National Geographic Article

[Motherlode Chameleon]

There is a good political and conservation artical on National Geographic's website about the political and conservation problems that have been happening in Madagascar since march of this year. Check it out.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com Lemurs Hunted, Eaten Amid Civil Unrest, Group Says

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

Its good that the situation is calming down somewhat. The locals to biological areas are stepping up to poachers with some outside assistance and doing their best to protect these protected biological areas and the jobs these biological areas provide for the local people to prosper from (such as ecotourism, that the chameleon crowd is fond of).

 

[Zen Reptiles]

This is where CITES is hurting animal populations.

In places where the people are not so educated, to put it lightly, they do not
care one bit about endangered animals.

They have no value in the wild to them - but they do have value in the pet trade.

This has happened in the orchid hobby, where species went extinct because
CITES put bans on their export, and then one fire or clearcut wiped out entire
species.

Madagascar has a long road ahead of it to end the civil unrest.

 

[merumontanus]

This is where CITES is hurting animal populations.

In places where the people are not so educated, to put it lightly, they do not
care one bit about endangered animals.

They have no value in the wild to them - but they do have value in the pet trade.

This has happened in the orchid hobby, where species went extinct because
CITES put bans on their export, and then one fire or clearcut wiped out entire
species.

Madagascar has a long road ahead of it to end the civil unrest.

And how exactly does bringing threatened species into the trade benefit wild populations again? Just curious.

Fabián

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

However the fact that people near wild areas are taking a stand to preserve their wilderness is a good sign. That shows conservation efforts to edjucate people about conserving wild lands is being effective and conservation efforts are begining to noticably pay off by the fact local people are defending these lands during a time of turmoil.

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

I think I hear what Brock is try to say. One good thing that is good about Quotas and some export of exotic biologicals is that is creates a sense of worth and hence is not just totally wasted (slash and burn and the frying pan). For this to completely finish the job land has to be set aside for permentent protection. However the allowance of managed harvesting of specimens is allowed occasionally with scientific permits or quotas to prevent these lands from totally being raped and pillaged by unmanaged harvesting.

 

[merumontanus]

Let us explore one argument at a time, as there are clearly more than one (diluted) points being discussed here.

The original post deals with the current political and economic troubles of the island nation, which has prompted conservationists to cease work as a result of unrest and overall destabilization. This has resulted in gangs of poachers entering previously-protected areas to kill off lemurs to satisfy the growing trend for local lemur cuisine, which is considered a delicacy.

In response to your post, Brock said:

This is where CITES is hurting animal populations.

In places where the people are not so educated, to put it lightly, they do not
care one bit about endangered animals.

They have no value in the wild to them - but they do have value in the pet trade.

This has happened in the orchid hobby, where species went extinct because
CITES put bans on their export, and then one fire or clearcut wiped out entire
species.

Madagascar has a long road ahead of it to end the civil unrest.

Forgive me, but I have no idea what CITES quotas have anything to do with the fact that Madagascar's political and economic unrest have prompted locals to turn to illegal poaching to feed their families, or how the pet trade is the solution to the problem.

This is an issue involving poverty and a fragile government, not whether CITES allows endangered species to be exported before they are wiped out by fire of illegal logging. Allowing these animals (which are protected from the pet trade for a reason) to be exported will not solve the problem of habitat destruction or the long-term survival of threatened species, as you say here:

One good thing that is good about Quotas and some export of exotic biologicals is that is creates a sense of worth and hence is not just totally wasted (slash and burn and the frying pan). For this to completely finish the job land has to be set aside for permentent protection.

... but does the creation of a sense of worth (via the commercial sale of already compromised populations) mean anything at all for the long-term survival of a species or population threatened by habitat loss, poaching, global-warming and pollution?

For the strategy of Creation of Worth to be efficient at all, it must be sustainable, as is the case of eco-tourism, which has very little impact (if done well) on the populations themselves, bringing in money to the locals (so they don't have to resort to illegal poaching and logging to feed their families), while protecting the habitat so tourists can spend their money watching the creatures in protected areas.

Blaming CITES for the loss of a species after it did not allow their exportation to satisfy a market where only a fraction of a percent of the animals imported live and reproduce successfully would be like blaming Bush for being one of the worst presidents in history, and not the people who elected him. It just doesn't stand to reason.

