Legalising International Trade in Rhino Horn ???

[Richprins]

We are talking about a typical supply-and-demand scenario when discussing trading in rhino horn. There are a few facts that must be born in mind:

1. We already trade in rhino horn (albeit illegal and via poaching) - as much as 5 per day. That is not trading...trading is a legal fiancially recognised process, and should not be glibly related to poaching
2. New end-user markets have developed - thereby increasing the demand on a daily basis.
3. This is not just about CTM (Chinese Traditional Medicine) as was originally thought. it has become a status symbol in Vietnam and China to have an ornamental horn on display.
4. Experiments in 1994 to introduce the Saiga Antelope horn as an alternative to rhino horn and accepted by the CTM Council. The species was reported to number almost 2.5 million. In the ensuing years, that population dwindled by 95% due to hunting pressure for their horns. Do we have that quantity of rhino? It seems elephant tusks was a reason there, but newer info may be around? http://www.clfs.umd.edu/biology/dudashl ... -15-13.pdf

5. From the above example, the market is not only vastly bigger than the early 1990's, but new end-users have begun to develop, making the sustainable use of rhino horn an impossibility.
6. The report published by EWT, entitled "Position Statement on Legalising the International Trade on Rhino Horn" (April 2013) makes it clear that there is a plethora of systems that will have to be put into place before this option can be considered. The enforcement and regulation of horns leaving the borders of RSA is already uncontrollable and we must rely on a failing judiciary and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance? Our track-record in the regulation of trade in wildlife products is not a good testimony to this. We do not think that the Republic of South Africa has the capacity to regulate and enforce the legal trade in rhino horn. Our borders are porous and controls lax.
7. Lessons learned from the ivory trade ban and subsequent ad hoc relaxing of the ban shows that the markets demands cannot be met or saturated and demands grow as a result of supply. elephant poaching and exploitation of the ivory trade are illegal in Kenya and pose a major threat to elephant populations. In the 1970s, 1900 elephants were killed in Kenya for their ivory tusks, increasing to 8300 elephants in the 1980s. In 1989, as a dramatic gesture to persuade the world to halt the ivory trade, Kenyan President Daniel arap Moi ignited twelve tons of elephant tusks. Illegal elephant deaths decreased between 1990, when the 1990 CITES ban was issued, and 1997, when only 34 were illegally killed. Seizures rose dramatically since 2006 with many illegal exports going to Asia. Poaching spiked seven-fold between 2007 and 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_hunting_in_Kenya Granted, Ellie poaching is increasing, but it is obvious there was a long lull after banning. Which raises all sorts of possibilities regarding a "window of opportunity", so to speak? SA enjoyed the same respite, along with other countries!



8. Further to the above, the ability of Southern African states within our SADC Region to monitor and regulate the legal trade in wildlife products is under serious debate. Illegal products cannot be distinguished from legally hunted or harvested products and we do not have the capacity within our judiciary to prosecute effectively. The DNA record of rhinos and their horns and the ramifications are implicitly dreaded by poachers and syndicates, as said record is slowly being built up. It is a major concern for high-level bosses both nationally and abroad,
9. Traditional medicinal uses of wildlife products and other naturally occurring products have a higher value if harvested in the wild. Horns that are farmed will find a place on the market, but the demand for "wild horn" will always be there. There is certainly no evidence of that...suppliers would simply, and presumably do, state that their horns are "wild"?

10. There is no evidence to suggest that legalisation of trade in horns will assist in the curbing of poaching of wild rhino. The contrary has been advocated as the demand will increase and enforcement will become more difficult with the water muddied with legal or farmed horn. The contrary has been advocated on both sides of the debate, including by scientists.


11. It has been well established that organised crime plays a substantial role in the illegal wildlife industry, not least of all the poaching of rhino horn. These syndicates have a modus operandi that is well known to criminologists. Any attempt to "flood or saturate" the market will only result in the syndicates purchasing and stockpiling the horns to regulate the price. This is old news and has been seen over and over again.
12. There is no correlation between Rands per hectare and enforcement success on reserves and parks. Poachers prevail despite vast sums of money being invested in some parks and reserves. The reality is that the sale of horns to raise money to stop poaching is not going to help the cause. The rhino will be under more poaching pressure than before. Some farms/conservancies have an excellent rhino protection record, the reasons for which may debated elsewhere.


13. The anthropologist in me also sees a trend that we are too familiar with: The social decay that has set in in the local communities that engage with poaching activities; the longer we wait and debate the trade in horns, the more the poachers develop a false economy and standard of living in their communities. With the extra buying-power that they have, the more the entire community benefits. The poachers inevitably become "heroes" in their communities and poaching is not considered an anti-social activity. It is considered acceptable and eventually value systems shift. This might have already happened in the communities of Massingir, Chokwe and even Bushbuck Ridge, etc. This is entirely correct! But unfortunately, that opens a massive can of worms regarding the priorities of communities, regions, tribes, provinces etc. Also to be discussed separately?
14. When this happens, the "Tragedy of Commons" takes grip on the community.
15. We are fooling ourselves if we think that it will stop at rhinos. When this commodity becomes scarce, the catch-per-unit-effort model predicts that the poaching communities will turn to the next high-value commodity. This might be elephant ivory, lion bones or TV's and Hi-Fis or cars! This is a great leap of logic, as the communities lose their own commodities due to crime The old adage of "crime breeds crime".
It is therefore our opinion that the trade in rhino horn is both unethical (from a social and economic perspective) and unjustifiable. As conservationists, we must be cognisant of the flaws in the structure of our society as well as that of our government.

