To Viateur who said: >You wrote, "CITES is a trade agreement".
Sorry Viateur, you are quoting part of what I said. What I did say is that "CITES is a trade agreement; not a conservation treaty." My comment was in response to the following statement in China View: "Entering into force in 1975, CITES is regarded as one of the most effective international wildlife conservation treaties." I was merely pointing out that one should use proper definitions. CITES stands for Convention International Trade in Endangered Species. >Do you think that the statement : "Its aim is to ensure that international >trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their >survival." is unjustified ? There is no need to justify motherhood statements like that. Who could disagree with such a noble aim? >CITES does restrict the trade of orchids. Legal trade to a degree. Total trade no, it does not!! When restrictions are put on legal trade, the illegal trade usually flourishes. Conservation??? Just two years ago we have seen the total depletion of Phragmipedium kovachii orchid habitats in Peru, a Party to CITES. >Are you opposed to measures that aim at safeguarding certain species from >over-exploitation ? Of course not!!!! You are asking me a conservation question; not a CITES question!
_______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
