CITES suspends trade in Mexican species

[viper69]

I'm not sure if another thread has been made about this, I'm curious to see what other people think of it.

The story:

As of March 27th 2023, CITES has banned the import and export of all species from Mexico. To be clear, this doesn't mean you can't import Mexican species, for example you can still import a Mexican invert from Europe if it was bred in Europe. However, if a non-Mexican invert, say an old world tarantula was bred in Mexico you can't import it anymore…

What we can do as a community:

I think this is the most important part. This decision is very likely to drive prices up, and this hints at a problem we have in the US and especially in Canada; that there simply aren't enough people breeding these animals. To my understanding, the market is much healthier in Europe.

Previously, I was of the mindset that it's only worth breeding a tarantula if it's in high demand or if there aren't too many of them in the hobby. This completely changed my mind, I'll be breeding every single female I have, and I'll be giving away all my mature males for free to breeders that I know and keep in touch with. I think the only way we can secure the future of our hobby is by making sure that we have as many of these animals within the country as humanly possible, to the point that importing them is no longer needed. Because there'll always be stupid decision makers with too much time on their hands ready to make things much more difficult for us.

You can stop reading here if you want.

Opinion:

The decision is extremely stupid and arbitrary because it isn't designed to save the animals subject to the ban (which is literally everything coming from Mexico). It's meant as some sort of silly revenge or punishment because CITES wasn't happy with how much effort the Mexican government was putting into protecting a porpoise. Now, I'm all for doing anything to preserve the wild populations of any animal, but this just ain't how you do it.

CITES, as a regulatory body, isn't good at what they do. In fact, they are so ineffective that they might be more trouble than they're worth. CITES has failed to stop the sharp decline in animal populations, they failed to stop illegal trade in several species, and their structure makes them inherently bad at saving the animals. The only kind of trade that they succeed in limiting seems to be legal and well regulated trade in captive animals. Contrary to popular belief, keeping animals in captivity doesn't have to be bad for the wild survival of the species, in fact captive breeding programs are an important part of species conversation.

A few case studies examples CITES work and found them pretty ineffective:

“CITES is very limited in its potential effectiveness as a conservation tool. Not only does it fail to address issues of habitat loss, but it also fails to create mechanisms to control the supply of wildlife products or any direct means to influence consumer demand. As it is currently structured, CITES operates primarily as a restrictive mechanism, rather than an enabling one. Implicit in its existing structure is an assumption that all trade is somehow bad for conservation unless proven otherwise. Measures taken under CITES therefore tend to emphasize limitations on trade rather than ways to facilitate trade that may ultimately enhance the status of wild species.”

“How well did listings on CITES Appendices I, II and III perform for these case studies? The only species that seems to have benefited from an Appendix 1 listing is the African elephant. However, as discussed above, this listing may not be economically sustainable in the long term. Appendix I listings have not stopped illegal commercial exploitation of rhinos, tigers, and bears.”

“The Appendix II down-listing appears to have worked for the southern white rhino, but this probably has more to do with good domestic management and field protection than to CITES.”

“An Appendix II listing did not appear to work for the African elephant, and the listing of the

American black bear for 'look-alike' reasons has been largely ignored by traders of bear products”

“Similarly, an Appendix IIl listing of the American black bear seemed to have little positive effect.”

Whenever you put this type of content in quotes you should put the citation, otherwise it looks like you’re making it up….

 

[TechnoGeek]

Whenever you put this type of content in quotes you should put the citation, otherwise it looks like you’re making it up….

Does CITES Work? Four Case Studies

CITES is very limited in its potential effectiveness as a conservation tool. Not only does it fail to address issues … Continue reading "Does CITES Work? Four Case Studies"

iea.org.uk

Fair enough, here's the source.

I didn’t assume, I read the article too. My reply is a global one, not specific to this post.

I know all nations’ animals and plants who are harvested feel the pressure of the world’s demands esp from China and USA..

Now if you think that’s not true then there are some law enforcement officials and scientists you should speak with.

This ban has nothing to do with the trade of endangered species, and everything to do with punishing Mexico because CITES isn't happy with how they're managing the population of a porpoise species.

Old idiots who cant use smart phones deciding they rule the world... CITES should be disbanded imo, honestly im so annoyed at how bad a world government style panels are. I really wish the USA was an isolationist country.

I have to agree with this mostly. I wish as many countries withdraw from cites as possible.

I explained why CITES doesn't save species (at least not effectively). CITES is structured terribly, and now they're at a point that they're not shy about abusing their power for political ends. IMHO they're more trouble than they're worth. I'm all for saving and managing endangered species populations, but CITES isn't how you do it.

 

[Frogdaddy]

I have to agree with this mostly. I wish as many countries withdraw from cites as possible.

If you check my thread on the topic, I explained why CITES doesn't save species (at least not effectively). CITES is structured terribly, and now they're at a point that they're not shy about abusing their power for political ends. IMHO they're more trouble than they're worth. I'm all for saving and managing endangered species populations, but CITES isn't how you do it.

