Tiger Trade Ban & Myth of Free Market Economics

[Guest guest]

http://ecoworldly.com/2009/05/17/tiger-trade-ban-myth-of-free-market-economics/

 

Tiger Trade Ban & Myth of Free Market Economics

 

Written by Dr Vandana Prakash

Published on May 17th, 2009

in About Animals, In Asia

 

Some lobbyists are pushing for removal of a ban on trading tiger body

parts, citing the importance of a free market economy. The argument

claims that the ban must be lifted because it has failed to address

the issue head-on. However, as it stands the argument is a falsity

used with clear intent of misinforming. The practice of raising tigers

in the farms to re-populate in the wild, as of now, seems as

facetious. Tiger-farms do great injustice to Traditional Chinese

Medicine when they seek to justify their breeding of tigers for their

parts for practice of TCM and the associated lifestyle

 

Saving the tiger has become an issue fraught with much discussion —

and much of it is ill-informed and misleading. On the one hand are

the tiger-farm lobby and the so-called “believers of free-market

economics” such as John Stossel (ABC 20/20) , Terry Anderson (PERC)

and Barun Mitra (Liberty Institute). They want to lift the Convention

on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

(CITES) ban and favor open trade in tiger-parts. They cite the

apparent failure of the ban as the primary reason for lifting the ban.

Their arguments, they say, derive from free-market economics. On the

other hand are numerous (possibly insignificant because they lack the

voice) individuals who, lacking voice, have opted for the exit option

and have modified their behavior to save the most charismatic of

animals, the wild tiger. Alongside are many governments and many,

many NGOs that struggle to save the tiger from extinction, that

struggle to keep our world one species richer and which work to enable

our future generations to look at the king of the forest, the tiger,

in reality, not just in picture-books. Apart from humane motives,

their arguments are supported by economists, sociologists, zoologists,

conservation-biologists, etc.

 

The proponents of lifting the tiger-trade ban seek to justify their

opting for opening the trade in tiger-parts on grounds of free-market

economics. Virtues of the free-markets are known; however, much time

and effort of economists since Adam Smith has gone in establishing

that conditions exist that may render regulation and intervention in

free-markets necessary. Free-markets are not a panacea and must not

be thought of as a cure-all, especially not at the cost of the weak.

Vices of the free-market are also well-established: we cannot ignore

its inability to regulate and balance and we cannot ignore the ravages

of the free-market in the form of poverty. The free-market fails to

work in favor of those who lack the purchasing power and hardly ever

favors the weak. So, how can we let the invisible hand of the market

determine the fate of the wild tiger?

 

The arguments that CITES ban must be lifted because it has failed

needs to be addressed heads-on as it is a falsity used with clear

intent of misinforming. In effect, the CITES ban has been a success.

Even though its task can hardly be considered done, the ban has

successfully averted the threat of the extinction of the tiger by

1999. It is only on account of such consciousness and continuous

action that the tiger population in Russian Far-East has grown from 40

to 400 in post-world war II era.

 

The argument of raising tigers in the farms to re-populate in the

wild, as of now, seems as facetious. Thus far no successful

re-introduction of the farmed tigers into the wild has been done. The

very fact of their farmed existence has been at the root of the

failure to reintroduce: tigers become so accustomed to humans and

managed lifestyle of tiger-farms that they are not only unable to

adjust to the wild but also actively seek human establishments and get

killed in the process. Conservationists, then, rightly oppose this

practice of raising tigers on farms to populate the wild on the

grounds that the farmed animal is not truly representative of the wild

one as it lacks the necessary skills that have developed in the tigers

by virtue of life in the wild.

 

Tiger-farms do great injustice to Traditional when

they seek to justify their breeding of tigers for their parts for

practice of TCM and the associated lifestyle. With much difficulty,

conviction and hard work, TCM has eliminated tiger-medicine from its

pharmacopoeia. A lot of effort has also gone into developing viable

alternatives to such practices: Experiments have been done to

establish that dog, pig, lamb or other mammals’ bones provide similar

elements to the tiger- bone. Where lifestyle is concerned the

common-person surely deserves credit for having adapted their

preferences. Naturally, all this has been done with a wish to save

the tiger in the wild. To use them as an excuse to offload the 4000

or so carcasses that the tiger-farms are saddled with is not only

wrong, it is also doing great injustice to one’s own countrymen.

