If Kenya et al actually pull off a ban on the trade of ivory then there goes not only the ele but a whole lot of other species.

I just sent the following:
Dear sirs/madames,

I am a dedicated conservationist/hunter that strongly opposes the proposed ban on trading in ivory. The situation, as you well know, is that the African elephant in many places needs culling (Botswana, Kruger Park etc) due to the damage that the overpopulation has had onto the environment. I also know that you have received reports by people like Ron Thomson who can back this up scientifically.

The proposed ban would in the long run be detrimental not only to elephants do to poaching for ivory, the bushmeat trade, starvation do to overpopulation etc but also to a great many species that share the same biotope.

I would also like to quote from the WCS (Wildlife Conservation Strategy):

The 3 objectives of the WCS are;
1- To maintain essential ecological processes and life support systems on which human survival depends.
2- To preserve genetic diversity, and
3- TO ENSURE THE SUSTAINABLE UTILISATION OF SPECIES AND ECOSYSTEMS

If the above has any meaning at all then there will be no ban on the trading of ivory, on the contrary it should serve the purpose intended: Sustainable utilisation of species and ecosystems.

Yours Truly,

Curt West
M.Sci., MD,
curt.west@vndata.fi
Finland

It sure can´t hurt to try...

Address: info@cites.org

Some comments would have been nice...

Curt,

The issue isn't whether there should or shouldn't be a general ban on ivory trading/movement ..... that has been the case for some considerable time. Nor is it whether there should or shouldn't be a ban on Elephant hunting throughout the continent.

The issue is whether one particular African country, in this case, Zimbabwe should be permitted to make one off ivory sales of Government owned Elephant products and/or should be granted a CITES quota of sport hunted Elephants. The Kenya/Mali (etc) argument seems to be that they feel that Zimbabwe isn't taking a responsible approach to managing their Elephants and presumably they also feel that the previous one off sale of Government held Elephant products was not managed to their satisfaction and they want to prevent the same thing happening again......... In effect, it's pretty much the same argument that US F&WS use to prevent American hunters importing Mozambican ivory etc into the USA.

I'd guess that even if the ban was instigated, (and I doubt it will be) the Zim hunting industry will just offer non exportable/PAC Elephant hunting as an alternative....... I can't see it preventing them from hunting Elephants.

Therefore, without wanting to cause you any offense, I don't think your letter is particularly relevant.

You might like to read such books as 'The Shackled Continent' by Robert Guest and 'What I Tell You 3 Times is True' by Ian Parker etc and you'll quickly realise that CITES are not much more than a bunch of paper shuffling clowns who often hardly seemed to know which way is up. During the times when ivory trade was permitted under licence for example, they were permitting African countries that had either no or very few Elephants to trade huge quantities of the stuff....... it doesn't take much working out to realise that the ivory that was being traded was being smuggled in from elsewhere.......... didn't seem to occur to the CITES idiots at the time though.......

shakari: No offence taken, I still think it´s worth writing even if it´s just a "general" complaint and the relevance comes from quoting the WCS -so the letter in a way addresses a general trend in the way they think.

I didn´t do my homework all that well -this I admit without shame -as I´ve been busy as hell lately.

Regards, Curt

Writing a letter to CITES itself is not an effective means of conveying the message. You're just addressing the bureaucrats whom have no decision making authority.

The decision on whether to accept or reject this proposal lies with the delegates from the 173 member nations of CITES.

Lobby those countries and their delegates. It's similar to a bill in Congress or a State legislature but intensified a bit.

I've been to a couple of CITES conferences and it's quite a circus. Kenya and the countries allied on this proposal are just acting for IFAW, HSUS, etc, etc.

So one should petition the respective countries one at a time? A petition would be the thing to do. AR has + 25 000 members if I remember correctly but why are so few interested in a matter that should concern us all?

quote:

So one should petition the respective countries one at a time?

More like petition the countries who are sitting on the fence looking for which way will most benefit them.

We're fortunate in that the majority of developing nations are wise to the games played by the U.S./Euro animal rights groups, their BS and tactics.

The U.S. is not well liked by those nations on these issues and rightly so. And that is largely our fault as U.S. citizens, we have allowed the agenda on many international conservation issues to be set and controlled by HSUS, Greenpeace, etc.

