volume 7, nNuMber 4

July/August 1978

Contents

3 A Different Kind of

Capliivity

13 Animal Trade

19 ZooNews

21FONZNews

23 Calendar of Events

Front Cover: 1978 has been the “Year of the

Giraffe” at the Zoo, thanks to three births.

More than 15 babies have been sired by the

same bull in the last 16 years.

Back Cover: As handsome as it is rare, the

white-winged woodduck made history with

a first-ever birth at the National Zoo.

Mary C. Massey

Copy Editor

Photographs on cover and pp. 3 & 22 by

Francie Schroeder; p. 5 by Fred Straub;

p.6 by Norris Klesman; p. 7 by John

Rappole; p. 9 by Patricia Ann Dovi; p. 10

by GeeGee Gietgey; pp. 13, 14, & 16 by U.S.

Fish & Wildlife Service; pp. 15, & 21 by

Sabin Robbins; back cover and p. 20, by

Ilene Berg.

Friends

of

the

National

is anon-profit organization of individuals and

families who are interested in supporting Zoo

education, research, and conservation.

As a FONZ, you and your family receive

FONZ Board of Directors 1977-78

Stephen T. Hosmer, President

John S. Brown, First Vice President

Nancy Porter, Second Vice President

M. Anthony Gould, Treasurer

Victor Delano, Secretary

Cecil McLelland

Sheila D. Minor

Robert L. Nelson

Peter C. Andrews

Theodore Babbitt

Edward G. Boehm

Janice A. Booker John B. Oliver

Montgomery S. Bradley Whayne Quin

Timothy V.A. Dillon Ross Simons

Donna Grosvenor Julia V. Taft

Julie P. Hubbard Lee Talbot

Nella Manes Sally S. Tongren

FONZ Staff

Sabin Robbins, Executive Director

Dennis Baker, Associate Director

Donna Schlegel, Volunteer & Educational

Services

Monica Morgan, Membership & Publications

Tom Frame, Food Services

Lonnie Wornom, Merchandising

Renee Caldwell, Parking & Maintenance

many benefits — publications, discount

privileges, and invitations to special pro-

grams and activities —to make your zoo-

going more enjoyable and educational.

THEZOOGOER is published bi-monthly and

copyrighted © by Friends of the National

Zoo, c/o National Zoological Park, Wash-

ington, DC 20008, third class mailing permit

44282. Subscription fee is $4 a year (of

annual dues).

Zoo Staff

Dr. Theodore H. Reed, Director

Mr. Edward Kohn, Deputy Director

Office Chiefs

Mr. Jaren Horsley, Animal Management

Dr. Christen Wemmer, Conservation &

Research Center

Dr. Mitchell Bush, Animal Health

Dr. Richard Montali, Pathology

Dr. John Eisenberg, Zoological Research

Mr. Emanuel Petrella, Facilities Man-

agement

Mr. David Booth, Construction Manage-

ment

Mr. Vince Doyle, Management Services

Mr. Robert Mulcahy, Graphics & Exhibits

Ms. Judy White, Education & Information

Mr. Samuel Middleton, Police & Safety

A Different Kind

of Captivity

by William G. Conway

Director, New York

Zoological Society

f you have never danced with a

i whooping crane, ‘“chuffled’

with a tiger, or helped a bog turtle

out of its eggshell, you may en-

tertain either an idealized view

of wilderness characterized by

noble beasts, or a dispassionate

one of inexorable statistics and

neat mathematical models.

However, if you can admit to

what Rockefeller University pro-

fessor Donald Griffin calls an

“evolutionary continuity of men-

tal experience” in all living

creatures, and you would be

willing to take to the water after

the fashion of Konrad Lorenz to

help goslings learn to swim, you

have a selective advantage in

understanding what follows.

At the present rate of human ex-

ploitation, most of the earth’s

major ecosystems will be frag-

mented during the next twenty-

five years. Much of the world’s

most beautiful and_ inspiring

wildlife will be lost. This quite

thinkable possibility is beginning

to stimulate extraordinarily di-

Previous Page: Successful captive care and

breeding of bald eagles at the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife’s Patuxent Center in Maryland

represent an all-out effort to save our

national symbol from extinction.

