for elephants. The
United States faces similar stresses to habitat conservation, and the Service would not be able to
make such a certification that wildlife habitat is not decreasing or degrading throughout the
United States. The Service cannot credibly place impossible requirements on the range states.
Third, requiring that the range country has “sound data” on the elephant population is more than
the Service requires of itself or U.S. states. Nevertheless, the relevant countries do monitor their
elephant populations through a number of methods, and adaptively manage their elephants (and
other species) as needed to protect overall biodiversity. Not only do these countries protect the
world’s largest populations of elephants, but also lions, leopards, rhinos, and many other
species—all exemplars of the countries’ respective conservation success. SCI requests that the
Service withdraw the proposed revision and opt out of micro-managing these demonstrably
successful wildlife conservation programs.
Fourth, requiring all range states to certify that 100% of the meat from sport-hunted elephants
goes to rural communities would not be possible in areas where there are few to no communities.
Many hunting areas, including much of South Africa, are not nearby villages to make the transfer
of game meat viable. In areas where local communities are present, however, they benefit from
sustainable use hunting programs, including the donation of the meat from harvested wildlife,
including elephants.
Finally, the Service seeks public comments on “[h]ow to ensure an effective transfer of hunting
revenues back into conservation of the species, including the kinds of regulations, infrastructure,
or standard processes the range country of the hunt should have in place to ensure that hunting
revenues add to and do not simply substitute for other existing funding for conservation.” The
Service gives no explanation for where this “other existing funding for conservation” would
come, and this request for comment is hypocritical. In the United States, most of the funding for
state wildlife conservation comes from hunting revenues, which is then matched with dollars
from an excise tax on hunting, fishing, and shooting equipment. The Service is suggesting a
requirement that elephant range states fund their conservation programs with dollars that even
the U.S. states do not have. Hunting revenues do not “substitute” for other sources of funding;
rather, they are often the only source of conservation revenue. Any suggestion that hunting
removes otherwise available conservation funding is absurd.

43

Moreover, declining populations may be hunted, as long as hunting quotas are adjusted accordingly.
Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

SCI Comments on Proposed Revisions to 4(d) Rule for African Elephant
March 20, 2023
Page 15
Generally, the proposed rule would require an illogical “one size fits all” certification to
countries with different conservation models. These countries have different proportions of
private, public, and communal land, different conservation funding models, and different
conservation needs. Instead of imposing a certification that will be difficult for any or all of the
range states to provide, the Service should support and reward the countries who have stood for
decades against the tide of poaching, habitat loss, and decreasing wildlife numbers worldwide.
The CITES National Legislation Project Category One requirement elevates form over
substance.
SCI supports U.S. efforts to assist other CITES Parties in achieving CITES NLP “Category One”
status. But SCI vigorously opposes making elephant imports dependent upon achieving that
status. 44 The Service has not explained why or how achieving “Category One” status will
benefit elephant conservation. The reality is that “Category One” status has no conservation
benefit whatsoever.
The NLP assesses whether a country has adopted laws which fully implement the CITES
Convention, which governs international trade in fauna and flora. Thus, the NLP designations
assess the country’s CITES implementation across-the-board, meaning for wildlife, fish, and
plants. Some countries have not fully developed their regulations for every CITES species in
every situation, but that does not mean these countries are not effectively implementing CITES
to regulate trade in elephants. For example, all the range states have designated management and
scientific authorities and issue CITES-compliant permits for trade in elephants.
Further, the NLP designations come from CITES Res. Conf. 8.4, which directs the Secretariat,
“within available resources,” to assess the CITES Parties’ domestic measures. Updates to the
NLP designations are therefore dependent on the Secretariat’s resources—which are always
scarce and overtaxed. Such designations are not made in real time and may take years to be
revised. Meanwhile, the Service’s “Category One” requirement will apply from the moment the
proposed rule is finalized and effective. Waiting for CITES to catch up on updating the NLP
designations jeopardizes necessary funds for important conservation programs.
The erroneous nature of this requirement is perhaps best demonstrated by comparing the list of
“Category One” Parties to “Category Two” Parties. Some countries in west and central Africa,
including those with dwindling elephant populations, are in “Category One.” Unremarkably,
their designation in “Category One” has no direct causation or even correlation with successful
elephant conservation. On the other hand, some countries in southern and eastern Africa that are
among the most successful at elephant conservation (as demonstrated by the size of their
elephant populations, their low incidence of poaching, and the support of their private and
44

The proposed rule notes that the Service has previously assisted Angola and Jordan in their efforts to
implement CITES. Notably, neither country trades elephants and so would not be impacted by the
proposed restrictions. If the Service truly believes that achievement of Category One status would benefit
range state elephant conservation efforts, it should assist the relevant range states to achieve that
objective, not diminish conservation funding through unwarranted trade restrictions.
Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

