Contact: Joe Mullin, New England States Senior Coordinator
African species trophy import bans have recently been introduced in New York (Assembly Bill 716 and Assembly Bill 805) and Connecticut (Senate Bill 62), further evidence that imperialist viewpoints continue to influence domestic policy here in the United States. It is disconcerting, to say the least, that legislators in New York and Connecticut apparently believe that they have a better grasp of the geopolitical landscape in Africa, as well as the proper methods for African game management, than the citizens of African nations do themselves.
In 2016, New Jersey made the unwise and costly decision to enact similar legislation (Senate Bills 977 and 978) that targeted lawfully harvested hunting trophies and banned the importation and possession of items from “Big 5” species by residents of the State. A lawsuit was promptly filed under the argument that the ban was preempted by Section 6(f) of the Endangered Species Act. That same year, a judgment was entered against the State, thus overturning the ban. Similarly, in 2018, California’s former Governor Edmund G. Brown vetoed legislation that attempted to institute the Iconic African Species Protection Act. In the former Governor’s veto message, he stated that despite sharing “the sentiments of the author, this bill, if enacted, would be unenforceable.”
These bills also fail to consider the consequences of undermining the source of funding for anti-poaching programs and the many rural communities that are reliant on hunting-related tourism dollars. Revenue generated by licensed, regulated safari hunting is the single most important source of funding for conservation and anti-poaching efforts in Africa. In many Southern and Eastern African countries, revenues generated from licensed, regulated hunting are the primary source of management, conservation, and anti-poaching funds for national wildlife authorities.
The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation has a long history of successful engagement in this area and has repeatedly worked to defeat these misguided and elitist efforts in both states in recent years. We will continue to engage in the session ahead and stand firmly in our belief in self-determination for African nations in the management of their wildlife resources.
Share this page
Your opinion counts
Recently, two Montana state representatives have proposed more aggressive legislation addressing the state's gray wolf population. These bills range from the addition of a wolf tag into big game combination tags, to year-round sanctioned harvest without a license, use of snare traps, and private reimbursement of wolf harvest. Currently, the wolf population in Montana sits at 850 wolves, which is 700 over the state’s minimum recovery goal of 150 wolves. Which of the below options for wolf management do you support? (Select all that apply)Vote Here
- Regulated hunting under the management of the state fish and wildlife agency during a specific season (24.75%)
- Year-round hunting of wolves without a license (14.85%)
- The use of snares (trapping) without hunting allowances (1.98%)
- A combination of hunting and trapping during specific seasons regulated by the fish and wildlife agency (33.66%)
- The establishment of a bounty program to incentivize harvest during specific seasons (2.97%)
- Other (1.98%)
- I do not support the take of wolves (19.80%)