November 22, 2017

Timothy Van Norman, Chief

Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Via electronic submission

Re: PRT013008 and PRT017404,777 Ranch, Hondo, TX

Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-IA-2017-0064; FWSHQIA20170070

Dear Mr. Van Norman,

On behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and its
more than 6.5 million members and supporters, I submit the following
comments urging the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) to deny 777
Ranchs (777 or the Ranch) request under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
to renew a captive-bred wildlife registration (CBW) under 50 CFR 17.21(g)
for barasingha (Cervus duvaucelii), Elds Brow-antler deer (Cervus eldii), red
lechwe (Kobus leche), and Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx), and a sport-hunting
permit to kill the same species.

777 Ranch is a canned hunting facility that irresponsibly breeds endangered

species without any consideration of genetic vitality or conservation. In a 10-
year period, over 140 endangered species died at the Ranch due to causes
other than hunting, including several who froze to death. Thus, it is not even
clear that the animals at the Ranch receive basic veterinary care and shelter.
What is clear, however, is that the Ranch breeds critically endangered species
solely to be killed for trophies. This facility is exploiting endangered species
for profit, which is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ESA. FWS
should not issue CBW registrations and sport-hunting permits to canned
hunting facilities like 777 Ranch. Specifically, 777s applications should be
denied because (1) as a canned hunting facility, the Ranch cannot meet the
required criteria for obtaining a permit, (2) sport-hunting permits are by their
nature assignable, which violates the ESA, and (3) the issuing five-year
permits is unlawful.

For all the reasons discussed in these comments, FWS must deny the
application. PETA requests notification of FWSs final action on the
application. Pursuant to 50 C.F.R. 17.22(e)(2), should FWS decide to issue
the permit despite these objections, I request notice of that decision at least ten
days prior to the issuance of the permits via e-mail to [email protected]
or telephone to 202-309-4697.

{00298349}
Very truly yours,

Delcianna Winders
Vice President and Deputy General Counsel
Captive Animal Law Enforcement

{00298349}2
 Comments of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
on PRT013008 and PRT017404,777 Ranch, Hondo, TX
Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-IA-2017-0064 and FWSHQIA20170070

Table of Contents

Factual Background...................................................................................................................... 1

I. Jeff Rann ............................................................................................................................. 1

II. 777 Ranchs Initial Application for a CBW and Sport-Hunting Permit ............................. 2

III. History of 777s Sport-Hunting Permits ............................................................................. 3

IV. History of 777s CBW Permits ........................................................................................... 5

V. Current CBW and Sport-Hunting Permit Applications ...................................................... 5

Legal Background ......................................................................................................................... 6

Granting the Permit Applications Would Be Unlawful .................................................................. 8

I. FWS Must Deny 777s Permit Applications Because the Applicant Has Failed to
Meet the Issuance Criteria. ................................................................................................. 8

A. 777 Has Failed to Demonstrate a Valid Justification for Either a CBW or

Sport-hunting Permit. .................................................................................................. 9

B. 777 Ranch is not qualified because the Ranch is responsible for an unlawful
take of a listed species. .............................................................................................. 23

C. 777 has failed to disclose material information required on the permit

application. ................................................................................................................ 24

II. Sport-Hunting Permits for Canned Hunting Facilities Are Unlawful Because They
Transfer Rights to the General Public ............................................................................... 26

III. Any Permits Issued to 777 Must Be Limited. ................................................................... 26

Conclusion and Request for Notice of Issuance ....................................................................... 28

{00298349}i
 Factual Background
777 Ranch is a canned hunting1 operation located in Hondo, Texas. Jeff Rann has owned
and operated the Ranch since 2002.2 The Ranch currently offers hunters the opportunity to kill
over fifty different species of animals, including seven endangered species.3
I. JEFF RANN
Jeff Rann is a professional big game trophy hunter: he is not a conservationist.4 For
example, Rann is currently the host of Deadliest Hunts on the Outdoor Channel, which is a show
that glorifies the hunting of iconic, and often times endangered wildlife, including elephants,
cape buffalo, and leopards.5 Moreover, a 2012 brochure for Rann Safaris and 777 Ranch
highlights repeatedly that Rann himself, or hunters he has guided, hold records for animal
trophies for several exotic species, including lions and leopards.6 The brochure also advertised
that 777 Ranch has produced more [Safari Club International] record book entries than any
other outfitter in the world.7 Notably, the brochure does not mention anything about
conservation.

Rann started his professional hunting career in 1977, and operated primarily in the
Okavango Delta in Botswana for decades.8 About five years ago, Rann was embroiled in
controversy for taking the King of Spain, Juan Carlos, on a hunting expedition to kill an elephant
in Botswana.9 While the Rann Safaris website was shortly taken down after public backlash to

1
Ex. XX, Manny Fernandez, Blood and Beauty on a Texas Exotic-Game Ranch, N.Y. Times (Oct. 19, 2017)
(description of a canned hunting facility).
2
Ex. XX, About Jeff Rann, 777 Ranch Website (2002 - Jeff purchased the 777 Ranch in Texas. The 777 Ranch has
more SCI record book entries then any other outfitter in the world. The 777 Ranch is the marketing base and offices
for Rann Safaris, Safari South and 777 Ranch.).
3
Ex. XX, Available Game List, 777 Ranch Website (Game List) (listing addax, Arabian oryx, barasingha, dama
gazelle, Elds deer, Scimitar Horned Oryx, and wild yak).
4
Ex. XX, About Jeff Rann, 777 Ranch Website (Jeff began his professional hunting career in 1977 after
completing a 3 year apprenticeship with Zambia Safaris. In 1981 he moved to South Africa, primarily hunting
Letaba Ranch for Limpopo Safaris. Two years later Jeff joined Hunters Africa and hunted Tanzania until 1985. It
was during this time that he began hunting in Botswana and in 1987 was named Botswana Professional Hunter of
the year. By 1989 he was hunting predominately the Okavango Delta.).
5
Ex. XX, About the Show page, Deadliest Hunts Website (Enter a world where the hunter becomes the hunted, and
a split-second decision means the difference between life and death. Deadliest Hunts takes you along on heart-
pounding hunts for the planets most fearsome beasts: elephant, cape buffalo, leopard, brown bear and many others.
Join these intrepid hunters as they travel to some of the world's most exotic locations to pursue its deadliest
predators.); see also Preview of Deadliest Hunts episode for the week of Nov. 13, 2017, available here
http://outdoorchannel.com/showvideos.aspx?show-id=17292 (discussing the hunting of the big five, which are the
African elephant, cape buffalo, black rhino, lion, and leopard).
6
Ex. XX, Rann Safaris and 777 Ranch Brochure, pg. 2 (April 25, 2012)(During the 1995 and 1997 season he
guided Steven E. Chancellor to the SCI #1 and #2 lion; and the #1 leopard.) id. at 7(Jeff currently holds the SCI #1
leopard placement as the professional hunter.).
7
Ex. XX, Rann Safaris and 777 Ranch Brochure, pgs. 1, 2, 7, and 8 (April 25, 2012); Ex. XX, Record Book, Safari
Club International Website (descripting the SCI Record Book as an encyclopedia of big game animals).
8
Ex. XX, About Jeff Rann, 777 Ranch Website (Jeff began his professional hunting career in 1977
after completing a 3 year apprenticeship with Zambia Safaris . . . In 1995 the Botswana Government awarded Rann
Safaris a 15 year renewable lease in concessions in the Okavango Delta . . . Jeff has retained is concessions in
Botswana, with leases extended out for an additional 30 years.).
9
Ex. XX, Giles Tremlett, Spains King Juan Carlos Under Fire over Elephant Hunting Trip, The Guardian (April
15, 2012).

{00298349}1
the King of Spains elephant hunt and has yet to be put back up, archived versions of the website
proudly display the photographs of at least 60 dead elephants from Ranns guided hunting trips. 10
The website also boasts that, as of 2012, Rann Safaris was responsible for the killing of over
260 trophy bulls.11 A promotional video for Rann Safaris Botswana elephant hunt shows
footage of Rann himself shooting and killing at least two different elephants.12 In 2012, the total
cost of a fourteen-day elephant hunt with Rann was $58,500.13

II. 777 RANCHS INITIAL APPLICATION FOR A CBW AND SPORT-HUNTING PERMIT
Rann expanded his professional hunting career into canned hunting in Texas when he
purchased 777 Ranch in 2002.14 However, the Ranch has been commercially exploiting
endangered species since at least 1999. In September 1999, John Jackson, IIIPresident of
Conservation Force, a hunting rights advocacy law firmsubmitted a permit application on
behalf 777 to FWS for a CBW registration seeking authorization to take and engage in interstate
commerce with endangered Arabian oryx, barasingha, Elds deer, and red lechwe.15 It appears
Jackson also submitted an ESA permit for the Ranch seeking authorization for sport hunters to
kill the same species of protected deer and antelope that 777 sought to breed, and to sell and
export the dead specimens in interstate and foreign commerce (hereinafter sport hunting
permit).16 However, the submittal date for 777s sport-hunting permit cannot be confirmed
because despite repeated requests from PETA, FWS has not released 777s original sport-
hunting permit application to the public.17

FWS initially found the CBW application was incomplete because there was no
indication that the herds of these species [were] managed for genetic vitality nor that there [was]
any exchange of live stock to improve the breeding status or remove surplus animals without the
need to cull. In the absence of any such activity, there is no justification of need for the CBW.18
FWS also noted that there were problems with hybridization in a number of exotic ranched
species and that additional information specifically addressing this concern was needed because
purposeful hybridization is contrary to the purpose of the [ESA].19 In response to this request,
the Ranch submitted a letter stating simply [t]here is no hybridization of Arabian Oryx,
Barasingha Deer, Elds Deer or Lechwe on the 777 Ranch.20 As part of this letter, 777 included a
statement from a veterinarianStephen Sellsexplaining that he has worked with the Ranch on

10
Id. (The photograph came from the website of Botswana-based Rann Safaris, which had been taken down by
Sunday. The pictures, taken before the latest hunting trip, also showed the king with two dead African buffaloes.);
see also Ex. XX, Archived version of Rann Safaris Website, Elephant trophy page (April 25, 2012).
11
Ex. XX, Archived version of Rann Safaris Website, Elephant trophy page (April 25, 2012).
12
See Rann Safaris Elephant, Vimeo, available here https://vimeo.com/98818700 (last accessed Nov. 19, 2017).
13
Ex. XX, Rann Safaris and 777 Ranch Brochure, pg. 10 (April 25, 2012).
14
Ex. XX, About Jeff Rann, 777 Ranch Website (2002 - Jeff purchased the 777 Ranch in Texas).
15
Ex. XX, 777 Ranch Original CBW Registration Application (June 25, 1999) (Original Application).
16
Ex. XX, Original Application at p. 3 (We would like to take steps to reduce the overabundance of these males
through the application process for a cull/take permit. If we are granted a cull/take permit to harvest our animals . . .
.).
17
Ex. XX, Sinnott and Mathews email correspondence with FWS regarding missing information (Oct. 31, 2017).
18
Ex. XX, FWS Letter to John Jackson finding CBW application incomplete (Sept. 10, 1999) (emphasis added).
19
Id.
20
Ex. XX, 777 Ranch Letter to FWS providing additional information (Nov. 23, 1999).

{00298349}2
plans to keep species separate in order to prevent hybridization.21 Yet, the Ranch did not
submit these plans to FWS to support its applications.

