CITES is BROKEN - CoP18 Prop 12

[BRICKBURN]

I have wondered why many Southern African countries have citizens screaming about CITES and how out of touch it is with the reality and in effect dysfunctional the whole process is. Some people going even further, suggesting that withdrawing from CITES is required.

CoP18 Proposal 12
UPLISTING ELEPHANT in BOTSWANA, SOUTH AFRICA AND ZIMBABWE

Are you #%$^&*&&&*@$*&+_)(%@ kidding me?

A proposal put forward by who? Look at the second column.

Supposedly WEST and NORTHERN AFRICAN COUNTRIES proposing the up listing.

If this is not evidence of VOTE BUYING to manipulate the system I don't know what is.

Witnessing this proposal, I am now convinced of the perspective taken by some in Southern Africa that
CITES IS BROKEN.

What ever happened to science?

 

[Shootist43]

Was this just a proposal or did it pass?

 

[spike.t]

It's not broken its totally fkd....been taken over by animal rights ngos who use money to buy/ get their way....it's the southern African countries against the rest of Africa and the world .....time to give it

 

[BRICKBURN]

Was this just a proposal or did it pass?

It's coming up for discussion and voting shortly.

 

[edward]

It's not broken its totally fkd....been taken over by animal rights ngos who use money to buy/ get their way....it's the southern African countries against the rest of Africa and the world .....time to give it

52countries in africa,18 have the big 5 and only 18 votes,the rest are controlled by the corrupt ngos bought and paid for by the antis,you bet they should get out of cities.

 

[tigris115]

Some of my friends are saying that this specific resolution has failed to pass but I do think the SADC need to grow some and tell CITES to stop giving them the short end of the stick or else they'll make their own trade group

 

[Hank2211]

CITES has been broken for a long time. There is a complete lack of respect for, let alone deference to, the generally well-researched and honestly held views of the range states for any animals. Yet every vote is equal. Where does Romania or similar countries (no aspersion on Romania - just came to mind!) get its information about the African elephant? Likely from the antis. In the case of the African elephant, we have a group of countries who have virtually destroyed their own elephant populations telling countries who have successfully managed their elephant populations what to do. Anyone think that's a good idea? If you said no, think again . . . unfortunately lots do!

 

[PeteG]

I think the whole concept of CITES is flawed.

Judging by the way that CITES is run and operates, it seems to be less fact based than it claims.

By now, we should all know that money buys the right answer. The entire system is full of side deals and vote buying.

Under what reasonable situation would any wildlife officer in Togo give two shits about whether or not Botswana elephant is on Appendix II or I?
Being someone who deals with government departments quite frequently here in Zambia, i can tell you the answer is somewhere between nothing and f**k all.

Its seems to be a joke, and unfortunately leaving CITES does not solve the problem, it actually creates more of a smooth road for all the anti-use groups to do whatever they want with no resistance.
Leaving CITES will not change the situation.

The next issue is that wildlife populations of elephant are dropping, whether we like this fact or not, thus making them eligible for Appendix I.
So in effect the fact that a country like Kenya, who held so much wildlife and having lost so much now, actually plays into the hands of the conservationists who want to stop sustainable use.
Think about if Kenya had a thriving population as it used to, I'm pretty sure elephant would not be on App I.

 

[Certus]

The next issue is that wildlife populations of elephant are dropping, whether we like this fact or not, thus making them eligible for Appendix I.

Think about if Kenya had a thriving population as it used to, I'm pretty sure elephant would not be on App I.

This is the point though. While things may be abundant, or even over abundant in some areas, populations can be crashing elsewhere, which then puts the potential for a crash where they are abundant as a severe risk. It’s way more complicated than the above posts (not meaning the quoted one) seem to think.

Example is kangaroos here. Localised extinctions are occurring but people go “they aren’t, look out west they’re in plague proportions!”. That’s not the point, point is their range is shrinking ever more.

Cheers.

 

[tigris115]

Above me is why the approach of applying one rule to a whole species, especially those with large ranges is a horrible idea. To do so disregards innumerable X factors and makes you look grossly out of touch.

 

[Hank2211]

This is the point though. While things may be abundant, or even over abundant in some areas, populations can be crashing elsewhere, which then puts the potential for a crash where they are abundant as a severe risk. It’s way more complicated than the above posts (not meaning the quoted one) seem to think.

Example is kangaroos here. Localised extinctions are occurring but people go “they aren’t, look out west they’re in plague proportions!”. That’s not the point, point is their range is shrinking ever more.

Cheers.

I should start by saying I'm not a professional when it comes to these things, but I'm not sure the issue is really one of habitat, but rather one of the status of the species. To put this another way, the fact that giraffes are extinct in Senegal has nothing to do with the overall status of the African giraffe populations.

I understand your point that if the habitat has shrunk enough, the fact that there is one small healthy population somewhere might not mean that the species overall isn't in trouble. (BTW, the IUCN ranks the gray and red kangaroos - the big guys - as "least concern," regardless of any local extirpations which may be occurring). But that isn't the case with the giraffe at all. The giraffe which are "in trouble" are those in East and West Africa. In southern Africa, there is enough habitat and animals to ensure giraffe (as a species) will never be extinct in the wild. Now, if you want to discuss sub-species, such as reticulated and Rothschild, then it's a different story, but that's not what CITES did. CITES lumped them all into one category.

Examples might perhaps help. Is the African lion on the verge of extinction or in danger because the Asiatic lion is virtually extinct and restricted to one population in India? Is the African leopard (panthers pardus) endangered because the Arabian leopard (P. p. nimr) is extinct? Or because the Javan leopard (P. p. melas) is virtually extinct? I really fail to see any connection . . . but happy too learn.

 

[Ridgewalker]

The Walt Disney effect has struck again!
For a price I can afford (same as my lion hunt) I’ll hunt an elephant and only take photos home to the USA. The heck with filling a room with taxidermy at my age. I’d do this for the experience ...and just to make the “animal rightists” go crazy!

 

[UNT2007]

Maybe it is time for African countries to start kicking these animal rights activists and their organizations out that oppose hunting and sustainable use of wildlife. They could also impose tariffs on nations that ban hunting trophy imports. Raise taxes and fees on the photo safari industry.

 

[johnnyblues]

I was never a proponent of not being able to import my trophies, but I’m getting fed up with this anti hunting, buying votes, anti science crap! I just may have to hunt lion or elephant in the future.