In this we agree, there should a very tight limit on imports...



In otherwords, its an important part of the exporting countries economy. So they do NOT want that limited.



I agree, but the problem is that it is not the importing countries that set trade quotas- it is the exporting countries. I think the export quotas are what need to be changed (barring corruption, etc.). Local collectors could maintain their livelihoods and still make money (perhaps even more?) by collecting fewer animals but charging more for them. To me, this is a win-win situation, and a step in the right direction. But at the moment, as I've said- it's just one big free for all.



What escapes the conversation is, its been sustainable. So whats the problem??????



I don't think there's enough data to support such an assumption that the collection of animals for the WC trade is sustainable. I would argue to the contrary on this in most cases- from African species such as V. exanthematicus (Daniel Bennett has written on the unsustainibility of 'ranching' practices within its range) to insular Indonesian populations like V. macraei (this species has nearly been extirpated from a small offshore island by collection for the pet trade).



Just because these animals continue to show up in the pet trade does not mean that their populations are stable or that their collection is sustainable- all it means is that collectors are finding ways of coming up with new animals. In most cases, this could simply mean moving on to the next locality once an area is depleted or its collecting efficiency decreases.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]