The U.S. is the world’s second-largest market for trafficked ivory, with most sales occurring in New York, California, and Hawaii, according to one recent report.
Now conservationists hope the world’s biggest consumer of illegal ivory will respond in kind.
Last September, President Xi Jinping of China jointly promised with President Obama to end domestic ivory sales, aiming to curtail a slaughter that is wiping out, by some estimates, almost 100 wild elephants a day.
But the Chinese government has yet to follow through, said Leigh Henry, a policy adviser with the World Wildlife Fund.
“When, in 2013, the United States crushed six tons of seized ivory in Denver, afterwards China crushed 6.1 tons of ivory. So there is definitely this kind of tit for tat that we’ve seen in the past,” said Henry.
With the U.S. ban formalized, “what I hope China will do is give a greater level of detail and a timeline for their ban,” she said, noting that the U.S. agencies worked hard to be sure the rule would be finalized in time for an annual high-level diplomatic meeting between American and Chinese officials in Beijing next week. According to the State Department, the meeting’s agenda will include energy, environmental, and economic issues.
The Obama administration intends for the near ban to have a chilling effect on global demand for elephant ivory. “One way we will evaluate the effectiveness of this rule is by evaluating how much ivory continues to make its way into the U.S. market,” said Craig Hoover, who directs U.S. compliance with international conservation and wildlife trade agreements at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “We’ll also measure our success in terms of what other countries do to further regulate their own domestic markets.”
The U.S. has joined with governments of African elephant range countries to press for a worldwide closure of domestic ivory markets, said Iris Ho, the wildlife program manager at Humane Society International, and that effort’s potential is likely to be tested at the upcoming meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, scheduled to take place in Johannesburg in September.
There are a few exemptions in the ivory ban—such as allowing interstate sales of antiquities over 100 years old, as well as some musical instruments and other items containing less than 200 grams of ivory. (The Fish and Wildlife Service has posted guidelines online.) States still have jurisdiction over sales that don’t cross state lines.
The ban should add clout to the U.S. position at CITES while also diminishing the allure of ivory at home, Ho said.
“It’s sending out the message that ivory is a taboo product,” she said. “Ivory represents elephant slaughter. The rule will help to stop perpetuating the notion that ivory is collectible.”
Posted on June 7, 2016 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
Regarding our recent post on the failure of the EU to enforce any protection for EU animals being tucked to Turkey, a non EU state, https://serbiananimalsvoice.com/2016/06/06/the-eu-excuses-get-more-pathetic-by-the-day-contact-mr-van-goethem-and-show-your-disgust/ as the ex EU correspondent for Kent Action Against Live Exports (KAALE), I decided to go back into my old files as I know the name of Bernard Van Goethem very well. The two of us have corresponded in the past, when I presented many other failures of EU live animal transportation regulations to the EU; sadly, all of these appear to have been ignored also; certainly from what is recently still seen at Kent, English ports. There is very little, if any change.
As the copy of the letter (below) shows; I wrote on behalf of KAAALE to the EU (one of many letters – see ‘About Us’ – https://serbiananimalsvoice.com/about-us/ ) regarding concerns for animals in transport within the EU, including the UK. This letter is from early 2013 and specifically deals with the issue of trailer identification and the fact that live animals are / were being carried on vehicles which did not identify this in any way. It was often seen at Kent ports that live animal transporters did NOT carry any identification on them that live animals were being carried. To many outsiders or those not familiar with the trade, I can understand when people say that you must be able to identify an animal transporter trailer just by the look of it. Well I am afraid this is not always the case; as ‘box trailers’ with no visible access to the animals were sometimes used by the Dutch when operating in the UK. Here is a photo of a typical closed box trailer; which actually contains many dozens of live sheep.
Live sheep being carried in this trailer within the UK by a Dutch haulier – would you know it ? – where is the signage in accordance with EU Regulations on the transport of live animals ?
If you do not know that, then how are UK emergency services supposed to know it if the trailer overturns on a UK motorway ?. That my friends was the very essence of my letter of complaint to Mr Van Goethem – that trailers are not identified as carrying live animals; hence failing the requirements of EU Regulation 1/2005, and that the trailers did not have access doors fitted to them – something which Lesley identified so very much in her report to the EU on the very same issue.