 

If the hyperbolic titles (Better Bred than Dead or How to Save

Endangered Species: Kill Them?) do not alert a careful reader to the

possibility of lack of substance, the lack of logic surely must

caution them. The arguments that selling the farmed tiger will

prevent poaching: More than ever sound like the mouthpiece of the

tiger-farms here. How is this ever likely to happen when farming the

tiger is much more costly — by ten to hundred times — than simply

having one poisoned by a poacher? In fact, hypothetically speaking,

in the absence of scientific detection techniques what is to prevent

anyone (including a tiger-farmer) from “laundering” poached parts as

farmed ones in order to gain much greater profits? Even simple

calculations revel why poaching will be favored over costly rearing in

farms if the ban is lifted.

 

Same propogandists of the “ban’s failure in saving the tiger” point to

the mysterious disappearance of tigers completely from one reserve in

India. Indeed, this is a sad tragedy but when all is taken into

account it should not be dismissed as a complete mystery: It is not

unreasonable to hazard a guess; especially in an environment where

poaching has hastened the disappearance of the tiger from China,

Korea, Vietnam and is also responsible for much killing in the

reserves of India. In final analysis, should we let these stories of

corruption and mismanagement convince us to throw the baby out with

the bath-water?

 

On balanced consideration, a direct approach with better enforcement

and larger, trans-boundary reserves seems the right way to go to

conserve the wild tiger rather than trying iffy- experiments of

tiger-farms and lifting of the tiger trade ban.

 

Picture Credit: Yvonne (bijoux & crafts)’s photostream from Flickr via

Creative Commons License

 

--

http://www.stopelephantpolo.com

http://www.freewebs.com/azamsiddiqui

[Guest guest]

I'd like to post this for Dr. Brendan Moyle

 

" I think it is useful to be a little more analytical here. If there is a

resumption of domestic trade in China, the chances of it being as an open

and free market are extremely unlikely. Rather, if it does happen there

will be a tightly regulated system that restricts the number of

participants.

 

The Chinese black-market is characterized by regional differences.

According to Chinese arrest data, the problem area is actually Yunnan and

the sub-species most at threat is the Indo-Chinese. When we talk about

populations in the Russian Far East or India, we are ignoring the

sub-species bearing the brunt of poaching pressure.

 

Throughout Asia however, poaching at the species level has not been

contained. We have some regional successes, but we cannot in good

conscience ignore the downward trend that has not abated in 30 years.

 

In terms of calculating the relative costs of farming and poaching, Dr

Prakash replicates the same mistakes of ignoring the supply chain effects.

 

We should be starting at the end of the smuggling-supply chain (rather

than the beginning). This tells us that for a smuggler to be induced to

bring a tiger into a China, they need about $US50,000 to cover their

costs, their risks and provide a suitable profit margin. This is why only

skins and bones get smuggled- these are the only tiger products where the

offer by consumers is enough to make the transaction economic.

 

A back of the envelope calculation- say that tigers cost $US5,000 a year

to raise- isn't making farming look uneconomic. Half that cost is covered

by the revenue visitors bring to the farms. In effect, you could raise a

tiger for 10 years, spend $50,000, get half of that back through tourism,

and easily undercut the smugglers.

 

Whether tiger-bone medicine actually works is not relevant at the moment

to containing the black-market. It only matters what the customers

_believe_ - and 2000 years of cultural tradition isn't amenable to any

quick fixes. If 500 people in Asia every year, decide that they want a

fresh poached tiger (and they have the means and opportunity to get one),

just how many tigers will be left in 10 years?

 

I don't actually think that 500 people is a lot in the context of Asia.

