- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 4,421
Final Week To Submit Comments Opposing Federal Ivory Ban
Comments are due on Monday, September 28, 2015, to oppose the Fish and Wildlife Services Proposed Rule Change that would implement a domestic ivory ban. So far over 1,200 comments have been submitted. Many are from people who make simplistic statements supporting elephants or repeat slogans from NGOs to ban ivory. Many others are thoughtful comments explaining why the proposed rule punishes innocent Americans without doing anything to stop poaching in Africa.
Your comment should be personal and specific. It should demand FWS either withdraw the proposed rule change entirely or publish another major revision correcting its many errors for notice and comment again. Form letter comments are not as useful as individual comments. Depending on whether you are an owner, collector or business that trades objects made with ivory, following are some suggestions for you to include in your comments:
The Proposed Rule Change is arbitrary and capricious. It punishes people who trade in ivory that was legally imported decades ago which has nothing to do with recent African elephant poaching. The government should focus resources on stopping poachers in Africa and prosecuting criminals who smuggle ivory to Asia if it wants to stop elephant poaching. Punishing innocent Americans who own or trade ivory that was legally brought to this country before the poaching crisis has no rational relationship to poaching African elephants, so the Proposed Rule Change violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
FWS misrepresented data and studies about ivory in the United States. CITES data shows that hundreds of tons of illegal ivory flows to China and Asia, but almost none of it comes to the United States. Even Dan Stiles, an expert FWS relied upon in the Proposed Rule Change, submitted a comment pointing out how FWS has misrepresented his research. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-HQ-IA-2013-0091-0415 The legal system in place before February 2014 was working in the United States, and government prosecutions show that they were capable of investigating and successfully prosecuting the few people who break the law. Creating a new class of criminals from people who trade otherwise legal ivory will waste resources, distract from actual poachers and smugglers, and unfairly persecute people who abided by international trade bans that were already in place. Along with creating bad policy, FWS's misuse of data violates the Information Quality Act.
FWSs claim that less than 2% of ivory sales will be impacted by this ban is nonsense. Here you should describe how the ban impacts your business or collection individually. Conclude by stating that this ban falls almost entirely on small businesses, so the FWS certification in the proposed rule that it would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act is false, as is their finding under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act that there is not a disproportionate impact for small or large businesses.
The exceptions in the Proposed Rule are useless and do not adequately allow legal and legitimate commerce as directed in Executive Order 13648 on Combating Wildlife Trafficking in July 2013. To qualify for any exception, a person would need to provide documentation about import, sales and transfers that was not required in the past, so it was never created. FWS set retroactive documentation requirements very high and undermines all of the exceptions by placing an unachievable burden on legal ivory owners. The agency also fails to describe documentation burdens with specificity, so even if an owner or business has some documentation about an ivory item, he or she cannot be certain whether documentation is adequate.
These are suggestions that you can adopt or add to as you see fit. You need to submit comments online by 11:59 PM September 28 at http://www.regulations.gov. Once at the website, search FWS-HQ-IA-2013-0091 which will bring you to Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Proposed Rule: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: African Elephant (Loxodonta africana) Rule; Revision. Follow the instructions on screen for submitting comments. When submitting comments, you can either identify yourself or type Anonymous in the required name fields. You can also view comments already submitted at this website. If you must submit comments by mail, send them to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-IA-2013-0091; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: BPHC; Falls Church, VA 22041. FWS does not accept comments by e-mail or fax.
Comments are due on Monday, September 28, 2015, to oppose the Fish and Wildlife Services Proposed Rule Change that would implement a domestic ivory ban. So far over 1,200 comments have been submitted. Many are from people who make simplistic statements supporting elephants or repeat slogans from NGOs to ban ivory. Many others are thoughtful comments explaining why the proposed rule punishes innocent Americans without doing anything to stop poaching in Africa.
Your comment should be personal and specific. It should demand FWS either withdraw the proposed rule change entirely or publish another major revision correcting its many errors for notice and comment again. Form letter comments are not as useful as individual comments. Depending on whether you are an owner, collector or business that trades objects made with ivory, following are some suggestions for you to include in your comments:
The Proposed Rule Change is arbitrary and capricious. It punishes people who trade in ivory that was legally imported decades ago which has nothing to do with recent African elephant poaching. The government should focus resources on stopping poachers in Africa and prosecuting criminals who smuggle ivory to Asia if it wants to stop elephant poaching. Punishing innocent Americans who own or trade ivory that was legally brought to this country before the poaching crisis has no rational relationship to poaching African elephants, so the Proposed Rule Change violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
FWS misrepresented data and studies about ivory in the United States. CITES data shows that hundreds of tons of illegal ivory flows to China and Asia, but almost none of it comes to the United States. Even Dan Stiles, an expert FWS relied upon in the Proposed Rule Change, submitted a comment pointing out how FWS has misrepresented his research. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-HQ-IA-2013-0091-0415 The legal system in place before February 2014 was working in the United States, and government prosecutions show that they were capable of investigating and successfully prosecuting the few people who break the law. Creating a new class of criminals from people who trade otherwise legal ivory will waste resources, distract from actual poachers and smugglers, and unfairly persecute people who abided by international trade bans that were already in place. Along with creating bad policy, FWS's misuse of data violates the Information Quality Act.
FWSs claim that less than 2% of ivory sales will be impacted by this ban is nonsense. Here you should describe how the ban impacts your business or collection individually. Conclude by stating that this ban falls almost entirely on small businesses, so the FWS certification in the proposed rule that it would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act is false, as is their finding under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act that there is not a disproportionate impact for small or large businesses.
The exceptions in the Proposed Rule are useless and do not adequately allow legal and legitimate commerce as directed in Executive Order 13648 on Combating Wildlife Trafficking in July 2013. To qualify for any exception, a person would need to provide documentation about import, sales and transfers that was not required in the past, so it was never created. FWS set retroactive documentation requirements very high and undermines all of the exceptions by placing an unachievable burden on legal ivory owners. The agency also fails to describe documentation burdens with specificity, so even if an owner or business has some documentation about an ivory item, he or she cannot be certain whether documentation is adequate.
These are suggestions that you can adopt or add to as you see fit. You need to submit comments online by 11:59 PM September 28 at http://www.regulations.gov. Once at the website, search FWS-HQ-IA-2013-0091 which will bring you to Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Proposed Rule: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: African Elephant (Loxodonta africana) Rule; Revision. Follow the instructions on screen for submitting comments. When submitting comments, you can either identify yourself or type Anonymous in the required name fields. You can also view comments already submitted at this website. If you must submit comments by mail, send them to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-IA-2013-0091; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: BPHC; Falls Church, VA 22041. FWS does not accept comments by e-mail or fax.