Here below is a link to Lesley’s report on the importance of access in livestock trailers – why it is so very important to have multiple access doors to allow access to animals should they need it.
A statement exists in EU Regulation 1/2005 on ‘the protection of animals during transport’, that: ANNEX I – Technical Rules; Chapter II – Means of Transport; Section 2 – ‘Additional provisions for transport by road or rail’ – Para 2.1 clearly defines:
2.1 “Vehicles in which animals are transported shall be clearly and visibly markedindicating the presence of live animals, except where the animals are transported in containers marked in accordance with paragraph 5.1”.
SAV underline and red type above.
Evidence of the failure of ‘clear and visible markings’ on some livestock trailers is yet another example of where the EU has written legislation, in the form of Regulation 1/2005; but effectively, it (the EU) does not wish to ensure that its regulations are enforced by member states.
In his letter back to Mark of 6/5/2013, Mr Van Goethem clearly states at the end of page 1 that:
“You alert us to the fact that transports, often do not display notices warning that live animals are being transported. This is indeed contrary to the terms of the legislation, according to which road vehicles carrying animals ‘shall be clearly and visibly marked indicating the presence of live animals’.”
“This is of course of great importance to ensure the welfare and safety of the animals on board”.
“The Commission sees that it is important that the Regulation is properly implemented. It is however the member states that are primarily responsible for the daily enforcement of EU legislation, and the Commission would intervene mainly where there appears to be a systemic failure of the competent authority of a member state to enforce adequately the EU Regulation”
As of 2016, Dutch livestock transporters using the box type trailers are still being witnessed by UK activists on the roads of the UK, and ARE STILL carrying no signage whatsoever in accordance with EU Regulations.
So, we have to ask exactly what Mr Van Goethem and his ‘team’ are actually doing for the welfare of animals in transport from EU member states. In our opinion, very little at all; maybe even nothing. Not particularly good for someone who in his letter of May 2013 to Mark claims to be the ‘Director responsible for animal welfare in the DG for Health and Consumers’ (at the EU).
Why Mr van Goethem, have you taken no action either about the lack of clear signage on livestock carrying trailers ? We have given you the clear photographic evidence, the names of some of the hauliers doing this, and the actual sub para of the EU Regulation which declares that signage is completely important.
Why ?, why are you happy to fail the animals ? – you declare that you are a ‘Director responsible for animal welfare’ art the EU Commission.
Can we make a suggestion – that you practice what you claim to be and that you give a lot more understanding to the lives and suffering of animals in transport rather than just to your retirement pension from the EU !
Yet another reason for the UK groups to get out of the utterly useless EU and to undertake ex EU campaigning for all live animals in transport across the EU.
And more importantly, time for EU ‘importants’ to wake up to the real world; see all their failings and to actually do something about it. Something we have not seen to date.
Things are very close at the moment – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36271589 – many people wanting out simply because the EU does nothing; talks the talk; fails to enforce and then charges member states millions of pounds each week for not enforcing the regulations.
What would you do in such a situation ? – support the Van Goethem ‘do nothing’ policy or get out and try to improve the welfare of animals in transport ?
——————————————————–
——————————————————
We witness the dictatorship of incompetents!
In June 2012, the then EU Commissioner John Dalli assured us all to pursue the will of the 395 MEPs until 2014, who signed for a reduction of the transport of animals to 8 hours. And the will of 1,100,000 EU citizens who had signed the petition. In June 2012, Dalli disclaimed his promise.
To date, 6 years after, Dalli goes unpunished. A MEP cannot nullify his promise without consequences, just because it fits him like that. Unless he suffers from dementia or is corrupt. Both very poor properties to direct the Office of Health and Food.
Dalli is out, a new is here! His name is Mr. Van Goethem or perhaps Mr. Andiukaitis, or even Mr. Hogan. No one knows, because no one is responsible for anything. The only thing we know with certainty that all can nothing. It would be enough if they bring the 8hours campaign to an end, as a sign of fairness and restitution. If they had corrected the EU bad reputation in animal welfare because of the Dalli affair. If they had abolished the shameful Transport Regulation from 01/2005, we would not accuse the EU of being responsible for medieval barbarism in animal transport. We do not ask that they do all this because of love for the animals, but because animal welfare is in their contract, and because they get a turbo salary.
