wildlife consumption in Asia

August 4, 2005

In no way would I try to minimize the negative impact of the

USA on consumption of natural resources globally. But it is a fact

that Americans do not customarily eat exotic wildlife, and penalties

are harsh when illegal wildlife traders are caught in the US. (Much

of the illegal wildlife trade in the US involves the sale of bear

gallbladders for Chinese medicine and fresh-water turtles for Chinese

food markets.) There is a big problem with wealthy American trophy

hunters (Germans, British and other Europeans, too) traveling to

developing countries - mainly Africa - to hunt, with permission to

import their trophies (some of protected species) usually granted by

wildlife officials in the pro-hunting Bush administration, which

argues that trophy hunting is " sustainable use " and approved by

conservation groups such as the World Wildlife Fund. However, as

deplorable as trophy hunting is, it is not a huge factor in the

black market trade that is impacting Asian wildlife at this time.

The US has huge numbers of tigers in captivity, but they were

bred and born in captivity. The US is not importing wild-caught

tigers (except for possible use in Species Survival plans), and any

American caught eating or wearing tiger remains would be socially

ostracized, apart from legal penalties. Tigers poached in India have

their skins sold to Tibet with their salable body parts sent mainly

to Taiwan for use in Chinese traditional medicines. The Peoples

Republic of China (mainland China) has cracked down on the trade in

tigers and elephants, but so far has done nothing significant to

curb the sale of wildlife for human consumption in Cantonese markets,

and my point was that as long as it is legal to sell and eat exotic

wildlife species in Guangdong, the demand will be supplied.

Deforestation for meat production has an enormous

environmental impact in Latin America and Africa, but meat

consumption is not yet considered an environmental issue by

mainstream environmental organizations. It is also worth noting that

per capita Asian meat consumption is rising as per capita meat

consumption falls in the US and western Europe (where there are the

most McDonald's).

The US can be blamed for much that is wrong in the world, and

I have always been one of the first to criticize American politics,

policies and practices, but blaming America for the " black market in

Asian endangered species " is unjustifiable and will not contribute to

solving the problem.

--Kim Bartlett

> " Ghosh " <shubhobrotoghosh

>Sender: aapn

>4 Aug 2005 09:51:38 -0000

>Re: BLACK MARKET IN ASIAN ENDANGERED SPECIES

> " Ghosh " <shubhobrotoghosh

>

>Dear colleagues,

> Whereas there can be no doubt that China is a major

>consumer of wildlife products and animals, I would beg to differ on

>the notion that 'When it comes to the wildlife trade, all roads lead

>to China'. I would like to remind everyone that the world's number

>one consumer of natural resources is USA and not China(Ref: THE

>FUTURE OF LIFE by Edward Wilson, STUPID WHITE MEN by Michael Moore).

>All wildlife trade routes definitely do not lead to China since

>there are more tigers in USA in captivity than any other

>country(Ref: the Patrick Brown and Alan Green interviews). The

>Chinese are not responsible for creating MacDonalds to wipe out

>rainforests all over the world to fatten cattle for beef burgers.

>The Chinese were not responsible for dropping napalm bombs in

>Vietnam to destroy forests and endangered species, the Americans

>were. Pointing fingers to one country and saying 'They are

>responsible' does not help the animals or humans. No one is absolved

>of guilt on the issue of animal mistreatment anywhere.

> Best wishes and kind regards,

>

> Yours sincerely,

>

--

Kim Bartlett, Publisher of ANIMAL PEOPLE Newspaper

Postal mailing address: P.O. Box 960, Clinton WA 98236 U.S.A.

CORRECT EMAIL ADDRESS IS: <ANPEOPLE

Website: http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/ with French and Spanish

language subsections.

August 5, 2005

Dear Ms. Bartlett and Ms Welch and AAPN colleagues,

Your comments are

appreciated. I am not blaming any country or any individual in particular but

just trying to say that the wildlife trade issue is a complex global one. I

however do believe in healthy debate since most often leaving things to 'the

higher authorities' causes the problems in the first place. I also do believe

that unless you respect humans you cannot respect animals. In short we cannot

think of animal rights without considering human rights. Thank you for your

views and all the best in your work.