This makes a demand reduction strategy (say via education) very, very

challenging. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> Sigh, again. I can post on this group as well, if you like. -K

>

>

> aapn [aapn ] On Behalf Of

> azam24x7

> Monday, May 18, 2009 2:13 AM

> AAPN List

> Tiger Trade Ban & Myth of Free Market Economics

>

>

http://ecoworldly.com/2009/05/17/tiger-trade-ban-myth-of-free-market-economi

> cs/

>

> Tiger Trade Ban & Myth of Free Market Economics

>

> Written by Dr Vandana Prakash

> Published on May 17th, 2009

> in About Animals, In Asia

>

> Some lobbyists are pushing for removal of a ban on trading tiger body

> parts, citing the importance of a free market economy. The argument

> claims that the ban must be lifted because it has failed to address

> the issue head-on. However, as it stands the argument is a falsity

> used with clear intent of misinforming. The practice of raising tigers

> in the farms to re-populate in the wild, as of now, seems as

> facetious. Tiger-farms do great injustice to Traditional Chinese

> Medicine when they seek to justify their breeding of tigers for their

> parts for practice of TCM and the associated lifestyle

>

> Saving the tiger has become an issue fraught with much discussion -

> and much of it is ill-informed and misleading. On the one hand are

> the tiger-farm lobby and the so-called " believers of free-market

> economics " such as John Stossel (ABC 20/20) , Terry Anderson (PERC)

> and Barun Mitra (Liberty Institute). They want to lift the Convention

> on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

> (CITES) ban and favor open trade in tiger-parts. They cite the

> apparent failure of the ban as the primary reason for lifting the ban.

> Their arguments, they say, derive from free-market economics. On the

> other hand are numerous (possibly insignificant because they lack the

> voice) individuals who, lacking voice, have opted for the exit option

> and have modified their behavior to save the most charismatic of

> animals, the wild tiger. Alongside are many governments and many,

> many NGOs that struggle to save the tiger from extinction, that

> struggle to keep our world one species richer and which work to enable

> our future generations to look at the king of the forest, the tiger,

> in reality, not just in picture-books. Apart from humane motives,

> their arguments are supported by economists, sociologists, zoologists,

> conservation-biologists, etc.

>

> The proponents of lifting the tiger-trade ban seek to justify their

> opting for opening the trade in tiger-parts on grounds of free-market

> economics. Virtues of the free-markets are known; however, much time

> and effort of economists since Adam Smith has gone in establishing

> that conditions exist that may render regulation and intervention in

> free-markets necessary. Free-markets are not a panacea and must not

> be thought of as a cure-all, especially not at the cost of the weak.

> Vices of the free-market are also well-established: we cannot ignore

> its inability to regulate and balance and we cannot ignore the ravages

> of the free-market in the form of poverty. The free-market fails to

> work in favor of those who lack the purchasing power and hardly ever

> favors the weak. So, how can we let the invisible hand of the market

> determine the fate of the wild tiger?

>

> The arguments that CITES ban must be lifted because it has failed

> needs to be addressed heads-on as it is a falsity used with clear

> intent of misinforming. In effect, the CITES ban has been a success.

> Even though its task can hardly be considered done, the ban has

> successfully averted the threat of the extinction of the tiger by

> 1999. It is only on account of such consciousness and continuous

> action that the tiger population in Russian Far-East has grown from 40

> to 400 in post-world war II era.

>

> The argument of raising tigers in the farms to re-populate in the

> wild, as of now, seems as facetious. Thus far no successful

> re-introduction of the farmed tigers into the wild has been done. The

> very fact of their farmed existence has been at the root of the

> failure to reintroduce: tigers become so accustomed to humans and

> managed lifestyle of tiger-farms that they are not only unable to

> adjust to the wild but also actively seek human establishments and get

> killed in the process. Conservationists, then, rightly oppose this

> practice of raising tigers on farms to populate the wild on the

> grounds that the farmed animal is not truly representative of the wild

> one as it lacks the necessary skills that have developed in the tigers

> by virtue of life in the wild.

