Changes in US law threatens endangered species

I'm not sure if this is prevalent in other countries, but the USA very often creates a title for legislation with the specific aim of the words producing an acronym designed to mislead people.

In this case it is the SAVES Act (Saving America’s Endangered Species Act).

The most egregious example must surely be the USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) of George W. Bush - what American is going to oppose something which includes both "USA" and "Patriot" in the title?

A more recent one is the SHARE Act (Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act) which relaxes laws for people to use all the normal hunting equipment such as armour-piercing bullets and silencers, as well as bait migrating birds with grain in order to "hunt" them.
Opinion | The NRA’s idea of recreation: Assault rifles, armor-piercing bullets and silencers
Controversial gun silencer measure advances
 
Are political expressions on this web site acceptable? webmaster. As a usa citizen I oppose these acts. It appears some of your international members are anti-usa.
 
Last edited:
@wally war eagle Since the article and discussion relate specifically to wildlife conservation legislation, then yes political statements are acceptable. The other legislation referenced by Chlidonias are merely examples of how the US Congress uses acronyms in the same way they are doing with this SAVES legislation.

I do understand how you might see the reference to unrelated legislation as unnecessary. As long as it stays as it is (an example) and further discussion focuses on the initial topic, I have no problem with it.
 
There is an interesting point in the article that I think people are missing. It states that this step will aid in captive breeding. I presume they mean that zoos will have an easier time importing endangered species for breeding programs. Since I know some zoo directors and breeders personally, I think there may be some merit to this. Of course the other point (which most of us will not like) is that it is aimed to make it easier for trophy hunters to bag endangered species and bring their trophies home. I think I need to know more about how this legislation would work in real life before I make a judgment.
 
Arizona Docent said:
There is an interesting point in the article that I think people are missing. It states that this step will aid in captive breeding. I presume they mean that zoos will have an easier time importing endangered species for breeding programs. Since I know some zoo directors and breeders personally, I think there may be some merit to this. Of course the other point (which most of us will not like) is that it is aimed to make it easier for trophy hunters to bag endangered species and bring their trophies home. I think I need to know more about how this legislation would work in real life before I make a judgment.
Click to expand...
While it may sound as if it makes things easier for zoos, the laws as originally written make it easy for legitimate zoos with legitimate conservation programs to be acquire the permits they need. I’ll use two examples to demonstrate this:

First, the Denver Zoo, importing a captive-bred Amur tiger from the Moscow Zoo. It is listed as Endangered under the ESA (Species Profile for tiger (Panthera tigris)) and therefore required a permit to be imported. This is a real scenario: Denver Zoo to welcome endangered tiger from Moscow Zoo this summer – The Denver Post

The second is my fictional friend Bob, who lives down the street and has wanted a pet tiger since he was five, regardless of how many times his friend Jay has tried to talk him out of it.

This webpage is very helpful and I will be quoting it a lot in the remainder of my post: Endangered Species Program | Permits | Frequently Asked Questions

Because tigers (regardless of subspecies) are all listed as endangered under the ESA, import, export, and trade of them or any of their parts is illegal without a proper permit. There are several categories of permits and each has a different purpose. The FAQ page I link above says this:
“For endangered species, permits may be issued for scientific research, enhancement of propagation or survival, and taking that is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity.”

The Denver Zoo’s planned import falls within these specifications. Specifically, it wishes to have the tiger in its breeding program under the SSP. Bob, however, can’t import a tiger from anywhere. He doesn’t know how a breeding program and certainly doesn’t care to do any research. In fact, the page makes the following specification about importing animals for pets:
“Captive-bred wildlife permits are not issued to keep or breed endangered or threatened animals as pets. Using protected species as pets is not consistent with the purposes of the ESA, which is aimed at conservation of the species and recovery of wild populations.”

At this point, Bob begins to do a bit of research online and finds a tiger breeder in Oklahoma that promises him a cheap. Meanwhile, the Denver Zoo received approval for its import permit. However, the plane with the tiger will land in New York. The zoo also needs to receive authorization to transport the tiger through a few states until it gets to Colorado. Bob realizes he needs to do this as well, but quickly finds out he can’t because of the same provision about pets I included above.