4

verse, and often bizarre, efforts

to preserve vanishing animals.

Such programs do not treat the

ultimate cause of wildlife en-

dangerment; they deal with the

symptoms—the loss of animal

species. Yet the act of preserva-

tion can be powerful incentive

for man to reconsider environ-

mental destruction. And it would

be helpful to have some species

extant, in case a few of the ulti-

mate problems are solved. How-

ever, the early results of these

programs reveal the need for a

new view of the future of rare

animals. There is hope for some

species whose plight once would

have been hopeless, but unfortu-

nately, it implies a kind of cap-

tivity for much that is now wild.

“Nature should be allowed to

take its course,” say those who

decry the manipulation of wild-

life through management or cap-

tive propagation. Few people de-

bate this view for areas where

nearly natural and complete

ecosystems remain. Where they

do not, however, it is unrealistic.

And such _ attitudes seriously

hinder many investigative and

Supportive projects essential to

the survival of an_ increasing

number of wild creatures.

Very little of nature has any

prospect of remaining undis-

turbed. Nearly one-third of the

Amazon tropical forest, the

world’s largest, has already been

destroyed, and more than 23,000

square miles of forest are cut or

burned, primarily for agriculture,

in northern South America each

year. Scientists at the 1977

Nairobi Conference on desertifi-

cation calculated that, around

the world, about 14 million

acres are destroyed annually by

unsound agricultural practices.

The earth’s most productive land

is already being cultivated, and

one-third of it will be lost, at

this rate, during the next twenty-

five years. Meanwhile man’s

need for food will double.

Sobering figures like these re

mind us that it is farmers and

fishermen, subsistence hunters,

woodcutters, and miners—not

government bureaus or con-

servationists—who are the real

managers of the earth’s§ en-

vironments. What is left of

wilderness is being contracted

into smaller and smaller islands,

mere remnants of the great

jungles, savannas, and marshes.

National parks alone, existing or

contemplated, will not be able

to sustain some of the most in-

teresting of wild creatures.

All natural habitats are subject

to decay and successional

change. Thus, even those pre-

served in parks may prove to be

less than the “minimized critical

Gorilla births at the Cincinnati Zoo typify the remarkable recent successes enjoyed by zoos

in breeding endangered animals.

size’’ required to sustain —

unaided—viable populations of

various species. Some _ have

already lost much of their diver-

sity. Most of the’ refuges

founded a decade or two ago

were, in effect, much larger than

they are now, for they were sur-

rounded by undeveloped lands.

Today, cotton fields are culti-

vated upon the border of even

the great Serengeti. Other areas

are being encircled by fences

that further divide once _ inter-

breeding animal populations into

small fragments vulnerable to

the slightest loss. Only very large

parks that contain exceptional

representations of the various

habitats in an ecosystem have

much chance of maintaining

their original biota without in-

creasingly intensive manage-

ment. It is against this back-

ground—and the spur applied

by man’s tardy conviction that it

is much worse to lose the last

animal in a population than the

first—that a series of manipu-

lative efforts have been

launched to. preserve animal

refugees.

In Baraboo, Wisconsin, a_ ser-

ious, bespectacled young man

goes dancing each morning with

a female whooping crane. At

the Darwin Station in the

Galapagos, a scientist feeds

hatchling gaint tortoises. At the

5

Bronx Zoo in New York City,

zoologists stand by to aid a

pregnant Mongolian wild horse

in case delivery should prove

difficult, and in the Bialowieza

Forest in Poland, a_ truckdriver

deposits hay for a herd of hulk-

ing European forest bison. Each

of these activities bespeaks a

dedication to the continued sur-

vival of a wild creature that, be-

cause of man, is no longer able

6

Dancing daily with a female whooping

crane is part of the unusual effort that con-

servationists like Dr. George Archibald

make to improve breeding of endangered

species.

to survive without human assis-

tance. And each is representa-

tive of a growing new concept

of responsibility toward wild-

life, a new relationship between

man and animal.