>

> Tiger-farms do great injustice to Traditional when

> they seek to justify their breeding of tigers for their parts for

> practice of TCM and the associated lifestyle. With much difficulty,

> conviction and hard work, TCM has eliminated tiger-medicine from its

> pharmacopoeia. A lot of effort has also gone into developing viable

> alternatives to such practices: Experiments have been done to

> establish that dog, pig, lamb or other mammals' bones provide similar

> elements to the tiger- bone. Where lifestyle is concerned the

> common-person surely deserves credit for having adapted their

> preferences. Naturally, all this has been done with a wish to save

> the tiger in the wild. To use them as an excuse to offload the 4000

> or so carcasses that the tiger-farms are saddled with is not only

> wrong, it is also doing great injustice to one's own countrymen.

>

> If the hyperbolic titles (Better Bred than Dead or How to Save

> Endangered Species: Kill Them?) do not alert a careful reader to the

> possibility of lack of substance, the lack of logic surely must

> caution them. The arguments that selling the farmed tiger will

> prevent poaching: More than ever sound like the mouthpiece of the

> tiger-farms here. How is this ever likely to happen when farming the

> tiger is much more costly - by ten to hundred times - than simply

> having one poisoned by a poacher? In fact, hypothetically speaking,

> in the absence of scientific detection techniques what is to prevent

> anyone (including a tiger-farmer) from " laundering " poached parts as

> farmed ones in order to gain much greater profits? Even simple

> calculations revel why poaching will be favored over costly rearing in

> farms if the ban is lifted.

>

> Same propogandists of the " ban's failure in saving the tiger " point to

> the mysterious disappearance of tigers completely from one reserve in

> India. Indeed, this is a sad tragedy but when all is taken into

> account it should not be dismissed as a complete mystery: It is not

> unreasonable to hazard a guess; especially in an environment where

> poaching has hastened the disappearance of the tiger from China,

> Korea, Vietnam and is also responsible for much killing in the

> reserves of India. In final analysis, should we let these stories of

> corruption and mismanagement convince us to throw the baby out with

> the bath-water?

>

> On balanced consideration, a direct approach with better enforcement

> and larger, trans-boundary reserves seems the right way to go to

> conserve the wild tiger rather than trying iffy- experiments of

> tiger-farms and lifting of the tiger trade ban.

>

> Picture Credit: Yvonne (bijoux & crafts)'s photostream from Flickr via

> Creative Commons License

>

> --

> http://www.stopelephantpolo.com

> http://www.freewebs.com/azamsiddiqui

>

>

> ---

>

> 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! Groups Links

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

This argument would only be valid if animals were not considered to be of

intrinsic moral worth. It is the same kind of get rich quick logic that has

caused the current recession in the USA and the entire world has been

affected. Also the subspecies point is questionable. People have been

killing each other since time immemorial, that does not justify the excuse

to develop weapons of mass destruction to refine the killing process. A 2000

year old destructive tradition does not merit encouragement by the same

token.

 

On 5/19/09, Kirsten Conrad <asiacat wrote:

>

>

>

> I'd like to post this for Dr. Brendan Moyle

>

> " I think it is useful to be a little more analytical here. If there is a

> resumption of domestic trade in China, the chances of it being as an open

> and free market are extremely unlikely. Rather, if it does happen there

> will be a tightly regulated system that restricts the number of

> participants.

>

> The Chinese black-market is characterized by regional differences.

> According to Chinese arrest data, the problem area is actually Yunnan and

> the sub-species most at threat is the Indo-Chinese. When we talk about

> populations in the Russian Far East or India, we are ignoring the

> sub-species bearing the brunt of poaching pressure.

>

> Throughout Asia however, poaching at the species level has not been

> contained. We have some regional successes, but we cannot in good

> conscience ignore the downward trend that has not abated in 30 years.

>

> In terms of calculating the relative costs of farming and poaching, Dr

> Prakash replicates the same mistakes of ignoring the supply chain effects.