In addressing FWSs concerns about genetic vitality, 777 stated:

It is our opinion having raised these species for over 30 years that we have a good
idea of what mix of males versus females is needed to enhance the breeding of the
species. At this point we have too many males of each specie and we need the
freedom to selectively cull some males. If the males are not selectively culled, there
will be an increase in the number of males that die do [sic] to infighting. (photos
attached).22

The Ranch also submitted a letter from Dr. James Krolla professor at Stephen F. Austin State
University.23 While Dr. Kroll stated that [f]rom all appearances, you have a very pure herd of
Oryx, with no signs of hybridization, he did not speak to the genetic vitality of barasingha, elds
deer, or red lechwe at the Ranch.24 He also raised concerns with the demographics of 777s herd,
noting that a balanced sex ratio is not good because it will result in stress on the abundant
males and much fighting, leading to death loss.25

Approximately a month after receiving this additional information, FWS issued the
Ranch its first three-year CBW permit.26 At the same time, FWS noted that 777s sport-hunting
permit application was placed in our inactive files because of missing information that had not
been received.27 Thus, as of December 1999, while 777 was authorized to take for normal
husbandry practices barasingha, Elds deer, red lechwe, and Arabian oryx, the Ranch was not
authorized to allow sport-hunters to take those species.28

III. HISTORY OF 777S SPORT-HUNTING PERMITS

In August 2000, FWS published notice in the Federal Register of 777s sport-hunting permit
application, which sought a three-year authorization for interstate and foreign commerce, export, and
culling of excess male barasingha, Elds deer, Arabian oryx, and red lechwe from the Ranchs
captive herd.29 Public comment was not accepted on this permit application.30 Again, it is not clear
whether, or when, this sport-hunting permit was issued because FWS has not provided that
information to the public.31

21
Id.
22
Id.
23
Ex. XX, Dr. James Kroll Letter to 777 Ranch regarding hybridization and demographics of herd (Nov. 25, 1999).
24
Id.
25
Id.
26
Ex. XX, 777 CBW Permits, pg. 1 (1999-2017).
27
Id. (As a reminder, your application (PRT-013008) for a cull and take permit has been placed in our inactive files
and we have received no additional information for that file at this time.).
28
Id.
29
Notice of Receipt of Applications for Permit, 65 Fed. Reg. 48009, 48010 (Aug. 4, 2000).
30
Id.
31
Ex. XX, Sinnott and Mathews email correspondence with FWS regarding missing information (Oct. 31, 2017).

{00298349}3
 Presumably, 777 was granted a three-year sport-hunting permit because in July 2005 a
renewal request for this permit was published in the Federal Register. 32 The Ranch was seeking to
renew its sport-hunting permit for the same species for a five-year term.33 Several months after a 30-
day comment period on this permit closed, FWS issued a one-year sport-hunting permit to 777.34
FWS did not publish individual findings for this permit, but rather, for all 6 permits identified in
the February 2006 Federal Register notice, stated that:

For each permit for an endangered species, the Service found that (1) the
application was filed in good faith, (2) the granted permit would not operate to the
disadvantage of the endangered species, and (3) the granted permit would be
consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in Section 2 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended.35
The Ranchs sport-hunting permit was renewed for subsequent 1-year terms from 2005
through 2015.36 Only two of these renewal applications were noticed in the Federal Register for
public notices and comment; 2005 and 2011.37 Similar to the 2005 renewal discussed in the
preceding paragraph, FWS did not publish individual findings for the 2011 permit, but rather, for
all 41 permits identified in the January 2012 Federal Register notice stated that:
For each permit for an endangered species, we found that (1) The application was
filed in good faith, (2) The granted permit would not operate to the disadvantage
of the endangered species, and (3) The granted permit would be consistent with
the purposes and policy set forth in section 2 of the ESA.38
In 2012, 777 sought to amend its sport-hunting permit to add scimitar-horned oryx,
addax, and dama gazelle.39 The application for these amendments was published in the Federal
Register.40 FWS granted the amendment requests, and a one-year sport-hunting permit with the
three added species.41 Again, FWS did not publish individual findings, but rather, for all 102
permits identified in the May 2012 Federal Register notice stated that:

32
Receipt of Applications for Permit, 70 Fed Reg. 41783, 41783-4 (July 20, 2005).
33
Id.
34
Id.; Issuance of Permits, 71 Fed. Reg. 10702, 10703 (March 2, 2006); see also Ex. XX, 777s Sport-hunting
permits, pg.1 (2005-2017).
35
Issuance of Permits, 71 Fed. Reg. at 10703.
36
Ex. XX, 777s Sport-hunting permits, pgs. 1-10 (2005-2017)(pg. 1, 12/12/05-12/11/06; pg. 2, 11/28/06-11/27/07;
pg. 3, 1/09/08-1/09/09; pg. 4, 2/19/09-2/18/10; pg. 5, 2/15/10-2/24/11; pg. 6, 7/11/11-7/10/12; pg. 7, 3/23/12-
3/23/13; pg. 8, 3/11/13-3/10/14; pg. 9, 8/04/14-8/03/15; pg. 10, 6/02/15-3/18/17).
37
Endangered Species; Marine Mammals; Receipt of Applications for Permit, 76 Fed. Reg. 7580, 7581 (Feb. 10,
2011); Receipt of Applications for Permit, 70 Fed Reg. 41783, 41783-4 (July 20, 2005); see also Ex. XX, 2006
Sport-hunting permit renewal package (Nov. 9, 2006); Ex. XX, 2007 Sport-hunting permit renewal package (Dec.
05, 2007); Ex. XX, 2008 Sport-hunting permit renewal package (Dec. 8, 2008); Ex. XX, 2010 Sport-hunting permit
renewal package (Jan. 6, 2010); Ex. XX, 2011 Sport-hunting permit renewal package (Jan. 10, 2011); Ex. XX, 2012
Sport-hunting permit renewal package (Jan. 13, 2012); Ex. XX, 2015 Sport-hunting permit renewal package (Feb.
23, 2015); Ex. XX, 2016 Sport-hunting permit renewal package (Apr. 9, 2016).
38
Endangered Species; Marine Mammals; Issuance of Permits, 77 Fed. Reg. 3495 (Jan. 24, 2012).
39
Endangered Species; Receipt of Applications for Permit, 77 Fed. Reg. 9687, 9688 (Feb. 17, 2012).
40
Id.; 777 CBW Permits, pg. 7 (1999-2017)(permit effective from 3/23/12-3/23/17).
41
Endangered Species; Marine Mammals; Issuance of Permits, 77 Fed. Reg. 26777, 26777-78 (May 7, 2012); see
also Ex. XX, 777s Sport-hunting permits, pg. 7 (2005-2017).

{00298349}4
 For each permit for an endangered species, we found that (1) the application was
filed in good faith, (2) The granted permit would not operate to the disadvantage
of the endangered species, and (3) The granted permit would be consistent with
the purposes and policy set forth in section 2 of the ESA.42

In 2015, the Ranchs sport-hunting permit was renewed for almost a two-year term, expiring
March 18, 2017.43 This 2015 permit renewal was not published in the Federal Register for notice
and comment, and the subsequent issuance of the permit was also not published.44
IV. HISTORY OF 777S CBW PERMITS
The Ranchs CBW registration was renewed for subsequent three-year terms from 2003
through 2013.45 None of these renewal applications were noticed in the federal register for public
notice and comment, and no subsequent notice of issuance were published.46 In 2012, 777 sought
to amend its CBW registration to add scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle.47 The
application for these amendments was published in the Federal Register.48 FWS granted the
amendment requests, and issued a five-year CBW registration expiring on March 23, 2017.49
Again, FWS did not publish individual findings for these two permits, but rather, for all 102
permits identified in the May 2012 Federal Register notice stated that:

For each permit for an endangered species, we found that (1) the application was
filed in good faith, (2) The granted permit would not operate to the disadvantage
of the endangered species, and (3) The granted permit would be consistent with
the purposes and policy set forth in section 2 of the ESA.50

V. CURRENT CBW AND SPORT-HUNTING PERMIT APPLICATIONS

The Ranchs sport-hunting permit expired on March 18, 2017.51 Their CBW
registration expired a few days later on March 23, 2017.52 Almost two months after the
Ranchs sport-hunting permit had expired, FWS received a renewal application.53 As a
result, FWS warned 777 that it was not authorized to conduct any culling activity until

42
Endangered Species; Marine Mammals; Issuance of Permits, 77 Fed. Reg. 26777, 26777-78 (May 7, 2012).
43
Ex. XX, 777s Sport-hunting permits, pg.10.
44
Ex. XX, 2015 Sport-hunting permit renewal package (Feb. 23, 2015); Ex. XX, 777s Sport-hunting permits,
pg.10.
45
Ex. XX, 777 CBW Permits, pgs. 1, 2, 5, 6 (pg. 1, 12/23/99-12/21/02; pg. 2, 4/28/03-4/26/06; pg. 5, 2/22/07-
2/20/10; pg. 6, 2/25/10-2/25/13).
46
Ex. XX, 2002 CBW renewal package (Nov. 19, 2002); Ex. XX, 2007 CBW renewal package (Feb. 9, 2007); Ex.
XX, 2010 CBW renewal package (Jan. 4, 2010).
47
Endangered Species; Receipt of Applications for Permit, 77 Fed. Reg. 9687, 9688 (Feb. 17, 2012).
48
Id.; 777 CBW Permits, pg. 7 (1999-2017)(permit effective from 3/23/12-3/23/17).
49
Endangered Species; Marine Mammals; Issuance of Permits, 77 Fed. Reg. 26777, 26777-78 (May 7, 2012).
50
Id.
51
Ex. XX, 777s Sport-hunting permits, pg.10.
52
Ex. XX, 777 CBW Permits, pg. 7.
53
Ex. XX, FWS email reminding 777 that no culling activity authorized (July 19, 2017).

{00298349}5
[a] new permit is issued.54 Almost two weeks after 777s sport-hunting permit expired, a
Elds deer was unlawfully killed at the Ranch.55

On October 23, 2017, FWS published notice of a request from 777 to renew its sport-
hunting permit authorizing the culling of excess Barasingha, Elds Deer, Arabian oryx, and Red
lechwe from the captive herd for a five-year term. 56 This commenced a 30-day comment period
ending on November 22, 2017.57 Less than a month later, FWS published notice of a request
from 777 to renew its CBW for the same four species for a five-year term. 58 This commenced a
similar 30-day comment period, ending on December 8, 2017.59
Legal Background

The ESA establishes a national policy that all Federal departments and agencies shall
seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in
furtherance of the purposes of [the Act].60 The Supreme Court has called the ESA the most
comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered species ever enacted by any
nation.61

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits any person from taking endangered species.62 The term
take is construed in the broadest possible manner.63 To take an animal means to harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct.64 Harm is defined by regulation as an act which actually kills or injures
wildlife.65 Harass is defined as an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the
likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal
behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.66
Certain animal husbandry practices, breeding procedures, and procedures for veterinary care are
excluded from the definition of harass for captive members of listed species.67 Hunting
endangered or threatened species is prohibited.68

54
Ex. XX, FWS email reminding 777 that no culling activity authorized (July 19, 2017); see also Ex. XX, FWS
email regarding no culling activity authorized (June 27, 2017)(Also, since you did not submit an application for
renewal to our office 30 days prior to 3/18/17 (the expiration date of your prior permit), please be aware that you are
not legally covered to conduct any culling activities until you receive a new permit from our office.).
55
Ex. XX, 2017 Annual Accounting documenting unauthorized take (June 27, 2017).
56
Foreign Endangered and Threatened Species; Receipt of Applications for Permit, 82 Fed. Reg. 49041, 49042 (Oct.
23, 2017).
57
Id.
58
Endangered Species; Marine Mammal Receipt of Applications for Permit, 82 Fed. Reg. 51856, 51857 (Nov. 8,
2017).
59
Id.
60
16 U.S.C. 1531(c).
61
Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 180 (1978).
62
16 U.S.C. 1538(a); see also Tenn. Valley Auth., 437 U.S. at 180 (Virtually all dealings with endangered
species, including taking, possession, transportation, and sale, were prohibited, 16 U.S.C. 1538 (1976 ed.), except
in extremely narrow circumstances, see 1539(b).).
63
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Ch. of Cmtys. for a Great Or., 515 U.S. 687, 704 (1995).
64
16 U.S.C. 1532(19).
65
50 C.F.R. 17.3.
66
Id.
67
Id.
68
16 U.S.C. 1532(19), 1538(a); 50 C.F.R. 10.12, 17.21(c), 17.31(a).