SCI Comments on Proposed Revisions to 4(d) Rule for African Elephant
March 20, 2023
Page 16
communal stakeholders) are included in “Category Two.” The only logical conclusion when
comparing these facts is that the NLP designation has no impact on elephant conservation within
the individual range states. 45
The proposal fails to take into account the Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity
and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government.
On his first day in office, President Biden signed the Executive Order on Advancing Racial
Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government (“Executive
Order”). The Executive Order declares it the “policy of [the Biden] Administration that the
Federal Government should pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all,
including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and
adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.” 46 According to the Executive Order,
“advancing equity requires a systematic approach to embedding fairness in decision-making
processes.” Accordingly, it directs “each agency [to] assess whether, and to what extent, its
programs and policies perpetuate systemic barriers to opportunities and benefits for people of
color and other underserved groups.” The Executive Order defines equity as “the consistent and
systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong
to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as … persons of color;
… persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent
poverty or inequality.” The Order defines “underserved communities” as “populations sharing a
particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, that have been systematically
denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life….”
The proposed rule contains no assessment of whether and to what extent it will perpetuate
systemic barriers to opportunities and benefits to people of color and other underserved groups.
Nor does it fairly treat the African range countries and the rural and local communities who
benefit from regulated hunting. The Service failed to consult with these countries and
communities prior to publishing the proposed rule.
Further, the Service has been warned by African range states and local communities that import
restrictions are detrimental to their conservation programs and to improving rural livelihoods.
The Service has been told, repeatedly, that these countries and communities are already
successfully managing their wildlife—as shown by the fact that most of the world’s elephants
live within the countries where they are hunted—and the Service should adopt fewer restrictions,
not more. The Executive Order mandates that the Service consider the impact of its policies on
the distribution of benefits to persons of color, rural communities, and underserved communities.
The proposed rule not only ignores the Executive Order, but it ignores a petition by
45

In an effort to demonstrate a need for the proposed revisions, the Service cites to recent sales of live
elephants from Namibia and Zimbabwe as the only specific example of trade that concerns the Service.
Ironically, both Namibia and Zimbabwe are designated as Category One in the NLP. This requirement
has no impact on those Parties, and the Service’s proposed requirement is arbitrary.
46
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-advancingracial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government/.
Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

SCI Comments on Proposed Revisions to 4(d) Rule for African Elephant
March 20, 2023
Page 17
representatives of communities whose interests the Executive Order seeks to advance. On June
30, 2021, the CAMPFIRE Association, which represents Zimbabwe’s community-based
conservation program, and the Ngamiland Council of Non-Governmental Organisations
(“NCONGO”), which represents community organizations in the Ngamiland districts in
Botswana, requested that the Service revise its regulations to reduce disproportionate negative
impacts on communities of color and underserved indigenous and rural communities in Africa
and other parts of the world. 47 The petition explained that current federal regulations do not
account for the detrimental impact of listing foreign species and imposing import restrictions on
the rural and local communities who benefit from sustainable use of wildlife. That petition
suggested specific changes to better take into account community voices. It also sought to
reduce import restrictions on hunting trophies.
SCI questions whether the proposed rule, which will reduce the benefits of regulated hunting to
communities of color, rural communities, indigenous communities, and underserved
communities in southern Africa, can comply with the Executive Order—particularly as
representatives of these communities have spoken in opposition to the proposed rule and
requested fewer import restrictions. For these reasons, SCI requests an explanation of the
Service’s analysis of how the proposed rule complies with the Executive Order in any final
rule.
The Service did not fulfill its National Environmental Policy Act obligations.
The Draft EA does not fulfill the Service’s legal obligations under the National Environmental
Policy Act (“NEPA”). The Service failed to take a “hard look” at the environmental and
economic impacts of the proposed rule. Blue Mtns. Diversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d
1208, 1211 (9th Cir. 1998). Indeed, the Service admits in the EA that it does not know the
impact of the proposed rule. E.g., Draft EA at 61–62. Moreover, the Service speculates that
implementation of the NLP “Category One” requirement will drive hunters from hunting in
certain range states to hunting in others, but the Service provides no analysis of the impact that
shift will have on either set of range states. Draft EA at 52. SCI requests that the Service
withdraw the proposed rule and associated draft EA, prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
in compliance with NEPA, and fully analyze the impacts that these unnecessary revisions to the
4(d) Rule will have on relevant range states.
Country-wide certifications should result in country-wide enhancement findings.
If the Service requires country-wide certifications from range states, the 4(d) Rule should reflect
that these certifications are sufficient for country-wide enhancement findings. As the Service
recognizes, a case-by-case permitting approach is not required. The Service is permitted to
conduct rulemaking—such as this one—to give itself the authority to make country-wide
enhancement determinations. It is not bound legally to make enhancement findings on a permitby-permit basis.

47

CAMPFIRE Association, Press Statement on Petition, https://campfirezimbabwe.org/article/petition.
Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

SCI Comments on Proposed Revisions to 4(d) Rule for African Elephant
March 20, 2023
Page 18
Similar to the 4(d) rule for threatened-listed argali, the elephant 4(d) Rule should explicitly
provide that annual certification from a range state results in country-wide enhancement findings
for the importation of sport-hunted elephants from that country. 48 If the Service truly intends to
provide clarity regarding enhancement, alleviate its backlog of import permit applications, and
use its regulatory authority to benefit elephant conservation, it should—at an absolute
minimum—promulgate revisions to the 4(d) Rule that would allow for positive country-wide
enhancement findings.
Any revisions to the 4(d) Rule should only apply prospectively.
If the Service ultimately adopts revisions to the 4(d) Rule, any new requirements for the
importation of elephants should only apply to import applications received after the effective
date of the new Rule. As the Service is aware, many hunters have been waiting years for
decisions from the Service on their elephant import permit applications. Those hunters should
not be held to standards that did not exist at the time of their hunts and applications. In addition
to general notions of fairness and equity, prospective application of any new rule is consistent
with judicial opinions regarding the difference between rules and adjudications. See, e.g., Safari
Club Int’l v. Zinke, 878 F.3d 316, 332–34 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (“[R]ules generally have only ‘future
effect’ while adjudications immediately bind parties by retroactively applying law to their past
actions.”). Thus, if the Service adopts new requirements for imports, those requirements should
apply only to applications received after the effective date of the new Rule.
Conclusion
For all the reasons explained above, the Service should withdraw the proposed revisions to the
4(d) Rule. The Service should endeavor to work with elephant range states to implement
effective conservation policy, not hamstring successful conservation programs with unnecessary
and irrational regulation. If you have any questions, please contact Regina Lennox,
[email protected], or Jeremy Clare, [email protected].
Sincerely,

