![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Exclusion of U.S. Captive-Bred Scimitar-Horned Oryx, Addax, and Dama Gazelle From Certain Prohibitions
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: September 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 170)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52310-52319]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02se05-14]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AT95
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Exclusion of U.S.
Captive-Bred Scimitar-Horned Oryx, Addax, and Dama Gazelle From Certain
Prohibitions
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are amending
the regulations promulgated under the Endangered Species Act (Act) (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to add new regulations to govern certain
activities with U.S. captive-bred scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx dammah),
addax (Addax nasomaculatus), and dama gazelle (Gazella dama), which
have been listed as endangered. For U.S. captive-bred live wildlife,
including embryos and gametes, and sport-hunted trophies of these three
species, this rule authorizes certain otherwise prohibited activities
that enhance the propagation or survival of the species. International
trade in specimens of these species will continue to be subject to the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES). We have also prepared a final Environmental
Assessment with a Finding of No Significant Impact for this final rule
under regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA).
DATES: This rule is effective October 3, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The complete supporting file for this rule is available for
public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the
Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401
N. Fairfax Drive, Room 750, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Historically, the scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx dammah), addax (Addax
nasomaculatus), and dama gazelle (Gazella dama) occupied the same
general region of North Africa. Wild numbers of the three antelopes
have declined drastically over the past 50 years. The scimitar-horned
oryx may now be extinct in the wild. The declines have resulted
primarily from habitat loss, uncontrolled killing, and the inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms.
Of the three antelope species, the scimitar-horned oryx is the most
threatened with extinction. By the mid-1980s, it was estimated that
only a few hundred were left in the wild, with the only viable
populations known to be in Chad. However, no sightings of this species
in the wild have been reported since the late 1980s, and the 2003 Red
List of Threatened Species shows the status of the scimitar-horned oryx
as ``extinct in the wild'' (World Conservation Union [IUCN]
2003).
Captive-bred specimens of this antelope have been placed into large
fenced areas for breeding in Morocco and Tunisia. Once animals are
reintroduced, continuous natural breeding is anticipated so that wild
populations will be re-established.
It is believed that the addax was extirpated from Tunisia during
the 1930s, and the last animals were killed in Libya and Algeria in
1966 and 1970, respectively. Remnant populations may still exist in the
remote desert areas of Chad, Niger, and Mali, with occasional movements
into Libya and Algeria during times of good rainfall. In the IUCN/SSC
Antelope Specialist Group's Global Survey of Antelopes, the addax is
considered to be ``regionally extinct'' (Mallon and Kingswood 2001).
The addax is listed as critically endangered by IUCN (IUCN 2003) and
probably numbers fewer than 600 in the wild (Noble 2002).
The dama gazelle is able to utilize both semi-desert and desert
habitats, and is smaller than the scimitar-horned oryx or addax. Of the
three antelope species, the dama gazelle is the least susceptible to
pressures from humans and livestock. The original cause of its decline
was uncontrolled killing; however, habitat loss through human
settlement and livestock grazing, in addition to civil unrest, has more
recently contributed to the decline. It is estimated that only small
numbers survive in most of the eight countries within its historical
range. The dama gazelle has declined rapidly over the last 20 years,
with recent estimates of fewer than 700 in the wild. Noble (2002)
estimated that the wild population of addra gazelle (G. dama
ruficollis) is fewer than 200 specimens, the wild population of dama
gazelle (G. dama dama) is about 500 specimens, and the mhorr gazelle
(G. dama mhorr) is extinct in the wild. The dama gazelle was previously
extirpated from Senegal, but has since been reintroduced, and in 1997,
at least 25 animals existed there as part of a semi-captive breeding
program (IUCN 2003). The IUCN lists all subspecies of dama gazelles as
endangered.
Captive breeding in the United States has enhanced the propagation
or survival of the scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle
worldwide by rescuing these species from near extinction and providing
the founder stock necessary for reintroduction. The scimitar-horned
oryx is possibly extinct in the wild; therefore, but for captive
breeding, the species might be extinct. Addax and dama gazelle occur in
very low numbers in the wild, and a significant percentage of remaining
specimens survive only in captivity (71% and 48%, respectively).
Captive-breeding programs operated by zoos and private ranches have
effectively increased the numbers of these animals while genetically
managing their herds (Mallon and Kingswood 2001). Threats that have
reduced these species' numbers to current levels in the wild continue
throughout most of the historic range. As future opportunities arise
for reintroduction in the antelope range countries, captive-breeding
programs will be able to provide genetically
[[Page 52311]]
diverse and otherwise suitable specimens.
Some U.S. captive-breeding facilities allow sport hunting of
surplus captive-bred animals. Sport hunting of surplus captive-bred
animals generates revenue that supports these captive-breeding
operations and may relieve hunting pressure on wild populations. For
further information regarding background biological information,
factors affecting the species, and conservation measures available to
scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle, please refer to the
November 5, 1991; July 24, 2003; February 1, 2005; and today's Federal
Register documents discussed below.
Previous Federal Action
The Mhorr gazelle and Rio de Oro dama gazelle (G. d. lozanoi) were
listed as endangered throughout their ranges on June 2, 1970 (35 FR
8495). A proposed rule to list all scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and
dama gazelle as endangered in the List of Threatened and Endangered
Wildlife [50 CFR 17.11(h)] was published on November 5, 1991 (56 FR
56491). We re-opened the comment period to request current information
and comments from the public regarding the proposed rule on July 24,
2003 (68 FR 43706), and November 26, 2003 (68 FR 66395). Stakeholders
and interested parties, including the public, governmental agencies,
the scientific community, industry, and the range countries of the
species, were requested to submit comments or information. In
accordance with the Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in
Endangered Species Act Activities published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we selected three appropriate independent specialists to review
the proposed rule. The purpose of such peer review is to ensure that
our listing decisions for these species are based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analysis. The reviewers selected have
considerable knowledge and field experience with scimitar-horned oryx,
addax, and dama gazelle biology and conservation. Comments were
received from all of the peer reviewers. After review of public
comments, we prepared a final rule listing the three species as
endangered. The final listing rule is being published in the Federal
Register concurrent with this final rule regarding U.S. captive-bred
specimens.
