The following appeared today on the CITES-L list that I am a member of.
Please read through it and make the appropriate comments to the addressees
below. I believe its fairly obvious to all that we are about to be closed off
from being able to use the airlines of the world to transport wildcaught
animals because the the Animal Rights whackos are lobbying major carrier
airlines to not accept wildlife shipments anymore. This is exactly what they
did several years ago with the bird trade and today wild birds are most often
shipped under substandard conditions because of what these people have done.
Airlines will still be used in the future but they will be the ones that have
to carry the animals over longer trade routes as well as in airplanes that do
not necessarily have the most updated means to transport animals humanely.
The suffering and deaths caused as a result clearly fall on the ehads of
these do gooders! I urge you to read the below posts and respond directly to
the CITES Secretariat and urge them to continue to see to it that animals of
all kinds travel in comfort and recieve priority travel arrangements on the
best airlines possible. Lufthansa was the first to cave into the AR pressure
before and soon after other airlines had to follow as a result of their
affiliation with Lufthansa. Lets battle this now while we still have a
chance! It only takes a few minutes of time to send a email to the CITES
Secratariat and your comments will be noted, trust me! You can be sure the
Animal Righeters are really up in arms over this and they will deluge the
Secretariat with emails to see it their way or none! Please pass this on to
other lists and individuals you might know that will respond favorably
towards wildlife being in comfort during transportation on the worlds
airlines. May common sense come back to this world!
Thanks
Don Wells
[Permission to re-post elsewhere]
Letters are needed to protest the completely unacceptable pro-trade bias
reflected by Willem Wijnstekers, Secretary General of CITES in a news
article printed 4 May 2001.� [The complete article is appended at the bottom
of this message.]
Regarding the news article and Wijnstekers' printed pro-trade assertions,
please
be advised that it is not the responsibility of CITES to lobby for increased
trade
in wildlife -� regardless of whether the particular trading is legal or not.
According to official CITES website, the explanation of� 'What is CITES?' is
as follows:
"The international wildlife trade, worth billions of dollars annually, has
caused
massive declines in the numbers of many species of animals and plants. The
scale
of over-exploitation for trade aroused such concern for the survival of
species
that an international treaty was drawn up in 1973 to protect wildlife against
such
over-exploitation and to prevent international trade from threatening species
with extinction."
"Known as CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, entered into force on 1 July 1975 and now
has a membership of 152 countries. These countries act by banning commercial
international trade in an agreed list of endangered species and by regulating
and monitoring trade in others that might become endangered. (Convention
Text)."
If indeed CITES is responsible for regulating and monitoring trade in
wildlife, then
CITES should not be concerning itself with "poor people in developing
countries"
and whether or not those people are "highly dependent on natural resources,
including
wildlife."� The stated purpose of CITES is not "sustainable use."� As such,
the
referenced article reflects a bias which is completely unacceptable, and
conflicting
with the stated purpose of CITES.
The acts of "regulating and monitoring" trade in wildlife is NOT the same as
promoting - and lobbying for - increased trade.� Wijnstekers has clearly
overstepped
his bounds.� It appears Wijnstekers is using his personal pro-trade bias to
unravel
the mandate of CITES from within.
Please write to the addresses below and request that the pro-trade statements
be
rescinded immediately in the same media forum to which they were submitted.
Demand that future assertions made by officials representing CITES be in
accordance
with the stated purpose of CITES and its mandates, and not based on promoting
the maverick personal agenda of one individual.