{00298349}6
 Section 10 of the ESA grants the FWS limited authority to issue permits allowing
activities that are otherwise prohibited by Section 9. Congress intended to limit substantially the
number of exemptions that may be granted under the Act, . . . given that these exemptions apply
to species which are in danger of extinction.69 As noted by the Supreme Court, [v]irtually all
dealings with endangered species, . . . were prohibited except in extremely narrow
circumstances.70 Pursuant to Section 10, FWS may issue permits authorizing the take of listed
species for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species
(an Enhancement Permit).71 Section 10(c) of the ESA requires FWS to publish notice in the
Federal Register of each application, and allow at least a thirty-day comment period on those
applications.72 Section 10(c) also requires that [i]nformation received by the Secretary as a part
of any application shall be available to the public as a matter of public record at every stage of
the proceeding.73 The requirements in 10(c) are mandatory, and if an agency fails to abide by
them, any related permit issuance is unlawful and subject to being overturned.

Under this authority to issue Enhancement Permits, FWS created the CBW registration.
FWS has long maintained that the purposes of the ESA are best served by conserving species in
the wild along with their ecosystems, and that captive animals have a role in the survival of the
species only to the extent that they maintain genetic integrity and offer the potential of restocking
natural ecosystems[.]74 With the original purpose of encourag[ing] responsible breeding
efforts75meaning the maintenance of healthy, self-sustaining and genetically viable
captive populations through normal husbandry practices76the agency developed the CBW
registration scheme to relax the requirements of Section 10 for exotic species conceived and born
in captivity.77

Accordingly, any person may take, sell, or otherwise engage in commercial activity with
non-native wild animals who were bred in captivity in the United States provided that, among
other things, [t]he purpose of such activity is to enhance the propagation or survival of the
affected species, and the person first register[s] with FWS.78 In deciding whether to approve a
registration request, FWS must consider both the general criteria for ESA permits,79 as well as

69
Ex. XX, H.R. Rep. No. 93-412, at 156 (1973) (emphasis added).
70
Tenn. Valley Auth., 437 U.S. at 180 (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted).
71
16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added).
72
16 U.S.C. 1539(c).
73
16 U.S.C. 1539(c)(emphasis added).
74
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Captive Wildlife Regulation, 43 Fed. Reg. 16,144, 16,144 (Apr. 14,
1978) (second emphasis added); see also Proposed Rule: Captive-Bred Wildlife Regulation, 58 Fed. Reg. 32,632,
32,633 (June 11, 1993) (The Service considers the purpose of the Act to be best served by conserving species in the
wild along with their ecosystems. Populations of species in captivity are, in large degree, removed from their natural
ecosystems and have a role in survival of the species only to the extent that they maintain genetic integrity and offer
the potential of restocking natural ecosystems where the species has become depleted or no longer occurs.).
75
58 Fed. Reg. at 32,636.
76
Proposed Rule: Captive Wildlife Regulation, 44 Fed. Reg. 30,044, 30,045 (May 23, 1979) (emphases added);
Final Rule: Captive Wildlife Regulation, 44 Fed. Reg. 54,002, 54,005 (Sept. 17, 1979); Proposed Rule: Captive-bred
Wildlife Regulation, 57 Fed. Reg. 548, 549 (Jan. 7, 1992).
77
See 50 C.F.R. 17.21(g), 17.3 (definition of bred in captivity).
78
Id. 17.21(g)(1)(i)-(ii), (g)(2).
79
50 C.F.R. 13.21.

{00298349}7
whether the expertise, facilities, or other resources available to the applicant appear adequate
to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected wildlife.80 These conditions are designed
to protect wild populations of wildlife and to ensure that the activities will be conducted to
enhance the propagation or survival of the species.81 Hence, the required goals of CBW
applicants are to preserve the genetic makeup of the species, to establish a self-sustaining
captive population, and to make animals available for any legitimate and appropriate effort to re-
establish or augment wild populations of the species.82 Meanwhile, inbreeding and over-
representation in the gene pool render animals unsuitable for organized breeding programs
aimed at preservation of the species.83

If approved, FWS must make and publish its findings that the registration was applied
for in good faith, that issuing the registration will not operate to the disadvantage of the species
for which registration was sought, and that issuing the registration will be consistent with the
purposes and policy of the ESA.84

Granting the Permit Applications Would Be Unlawful

I. FWS MUST DENY 777S PERMIT APPLICATIONS BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED
TO MEET THE ISSUANCE CRITERIA.

FWS may only issue or renew a permit if the applicant meets the criteria for issuance in
13.21(b).85 The relevant issuance criteria in that section require a permit to be denied if:
(1) The applicant has failed to demonstrate a valid justification for the permit and a
showing of responsibility;
(2) The Director finds through further inquiry or investigation, or otherwise, that the
applicant is not qualified; or
(3) The applicant has failed to disclose material information required, or has made false
statements as to any material fact, in connection with his application.86
777s permit applications do all three, and thus should be denied. As a result, if FWS grants the
requested permits that decision would be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in
accordance with law, and in excess of statutory authority.87

80
50 C.F.R. 17.21(g)(3)(i).
81
44 Fed. Reg. at 54,002.
82
58 Fed. Reg. at 32,636.
83
57 Fed. Reg. at 550.
84
50 C.F.R. 17.21(g)(3)(ii).
85
50 C.F.R. 13.21(b)(Upon receipt of a properly executed application for a permit, the Director shall issue the
appropriate permit unless:); id. at 13.22(b); see also id. at 13.22(d) (Denial. The issuing officer may deny
renewal of a permit to any application who fails to meet the issuance criteria set forth in 13.21 of this part, or in
the part(s) or section(s) specifically governing the activity for which the renewal is requested.); 50 C.F.R.
13.21(g) (Denial. The issuing officer may deny a permit to any applicant who fails to meet the issuance criteria set
forth in this section or in the part(s) or section(s) specifically governing the activity for which the permit is
requested.).
86
50 C.F.R. 13.21(b).
87
5 U.S.C. 706.

{00298349}8
 A. 777 Has Failed to Demonstrate a Valid Justification for Either a CBW or
Sport-hunting Permit.
FWS may only issue an enhancement permita CBW registration and sport-hunting
permit are both enhancement permitsfor an otherwise-prohibited activity if [t]he purpose of
such activity is to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species (the enhancement
requirement).88 In the context of listed species in captivity, enhance the propagation or survival
of the species is defined in the regulations as encompassing normal animal husbandry
practices.89 These practices, according to the regulations, include providing health care,
management of populations by culling, contraception, euthanasia, [and] grouping or handling of
wildlife to control survivorship and reproduction.90 However, these practices only meet the
definition of enhancement if they are needed to maintain captive populations that are self-
sustaining and that possess as much genetic vitality as possible.91 Moreover, none of the
practices meet the enhancement requirement unless it can be shown that such activities would
not be detrimental to the survival of wild or captive populations of the affected species.92
As at threshold matter, PETA believes this regulatory definition of enhancement for
captive species is unlawful under the ESA. Specifically, the inclusion of culling is not
appropriate for a captive population. The purpose of the ESA is conservation of endangered
species.93 The term conserve is defined as using all methods and procedures which are
necessary to bring endangered species back from the brink of extinction.94 Culling, or regulated
taking, is contemplated in the definition of conservation, but only in the extraordinary case
where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved.95 Thus,
while the culling of animals can be considered enhancement in certain limited circumstances,
that culling must be the only possible option for relieving population pressures within an
ecosystem, i.e. the wild and not within a captive setting.96 Nevertheless, assuming including
culling in the regulatory definition of enhancement is appropriate, canned hunting is not the type
of culling contemplated by the regulation, and thus does not meet the enhancement
requirement. The breeding of endangered species for the sole purpose of killing them for profit
which is the only purpose of a canned hunting operation like 777is not culling within the

88
50 C.F.R. 17.21(g)(1)(ii) (emphasis added).
89
50 C.F.R. 17.3.
90
Id.
91
Id. (emphasis added).
92
Id.
93
16 U.S.C. 1531(b) (The purposes of this chapter are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which
endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of
such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the
purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.).
94
16 U.S.C. 1532(3)(The terms conserve, conserving, and conservation mean to use and the use of all
methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at
which the measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures
include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research,
census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and,
in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may
include regulated taking.).
95
Id. (emphasis added).
96
Id.

{00298349}9
terms of the ESA regulations, and it certainly does not fall within the limited exception for
regulated take authorized by the ESA.
To lawfully grant 777 a CBW registration and a sport-hunting permit, FWS must make
an enhancement finding based on the Ranchs activities.97 FWS must also make specific findings
that the permit was applied for in good faith (meaning not for the purpose of stockpiling
animals or products98), and that the proposed activities will not operate to the disadvantage of
such endangered species and will be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in the
ESA.99 The record does not support such findings.
1. 777 is a canned hunting facility that does not conduct any activity that
would meet the enhancement requirement.
The CBW application requires applicants to provide documentation showing how your
captive population is being managed to maintain its genetic vitality.100 If such documentation
cannot be provided, then the applicant must participate in an organized breeding program, such
as a Species Survival Plan (SSP).101 Thus, information on 777s breeding program is critical to
FWSs ability to make the necessary enhancement finding because the CBW registration scheme
is premised on the idea that captive members of a listed species have a role in survival of the
species only to the extent that they maintain genetic integrity.102
Throughout multiple revisions to the CBW regulations, the FWS has repeatedly stressed
concerns about rampant breeding of species leading to surplus animals of unknown genealogy
that have no conservation value. For example, when proposing amendments in 1992, FWS stated
that [a]t least 50 percent of [CBW registrations] are for species that appear to have been bred to
surplusanimals that are unsuitable for organized breeding programs aimed at preservation of
the species because of unknown genealogy, inbreeding, [or] over-representation in the gene
pool.103 In the same proposal, FWS noted that [i]t is counterproductive to foster breeding of
species already present in surplus numbers and the Service should not be in the position of
exacerbating the surplus animal problem.104 When attempting to address widespread
overbreeding resulting in the generic tigera hybridized animalFWS explained that the
generic tiger is of no value in terms of preserving the taxon for possible reintroduction to the
wild because it no longer has the same genetic makeup as wild populations.105 Again in
addressing the generic tiger problem, FWS stressed that breeding generic tigers does not provide
a conservation benefit for the long-term survival of the species because [g]eneric tigers are of
unknown genetic origin and are typically not maintained in a manner to ensure that inbreeding or
other inappropriate matings of animals do not occur.106

97
50 C.F.R. 17.21(g)(1)(ii), 17.3, 13.21(b).
98
H.R. Rep. No. 93-412, at 156.
99
16 U.S.C. 1539(d); 50 C.F.R. 17.21(g)(3)(ii).
100
Ex. XX, Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Application Form (3-200-41) at 6.
101
Id.
102
Final Rule, Captive-bred Wildlife Regulation, 63 Fed. Reg. 48634, 48634 (Sept. 11, 1998).
103
57 Fed. Reg. at 550 (emphasis added).
104
Id. at 511.
105
58 Fed. Reg. at 32636.
106
Proposed Rule, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; U.S. Captive-Bred Inter-Subspecific Crossed or
Generic Tigers, 76 Fed. Reg. 52297, 52299 (Aug. 22, 2011).