A consistent theme among the comments received from peer reviewers
and stakeholders on the proposed rule to list these species as
endangered is the vital role of captive breeding in the conservation of
these species. One reviewer noted that 100% of the world's scimitar-
horned oryx (including the reintroduced herds that are in enclosed
areas), 71% of the addax, and 48% of the dama gazelles are in captive
herds. In response to these comments, on February 1, 2005 (70 FR 5117),
we announced a proposed rule and notice of availability of a draft
environmental assessment to add new regulations under the Act to govern
certain activities with U.S. captive-bred scimitar-horned oryx, addax,
and dama gazelle, should they become listed as endangered. The proposed
rule covered U.S. captive-bred live wildlife, including embryos and
gametes, and sport-hunted trophies, and would authorize certain
otherwise prohibited activities that enhance the propagation or
survival of the species. The ``otherwise prohibited activities'' were
take; export or re-import; delivery, receipt, carrying, transport or
shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, in the course of a
commercial activity; or sale or offering for sale in interstate or
foreign commerce. In the proposed rule, we found that the scimitar-
horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle are dependent on captive breeding
and activities associated with captive breeding for their conservation,
and that activities associated with captive breeding within the United
States enhance the propagation or survival of these species. Comments
were accepted until April 4, 2005.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In response to the proposed rule and notice of availability of a
draft Environmental Assessment, the Service received 181 comments from
the public. Forty-two commenters expressed support for the proposed
rule; these commenters included several nonprofit organizations and
private individuals. Twenty-five letters of support were variations of
a single form letter. Organizations in support of the rule were the
American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA), Conservation Force (on
behalf of over 10 hunting and taxidermy organizations), the Exotic
Wildlife Association, Safari Club International, and the Texas Wildlife
Association. The form letter stated that the present situation in which
ranchers raise and trade these antelopes benefits species conservation,
as well as ranchers and hunters. It argued that ranchers will not be
able to contribute to antelope conservation if they are ``restricted or
penalized'' for raising and managing these species.
There were 139 commenters who opposed the proposed rule (153 if co-
signers are included); of these, 96 were form letters. Organizations
that opposed the rule included the Animal Protection Institute,
Defenders of Wildlife, and The Humane Society of the United States (in
joint comments representing 22 organizations), and TRAFFIC North
America. A law firm provided a more detailed legal commentary on behalf
of The Humane Society of the United States and Defenders of Wildlife.
The Environmental Law Clinical Partnership submitted comments on behalf
of the Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of Animals. The vast
majority of the form letters critical of the proposed rule were the
result of a press release issued by Friends of Animals on March 8,
2005. All of these comments included a request to list the three
antelope species as endangered wherever they occur and not to include
an exemption for U.S. ranches.
The following is a summary of the substantive comments and our
responses. We have included the ``talking points'' included in the form
letters. We also received comments that were outside the rule's scope.
However, responses to some of these comments are included where doing
so will help clarify the purpose of the rule.
Issue 1: Although supportive of the proposed rule, several
commenters suggested broadening the scope of the rule to cover all
captive-bred animals from species listed under the Endangered Species
Act, wherever they occur. They also requested that we provide an
exemption for all parts and products from a sport-hunted specimen,
including meat and fur.
Service Response 1: This rule covers only U.S. captive-bred
scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle based on information
regarding the conservation needs and the role of captive breeding for
these particular species. We have exempted only specimens of these
three species captive-bred in the United States because an important
part of the rule is the requirement that any person participating in
these activities maintain records and make these records available to
Service officials upon request. It is difficult to establish a record-
keeping system for captive-breeding operations outside the United
States and even more difficult to access records kept outside the
United States. In addition, we have limited ability to monitor captive-
breeding operations located outside the United States, and we do not
have sufficient information on operations outside the United States to
determine whether they meet the standards for enhancement of
propagation or survival of the species.
[[Page 52312]]
We have limited the rule to captive-bred live wildlife, including
embryos and gametes, and sport-hunted trophies because live wildlife,
embryos, and gametes are essential to propagation and sport-hunted
trophies. The sport-hunted trophy includes more than the mounted
specimen. It may be raw or tanned parts, such as bones, hair, head,
hide, hooves, horns, meat, skull, rug, taxidermied head, shoulder, or
full body mount, of a specimen that was taken by the hunter during a
sport hunt for personal use. It does not include articles made from a
trophy, such as worked, manufactured, or handicraft items for use as
clothing, curios, ornamentation, jewelry, or other utilitarian items
for commercial purposes.
Issue 2: Some commenters suggested that the rule should include
criteria for approving individual captive-breeding operations to
receive the benefits of the rule. Some commenters suggested including
criteria for managing culls on ranches, requiring that all profits from
ex situ activities be used for in situ conservation, and that the
regulated operations must participate in conservation plans to
establish wild populations in the range countries.
Service Response 2: The successful breeding of these three species
in captivity in the United States has added significantly to the global
populations of these species. Persons may operate under the provisions
of the rule only if the purpose of their activity is associated with
the transfer of live wildlife, including embryos and gametes, or with
sport hunting in a manner that contributes to increasing or sustaining
captive numbers or to potential reintroduction to range countries. The
rule also requires that each person claiming the benefit of the
exception maintain accurate written records of activities, including
births, deaths, and transfers of specimens, and make those records
accessible to Service officials. In the final rule we have added two
criteria that will ensure that any captive-breeding facility operating
under the rule is managing the species to ensure genetic integrity and
diversity.
With these criteria, we have determined that U.S. operations that
maintain captive-bred specimens of these three species contribute to
the enhancement of the propagation or survival of these species, as
required under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR 17.22(a)(2).
Therefore, the requirements in the rule are adequate and appropriate
for these species.
Issue 3: One commenter noted that the proposed rule referred to
``populations'' of captive-bred scimitar-horned oryx, dama gazelle, and
addax, and that this usage is inconsistent with the definition of this
term in the applicable regulations.
Service Response 3: We agree that captive-held animals may not
qualify as populations as defined at 50 CFR 17.3 and have changed the
rule accordingly.
