Most of us instinctively connect CITES with conservation rather than trade
because of the belief that unregulated trade in endangered species is one of
the biggest threats to conservation. Hence, we tend to argue its merit on
whether it helps or hurts conservation efforts. I consider this quite valid.
This is a horrible generalization, but the views on CITES seem to tend
toward "it doesn't work so get rid of it", or "whether it works or not is
irrelevant, it's the law so we should support it completely". My wife would
correlate these to personality types for her pysch-type list, no doubt.
The biggest condemnation of CITES, for me, has been finding that a number
of serious, recognized field workers detest it and feel it does far more
harm than good. A friend on the aroid list, who has worked on Central
American aroids for many years (and who has shared propagations of his
collections with many people), told me he hoped no aroid species was EVER
CITES listed as it would - based on his observations and discussions with
others - do more harm than good. Another friend, at a Florida botanical
garden, said one of their researchers can't get permits for Ecuadorian
orchids though he was worked in that field more than 25 years. Other factors
may also be at work but they put much blame on CITES and related regulation.
These people know what permits are involved and how to apply for them.
I will spare you other similar conversations.
Doing away with CITES altogether seems foolhardy - even with no hard
evidence I find it hard to believe it does no good at all - but it clearly
has major problems which don't ever seem to be addressed.
-- Steve Marak
-- SAMARAK@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU or SAMARAK@UAFSYSB.BITNET