Most endangered animals have

been victimized by unnatural

pressures—such as new com-

petitors, predators, pollution and

disease—and by reduced re-

sources—such as lack of health-

ful foods, nesting sites, and

cover. Their populations may be

so small that breeding is pre-

vented or minor environmental

fluctuations could result in their

extinction. Where the conser-

vation basic, habitat preserva-

tion, cannot be adequately

realized or comes too late,

several manipulative approaches

are being used to respond to

these problems: improvement of

breeding success, habitat man-

agement, modification of be-

havior patterns to increase sur-

vival under changed conditions,

establishment of new wild popu-

lations, transplantation, re-

introduction into nature, and

propagation in captivity.

The serious young man dancing

his morning away with a whoop-

ing crane is Dr. George Archi-

bald of the International Crane

Foundation. His purpose is to

strengthen the pair-bond he has

established with this abnormal

crane, and so induce her to lay

eggs after being fertilized with

semen extracted from a captive

male kept nearby— improvement

of breeding success. Although

neither bird is capable of breed-

ing normally (the male because

of health problems, the female

because of imprinting on human

beings), their genes are too im-

portant to be lost to the few sur-

vivors of their species.

Reduced in numbers to some

sixty birds in nature, whooping

cranes are also the subject of a

pioneering effort to establish a

new population on a new range.

Since May 1975, whooper eggs

laid by a captive flock at the

Patuxent propagation center of

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-

vice in Maryland have been

placed in the nests of sandhill

cranes breeding in Idaho. It was

hoped that the foster parents

would not only rear the whoop-

ing crane chicks but also teach

them the sandhill migratory

route south. This would provide

new nesting and winter-feeding

areas to the whooping cranes,

which have lost much of their

original range to man. By spring

1977, it was clear that this is

precisely what had happened.

However, it is not yet known

whether the young whoopers

will seek mates among their own

kind or, as a result of imprinting

upon the foster parents, hy-

bridize with sandhills. Pre-

liminary signs are encouraging,

however, for the youngsters

seem to be seeking each other

out in preference to sandhills.

The whooping cranes have also

learned to accept the more

granivorous diet of the sand-

hill— crustaceans and other

small acquatic animals make up

less of their new food. Thus,

there has been a modification of

behavior patterns and, perhaps,

the establishment of a new wild

population.

Techniques like these— artificial

insemination; artificial incuba-

tion; egg transfers from success-

ful captive or wild populations

to unsuccessful wild popula-

tions; stimulation of double

clutches; cross-fostering between

related species; imprinting upon

humans to stimulate ovulation

and to ease artificial insemina-

tion—are being used to improve

breeding success in a variety of

faltering bird populations from

New Zealand to Canada. Each

method is dependent upon ex-

ceptionally sensitive understand-

ing of individual animals by in-

Massive destruction of the world’s wilderness, mostly for farms to feed a soaring population,

has forced more and more wildlife into man-managed preserves.

dividual persons—inevitably, a

kind of captivity.

An older supportive technique

depends upon a bird’s ability to

alter its nesting requirements.

Bluebirds, threatened in North

America by the introduced

starling and the English sparrow,

are now largely dependent upon

man-made nest boxes. In

Canada, a 2,000-mile-long “blue-

bird trail” provided boxes for

7,000 nesting pairs of bluebirds

in 1976. Artificial cliff ledges in

Turkey have improved the nest-

ing success of the endangered

bald ibis, while concrete nest-

ing ledges constructed as an ex-

periment in a Trinidad cave

have helped to treble the breed-

ing population of the nocturnal

oilbird. The Bermuda _petrel’s

tiny surviving population is now

almost completely dependent

upon artificial nest burrows. En-

trances are fashioned millimeters

too small for that species’ ag-

gressive and abundant nest com-

petitor, the white-tailed tropic

bird. Almost all wild Puerto

Rican parrots now nest in boxes

made of PVC sewer pipe erected

in their rain forests. Even

ospreys and eagles build their

bulky nests on man-made plat-

forms in some areas where their

secluded nesting trees have been

felled. Again, each example is a

kind of captivity.