Sven Lindquist
President, Safari Club International

48

The argali rule is different in other, obvious aspects. SCI encourages the Service to actually utilize the
provisions of the argali rule and provide notice in the Federal Register that imports from Kyrgyzstan,
Mongolia, and Tajikistan are permitted without an ESA import permit. 50 C.F.R. 17.40(j)(2).
Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

SCI Comments on Proposed Revisions to 4(d) Rule for African Elephant
March 20, 2023
Page 19
Exhibit A
Country

Est. Elephant
Range (km2)

Est. Elephant
Pop.

% of Est.
Continental
Elephant Pop.

Est. Size of
Hunting Areas
(km2)

Size of
National Parks
(km2)

Botswana

228,073

131,626

31.7

Not Available

Not Available

Mozambique

320,402

10,884

2.6

131,425

87,806

Namibia

164,069

22,754

5.5

Not Available

Not Available

South Africa

30,651

18,841

4.5

>210,000

37,511

Tanzania

389,921

50,433

12.1

304,400

57,838

Zambia

170,466

21,967

5.3

179,904

~64,000

Zimbabwe

81,228

82,630

19.9

~88,000

~28,000

Total

1,384,810

339,095

81.6

--

--

*** Kenya

130,725

22,809

5.5

N/A

~29,400

Sources: C.R. Thouless et al., African Elephant Status Report (2016) (estimating a continental
elephant population of 415,428); IUCN, WCMC, and UNEP, ProtectPlanet.net (world database
of protected places), http://www.protectedplanet.net.
Note: In Namibia, some limited hunting takes place in National Parks.
Exhibit B
Country

Est. Elephant
Population

CITES Export
Quota (2022)

Avg. Hunting
Offtakes

Botswana

131,626

400

2021-22: 196

Mozambique

10,844

33

--

Namibia

22,754

90

2016-19: 48

South Africa

18,841

150

2013-17: 76

Tanzania

50,433

50

2016-21: 4

Zambia

21,967

80

2016-22: 15

Zimbabwe

82,630

500

2016-22: 173

TOTAL

339,095

1,303 (0.3% Pop.)

--

Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

SCI Comments on Proposed Revisions to 4(d) Rule for African Elephant
March 20, 2023
Page 20
Additional (Relatively Recent) Sources
Adhikari et al., Community-based trophy hunting programs secure biodiversity and livelihoods:
Learnings from Asia's high mountain communities and landscapes (August 2021),
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667010021001542?via%3Dihub
Angula et al., Local perceptions of trophy hunting on communal lands in Namibia (February
2018), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S000632071731100X?via%3Dihub
Booth, If MPs today take the words of virtue-signalling celebrities over Africans who live with
big game, more animals will suffer and die, says wildlife expert (March 2023),
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11870365/If-MPs-words-celebrities-Africans-livebig-game-animals-die.html
Challender et al., Inadequacies in establishing CITES trade bans (April 2019),
https://resourceafrica.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Challender-et-al-2019-Inadequacies-inestablishing-CITES-trade-bans.pdf
Challender et al., Mischaracterizing wildlife trade and its impacts may mislead policy processes
(August 2021), https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12832
Clark et al., Hunting trophy import bans proposed by the UK may be ineffective and inequitable
as conservation policies in multiple social-ecological contexts (January 2023),
https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/conl.12935
Cooney et al., Think Before You Act: Improving the Conservation Outcomes of CITES Listing
Decisions (April 2021), https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.631556/full
Dawson et al., The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable
conservation (May 2021), https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss3/art19/
Dickman et al., Trophy Hunting Bans Imperil Biodiversity (October 2019),
https://www.conservationfrontlines.org/2019/10/trophy-hunting-bans-imperil-biodiversity/
Dickman, Conservation is my life’s work – and I know trophy hunting helps PROTECT wildlife
and isn't making species extinct. (March 2023), https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article11856109/PROFESSOR-AMY-DICKMAN-Trophy-hunting-helps-PROTECT-wildlife-isntmaking-species-extinct.html
Dickman, Lions, lies and legislation: The harms of trophy hunting have been exaggerated
(February 2023), https://thecritic.co.uk/lions-lies-and-legislation/

Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

SCI Comments on Proposed Revisions to 4(d) Rule for African Elephant
March 20, 2023
Page 21
Dickman, Loved to Death? The Risks of Simplistic Campaigning for Wildlife Conservation
(August 2021), https://blog.ucsusa.org/science-blogger/loved-to-death-the-risks-of-simplisticcampaigning-for-wildlife-conservation/
Farhan, Trophy hunting for economic growth? Sustainable uses of natural resources is
economically attractive to local communities as a long-term strategy (May 2021),
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2298670/trophy-hunting-for-economic-growth
Greenfield, ‘It’s neocolonialism’: campaign to ban UK imports of hunting trophies condemned
(June 2022) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/01/its-neocolonialismcampaign-to-ban-uk-imports-of-hunting-trophies-condemned-aoe
Greenfield, ‘Poorly conceived’ trophy hunting bill puts wildlife at risk, UK government told
(January 2022) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/13/poorly-conceivedtrophy-hunting-bill-puts-wildlife-at-risk-uk-government-told-aoe
Hart, The true value of trophy hunting: When big game doesn’t pay, it is replaced by cow and
plough (January 2020), https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/january-2020/the-true-value-of-trophyhunting/?fbclid=IwAR34xX4_JP13TrUuP2m7dGOUX_jOVlu4eLQvDwuxqLxBsvPbqI_ELBo6
q80
Jehring, Ahead of key vote on trophy hunting ban MPs are told to beware myths from animal
rights activists such as hobby being linked to 'declining lion numbers' (March 2023),
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11870105/Ahead-key-vote-trophy-hunting-ban-MPstold-beware-myths-animal-rights-activists.html
Jehring, Britain's proposed ban on big game trophies is 'arrogant' and five African nations say the
plan smacks of 'colonialism' (March 2023), https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article11855969/Britains-proposed-ban-big-game-trophies-arrogant-smacks-colonialism.html
Koro, Ploy to ban international trophy hunting at odds with Africa’s interest, a Zambian
perspective, (July 2022) https://www.lusakatimes.com/2022/07/07/ploy-to-ban-internationaltrophy-hunting-at-odds-with-africas-interest-a-zambian-perspective/
Lawson, Trophy hunters aren’t the lion’s real enemy (March 2023),
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trophy-hunters-arent-the-lions-real-enemy-2fk0892q5
Louis, It's a form of colonialism to tell us Africans what to do with our wildlife (June 2022),
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10966891/MAXI-LOUIS-Ending-trophy-hunting-farprotects-big-game-guarantee-destruction.html

Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

SCI Comments on Proposed Revisions to 4(d) Rule for African Elephant
March 20, 2023
Page 22
MacLaren et al., The value of hunting for conservation in the context of the biodiversity
economy (2019), https://resmob.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019-06Hunting_report_Draft.pdf
Mangwanya, How California legislation would be harmful for African wildlife conservation
efforts (June 2020), https://calmatters.org/commentary/how-california-legislation-would-beharmful-for-african-wildlife-conservation-efforts/
Marshall, ‘Why is trophy hunting OK for rich Scottish landowners but not communities in
Africa?’ (March 2023), https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/hunting-trophies-billwhy-trophy-hunting-ok-scottish-landowners/
Masisi, Hunting Elephants Will Help Them Survive: They’re magnificent creatures, but
Botswana has too many of them in the wrong places. (June 2019),
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hunting-elephants-will-help-them-survive-11560985152
Nyamayadenga et al., An assessment of the impact of the 2014 US elephant trophy importation
ban on the hunting patterns in Matetsi Hunting Complex, north-west Zimbabwe (October 2021),
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989421003085?via%3Dihub
Parker et al., Impacts of a trophy hunting ban on private land conservation in South African
biodiversity hotspots (May 2020), https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.214
Roe et al., Informing decisions on trophy hunting: A Briefing Paper regarding issues to be taken
into account when considering restriction of imports of hunting trophies (April 2019),
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/e5fed303125ae920735857421/files/8d092ecd-bca3-459b-babbcd833a028e6b/iucn_sept_briefing_paper___informingdecisionstrophyhunting.pdf
Semcer and Child, Misinformation About Trophy Hunting Threatens Conservation (February
2021), https://www.perc.org/2021/02/18/misinformation-about-trophy-hunting-threatensconservation/
Semcer, Biden’s elephant protection efforts are likely to backfire: As in the U.S., legal hunting
permits fund conservation in Africa (March 2023),
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2023/03/11/bidens-elephant-protectionefforts-are-likely-to-backfire/
Strong and Silva, Impacts of hunting prohibitions on multidimensional well-being (March 2020),
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320719306317
t’Sas-Rolfes et al., Legal hunting for conservation of highly threatened species: The case of
African rhinos (March 2022), https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12877
Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

SCI Comments on Proposed Revisions to 4(d) Rule for African Elephant
March 20, 2023
Page 23
Webster et al., Keeping hunting bans on target (June 2022),
https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.13932
Recent materials from Community Leaders Network and Resource Africa:
- Written Evidence Submitted by Community Leaders Network of Southern Africa,
Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organisation, Resource Africa United
Kingdom (August 2021), https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/38445/pdf/
-

Open letter: Stop the hypocrisy – a call for the genuine inclusion of African communities
in decisions about our wildlife, https://communityleadersnetwork.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/11/Open-letter-US-UK-EU-legislation.pdf

-

‘It’s neocolonialism’: campaign to ban UK imports of hunting trophies condemned by
African delegation (June 2022), https://communityleadersnetwork.org/its-neocolonialismcampaign-to-ban-uk-imports-of-hunting-trophies-condemned-by-african-delegation/

-

OPEN LETTER: Celebrity Campaigns Undermine Successful Conservation And Human
Rights (July 2020), https://resourceafrica.net/open-letter-celebrity-campaigns-underminesuccessful-conservation-and-human-rights/

-

A Wave Of Legislative Proposals Throughout Europe To Restrict The Legal Import Of
Hunting Trophies Threatens The Rights And Livelihoods Of African Communities
Involved In Conservation, And The Wildlife Itself (July 2022),
https://www.resourceafrica.net/media-release-anti-hunting-laws-threaten-our-livelihoodsand-our-wildlife/

-

The UK government wants to tell Africans what to do with our wildlife — this is
colonialism all over again (March 2023), https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/202303-12-the-uk-government-wants-to-tell-africans-what-to-do-with-our-wildlife-this-iscolonialism-all-over-again/

Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

April 4, 2024
The Honorable Deb Haaland
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
[email protected]
Re:

Director Martha Williams
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
5275 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041
[email protected]