Best wishes and kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 Kim Bartlett wrote :

> In no way would I try to minimize the negative impact of the

>USA on consumption of natural resources globally. But it is a fact

>that Americans do not customarily eat exotic wildlife, and penalties

>are harsh when illegal wildlife traders are caught in the US. (Much

>of the illegal wildlife trade in the US involves the sale of bear

>gallbladders for Chinese medicine and fresh-water turtles for Chinese

>food markets.) There is a big problem with wealthy American trophy

>hunters (Germans, British and other Europeans, too) traveling to

>developing countries - mainly Africa - to hunt, with permission to

>import their trophies (some of protected species) usually granted by

>wildlife officials in the pro-hunting Bush administration, which

>argues that trophy hunting is " sustainable use " and approved by

>conservation groups such as the World Wildlife Fund. However, as

>deplorable as trophy hunting is, it is not a huge factor in the

>black market trade that is impacting Asian wildlife at this time.

> The US has huge numbers of tigers in captivity, but they were

>bred and born in captivity. The US is not importing wild-caught

>tigers (except for possible use in Species Survival plans), and any

>American caught eating or wearing tiger remains would be socially

>ostracized, apart from legal penalties. Tigers poached in India have

>their skins sold to Tibet with their salable body parts sent mainly

>to Taiwan for use in Chinese traditional medicines. The Peoples

>Republic of China (mainland China) has cracked down on the trade in

>tigers and elephants, but so far has done nothing significant to

>curb the sale of wildlife for human consumption in Cantonese markets,

>and my point was that as long as it is legal to sell and eat exotic

>wildlife species in Guangdong, the demand will be supplied.

> Deforestation for meat production has an enormous

>environmental impact in Latin America and Africa, but meat

>consumption is not yet considered an environmental issue by

>mainstream environmental organizations. It is also worth noting that

>per capita Asian meat consumption is rising as per capita meat

>consumption falls in the US and western Europe (where there are the

>most McDonald's).

> The US can be blamed for much that is wrong in the world, and

>I have always been one of the first to criticize American politics,

>policies and practices, but blaming America for the " black market in

>Asian endangered species " is unjustifiable and will not contribute to

>solving the problem.

> --Kim Bartlett

>

> > " Ghosh " <shubhobrotoghosh

> >Sender: aapn

> >4 Aug 2005 09:51:38 -0000

> >Re: BLACK MARKET IN ASIAN ENDANGERED SPECIES

> > " Ghosh " <shubhobrotoghosh

> >

> >Dear colleagues,

> > Whereas there can be no doubt that China is a major

> >consumer of wildlife products and animals, I would beg to differ on

> >the notion that 'When it comes to the wildlife trade, all roads lead

> >to China'. I would like to remind everyone that the world's number

> >one consumer of natural resources is USA and not China(Ref: THE

> >FUTURE OF LIFE by Edward Wilson, STUPID WHITE MEN by Michael Moore).

> >All wildlife trade routes definitely do not lead to China since

> >there are more tigers in USA in captivity than any other

> >country(Ref: the Patrick Brown and Alan Green interviews). The

> >Chinese are not responsible for creating MacDonalds to wipe out

> >rainforests all over the world to fatten cattle for beef burgers.

> >The Chinese were not responsible for dropping napalm bombs in

> >Vietnam to destroy forests and endangered species, the Americans

> >were. Pointing fingers to one country and saying 'They are

> >responsible' does not help the animals or humans. No one is absolved

> >of guilt on the issue of animal mistreatment anywhere.

> > Best wishes and kind regards,

> >

> > Yours sincerely,

> >

>

>--

>Kim Bartlett, Publisher of ANIMAL PEOPLE Newspaper

>Postal mailing address: P.O. Box 960, Clinton WA 98236 U.S.A.

>CORRECT EMAIL ADDRESS IS: <ANPEOPLE

>Website: http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/ with French and Spanish

>language subsections.

>

>For more information on Asian animal issues, please use the search feature on

the AAPN website: http://www.aapn.org/ or search the list archives at:

aapn

>Please feel free to send any relevant news or comments to the list at

aapn

>

August 5, 2005

Dear ,

I fully agree with you that we cannot think of animal rights without

considering human rights, but where exactly this enters the debate in

question is beyond me.

S. Chinny Krishna

Ghosh [shubhobrotoghosh]

Friday, August 05, 2005 12:48 PM

aapn

Re: wildlife consumption in Asia

Dear Ms. Bartlett and Ms Welch and AAPN colleagues,

Your comments are

appreciated. I am not blaming any country or any individual in particular

but just trying to say that the wildlife trade issue is a complex global

one. I however do believe in healthy debate since most often leaving things

to 'the higher authorities' causes the problems in the first place. I also

do believe that unless you respect humans you cannot respect animals. In

short we cannot think of animal rights without considering human rights.

Thank you for your views and all the best in your work.