The rarity of Kirtland’s warbler

of North America, which nests in

a small area of Michigan and

winters in the Bahamas, oc-

casioned an even more elabo-

rate manipulation of its ecology

and habitat. The birds nest in

thickets of jack pines, six to

thirteen years old. As these trees

arise after a fire, several thou-

sand acres were set aside and

subjected to controlled burns for

the birds’ use. However, even

this was not enough.

Introduced crops made the area

favorable for the advance of the

brownheaded cowbird, a brood

parasite. Cowbirds laid eggs in

over half of all the warbler nests

and their much bigger chicks

pushed out any warbler nestlings

that managed to hatch. The

warbler population fell alarm-

ingly. In 1972, trapping was in-

itiated and more than 17,000

cowbirds have been removed. As

a result, the warblers have made

a strong comeback.

Transplanting animals from wild

Or protected populations to

areas from which they have

been extirpated has been a suc-

cessful technique with big

mammals. The pioneering work

of lan Player who moved white

rhinoceroses from Umfolozi Park

in South Africa to several new

reserves was, at the same time,

one of the most important and

most difficult such programs

ever attempted. Another project

involving the movement of

populations of bontebok and

white-tailed gnu resulted in the

survival of these forms despite

long odds. Once nearly extinct,

the gnu now numbers about

3,500 and the bontebok has

been built up from fewer than

200 to approximately 1,000 ani-

mals. Recently, the New Zea-

landers saved an unusual bird,

the saddleback, from certain

extinction by introduced cats.

A part of the population was

moved to a protected island. All

of the birds not transplanted

have been lost.

The supplementary feeding of

faltering animal populations is

yet another technique borrowed

from captivity. A modification

of both ecology and behavior, it

Is NOW proving necessary in a

long list of disturbed eco-

systems. Some _ populations of

elk in the United States, the

lions in the Gir Forest of India,

and Japan’s sacred cranes and

white-naped cranes are all sup-

ported in this way. Dr. Stanley

Temple of the University of Wis-

consin-Madison has suggested

that there is an important lesson

in the readiness of animals to

adopt such help; a_ species’

habitat and food selection may

be the result of early experi-

ences, but there is greater flexi-

bility in the requirements of wild

animals than might have been

expected. Nevertheless, the most

demanding of manipulative

techniques is the total commit-

ment of captive propagation.

Some conservationists are wary

of captive propagation programs

because of genetic difficulties

that can be posed in inbreeding

small populations. The progeny

of closely related parents are

often less fertile, even less

viable, than those of unrelated

parents. This effect is called

‘‘inbreeding depression’’ by

geneticists. In addition, problems

may be experienced in re-

introducing captive-bred animals

into nature—in places where

that alternative still exists. How-

ever, the potential for genetic

problems is not restricted to

captive populations and the dif-

ficulties of re-introduction are

by no means universal.

A captive gene bank has the

potential to increase greatly the

size of a species’ functional

population and _ habitat hold-

ings, if representatives of the

captive population are inter-

changed with the wild from time

One of the world’s rarest reptiles, the giant

Galapagos tortoise, has been saved from

sure extinction by captive breeding pro-

grams in the Galapagos Islands and at zoos.

to time. It can also act as in-

surance in case the wild popu-

lation is lost. Thus, exchange re-

lationships between parks with

necessarily small populations of

certain species and zoos with

propagation programs for the

same animals could be useful.

Predators pose a special respon-

sibility to captive collections. In

nature, they require relatively

large hunting territories, not to

mention food animals, to main-

tain even small populations. And

we have not learned how to live

with great predators, such as

tigers and grizzly bears, in an in-

creasingly crowded world.

Already, there are more Siberian

tigers in zoos than in nature.

Other species—Formosan §sika

deer, Pere David deer, and

Mongolian wild horse—survive

only in captivity. The European

bison exists in preserves today as

a result of zoo re-introductions

after extinction in nature.