Issue 4: Some commenters argued that the Service has failed to show
how these captive-breeding operations meet the standards for the
enhancement of propagation or survival under section 10 of the Act and
failed to explain how the Service's approach will benefit wild
populations. One commenter argued that the Service offered no support
for its statement that hunting of captive-bred animals relieves
pressure on wild populations.
Service Response 4: The rule discusses how authorizing these
activities for U.S. captive-breeding operations enhances the
propagation of these species by providing an incentive to continue to
raise animals in captivity while managing their genetic diversity,
serving as repositories for surplus animals, and facilitating the
movement of specimens between breeding facilities. We found that
authorizing these activities also enhances the survival of the species
by providing an incentive to continue captive-breeding and genetic
management programs, which have (in conjunction with foreign captive-
breeding operations) prevented the possible extinction of at least one
of the species, contributed significantly to the total number of
remaining animals of the other two species, and provided founder stock
for reintroduction.
As explained in the proposed rule, providing opportunities for
sport hunting of captive-bred wildlife may relieve pressure on wild
populations of the species by providing an alternative to legal and
illegal hunting of animals in the wild.
Issue 5: The majority of commenters opposing the proposed rule
stated that captive-bred specimens from U.S. ranches do not contribute
to reintroduction efforts in range countries, nor are specimens from
U.S. ranches needed for these efforts.
Service Response 5: In our proposed rule, we mentioned that 30
founder lines of scimitar-horned oryx are represented on at least one
ranch that works closely with the Scimitar-horned Oryx Species Survival
Plan (SSP). The SSP has provided specimens for reintroduction programs
in range countries, and the ranch will contribute specimens when
needed. Indeed, one commenter noted that he recently shipped 44 dama
gazelles, 32 addax, and 10 scimitar-horned oryx that were captive-bred
on U.S. ranches to a private wildlife sanctuary in the United Arab
Emirates, where they will be bred to produce specimens for eventual
release in the historic range. The commenter added that the
Conservation Committee of the Exotic Wildlife Association is developing
a feasibility study to determine how ranchers can best contribute
specimens to reintroduction programs. Between October 2003 and March
2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of Management
Authority issued CITES permits for the export of U.S. captive-bred
scimitar-horned oryx (45 specimens), addax (90 specimens), and dama
gazelle (70 specimens) to the United Arab Emirates for captive
breeding. Most of these specimens were captive-bred on U.S. ranches.
We do not know when or to what degree any particular ranch will be
called upon to provide specimens for reintroduction efforts or research
necessary to facilitate such programs. However, their continued
breeding of these species, and their monitoring and maintaining genetic
diversity, will ensure that specimens will be available when the
appropriate conditions for reintroduction exist in range countries. As
one commenter pointed out, other species that are captive-bred on U.S.
ranches, such as Grevy's zebra and blackbuck, have been used in
research and reintroduction projects.
Issue 6: Several commenters indicated that conservation resulting
from ranches that allow sport hunting is not comparable to zoo-based
conservation programs. They also noted that the AZA acquisition--
disposition policy prohibits AZA institutions from supplying animals to
or receiving them from ranches that allow hunting of those species.
Thus, they argue that few ranches can cooperate with zoo programs.
Service Response 6: Both zoos and ranches may breed and otherwise
contribute to the conservation of these species, whether or not there
is collaboration. We acknowledge that some ranches breed these species
and do not allow hunting of them, whereas others do. However, we have
found that ranches that meet the regulatory criteria, whether or not
they allow sport hunting of the three antelopes, enhance the
propagation or survival of these species. According to several
commenters, many ranches, whether offering sport hunts or not, have
provided research opportunities to study these species in partnership
with academic institutions.
Issue 7: Some commenters contended that hunting on U.S. ranches may
undermine the conservation of wild specimens by increasing the demand for
[[Page 52313]]
trophies or creating incentives for illegal trade.
Service Response 7: There is no evidence that sport hunting of
captive-bred animals increases poaching of these species in the wild.
Sport hunting of these species has been occurring on ranches in the
U.S. for more than 20 years. There is no evidence that the availability
of captive-bred animals to trophy hunters has contributed in any way to
hunting pressure on these species in the wild. Furthermore, the United
States and range-country governments, as well as most countries
worldwide, are required to strictly regulate trade in these species
because the scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle are listed in
Appendix I of CITES. Listing in CITES Appendix I requires strict
regulation of international movement of these species, which may only
be authorized in ``exceptional circumstances.'' With the listing of
these three antelopes as endangered under the Act, the regulatory
protections will be further strengthened, not reduced, because both
CITES and Act regulations will apply. Sport hunting of surplus animals
from captive-breeding operations in the United States is anticipated to
reduce the incentive for removal of wild animals in their range
countries by providing an alternative source of specimens.
Issue 8: One commenter stated that ranches that breed specimens
select for trophy quality, which may reduce genetic fitness.
Service Response 8: We know that 30 founder lines of scimitar-
horned oryx are represented on at least one ranch that works closely
with the Scimitar-horned Oryx SSP. We have received no indication in
the literature or from commenters indicating that breeding programs on
ranches have caused a loss in overall genetic variation in U.S.
captive-bred antelopes. In addition, we have added criteria to the
final rule that will prevent hybridization of species or subspecies and
require that all specimens be managed in a manner that maintains
genetic diversity.
Issue 9: One commenter suggested that surplus captive-bred
specimens from ranches should be relocated, not killed.
Service Response 9: Although thousands of these animals have been
produced in captivity, the number of animals released into the wild has
been limited. Reintroduction programs cannot absorb the entire
production of captive-breeding operations for logistical reasons and
because reintroductions--for almost any mammal--are limited to small
groups of animals that can be conditioned and monitored to ensure their
survival. The amount of secure habitat for reintroductions is also a
factor limiting the numbers of animals that can be released. In our
proposed rule, we stated that some killing of surplus specimens may be
necessary to manage captive herds (e.g., to reduce aggression among
males) and to finance captive-breeding operations. In addition, the
United States does not have the jurisdiction to direct another country
in regard to when it should accept animals and when it should release
them to the wild.
Issue 10: One commenter asserted that the Service cannot propose
any exemptions or permits for a species under the Act until the species
is actually listed under the Act; in doing so, they argue, the Service
has violated its consultation responsibilities under section 7 of the Act.