Write to -
Willem Wijnstekers, Secretary General CITES
Geneva Executive Centre
15 Chemin des Anemones,1219 Chatelaine
Geneva, Switzerland
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please also send letters of protest regarding the CITES Secretariat
overstepping
his bounds to the Executive-Director of the United Nations Environment
Programme:
Klaus T�pfer, Executive-Director of the United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Avenue, Gigiri
PO Box 30552,
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: (254-2) 621234
Fax: (254-2) 624489/90
E-mail c/o [EMAIL PROTECTED]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CITES Head Calls on Airlines to Reconsider Boycotts of Wildlife Shipments
EarthVision Environmental News
GENEVA, May 4, 2001 - Boycotts by airline companies of shipments containing
legally traded wild animals strike against the interests of the animals
themselves and of poor people in developing countries, Willem Wijnstekers,
Secretary-General of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species (CITES), said today. In addition, they do nothing to promote
conservation and are thus counter-productive.
Reacting to Tuesday's announcement by Lufthansa that it will no longer
transport animals captured in the wild for commercial purposes, Mr.
Wijnstekers pointed out that the economies and rural communities of many
developing countries are highly dependent on natural resources, including
wildlife.
"Sustainable trade in wild animals and plants represents a legitimate and
vital economic interest for developing countries", he said. "The 153 member
Governments of CITES have agreed to a strict set of rules for ensuring that
this trade is conducted in a way that does not endanger the species involved
and that gives poor communities an economic stake in protecting the wildlife
that they live with on a daily basis."
According to Mr. Wijnstekers, a trend toward bans would undermine both
animal welfare and conservation efforts by pushing shipments onto
second-tier airlines and charters, where conditions may be worse and flight
times longer. When trade is conducted by quality commercial airlines, the
Live Animal Regulations set down by the International Air Transport
Association (IATA) specifying ventilation, space, packing, feeding and other
conditions minimize the animals' discomfort.
Where these guidelines are not implemented or are proven to be insufficient,
IATA and CITES are required to take steps to improve the situation. However,
as studies in a number of European countries have shown, air transport
mortality rates are in fact low.
"Photographs of dead and suffering animals that have been smuggled via
airlines or ships are distressing and shocking", said Mr. Wijnstekers. "But
this illegal trade should not be confused with the regulated shipments that
are now being barred from leading airlines."
CITES was adopted in 1973 in response to concerns about the overexploitation
of many vulnerable species as a result of unregulated international trade.
The Convention, administered by the United Nations Environment Program
(UNEP), gives producer and consumer countries joint responsibility for
managing wildlife sustainably and preventing illegal trade.
CITES prohibits commercial international trade (and regulates non-commercial
trade) in plant and animal species that are threatened with extinction and
are or may be affected by trade. These species are listed in Appendix I,
which includes the snow leopard, the tiger and other big cats; many rare
primates such as the chimpanzee and the gorilla; almost all large parrots;
most crocodiles; all sea turtles; slipper orchids and many cacti - in total
about 800 species.
The Convention uses a system of permits to ensure that international trade
is sustainable for many species that are not threatened with extinction but
could become so if trade were not strictly regulated. These species are
listed in Appendix II, which includes all other big cats, primates,
cetaceans, parrots, crocodiles, cacti and orchids, plus several carnivorous
plants - in total about 30,000 species. To obtain the necessary permits for
export, it must be shown that trade is not detrimental to the long-term
survival of the species.
A third Appendix includes species subject to regulation within a particular
country and for which the cooperation of other member countries is sought to
help regulate trade.
As trade impacts and population levels change, animal or plant species can
be added to the CITES Appendices, deleted from them, or transferred from one
Appendix to another. These decisions are to be based on the best biological
information available and the likely effectiveness of different types of
regulation.
Submitted By:
CITES
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sample letters
----- Original Message -----
From: "Linda J. Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 8:52 AM
Subject: Letter to Willem Wijnstekers RE: CITES Head Calls on Airlines to
Reconsider Boycotts of Wildlife Shipments
Sunday, 6 May 2001
Willem Wijnstekers, Secretary General CITES
Geneva Executive Centre
15 Chemin des Anemones,1219 Chatelaine
Geneva, Switzerland
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mr. Wijnstekers,
Regarding the news article appended below, can you please explain why you
feel it is the responsibility of CITES to lobby for increased trade in
wildlife -
regardless of whether the particular trading is legal or not?