Captive breeding has also saved

at least one of the world’s rarest

reptiles, the giant tortoise of

Hood Island in the Galapagos.

Feral goats had denuded its

home of vegetation. In 1970, all

the tortoises that could be

found—only two males and

twelve females—were taken into

captivity at the Darwin Station.

There was no evidence of prior

successful breeding in this cen-

tury. However, since then,

been

eighty-eight young have

bred at the Station, and some

have already been returned to

Hood Island. Trumpeter swans,

Hawaiian geese, and many other

birds also have been helped by

re-introductions from captive

9

Threatened by introduced starlings and

English sparrows, bluebirds now depend on

man-made nest boxes, like this one at the

Zoo’s Front Royal Center.

breeding programs, and captive

stocks of other species are rapid-

ly accumulating.

In the last ten years, there has

been an explosion of successful

captive-breeding programs in

zoos. Nearly one-twelfth of all

the living species of birds and a

fifth of the mammals were bred

in captivity during the past two

years. The total number of

captive-bred gorillas recorded in

the 1965 census of the /nter-

national Zoo Yearbook was only

8, but for 1975 it was 72. Com-

parable figures for Siberian

tigers for the same years are 63

and 422; for Arabian oryx, 7 and

59: for cheetah, 0 and 102. Since

1975, the Pretoria Zoo’s cheetah

farm alone has produced 39

cheetah. However, zoos have

limitations. All the zoos in the

world could fit easily within

Brooklyn. In this connection, the

potentials of rural zoo breeding

farms are great.

While inbreeding in captive col-

lections may become a problem,

populations of rare animals in

nature today are often no larger

than those in captivity, some-

times smaller. Moreover, ani-

mals vary in their responses to

inbreeding. The most inbred

population may have genes for

an adaptability that gives it an

advantage over a_ population

much more. richly endowed.

Many inbred strains of mice

have been developed for bio-

medical research, and _ all

domestic hamsters are descended

from only two pairs; however,

intensively inbred strains of

rabbits are usually not viable.

The northern elephant — seal’s

population recovered from a

low of fewer than twenty animals,

eighty years ago, to more than

30,000 today, during a_ period

of great change in its coastal

environment. It shows no effects

of inbreeding depression, thus

far, and may be one of the

“‘adaptable’’ species. Island

species, and others traditionally

confined to small populations,

may ultimately prove more re-

sistant to the effects of inbreed-

ing than those of wider disper-

sion, which are capable of

finding environments to which

they are adapted rather than

adapting to changes in a re-

stricted habitat.

In any case, the potential for loss

of genetic variability in wild

populations is probably greater

than in soundly managed cap-

tive populations of comparable

size within the same period. Loss

of variability can only occur, of

course, in the loss of individuals

and in the replacement of genera-

tions through reproduction. Be-

Cause Captive animals usually live

longer than their wild relatives,

the turnover of generations is

slower, and the opportunity for

selective pressures to affect the

genotype is reduced. Captive

parents are likely to have a

greater opportunity to pass on

their genes in a greater number of

combinations to more young over

a larger number of breedings than

would occur in nature.

The re-introduction of captive

bred animals into nature can be

simple and uneventful. This was

the case with the America bison,

some of whose populations to-

day are descended from animals

bred in the Bronx Zoo and

shipped to western refuges be-

tween 1907 and 1917. Many cap-

tive-bred ungulates have been

successfully re-established in

nature. However, when an animal

is dependent upon complex

learned behaviors—for example,

the hunting behavior of great cats

and birds of prey—the task can

be much more difficult. Too

often, those releasing captive

animals into nature have done so

with little understanding. Sur-

prise and disappointment are ex-

pressed when a creature that has

never eaten anything but a ration

from a steel dish fails to learn to

protect itself against predators, to

seek shelter, or to adapt to a new

diet overnight. Better under-

standing of the problem gives

hope of new successes.