Service Response 10: It was critical that development of a rule
that provides an incentive to continue captive breeding of these
species proceed concurrently with the determination of their legal
status under the Act to ensure that no breeding programs would be
disrupted by a final listing determination. This final rule has
therefore been released concurrently with the final listing
determination to ensure there is no confusion regarding the authority
of the Service to regulate such activities for these species. There is
no limitation under either the Act or the Administrative Procedure Act
for related proposed rulemakings to proceed concurrently to the final
rule stage.
After considering all of the effects that would be posed by the
proposed rule, we determined that the measures included in the final
rule would reduce the threat of extinction to the species by
facilitating captive breeding. Therefore, no conference procedure under
section 7(a)(4) of the Act is required.
Issue 11: One commenter believed that the proposed rule would set a
precedent for legal hunting of listed species in captivity.
Service Response 11: We disagree. The development of this rule was
specific to these three species and included consideration of specific
threats, specific conservation needs, and the benefits of captive
breeding to all three species. In no way should the development of this
regulation for these species under the Act be interpreted as a
statement of what regulatory scheme would be appropriate for other
listed species also found in captivity within the United States.
Issue 12: One commenter argued that we did not establish how
conservation efforts for the species would be hampered by the application
of current Act regulatory systems to captive-breeding operations.
Service Response 12: The Act does not require a particular
regulatory system be used to implement the Act. Rather, the Act
requires that authorized activities must meet standards for enhancing
the propagation or survival of the species. We have found that the
regulatory framework established for the three antelope meets these
standards and is the best management scheme to encourage continued
captive breeding and management of these species. Similar regulations,
the captive-bred wildlife regulations at 50 CFR 17.21(g), have been
used as a basis for developing this rule. However, the current
regulations do not cover species for which sport hunting is an integral
part of management of the species, and they do not provide an
authorization for the interstate and foreign commerce of sport-hunted
trophies. Thus, the movement of sport-hunted trophies taken for
management purposes would be limited unless an Act permit or
authorization had been granted. Not requiring each person to apply for
a permit or authorization prior to engaging in these activities
provides an important incentive to these operations to continue their
captive-breeding and management programs.
Issue 13: One commenter argued that the Service does not have the
authority under the Act to propose this rule for an endangered species.
Service Response 13: As explained above, captive-breeding
operations within the United States that meet the criteria established
by this rule meet the standards for both enhancing the propagation and
enhancing the survival of these three species, as shown by the findings
for each of the criteria found at 50 CFR 17.22(a)(2). While the Service
typically authorizes activities under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act on
a case-by-case basis through the issuance of individual permits or
authorizations, there is no requirement that we may do so only via this
process. The requirements for notification and opportunity for public
comment under section 10(c) and publication of final determinations
under section 10(d) have been satisfied through this rulemaking process.
Issue 14: A few commenters asserted that any regulatory scheme that
facilitates killing of animals as contributing to conservation is not
supported by the law except under extremely narrow circumstances.
Service Response 14: Section 10 of the Act does not set absolute
limits on the Service's ability to authorize the taking
[[Page 52314]]
of an endangered species. In fact, the section specifically states that
the Secretary may authorize any act otherwise prohibited under section
9, which includes take. Take includes to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect an endangered species, or
attempt to engage in any such conduct (see section 3(19) of the Act).
Section 10(a)(1)(A) does require that any authorized activity must
enhance the propagation or survival of the species overall. An example
of when take of a listed species benefits conservation is our
regulation on the import of sport-hunted African elephant (Loxodonta
africana) trophies. The African elephant is listed as threatened under
the Act. The import of sport-hunted trophies from African countries is
only allowed when certain criteria are met, including that ``a
determination is made that the killing of the animal whose trophy is
intended for import would enhance survival of the species'' [50 CFR
17.40 (e)(3)(iii)(C)]. When evaluating a hunting program in an African
country, Service biologists consider whether revenue derived from the
hunt is used to further elephant conservation. These funds have been
used to support anti-poaching activities and establish game management
areas with important elephant habitat.
Issue 15: One commenter opposed the rule because it would deny Act
protection to most members of the three species.
Service Response 15: This rule does not deny Act protection to most
members of the three species. All of the prohibitions under section 9
apply to all animals in the wild. These same prohibitions also apply to
any animal captive-bred outside the United States. This regulation
applies only to members of the species that were captive-bred within
the United States. The comments that noted that many of the animals
found in captivity are located in the United States support the
Service's determination that U.S. captive-breeding operations have
played a significant role in the propagation or survival of all three
species and that a regulatory scheme that facilitates the continuation
of these activities is appropriate for the species.
Issue 16: Many commenters opposed the rule because of their
philosophical opposition to trophy hunting or hunting in general.
Others expressed concerns regarding ``canned hunts.''
Service Response 16: Hunting has a long history of contributing to
conservation in the United States. The Service acknowledges that
wildlife populations and habitats have been sustained through the
financial contributions of hunters. The proposed rule authorizes the
taking of individual animals, but only if the purpose of the taking
contributes to increasing or sustaining captive antelope numbers or to
potential reintroduction to range countries. This approach to
management has caused captive-bred specimens to proliferate, thus
contributing to their propagation and increasing their chances of survival.
Contribution of Captive Breeding to Species Propagation or Survival
A peer reviewer of the proposed rule for listing the three antelope
species as endangered noted that 100% of the world's scimitar-horned
oryx population (including the reintroduced specimens that are in
enclosed areas), 71% of the addax population, and 48% of the dama
gazelle population are in captive herds. Captive-breeding programs
operated by zoos and private ranches have effectively increased the
number of these animals while genetically managing their herds.
International studbook keepers and managers of the species in captivity
manage these programs in a manner that maintains the captive specimens
as a demographically and genetically diverse megapopulation (Mallon and
Kingswood 2001). In the 1980s and 1990s, captive-breeding operations in
Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States provided scimitar-
horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle to Bou-Hedma National Park in
Tunisia (Mallon and Kingswood 2001). These animals have become the
founding stock of captive in situ herds that have grown substantially
since 1995. The IUCN Species Survival Commission has proposed that some
of the antelopes produced be used to establish other captive-breeding
operations within the range countries or, given the appropriate
conditions in the wild, for reintroduction. Similar in situ breeding
programs for future reintroduction are occurring in Senegal and Morocco
with captive stock produced and provided by breeding operations outside
of these countries.