Clearly, we are experiencing the dictatorship of incompetents! When conducting talks with MEPs, you are at the end after half an hour. You sit opposite to merciless, disinterested and stupid janitor, with nice white shirts. And one wonders what they’re doing there. Besides earning a lot of money, of course.
Both Mr. Van Goethem and Mr. Andiukaitis would gain a higher reputation, if both would give up her job. Both are not able to lead a responsible animal welfare policy. In whose hands lies the future of animal transport?
In those of the incompetents, the washouts, the clueless. We need a new European model. For humans and animals. Venus
Posted on June 6, 2016 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
David Cameron – British Prime Minister; has sadly bleated on for weeks now in the lead up to the UK / EU In / Out referendum being held on 23rd June; about how essential it is for the UK to remain in the EU.
Well here is yet another example of just how pathetic Mr Cameron’s EU is. Did we hear anything about animal welfare issues during the renegotiations which Cameron and the EU took place in a few months ago ? – No. He was only busy looking after business and his banker mates who work in the city – nothing else matters.
So we were annoyed, but not really surprised, (after all we have been campaigning for many years !), to see the latest from wonderful Lesley at ‘Eyes on Animals’ regarding the situation for EU animals being exported live to Turkey. As some of you will know, this has been an issue which we have been very actively involved with quite a lot over recent months.
The response to Lesley and the TSB/AWF from Bernard van Goethem (at the EU Commission) just shows everything that is continually WRONG WITH THE EU; and further supports why many people in the UK are in support of getting out completely. For many in the animal welfare camp, this abuse of evidence and the essential changes (from the EU) which are necessary but are not happening as a result of clear evidence just show how separated from the real world Mr Van Goethem and all his team are.
Here below is the post meeting statement from EoA with regard their meeting with the EU (Van Goethem) regarding live animals suffering at the EU / Turkish border for many days.
Mr van Goethem holds a meeting with his team.
You can read and check out more on the EoA website which is at
So lets recap a few of the main points associated with this.
The EU claims to have a Council Regulation, No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004, on the protection of animals during transport and related operations. This legislation is supposed to protect animals in transport – but it does nothing of the kind as we have shown with evidence for many years. The scope of the directive states – “This Regulation shall apply to the transport of live vertebrate animals carried out within the Community, including the specific checks to be carried out by officials on consignments entering or leaving the customs territory of the EU”.
In reality, what this means is the EU has, on paper only, some kind of pointless regulation, which hauliers do not comply with; which many EU member states do not comply with; and most worryingly, which the EU is utterly afraid to use as a pointer for any kind of prosecutions.
I am afraid that I have no more faith in Mr Van Goethem and his team than I do being able to ride a pushbike from the UK to Australia without a single stop !
Have a look at the terrible video made by EoA which shows EU animals destined for Turkey and the terrible conditions in which they are transported by some EU member states. Remember, this video evidence was made by EoA some 5 years ago, and has been presented to the EU as clear breaches of Regulations for as many years.
As you may remember, Mark made several phone calls to Marco Valletta at the EU about the suffering of EU animals destined for Turkey. Just like Mr van Goethem, Mr Valletta is a very well paid EU diplomat who in reality does very little. If they did do something, then we would not see the suffering at the Turkish border as is shown in the video from Lesley for example.
And yet, even with an alleged ‘Council Regulation’ to support them, our friends at EoA in the Netherlands had word back from the EU Commission that:
“Mr Van Goethem and his team informed us that they cannot take any concrete steps to change the situation”;
And that they “do not have the power to put an end to the way this trade being run despite it being in violation of their own EU legislation”.
“they cannot forbid anything”
“They also cannot insist that a stable be built at the border to unload the animals in urgent situations, nor insist on shade and more water pumps be placed there”.
“The EU Commission has so little power over the exporting Member States that routinely cause problems”.
So in summary, Mr van Goethem and his team at the EU, have EU legislation (in the form of a Regulation 1/2005) to ‘protect’ animals during transport. But in reality, and despite this EU Regulation, the EU cannot, or does not wish to give protection to EU animals which are being transported to Turkey !, or to many other locations within the EU. It would be a joke it was not so bad and involve so much suffering.
So, what is the point of a farce of an ‘EU Regulation’ to protect animals during transport ? when it is clear (and has been for many years) that regulations and rules do nothing and mean nothing to certain member states ? – are we not going to see the same when Serbia joins up ?