Whaling policy, fisheries, the list goes on and on. The thing that truly struck me after engaging in these issues and experiencing the rhetoric and drama was just how history repeats itself.

Hundreds of years ago Anglo missionaries set forth to teach all the bloody savages how to live in a 'civilized manner' by forcing their values upon them.

The same occurs today, but those 'missionaries' are animal rights types, whom are 99.999% urban whites, to "teach" the bloody savages how to live in a civilized manner by forcing their values upon them. But now they use treaties such as CITES, the ICRW, threats of trade sanctions, import bans (dolphin safe tuna is a hell of a story) and other various acts of Congress as part of their 'coercive evangelism'.

Be an interesting exercise to discuss many of these issues here.

Well spoken Skinner! We Europeans have our fair share of urban kids who spray people wearing furs, let out minks and foxes and protect cormorants that are ruining large parts of the Finnish archipelago -even the Swedes have realized that there is an overpopulation of cormorants and allow hunting.

Personally I hate the people of Birdlife of Finland and Animalia just as I detest extremism in all it´s forms. Animal rights has become something of a modern religion/political party that really attracts the looney fringe of society.

Then again we hunters are a bit lazy when it comes top protecting oyur rights and educating the general public.

How about a much simpler petition to pro-utilisation member states to object the participation of animal rightist NGO's at the meeting?

The CITES articles state that "...any body or agency technically qualified in protection or management of wild fauna and flora, in the following categories, which has informed the Secretariat of its desire to be represented at the meeting of the conferences by observers, SHALL be admitted unless at least one third of the parties present OBJECT."

If we take most of the African states alone, you get almost a third of the total member states. It is these agencies that attend the meetings and petition and lobby member representatives and genrally disrupt proceedings with demonstrations, pamphlets, etc and last but not least "corrupt" those sitting on the fence. let's get them out of the hall to begin with!

I'm sure an organisation such as SCI can effectively lobby several African states to initiate such a proposal and submit a one third majority proposal to the Secretariat from members to keep these "observers" out of the conference room.

The next step is to get all National legislations pertaining to the legal registration of any wildlife related NGO to endorse the WCS if they wish to be considered as legal entities. Those that don't, cannot be recognised by local Gov's and international communities as NGO's, etc.

Sound like a plan to me..... do we have any SCI officials on the forum who could try to get this organised?

I second -or third- the proposition!

Dear fellow members,
I took our concerns to SCI in Washington, DC and they have responded. I need 8 of you to email me directly for SCI's email addy. If you wish to express your opinion against the banning of ivory trade for 20 years, contact me. They are taking 10 personal opinions from our group (may need more later) to CITES next month. I have written my opinion (against) and cewe will send his (cewe, I will PM you shortly), so I need 8 more. It needs to be kept on target, not too long, and please: only those who have been in any Southern African country within say the last two years (more recent the better) and can attest personally to the destruction, overpopulation and or killing of humans by Elephants. Our concerns should deal with "using hunting as a conservation tool" opposed to culling, transporting to other areas, etc. As most of you know: give in to any sort of ban, and we may lose the privilege of hunting Elephant and a host of other game. If you wish to shoot Elephants and have no desire to import any parts, including the tusks, that's your choice. But to those who want to import ivory during your life span, send me an email and I will reply with the address to send your opinion to CITES via SCI. Thank you for your time and good hunting, David Keith
PS: When I get the eighth reply, I will post here as closed. Email me at:
dixiedetectors@aol.com

LDK: Thanks for doing the groundwork, now let´s just hope that people find this important enough to spend some time writing a letter.

If we don´t act when given an oppurtunity well, that´s just being lazy and stupid.

My letter is sent

Thanks guys, we need a few more, get in touch with cewe, Safari or I (until Sunday) for the addy. LDK

Not many people seem to be members of the SCI... People sure can whine about this and that but when given an oppurtunity to contribute to a major decision/discussion nobody seems interested.

So if there is a ban on all ivory trading don´t whine -you´re own laziness might have contributed to it.

Sent mine this morning.

BC

Fella's, and Ladies, you do not have to be a member of SCI to voice your concerns. I just don't want Kenya representing my voice. Their wildlife conservation policies are a shame, and I wouldn't want to see them setting any example to fellow African nations. United we stand...divided we fall. We only need a few more comments and I appreciate all that have contributed: thank you! Good hunting, LDK