This rule does not authorize or lead to the removal of any specimen
of the three species from the wild. This rule would not affect
prohibitions against possession and other acts with unlawfully taken
wildlife or importation. This rule only applies to specimens that are
captive bred in the United States. Any person who wishes to engage in
any act that is prohibited under the Endangered Species Act with a
specimen that has not been captive bred in the United States will still
need to obtain a permit or authorization under the Act. The issuance or
denial of such permits or authorizations is decided on a case-by-case
basis and only after all required findings have been made. The rule
contains provisions that will allow the Service to monitor the
activities being carried out by captive-breeding operations within the
United States to ensure that these activities continue to provide a
benefit to the three antelope species. The rule also does not include
dead specimens other than sport-hunted trophies or specimens derived
from activities that do not meet the criteria.
The probable positive direct and indirect effects of facilitating
captive breeding in the United States for the conservation of scimitar-
horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle are exemplified in the research
and reintroduction efforts involving the AZA and the Sahelo-Saharan
Interest Group (SSIG) of the United Nations Environment Program. In
North America, the AZA manages captive scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and
dama gazelle through SSPs. The captive scimitar-horned oryx in North
America and Europe are derived from two captures that occurred in Chad
in 1963 and 1966. Members of the Scimitar-horned Oryx SSP are faced
with three challenges (Antelope Taxon Advisory Group 2002b): They must
manage the captive herds to maximize the genetic contributions of
founder stock; second, they must find solutions for disposition of
surplus animals given the limited holding space among SSP members; and
third, they must find facilities that can house individual males or
bachelor herds. Only through inter-institutional collaboration among
members, such as the exchange of live specimens or gametes to maintain
genetic diversity, can these challenges be surmounted. In one example,
30 founder lines are represented at 1 ranch that works closely with the
SSP. Since typical oryx herds consist of 1 male and 10-30 females,
there will always be a need to manage nonbreeding males. Although the
SSP consists mostly of AZA-accredited zoos, ranches can serve as
repositories for surplus animals or assist in gene pool management.
These partnerships also provide opportunities for behavioral and other
research in spacious areas found in some zoos and ranches that can be
used in forming and preparing groups of animals for reintroduction.
Members of the Addax SSP have also been involved in translocating
animals for captive breeding and release in Tunisia and Morocco.
Animals held by members of the SSP are included in an international
studbook for this species
[[Page 52315]]
that includes addaxes in zoos and private facilities worldwide
(Antelope Taxon Advisory Group 2002a). The dama gazelle North American
studbook also includes zoos and ranch participants worldwide. Some of
the specimens bred in zoos originated from ranched stock (Metzler 2000).
Both zoos and ranches may breed and otherwise contribute to the
conservation of these species, whether or not there is collaboration.
According to several commenters on the proposed regulation, many
ranches, whether offering hunts or not, have provided research
opportunities to study these species in partnership with academic
institutions.
A commenter on the proposed regulation noted that he recently
shipped 44 dama gazelles, 32 addax, and 10 scimitar-horned oryx that
were captive-bred on U.S. ranches to a private wildlife sanctuary in
the United Arab Emirates, where they will be bred to produce specimens
for eventual release in the historic range. We note that between
October 2003 and March 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
Division of Management Authority issued CITES permits for the export of
U.S. captive-bred scimitar-horned oryx (45 specimens), addax (90
specimens), and dama gazelle (70 specimens) to the United Arab Emirates
for captive breeding. Most of these specimens were captive-bred on U.S.
ranches. We do not know when or to what degree any particular ranch
will be called upon to provide specimens for reintroduction efforts or
research necessary to facilitate such programs. However, their
continued breeding of these species, and their monitoring and
maintaining genetic diversity, will ensure that specimens will be
available when the appropriate conditions for reintroduction exist in
range countries.
We are not aware of any negative direct or indirect effects from
this rule on wild populations. This rule does not authorize or lead to
the removal of any specimen of the three species from the wild. Indeed,
many facilities in the United States that breed these species are
working with range countries to breed and reintroduce specimens in
areas that they have occupied historically. In 2000, the SSIG was
formed as a consortium of individuals and organizations interested in
conserving Sahelo-Saharan antelopes and their ecosystems (SSIG 2002).
The SSIG has members representing 17 countries and shares information
on wildlife management and conservation, captive breeding, wildlife
health and husbandry, establishment and management of protected areas,
and wildlife survey methods. Members are involved in in situ and ex
situ conservation efforts for the scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama
gazelle. Several of its projects involve the translocation of captive-
bred antelopes to range countries for establishment of herds in large
fenced breeding areas prior to reintroduction. A commenter on the
proposed rule noted that the Conservation Committee of the Exotic
Wildlife Association is developing a feasibility study to determine how
ranchers can best contribute specimens to reintroduction programs.
The rule does not directly or indirectly conflict with any known
program intended to enhance the survival probabilities of the three
antelope species. The SSP and SSIG programs work collaboratively with
range country scientists and governments. Although the rule does not
authorize or lead to the removal of any specimen of the three species
from the wild, it may contribute to other programs by providing founder
stock for reintroduction or research.
This rule will reduce the threat of extinction facing the scimitar-
horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle by facilitating captive breeding
for all three species in the United States. Based on information
available to the Service, captive breeding in the United States has
contributed significantly to the conservation of these species.
Scimitar-horned oryx may be extinct in the wild; therefore, but for
captive breeding, the species might be extinct. Addax and dama gazelle
occur in very low numbers in the wild and a significant percentage of
remaining specimens survive only through captivity (71% and 48%
respectively). Threats that have reduced the species' populations to
current levels in the wild continue throughout most of the historic
range. As future opportunities arise for reintroduction in the antelope
range countries, captive-breeding programs will be able to provide
genetically diverse and otherwise suitable specimens. Ranches and large
captive-wildlife parks for non-native herds (e.g., Bamberger Ranch,
Texas; The Wilds, Ohio; Fossil Rim Wildlife Center, Texas) are able to
provide large areas of land that simulate the species' native habitat
and can accommodate a larger number of specimens than can most urban
zoos. Thus, they provide opportunities for research, breeding, and
preparing antelopes for eventual reintroduction.