Among the most difficult of re

introductions are the present at-

tempts to re-establish the pereg-

rine falcon—by Dr. Tom Cade in

the eastern United States where it

is extinct, and by Richard Fyfe in

Canada where it is greatly re-

duced. The bird is endangered be-

cause of the effect of chlorinated

hydrocarbons upon its reproduc-

tion. With the banning of DDT

and related compounds, there has

been a decline of toxic residues in

the environment, but this came

too late for the birds in the

eastern U.S. In an extraordinary

captive breeding program now

seven years old, 331 peregrines

have been bred at Cornell Univer-

sity, and the effort to re-introduce

them in nature is now underway

through a process known to

falconers as “hacking.”

On steel towers, cliff ledges, and

old treetop hawk nests, chicks

bred in captivity are being reared

by caretakers they cannot see.

Raised from artificially incubated

eggs by Cade’s assistants during

their first weeks, they are later

fostered for a time by captive

falcons. Several weeks before

they can fly, the peregrines are

placed at the eyries, where, it is

hoped, they will breed as adults.

In order to avoid excessive fami-

liarity with man, their food is de-

livered through a long pipe.

The rate of survival is high; the

chicks do learn to hunt for them-

selves, as long as they can return,

for a few weeks, to feed at the

eyrie when food is scarce. The

peregrines have wintered success-

fully and are being seen where

there have been no falcons for

decades. Last spring, P21, a cap-

tive-bred Canadian bird, mated

with a wild peregrine and reared

three chicks—the first captive-

bred peregrine ever to breed in

12

nature! However, it is obvious .~

that reintroducing captive-bred

animals to nature is not simply a

matter of dumping them out to

shift for themselves.

To many of us, the very word

“captivity” is repugnant. Yet

when wild creatures are depen-

dent for their survival on sewer-

pipe nest boxes, artificial feeding,

transplantation to replace natural

dispersion, artificial incubation

and cross-fostering, trapping of

predators and competitors, not to

mention long-term captive propa-

gation, that is hardly freedom. It

is time that there be an evolution

in man’s perception of animal

captivity away from the stereo-

typed notions of incarceration

and toward a constructive con-

cept of ultimate responsibility

and care. The alternative for

some species is extinction.

Reserves and parks are our most

important conservation efforts,

by far. But, when we try to nail

animal sanctuaries in place, we

forget that many are transient and

always have been. Eventually, we

surround and lay siege to each of

our preserves, turning them into

jails, leaving some of their

denizens nowhere to move as

their habitats decay and succeed

one another, and no way to adapt

unaided. Higher animals cannot

evolve so quickly. The life of the

shortest-lived taxa is eons greater _

— than that of the longest-lived

civilization; the age of a score of

penguin colonies is greater than

that of the oldest of human cities.

The protection of large functional

ecosystems requires grand inter-

national strategies, and these are

not likely to be wholly imple-

mented in the foreseeable future.

Conservationists’ programs must

reflect not only changing per-

ceptions of values but also his-

torical opportunities. Our grow-

ing understanding of animal re-

quirements and the potentials of

“captive” management is such an

opportunity. Combined with the

fact of a steadily shrinking wilder-

ness, it is clear that there are few _

situations where “the best man-

agement is no management”.

Where we cannot provide a suf-

ficiently rich environmental

panoply for natural communities

to follow their wild rhythms, we

must maintain or create the

needed habitats—or we must

modify the lives and behavior of

the animals important to us so as

to enable them to survive. One —

way or the other, it amounts to a

kind of captivity.

This article is reprinted from Animal

Kingdom, published by the New York

Zoological Society in April-May,

1978.

Animal Trade

by J. Fisher

ravelers often forget that the

T chic handbag, fashionable fur

coat, or delicate ivory carving

purchased abroad may cause

them plenty of trouble and ex-

pense back home.

If that once-in-a-lifetime bargain

has been made from one of the

more than 600 animals on the

worldwide list of endangered

species, it’s subject to confisca-

tion, and in some cases a fine.

“But it was already dead, | didn’t

kill the animal,”” wails Joe

Junketeer, reluctantly surrender-

ing his keepsake. What he for-

gets is the reasoning behind the

regulations. Every purchase of a

product or curio made from an

endangered animal exerts pres-

sure on remaining members of

that species to survive and in-

directly leads to the death of

many more at the hands of

poachers and greedy hunters.