{00298349}10
 Moreover, FWS has specifically highlighted the importance of maintaining the genetic
vitality of captive populations in the context of an exemption from the CBW registration for
three listed antelope species commonly held in captivity for sport-hunting. In addressing
concerns about the potential for commercial exploitation based on the theory that captive
breeding, in and of itself, will enhance the survival of the listed species, FWS explained:
While the Service does believe that captive breeding can provide a significant
benefit to endangered species, such benefits can only be realized when the breeding
program is scientifically based and conducted in a manner that contributes to the
continued survival of the species. . . . breeding just to breed, without adequate
attention to genetic composition and demographics of the breeding population, may
not provide a clear conservation benefit to an endangered species. Even absent 50
CFR 17.21(h), ranches, zoos, and private individuals holding these three species
should be able to continue to maintain viable, well-managed, captive groups of
animals that can be used as a source of stock for reintroduction programs in the
future, if such actions are feasible and beneficial to the long-term survival of the
species, as has been done for a number of other species.107
This emphasis on scientifically based breeding programs is exemplified by FWSs
insistence that applicants must participate in an organized breeding program, such as a [SSP] if
sufficient documentation demonstrating the genetic vitality of the herd cannot be provided.108
SSPs are breeding programs run by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) that,
according to AZA, are designed to maintain a healthy, genetically diverse and demographically
stable population for the long-term future.109 For example, AZA has identified target SSP
numbers for the following three antelope species commonly held in captivity for sport-hunting:
250 (Addax nasomaculatus), 250 (Oryx dammah), and 200 (Gazella dama ruficollis). In contrast,
a 2010 survey conducted by the Exotic Wildlife Association (an exotic pet industry trade group)
estimates that there are over 11,000 scimitar-horned oryx, 5,000 addax, and 800 dama gazelle on
private ranches in the U.S.110 These wildly disparate figures illustrate the difference between a
well-planned management program driven by conservation goals where animal numbers are
not the only consideration and the frivolous breeding for recreational use conducted by
commercial ranches.111
777 has not and cannot demonstrate that the Ranch is maintain[ing] captive populations
that are self-sustaining and that possess as much genetic vitality as possible.112 When submitting
the 2017 application for renewal of its CBW registration, 777 initially failed to answer every

107
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Regulation That Excludes U.S. Captive-Bred
Scimitar-Horned Oryx, Addax, and Dama Gazelle From Certain Prohibitions, 77 Fed. Reg. 431, 434 (Jan. 5, 2012)
(emphasis added).
108
Ex. XX, Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Application Form (3-200-41) at 6.
109
Ex. XX, Species Survival Plan Programs Webpage from Association of Zoos & Aquariums Website.
110
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Regulation That Excludes U.S. Captive-Bred
Scimitar-Horned Oryx, Addax, and Dama Gazelle From Certain Prohibitions, 77 Fed. Reg. 431, 431 (Jan. 5, 2012).
111
Indeed, this type of breeding just to breed is a concern because, as FWS has noted, [c]aptive-bred animals of the
listed non-native species might be used for purposes that do not contribute to conservation, such as for pets, for
research that does not benefit the species, or for entertainment. Proposed Rule, Captive-bred Wildlife Regulation,
57 Fed. Reg. 548, 550 (Jan. 7, 1992).
112
50 C.F.R. 17.3.

{00298349}11
substantive question on the application form.113 Two months laterand only after FWS
reminded 777 multiple times that the Ranch was required to answer the questions777 provided
a three-sentence description of the genetic vitality of its herd:
Our genetic vitality is maintained by having multiple breeding herds of species with
large numbers of females. Periodically we rotate in a new breed male from a
different herd on the ranch, or at times bring in a new breed male from an outside
source. The 777 Ranch has multiple pastures that allows us to keep certain species
apart from others to keep are genetic vitality and not allow any sort of cross
breeding.114
FWS cannot rely on these statements alone because they are inconsistent with the facts.
For one, the annual reports submitted with the renewal applications document that over the past
18 years, the Ranch has only purchased 3 male red lechwes in 2010.115 This appears to be the
only time the Ranch brought in new breed male[s] from an outside source. Yet, there is no
evidence that 777 considered the genetic vitality of its red lechwe herd before purchasing those
animals. Whats more, there is no evidence that 777 brought in any new males for its Barasingha,
Elds Deer, or Arabian oryx herds. Indeed, FWS found 777s initial CBW application in 1999
incomplete because there was no indication . . . that there [was] any exchange of live stock to
improve the breeding status and that without that activity there [was] no justification of need
for the CBW.116 The Ranch never addressed this concern in 1999, and the Ranchs 2017 CBW
application demonstrates that FWSs initial concerns were factually valid. Moreover, as part of
the Ranchs 2017 CBW permit application, the Ranch was asked for [t]he name, address, and
CBW registration number of the person(s) or institution(s) from whom you plant to acquire the
wildlife.117 The Ranch answered N/A.118
When reviewing 777s original 1999 CBW application, FWS also noted that there were
problems with hybridization in a number of exotic ranched species and that additional
information specifically addressing this concern was needed because purposeful hybridization is
contrary to the purpose of the [ESA].119 In response to this request, the Ranch submitted a letter
stating simply [t]here is no hybridization of Arabian Oryx, Barasingha Deer, Elds Deer or
Lechwe on the 777 Ranch.120 As part of this letter, 777 included a statement from a veterinarian
explaining that he has worked with the Ranch on plans to keep species separate in order to
prevent hybridization.121 Yet, the Ranch did not submit these plans to FWS to support its
application.

Instead, 777 emphasized the special fencing and dividers on the ranch to insure that the
animals are kept separate to avoid any possibility of cross breeding.122 This is the same

113
Ex. XX, 2017 CBW Renewal Application (Mar. 27, 2017).
114
Ex. XX, FWS exchange with 777 regarding additional information (Apr. 14, 2017).
115
Ex. XX, Annual Reports, pg. 3 (1999-2017).
116
Ex. XX, FWS Letter to John Jackson finding CBW application incomplete (Sept. 10, 1999) (emphasis added).
117
Ex. XX, Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Application Form (3-200-41) at E.1.3.
118
Ex. XX, FWS exchange with 777 regarding additional information, pg. 4 (Apr. 14, 2017).
119
Ex. XX, FWS Letter to John Jackson finding CBW application incomplete (Sept. 10, 1999).
120
Ex. XX, 777 Ranch Letter to FWS providing additional information (Nov. 23, 1999).
121
Id.
122
Id.

{00298349}12
explanation provided in the Ranchs 2017 CBW application.123 Yet, there is evidence to suggest
that the Ranch does not have enough pastures to prevent hybridization. Indeed, a diagram of the
facility appears to show 23 different pastures at the Ranch.124 While the diagram only lists the
location of three antelope species, each species is housed in at least two different pastures.125
This is consistent with 777s statements that the Ranch has multiple breeding herds of
species.126 The problem, however, is that there are over 50 different species of animals at the
Ranch.127 Even if species were only housed in one pasturewhich does not appear to be the
casethe Ranch would be forced to have at least two or more species in each pasture. This co-
habitation has led to at least two documentable instances of hybrids at the Ranch in 2014:
elk/deer hybrids and hybrid Ibex.128 Without more information from 777 about which species are
housed together in which pastures, the Ranchs mere statement that animals are kept separate
cannot be relied upon because it represents a factual impossibility.
In another attempt to address FWSs hybridization concerns, the Ranch submitted a letter
from Dr. James Kroll with its original 1999 CBW application stating that [f]rom all
appearances, you have a very pure herd of Oryx, with no signs of hybridization. 129
Conspicuously, the letter did not speak to the genetic vitality of barasingha, elds deer, or red
lechwe at the Ranch.130 Moreover, the genetic vitality of a herd cannot be assessed by mere
appearances. Even if it could, 777 has not submitted any evidence with its 2017 permit
applications that this appearance of genetic vitality still exits 18 years later.

Dr. Krolls letter from 1999 did raise concerns with the demographics of 777s herd,
noting that a balanced sex ratio is not good because it will result in stress on the abundant
males and much fighting, leading to death loss.131 This still appears to be an issue as the Ranch
continues to have mortalities due to fighting among males.132 For example, in 2014, 777 lost 3

123
Ex. XX, FWS exchange with 777 regarding additional information (April 14, 2017)(The 777 Ranch has multiple
pastures that allows us to keep certain species apart from others to keep [our] genetic vitality and not allow any sort
of cross breeding.).
124
Ex. XX, Email from Jason Molitor regarding 777 Ranch addition to Amendment request (Feb. 2, 2012)(Please
see that attached 777 Ranch Diagram. . ..); id. (the 26 pastures appear to be (1) Tanzania, (2) Wranger, (3) Coyote
Ridge, (4) Zambia, (5) Matestsi, (6) Kalahari, (7) Botswana, (8) Arrowhead South, (9) Arrowhead, (10) Arrowhead
North, (11) Muy Grande, (12) Kenya, (13) Nubia, (14) Rattle snake, (15) Serengeti, (16) Hatari, (17) Commancha
Spring, (18) Paloma Flats, (19) Cola Glanca, (20) Buena Vista, (21) Front Field, (22) Badger Creek, and (23) Twin
Lake).
125
Ex. XX, Email from Jason Molitor regarding 777 Ranch addition to Amendment request (Feb. 2, 2012)(listing
Dama Gazelle in (1) Hatari and (2) Badger Creek; listing Scimitar in (1) Serengeti and (2) Botswana; listing Addax
in (1) Wranger, (2) Kenya, and (3) Muy Grande).
126
Ex. XX, FWS exchange with 777 regarding additional information (Apr. 14, 2017).
127
Ex. XX, Game List (listing addax, Arabian oryx, barasingha, dama gazelle, Elds deer, Scimitar Horned Oryx,
and wild yak).
128
Ex. XX, Trevor Crawley, Dalke Goes on An Elk Hunt, Cranbrook Townsman (Nov. 6, 2014)(The objective was
the elk/deer hybrid animal that wasnt a part of the ranchs management plan, therefore it was available for
harvest.); Ex. XX, October 2014 Available Game List, Archived webpage (Oct. 11, 2014)(listing a hybrid Ibex as
available for $3,000).
129
Ex. XX, Dr. James Kroll Letter to 777 Ranch regarding hybridization and demographics of herd (Nov. 25, 1999)
(emphasis added).
130
Id.
131
Id.
132
Ex. XX, FWS exchange with 777 regarding additional information, pg. 4 (April 14, 2017) (The 777 Ranchs
breeding program of all animals was started over 15 years ago. With certain animals being bred out in large pastures

{00298349}13
male Arabian oryx, 1 male barasingha, and 1 Elds deer to [f]ighting/[p]redator.133 This type of
skewed sex ratio is not surprising given that all of the individual animals killed under the
Ranchs sport-hunting permit were male, presumably because male members of the species are
more desirable trophies.134

In its original 1999 CBW application, the Ranch also presumptuously states that [i]t is
our opinion having raised these species for over 30 years that we have a good idea of what mix
of males versus females is needed to enhance the breeding of the species. 135 The Ranchs 2017
CBW permit application relies on a similar mentality of expertise based solely on the number of
years spent breeding the species for profit.136 The genetics of a herd cannot be demonstrated
based solely on the numbers of years an applicant has held that herd. Genetic vitality is based on
science, and there is no evidence that 777 does any genetic monitoring at all. For example, there
is no information about parental stock, the relatedness of individual animals, or birth control
measures to prevent inbreeding. There is no information about 777s breeding program at all,
except for the fact that the Ranch utilizes breeding pens.137 By failing to provide any information
about how animals at the Ranch are bred, 777 has not even attempted to demonstrate that the
Ranchs captive population is being managed to maintain its genetic vitality.
Because 777 cannot demonstrate its ability to maintain the genetic vitality of the species
in its care, the Ranch must participate in an SSP programs.138 AZA has SSP programs for each of
the four species that 777 is seeking a CBW permit for: barasingha, Elds deer, Arabian oryx, and
red lechwe.139 Yet, 777 is not participating in these scientifically based programs designed to
maintain a healthy, genetically diverse and demographically stable population for the long-term
future.140
Because the Ranch has not demonstrated that its captive population is being managed to
maintain its genetic vitality, it cannot establish that the alleged culling of surplus animals, or
any other husbandry practices deemed enhancement under 50 C.F.R. 17.3 are needed.141
777s culling cannot meet the enhancement requirement because the sole reason 777 is

and others being bred in breeding pens. Currently we have breeding pens set up for our Red Lechwe, Elds Deer,
and Arabian Oryx, and numerous other non ESA-listed animals. Our Barasingha are raised and bred out in a large
pasture. Raising and breeding these specific animals in a breeding pen, between 10-15 acres, has been a huge
success for us over the years. It allows us to keep a closer eye on each individual animal which has resulted in higher
fawn crops, and excellent overall health of the heard. It allows us to always stay one step of any issues that may
arise including, but not limited to, injuries, sicknesses, birth complications, etc. As young are born and young males
have been weened 100%, we then move these males out into the large pastures located on the ranch. Issues with
mortalities due to fighting have been resolved by moving young males before they reach sexual maturity.).
133
Ex. XX, Annual Reports, pg. 11-12. It is impossible to assess how big of an issue this is because the Ranch does
not provide the adequate information about causes of death in the other annual reports in the permit application
materials.
134
Ex. XX, Annual Reports.
135
Ex. XX, 777 Ranch Letter to FWS providing additional information (Nov. 23, 1999).
136
Ex. XX, FWS exchange with 777 regarding additional information, pg. 5 (Apr. 14, 2017) (Issues with
mortalities due to fighting have been resolved by moving young males before they reach sexual maturity.).
137
Id. at pg. 4.
138
Ex. XX, Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Application Form (3-200-41) at 6
139
Ex. XX, Final Draft AZA Antelope and Giraffe TAG Regional Collection Plan, 5th Edition, December 2008; Ex.
18, Ungulate Profiles for Barasingha and Elds Deer, AZA Ungulates Website.
140
Ex. XX, Species Survival Plan Programs Webpage from Association of Zoos & Aquariums Website.
141
See 50 C.F.R. 17.3.