Also – What is the actual point of Mr Van Goethem and his ‘team’ when they cannot even enforce EU regulations that exist or take action to amend the blatantly clear animal abuse and suffering evidence which is presented to them ?
Maybe it would be best for the useless Van Goethem and his team to all take very early retirement; like this week ! – who wants to pay millions into an EU each week only then to witness gutless and pointless departments such as van Goethems come along and say “well there is not really anything we can do despite the regulations”.
Is that an EU – if it is, then it is crap; just like the majority who ‘work’ and take money from it.
So, where are we now ? – nowhere different to where we were last week or probably 5 years ago, as Lesley’s video makes clear. We fight on as always, against utterly useless bureaucrats like Mr Van Goethem, – the man with a nice pay cheque but a man who can not enforce the regulation.
If this is not the best example of why the UK should get out of the EU, then he and his team are a wonderful example. It is a typical example of the people who take fat salaries, sit in the corridors of Brussels, and then tell us that in reality, they are powerless to do anything for the better. Do we want to be in an EU run by Van Goethems and the rest ? – NO.
As an existing EU citizen, I should be able to rely on the EU, my EU, to take action when it is obviously clear (in evidence) that things are wrong. The evidence is clear, but the Van Goethems of this world do not, cannot and will not take action against those who break the rules. That is a sad situation; I guess when a situation like that arises, you get up and walk away, and take action and campaign from the outside.
Hopefully, come 23rd June, that is what the people of the UK will do. As for the EU; well it can fester in its own uselessness whilst giving welcoming kisses and hugs to new corrupt member states such as Serbia; or ‘Romania 2’ as it is now called.
Our petition for animals exported to Turkey is still open.
Send an e mail to the utterly useless EU team using this address – cab-andriukaitis-webpage@ec.europa.eu
Lesley has produced a sample letter which you can send to the useless Commission at the above e mail. Copy and send or use it as the basis for your own.
SAMPLE LETTER
Dear Commissioner Andriukaitis,
The suffering of farm animals trucked along the route from Europe to Turkey is well known. Your authorities at the EU Commission and all exporting Member States have received photos, video footage and detailed reports about the reality on the ground there since 2010. These problems are not incidences, but routine violations of the EU animal-transport legislation and to the dignity of sentient beings. Society has evolved, and transporting live animals in ways that are known to cause, or seriously risk causing suffering and pain, is no longer acceptable. I am a resident of Europe and I would like to kindly insist that the European Commission puts its foot down on this trade route and finally puts an end to the misery. I am particularly appalled at the fact that Europe is planning on exporting over 5000 cattle this month to Turkey, right when the summer heat peaks and suffering is known to be the most unbearable.
Please let the Commission know you are an EU citizen if you reside within an EU member state.
Other past posts we have written on the EU / Turkish exports issue:
You ask yourself – what is the point of giving millions of pounds to the EU each week when they disregard your evidence and are as useless as what they are ?
Vote out – and we say that to all EU member states.
Above – June 23rd – just as useless as EU politicians
– one thing and one thing only of interest to them – self survival !
Posted on June 5, 2016 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
For the second time I got an automatic reply mail to the petition ” Quail farming in the EU: End the Cage Age”.
Since December 2014 every EU citizen must be registered in the Transparency Register, before his case sees the desk of some MEPs.
Justification: “Transparency also makes a decisive contribution to encourage European citizens to be more actively involved in the democratic life of the EU”.
My participation in this petition never entered to Mr. Andriukaitis.
My concern, to protection of some animals which still live in the concentration camp was not important for Mr. Andriukaitis.
Him and the EU are interested only and primarily in registering my person in the archives of the EU.
Animal welfare has been archived before it was practice.
And Mr. Andriukaitis and the EU AG (where he belongs) call it participation of citizens in democratic life.
I call that an impertinence.
In reality, it is about a hidden surveillance. Since the establishment of the register in 2014 only 8,000 entities have been entered! From about 300 million inhabits of the EU zone! And the rest?
It’s very simple: individuals are sorted out and powerful lobby organizations have access.
This is meant by “register ID number”!!
Every day the EU adopt EU bureaucrats anything without my permission and without my knowledge.
Any attempt to get into dialogue with MEPs lands in monologue.
