Though there is truth to this, it is an oversimplification. Firstly, if the
alternative is less lucrative you may have a hard job shifting people to it
without some other incentive (or disincentive) being involved. Secondly, if
the destruction is being caused not by local people but by distant managers
and corporate executives who couldn't care less about the local people (an
all too common occurrence) you are not going to stop their activities by
allowing the local people to collect and trade in pitcher plants.
Incentives are this sort can be part of the solution, but they are no panacea.
>>you misunderstand me. I am convinced that CITES was started in good
>intent and with the intention to save plants and animals. I am not
>questioning that. What I am saying is, that it does not work. So let
>me use a comparison again: what good is a car which does not run??
>You either have it repaired (and that is not always possible) or you
>get rid of it and get a new one.
Again, a gross oversimplification. As you said yourself the problem is
usually not CITES but improper training of the officials that are supposed
to enforce it - something that could be vastly improved without changing a
line of the treaty or its resolutions.
It is simply not true to say that CITES does not work. It has had many
signal successes, including the development of crocodile ranching in Africa,
the great reduction of ivory poaching (which is far less than it was in the
late 1980's despite propaganda to the contrary), greater attention being
paid to plant issues such as the trade in cycads, etc. That it does not
work every time is obvious (what does?), but I believe that concentrating on
improving implementation and enforcement (including dealing with the people
problems you describe) is the way to go - not broad-scale attacks on the
treaty for not being perfect or all-encompassing.
>Well take it from one who has been at many of the Paph. habitats.
>These habitats are endangered, but not by overcollecting. And at some
>habitats, that have been declared extinct by some of the CITES
>people, thousands and thousands of plants remain. I have already
>elaborated on the size of the market for these species in earlier
>messages.
Exactly how do CITES people declare habitats extinct? I have never heard of
such a thing in over ten years of dealings with CITES.
-- Ronald I. Orenstein Phone: (905) 820-7886 (home) International Wildlife Coalition Fax/Modem: (905) 569-0116 (home) Home: 1825 Shady Creek Court Messages: (416) 368-4661 Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5L 3W2 Internet: ornstn@inforamp.net Office: 130 Adelaide Street W., Suite 1940 Toronto, Ontario Canada M5H 3P5