[fushigi]

Story.

Banning the trade in endangered wildlife can actually result in increased trade in the animals and their parts, a report published Thursday said. The finding, reported in the journal Nature, is likely to fuel debate among conservationists who disagree over how to best curb the trade in endangered species. <snip> "The most severe restriction that CITES can enforce is an explicit ban on commercial trade of wild species threatened with extinction," Philippe Rivalan, a researcher at the University Paris Sud, wrote in the Nature commentary. "We report here concerns that such bans can themselves lead to an increase in trade of vulnerable species." <snip> Once the ban is imposed, prices can spiral upward. The price of rhino horns on the South Korean market, for example, increased by 400 percent in the two years after CITES banned the trade in the items and the poaching of black rhinos rose. The study did not say when the ban was imposed. "At the very least, our findings suggest that CITES authorities will need to use extra vigilance in controlling permits during transition periods and in adhering to quotas," Rivalan wrote.

This seems pretty asinine to me. "Bans don't work," they argue, "so why put bans in place?" I may as well argue that laws against murder don't prevent murder, and therefore need not exist.

Furthermore, citing evidence that prices increased actually SUPPORTS PUTTING BANS IN PLACE, as--correct me if I'm wrong here--higher prices are the result of less supply. I'm pretty sure that's what economists say.

Idiots.

Clearly the problem is a lack of enforcement. Why not argue that we need better enforcement? Because whoever released this "study" probably has some personal interest in preventing restrictions.

fushigi