{00298349}14
breeding listed species under a CBW registration is for hunting, which is not acceptable under
the ESA. When FWS added culling to the definition of enhancement, the agency explained
that [c]ulling was intended to mean the removal (including by destruction) of animals with
genetic defects, animals that are over-represented in the gene pool so that further use in a
breeding program would result in inbreeding, or animals otherwise unsuitable for breeding.142
Culling is not synonymous with sport-hunting. Indeed, while destruction is one method of
culling animals, non-lethal methods of removal should be considered, and indeed should be the
primary method utilized when dealing with endangered species. Given the true nature of 777s
activities, it is not surprising that the Ranch failed to provide any information about its breeding
program, let alone documentation regarding genetic defects, inbreeding, or other reasons why the
actual culling of captive-bred species might be allowed. Even if 777 was able to provide this
documentation, the Ranch should still not be authorized to cull species because, as demonstrated
above, there is no evidence that the Ranch has taken steps to prevent genetic defects, inbreeding,
and hybridization of its herd. A sport-hunting permit should not be issued as a reward for failing
to maintain the genetic vitality of a captive-bred wildlife population.
In fact, 777 does not disclose the long-term goals and intended disposition of any
[CBW] progeny as part of its permit applications.143 It is clear from the Ranchs sport-hunting
permitwhich allows the killing of excess animalsthat the purpose of 777s breeding
program is to generate rare animals to be killed for profit.144 It is also clear from a 1999 letter
FWS sent to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) requesting any relevant information
documenting compliance of lack of compliance with AWA noting that the Ranch [w]ill be
selling animals as trophies.145 USDAs response aptly points out that the Ranch is primarily a
hunting ranch.146 Indeed, 777s permit applications list hunting ranch as the description of
777s business.147
The Ranchs 2017 permit applications do not discuss excess animals. Nor do 777s
annual reports identify surplus animals.148 The only time excess animals are mentioned is in
connection with 777s original 1999 CBW permit application. In that original application the
Ranch explained that it lost 18 male barasingha, Arabian oryx, and lechwe due to an
overabundance of males in all herds.149 The Ranch explained further that [a]t this point we
have too many males of each species and we need the freedom to selectively cull some
males.150 In addition, Dr. Krolls 1999 letter identified that the number of male species in 777s
herd was problematic, and recommended the adoption of a program of culling (either by
hunting or movement of animals).151 FWS recognized that this information was inadequate,
explaining that [t]here is no indication . . . that there is any exchange of live stock to . . . remove

142
57 Fed. Reg. at 549.
143
Ex. XX, 2017 CBW Renewal Application (Mar. 27, 2017); Ex. XX, 2017 Sport-hunting Renewal Application
(May 16, 2017).
144
Ex. XX, 777s Sport-hunting permits, pg.10 (2005-2017).
145
Ex. XX, USDA and FWS exchange regarding 777 Ranch (Dec. 1999).
146
Id.
147
Ex. XX, 2017 CBW Renewal Application B.3 (March 27, 2017); Ex. XX, 2017 Sport-hunting Renewal
Application B.3 (May 16, 2017).
148
Ex. XX, Annual Reports (1999-2017).
149
Ex. XX, Original CBW permit application, pg. 5 (1999).
150
Ex. XX, 777 Response to FWS regarding hybridization (Nov. 23, 1999).
151
Ex. XX, Dr. James Kroll Letter to 777 Ranch regarding hybridization and demographics of herd (Nov. 25, 1999).

{00298349}15
surplus animals without the need to cull.152 Indeed, because of the inadequacy of this
information, FWS still placed the Ranchs original sport-hunting permit in [its] inactive files
because of missing information that had not been received.153 If this information was insufficient
in 1999, it is certainly insufficient now as it is almost 20 years old.
Moreover, blanket statementslike the ones in 777s original 1999 permit application
about the need to cull is not sufficient. There is no evidence that 777 monitors genetic defects,
inbreeding, diseases, herd dynamics, or any other scientifically sound genetic considerations as
part of its breeding program, which are the only reasons why culling animals might be
appropriate under the ESA. If 777 has excess animals, it should not be granted a CBW permit to
breed more because, as FWS has stated, [i]t is counterproductive to foster breeding of species
already present in surplus numbers.154 On the other hand, if 777 cannot demonstrate the
presence of excess animals, it should not be granted a sport-hunting permit to cull excess
animals. Culling animals in the absence of any evidence that the culling is necessary for the
enhancement of the species is not acceptable under the ESA.
Canned hunting facilities like 777 exemplify the practice of breeding just to breed,
which the FWS has found does not provide a conservation benefit to the species and thus, cannot
met the requirements for an enhancement permit.155 The Ranch does not breed listed species for
the purpose of conservation: it breeds them for commercial exploitation. By approving this
application, FWS would be buying into the theory that it has soundly rejected: that captive
breeding, in and of itself, will enhance the survival of the listed species.156
2. 777s donations to Conservation Force are irrelevant.
The Ranchs permit applications do not identify any connection between the Ranchs
breeding and sport-hunting activity and conservation. The only potential connection is a series of
payments to Conservation Forcea misleadingly named hunting advocacy organization.157 Yet,
because these contributions were only made in connection with the killing of listed animals
pursuant to 777s sport-hunting permit, they cannot form the basis for the Ranchs CBW permit
application. Furthermore, the ESA does not authorize this type of Pay-to-Play scheme, and thus,
these payments cannot be the basis for a sport-hunting permit.
ESA Enhancement Permits are available only for scientific purposes or to enhance the
propagation or survival of the affected species.158 FWS has defied Congresss stated intent to
to limit substantially the number of exemptions that may be granted under the [ESA] by
allowing exhibitors to pay for the privileges authorized by an ESA permit simply by making
donations that are wholly collateral to the activity for which the permit is sought and thus

152
Ex. XX, FWS Letter to John Jackson finding CBW application incomplete (Sept. 10, 1999).
153
Ex. XX, 777 CBW Permits, pg. 1(As a reminder, your application (PRT-013008) for a cull and take permit has
been placed in our inactive files and we have received no additional information for that file at this time.).
154
57 Fed. Reg. at 511.
155
77 Fed. Reg. at 434.
156
77 Fed. Reg. at 434.
157
Ex. XX, Renewal Application; see also Ex. XX, Sport-hunting Permit (requiring [a] complete accounting of all
funds collected and donated as a result of the permitted activities including [a] letter from the conservation
organization confirming that a contribution was received, including the amount, and that the money was channeled
to a program for the authorized species and/or its habitat).
158
16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added).

{00298349}16
provide no actual benefit or enhancement to the protected species. The agency attempted to
formally adopt this this Pay-to-Play policy fourteen years ago, but the effort failed following
strong backlash from conservationists who pointed out that the policy was unlawful. 159 Without
a formal policy in place, the agency pressed forward with Pay-to-Play informally.160
That the ESA requires a direct connection between the otherwise prohibited activity and
the enhancement is explicitly supported by the CBW registration scheme. FWS may only issue a
CBW registration to engage in otherwise prohibited activities with non-native endangered
wildlife bred in captivity in the United States if [t]he purpose of such activity is to enhance the
propagation or survival of the affected species.161 It is plainly irrelevant whether the purpose of
other activities for which a permit is not requiredsuch as the conservation efforts of another
organizationis to enhance propagation or survival of the species. Furthermore, 50 C.F.R.
17.22, which governs Enhancement Permits generally, requires that applicants provide a full
statement of the reasons why the applicant is justified in obtaining a permit including the details
of the activities sought to be authorized by the permit.162 If donating money to a conservation
organization can justify issuance of a Section 10 permit, there is no reason why the FWS should
require applicants to detail the activities sought to be authorized by the permit to show why
they are justified in obtaining [the] permit.
As a federal judge recently noted, [t]he plain language of Section 10(a) does not say
that the enhancement requirement can be satisfied upon nothing more than the permittees
promise to donate money to an unrelated conservation effort, and FWSs broad interpretation
appears to thwart the dynamic of environmental protection that Congress plainly intended when
it mandated that no export of endangered species be allowed unless the agency permits such
export pursuant to certain specified circumstances.163 The judge continued:

159
See Notice: Draft Policy for Enhancement-of-Survival Permits for Foreign Species Listed Under the Endangered
Species Act, 68 Fed. Reg. 49,512-02 (Aug. 8, 2003).
160
See, e.g., Ex. XX, Email from Anna Barry, FWS, to Harriet, TZ Prods. (Jan. 6, 2014, 4:50 PM) (advising the
Tarzan Zerbini Circus that it could meet the Enhancement Requirement by donating money to in situ conservation
work in the species range states, and providing information on how to document the circuss donation as well as
examples of donations for this purpose); Ex. XX, Fax from Anna Barry, FWS, to John F. Cuneo, Jr., Hawthorn
Corp. (Mar. 12, 2012) (To meet the requirements under the ESA you need to be able to demonstrate how your
proposed activities directly relate to the survival of this species in the wild. Many of our applicants achieve this goal
by donating to a well-established conservation program in the range state.); Ex. XX, Fax from Anna Barry, FWS,
to John F. Cuneo, Jr., Hawthorn Corp. (Oct. 19, 2011) (Contribut[ing] money to an organization that participates in
in-situ work in the range state for tigers is [a]n [e]xample of an activity applicants participate in to show
enhancement.); Ex. XX, Fax from Anna Barry, FWS, to John F. Cuneo, Jr., Hawthorn Corp. (Oct. 14, 2011)
(recommending that Hawthorn meet the Enhancement Requirement by undertak[ing] activities that will benefit the
survival of the tigers in the wild, such as [p]articipati[ng] [in] in situ conservation work in the species range
states through a commitment financial and otherwise); Ex. XX, Email from Anna Barry, FWS, to Anton &
Ferdinand Fercos-Hantig (Feb. 8, 2012, 3:23 PM) (listing projects that would meet the Enhancement Requirement,
including [d]onat[ing] money to organizations working to help protect tigers, making contribution towards anti-
poaching costs or compensation of livestock kill, making contribution towards fuel and field expenditures,
salaries, camera-trap surveys, and making contribution towards research involving ecological and biomedical
information).
161
50 C.F.R. 17.21(g) (emphasis added).
162
Id. 17.22(a)(1)(vii) (emphasis added).
163
New England Anti-Vivisection Socy v. FWS, 208 F. Supp. 3d 142, 176 (D.D.C. 2016) (citing 16 U.S.C. 1538,
1539(a)).

