Does Importing Endangered Species' Body Parts Help Conservation? Discretion to Import Trophies Under the Trump Administration

Author:Brianna Marie
Position:Juris Doctor Candidate, May 2020, American University Washington College of Law; B.A. Political Science, City University of New York, College of Staten Island. A special thank you to Professor Amanda Leiter for her guidance and expertise, my dedicated editors for their time and commitment, and my mom for her love and support.
Pages:19-23
 
CONTENT
19
Spring 2019
DoeS impoRtinG enDanGeReD SpecieS boDy
paRtS help conSeRvation? DiScRetion to impoRt
tRophieS unDeR the tRump aDminiStRation
By Brianna Marie*
I. IntroductIon
While endangered species face the risk of extinction,
the Trump administration reversed an Obama admin-
istration ban on the importation of sport-hunted tro-
phies.1 Tasked with conserving endangered species, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) stated that beginning on March
1, 2018, it will issue permits to import sport-hunted trophies of
endangered species on a case-by-case basis.2 Trophy hunting3
frequently occurs through hunting agreements that are typically
between wealthy individuals from the Global North4 and locals
such as guides or landowners from the Global South5 who assist
with the planned hunt of rare, threatened, or endangered species.6
As an agency that frequently regulates trophy hunting imports, the
Service has the authority to issue regulations under the Endan-
gered Species Act (ESA) to conserve7 threatened and endangered
species.8 The Service’s purpose includes protecting endangered
species, conserving and restoring wildlife habitats, and helping
foreign governments with their international conservation efforts.9
In 1972, President Nixon was dissatised with efforts
to protect species from extinction and looked to Congress for
assistance.10 Congress responded by passing the ESA of 1973.11
At that time, the ESA was the most wide-ranging legislation to
aid endangered species conservation ever enacted.12 In its cur-
rent form, the ESA aims to get species to the point of recovery
at which protection under the ESA is no longer needed.13 Its
purposes include conserving ecosystems that threatened and
endangered species rely on as well as creating programs that
work to conserve threatened and endangered species.14 The ESA
prohibits unlawful takings of wildlife including: (1) importing
or exporting; (2) possessing, receiving, or shopping in interstate
or foreign commerce during a commercial activity; and (3)
selling or offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce.15
The statute applies to both dead and living animals.16 Under the
ESA, the Service can issue permits to take wildlife, and regula-
tion of these permits differs depending on whether the species
is threatened or endangered.17 When a species is endangered
or threatened, the Service may only issue permits for scientic
research, survival, improvement of propagation, or a taking that
is incidental to otherwise lawful activity.18
Because the Service can only issue permits for the listed
reasons, the Service’s recent decision to import sport-hunted tro-
phies does not comply with the ESA.19 If the Service’s rule does
not comply with the ESA, it is unlawful under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA).20
Part II of this Comment discusses the purposes of the
Service, the ESA, and the Service’s authority under the ESA.21 It
also analyzes the Service’s actions under the Trump administra-
tion and compares these actions to the Service’s recent decision
to import sport-hunted trophies.22 Part III discusses the Trump
administration’s decision to import sport-hunted trophies on a
case-by-case basis and how the Service was able to repeal the
previous ban on trophy imports.23 Part IV explains why the
Service’s decision to import sport-hunted trophies on a case-
by-case basis is unlawful in addition to arbitrary and capricious
under the APA.24 Lastly, Part V recommends that unless the
Service can prove that trophy hunting is currently leading to spe-
cies conservation, it must issue a new rule in accordance with
the ESA and the APA.25
II. Background
In 1940, Congress merged the Bureau of Fisheries and the
Bureau of Biological Survey into one agency, which is now
known as the U.S. Fis h and Wildlife Service.26 The Service’s
objectives include developing and applying an “environmental
stewardship ethic” for the public based on wildlife science and
moral responsibility.27 Its mission is to “conserve, protect, and
enhance sh, wildlife, and plants” for the continuing benet of
our nation’s citizens.28 To fulll its mission, the Service enforces
federal wildlife laws, protects endangered species, and helps for-
eign governments with their international conservation efforts.29
As a part of its foreign conservation efforts, the Service has an
international affairs program.30 This program aids the Service
by helping to conserve at-risk species through the regulation
of international trade.31 Additionally, it increases protection for
species through international treaties and agreements.32
The Service and the Commerce Department’s National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) jointly administer the ESA.33
The Service has the authority to issue rules, but is bound by the
various guidelines under the ESA.34 Congress created the ESA
in part because multiple species went extinct due to develop-
ment, and protection measures were needed to conserve spe-
cies and habitats.35 During the Senate Commerce Committee
Hearing regarding the ESA, the Committee found that 109
* Juris Doctor Candidate, May 2020, American University Washington College
of Law; B.A. Political Science, City University of New York, College of Staten
Island. A special thank you to Professor Amanda Leiter for her guidance and
expertise, my dedicated editors for their time and commitment, and my mom for
her love and support.