Besides, even if the wild populations of chameleons in Madagascar (I suppose that's what Brock was referring to, and not the exportation of lemurs) were stable enough to allow CITES to set quotas for export (which they are clearly not, and why they are prohibited), the creation of sense of worth for the locals would only work if they were to setup chameleon farms to satiate the pet trade's excessive needs-- only by farming them and producing them in sufficient numbers (like responsible agricultural farming does) would it really have an impact on the creation of sense of worth, but even then, it does absolutely nothing to maintain the ecological equilibrium of these populations.

The focus should be in habitat protection through sustainability, and not in grandiose dreams of saving a species through unsustainable exportation for the trade.

Kind regards,

Fabián

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

I concur with you!

The focus should be in habitat protection through sustainability.

Just to find as many appropriate ways to make habitat conservation sustainable.

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

Sense of worth there are three big ones. Research and study programs through University's (Duke lemur program) and corperations (medical corperations), nature films, and ecotourisms. Just for this to work these groups have to give back or create economy for the local people on a sustainable level. As well as pristine nature preserves.

 

[merumontanus]

Sense of worth there are three big ones. Research and study programs through University's (Duke lemur program) and corperations (medical corperations), nature films, and ecotourisms. Just for this to work these groups have to give back or create economy for the local people on a sustainable level.

I could not agree more. Emphasis on sustainability.

Fabián

 

[Zen Reptiles]

A few examples of CITES harming wild populations are the orchids I mentioned,
and forgive me, I don't know the names of them. A better known case is the
Atelopus zeitiki Golden Frog of Panama. Right now, they only exist in capitivity
and were announced extinct within recent years.

The genus Atelopus, with 113 described and putative species, appears to be the most threatened clade of amphibians. At least 30 species appear to be extinct, having been missing from all known localities for at least 8 years. Only 52 of the surviving species have sufficient data with which to evaluate population trends; of these, 81% (42 of 52) have population sizes that have been reduced by at least half. Only 10 of the 52 species appear to have stable populations. Higher-elevation species (those living at least 1000 m asl) have been hit the worst, with 75% (21 of 28) having disappeared entirely. Chytridiomycosis is thought to be a primary factor in the decline and disappearance of species in this genus. Habitat loss has occurred within the ranges of many Atelopus species, but does not appear to be a major factor in the decline of most Atelopus species; 22 species declined despite occurring in protected areas. Many Atelopus species are local endemics, putting them at particular risk of extinction, with at least 26 species known only from a single population inhabiting a narrow altitudinal range (La Marca et al. 2005).

Atelopus zeteki is possibly extinct in the wild, with frogs having been removed to captive breeding facilities in 2006, to protect them against possible death from infection with Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd). The BBC filmed these frogs courting, wrestling, and semaphoring in the wild shortly before removal. The amphibian chytrid fungus (Bd) is spreading through Central America, decimating frog populations (Lips et al. 2006), and overtook the study location soon after the filming.

The cause of this is mostly habitat destruction, as well as the chytrid fungus
that is devastating wild populations of amphibians globally. Unfortunately, it was
foreseen for some years that they would become extinct in the wild, but of course
exportation was prohibited due to their extreme rarity - now the only specimens
are in zoos and big facilities, but if they were allowed
to be exported, I'm aware of dozens of PRIVATE collectors/hobbyists/breeders
who do much more good work with amphibians than any zoo in the world.

Another example is tigers, there is something like 3,000 in the wild now and
there are over 20,000 in captivity - it's a good thing these tigers in captivity
are from people's fascination with them from as much as centuries ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger#As_pets

What I'm saying is that the regions tigers come from are poorly regulated,
and your chances of ever having a wild tiger are zip. The point is that they
will eventually be hunted to death by some Chinese and sold on the black
market for traditional medicine and pelts. And what are we going to have
to do then? Reintroduce them once things settle down and these Asian
countries educate their people on the importance of natural balance and they
start taking Viagra instead of Tiger Penis.

The solutions are simple - crops of industrial hemp can replace the vast
majority of the world's problems, including deforestation. As Henry Ford said

- "Why use up the forests which were centuries in the making and the mines which required ages to lay down, if we can get the equivalent of forest and mineral products in the annual growth of the hemp fields?"

Political issues are dynamic, and are made to be dynamic. Natural resources
are a slow process, including species like lemurs. You kill one adult female,
you are ending one bloodline and killing all of her offspring, and their offspring,
etc etc.