According to official CITES website, the explanation of� 'What is CITES?' is
as follows:
"The international wildlife trade, worth billions of dollars annually, has
caused
massive declines in the numbers of many species of animals and plants. The
scale
of over-exploitation for trade aroused such concern for the survival of
species
that an international treaty was drawn up in 1973 to protect wildlife against
such
over-exploitation and to prevent international trade from threatening species
with extinction."
"Known as CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, entered into force on 1 July 1975 and now
has a membership of 152 countries. These countries act by banning commercial
international trade in an agreed list of endangered species and by regulating
and monitoring trade in others that might become endangered. (Convention
Text)."
Mind you Sir, the acts of "regulating and monitoring" trade in wildlife is
NOT the
same as promoting - and lobbying for - increased trade.
If indeed CITES is responsible for regulating and monitoring trade in
wildlife, then
CITES should not be concerning itself with "poor people in developing
countries"
and whether or not those people are "highly dependent on natural resources,
including
wildlife."� The stated purpose of CITES is not "sustainable use."� As such,
the
referenced article reflects a bias which is completely unacceptable, and
conflicting
with the stated purpose of CITES.
AESOP-Project is calling for you to immediately rescind your pro-trade
statements
in the same media forum to which they were submitted.� If not, we shall demand
your resignation as the Secretary General of CITES.
Sincerely,
Linda J. Howard
AESOP-Project [Allied Effort to Save Other Primates]
http://www.aesop-project.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter #2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Linda J. Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 7:13 AM
Subject: Attn: Mr. Klaus T�pfer
To: Mr. Klaus T�pfer
Executive-Director of the United Nations Environment Programme
E-mail c/o [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear Mr. T�pfer,
I am writing to express my disapproval of the completely unacceptable
pro-trade
bias reflected by Willem Wijnstekers, Secretary General of CITES in a news
article printed 4 May 2001.� [The complete article is appended at the bottom
of this message for your review.]
Regarding the news article and Wijnstekers' printed pro-trade assertions,
please
be advised that it is not the stated (nor the implied) responsibility of
CITES to
lobby for increased trade in wildlife -� regardless of whether the particular
trading
is legal or not.
According to official CITES website, the explanation of� 'What is CITES?' is
as follows:
"The international wildlife trade, worth billions of dollars annually, has
caused
massive declines in the numbers of many species of animals and plants. The
scale
of over-exploitation for trade aroused such concern for the survival of
species
that an international treaty was drawn up in 1973 to protect wildlife against
such
over-exploitation and to prevent international trade from threatening species
with extinction."
"Known as CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, entered into force on 1 July 1975 and now
has a membership of 152 countries. These countries act by banning commercial
international trade in an agreed list of endangered species and by regulating
and monitoring trade in others that might become endangered. (Convention
Text)."
If indeed CITES is responsible for regulating and monitoring trade in
wildlife, then
CITES should not be concerning itself with "poor people in developing
countries"
and whether or not those people are "highly dependent on natural resources,
including
wildlife."� The stated purpose of CITES is not "sustainable use."� As such,
the
referenced article reflects a bias which is completely unacceptable, and
conflicting
with the stated purpose of CITES.
The acts of "regulating and monitoring" trade in wildlife is NOT the same as
promoting - and lobbying for - increased trade.� Wijnstekers has clearly
overstepped
his bounds.� It appears Wijnstekers is using his personal pro-trade bias to
unravel
the mandate of CITES from within.
If Wijnstekers is to remain in the position of Secretary General of CITES, it
is
my contention that he must immediately rescind his pro-trade assertions in the
same media forum to which they were submitted, and additionally he must - in
the
future - refrain from abusing his authority as an official of CITES by
promoting
his maverick personal agenda.
Sincerely,
Linda J. Howard
AESOP-Project [Allied Effort to Save Other Primates]
http://www.aesop-project.org
