In my last blog I discussed the frustration involved in trying to protect commercially valued marine fish from endangerment. You might think those who do catch fish, or buy them or eat them, would want the fish to survive now, and for future generations. But it does not usually work that way.
[teaserbreak]
The myth that is continually promoted by commercial users of wild animals is that the commercial value of these animals serves as incentive to protect them from over-exploitation. This myth reaches a crescendo of affirmation worthy of a Southern Baptist revival meeting at the conference of the parties (COP) of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Mind you, it is countered somewhat by the equally dogmatic assertion that no consumptive use of any wild animals, or plants, can ever be sustained. All consumptive use, this theory goes, leads to endangerment and possible extinction.
Few representatives, if any, who attend the COPs to lobby on behalf of animal protection and conservation organizations make any such argument. But another myth promoted by those seeking to trade in wildlife as long as they can do so, is that they are pitted against the dogmatic “antis,” typically characterized as animal rights activists whose sole objective is to stop all use of animals, using CITES as a tool to that objective.
These myths, like most myths, have frail foundations in fact. Some wildlife trade has been to the benefit of a species that would otherwise face much greater destruction, but that is very, very rare. The most often cited example would be the crocodilians — alligators and crocodiles. Survival of some populations of these animals (for example, Nile crocodiles in Africa, American alligators in the southern U.S.) owes at least something to their inherent value as skins for leather. Particularly in the case of the crocodiles, who sometimes eat people (alligators do, as well, but much less often), there would be incentive to destroy wild populations but for the value of their hides, usually taken from captive raised animals.
But these are very much the rare exception. Normally what we see is that monetary value in an animal leads to their excessive use and the subsequent decline in their numbers. The system rewards excessive use. Once the world’s richest person, the late Aristotle Onassis made the bulk of his earlier fortune by investing in the commercial whaling industry. The Atlantic Grey Whale was exterminated and other species declined to low levels, and have never recovered to former abundance.
Parrots are taken for the exotic pet trade before their forest habitats are destroyed; pangolins, tigers, and snow leopards, rare insects and orchids and prized timber trees and numerous aquatic animals are all being “mined,” not “harvested,” at reckless rates, their commercial value guaranteeing their increasing rarity.
And just last week Dame Daphne Sheldrick, who runs an orphanage in Kenya for orphaned baby elephants, stated, “Everything is working against the elephants now.” They are orphaned when their parents are shot by poachers, for their tusks. And that is happening because in the last few months the value of Kenyan ivory has reportedly soared from 300 shillings per kilogram to 5,000 (from about $5.00 to $80.00, U.S.). That is simply because once more CITES has ignored our warnings and allowed China and Japan to purchase 100 tons of “stockpiled” ivory from stores in four southern African countries. Every time that is done, poaching increases, orphans increase, and elephant numbers decline, victim of their monetary value.
Just as even all but the most dogmatic of right wing economists are again learning that “unfettered” capitalism and lack of intelligent regulations don’t work to sustain a strong economy in the long run, so are the members of CITES again being shown that value is no guarantee against endangerment. Most often it is quite the contrary, but don’t count on them to learn.
Blogging off,
Barry