20 Sustainable Development Law & Policy
domestic species and over 300 international species were on the
brink of extinction.36 The Committee observed that one species
was disappearing per year.37 Further, it found that the two lead-
ing causes of extinction were hunting and destruction of natural
habitat.38 Passing the ESA was essential to protecting wildlife,
as the previously existing laws did not provide the appropriate
management tools needed to act before species became extinct.39
The ESA functions to provide programs for the conservation
of endangered and threatened species and to take measures to
further the purposes of treaties and conventions.40 It also works
to protect the ecosystems that threatened and endangered species
rely on.41 The ESA states that federal departments should strive
to conserve endangered and threatened species by utilizing their
authorities under the Act.42 Section Four of the ESA describes
different factors that determine if species are endangered or
threatened such as present or threatened destruction of habitat,
overutilization for commercial or educational purposes, disease
or predation, the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms, or other
natural or manmade factors.43 It also states that the Secretary
of Interior must make decisions required in subsection (a)(1)44
only on the basis of the best scientic evidence and commercial
data available to him after reviewing the status of the species
and taking into consideration efforts made by any state or for-
eign nation.45 When the Service lists a species as threatened,
the Secretary may only issue regulations if he nds them neces-
sary and advisable to conserve such species.46 Additionally, the
Secretary cannot create recovery plans for species if he nds that
a plan will not promote the conservation of a species.47
Like all rulemaking actions the federal agencies undertake,
these regulations are governed by the Administrative Procedures
Act (APA). When an agency issues a rule and formal procedures
are not required, such as the rule to ban sport-hunted trophies,
an agency must follow procedures outlined in the APA.48 Under
the APA, an agency must give the public the opportunity to par-
ticipate in the rulemaking process through written data submis-
sions, views, or arguments as a part of the notice-and-comment
period.49 Failure to comply with the notice-and-comment rule
“cannot be considered harmless if there is any uncertainty as to
the effect of that failure.”50 Section 706 of the APA states that it
is unlawful for agency actions, ndings, and conclusions to be
arbitrary and capricious.51 The requirement for actions to not be
arbitrary or capricious entails the Service to properly explain its
results.52 Additionally, if the Service failed to give a reasoned
explanation for its actions, the court must declare the actions
as unlawful.53 Therefore, if the Service’s rule to import sport-
hunted trophies does not prove to conserve species, that rule is
likely unlawful under the APA.54
III. PrEvIous actIons
Some presidential administrations have been more active
than others in exercising their authority under Section 4(d) of
the ESA.55 While the Trump administration has issued rules
that permit the taking of endangered wildlife, these rules are
different from the recent decision to allow the importation of
trophies.56 Under the Trump administration, the Service has
issued rules that include the removal of nuisance grizzly bears,
sustainable timber harvests in black bear habitat, use of northern
sea otter skins by Alaskan Natives, and accidental capture of the
Sonora chub as part of recreational shing for other species.57
Unlike the decision to allow the importation of trophies, most
special rules under this administration belong to a category of
exceptions for taking wildlife that do not claim to help conserve
species.58 Other exceptions include allowing incidental takes
as a part of a conservation plan, as well as takes for scientic
research purposes designed to conserve species.59
Iv. rEcEnt changEs undEr thE
trumP admInIstratIon
There is much debate as to whether trophy hunting pro-
motes the conservation of a species, which is demonstrated
through varying administrative decisions. On March 1, 2018,
the Principal Deputy Director of the Service wrote that the
Service withdrew 2014 and 2015 ESA enhancement ndings60
for African elephant trophies taken in Zimbabwe.61 The Service
also withdrew ndings of African elephants taken in Tanzania,
South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, and Zambia.62 Additionally,
it withdrew ndings for bontebok in South Africa as well as
lions in South Africa and Zambia.63 The Service stated that this
decision was in response to Safari Club International v. Zinke,64
a recent D.C. Circuit case involving trophy hunting.65 This case
allowed the Service to reverse a ban on importing sport-hunted
trophies due to the Obama administration’s failure to use notice-
and-comment rulemaking.66
This decision arose from President Obama’s decision to
issue an executive order that stated poaching protected species
created an international crisis that continuously became worse.67
He explained that wildlife species like elephants, rhinos, tigers,
and great apes have economic, social, and environmental ben-
ets that are important internationally.68 Further, he stated that
wildlife trafcking reduces these benets while fueling an ille-
gal economy and threatening security.69