Craig Spencer
BWANA

[Richprins]

I don't see any solutions offered in the above quote, rather a pessimistic diatribe regarding the decline of humankind. Theoretically there can be no evidence supporting/rejecting horn trading, really, because it has never been done on a large scale! Also, one cannot naysay trading on ethical AND economic/scientific grounds...the prior negates the need for support from the latter.

...one thing one must remember is that once SA government gets to lay its hands on a virtually free source of income, it brooks little or no competition!

[PennyinSA]

A lot of sense made in this article! http://www.lionaid.org/blog/2013/05/rhi ... I.facebook

[Toko]

Time for SA to take the fight to the poaching militia

June 6 2013 at 09:00am
By ADAM CRUISE

It is intriguing that both the DA and ANC are seriously considering that the solution to the plague of rhino horn poaching in the Kruger Park – where almost 350 rhino have been slaughtered in the first five months of the year – is to lift the ban on rhino horn trade.

Both the DA’s Anthony Benadie, who is the party’s leader in Mpumalanga, and the ANC’s Johnny de Lange, who is the chairman of Parliament’s environmental affairs portfolio committee, agree that the current ban on rhino horn trade has not resulted in a reduced demand for horn, and that the opposite is in fact true.

The escalation in poaching has grown exponentially each year since 2007, with this year looking to break record highs.

So, according to them, it is obvious that current solutions need to be scrapped.

De Lange, speaking during debate in the National Assembly on Tuesday, said legalising rhino horn trade for South Africa is likely to shift the market out of the hands of organised crime into legal channels, which must be good for the survival of rhino and other wildlife moving through these illicit channels.

He also said “a large and steady supply of horns is likely to lower and stabilise prices, which also plays against the black market”.

Furthermore, South Africa already has a stockpile of 20 tons of rhino horn, which could go a long way to satiating the demand, and he expressed a wish that horn could be harvested from live rhinos or those that have died from natural causes.

“No animals”, he insisted, “should be killed in the process.”

While this is a logical and compelling case for lifting the ban on the trade, can we really afford to risk it? What neither De Lange nor Benadie have mentioned, perhaps because there is no clear data or in-depth study from which to collect data, is just how insatiable the demand for rhino horn is.

Currently, South Africa has just over 20 000 rhino (black and white), 83 percent of the continent’s population. At current exponentially rising trends, this means that rhino could become extinct within a decade.

If the ban is lifted and prices decreased, would not the demand from burgeoning middle-class population in China and South East Asia – because now they could afford it – wade into the fray and increase the demand beyond controllable levels? Will this be too much for a tiny population of just 20 000 to sustain?

Besides, the argument is bad logic.

Yes, current legislation is not working, but the problem with this thinking is that it suggests that if something does not work, we must scrap it and do the opposite, which may or may not work.

Instead, why not seek to improve what we have?

We could do this by responding to the recent call of the Game Rangers’ Association of Africa (GRAA) to shift the responsibility of the rhino issue from the Department of Environmental Affairs to the Department of Defence.

Let’s rather take more of a zero-tolerance approach and treat our rhinos and the rangers who now find themselves in the firing line of an increasingly well-armed militia as we would any other citizen of South Africa.

Let’s defend our borders as if we were being invaded because, in a sense, we are being invaded.

Our defence forces should be deployed in full strength along the border with Mozambique, rather than sent off to defend someone else’s government in a far-flung country.

We ought to step up diplomatic pressure on the government of Mozambique to assist – it’s time they came to the party, too.

The rhino slaughter has become a case of national security, not a debate on economics.

Cruise is a freelance writer and Masters student in philosophy at Stellenbosch University.

[Sprocky]

I like this mans way of thinking!!!

Give that man a Bells!!!

[iNdlovu]

Agreed, we don't have the time to change things by surmising that free trade will fix the problem, it is wishful thinking to think that it will. Secure all our borders properly, stop sending our army people to other countries to protect certain people's personal diamond and oil interests and anyone crossing the border dies.....I like it.

[Richprins]

Both the DA’s Anthony Benadie, who is the party’s leader in Mpumalanga, and the ANC’s Johnny de Lange, who is the chairman of Parliament’s environmental affairs portfolio committee, agree that the current ban on rhino horn trade has not resulted in a reduced demand for horn, and that the opposite is in fact true.

Both have been asked to have a look at AW!

[iNdlovu]

Good, then maybe they will come to their senses and stop promoting the horn trade drivel as I hope you will one day RP
The ban on trade in horn is not the cause of the increase in poaching. It is simply a greater level of disposable income in the eastern countries which has created a bigger demand. More people are demanding more horn. Legalizing the trade will not change this, in fact if it succeeds in driving the price down until stockpiles run out, even more people will be able to afford the stuff, then we have a bigger demand and when the supply can't cope, watch the prices go even crazier.

The risk involved is not worth the experiment, 'cos that's all it is.

[Richprins]

We can debate it, you know!

Dictator!

[iNdlovu]

Debates without logic based on maybe's are pointless