{00298349}17
 [F]ar from viewing Section 10(a) as a limit on the circumstances in which the
permitting of activities that impact endangered species can occur, FWS now
apparently views that provision as a green light to launch a permit-exchange
program wherein the agency brokers deals between, on the one hand, anyone who
wishes to access endangered species in a manner prohibited by the ESA and has
sufficient funds to finance that desire, and on the other, the agencys own favored,
species-related recipients of funds and other services. This Court considers
doubtful FWSs insistence that, when Congress penned Section 10(a) it intended
to authorize the agency to sell its permits in this fashion so long as the affected
species might (as a whole) be conceived of as benefitting from the exchange.164

FWSs elimination of the enhancement requirement through Pay-to-Play has been

criticized by U.S. Representative Brendan Boyle for undermining our collective, global efforts
to help preserve animal species, and for being inconsistent with the ESA, which clearly requires
that the action the permit holder seeks to take must in and of itself benefit the species in some
way.165
As a threshold matter, 777 does not use the payments to Conservation Force as a basis for
its CBW application. The payments to Conservation Force are tied to activities taken under 777s
sport-hunting permit.166 Indeed, nothing in 777s original or renewal CBW application identify a
commitment to donate money to Conservation Force, or any other entity, in connection with
activity conducted under a CBW permit. As a result, the donations to Conservation Force are
irrelevant to FWSs decision on 777s CBW application.
Moreover, using such payments as a basis for granting a 777s sport-hunting permit
would violate the strict statutory limits on FWSs permitting authority in the ESA, and thus
would be unlawful. Since 2006, 777 has paid Conservation Force at least $57,715 for killing
almost 80 listed species.167 The record clearly demonstrates that those funds went to
Conservation Force.168 There is no evidence, however, that this money went to conservation of
the species covered by the sport-hunting permit, which 777s sport-hunting permit requires.169
This is not a new concern. In fact, FWS has raised this issue with Conservation Force in the past,
especially in connection with barasingha and red lechwee sport-hunting for 777 Ranch:

164
Id. at 177. The judge further added:
[E]ssentially . . . read[s] those circumstances out of the statute, such that Section 10(a)s enhancement-
finding requirement actually places no meaningful constraints on FWSs ability to authorize prohibited
activities, because, as a practical matter, the agency can always condition the granting of a permit on the
permittees undertaking some other act that advances scientific knowledge or benefits the species,
regardless of the intentions of the permittee with respect to the particular animals it seeks to access and/or
the permittees avowed lack of interest in furthering the species as a whole.
Id. at 176-77.
165
Ex. XX, Letter from Brendan Boyle, Member of Congress, to Daniel Ashe, Director, FWS, 2, 1 (June 24, 2016).
166
Ex. XX, Conservation Force Contributions, pg. 1 (2006-2016)(The following is a list of all male animals culled .
. . .); see also id. (referencing MA013008 in the letter, which is 777s sport-hunting permit number).
167
Ex. XX, Conservation Force Contributions (2006-$3,250; 2007-$7,825; 2008-$11,100; 2009-$6,100; 2010-
$7,900; 2011-$4,700; 2012-report missing; 2013-report missing; 2014-$9,250; 2015-$7,500).
168
Id.
169
Ex. XX, 777 Sport-hunting permits, pg. 10.

{00298349}18
 I would like to be able to issue at least some of the permits but at this point I need
to prove that funds have actually gone to range state projects and that the funds
arrived in those countries or were used by someone to do projects in range
countries. I[t] appears that there are problems with funds actually getting to Indian
barashingha projects and being utilized there and we also need something for red
lechwe. Can you provide bank statements or canceled checks or some such to this
effect. Notably for . . . 777 Ranch . . ..170

Nothing in the record for 777s sport-hunting permit demonstrate that the almost $60,000 the
Ranch has paid to Conservation Force has actually gone to range state projects. Moreover,
these payments are for past activities already authorized, and 777s 2017 sport-hunting permit
application does not contain any commitment to future donations.

Moreover, Conservation Force is not a reputable in-situ conservation organization. Much

of the work that Conservation Force does is focused on protecting the rights of hunters to sport-
hunt rare species and import and export big-game trophies. In fact, Conservation Force has
spearheaded countless lawsuits aimed at relaxing prohibitions on importing big-game trophies
from imperiled species.171 For example, Conservation Force spent years helping a businessman
from Madison, Wisconsin, obtain permits to kill and import a critically endangered black
rhino.172 This was the first American in more than 30 years allowed to import a black rhino
trophy.173 Shortly thereafter, Conservation Force helped two more American hunters obtain
permits to import rhino trophies.174

170
Ex. XX, FWS Email regarding Conservation Force funds (Oct. 28, 2005).
171
See e.g., Ex. XX, Complaint, Conservation Force et. al., v. Porrino, et. al, Civ. No. 3:16-cv-04124 (D. N.J., July
8, 2016) (challenging two New Jersey state laws prohibiting the possession, import, export, and transport of hunting
trophies for African elephant, leopard, lion and black and white rhinos); Ex. XX, Complaint, Conservation Force et.
al, vs. Delta Airlines, Inc., Civ. No. 15-cv-3348 (N.D. Tex., Oct. 15, 2015) (challenging Delta Airlines decision to
not transport sport-hunting trophies); Ex. XX, Complaint, Conservation Force et. al, vs. Salazar et. al, Civ. No.
3:09-cv-011790 (N.D. Cal., May 21, 2009)(challenging FWS seizure, petition for remission, and forfeiture practices
with respect to hunting trophies); Ex. XX, Complaint, Conservation Force et. al, vs. Salazar, et. al, Civ. No 1:09-cv-
01912 (D.D.C., Oct. 7, 2009) (challenging the constructive denial of multiple permit applications to import sport-
hunted elephant trophies from Zambia); Ex. XX, Complaint, Atcheson et. al, vs. Salazar, et. al, Civ. No. 1:09-cv-
00941 (D.D.C., May 21, 2009) (challenging the denial of enhancement permits to import polar bear trophies); Ex.
XX, Complaint, Franks et. al, vs. Salazar, et. al, Civ. No. 1:09-cv-00942 (D.D.C., May 21, 2009) (challenging the
denial of permits for importing sport-hunted elephant trophies from Mozambique).
172
Ex. XX, Madison Man Allowed to Import Black Rhino Trophy, Green Bay Press-Gazette (Apr. 30, 2013) (But
an organization named Conservation Force, which has spent about four years helping Reinke get his permit so he
could bring the trophy home, argues the decision will be a precedent-setting boost for efforts to protect endangered
species.).
173
Id.
174
Ex. XX, Complaint, PETA v. FWS, Civ. 1:15-cv-600, 28-33 (E.D. Va., May 8, 2015); see also Friends of
Animals v. Ashe, 174 F. Supp. 3d 20, 2526 (D.D.C. 2016) (In January 2014, the Dallas Safari Club, a hunting
organization, held an auction for the right to conduct one of the Ministrys five rhinoceros hunts. Corey Knowlton, a
member of both Dallas Safari Club and Conservation Force, won the auction with a bid of $350,000. The hunt and
bid were subject to numerous conditions, one of which was that the $350,000 would be transferred to Namibias
Game Products Trust Fund only if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued an import permit for the trophy.
Conservation Force agreed to help Knowlton obtain the permit, and on April 9, 2014, it filed an application with the
Service on Knowltons behalf for an import permit. Separately, Conservation Force filed an import permit
application on behalf of its member Michael Luzich, who sought a permit for a trophy from a hunt he completed in
2013.) (internal citations omitted).

{00298349}19
 Conservation Force has also been heavily involved with elephant trophy import permits.
In 2007, the organization filed appeals for five elephant trophy import permits from Mozambique
that were denied by FWS.175 Conservation Force subsequently filed litigation in the Federal
District Court in D.C. after FWS denied the appeal.176 In its complaint, Conservation Force noted
that it had filed all of the permits in issue in this litigation.177 A few months later, Conservation
Force brought similar litigation over elephant trophy import permits from Zambia that had also
been denied by FWS.178 Along these same lines, the organization advertised free legal services
for anyone who [took] an elephant in Tanzania in 2015 to help those hunters obtain import
permits from FWS.179 Conservation Force submitted comments opposing the ban on elephant
trophy import permits from Zimbabwe,180 and is currently pursuing appeals for two import
permits that FWS denied.181 When it was announced that FWS was reversing course on the
Zimbabwe ban,182 Conservation Force lauded this as a success.183
Conservation Force has also spent significant effort on down listing endangered species
to enable greater access to those species for hunting. For example, in 2010, Conservation Force
petitioned FWS to down list the Torghar Hills population of the Suleiman markhor, a wild goat
species in Pakistan and Afghanistan.184 As a result, the FWS down listed the species to
threatened, and created a 4(d) rule allowing the import of sport-hunted markhor trophies taken
from established conservation programs.185 Conservation Force also lobbied the FWS against
listing the African lion as endangered, arguing that sport hunting was the driving force for
conservation.186
Despite the myriad of conservation projects listed on its website, Conservation Force is
a law firm that provides counsel for some 200 organizations and countries around the world,
whose work is largely pro bono, litigation, and trophy imports.187 This is not conservation.
This is free legal work, and advocacy. Regardless of whether a percentage of donations to

175
Ex. XX, Mozambique Elephant Sport-hunting Trophy Appeals (Feb. 8, 2007).
176
Ex. XX, Complaint, Lawrence Franks, et al, v. Salazar, et al., Civ. No. 1:09-cv-00942 (D.D.C., May 21, 2009).
177
Id. at pg. 6.
178
Ex. XX, Complaint, Ralph Marcum, et al., v. Salazar, et al., Civ. No. 1:09-cv-01912-RCL (D.D.C., Oct. 8,
2009).
179
Ex. XX, Free Legal Aid to Import 2015 Tanzania Elephant Trophies, Exotic Classifieds (June 23, 2015).
180
Ex. XX, Comment Opposing the Interim Suspension of Import of Elephant Trophies from Zimbabwe (June 6,
2014).
181
Ex. XX, Appeal of the Denials of Two Elephant Trophy Import Permits from Zimbabwe (June 27, 2017).
182
Ex. XX, Darryl Fears, Trophies From Elephant Hunts in Zimbabwe were banned in the U.S. Trump just Reversed
That, The Washington Post (Nov. 15, 2017).
183
Ex. XX, DSC Foundation Facebook Post with Announcement from Conservation Force on Zimbabwe Ban (Nov.
14, 2017).
184
Ex. XX, Petition to Downlist Straight-Horned Markhor of Torghar Hills from Endangered to Threatened
(Aug. 17, 2010); see also Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition to
Reclassify the Straight-Horned Markhor (Capra falconeri jerdoni), 76 Fed. Reg. 31903 (June 2, 2011).
185
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Straight-Horned Markhor as Threatened With a Rule
Under Section 4(d) of the ESA, 79 Fed. Reg. 60365, 60377 (Oct. 7, 2014).
186
Ex. XX, Conservation Force Comments on ESA Status Review of African Lion, 8 (Jan. 28, 2013).
187
Ex. XX, James Swan, Hunting as a Force for Conservation: John Jackson, III, Outdoorhub (The law firm
became an around-the-clock international communication headquarters and advocacy war room for governmental
and sportsmens conservation organizations. The firm legally processed an unprecedented number of successful test
trophy import permits at no charge to the public because they had become engines for conservation.); see also Ex.
XX, Hoovers Report on Conservation Report (Nov. 14, 2017)(listing the line of business as [l]egal services).