Under the Obama administration, the Service was unable to
make positive enhancement ndings for elephants in Zimbabwe
in 2014.70 Because of this, the Service forbade the importation of
elephants until the end of the year.71 In 2015, the Service made
negative enhancement ndings and banned elephant trophies
during the current hunting season in addition to future seasons.72
In Safari Club International, the court found that the Service’s
negative enhancement ndings were not improper even though
the ndings rested on the absence of evidence that trophy hunt-
ing enhances the survival of the species.73 Regulations promul-
gated by the Service74 allow the importation of African elephant
trophies only if the Service can nd that trophy hunting enhances
a species’ survival.75
The APA requires an agency to give the public an opportu-
nity to participate in the rulemaking process during the notice-
and-comment period.76 When the Service decided to forbid the
importation of sport-hunted trophies in 2014, it did not invite
comment from the public.77 Because the Court in Safari Club
International found this error harmful, it remanded this case to
21
Spring 2019
the District Court instructing the Service to initiate rulemaking
in order to address ndings for the time periods at issue in this
case.78 This case essentially opened the door for the Service to
create a different rule that evidently resulted in permitting sport-
hunted trophies on a case-by-case basis.79
v. troPhy huntIng suPPort and oPPosItIon
There are many different reasons scholars, organizations,
and researchers support or oppose trophy hunting. A common
argument in support of trophy hunting is that it supports wildlife
conservation. For example, the Service references a document
created by the International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) which argues that trophy hunting is consistent with con-
servation on the basis that the social and economic benets from
trophy hunting can provide incentives to conserve species and
their habitats.80 According to the IUCN, trophy hunting programs
can serve as a conservation tool when programs are subject to a
governance structure that allocates management responsibilities
of the conservation plan.81 It further states that programs must
account for all revenue in a transparent manner, ensure there is
no corruption, and completely comply with national and inter-
national rules and regulations to have successful conservation
programs.82 The IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC)
Caprinae Specialist Group stated that trophy hunting typically
generates funds that can be used for conservation activities such
as habitat protection and population monitoring.83
Additionally, the founder of Tanzania’s Ruaha Carnivore
Project believes that trophy hunting might be the best way to
converse species in certain circumstances.84 The Project argues
that there are no non-lethal alternatives to trophy hunting that
currently exist to protect species in many hunting areas.85
Further, the Project argues that animals will die regardless of
trophy hunting, such as from being poisoned by a villager or
starved from lack of prey.86 Instead, there should be a greater
focus on sustainable mortality rather than trophy hunting itself.87
On the other hand, those against the Service’s decision to
issue permits on a case-by-case basis oppose trophy hunting for
various reasons. According to Economists at Large, trophy hunting
must be well regulated to be sustainable.88 Similarly, in order for
a conservation program to be effective, no corruption can occur,
there must be accurate monitoring of animal populations, hunting
quotas based on science, and proper regulations.89 Economists
at Large believe that since those requirements are unattainable,
sustainable trophy hunting cannot be guaranteed.90 Research con-
ducted in 2015 found that just six-to-nine percent of economic
benets from trophy hunting is directed toward conservation.91
Many organizations oppose trophy hunting, such as the
Humane Society of the United States.92 As the Service contin-
ues to allow sport-hunted trophies into the United States every
year, many organizations like the Humane Society work to slow
down or completely stop the importation of these trophies.93
Organizations are concerned that as the number of animals that
are killed increases, populations will continue to decrease.94
Data obtained from the Service shows that between 2005 and
2014, more than 1.26 million wildlife trophies were imported
into the United States, including 32,500 trophies of the Africa
Big Five species.95 According to the Great Elephant Census, the
Savanna elephant population subsequently declined by thirty
percent between 2007 and 2014. 96
Other prominent opposition comes from the African Wildlife
Foundation, which expressed its disappointment by the lack
of clarity from the Service under the Trump administration.97
Additionally, the Center for Biological Diversity found that
important decisions regarding trophy importation permits should
not be made “behind closed doors.”98 National Geographic also
reported that money from trophy hunting is typically siphoned
away from conservation efforts due to corruption.99 Given the
spread of arguments for and against trophy hunting, it is conclu-
sive that more research is needed before the Service can deter-
mine that allowing sport-hunted trophies into the United States
promotes the conservation of endangered species.
