, however, goes much further, and attributes to animals the same fundamental rights one would afford humans. It is an extremist minority view, albeit one promoted by lobby groups that command hundreds of millions of dollars in donor funds. Animal rights organisations are opposed to any and all use of animals. Most oppose eating meat. Some would ban pets, if they could.
Consider, for example, the listing of giraffes on Appendix II, which subjects international trade in the animals or their products to strict CITES regulations. The idea to list them was cooked up by animal rights groups, and promoted by such conservation experts as Dolly Parton and Leonardo DiCaprio. Lobbyists distributed fluffy giraffe toys at CoP18, because the only science they were interested in was the science of emotional manipulation.
In South Africa, about 72% of wildlife ranching revenue comes from hunting, while only 5% comes from eco-tourism,of the Centre for Wildlife Management at the University of Pretoria. The rest comes from live sales and meat production. This is why South Africa’s conservation policies echo the World Conservation Strategy and Convention on Biological Diversity on the subject of sustainable utilisation of wildlife.South Africa is the third most biologically diverse country in the world in terms of species richness and endemism,” reads the foreword to theConservation and sustainable utilisation of South Africa’s biological diversity is thus of strategic importance in terms of provision of ecosystem services, now and in the future.
Who think it's worth saving? CITES has proven to combat countries who have legal sustainable hunting. Even after these countries proved that they could have sustainable and legal hunting. I think the world might be a better place without CITES.
If we are going to save CITES, then we need to respect African nations' sovereignty. I am extremely happy that the SADC countries are bringing the issue of corruption in CITES to the forefront, and hopefully they can bring some real positive change to the organization.
I like the idea proposed that only countries where the animal ranges should have a vote on the policies concerning the animal. It just seems like common sense that nations with no skin in the game, so to speak, should be dictating how the countries w/the animals manage them.
Personally, I hope that the SADC countries don't end up leaving CITES, but at the same time I completely understand why they want to leave. There is no reason that CITES should be listening to Benjamins more than highly experienced scientist such as Dr. Cooney or Dr. Dickman.
I think that the propositions that Vegter makes in this piece are extremely reasonable & honestly the best course of action. There's no reason to have an international body so heavily influenced by outside money, esp since that money promotes programs that hurt other countries.
I'm not entirely sure if it's worth saving, they've had radical environmentalists purchase their seats in order for them to spread their hatred of African sovereignty. Why can't these environmentalists just let Africa live!!!