Ignorance is no excuse. So if

there’s any doubt in a traveler’s

mind about the purchase of an

Previous Page: Products made from en-

dangered species are not only illegal to

bring into the United States but sales abroad

indirectly lead to the animal's extinction.

14

item fashioned from a dead

animal, it is advisable to read

“Facts about Federal Wildlife

Laws,” published by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service. The

pamphlet can be obtained free by

writing the Fish and Wildlife Ser-

vice, U.S. Department of the In-

terior, Washington, D.C. 20240.

Knowing the law is also neces-

sary when importing live animals.

In many cases it’s illegal.

An illegal shipment of cobra skin belts is confiscated by a wildlife inspector, employed by

the U.S. Department of Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service.

Some confiscated animal parts, like this

Asian elephant ivory tusk, now help teach

zoology to young visitors at Zoo Lab.

Despite all the publicity, the ani-

mal trade still goes on. So do the

fines and confiscations. ‘“We’ve

come to the reluctant conclusion

that many people can’t read or if

they do, it just doesn’t sink in,”

says Alan M. Levitt, a public in-

formation official with the Fish

and Wildlife Service.

Statistics bear him out. The Ser-

vice’s Division of Law Enforce-

ment handled 523 cases in 1977.

Thirty-six people were slapped

with criminal convictions adding

up to $8,445 in fines and 750 days

in jail. More than 400 civil

penalties were assessed and

$33,535 was collected in fines.

Some 740 animals and wildlife

products valued at $80,000 were

confiscated.

The United States has a voracious

appetite for wildlife and is a

major marketplace for both legal

and illegal kinds. More than

400,000 reptiles are legally im-

ported each year, along with

about 100,000,000 fish, several

hundred thousand birds, and

some 100,000 mammals, most of

them primates used in biomedical

research.

Imported manufactured goods—

leather purses, shoes, jewelry, fur

coats, carvings, trinkets, etc.—

skyrocketed from a low 1,700,000

Items in 1972 to 91,000,000 in

1976. The market for raw ma-

terials is on the upswing, too.

Skin and hide imports jumped

from 910,000 im. 1973. te

32,500,000 in 1976. Similarly, the

importation of game trophies has

increased— from 2,800 in 1973 to

34 000 in 1976.

The U.S. Government recently

hired a force of wildlife inspec-

tors to help its hard-pressed

special agents handle this soar-

ing volume. Any irregularities dis-

covered by the inspectors are re-

ferred to a special agent in the

port city involved for a follow-up

investigation.

Clark R. Bavin, the Fish and Wild-

life Service’s Chief of Law En-

forcement, says today’s wildlife

violator ‘is more cunning, more

calculating, and more inclined to

conspire with others to make in-

roads into wildlife resources.”

These people include poachers,

middlemen, brokers, and shippers

out to make a fast buck.

Well-heeled hunters are another

problem. Notes Bavin, “Many

willingly pay large sums of money

to kill an animal illegally in one

part of the country, or for that

An illegal handbag and compact made from

the pelt of an endangered leopard are typi-

cal of the hundreds of contraband wildlife

_ articles confiscated annually by U.S. Gov-

ernment agents.

matter the world, and fly home

again. Their trophies are shipped

home later by devious means in

the hope of escaping detection.”

One ploy is to ship an illegal skin

in with a batch of green hides

cleared for import. “The uncured

hides smell terrible) and they

hope that we won’t bother to go

through them carefully,” ex-

plains a veteran agent. “I’ve also

found a leopard skin hidden in

an elephant foot fashioned into

an umbrella stand.”

Since it’s illegal to kill alligators

in this country or to export them,

one of the biggest sources for

these hides has been blocked. The

principal areas now are the rain

forests of South and Central

America. Hides are shipped to

Japan, Europe, and the U.S. for

tanning and manufacturing in-

to products.

