Safari Club Int'l v. Jewell

Decision Date26 December 2014
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 14–0670 ABJ
Citation76 F.Supp.3d 198
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia
PartiesSafari Club International, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Sally M.R. Jewell, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, et al., Defendants.

Anna Margo Seidman, Douglas Scott Burdin, Jeremy Evan Clare, Safari Club International, Washington, DC, Christopher A. Conte, National Rifle Association, Fairfax, VA, for Plaintiffs.

Andrea Gelatt, Christine A. Hill, Meredith L. Flax, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, United States District Judge

Plaintiffs Safari Club International and the National Rifle Association challenge two determinations issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“the Service”) that suspended the importation of elephant trophies of sport-hunted elephants from Tanzania and Zimbabwe in 2014. Am. Compl. [Dkt. # 13]. Plaintiffs contend that the Service's determinations violate the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Pending before the Court are defendants' motion to dismiss, [Dkt. # 11] (Mot. to Dismiss), and supplemental motion to dismiss, [Dkt. # 36] (“Suppl. Mot. to Dismiss), and plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended and supplemented complaint, [Dkt. # 34] (Mot. to Amend). The Court will grant defendants' motion to dismiss the Tanzania claims for failure to state a claim, deny the motion to dismiss the Zimbabwe claims, and grant plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

BACKGROUND
I. Legal Framework

The importation of sport-hunted African elephants into the United States is governed by both international convention and U.S. law.

A. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

International trade in African elephants and other protect wildlife is governed by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (“CITES”). 27 U.S.T. 1087; T.I.A.S. 8249, Mar. 3, 1973. This treaty, which establishes requirements for importing and exporting covered species, categorizes species into three appendices, depending on the level of protection each species requires. Relevant here, Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction, and Appendix II includes species for which trade is controlled to avoid trade incompatible with the species' survival. African elephants from Tanzania fall under Appendix I, while African elephants from Zimbabwe fall under Appendix II.1

The treaty requires signatory states to establish a “Scientific Authority” and a “Management Authority” to make a variety of determinations regarding the propriety of importing and exporting covered species. CITES Art. IX. Before a country may allow the importation of a species on Appendix I, its Scientific Authority must determine, among other things, that “the import will be for purposes which are not detrimental to the survival of the species”—sometimes referred to as a “non-detriment advice.” CITES, Art. III(3); Am. Compl. ¶ 33. Previously pursuant to CITES Res. Conf. 2.11. (Annex 1), each country's Management Authority was required to make a determination that importing a species on CITES' Appendix I would enhance the survival of the species—sometimes referred to as an “enhancement finding.” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 34, 77–78, citing 57 Fed.Reg. 35473, 35485 (Aug. 10, 1992) ; Res. Conf. 2.11. (Annex 1). The treaty no longer imposes this enhancement finding requirement, but some countries, including the United States, maintain the requirement as part of their domestic law. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 78–79.

B. The Endangered Species Act

The United States has implemented the CITES treaty through the ESA. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1537a ; 1538(c). The Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of Scientific Authority is responsible for issuing non-detriment advices as required by CITES. Decl. of Rosemarie S. Gnam, Ex. 2 to Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 11–2] ¶ 1; see also Am. Compl. ¶ 36. The Service's Division of Management Authority is responsible for issuing CITES permits and making enhancement findings as formerly required by CITES and still required by the ESA. Decl. of Timothy Van Norman, Ex. 1 to Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 11–1] ¶¶ 1–2.

Separately, the African elephant is listed as a threatened species under the ESA, and receives protections established by that statute. 43 Fed.Reg. 20499 (May 12, 1978) ; 50 C.F.R. § 17.11(h). Among them, the ESA prohibits the importation of endangered species, and it authorizes the Service to extend that same prohibition to threatened species, like the African elephant, see 16 U.S.C. §§ 1538(a)(1), 1533, unless the Service has issued a special rule governing the threatened species, 50 C.F.R. § 17.31. Pursuant to that authority, the Service has issued a special rule governing African elephants. 43 Fed.Reg. 20499, 20502 (May 12, 1978) ; 47 Fed.Reg. 31384 (July 20, 1982) ; 57 Fed.Reg. 35473 (Aug. 10, 1992). The special rule allows the importation of sport-hunted African elephants into the United States if a number of conditions are met, including that the Division of Management Authority has made an enhancement finding for the country from which the elephant is being imported. 50 C.F.R. § 17.40(e)(3)(iii)(C).

C. Regulatory Requirements for Importing Sport–Hunted African Elephants

Because African elephants from Tanzania are on CITES Appendix I, hunters must obtain import permits to import sport-hunted elephants from that country. CITES Art. III(3). The Service has combined the application for a CITES non-detriment advice and an ESA enhancement finding into a single import permit application, which the Service's Division of Management Authority considers on a case-by-case basis. Defs.' Mem. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 11] (“Defs.' Mem.”) at 5; Van Norman Decl. ¶¶ 13, 21.