International consortia of zoos, private owners, researchers, and
range country decision makers have acknowledged the need to reduce
threats in the range countries (e.g., habitat protection, reduce
poaching) of the scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle. They
also recognize that, but for captive breeding, it would be difficult,
or in some cases impossible, to restore the species in the wild,
particularly for species that have become extinct in the wild.
One way this rule will reduce the threat of extinction is by
allowing limited sport hunting of U.S. captive-bred specimens to
facilitate captive breeding of all three species. Given the cost of
establishing and maintaining a large captive breeding operation and the
large amount of land that is required to maintain bachelor herds or
surplus animals, it is difficult for many private landowners to
participate in such endeavors. An incentive to facilitate these captive
breeding operations and ensure that genetically viable herds are
available for future reintroduction programs is to allow the limited
hunting of captive-bred specimens. Most of the available land for
captive-held specimens is owned by private landowners (ranchers). In
Texas, the number of ranched scimitar-horned oryx went from 32
specimens in 1979 to 2,145 in 1996; addax increased from 2 specimens in
1971 to 1,824 in 1996; and dama gazelle increased from 9 specimens in
1979 to 369 in 2003 (Mungall 2004). These increases were due mostly to
captive breeding at the ranches supplemented with some imported
captive-bred founder stock. Limited hunting of captive-bred specimens
facilitated these increases by generating revenue for herd management
and the operation of the facility. Ranches also need to manage herds
demographically (i.e., appropriate age and gender numbers and ratios)
and genetically (i.e., maximize genetic diversity). Such management may
include culling specimens, which may be accomplished through hunting.
For example, a ranch may need to reduce the number of adult males to
achieve the necessary sex ratio for establishing a polygamous breeding
group and facilitating the typical breeding behavior of the species.
Hunting also provides an economic incentive for private landowners such
as ranchers to continue to breed these species and maintain them as a
genetic reservoir for future reintroduction or research, and as a
repository for excess males from other captive herds. Sport hunting of
U.S. captive-bred specimens may reduce the threat of extinction of wild
populations by providing an alternative to legal and illegal hunting of
wild specimens in range countries. Thus, hunting of U.S. captive-bred
specimens of these species
[[Page 52316]]
reduces the threat of the species' extinction.
The movement of live U.S. captive-bred specimens, both by
interstate transport and export, is critical to the captive-breeding
efforts to manage the captive herds as well as provide animals for
reintroduction. Between October 2003 and March 2005, CITES permits were
issued for the export of U.S. captive-bred scimitar-horned oryx (45
specimens), addax (90 specimens), and dama gazelle (70 specimens).
Studbook managers may recommend that specimens be exchanged among
breeding institutions to achieve management goals for genetic or other
reasons. These institutions may be separated by State (within the
United States) or national boundaries. Zoos in Germany, for example,
exchange specimens with zoos in the United States, as recommended by
the International Studbook Keeper. The need to quickly move U.S.
captive-bred specimens among breeding facilities is reflected in this
rule by allowing such movement without requiring a separate ESA permit
or authorization.
The opinions or views of scientists or other persons or
organizations having expertise concerning these species have been taken
into account in this rule. The comments received from peer reviewers on
our proposed rule for listing the three antelopes as endangered alerted
us to the vital role that captive breeding, whether at zoos or ranches,
is playing in species recovery and reintroduction. Comments on the
proposed new regulation provided some information. More general
comments are addressed in the summary of comments. Thus, the opinions
or views of scientists or other persons or organizations having
expertise concerning the three antelope species and other germane
matters have been considered in the development of this rule.
The U.S. expertise, facilities, and other resources available to
captive-breeding operations have resulted in such a high level of
breeding success that the SSIG estimated that there are 4,000-5,000
scimitar-horned oryx, 1,500 addax, and 750 dama gazelle in captivity
worldwide, many of which are held in the United States. The U.S.
specimens have resulted from very few wild-caught founders that have
been carefully managed to increase the numbers of specimens and
maintain genetic diversity. Husbandry methods are shared by
participants in regional and international studbooks through specialist
meetings such as the Antelope Taxon Advisory Group meeting held at the
AZA Annual Meeting. Such cooperation allows the sharing of resources
among participants of coordinated breeding programs as specimens are
moved from one facility to another according to management
recommendations. As indicated by the Scimitar-horned Oryx SSP, one of
the major issues confronting the captive-breeding community is how to
preserve the necessary genetic diversity and manage population surplus,
particularly given the space limitations at some facilities. Some
private ranches in the United States have contributed to the success of
captive-breeding programs by absorbing the surplus specimens produced
in zoos so that zoos can utilize available space for more genetically
important specimens or the appropriate herd social structure. Ranches
have also enlarged the captive populations because they are able to
dedicate more space to these species, and therefore house more
specimens, than can zoos.
Based on the best available scientific information and comments
received from peer reviewers, non-government organizations, and the
public, we have determined that U.S. operations that breed scimitar-
horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle have already contributed
significantly to the propagation or survival of the three antelope
species. Because of the need to facilitate the continued captive
breeding of these species in private ranches and zoos, this rule is an
appropriate regulatory management provision for scimitar-horned oryx,
addax, and dama gazelle captive-bred in the United States. The probable
direct and indirect effects of this rule will facilitate activities
associated with captive breeding and thus contribute to the propagation
and survival of the species. The rule will not, directly or indirectly,
conflict with any known program intended to enhance the survival of
populations in the wild. By maintaining genetic diversity and providing
captive-bred stock for reintroduction efforts and research, captive-
breeding operations in the United States are reducing the threat of
extinction of the three antelope species. The rule facilitates the
functioning of conservation programs, including those organized by the
AZA and SSIG, and encourages the breeding and management of these
antelopes. In fact, the rule provides an incentive to continue captive
breeding. Therefore, we find that authorizing certain otherwise
prohibited activities for U.S. captive-bred live wildlife, including
embryos and gametes, and sport-hunted trophies of the three species
that meet specific criteria enhances the propagation and survival of
the species.