Safari Club International Notice of Intent to Sue on Final Rule, Revision to
the Section 4(d) Rule for the African Elephant, 89 Fed. Reg. 22522 (Apr. 1,
2024)

Dear Secretary Haaland and Director Williams:
Safari Club International (“SCI”) respectfully gives notice of our intent to sue the Department of
the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“Service”) to challenge the final rule restricting
the import of sport-hunted African elephant published at 89 Fed. Reg. 22522 (Apr. 1, 2024). The
final rule violates the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544 (“ESA”), and the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-555, 706 (“APA”). This notice is provided
under the ESA’s 60-day notice requirement, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g). SCI reserves the right to
assert additional violations of other federal and international laws.
The Service’s final rule will require an annual “certification” from range states before the
Service will consider issuing an import permit for a legally harvested elephant. The final rule
will also prohibit the import of legally harvested elephant from some southern African countries,
based on an arbitrary requirement related to the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (“CITES”) National Legislation Project (“NLP”).
These requirements are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in
accordance with law, among other violations of the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 706.
Over 81% of the world’s elephants inhabit the seven countries where they are hunted and from
which they are exported.1 These countries should be lauded for their many constructive
efforts—especially compared to the rest of elephant range, where elephant populations are
declining or depressed. U.S. hunters play an important role in funding the conservation of
wildlife in these seven countries. The Service should do everything in its power to ensure that
imports of harvested elephants continue and that hunting continues to benefit elephants and other
species. Yet the final rule does the opposite.

1

The seven countries are Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and
Zimbabwe.

Notice of Intent to Sue – Elephant 4(d) Rule
April 4, 2024
Page 2
The final rule violates the ESA for four primary reasons. First, the Service is only permitted to
adopt regulations that are “necessary and advisable” for the conservation of threatened-listed
species like elephant. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(d). The final rule is neither necessary nor advisable. It
is not necessary because of the low volume of trade in elephant hunting trophies, and the
demonstrated benefits to elephants from hunting conservation programs. It is not advisable
because it will reduce these demonstrated benefits and ultimately, harm the conservation of
elephants. The final rule also violates Section 4(d) of the ESA because it creates requirements
for import of threatened-listed elephants that are more restrictive than would otherwise apply if
elephants were listed as endangered. Second, the final rule violates the ESA’s directives to
encourage foreign conservation of listed species. 16 U.S.C. § 1537(b).
Third, the final rule reflects a continuing failure of the Service to fully implement CITES,
contrary to Section 8a of the ESA. CITES Res. Conf. 6.7 recommends that countries considering
stricter domestic measures engage in meaningful consultation with affected range states. The
Service failed to do so in adopting the final rule. Last, the final rule conflicts with the text and
spirit of the ESA’s presumption of legal import of threatened-listed, CITES Appendix II-listed
species imported for personal reasons. Congress intended that the Service impose “no barriers”
to the import of such species from successful conservation programs. The final rule is exactly
the kind of barrier that Congress feared—which the Service previously “assured” Congress it
would not adopt.
Safari Club International
SCI, a nonprofit I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) corporation, has approximately 88,000 members and
advocates worldwide. Its missions include the conservation of wildlife, protection of the hunter,
and education of the public concerning hunting and its use as a conservation tool. SCI members
frequently hunt elephant in southern Africa and often seek to import trophy mementoes of these
hunts back to the U.S. These members contribute millions of dollars per year to the wildlife
management budgets and Gross Domestic Products of the countries which rely on elephant
hunting as part of their conservation programs. SCI also works closely with African range states
and community organizations to protect sustainable-use hunting and its significant benefits.
SCI’s sister organization, SCI Foundation, contributes funding to, and directly participates in,
wildlife conservation and research projects around the world, including southern Africa. SCI
Foundation hosts an annual African Wildlife Consultative Forum to bring together range states,
rural and local community organizations, outfitter associations, and other stakeholders to discuss
important issues related to conservation, wildlife management, and hunting. The Service is a
regular participant at this Forum.
SCI submitted extensive comments in opposition to the proposed rule revising the Section 4(d)
rule for the African elephant, published at 87 Fed. Reg. 68975 (Nov. 17, 2022). SCI appreciates
that the Service made some changes to the final rule in response to SCI’s comments. But the
Service did not go far enough. SCI has a history of working with the Service, as shown by the
African Wildlife Consultative Forum among other things. SCI hopes that some of the claims in
this letter might be resolved through discussions with the Service, and improvements to how the

Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

Notice of Intent to Sue – Elephant 4(d) Rule
April 4, 2024
Page 3
final rule is implemented. SCI respectfully requests a meeting with the Service to discuss the
claims in this notice.
SCI also emphasizes that this notice does not apply to the Service’s current import permit
program. SCI does not object to how the Service is currently processing or approving import
permit applications. Accordingly, this notice and any potential litigation should not have any
impact on the processing or approval of pending import permit applications, and SCI urges the
Service to continue to process and approve these applications in a timely fashion.
Identified Violations of the Endangered Species Act
1. Section 4(d)
The final rule violates Section 4(d) of the ESA because that provision only allows the Service to
adopt a regulation that is “necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such
species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1533(d). The ESA defines “conservation” as:
to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any
endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, … in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may
include regulated taking.
16 U.S.C. § 1532(3). In southern Africa, elephant populations are extremely healthy. In
Botswana and Zimbabwe in particular, elephant populations are above the ecological and social
carrying capacities. Regulated hunting is necessary to help reduce pressures in certain habitat
and to increase local tolerance for this species. The final rule is not necessary and advisable
because it disrupts the conservation programs of range states like Botswana and Zimbabwe.
The final rule is also not necessary and advisable because it reduces the significant benefits
generated by regulated hunting. It is no coincidence that the seven countries where elephants are
hunted and exported to the U.S. sustain over 81% of the global elephant population. The four
countries which export almost 90% of all elephant trophies into the U.S. conserve over 60% of
the world’s elephants. Regulated hunting plays a crucial role in supporting these successful
conservation programs. Regulated hunting conserves habitat, generates funding, and
incentivizes elephant conservation for private and communal landholders.
The final rule disingenuously plays down its detrimental impact to these successful conservation
programs. It purports to “clarify” how the Service analyzes the “enhancement” provision in 50
C.F.R. § 17.40(e). If this were true, these range states would not have stood in solidarity to
oppose the proposal. These range states rightly fear the impact of additional red tape. They
rightly fear—based on experience—that additional regulation will halt elephant trophy imports,

Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

Notice of Intent to Sue – Elephant 4(d) Rule
April 4, 2024
Page 4
which will reduce U.S. hunters’ willingness to pay the highest prices for elephant hunts. 2 That in
turn will reduce the significant “enhancement” that regulated hunting generates. 3
Further, an annual certification to the Service is not “necessary” and therefore is not authorized
by Section 4(d) because the range states already make certifications through the CITES export
permit process. CITES only allows a range state to issue an export permit when the activity is
“not detrimental” to the survival of the species—meaning the hunting is at a level which is
sustainable—and the offtake was legal. 4 Thus, range state export permits are already
certifications of sustainability and legality. The range states also announce export quotas for
elephants to the CITES Secretariat. Those quotas are published online and are open to review by
all CITES Parties, any of which could raise concerns or otherwise object to the quotas. This
process is also a certification of the level of international trade which is not detrimental to the
survival of the species.5
The final rule’s certification requirement imposes a standard far greater than “enhancement,”
which is the language used for endangered species in ESA Section 9. The Service essentially
requires range states to certify that their conservation programs “ensure” the survival of the
species, rather than “enhance” it. The Service has previously defined “enhancement” as
“providing financial support programs for elephant conservation.” 57 Fed. Reg. 35473, 35485
(Aug. 10, 1992); see also 60 Fed. Reg. 12969, 12970 (Mar. 9, 1995) (“when revenues are
directed to management or enforcement activities or when there is long-term benefit to
individuals or groups with proprietary interest in ensuring a viable elephant population, there is
benefit to the survival of the elephant”); Safari Club Int’l v. Zinke, 878 F.3d 316, 327 (D.C. Circ.
2017) (enhancement determination is made based on: “[1] if a country has sufficient numbers of
elephants to support a hunting program, [2] if the country has a management plan and adequate
laws and regulations to effectively implement a hunting program, and [3] if the participation of
U.S. hunters in the program provides a clear benefit to the species…”). The final rule’s
certification factors unreasonably expand the previous factors that the Service has considered
when determining enhancement.

2

For example, the Tanzania Wildlife Division and Tanzania Wildlife Authority have submitted multiple
documents to the Service describing the negative impacts of import restrictions on hunting in Tanzania
and southern Africa. E.g., United Republic of Tanzania, Comment on ESA Status Review of African
Lion (Jan. 27, 2015), available through Docket FWS-R9-ES-2012-0025; United Republic of Tanzania,
Comment on ESA Status Review of the African Leopard (Panthera pardus) in Tanzania (Nov. 30, 2016),
available through Docket FWS-HQ-ES-2016-0131; I.R. Nkuwi, Director of Wildlife Utilization and
Business Services, Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority, “Conservation Status and Related Impacts
of Elephants and Lion Trophy Ban to Tanzania, Presentation to the International Wildlife Conservation
Council (Sept. 2018).
3
SCI described these benefits in detail in its public comment at Docket FWS-HQ-IA-2021-0099 and
incorporates that explanation here.
4
Article IV of the CITES Convention.
5
Res. Conf. 14.7 and Res. Conf. 10.10, available at https://cites.org/eng/res/index.php.
Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

Notice of Intent to Sue – Elephant 4(d) Rule
April 4, 2024
Page 5
Finally, the final rule violates Section 4(d) (as well as Section 8(b), below) because inclusion of
the requirement that international trade in elephant may only come from countries with a CITES
Category One designation under the NLP serves no conservation purpose.
The NLP assesses whether a country has adopted laws which fully implement the CITES
Convention, which governs international trade in fauna and flora. Thus, the NLP designations
assess the country’s CITES implementation across-the-board, meaning for wildlife, fish, and
plants. Some countries have not fully developed their regulations for every CITES species in
every situation, but that does not mean these countries are not effectively implementing CITES
to regulate trade in elephants. For example, all the range states have designated management and
scientific authorities and issue CITES-compliant permits for trade in elephants.
The erroneous nature of this requirement is perhaps best demonstrated by comparing the list of
“Category One” Parties to “Category Two” Parties. Some countries in west and central Africa
are in “Category One.” On the other hand, some countries in southern Africa that are among the
most successful at elephant conservation are included in “Category Two.” Does the fact that
Senegal is on Category One mean it is doing a better job conserving elephant than Botswana?
Clearly not, if the size of their elephant populations and their known involvement in international
poaching rings (or lack thereof, in Botswana’s case) is considered. 6 This clash underscores the
fact the NLP has absolutely no bearing on elephant conservation within the individual range
states, and the arbitrary nature of this requirement.
Similarly, the final rule violates Section 4(d) because it creates more restrictive barriers to import
threatened-listed elephants than would otherwise apply if elephants were listed as endangered.
Congress authorized the Service to “prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act
prohibited” for endangered listed species. 16 U.S.C. § 1539. The Service cannot by regulation
prohibit more than the statutory prohibitions for endangered species, which includes an
obligation for the Service to apply fully the exceptions to those prohibitions. In creating
restrictions that preclude any possibility for individual applicants to demonstrate enhancement—
either due to failure of a relevant range state to provide an annual certification or due to the
CITES NLP designation—the final rule violates the ESA. Contrary to the Service’s assertion
that it intends to continue to review import applications on a case-by-case basis, the new
requirements for import effectively impose an insurmountable country-wide blanket ban on
imports if either requirement is not met. The requirements are illegal “conclusions at which the
Service [have] already arrived—as the culmination, in other words, rather than the initiation, of
the decisionmaking process.” Safari Club Int’l v. Zinke, 878 F.3d 316, 335 (D.C. Circ. 2017).
2. Section 8(b)
The ESA requires that the Service “shall encourage—(1) foreign countries to provide for the
conservation of fish or wildlife and plants including endangered species and threatened species,”
6