Under the SAVES Act, two of the key provisions which kept Bob from getting a tiger would be eliminated. Although he likely still wouldn’t be able to import a tiger because of CITES regulations, the interstate transport of the species would be possible and he could buy one from the dreaded breeder in Oklahoma that he found online. Meanwhile, the main effect on the Denver Zoo would be saved time, with less permit applications required. This is relatively insignificant. The zoo was successful in its import:
FROM RUSSIA, WITH LOVE! DENVER ZOO WELCOMES AMUR TIGER "MARTIN" FROM MOSCOW ZOO | Denver Zoo

This is just one oversimplified example. Poaching could easily become an issue, with less regulation once products enter the country, they could be smuggled in (violating CITES) but easily transported throughout states, feeding the trade. The Lacey Act is in place to try to prevent this but it is hard to enforce.

In conclusion, the “SAVES Act” really does not have a positive effect on anything. Zoos with legitimate purposes are usually approved straightaway, but private individuals without conservation-oriented plans are impeded. With these ESA protections removed, it becomes significantly easier for endangered species trading and the smuggling of poached products to proliferate in the country.
 
ESA and CITES are not two overlapping systems of legislation like Gohmert suggests. The ESA is the legislation that allows the federal government to enforce CITES. Therefore, CITES does nothing without the ESA or something equivalent. Protecting non-native wildlife is literally one of the ESA’s primary objectives, so for Gohmert to say that’s not what it’s designed to do is absurd.

I’m gonna call this out for what I think it is: just another ridiculous attempt to strip away the federal government’s capabilities by a Republican politician who doesn’t understand the legislation he is trying to dismantle. Probably for monetary gain, and at the expense of wildlife and ecosystems.
 
jayjds2 said:
While it may sound as if it makes things easier for zoos, the laws as originally written make it easy for legitimate zoos with legitimate conservation programs to be acquire the permits they need. I’ll use two examples to demonstrate this:

First, the Denver Zoo, importing a captive-bred Amur tiger from the Moscow Zoo. It is listed as Endangered under the ESA (Species Profile for tiger (Panthera tigris)) and therefore required a permit to be imported. This is a real scenario: Denver Zoo to welcome endangered tiger from Moscow Zoo this summer – The Denver Post

The second is my fictional friend Bob, who lives down the street and has wanted a pet tiger since he was five, regardless of how many times his friend Jay has tried to talk him out of it.

This webpage is very helpful and I will be quoting it a lot in the remainder of my post: Endangered Species Program | Permits | Frequently Asked Questions

Because tigers (regardless of subspecies) are all listed as endangered under the ESA, import, export, and trade of them or any of their parts is illegal without a proper permit. There are several categories of permits and each has a different purpose. The FAQ page I link above says this:
“For endangered species, permits may be issued for scientific research, enhancement of propagation or survival, and taking that is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity.”

The Denver Zoo’s planned import falls within these specifications. Specifically, it wishes to have the tiger in its breeding program under the SSP. Bob, however, can’t import a tiger from anywhere. He doesn’t know how a breeding program and certainly doesn’t care to do any research. In fact, the page makes the following specification about importing animals for pets:
“Captive-bred wildlife permits are not issued to keep or breed endangered or threatened animals as pets. Using protected species as pets is not consistent with the purposes of the ESA, which is aimed at conservation of the species and recovery of wild populations.”

At this point, Bob begins to do a bit of research online and finds a tiger breeder in Oklahoma that promises him a cheap. Meanwhile, the Denver Zoo received approval for its import permit. However, the plane with the tiger will land in New York. The zoo also needs to receive authorization to transport the tiger through a few states until it gets to Colorado. Bob realizes he needs to do this as well, but quickly finds out he can’t because of the same provision about pets I included above.

Under the SAVES Act, two of the key provisions which kept Bob from getting a tiger would be eliminated. Although he likely still wouldn’t be able to import a tiger because of CITES regulations, the interstate transport of the species would be possible and he could buy one from the dreaded breeder in Oklahoma that he found online. Meanwhile, the main effect on the Denver Zoo would be saved time, with less permit applications required. This is relatively insignificant. The zoo was successful in its import:
FROM RUSSIA, WITH LOVE! DENVER ZOO WELCOMES AMUR TIGER "MARTIN" FROM MOSCOW ZOO | Denver Zoo

This is just one oversimplified example. Poaching could easily become an issue, with less regulation once products enter the country, they could be smuggled in (violating CITES) but easily transported throughout states, feeding the trade. The Lacey Act is in place to try to prevent this but it is hard to enforce.

In conclusion, the “SAVES Act” really does not have a positive effect on anything. Zoos with legitimate purposes are usually approved straightaway, but private individuals without conservation-oriented plans are impeded. With these ESA protections removed, it becomes significantly easier for endangered species trading and the smuggling of poached products to proliferate in the country.
Click to expand...
Bob's situation will of course resolve itself when he gets eaten.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top