>

> We should be starting at the end of the smuggling-supply chain (rather

> than the beginning). This tells us that for a smuggler to be induced to

> bring a tiger into a China, they need about $US50,000 to cover their

> costs, their risks and provide a suitable profit margin. This is why only

> skins and bones get smuggled- these are the only tiger products where the

> offer by consumers is enough to make the transaction economic.

>

> A back of the envelope calculation- say that tigers cost $US5,000 a year

> to raise- isn't making farming look uneconomic. Half that cost is covered

> by the revenue visitors bring to the farms. In effect, you could raise a

> tiger for 10 years, spend $50,000, get half of that back through tourism,

> and easily undercut the smugglers.

>

> Whether tiger-bone medicine actually works is not relevant at the moment

> to containing the black-market. It only matters what the customers

> _believe_ - and 2000 years of cultural tradition isn't amenable to any

> quick fixes. If 500 people in Asia every year, decide that they want a

> fresh poached tiger (and they have the means and opportunity to get one),

> just how many tigers will be left in 10 years?

>

> I don't actually think that 500 people is a lot in the context of Asia.

> This makes a demand reduction strategy (say via education) very, very

> challenging. "

>

> > Sigh, again. I can post on this group as well, if you like. -K

> >

> >

> > aapn <aapn%40> [

> aapn <aapn%40>] On Behalf Of

> > azam24x7

> > Monday, May 18, 2009 2:13 AM

> > AAPN List

> > Tiger Trade Ban & Myth of Free Market Economics

> >

> >

>

> http://ecoworldly.com/2009/05/17/tiger-trade-ban-myth-of-free-market-economi

> > cs/

> >

> > Tiger Trade Ban & Myth of Free Market Economics

> >

> > Written by Dr Vandana Prakash

> > Published on May 17th, 2009

> > in About Animals, In Asia

> >

> > Some lobbyists are pushing for removal of a ban on trading tiger body

> > parts, citing the importance of a free market economy. The argument

> > claims that the ban must be lifted because it has failed to address

> > the issue head-on. However, as it stands the argument is a falsity

> > used with clear intent of misinforming. The practice of raising tigers

> > in the farms to re-populate in the wild, as of now, seems as

> > facetious. Tiger-farms do great injustice to Traditional Chinese

> > Medicine when they seek to justify their breeding of tigers for their

> > parts for practice of TCM and the associated lifestyle

> >

> > Saving the tiger has become an issue fraught with much discussion -

> > and much of it is ill-informed and misleading. On the one hand are

> > the tiger-farm lobby and the so-called " believers of free-market

> > economics " such as John Stossel (ABC 20/20) , Terry Anderson (PERC)

> > and Barun Mitra (Liberty Institute). They want to lift the Convention

> > on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

> > (CITES) ban and favor open trade in tiger-parts. They cite the

> > apparent failure of the ban as the primary reason for lifting the ban.

> > Their arguments, they say, derive from free-market economics. On the

> > other hand are numerous (possibly insignificant because they lack the

> > voice) individuals who, lacking voice, have opted for the exit option

> > and have modified their behavior to save the most charismatic of

> > animals, the wild tiger. Alongside are many governments and many,

> > many NGOs that struggle to save the tiger from extinction, that

> > struggle to keep our world one species richer and which work to enable

> > our future generations to look at the king of the forest, the tiger,

> > in reality, not just in picture-books. Apart from humane motives,

> > their arguments are supported by economists, sociologists, zoologists,

> > conservation-biologists, etc.

> >

> > The proponents of lifting the tiger-trade ban seek to justify their

> > opting for opening the trade in tiger-parts on grounds of free-market

> > economics. Virtues of the free-markets are known; however, much time

> > and effort of economists since Adam Smith has gone in establishing

> > that conditions exist that may render regulation and intervention in

> > free-markets necessary. Free-markets are not a panacea and must not

> > be thought of as a cure-all, especially not at the cost of the weak.

> > Vices of the free-market are also well-established: we cannot ignore

> > its inability to regulate and balance and we cannot ignore the ravages

> > of the free-market in the form of poverty. The free-market fails to

> > work in favor of those who lack the purchasing power and hardly ever

> > favors the weak. So, how can we let the invisible hand of the market

> > determine the fate of the wild tiger?