E.g., J. Wynyard, Rare Sighting of Senegalese Elephant Brings Fresh But Cautious Hope (Feb. 4, 2020)
(“Senegal has one of the most threatened elephant populations in Africa and remains a hub for the illegal
ivory trade.”).
Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

Notice of Intent to Sue – Elephant 4(d) Rule
April 4, 2024
Page 6
and “(3) foreign persons who directly or indirectly take fish or wildlife or plants in foreign
countries … for importation into the United States … to develop and carry out … conservation
practices designed to enhance such fish or wildlife or plants and their habitat.” 16 U.S.C.
§ 1537(b).
The Service was notified that the final rule discourages foreign conservation, yet it ploughed
ahead over these objections. Range states, community organizations, and hunting outfitter
organizations all objected to the proposed rule. For example, the Governments of Botswana,
Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe submitted a joint comment explaining
that “the proposed rule conflicts with the best interests of our elephant and will reduce the
benefits of our successful conservation strategies as well as unnecessarily add to the cost of
administration.”7 Resource Africa, representing a network of community-based natural resource
management (“CBNRM”) organizations in southern Africa, expressed “concern[]” about “the
negative consequences [the rule] is likely to have on the rural communities in Southern Africa
that sustainably use elephants on their lands as part of CBNRM.” The Namibian Chamber of
Environment, representing some of the world’s best-known CBNRM programs, objected that
“blocking elephant trophy imports into the US will have an immediate impact on CBNRM in
Namibia, by greatly reducing the ability of communal conservancies to conserve their wildlife
(including elephants), respond to human-elephant conflict, generate tangible benefits for their
communities, and provide sufficient match funding for a host of donor-funded projects.” The
African Professional Hunters Association pointed out that “the most directly affected by any
decisions regarding the take of elephants are African residents who lose their lives and
livelihoods from the consumption or trampling of crops, who compete for water sources, and
who are traumatized by dangerously close encounters and/or the need for constant vigilance and
attempts at deterrence. … we urge you to fully consider that legal trade via safari hunting is
primarily what funds the current protection of most elephant habitat and anti-poaching efforts.”
SCI incorporates the discussion of the CITES NLP requirement above here, as a violation of
Section 8(b).
The ESA directs the Service to encourage conservation by these foreign countries and foreign
persons who directly or indirectly take elephants. But the final rule does the opposite, and
therefore violates Section 8(b).
3. Sections 1(b) and 8a
Congress enacted the ESA “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered
species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the
conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be
appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in” the findings
subsection, which includes CITES. 16 U.S.C. § 1531(a)(4)(F) & (b). The final rule violates the
ESA because, as explained above, it obstructs programs that protect ecosystems and conserve
7

All comments referenced here (and others objecting to the proposed rule) are available through the
Regulations.gov docket (FWS-HQ-IA-2021-0099).
Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

Notice of Intent to Sue – Elephant 4(d) Rule
April 4, 2024
Page 7
elephants in southern Africa. But even more, it violates the Service’s obligations to fully execute
and follow CITES.
Specifically, the Service failed to consult meaningfully with impacted, sovereign range states.
Consultation is an essential part of the Service’s obligations under the ESA and CITES. CITES
Res. Conf. 6.7 encourages an importing state to “make every reasonable effort” to consult with
affected range states before adopting any stricter domestic measures, like the final rule. 8 The
process and procedure that the Service used to promulgate this final rule does not represent
meaningful consultation or comply with this Resolution. And although CITES resolutions are
non-binding, the Service regularly treats them as binding. In fact, the Environmental Assessment
(“EA”) prepared in support of the final rule spends multiple pages discussing CITES resolutions
and non-binding guidance for live trade in elephants and for the NLP. Res. Conf. 6.7 requires
meaningful consultation. The Service failed to meet this requirement. 9
The Service has also failed to meet the requirements of Res. Conf. 17.9 for trade in hunting
trophies. That resolution “RECOGNIZ[ES] that well-managed and sustainable trophy hunting is
consistent with and contributes to species conservation,” and “CONSIDER[S] the need for
uniform interpretation of the Convention with regard to hunting trophies,” among other things. 10
Through the final rule, and especially the NLP requirement, the Service has ignored the
recommendations of this resolution and adopted its own interpretation of the Convention. The
final rule prohibits trophy trade before the CITES Parties, the Standing Committee, or the
Secretariat makes any such decision or even recommendation. The Service is interpreting the
NLP differently and more stringently than 183 other Parties and the body charged with
administering the Convention. Inclusion of the CITES NLP requirement in the final rule
incorrectly implements CITES.
In the letter from Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe
referenced above, these range states raised another issue:
[T]he proposal by the USA Government conflicts with the National Legislation
Project because it does not conform with CITES Resolutions Conf. 8.4 (Rev.
CoP15) and 14.3 (Rev. CoP18) which provides for the Standing Committee
recommending the suspension of commercial or all trade in specimen of one or
more CITES-listed species from a certain country only as a last resort after all
other options have been exhausted (see point 30 of Resolution Conf. 14.3).
The CITES Standing Committee has not yet determined to suspend trade at all of
any kind in the signatory. Consequently this proposal by the USA Government