Until we live in a world proposed by Jacques Fresco of The Venus Project,
we will always have to put a monetary value on the things we want to save, in order
to save them.

You are right Fabian that it is an issue with mankind's governance over itself,
but the consequences of this on nature is immediate, and there will have to be
civil wars, foreign intervention, and lots of work to overcome the political issues.

What I am proposing is that if we can save some species from extinction by keeping
them in captivity until they are ready to be released again once issues settle,
then that would be better than leaving them out there to become completely extinct.

However, you can always take the standpoint that 99.99% of all species
on this planet have come and gone, everything we know only makes out a fraction
of a % of what has existed, and in the end it makes very little difference.
We still need to play our role in nature as guardians of what does exist.

But I like this planet, and right now it's in chaos - we need to give sanctuary
to all of its endangered inhabitants until it is in a state of peace.

That won't be achieved until we are a Civilization of Earth, instead of these
ridiculous flags and countries.

Bush was elected by the people?

 

[merumontanus]

Bush was elected by the people?

Thank you for the correction. You're right, he was only elected once by the people-- they didn't learn the first time!

A few examples of CITES harming wild populations are the orchids I mentioned,
and forgive me, I don't know the names of them. A better known case is the
Atelopus zeitiki Golden Frog of Panama. Right now, they only exist in capitivity
and were announced extinct within recent years.

Again, you're arriving to conclusions based on completely invalid premises.

1. If the cause for the extinction of many animals and plants is habitat destruction, global warming and other human-related catalysts such as pollution and the spread of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, or the chytrid fungus (in the case of amphibians), which by the way has spread throughout the world, in part, as a result of globalization and the pet trade itself, how exactly is CITES "harming species" by protecting them from entering the trade?

You have said a lot of things with which I agree-- namely, that our planet is in peril, that there are more tigers in captivity than there are in the wild, that educating natives about the importance of preserving biodiversity is not only important but critical to conservation, that Henry Ford said pretty things that can be quoted and about which we can all philosophize, and finally, that in order to succeed in this effort, we must provide sanctuary to those species in trouble, but guess what, all of that is a red herring and has absolutely nothing to do with CITES harming species.

If you want to provide sanctuary for these animals, forcing quotas on species that have been determined (through scientific surveys and studies) to be too fragile to remove from already compromised populations in order to satisfy the pet trade with the ludicrous excuse that we are somehow going to play heros and heroines by getting the very few animals that actually survive (out of hundreds of thousands of chameleons imported each year) to breed and replenish wild populations through reintroduction, is not the way to go. In fact, it is nonsense.

Are there qualified institutions and individuals capable of embarking on such epic projects involving captive reproduction and reintroduction? Of course there are, but they are far and few between in comparison to the rest of the consumers involved in the "trade". In fact, these individuals or institutions would be capable of applying for special permits if need be, given their credentials, experience, and large resources, and not rely on yearly CITES quotas intended for the pet trade.

This issue comes constantly, and although I know it is often recited with the best of intentions, I can't help but see it as nothing more than an absurd attempt to justify our own interests and desires to keep these animals unnecessarily while pretending to be saving the world.

People around the world poach, pollute, cut down trees, dump chemicals and engage in otherwise environmentally-adverse life-styles as a result of hunger, poverty and war. This is not a justification of their (our) actions-- who wouldn't want to eat organic all the time, drive an energy-efficient vehicle, spend exponentially more money on responsibly-manufactured clothing, or in the case of poachers and the like, not have to endanger one's safety (and the family) by not engaging in illicit work?

It's always nice to speak out about conservation and blame the locals for their "backward ways" while sitting in our air-conditioned flats, sipping a mocha latte. Sure, maintaining a genetically-limited population of endangered animals in captivity with hopes of reintroducing them to the wild is a nice thought, but it is a last resort. Atelopus is where it is because we've wrecked its habitat and helped spread the fungus, not because CITES did not allow their exportation to a few hobbyists and zoos around the world.

I said it a few times and I will say it again. For any effort to work, it must be sustainable, and captive management and reproduction of endangered and threatened species (through CITES quotas designed with John Doe as the end consumer) is about as far from sustainable as I can imagine.

Think about it.

Cheers,

Fabián

P.S. "ridiculous flags and countries..."-- well said.