vI. thE unlaWful rulEs
Based on all of the opposition and support of trophy hunt-
ing, there is not a clear answer as to whether trophy hunting can
promote or enhance wildlife conversation. As the idea that trophy
hunting supports conservation is highly contested, the Service
must not issue rules that allow the importation of sport-hunted tro-
phies without clear evidence that the killing of these endangered
species promotes conversation.100 Federal agencies must exercise
their authorities in furtherance of the ESA’s purpose.101 The
Service may only issue permits to take endangered species if the
taking is for scientic research, survival, improvement of propa-
gation, or taking that is incidental to otherwise lawful activity.102
Since the Service’s new rule failed to demonstrate that it
complies with the ESA, it is arbitrary and capricious under the
APA. Further, keeping the Service’s rule in place would set a
dangerous precedent that could permit future rules to exist that
are arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
vII. thE arBItrary and caPrIcIous
troPhy huntIng rulE
The Trump administration does not properly weigh whether
trophy hunting benets species,103 and therefore its individual
permitting decisions are unlawful in addition to arbitrary and
capricious. The Service stated that it would permit applica-
tions to import trophies on a case-by-case basis pursuant to its
authority under the ESA.104 The Service based its decision to
import trophies off of a document that included examples of
two case studies neither prove trophy hunting always leads to
conservation nor does it explain whether the Service’s specic
action to import trophies will lead to conservation.105 Under the
ESA, when a species is threatened or endangered, the Service
may only issue regulations if it nds them necessary and advis-
able to conserve such species.106 Additionally, the Service can-
not implement recovery plans for species if it nds that a plan
will not promote the conservation of a species.107 Because the
Service’s rule to import sport-hunted trophies failed to prove it
was necessary to conserve species, that rule is likely unlawful
under the APA.108
22 Sustainable Development Law & Policy
In addition to the current rule, the Service’s individual per-
mitting decisions likely violate the ESA and the APA as well.
The Service stated that it reviews each application to import
sport-hunted trophies before the application is approved, in
addition to available information regarding the status and man-
agement of species and populations to ensure wildlife programs
are promoting conservation of species.109 These guidelines are
problematic, as scholars are uncertain as to whether the informa-
tion that the Service is claiming to use as its permitting criteria
will be available when the Service receives permit requests, as
well as how much promotion of conservation is adequate to issue
a permit to import a trophy under the ESA.110 Because decisions
are being made in a way that is not certain to benet species,
the Service’s actions violated the APA.111 The APA states that
arbitrary and capricious agency actions, ndings, and conclu-
sions are unlawful.11 2 The Service must examine relevant data
and articulate a satisfactory explanation when issuing rules.113 A
satisfactory explanation is one that demonstrates a “rational con-
nection between the facts and the choice made.”114 When a court
is reviewing an agency’s action, it is not substituting its judg-
ment for that of the agency.115 Instead, it is looking at whether
the agency considered all relevant factors and whether there was
a clear judgment error.116
Here, the Service failed to provide a reasoned explanation
for its rule. The Service solely relied on an inconclusive docu-
ment containing only two case studies.117 Without conclusive
evidence regarding whether trophy hunting promotes conserva-
tion, the Service cannot adequately explain its reasoning to allow
sport-hunted trophies into the United States. Thus, a reviewing
court must nd that the Service acted in violation of the APA,
and the Service must go back and revise its work.
a. the SeRvice violateD the eSa
A reviewing court must also ensure that the Service exer-
cised a “reasoned discretion” without deviating from or ignoring
the ESA when engaging in rulemaking activity.118 Under the
ESA, when a species is endangered, the Service may only issue
permits for scientic research, survival, improvement of propa-
gation, or taking that is incidental to otherwise lawful activity.119
Furthermore, the court in Safari Club International determined
that the importation of sport-hunted trophies is unlawful unless
the Service found that killing a trophy animal enhances the
survival of the species.120 To comply with the ESA, the Service
should not issue a rule that allows individuals to import sport-
hunted trophies unless the importation undoubtedly conserves or
promotes the survival of the hunted species.
Rather than complying with the requirements under the
ESA, the Service stated that properly regulated hunting with
management programs could benet the conservation of certain
species, but did not guarantee that it will or currently does.121
Additionally, it stated that hunters should choose to, but are not
required to hunt in countries that have strong governments and
healthy wildlife populations.122 When justifying its decision to
permit sport-hunted trophies, the Service relied on a document
that discussed how trophy hunting could potentially contribute
to species conservation.123 Because this document does not
claim that the Service’s rule to import sport-hunted trophies will
help conserve species,124 it is not consistent with the ESA as the
Service’s rule is not necessary for the survival of the targeted
endangered species. Furthermore, because the Service’s rule is
not consistent with the ESA, it is unlawful.
vIII. rEcommEndatIon to EnsurE
aBa and Esa comPlIancE
a. to enSuRe that the SeRvice iS makinG the moSt
infoRmeD DeciSion, it iS eSSential that the SeRvice
DiliGently followS all ReQuiReD StepS unDeR the apa.
Rather than taking unlawful actions, the Service should
instead follow the correct notice-and-comment rulemaking
procedures under the APA. This step would allow the Service
to obtain crucial public comment and adequately protect endan-
gered species. For example, the ESA instructs federal agencies
to use the best available science, but the best scientic evidence
in the eld of trophy hunting and conservation is often uncer-
tain.125 Additionally, the “best available science” is a term that is
not dened by any statute.126 Because of this, a reviewing court
should consider the process by which decisions are made and
communicated to the public when issuing its decision.127
b. public paRticipation iS neceSSaRy to enSuRe the
aGency iS pRopeRly infoRmeD on all iSSueS RelatinG
to the pRopoSeD Rule.
Under the APA, notice of proposed rulemaking must generally
be published in the Federal Register.128 The notice must include a
statement of the time, place, and nature of the public rulemaking
proceedings.129 It must reference the legal authority under which
the rule is proposed and include the terms or substance of the pro-
posed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.130
The proposed rule puts the public on notice of the issue and
allows the agency to benet from the input of interested parties
and educates the agency.131 The agency must give the public
the opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process through
written data submissions, views, or arguments with or without
an opportunity for oral presentation.132 After consideration of the
public’s comments, the agency shall include in the rules adopted a
general statement regarding its basis and purpose.133 Additionally,
each agency must give interested persons the right to petition the
issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.134
When creating rules about the survival of endangered spe-
cies, all of these steps are crucial. Under the public trust doctrine,
the government has a duty to protect wildlife for the enjoyment
of all present and future citizens.135 Additionally, under the
ESA, the government pledged itself as a sovereign state in the
international community to conserve threatened and endangered
species.136 To hold the government accountable, it is essential
that the public has a right to participate in the rulemaking pro-
cess.137 Because the survival of wildlife impacts the public as
a whole,138 it is imperative that the public maintains its right to
comment about proposed rules in addition to petition the issu-
ance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.139
23
Spring 2019
c. aS the DeciSion to impoRt SpoRt-hunteD tRophieS
iS unlawful in aDDition to aRbitRaRy anD capRiciouS,
the SeRvice muSt iSSue a new Rule.
First, a reviewing court must nd that the current rule is
unlawful. To challenge the current rule, third parties can “assert a
legal interest” in the protection of wildlife under the state owner-
ship of wildlife doctrine.140 A party has legal standing if the party
has alleged a “personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.”141
Additionally, a party must be affected by the opposing party’s
activities or a party must use the resource it is trying to conserve
in order to have standing.142 To have a successful claim, plaintiffs
should reference data that the Service omitted from consideration
when issuing its current rule about trophy hunting importation, as
the ESA requires the Service to use the best available scientic
data when engaging in rulemaking.143
D. the SeRvice muSt follow the apa anD the eSa
when cReatinG anD pRopoSinG a new Rule to peRmit
oR Deny the entRy of SpoRt-hunteD tRophieS into the
uniteD StateS.