> >

> > The arguments that CITES ban must be lifted because it has failed

> > needs to be addressed heads-on as it is a falsity used with clear

> > intent of misinforming. In effect, the CITES ban has been a success.

> > Even though its task can hardly be considered done, the ban has

> > successfully averted the threat of the extinction of the tiger by

> > 1999. It is only on account of such consciousness and continuous

> > action that the tiger population in Russian Far-East has grown from 40

> > to 400 in post-world war II era.

> >

> > The argument of raising tigers in the farms to re-populate in the

> > wild, as of now, seems as facetious. Thus far no successful

> > re-introduction of the farmed tigers into the wild has been done. The

> > very fact of their farmed existence has been at the root of the

> > failure to reintroduce: tigers become so accustomed to humans and

> > managed lifestyle of tiger-farms that they are not only unable to

> > adjust to the wild but also actively seek human establishments and get

> > killed in the process. Conservationists, then, rightly oppose this

> > practice of raising tigers on farms to populate the wild on the

> > grounds that the farmed animal is not truly representative of the wild

> > one as it lacks the necessary skills that have developed in the tigers

> > by virtue of life in the wild.

> >

> > Tiger-farms do great injustice to Traditional when

> > they seek to justify their breeding of tigers for their parts for

> > practice of TCM and the associated lifestyle. With much difficulty,

> > conviction and hard work, TCM has eliminated tiger-medicine from its

> > pharmacopoeia. A lot of effort has also gone into developing viable

> > alternatives to such practices: Experiments have been done to

> > establish that dog, pig, lamb or other mammals' bones provide similar

> > elements to the tiger- bone. Where lifestyle is concerned the

> > common-person surely deserves credit for having adapted their

> > preferences. Naturally, all this has been done with a wish to save

> > the tiger in the wild. To use them as an excuse to offload the 4000

> > or so carcasses that the tiger-farms are saddled with is not only

> > wrong, it is also doing great injustice to one's own countrymen.

> >

> > If the hyperbolic titles (Better Bred than Dead or How to Save

> > Endangered Species: Kill Them?) do not alert a careful reader to the

> > possibility of lack of substance, the lack of logic surely must

> > caution them. The arguments that selling the farmed tiger will

> > prevent poaching: More than ever sound like the mouthpiece of the

> > tiger-farms here. How is this ever likely to happen when farming the

> > tiger is much more costly - by ten to hundred times - than simply

> > having one poisoned by a poacher? In fact, hypothetically speaking,

> > in the absence of scientific detection techniques what is to prevent

> > anyone (including a tiger-farmer) from " laundering " poached parts as

> > farmed ones in order to gain much greater profits? Even simple

> > calculations revel why poaching will be favored over costly rearing in

> > farms if the ban is lifted.

> >

> > Same propogandists of the " ban's failure in saving the tiger " point to

> > the mysterious disappearance of tigers completely from one reserve in

> > India. Indeed, this is a sad tragedy but when all is taken into

> > account it should not be dismissed as a complete mystery: It is not

> > unreasonable to hazard a guess; especially in an environment where

> > poaching has hastened the disappearance of the tiger from China,

> > Korea, Vietnam and is also responsible for much killing in the

> > reserves of India. In final analysis, should we let these stories of

> > corruption and mismanagement convince us to throw the baby out with

> > the bath-water?

> >

> > On balanced consideration, a direct approach with better enforcement

> > and larger, trans-boundary reserves seems the right way to go to

> > conserve the wild tiger rather than trying iffy- experiments of

> > tiger-farms and lifting of the tiger trade ban.

> >

> > Picture Credit: Yvonne (bijoux & crafts)'s photostream from Flickr via

> > Creative Commons License

> >

> > --

> > http://www.stopelephantpolo.com

> > http://www.freewebs.com/azamsiddiqui

> >

> >

> > ---

> >

> > 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 <aapn%40>! Groups Links

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>