Why Ban on Selling Wildlife May Actually Fuel Trade

[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

[Autolykos]

Higher prices are not necessarily the result of less supply. Many factors contribute to higher prices, including the legality of the good or service in question.

Also, think about the extra costs on society that would result from such a ban. It would be akin to the so-called War on Drugs: an arms race between the police and the endangered-species traders. This translates to more and more money being taken from the public to fund enforcement (or the attempt thereof).

Finally, you say "I may as well argue that laws against murder don't prevent murder, and therefore need not exist". Perhaps you should ask yourself if laws against murder really do prevent murder. It seems axiomatic to me that if someone wants to do something badly enough, he'll find a way to do it. Murderers obviously wanted to commit murder badly enough. They were only punished after the fact.

- Rob

[Praxius]

Quote by: fushigi 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.

Same thing with gun control.... it doesn't stop the shootings, so give them more guns instead.

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.

Indeed.... if it's going to be more expensive, then there would be less buyers..... and if it was illegal, etc. then there would be less people wanting to deal.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Praxius Same thing with gun control.... it doesn't stop the shootings, so give them more guns instead.

I fail to see how not banning guns equates to giving "them" more guns.

Indeed.... if it's going to be more expensive, then there would be less buyers..... and if it was illegal, etc. then there would be less people wanting to deal.

Unfortunately, there's one little wrinkle to this whole idea: the concept of elasticity.

- Rob

[Praxius]

Quote by: Autolykos I fail to see how not banning guns equates to giving "them" more guns.

Sorry, that was more of a reference to the older thread about allowing firearms on school campus to solve the problem, since in that thread it was argued that a gun control law wouldn't stop all the shootings.

Unfortunately, there's one little wrinkle to this whole idea: the concept of elasticity. - Rob

True, but it's not a common practice of everyday lives of the regular person to go out and purchase endangered animals......

In normal everyday buying and selling of legal items, this would apply.... but being something like this that isn't as big as let's say.... the drug ring, which almost every human buys some kind of drug, legal or not.... endangered animals are probably a little easier to deal with in this situation.

[Autolykos]

Finally responding...

Quote by: Praxius Sorry, that was more of a reference to the older thread about allowing firearms on school campus to solve the problem, since in that thread it was argued that a gun control law wouldn't stop all the shootings.

No problem.

True, but it's not a common practice of everyday lives of the regular person to go out and purchase endangered animals......

I imagine that would be the case both with and without a ban.

In normal everyday buying and selling of legal items, this would apply.... but being something like this that isn't as big as let's say.... the drug ring, which almost every human buys some kind of drug, legal or not.... endangered animals are probably a little easier to deal with in this situation.

My point is that the price of endangered animals seems likely to be inelastic -- meaning that those willing to purchase endangered animals will still be about as willing when they are more expensive. Notice that the same is true for "everyday" commodities, such as illegal drugs, and even legal "everyday" commodities, such as gasoline.

The real question, however, is this: What's the point in banning the endangered species trade in the first place?

- Rob

[fushigi]

Quote by: Autolykos My point is that the price of endangered animals seems likely to be inelastic -- meaning that those willing to purchase endangered animals will still be about as willing when they are more expensive.

I wouldn't say they're 100% inelastic. As with cigarettes, consumers will still buy them no matter what the price. The key is that the purchasing VOLUME will decline, which would be a good thing for the species.

For example, in China eagle is considered a delicacy, and demand is high for it. However, at $50,000 a plate, it's only eaten by the upper elites.

Quote by: Rob The real question, however, is this: What's the point in banning the endangered species trade in the first place?

Do you mean, "Why prevent extinction?"

fushigi

[Osborn F Enready]

Laws and bans don't PREVENT anything, they simply allow a legal means of punishment within a given system of laws.

Fushigi, your murder law analogy is farsical, but thanks for the chuckle.

[fushigi]

No, it's not farcical. Actually, it's arguments like, "laws don't stop crime, so why have laws?" that are farcical, my friend.

As you said, the point of laws is to make enforcement legitimate, nothing more. I think that's the main problem with laws against animal trade. Many countries put them in place to give themselves a righteous veneer, while failing to enforce them for various reasons. However, having rare animals can be a great boon for a country's economy; countries that fail to enforce these laws also suffer.

fushigi

[Osborn F Enready]

LAWS DON'T stop crime, and if YOU alledge they do smart guy, WHY ARE THERE STILL MURDERS when we have CLEAR LAWS about murder being illegal?!?!?!?!?

Admit the fact.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: fushigi I wouldn't say they're 100% inelastic.

Nothing is, I'd say. What's your point?

As with cigarettes, consumers will still buy them no matter what the price. The key is that the purchasing VOLUME will decline, which would be a good thing for the species.

The point of inelasticity is that purchasing volume declines slower than the price increases. Or are you only concerned with absolutes here?

For example, in China eagle is considered a delicacy, and demand is high for it. However, at $50,000 a plate, it's only eaten by the upper elites.

Okay, and? I don't see what you're getting at.

Do you mean, "Why prevent extinction?"

Why, sure. :)

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: fushigi No, it's not farcical. Actually, it's arguments like, "laws don't stop crime, so why have laws?" that are farcical, my friend.

And how are they farcical?

As you said, the point of laws is to make enforcement legitimate, nothing more. I think that's the main problem with laws against animal trade. Many countries put them in place to give themselves a righteous veneer, while failing to enforce them for various reasons. However, having rare animals can be a great boon for a country's economy; countries that fail to enforce these laws also suffer.

Where to begin?

Yes, the point of laws is basically to make enforcement (by the state) legitimate -- at least, that's the hope of politicians. So we can see that laws are products of the state. Do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing?

Also, the concept of "a country's economy", somehow separate from the rest of the world, is something of a fiction, don't you think?

- Rob