Under dialogue the EU understands an automatic reply mail, confirming me every time that animal rights cannot exist if human Duties don’t!
And the first (and minimum) requirement of an EU parliamentarian, who earned more than 20,000 euros per month, is the direct contact with his voters.
Otherwise, the 8,000 registered entities of the Transparency Register should by themselves pay the salary of MEPs. And we can spare ourselves the elections.
Especially true for Mr. Andriukaitis: if he actually writes highly transparency, he should first ensure transparency in his office.
The transparency, of which he speaks, looks good only on paper.
Because, since October 2012, after the corruption scandal of John Dalli, the Office for Health and Consumer Protection is under absolute distrust.
We have not forgotten this affair!
Hopefully neither Mr. Andriukaitis!
Venus
Lolita, the captive killer whale at the Miami Seaquarium, had her day in court—and she lost.
On Wednesday, a federal judge in Miami dismissed a lawsuit filed on Lolita’s behalf by a coalition of animal rights groups claiming that the subpar conditions in Lolita’s tiny tank were a violation of the federal Endangered Species Act. The groups filing the suit included the Animal Legal Defense Fund, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and the Orca Network.
“We were definitely surprised by this decision, based on an incredibly narrow and, we believe, flawed interpretation of the ESA,” said PETA Foundation Director of Animal Law Jared Goodman. Goodman said the judge in the case, Ursula Ungaro, “interpreted the act to not protect captive endangered animals from anything but imminent death, and there is simply no basis for that in the law.”
“It’s an unprecedented opinion,” he said.
Miami Seaquarium officials were not immediately available for comment.
Lolita was yanked from her family in Puget Sound in 1970 at around age four and has spent the past 46 years performing for tourists in Miami. She is a member of the Southern Resident killer whale population, which was listed as endangered in 2005. But that designation was not extended to Lolita until 2015, after PETA and other animal welfare groups successfully sued the federal government to include her in the listing.
That ruling, which gave Lolita endangered species protection, brought new hope to thousands of people around the world who have fought to return her to her native waters and perhaps reunite her with her family.
Why? Because the ESA prohibits the “take” of an endangered animal. “Take” typically means killing or capturing an animal, but it also includes harassment and harm. Under the ESA, “harassment” is defined as any act that might damage wildlife by “annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns.”
The lawsuit alleged that Lolita is being harassed and harmed at the Miami Seaquarium and asked the judge to order the orca’s retirement to a netted-off sea pen.
Animal rights groups argued that the size of Lolita’s tank, at 80 feet long and 20 feet deep, constitutes harassment because “Lolita is unable to engage in natural behaviors,” Goodman said. “She can’t swim any meaningful distance, and she can’t dive, because her tank at its deepest point is the same length as her body.”
The lawsuit also alleged Lolita is being harassed by the Pacific white-sided dolphins she shares her tank with. Under the Animal Welfare Act, captive marine mammals must have “at least one compatible animal of the same or biologically related species…unless it is not in the best interest of the marine mammal’s health or well-being.” The dolphins routinely rake Lolita’s skin with their teeth and engage in inappropriate sexual behavior with her, causing distress, the plaintiffs said.
But Ungaro ruled that “harm” and “harassment” under the ESA are different for captive endangered animals like Lolita from what they are for those in the wild.
“A licensed exhibitor ‘takes’ a captive animal in violation of the ESA…only when its conduct gravely threatens or has the potential to gravely threaten the animal’s survival,” Ungaro wrote. Otherwise, she said, AWA regulations take precedent over the ESA, adding that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the AWA, has found the Miami Seaquarium to be in compliance with the law.
“There is simply no evidence…that these conditions gravely threaten Lolita’s existence,” Ungaro wrote.
“It’s a somewhat tortured analysis,” Goodman said. People have been prosecuted for a take of wild marine mammals simply by feeding them, which doesn’t “gravely threaten their survival,” he added.
“The ESA provides greater protection than the AWA, and we believe that an animal can still be taken even in AWA-compliant conditions,” Goodman said, adding that plaintiffs will appeal the ruling.
“This decision puts Lolita in a catch-22,” said Orca Network Director Howard Garrett. “She has to be almost dead to show the court that she’s in grave danger. We have to double down on the park owners to do the only morally respectable thing and let her retire.”
