Absolutely agree with you, Jan.

Had a conversation with the owner of a local tavern here the other day. She was telling me about a ridiculous waiter they had once. He had no idea about the menu and simply took the order "as it came". He pitched up in the kitchen and reported that the guests ordered giraffe steaks

It turned out, that when telling the guests the daily menu, he mixed up ostriche with giraffe (obviously all he remembered, was that they had something exotic) and suggested giraffe steaks

The guests thought: "Hmm, never tried it, let's see what it's like..." and ordered.

What I want to say is, people couldn't care less. If offered in a restaurant, it is bound to be edible and legal. (Nearly) nobody questions the origin or if it is legal etc.

I have been away and again lost for words - Jan you are really an incredible person and admire your will to keep on pushing for the better of Wildlife. Good going!

jan,
very good action on your side!
the outcome supports my curiosity towards CITES!

when will humans ever learn?

pippa

There are over 5000 captive lions in the USA. anyone of several dozen breeders could look at providing lion meat if there was a market for it. In other words, it does NOT have to be imported into the US as most posts above sem to imply. It would, however, still need CITES certification.

Jan, to claim that CITES is a "pathetic" organization is to claim that the hundreds of professional scientists, researchers, conservationists, biologists, ecologists, etc that make up their board, comittee's and members are all bogus. You can't say that just cause you are anti-hunting. A professionals' credentials are not judged by which side of the fence he sits on

Bwanamich:

If I may, please let me explain my and lots of other people's thinking on this score. Most people in the world thought of CITES as pro-wildlife, trying to protect and preserve what is left of wildlife all over the world.

Obviously we were wrong in our assumptions. What has turned out is that CITES is pro-TRADE in wildlife. Just another money-making scheme to legalize trade in many species. Yes, there are many experts who give their opinions to CITES, but when the rubber meets the road, all they care about is making money - not about the wildlife.

CITES has, for instance, let the elephant species down with their allowing the sale of ivory to China and Japan. Poaching has already started to rise dramatically in many African countries due to their questionable decision on this matter.

One would have admired them far more if they had confiscated the ivory stores and denotated them. That is what would have helped protect the species - not allowing more and more ivory into hands which again just want to make money from them and will want more and more ivory, despite the 9 year ban on future stores. Though they may not be able to legally buy ivory for 9 years, they will find more ways to smuggle illegal ivory.

If you believe that all this ivory is from "natural" elephant deaths - then you are wrong. If you believe that all the money gained from the sale of ivory will all go directly to elephant conservation - then you are wrong. Much of it will go into some very deep pockets.

The Chinese who desperately want the ivory, are already approaching indigenous people in Africa offering 200kes to buy ivory! The African governments haven't yet seen through the Chinese connections and China will end up "owning" everything of worth in Africa.

Had CITES acted differently, African countries might have stood a much better chance of protecting what wildlife they have left. My feelings are not just because I am anti-hunting but because I am PRO-WILDIFE.

So glad to see you back at bushdrums and hope you can find the time to join us more often.

HI Jan,
This is one of those discussions that will have no end because....."we agree to disagree"

"CITES is a money making scheme" you say. Which Animal welfare org is not? Most of them spend more money on advertising campaigns to raise more money for ..conservation work Have you ever checked what % of donations collected are used on "on the ground" project funding? You will find just as many skewed revenue distributions as in any Pro-trade orgs such as CITES. So what is the point of pointing the finger at CITES as if it were the only black sheep out there?

Pro-trade is not necessarily all wrong is it? CITES does not only deal with "flagship" species like elephant and lion. Every species from insects to birds and mammals are covered by CITES in one way or another. Without trade controls, wildlife and the environment would be worse off wouldn't you agree?

No one believes that the ivory stockpile is from natural deaths of course; I would hazard that the majority is confiscated ivory from illegal harvesting. But it is there, rotting away in storage worth absolutely diddly squat! Further, keeping it there (or worse, burning it!) will not alleviate the demand for more illegal ivory. On the other hand, if such stockpiles could "flood" the legal ivory market, at a price that is lower than what illegal ivory can be obtained, then demand for new ivory will subside for a period of several years and hopefully, less elephants will be poached (though I doubt in real life that will be the case because of all the regional conflicts in Africa). Even if a % of that accrued revenue can be diverted to further elephant conservation/protection then that poached elephant that provided tusks to the illegal trade, would have had some purpose. Something is better than nothing. I am all for controlling how such revenue is spent.

Whether you agree or not with CITES policy on elephant trade, there needs to be some control or else it would be far worse. Or are you trying to convince us that if CITES was disbanded tomorrow, or if they would not have allowed that particular "one-off" sale, demand for ivory and elephant poaching would decline?