4 ms·
Does anyone have context for the EU opposition to the ban? Economic interests?
by ced 10y ago
Does anyone have context for the EU opposition to the ban? Economic interests?
- iteabagkevin2 10y agoBecause black markets for these goods are much more devastating to the animal populations than a legal regulated marketplace.
- adamnemecek 10y agoThis is simply not true and this 'meme' is really harmful. A legal market would only encourage consumption and serve as a cover for the black market.
- kctess5 10y agoSource?
- duaneb 10y agoDo you have a source? I'm extremely skeptical and you didn't make an argument for it.
- adamnemecek 10y agoThe current poaching crisis is generally attributed to the lifting of CITES restrictions in 2008 which let some African countries sell their ivory stockpiles to China and Japan. As a result, the consumption has skyrocketed.
- SimonPStevens 10y agoI would like to see some evidence on either side of this argument. I can see that there is logic to both cases. Saying one side is "simply not true" doesn't make your case. Is there any firm evidence either way.
- adamnemecek 10y agoRead the comments in this thread. The current crisis is generally attributed to the 2008 lifting of CITES restrictions that has allowed African countries to sell their stockpiles to China and Japan.
- soyiuz 10y agoSome of the most convincing evidence comes from American prohibition of alcohol and the drug wars. Basic economic principles dictate that the supply will expand to meet demand. As the demand is difficult to modulate, the strategy of regulating supply has been historically more effective. The prohibition created a robust black market which all but disappeared when alcohol production came back into the light by legal means. The same logic should hold true for ivory through farming or artificial production (see several comments to this point above).
- chrischen 10y agoThe arguments I have heard for a legal market is that the rhino horns can be harvested without killing them, and that the black market trade encourages poachers to simply kill the rhinos to harvest. Your turn.
- zymhan 10y agoWhat do you do with a Rhino that has no horn? It can't survive in the wild, and it has no economic value to justify keeping it on a farm.
- chrischen 10y agoPeople can come see the Rhinos, like a zoo, while their horns grow back. http://www.bisbeesconservationfund.org/conservation/savetherhino/faq.aspx http://www.bisbeesconservationfund.org/conservation/savether...
- adamnemecek 10y agoThat doesn't stop poaching. It would only make rhinos extinct in the wild.
- chrischen 10y agoThe goal is to have farmed rhinos out price killing wild rhinos, and you continue making killing wild rhinos illegal.
- adamnemecek 10y agoHow do you outprice poachers when raising a rhino costs more than zero but poaching them costs effectively zero?
- akiselev 10y agoPoaching isn't effectively free, like many other illegal activities it carries risk of death or capture and imprisonment. By investing in enforcement you can drive up the risk and thus the price.
- justicezyx 10y agoBad is bad, no matter how small it is. Good is good, no mater how small it is. It is not about changing the world overnight, it is about moving 1 inch every time.
- mamon 10y agoOne more devastating thing is that whenever police make a ride on poachers and take over some ivory or rhino's horns they will burn them. Which decreases supply and increases black market price for them. The wisest thing to do would be to give it away for free to anyone interested. That would ruin black market.
- adamnemecek 10y agoIt would also condone use of ivory. It would also out the ivory back on the market.
- mc32 10y agoIf China can get on board, surely the EU can.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- yorwba 10y agothe article links to http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-437-EN-F1-1-ANNEX-2.PDF http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016... which says on page 7 Clarification needs to be made as to the scope of the proposal - the call for a general closure of domestic ivory markets does not seem justified but the EU could show openness to initiatives aiming to restrict domestic ivory trade, provided that the measures are proportionate (for example call for closure of domestic market except for pre-Convention ivory or in cases where there have been evidences that domestic legal markets have been used as a cover for illegal ivory trade). and on page 13 Oppose the transfer to Appendix I of the populations of BW, NA, ZA, ZW. These four national populations have an increasing population trend (tbc for Zimbabwe) and do not meet the criteria for transfer to Appendix I. Recognizing the efforts made by Southern African countries to sustainably manage their elephant population and combat poaching, those countries should better be encouraged to pursue their efforts.
- conjectures 10y agoI read the first one as meaning: antiques. The second seems like they are taking a technical interpretation of some rules without looking at the bigger picture.
- deadowl 10y agoIn Vermont (US) it was the NRA that opposed it, and I imagine the situation was because big game hunting has long been romanticized by the rich and powerful, who basically tell their organizations to oppose it based on marginal cherry-picked issues like the keys on antique pianos.
- csn 10y agoWhat other interests should the EU have on this topic? Genuinely interested in people's views.
- Someone 10y agoThe PDF (http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-437-EN-F1-1-ANNEX-2.PDF http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016...) says: "Oppose the transfer to Appendix I of the populations of BW, NA, ZA, ZW. These four national populations have an increasing population trend (tbc for Zimbabwe) and do not meet the criteria for transfer to Appendix I. Recognizing the efforts made by Southern African countries to sustainably manage their elephant population and combat poaching, those countries should better be encouraged to pursue their efforts" The PDF also says, for Namibia and Zimbabwe: "Given the continuous high levels of elephant poaching and illegal ivory trade, it is premature to agree on a resumption of trade. The efforts by Namibia for wildlife conservation and to combat poaching and illegal trade should nonetheless be recognised and further encouraged." So, as is often the case, a nuanced statement by the EU that gets misrepresented in the press. Moving elephants to appendix I would make it harder or even prohibit South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe, countries where the elephant population grows, to shoot down elephants to keep their total number under control. What the EU says basically is that those countries should be allowed to shoot elephants (in theory, that would give them the freedom to kill all 'their' elephants, but they aren't that stupid, as it would kill tourism, too.) but that Botswana and Namibia shouldn't be allowed to sell the ivory to (partly) make up for the costs they make for protecting their wildlife. South Africa and Botswana apparently are deemed to have poaching under control. I guess this means there are ways to determine where an elephant lived from its teeth. That's not surprising, given that we can do that for humans, too.