{00298349}20
Conservation Force makes its way to actual species conservation, there is nothing in the record
that demonstrates that donations forming the basis of an enhancement finding are not being used
for the pro bono, litigation, and trophy import work of this organization.
In fact, almost two thirds of 777s payments went to Conservation Forces Ranching for
Restoration program.188 The purpose of this program, according to Conservation Force, is to
help ranchers obtain the two necessary permits needed to breed and cull exotic, endangered game
species.189 While Conservation Force asserts that [t]he full sum is directed to pre-approved
enhancement programs,190 FWSs request that Conservation Force document what programs
this money is being channeled into suggests otherwise, and that information has not been
provided for 777s permit applications.191 Regardless, applicants receive tangible benefits in
exchange for contributions to this program, including: (1) Conservation Force acts as [the
applicants] legal representative at no charge; and (2) the applicant obtains a permit authorizing
it to sell the right to sport-hunt an endangered species.192 Because of these tangible benefits
payments to Conservation Force cannot be considered conservation for purposes of the ESA.
Indeed, any payments that are used for litigation, obtaining permits, or hunting advocacy cannot
form the basis of a sport-hunting permit. FWS must fully investigate Conservation Force and
how the organization uses donations from entities seeking ESA permits. Specifically, for 777
Ranch, and any other entity relying on payments to Conservation Force as a basis for its permit
application, FWS must examine each donation promised under each permit application to
determine that money is in fact being used solely for in-situ conservation for the species covered
by the permit.
3. 777s activities are detrimental to the affected species.
As evidenced above, 777s applications should be denied because the Ranch has not
identified that the activities it seeks to engage in meet the definition of enhancement. Even if
FWS incorrectly determines that 777s activities are acceptable, the regulations only allow an
enhancement finding for the requested activity when it can be shown that such activities would
not be detrimental to the survival of wild or captive populations of the affected species.193 FWS
also has an independent obligation under Section 7 of the ESA to insure its actions are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species.194 This is a hurdle that
777 cannot overcome, and thus the permit applications must be denied.
For one, 777s activities are detrimental to the captive populations of the affected species.
The Ranchs annual reports document that over 140 individual animals of the affected species
died over the course of a 10 year perioda figure that does not appear to include those animals
who are hunted for profit.195 From 2010-2016, 777 lost 27 Red lechwe, 56 Arabian oryx, 21

188
Ex. XX, Conservation Force Contributions(2007, $7,825; 2008, $11,100; 2014, $9,250; 2015, $7,500)
189
Ex. XX, Ranching for Restoration Brochure.
190
Id.
191
Ex. XX, FWS Email regarding Conservation Force funds (Oct. 28, 2005).
192
Ex. XX, Ranching for Restoration Brochure.
193
50 C.F.R. 17.3.
194
16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)(Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary,
insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered species. . . .).
195
Ex. XX, Annual Reports (2010-2 Red lechwe, unknown causes, 3 Arabian oryx, unknown causes; 2011-9 Red
lechwe, froze to death, 1-Elds deer, unknown causes, 18 Barasingha, unknown causes, 3 Arabian oryx, froze to

{00298349}21
Elds deer, and 40 barasingha.196 Twelve of these animals froze to death.197 For many of these
deaths, 777 did not identify a cause of death despite the requirement to do so, and to provide an
explanation for measure taken to prevent future deaths.198 These figures are appalling,
demonstrate poor management, and appear to amount to unpermitted takes resulting from
inadequate husbandry practices.199 Desmond Rabinovitchthe individual in charge of primary
care for any injured or sick wildlife at the Ranchis not a licensed veterinarian.200 In fact,
nothing in 777s 2017 permit applications demonstrate that the animals at the Ranch are provided
routine veterinary care, which is unacceptable. Rather, the Ranch simply notes that is created a
wormer/antibiotic program for species affected to address certain controllable mortalities.201
The regulations require that [a]ny live wildlife possessed under a permit must be maintained
under humane and healthful conditions.202 Moreover, when exempting certain husbandry
activities for captive animals from the definition of harass, FWS underscored that [o]bviously,
maintaining animals in inadequate, unsafe or unsanitary conditions, feeding an improper diet,
and physical mistreatment constitute harassment because such conditions might create the
likelihood of injury or sickness of an animal.203 The known causes and high rate of mortalities
at 777 make clear that it is indeed maintaining animals in inadequate [or unsafe . . . conditions .
. . creat[ing] the likelihood of injury or sickness, in violation of its prior permits and the take
prohibition.
777s activities are also detrimental to the wild populations of the affected species. FWS
has recognized that consumptive uses of captive wildlife can be detrimental to wild
populations because they stimulate a demand for products which might further be satisfied by
wild populations.204 Indeed, the rarer the species the more valuable it is to a trophy hunter:
[r]arer species are harder to find, so greater hunting skilland greater wealthis required, and
greater prestige is gained by killing them.205 There is ample evidence that creating legal markets
for endangered species creates demand that can negatively affect wild members of the species.206

death; 2012-8 Red lechwe, unknown causes, 2 Elds deer, unknown causes, 16 Barasingha, unknown causes, 1
Arabian oryx, unknown causes; 2013-5 Red lechwe, unknown causes, 3 Elds deer, unknown causes, 2 Barasingha,
unknown causes, 1 Arabian oryx, unknown causes; 2014-6 Arabian oryx, fighting/predator, 2 Barasingha,
fighting/predator, 5 Elds deer, fighting/predator, 2 Red lechwe, fighting/predator; 2105-11 Arabian oryx, unknown
causes, 1 Barasingha, unknown causes, 5 Elds deer, unknown causes, 1 Red lechwe, unknown causes; 2016-5 Elds
deer, unknown causes, 1 Barasingha, unknown causes, 31 Arabian oryx, unknown causes).
196
See supra n.195.
197
See supra n.195.
198
See supra n.195; Ex. XX, Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Application Form (3-200-41) at 9.c.
199
50 C.F.R. 17.3 (definition of harass).
200
Ex. XX, Additional Information regarding Desmond Rabinovitch (June 2017)(resumes does not identify that
Rabinovitch is a D.V.M); see also, Texas Veterinary Board Search page, available at
http://www.veterinary.texas.gov/Search/ (last name Rabinovitch does not generate any results).
201
Ex. XX, FWS exchange with 777 regarding additional information, pg. 5 (April 14, 2017)
202
50 C.F.R. 13.41.
203
58 Fed. Reg. at 32,637; accord Final Rule: Captive-bred Wildlife Regulation, 63 Fed. Reg. 48,634, 48,638 (Sept.
11, 1998).
204
44 Fed. Reg. at 30045.
205
Ex. XX, Frank Courchamp, et al, Rarity Value and Species Extinction: The Anthropogenic Allee Effect, PLOS
Biology (2006).
206
Ex. XX, Valerius Geist, How Markets in Wildlife Meat and Parts, and the Sale of Hunting Privileges, Jeopardize
Wildlife Conservation, CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, Vol. 2, Issue 1 at 16 (Mar. 1988) (U.S. wildlife conservation
has been based on three primary policies ... 1) the absence of market in the meat, parts, and products of [wildlife,]
2) the allocation of the material benefits of wildlife by law, not by the market place ... , 3) the prohibition on

{00298349}22
Sport hunting of captive members of a listed species is not for the benefit of the species. It is
commercial exploitation and has a detrimental effect on the listed species.
B. 777 Ranch is not qualified because the Ranch is responsible for an unlawful
take of a listed species.
In addition to harming, harassing, and killing animals through neglect, as discussed at
length above, 777 is also violating the ESA by advertising the sale and allowing the hunting of
listed species for which the Ranch does not have a current ESA sport-hunting permit. FWS has
the discretion to determine an applicant is not qualified based on further inquiry or
investigation, or otherwise.207 That discretion allows FWS to deny a permit if an applicant has
violated the ESA. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of any listed species without a
permit.208 Hunting and killing a listed species falls within the definition of take.209 An
applicant who has unlawfully taken a listed species in violation of Section 9 should not be given
a permit.
The Ranchs sport-hunting permit expired on March 18, 2017.210 Its CBW registration
expired a few days later, on March 23, 2017.211 An applicant may continue the activities
authorized by [an] expired permit until the Service acts on the application for renewal if among
other things, the applicant submits a renewal at least 30 days prior to the expirations date of the
permit.212 FWS received the Ranchs sport-hunting permit application almost two months after
the permit expired.213 As a result, FWS warned 777 that it was not authorized to conduct any
culling activity until [a] new permit is issued.214

On March 31, 2017almost two weeks after 777s sport-hunting permit expired and
more than a month before FWS received a permit applicationan endangered Elds deer was
hunted at the Ranch.215 This is a violation of the ESA. The Ranch continues to advertise the
availability of Red lechwe, Elds deer, barasingha, and Arabian oryx for sport-hunting despite
FWSs warning that it was not authorized to take those species, which is also a violation of the

frivolous killing of wildlife.); Ex. XX, Brian Christy, Blood Ivory, Nat. Geo. (Oct. 2012); Ex. XX, Envtl Invest.
Agency, Blood Ivory: Exposing the Myth of a Regulated Market (2012).
207
50 C.F.R. 13.21(b)(5).
208
16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1); see also 50 C.F.R. 17.21(a).
209
16 U.S.C. 1532(19) (To take an animal means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.).
210
Ex. XX, 777s Sport-hunting permits, pg.10.
211
Ex. XX, 777 CBW Permits, pg. 7.
212
50 C.F.R. 13.22(a), (c); see also 5 U.S.C. 558(c) (When the licensee has made timely and sufficient
application for a renewal or a new license in accordance with agency rules, a license with reference to an activity of
a continuing nature does not expire until the application has been finally determined by the agency. (emphasis
added)).
213
Ex. XX, FWS email reminding 777 that no culling activity authorized (July 19, 2017).
214
Ex. XX, FWS email reminding 777 that no culling activity authorized (July 19, 2017); see also Ex. XX, FWS
email regarding no culling activity authorized (June 27, 2017)(Also, since you did not submit an application for
renewal to our office 30 days prior to 3/18/17 (the expiration date of your prior permit), please be aware that you are
not legally covered to conduct any culling activities until you receive a new permit from our office.).
215
Ex. XX, 2017 Annual Accounting documenting unauthorized take (June 27, 2017).

{00298349}23
ESA.216 Violating the ESA subjects a person to civil and criminal penalties.217 FWS should fully
investigate this unlawful take and pursue appropriate penalties. At a minimum, the Ranch should
not be rewarded with a sport-hunting permit.

C. 777 has failed to disclose material information required on the permit

application.
When seeking a CBW registration from FWS, the applicant is obligated to provide the
requested information. FWS shall not issue a permit if the applicant has failed to disclose the
material information required.218 Likewise, FWS cannot issue a permit that is missing
information because such a permit is not properly executed219 or complete.220 777s original
and renewal applications fail to provide the following specifically requested material
information:

1. 50 C.F.R. 17.21(g)(2)(ii) requires [a] description of the applicants experience

in maintaining and propagating the types of wildlife sought to be covered by the
registration, and when appropriate, in conducting research directly related to
maintaining and propagating such wildlife.221 Form 3-200-41 seeks this
information from new applicants by requesting [a] brief resume for all senior
animal care staff or personnel that will be working with or maintaining of each
species requested.222 For renewal applications, the same form asks [h]ave there
been any changes to senior staff or personnel changes that would affect how your
operations handles the species included in the registration.223 777s sport-hunting
permit application failed to provide this information.224 777 2017 CBW permit
application provides some information for Michael Rann and Desmond
Rabinovitch.225 Yet, 777s website lists three additional guides and hunting
managers whose resumes/experience are not included.226

2. 50 C.F.R. 17.21(g)(2)(iii) requires [p]hotograph(s) or other evidence clearly

depicting the facilities where such wildlife will be maintained. Form 3-200-41
seeks this information from new applicants by requesting a detailed description,

216
Ex. XX, Available Game List, 777 Ranch Website (Game List) (listing addax, Arabian oryx, barasingha, dama
gazelle, Elds deer, Scimitar Horned Oryx, and wild yak); see also 16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)(F)(prohibiting offering
for sale); id. at 1538(g)(It is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to attempt to
commit, solicit another to commit, or cause to be committed, any offense defined in this section.).
217
16 U.S.C. 1540(a)-(b).
218
50 C.F.R. 13.21(b)(2).
219
Id. at 13.21(b).
220
50 C.F.R. 17.22
221
See also Ex. XX, Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Application Form (3-200-41) at 9 (For each request
species, provide a description of your experience in maintaining and propagating the requested species or similar
species. . .)
222
Id. at 9d.
223
Id. at 13.
224
Ex. XX, 2017 Sport-hunting permit renewal.
225
Ex. XX, FWS exchange with 777 regarding additional information (Apr. 14, 2017); see also Ex. XX, Additional
Information regarding Desmond Rabinovitch (June 2017).
226
Ex. XX, Staff at The 777 Ranch page, 777 Website (listing Marcelino Covarrubia as a Guide, Les Zimmerman as
a Guide, and Tommy Sowell as a hunting manager).