Because African elephants from Zimbabwe are on CITES Appendix II, hunters are not required obtain import permits to import sport-hunted elephants from that country. CITES Art. IV(2); see also 62 Fed.Reg. 44627, 44633 (Aug. 22, 1997) (stating that “an import permit will no longer be required for non-commercial imports of African elephant sport-hunted trophies from [Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe] only”). An enhancement finding is still required under the ESA, however, before sport-hunted elephants from Zimbabwe may be imported into the United States. 50 C.F.R. § 17.40(e)(3)(iii)(C). These enhancement findings are made on a country-by-country basis. Defs.' Mem. at 4, citing Van Norman Decl. ¶¶ 2–3.

II. The Challenged Determinations

Until 2014, imports of legally sport-hunted African elephants from Tanzania and Zimbabwe had been allowed into the United States. The Division of Scientific Authority had issued non-detriment advices for African elephants from Tanzania and Zimbabwe since at least 1993, and the Division of Management Authority had made enhancement findings for sport-hunted African elephants from both countries since at least 1993. Am. Compl. ¶ 37, citing 60 Fed.Reg. 12969, 12969–70 (Mar. 9, 1995) ; Am. Compl. ¶ 80. That changed on April 4, 2014, when the Service announced determinations suspending importations of legally sport-hunted African elephant trophies from Tanzania and Zimbabwe for the remainder of 2014.

A. The Tanzania Non–Detriment Advice and Enhancement Finding

On February 21, 2014, the Service's Division of Scientific Authority issued a memorandum stating that it could not make a non-detriment advice for imports of sport-hunted elephants from Tanzania. General Advice on Importation of Sport-hunted Trophies of African Elephants taken in Tanzania in the Calendar Year 2014, Ex. I to Mot. for Prelim. Inj. [Dkt. # 4–13] (“Tanzania Advice”) (explaining that the finding was based on increased poaching in and a significant decline in elephant populations in Tanzania). This memorandum was provided to the Division of Management Authority. Id.

On March 27, 2014, the Division of Management Authority issued a finding that the importation of sport-hunting trophies from Tanzania is not likely to enhance the survival of the species. Enhancement Finding for African Elephants Taken as Sport-hunted Trophies in Tanzania during 2014, March 27, 2014, Ex. J. to Mot. for Prelim. Inj. [Dkt. # 4–14].

Despite these determinations, the agency continues to accept permit applications:

If permit applications are received that include new or additional information showing that elephant management practices by the Government of Tanzania have led to the sustainability of its elephant population on a nation-wide basis, these applications should be referred to the Division of Scientific Authority for consideration on a case-by-case basis.

Tanzania Advice at 1.

On April 4, 2014, the Service announced the suspension of imports of sport-hunted African elephant trophies from Tanzania during the 2014 calendar year. Press Release: Service Suspends Import of Elephant Trophies from Tanzania and Zimbabwe, Ex. A to Mot. for Prelim. Inj. [Dkt. # 4–5] (“Press Release”). Also on April 4, 2014, the Service denied the first import permit applications for sport-hunted African elephants to be hunted in Tanzania later in 2014. Van Norman Decl. ¶¶ 14–15.

B. The Zimbabwe Enhancement Findings

On April 4, 2014, the Service issued an interim enhancement finding for elephants from Zimbabwe, which stated that the Service was “unable to find that the killing of an elephant in Zimbabwe during the 2014 hunting season for the purpose of importing into the United States will enhance the survival of the species.” Memorandum: Enhancement Finding for African Elephants Taken as Sport-hunted Trophies in Zimbabwe during 2014, Ex. D to Mot. for Prelim. Inj. [Dkt. # 4–8] at 1 (emphasis omitted). It announced the suspension of imports of sport-hunted African elephant trophies from Zimbabwe as part of the press release it issued on that date. Press Release. In May 2014, it published a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Safari Club Int'l v. Jewell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • September 30, 2016
    ...of elephants sport-hunted in Tanzania because plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. See Safari Club Int'l v. Jewell, 76 F.Supp.3d 198 (D.D.C. 2014).13 See Pls.' Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. ## 87 & 32] ("Pls.' Mot."); Fed. Defs.' Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. ## 90 & 34]; F......
  • Safari Club Int'l v. Zinke
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • December 22, 2017
    ...since no member of the Safari Club or NRA had applied for an import permit for any Tanzanian elephant. Safari Club Int’l v. Jewell , 76 F.Supp.3d 198, 206–09 (D.D.C. 2014). The court also allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to add claims challenging the July 2014 enhancement fin......
  • Friends of Animals v. Ashe
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 24, 2016
    ...Club case involved a challenge to a ban on the import of all trophies of African elephants from Zimbabwe. See Safari Club Int'l v. Jewell , 76 F.Supp.3d 198, 202 (D.D.C.2014) (stating that in April 2014, FWS announced the suspension of imports of legally sport-hunted elephants trophies from......
  • Safari Club Int'l v. Jewell, 15-5170
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • December 6, 2016
    ...apply for an import permit, Safari Club's members had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. See Safari Club International v. Jewell , 76 F.Supp.3d 198, 207–08 (D.D.C. 2014).Safari Club appeals, arguing that the Service's decision to suspend import permits—including the two 2014 f......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT