Committee II Summary: Definition of Hunting Trophy

The term “hunting trophy” has never been defined by the CITES Treaty, though attempts have been made and failed.  Safari Club is quite happy not having a definition, as no definition poses no restrictions on what parts of animals can be traded as a memento of a hunting experience.  If one were to define hunting trophy, how could all interpretations of the term, including the various cultural and traditional uses of the bodies of animals from around the world, be included into one holistic definition?  Safari Club International’s head of delegation John Monson, SCIF’s Conservation Manager Matt Eckert, and FACE’s Legal Affairs Officer Johan Svalby are now battling anti-hunting countries and NGOS for a non-restrictive definition in a CITES working group.  
 
Here is how it started:  The CITES member countries requested a definition of hunting trophy last year, and a definition was proposed for adoption at today’s (March 16th) CITES meeting in Qatar.   The proposed definition combined suggestions made by the United States and SCI/SCIF during a drafting group before the proposed definition was formed.  Surprisingly, no other countries or organizations contributed to the discussion. Essentially, Safari Club was trying to prevent the US from pushing a very restrictive definition on all trade in hunting trophies.  If hunters don’t already know, the US definition does not consider worked or manufactured items made from a hunted animal as part of the entire hunting trophy.  SCI saw potential problems with how the proposed definition could be interpreted by different member countries, thus creating problems with importing and exporting hunting trophies.  
 
Despite several attempts to work with the US Management Authority to compromise on a definition over the course of six months, the United States, today at the Qatar CITES meeting, again proposed that the CITES parties adopt their existing definition that excludes worked items.  Luckily, Safari Club was well prepared for this issue, and started planning for possible outcomes of this meeting in the case the US ignored our request to compromise. Several Africa parties were involved in the debate on this issue during the meeting, and introduced a less restrictive definition that included worked and manufactured items.  The debate did not reach a consensus and went to a working group.  
 
At the end of the first working group session, Safari Club has been successful with keeping the focus on a simple definition, fighting the persistent attempts of the green NGOs and the US to create a restrictive definition. Tomorrow, we expect to face more conflict.