Endangered Species Act 10(d) Finding
The Service may grant exceptions under subsections (a)(1)(A) and
(b) of the Act only if it finds and publishes the findings in the
Federal Register that (1) such exceptions were applied for in good
faith, (2) if granted and exercised will not operate to the
disadvantage of such endangered species, and (3) will be consistent
with the purposes and policy set forth in section 2 of the Act. Based
on the comments received from captive-breeding operation
representatives demonstrating their commitment to the continued
enhancement of the propagation and survival of the scimitar-horned
oryx, addax, and dama gazelle, we find that the exceptions in this rule
have been applied for in good faith.
We also find that the rule will not operate to the disadvantage of
these species. In fact, it will benefit them by assisting in their
rescue from near extinction and providing the founder stock necessary
for reintroduction. The scimitar-horned oryx is possibly extinct in the
wild and therefore, but for captive breeding, the species might be
extinct. For addax and dama gazelle, they occur in very low numbers in
the wild, and a significant percentage of remaining specimens survive
only in captivity (71% and 48%, respectively). Captive-breeding
programs operated by zoos and private ranches have effectively
increased the numbers of these animals while genetically managing their
herds. As future opportunities arise for reintroduction in the antelope
range countries, U.S. captive-breeding programs will be able to provide
genetically diverse and otherwise suitable specimens.
Section 2 of the Act defines the purpose of the Act as providing a
means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and
threatened species depend may be conserved, providing a program for the
conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and
taking such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the
treaties and conventions set forth in paragraph 2(a) of the Act. One of
the stated policies of the Act is for all federal agencies to seek to
conserve listed species and use their authorities in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. In section 3, the term ``conservation'' means ``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 Act are no longer
necessary.'' The definition specifically
[[Page 52317]]
includes propagation and transplantation as methods that can lead to
the recovery of listed species, both of which are components of captive
breeding of the three antelope species. As discussed above, the rule
provides incentive to U.S. captive-breeding operations that will ensure
continued propagation of genetically diverse specimens of these three
species, which can serve as a reservoir for future reintroductions and
assist in research. Therefore, we find that this rule is consistent
with section 2 of the Act.
Description of This Rule
We are amending 50 CFR 17.21 by adding a new paragraph (h), which
will apply to U.S. captive-bred scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama
gazelle. The provision allows for the take; export or re-import;
delivery, receipt, carrying, transport or shipment in interstate or
foreign commerce, in the course of a commercial activity; or sale or
offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce of U.S. captive-
bred live scimitar-horned oryx, addax, or dama gazelle, including
embryos and gametes, and sport-hunted trophies, as long as certain
criteria are met.
Any exports of such specimens must meet the marking and reporting
requirements for export [50 CFR 17.21(g)(4) and part 14], general
permit requirements and conditions (50 CFR part 13), and all CITES
requirements (50 CFR part 23). Each specimen to be re-imported must be
uniquely identified by a tattoo or other means that is reported on the
required documentation. Each specimen at the captive-breeding operation
must be managed to prevent hybridization of species or subspecies and
must be managed in a manner that maintains genetic diversity.
Each person claiming the benefit of the exception of this rule must
maintain accurate written records of activities, including births,
deaths, and transfers of specimens, and make those records accessible
to Service officials for inspection at reasonable hours set forth in 50
CFR 13.46 and 13.47.
Effects of This Rule
With this rule we find that the scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and
dama gazelle are dependent on captive breeding and activities
associated with captive breeding for their conservation, and that
activities associated with captive breeding within the United States
enhance the propagation and survival of these species. Therefore,
persons who wish to engage in the specified otherwise prohibited
activities that meet the criteria for enhancement of the propagation or
survival of these species may do so without obtaining an individual
Endangered Species Act permit.
This rule does not authorize any activity for any specimen of the
three species from the wild. It also does not affect provisions
relating to importation or possession and other acts with unlawfully
taken wildlife. In addition, this rule applies only to specimens that
are captive-bred in the United States. Any person who wishes to engage
in any act that is prohibited under the Endangered Species Act with a
specimen that has not been captive-bred in the United States or from a
facility that does not meet the criteria of this rule will need to
obtain an individual permit under the Act. The issuance or denial of
such permits is decided on a case-by-case basis and only after all
required findings have been made.
This rule does not affect the CITES requirements for these species.
Therefore, any import into or export from the United States of
specimens of these species would not be authorized until all CITES
requirements have been met. See the proposed rule for more information
on the application of CITES to these activities. The existing
protections under CITES, in conjunction with the new provisions for the
species under this rule, create an appropriate regulatory framework
that protects populations in the wild, ensures appropriate management
of U.S. captive-bred specimens, and provides an incentive for future
captive breeding.
Required Determinations
A Record of Compliance was prepared for the proposed rule. A Record
of Compliance certifies that a rulemaking action complies with the
various statutory, Executive Order, and Department Manual requirements
applicable to rulemaking. Without this new regulation, individuals
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States would need individual
permits to engage in various otherwise prohibited activities, including
domestic and international trade in live and sport-hunted captive-bred
specimens for commercial purposes. Captive-bred specimens in
international trade for noncommercial purposes (e.g., breeding loans
requiring export) would have to be authorized through the permit
process. This process takes time, sometimes causing delays in moving
animals for breeding or reintroduction. Such movements must often be
completed within a narrow timeframe and can be further complicated by
quarantine requirements and other logistics. We note that the economic
effects of this rule do not rise to the level of ``significant'' under
the following required determinations.
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, the
Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is not a
significant regulatory action. The rule will not have an annual
economic impact of more than $100 million, or significantly affect any
economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of
government. This rule will reduce the regulatory impacts on captive-
breeding operations that breed the endangered scimitar-horned oryx,
addax, and dama gazelle because it provides exemptions to certain
prohibitions of section 9 of the Act that would otherwise apply to
businesses and individuals under U.S. jurisdiction. The exemptions to
the prohibitions of the Act provided by this rule will reduce economic
costs of the listing. The economic effect of the rule is a benefit to
the captive-breeding operations for the three antelopes because it
allows the take and interstate commerce of captive-bred specimens. The
rule, by itself, will not have an annual economic impact of more than
$100 million, or significantly affect any economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. A
cost-benefit and economic analysis is not required. This rule does not
create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies' actions. Thus, no
Federal agency's actions are affected by this final rule.