“Illegal hides are often smuggled

out of the country and taken to a

second country, which issues ex-

port permits to legalize or

‘launder’ them,” Bavin says. ‘It

should be noted this practice of

laundering illegal wildlife occurs

throughout the spectrum of in-

ternational wildlife trade.”

“Often it is impossible to deter-

mine the source or to establish

the illegality of products made

from such hides as crocodilians,

especially when the pieces of hide

are small. Think about identifying

watchbands, when a_ shipment

contains 50,000.”

Agents used techniques worthy of

a TV thriller to keep one large

batch of alligator hides in the

country and out of the “laundry.”

They began following a vehicle

after observing what they be-

lieved were bags of illegal skins

being delivered to a suspect in a

New Orleans hotel parking lot.

Agents in light aircraft and auto-

mobiles tracked this suspicious

shipment all the way to Newark,

New Jersey. During the sur-

veillance, one special agent

posed as a Delaware Memorial

Bridge toll booth operator so he

could smell the distinct odor of

freshly salted alligator hides when

the driver rolled down his window

to pay.

In Newark, another agent, who

had been following the car for

three days, posed as an unshaven

derelict lying in a gutter to ob-

serve the hides being unloaded in

front of an import company.

Their hard, painstaking work paid

off in a conviction and a stiff fine.

But tourists, not slick operators,

are applying most of the pressure

to the elephant. The demand for

ivory and ivory products soared

after word got out that some

nations were moving to protect

their animals. The price for raw

ivory has climbed to $25 a pound,

and has had severe consequences

in the wild where poaching has

become commonplace.

The flood of ivory has given in-

spectors an almost impossible

task—trying to differentiate be-

tween African and Asian tusks.

The United States presently pro-

hibits the import of all ivory and

ivory products that come from

the Asian elephant. Yet in some

cases ivory of the African ele-

phant can be legally imported.

It’s a tricky business, best re-

solved by checking first with the

Fish and Wildlife Service.

7

Before the government took

action, the same pressures were

being applied to the few remain-

ing sea turtles not on the en-

dangered list. Parts of the animals

were used for food, leather

goods, jewelry, and curios. The

oil was used in cosmetics.

To stem the tide, three more sea

turtles (loggerhead, green, and

olive Ridley) have been placed on

the list and within a year any

trade in products fashioned from

them will be prohibited. Now

almost all sea turtles in the world

are protected.

Importing live animals poses

quite a different problem. Certain

birds are especially popular, and

people often go to bizarre lengths

to smuggle them into the country.

Tiny birds have been placed in

nylon stockings, then stuffed in-

side hair curlers to avoid detec-

tion. One man was caught with

400 finches sewn into his coat

lining. Not long ago 73 parrots

were found in paper bags hidden

inside door panels of a car cross-

ing the Mexican border.

As information. official Alan

Levitt points out, “The problem

of smuggling live birds into the

United States has become par-

ticularly acute in the last few

years because of severe out-

18

breaks of Newcastles disease in

both the pet bird and poultry in-

dustries. Control and eradication

of this disease has cost the tax-

payers millions of dollars and has

had a severe impact on the

poultry industry.”

Although many birds in the pet

trade can legally be brought into

this country by passing through

U.S. Department of Agriculture

quarantine facilities, they are

often smuggled to avoid the

added expense of the quarantine

procedure. Export licenses are

also sometimes difficult to come

by in certain foreign countries.

Proof that an imported species,

whether live, hide, or product, is

illegal is usually the key to suc-

cessful prosecutions. Whenever

an agent comes across a doubt-

ful item, a specialist is called in to

provide positive identification.

An agent recently took a leopard

coat that had been seized from a

tourist entering the country to the

Smithsonian Institution to verify

that it was in fact the product of

an endangered species.

In many instances, identification

comes through special training

and years of on-the-job ex-

-perience. “We use pictures and

‘descriptions of wildlife as aids in

identification—but it’s not

enough,’’ says special agent

Victor A. Blazevic. “For small

pieces of fur a feel for the texture

is important. It can make the dif-

ference between identifying them

as felid or canid furs. Other

physical characteristics can be

learned only by experience.”

Experienced or not, agents are

always on the lookout for the five