8

Available at https://cites.org/sites/default/files/documents/COP/19/resolution/E-Res-06-07.pdf.
This objection was raised repeatedly by range states, community organizations, and hunting outfitter
organizations.
10
Available at https://cites.org/sites/default/files/documents/COP/19/resolution/E-Res-17-09.pdf.
9

Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

Notice of Intent to Sue – Elephant 4(d) Rule
April 4, 2024
Page 8
would conflict with and disrupt the CITES process and prohibit activities that
enhance the survival of elephant for an irrelevant reason.
The final rule does not achieve the purposes of, or even comply with, CITES. And for these
reasons, it violates the ESA, which is the legislation adopted by Congress to implement CITES.
4. Section 9(c)(2)
Finally, the final rule runs contrary to the language and intent of Congress in enacting Section
9(c)(2) of the ESA. This section provides that “[a]ny importation into the United States of fish
or wildlife shall” be “presumed to be an importation not in violation of any provision of this
chapter” of the ESA or its implementing regulations, if:
(A) such fish or wildlife is not an endangered species listed pursuant to section
1533 of this title but is listed in Appendix II to the Convention,
(B) the taking and exportation of such fish or wildlife is not contrary to the
provisions of the Convention and all other applicable requirements of the
Convention have been satisfied,
(C) the applicable requirements of subsections (d), (e), and (f) of this section have
been satisfied, and
(D) such importation is not made in the course of a commercial activity …
16 U.S.C. § 1538(c)(2).
Over 60% of the world’s elephant inhabit four countries: Botswana, Zimbabwe, South Africa,
and Namibia. These countries also account for almost 90% of imports into the U.S. in sporthunted elephant trophies. And elephant trophy imports from these countries are not listed as
endangered, are listed on Appendix II of CITES, meet all other applicable requirements of
CITES, and are non-commercial. Therefore, Section 9(c)(2) of the ESA presumes the legality of
elephant trophy imports from these countries.
Yet the Service has repeatedly ignored this language and related legislative history in enacting
Section 4(d) rules for African elephant. Rep. John Dingell, the “architect” of the ESA, stated the
following in the ESA’s legislative history:
H.R. 37 has been attacked by some as a[n] anti-hunter bill; it has been attacked by
others as a prohunter bill. In reality, it is neither—it is a bill which has been
carefully drafted to encourage State and foreign governments to develop healthy
stocks of animals occurring naturally within their borders. If these animals are
considered valuable as trophy animals, and are not endangered, they should be
regarded as a potential source of revenue to the managing agency and they should
be encouraged to develop to the maximum extent compatible with the ecosystem
upon which they depend.

Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org

Notice of Intent to Sue – Elephant 4(d) Rule
April 4, 2024
Page 9
I have been informed by the Department of the Interior that they will carefully
review the status of animal stocks in foreign countries and that where
nonendangered trophy animals are being managed in such a way as to assure
their continued and healthy existence, no barriers will be placed upon the
continued harvesting of those animals by the government. This is as it should
be, because it is only in the understanding that these animals have a real and
measurable value that many of the less developed countries will agree to take
steps to assure their continued existence…
We are assured by representatives of the Government that this is what they would
do in any case, but we felt it best to spell out just what could and should be done
at this time, in order to avoid future misunderstandings.
House Consideration and Passage of H.R. 37 with Amendments, U.S. Congressional Record
(Sept. 18, 1973), p. 195 (emphasis added). Simply put, Congress’ express purpose was to avoid
putting up barriers for the import of sport-hunted trophies from healthy wildlife populations,
such as elephants in southern Africa. The final rule does the opposite.
Inclusion of the CITES NLP requirement is a particularly egregious violation. This requirement
imposes a de facto ban on the import of elephant trophies from Botswana, Mozambique, and
Zambia. If elephants in these countries were listed as endangered, then the Service would make
individual enhancement determinations to authorize imports without the burden of a Section 4(d)
rule. Elephant imports could and would11 continue. As Section 9(c)(2) demonstrates, Congress
did not intend that the Service would impose more stringent restrictions on threatened species
than on endangered species.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, the final rule violates the ESA. SCI respectfully requests a meeting with
the Service to discuss these violations. To set up that meeting, and if you have any questions,
please contact Regina Lennox, [email protected], or Jeremy Clare, [email protected].
Sincerely,

John McLaurin
President, Safari Club International
11

For example, Botswana’s elephant population is the world’s largest and is likely above ecological and
social carrying capacity. Elephant hunting is carefully regulated. It was partly closed for four years but
reopened in 2019, in response to calls from rural communities impacted by the huge number of elephants,
who lost all benefits from the hunting moratorium. Botswana has recently updated its elephant
management plan and regulations and, to SCI’s knowledge, the Service has issued import permits for
elephant since hunting was reopened. Yet under the final rule, these imports will cease.
Safari Club International – Washington DC Headquarters
501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Phone 202 543 8733 • Fax 202 543 1205 • www.safariclub.org