This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
The rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. The Service has
previously promulgated species-specific rules for other endangered and
threatened species, including other rules for captive-bred specimens.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
To assess the effects of the rule on small entities, we focused on
the exotic wildlife ranching community in the United States because
these are the entities most likely to be affected by the rule. We
determined that this rule will not have a significant economic effect
on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) because it allows for
the continued breeding of the species and trade in live specimens,
embryos, gametes, and sport-hunted trophies of the three antelopes. An
initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not required.
[[Page 52318]]
Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide was not required. This
rule reduces the regulatory impact, because without this rule all
prohibitions of section 9 of the Endangered Species Act would apply
(i.e., take; export; delivery, receipt, carrying, transport or shipment
in interstate or foreign commerce, in the course of a commercial
activity; or sale or offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce).
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule would reduce
certain regulatory obligations and will not have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more; will not cause a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State,
or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and will not have
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501,
et seq.), this rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100
million per year. This final rule will not have a significant or unique
effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A
Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this final rule does not
have significant takings implications. By reducing the regulatory
burden placed on affected individuals resulting from the listing of the
three antelopes as endangered species, this rule will not affect the
likelihood of potential takings. Affected individuals will have more
freedom to pursue activities that involve captive-bred specimens
without first obtaining individual authorization.
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this final rule does not
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
federalism assessment.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that this final rule does not unduly burden
the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of the Executive Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget approved the information
collection in part 17 and assigned OMB Control Numbers 1018-0093 and
1018-0094. This rule does not impose new reporting or recordkeeping
requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or
organizations. We cannot conduct or sponsor, and you are not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
Council on Environmental Quality regulations in 40 CFR 1501.3(b)
state that an agency ``may prepare an environmental assessment on any
action at any time in order to assist agency planning and decision
making.'' We drafted an environmental assessment for the proposed rule
in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA). A final environmental assessment was prepared based
on comments received and a Finding of No Significant Impact was prepared.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible
effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that
there are no effects.
Executive Order 13211
We have evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and
have determined that this rule will have no effects on energy supply,
distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant
energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
References Cited
Antelope Taxon Advisory Group. 2002a. Addax Fact Sheet. American
Zoo and Aquarium Association. http://www.csew.com/antelopetag. 
Antelope Taxon Advisory Group. 2002b. Scimitar-Horned Oryx Fact
Sheet. American Zoo and Aquarium Association.
http://www.csew.com/antelopetag.
IUCN (World Conservation Union). 2003. 2003 IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. http://www.iucn.org.
Mallon, D.P., and S.C. Kingswood (Compilers). 2001. Antelopes.
Part 4: North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Global Survey and
Regional Action Plans. SSC Antelope Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Viii + 260 pp.
Metzler, S. 2000. Addra Gazelle Gazella dama ruficollis North
American Regional Studbook: December 31, 1999 Update. Disney's
Animal Kingdom: Orlando, Florida.
Mungall, E.C. 2004. Submission for the Comment Period Listing of
Scimitar-horned Oryx, Addax, and Dama Gazelle Under the Endangered
Species Act: A Technical Report Prepared for the Exotic Wildlife
Association.
Noble, D. 2002. Overview and status of captive antelope
populations. Third Annual Sahelo-Saharan Interest Group Meeting, p.41
SSIG (Sahelo--Saharan Interest Group) 2002. Third Annual
Sahelo--Saharan Interest Group Meeting Proceedings. Available from
S. Monfort, Chair SSIG, National Zoological Park. Smithsonian
Institution: Washington, DC.
Author
The primary author of this notice is Robert R. Gabel, Chief,
Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
? Accordingly, we hereby amend part 17 of subpart C, subchapter B of
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
? 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
? 2. Amend Sec. 17.21 by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.21 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(h) U.S. captive-bred scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama
gazelle. Notwithstanding paragraphs (b), (c), (e), and (f) of this
section, any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
may take; export or re-import; deliver, receive, carry, transport or
ship in interstate or foreign commerce, in the course of a commercial
activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce
live wildlife, including embryos and gametes, and sport-hunted trophies
of scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx dammah), addax (Addax nasomaculatus), and
dama gazelle (Gazella dama) provided:
(1) The purpose of such activity is associated with the management
or
[[Page 52319]]
transfer of live wildlife, including embryos and gametes, or sport
hunting in a manner that contributes to increasing or sustaining
captive numbers or to potential reintroduction to range countries;
(2) The specimen was captive-bred, in accordance with Sec. 17.3,
within the United States;
(3) All live specimens of that species held by the captive-breeding
operation are managed in a manner that prevents hybridization of the
species or subspecies.
(4) All live specimens of that species held by the captive-breeding
operation are managed in a manner that maintains genetic diversity.
(5) Any export of or foreign commerce in a specimen meets the
requirements of paragraph (g)(4) of this section, as well as parts 13,
14, and 23 of this chapter;
(6) Each specimen to be re-imported is uniquely identified by a
tattoo or other means that is reported on the documentation required
under paragraph (h)(5) of this section; and
(7) Each person claiming the benefit of the exception of this
paragraph (h) must maintain accurate written records of activities,
including births, deaths, and transfers of specimens, and make those
records accessible to Service officials for inspection at reasonable
hours set forth in Sec. Sec. 13.46 and 13.47 of this chapter.
(8) The sport-hunted trophy consists of raw or tanned parts, such
as bones, hair, head, hide, hooves, horns, meat, skull, rug,
taxidermied head, shoulder, or full body mount, of a specimen that was
taken by the hunter during a sport hunt for personal use. It does not
include articles made from a trophy, such as worked, manufactured, or
handicraft items for use as clothing, curios, ornamentation, jewelry,
or other utilitarian items for commercial purposes.
Dated: August 25, 2005.
Paul Hoffman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-17432 Filed 9-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P