When creating a new rule, in addition to following the pro-
cedures in the APA,144 the Service must make its decision based
on whether importing trophies will enhance the survival of the
targeted species.145 To be sustainable, trophy hunting must be
well regulated.146 Throughout the trophy hunting process, there
cannot be corruption, and there must be accurate monitoring of
animal populations, hunting quotas based on science, and proper
regulations.147 Researchers argue that the ideal conservation
operating system is unattainable, and therefore the sustainability
of species cannot be ensured.148
The Service’s new rule should only permit trophy hunting if
it is proven to enhance conservation of the targeted species. This
requires concrete evidence such as where and how money is being
spent, what conservation efforts are being made if the population
of the targeted species is increasing due to trophy hunting, and how
trophy hunting negatively impacts species. According to Safari
Club International, an acceptable version of enhancement nd-
ings look to see if a country has a sustainable number of animals
to support its hunting program.149 It also looks at the management
plan, if the regulations adequately implement a hunting program,
and if the participation of hunters from the United States provides
a clear benet to meet the ESA’s special rule requirement to import
trophies.150 If there is no evidence of enhancement151 and the rule
is not necessary for the survival of species,152 then the Service
cannot meet the requirements of Safari Club International, and
the Service should not issue a rule allowing the importation of
sport-hunted trophies on a case-by-case basis. Instead, it should
issue a rule that bans trophy hunting, as it is not contributing to the
conservation of targeted species.153
Further, the Service should reverse its current rule and issue
a new rule that is in compliance with the ESA and the APA.
The court reversed the rule to ban sport-hunted trophies under
the Obama administration because the Service failed to use
notice-and-comment rulemaking when issuing its decision.154
Therefore, it is imperative that the Service issues its new rule
in compliance with the APA so that it is not reversed again.
Additionally, the Service must comply with the ESA’s require-
ment to only issue permits to take endangered species if it is
necessary for the survival of endangered species.155 Creating a
legal and evidence-based rule will likely help stabilize endan-
gered species populations and provide more evidence regarding
the best way to conserve endangered species.
Ix. conclusIon
To ensure that wildlife survives for generations to come,
the public must hold the Service accountable when the agency
engages in rulemaking about the taking of threatened and
endangered species. The Service exists to protect, conserve, and
enhance wildlife and their ecosystems for the current and future
benets of American citizens.156 Additionally, the ESA states
that the Service should strive to conserve endangered and threat-
ened species.157 Under the ESA, whenever the Service lists a
species as threatened, the Service can only issue regulations if it
nds them necessary and advisable to conserve such species.158
Because the information the Service relied on to allow sport-
hunted trophies into the United States is speculative, and there is
an abundance of disagreement as to whether trophy hunting does,
in fact, contribute to the conservation of species, the Service
should reinstate the ban on sport-hunted trophies and reverse its
current rule. The Service can only issue rules to import threatened
species if it nds the rule necessary.159 However, since there is no
concrete evidence the Service’s current rule is necessary for the
conservation of species, the current rule to permit sport-hunted
trophies on a case-by-case basis is unlawful.
By issuing a new rule that complies with the APA and ESA,
the Service will allow the public to participate in the rulemaking
process and will help create consistency for endangered species.
Since the Service can only issue rules that allow the taking of
endangered species when it is necessary to the survival of the
species,160 the Service must follow that standard when creating
rules that allow individuals to import trophies of endangered
species. If there is no concrete evidence that hunting endangered
species is necessary for their survival, the Service must create a
new rule.
enDnoteS
1 Memorandum f rom Greg Sheehan, Pr incipal Deputy Dir., Fish and
Wildlife Serv. (Ma r. 1, 2018), https://www.fws.gov/intern ational/pdf/memo -
withdrawal-of-certain-ndings-ESA-listed-species-sport-hunted-trophies.pdf
[hereinaf ter Sheehan].
2
Id. (explaining how the ne w rule replaces an Obam a Administratio n deci-
sion to ban sport- hunted trophies).
3 See Trophy Hunting, the human e Socy of the u. S., http://www.
humanesociet y.org/issues/trophy _hunting/ [her einafter Humane So ciety]
(dening trophy hu nting as the killi ng of wild animals for thei r body parts,
such as the head , for display and not primar ily for food or substance).
continued on page 31