{00298349}24
 including size, construction materials, and protection from the elements, and
photographs and detailed diagrams. . . clearly depicting your existing facilities
where the wildlife will be maintained.227 For renewal applications, the same
form asks if there have been any changes such as reconstruction or new
construction, new facilities, or other physical changes.228 777 did not provide this
information in either permit application.229 777s 2017 CBW application included
two photographs of barns, and one photograph of a tree.230 These photographs
apparently represent the different kinds of shelter in the breeding pens.231 An
earlier CBW permit application contained a map of the Ranch depicting the
different pastures animals are maintained in, but there is no detailed description
about these pastures, including the species held in each and shelter provided. 232
The limited information provided is a far cry from what is required.

3. Form 3-200-41 asks original applicants [h]ow many mortalities of requested

species or similar species, have occurred at your facility during the past five
years? What were the causes? What measures have you taken to prevent future
mortalities?233 The annual reports do not list cause of death, and they do no
explain what measure will be taken to prevent future mortalities.234
All of this information was specifically required. There is no excuse for this missing
information. In light of this failure to disclose material information required, FWS must deny
777s permits.235
In addition, despite the requirement in 50 C.F.R. 17.21(g)(3) that FWS provide [a]ll
information received as part of each application to the public, the agency has failed to do so.
The application materials uploaded to regulations.gov should include the original application,
materials, any intervening renewal applications documenting a change in location or personnel,
and the most recent annual report.236 While the 2017 sport-hunting application was eventually
included after multiple requests from PETA,237 there is still information relevant to the
application at issue that should be made available to the public. Indeed, the original sport-hunting
permit application and the redacted enhancement contributions are a necessary component of
this application and should also be included, but were not. Whats more, FWS should not be
considering 777s CBW application separate and apart from the Ranchs sport-hunting permit.

227
Ex. XX, Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Application Form (3-200-41) at 10.
228
Id. at 12.
229
Ex. XX, 2017 CBW Renewal Application (March 27, 2017); Ex. XX, 2017 Sport-hunting Renewal Application
(May 16, 2017).
230
Ex. XX, FWS exchange with 777 regarding additional information, pg. 7 (Apr.14, 2017).
231
Id. at pg. 6.
232
Ex. XX, Email from Jason Molitor regarding 777 Ranch addition to Amendment request (Feb. 2, 2012).
233
Ex. XX, Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Application Form (3-200-41) at 9c.
234
Ex. XX, Annual Reports.
235
50 C.F.R. 13.21(b).
236
50 C.F.R. 17.21(g)(3).
237
Ex. XX, Sinnott and Mathews email correspondence with FWS regarding missing information (Oct. 31, 2017);
Ex. XX, Sinnott correspondence with FWS requesting missing information (Oct. 23, 2017).

{00298349}25
 The fact that the history of 777s CBW and sport-hunting permits are replete with examples
of permit applications and issued permits that the public was never provided with notice and an
opportunity to comment adds salt to the wound.238 FWS has issued numerous permits to 777 Ranch
in blatant violation of Section 10(c) of the ESA. For the few permits that the public was provided an
opportunity to comment on, FWS issued those permits in a cursory fashion along with bulk generic
findings for dozens of other enhancement permits.239 Section 10(d) of the ESA requires specific
findings for each permit.240 As a result, even those permits that did not suffer from 10(c) deficiencies
were unlawful because they were issued in violation of 10(d).

Section 10(c) of the ESA requires that [i]nformation received by the Secretary as a part
of any application shall be available to the public as a matter of public record at every stage of
the proceeding.241 Failure to provide the complete permit application to the public violates
Section 10(c).242 This requirement is mandatory, and if an agency fails to abide by it, any related
permit issuance is unlawful and subject to being overturned. Thus, in light of the missing
information, if FWS issues a CBW and sport-hunting permit to 777 it will be yet another set of
of permits issued to the Ranch in blatant violation of Section 10(c) of the ESA.
II. SPORT-HUNTING PERMITS FOR CANNED HUNTING FACILITIES ARE UNLAWFUL
BECAUSE THEY TRANSFER RIGHTS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC
Sport-hunting permits are not transferable or assignable.243 Only persons who [are]
under the direct control of the permittee, or who [are] employed by or under contract to the
permittee for purposes authorized by the permit, may carry out the activity authorized by the
permit.244
777 is not the entity sport-hunting the listed species. Rather, the Ranchs clients are the
ones killing and transporting the animals. Because these clients or hunters are not under the
direct control of or employed by the facility, the hunter is not authorized to take or engage in
commerce with listed species. Moreover, FWS has no information about what activities are
carried out under these types of sport-hunting permits. For one, individuals who visit canned
hunting facilities are not identified to the FWS, nor does the agency have any information about
what these individuals intend to do with their endangered species trophies (i.e., they may engage
in interstate commerce that is otherwise prohibited under the ESA). For example, FWS has no
information about who unlawfully killed an Elds deer at the Ranch on March 31, 2017. Because
this animal was unlawfully taken, possession of that trophy is unlawful.245 Sport-hunting permit
essentially grant permits that are assignable and transferable in violation of the ESA.

III. ANY PERMITS ISSUED TO 777 MUST BE LIMITED.

238
See supra Factual Background Sec. III-IV.
239
See supra Factual Background Sec. III-IV.
240
16 U.S.C. 1539(d).
241
16 U.S.C. 1539(c) (emphasis added).
242
Gerber v. Norton, 294 F. 3d 173, 180-82 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
243
50 C.F.R. 13.25(a).
244
50 C.F.R. 13.25(d).
245
16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)(D).

{00298349}26
 If, despite the abundant reasons to deny the application, FWS grants 777 a CBW
registration and sport-hunting permit, such permits must be limited. The ESA authorizes the
FWS to permit any act otherwise prohibited by section 1538. . . to enhance the propagation or
survival of the affected species.246 The plain language of Section 10(a)(1)(a) (any act)
contemplates a single, identifiable performance of taking, delivering, receiving, carrying,
transporting, or shippingand does not allow for a blanket authorization to permit unlimited
otherwise prohibited activities over the course of half a decade, which is precisely what FWS
allows when it issues a CBW registration covering a five-year period, without specifying any
particular, limited activity for which permission is granted.
FWSs own general permit regulationentitled [p]ermits are specificprovides:
The authorizations on the face of a permit that set forth specific times, dates,
places, methods of taking or carrying out the permitted activities[;] . . . describe
certain circumscribed transactions; or otherwise allow a specifically limited
matter, are to be strictly interpreted and will not be interpreted to permit similar
or related matters outside the scope of strict construction.247
In promulgating this rule, the FWS explained that [s]uch specific conditions are needed to allow
the Service to tailor individual permit authorizations to the applicants particular qualifications,
and to ensure the continued conservation of the affected species.248 Issuing general registrations
authorizing any number of otherwise-prohibited activities for a half-decade is wholly
inconsistent with the policy that permits be specifically limited and cover only circumscribed
transactions.
Moreover, the ESA mandates that FWS shall publish notice in the Federal Register of
each application for an exemption or permit, that each such notice shall invite the submission
from interested parties . . . of written data, views, or arguments with respect to the application,
and that [i]nformation received by the [FWS] as a part of any application shall be available to
the public as a matter of public record at every stage of the proceeding.249 The comment period
may only be waived in an emergency situation where the health or life of an endangered animal
is threatened and no reasonable alternative is available to the applicant.250 The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has made it abundantly clear that this requirement is mandatory, and
that if an agency fails to abide by this statutory requirement, any related permit issuance is
unlawful.251
In turn, before issuing a permit, the FWS shall consider . . . [t]he opinions or views of
scientists or other persons or organizations having expertise concerning the wildlife or other
matters germane to the application.252 Likewise, Section 7 of the ESA requires all federal
agencies to insure that any action authorized . . . by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize

246
16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)(a) (emphasis added).
247
50 C.F.R. 13.42 (emphases added).
248
Revisions to General Permit Procedures, 70 Fed. Reg. 18,311, 18,314 (Apr. 11, 2005).
249
16 U.S.C. 1539(c) (emphasis added).
250
Id.; accord 50 C.F.R. 17.22.
251
See Gerber v. Norton, 294 F.3d 173, 179-80, 186 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (finding that because the FWS issued a
Section 10 permit without complying with the requirements of Section 10(c), the permit was issued "without
observance of procedure required by law" in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act).
252
50 C.F.R. 17.22(a)(2)(v).

{00298349}27
the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species.253 And under the
ESAs implementing regulations, FWS is required to consider [t]he probable direct and indirect
effect which issuing the permit would have on the wild populations of the wildlife sought to be
covered by the permit.254 The ESA provides that no permit may be issued unless it has been
determined that if granted and exercised the permit will not operate to the disadvantage of
such endangered species, and . . . will be consistent with the purposes and policy of the ESA,255
and that a permit can be issued only if it is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered species.256 FWS is required to deny the Application if the authorization
requested potentially threatens a wildlife . . . population.257
The CBW registration scheme unlawfully obviates the need for registrants to apply for
ESA exemptions on an act-by-act basis and bypasses an act-by-act assessment by FWS,
including the required non-detriment finding, in favor of a blanket permission to engage in any
and all activities related to captive breeding over a multi-year span.258 In so doing, the scheme
also deprives the public, including PETA, of notice and the opportunity to comment on
information to which it is entitled to as a matter of public record at every stage of the
proceeding.259
Should FWS issue 777 a CBW registration and sport-hunting permit, it must only do so
after making the required non-detriment finding and the permits must only authorize certain
circumscribed transactions. In terms of 777s CBW registration, that would involve enumerated
activities that can occur over a limited time period (such as a term of one year). In terms of 777s
sport-hunting permit, a limited permit must identify a certain number of animals from each
species that can be killed, and that number must be specifically supported by an enhancement
and non-detriment finding. Authorizing these types of limited circumscribed transactions are
necessary in order to meet the ESAs requirement that permits be specific and narrowly drawn,
to protect the publics right to information and to comment, and to ensure that FWS is evaluating
whether 777s actions meet the enhancement requirement and are not detrimental to the species.
Conclusion and Request for Notice of Issuance

For all of the reasons detailed above, granting 777s Applications for the requested CBW
registration and sport-hunting permit would be unlawful. Should the agency decide to issue the
permit despite these objections, PETA hereby requests notice of that decision, pursuant to 50
C.F.R. 17.22(e)(2), at least ten days prior to the issuance of the permits via e-mail to
[email protected] or telephone to 202-309-4697.

253
16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2).
254
50 C.F.R. 17.22(a)(2)(ii).
255
16 U.S.C. 1539(d).
256
Id. 1536(a)(2); see also 50 C.F.R. 17.3 (for an activity to qualify as enhancement for permitting purposes it
must be shown that such activities would not be detrimental to the survival of wild or captive populations of the
affected species).
257
50 C.F.R. 13.21(b)(4) (emphasis added).
258
In the final rule establishing the CBW registration scheme, FWS published blanket findings in the absence of
any actual permit application, writingabout the regulationsthat the Service has found that this exception was
applied for in good faith . . . , that it will not operate to the disadvantage of Endangered or Threatened species, and
that it will be consistent with the purposes of the policy set forth in . . . the Act. 44 Fed. Reg. at 54,002, 54,005.
259
16 U.S.C. 1539(c).

{00298349}28