What else have we got? Are we going to rely on the governments of sovereign nations to protect endangered species? Sovereign nations that can't take care of their own human populations?

 

[Pyrelitha]

What else have we got? Are we going to rely on the governments of sovereign nations to protect endangered species? Sovereign nations that can't take care of their own human populations?

No, we just leave people in other nations alone. Humans dont have some perfect way to protect animals. We should work towards making ourselves prosperous enough to afford to peacefully push countries to protecting their animals. But first to do that you have to make humans comfortable, no starving person cares about the environment imo.

 

[viper69]

This ban has nothing to do with the trade of endangered species, and everything to do with punishing Mexico because CITES isn't happy with how they're managing the population of a porpoise species.

Read my posts, you'll see your comment to me was not necessary/wrong to do.

Does CITES Work? Four Case Studies

CITES is very limited in its potential effectiveness as a conservation tool. Not only does it fail to address issues … Continue reading "Does CITES Work? Four Case Studies"

iea.org.uk

Fair enough, here's the source.

OH the IEA a right wing organization. I've never known a right organization to care about the environment or the animals that live here generally speaking.

 

[The Snark]

OH the IEA a right wing organization.

More concisely, a mouthpiece for extremist right wing agendas and a money funnel for donations from highly questionable sources. They have been a constant anti health problem for WHO in the third world for many years.
" The IEA does not disclose their sources of funding, and has been criticised by health charities and by George Monbiot in The Guardian[28] for receiving funds from major tobacco companies whilst campaigning on tobacco industry issues.[48] British American Tobacco (BAT) confirmed it had donated £40,000 to the IEA in 2013,[12] £20,000 in 2012 and £10,000 in 2011, and Philip Morris International and Japan Tobacco International also confirmed they provide financial support to the IEA.[13] In 2002, a leaked letter revealed that prominent IEA member, the right-wing writer Roger Scruton, had authored an IEA pamphlet attacking the World Health Organisation's campaign on tobacco, whilst failing to disclose that he – Scruton – was receiving £54,000 a year from Japan Tobacco International.[49][50] In response, the IEA said it would introduce an author declaration policy.[50] The IEA also says that it "accepts no tied funding".[51]"

 

[TechnoGeek]

What else have we got? Are we going to rely on the governments of sovereign nations to protect endangered species? Sovereign nations that can't take care of their own human populations?

Is there any reason why you think it's either cites or nothing? We can have a regulatory body that actually works instead of coming up with stupid decisions for political reasons.

More concisely, a mouthpiece for extremist right wing agendas and a money funnel for donations from highly questionable sources. They have been a constant anti health problem for WHO in the third world for many years.
" The IEA does not disclose their sources of funding, and has been criticised by health charities and by George Monbiot in The Guardian[28] for receiving funds from major tobacco companies whilst campaigning on tobacco industry issues.[48] British American Tobacco (BAT) confirmed it had donated £40,000 to the IEA in 2013,[12] £20,000 in 2012 and £10,000 in 2011, and Philip Morris International and Japan Tobacco International also confirmed they provide financial support to the IEA.[13] In 2002, a leaked letter revealed that prominent IEA member, the right-wing writer Roger Scruton, had authored an IEA pamphlet attacking the World Health Organisation's campaign on tobacco, whilst failing to disclose that he – Scruton – was receiving £54,000 a year from Japan Tobacco International.[49][50] In response, the IEA said it would introduce an author declaration policy.[50] The IEA also says that it "accepts no tied funding".[51]"

Criticizing data in this fashion isn't valid criticism. Is there something wrong with the data itself?

Also, the case study they cited wasn't conducted by them to my understanding. Finally, they're not the only party they concluded CITES has failed, a quick Google search shows even national geographic doesn't see much value in cites.

I wonder why.. I mean cites has been around since 1975 iirc, and they've done an absolutely abysmal job of doing anything except fight legal and well regulated trade. They've failed to save threatened species like rhino and tiger populations from sharply declining.

 

[Frogdaddy]

Is there any reason why you think it's either cites or nothing? We can have a regulatory body that actually works instead of coming up with stupid decisions for political reasons.

Oh no I'm not saying it's CITES or nothing. I'm saying it's what we have right now. Much in the way we thought flip phones were amazing till smart phones came out.

 

[TechnoGeek]

Oh no I'm not saying it's CITES or nothing. I'm saying it's what we have right now. Much in the way we thought flip phones were amazing till smart phones came out.

Just because it's what we have now doesn't mean it's good or effective or should stay

 

[Frogdaddy]

Just because it's what we have now doesn't mean it's good or effective or should stay

I totally agree. However there is no perfect system. Especially when we have to rely on foreign governments for enforcement. If we could the Japanese wouldn't still be killing whales.

 

[pocock1899]

The Mexican suspension has been lifted.