CITES: First provisional list of proposals for ame

Note that Denmark's proposal is on behalf of all the EU countries, rather than independently.

I wish they would also propose moving P. chikae to Appendix II, its presence on Appendix I is totally unnecessary.

Adam.

That's interesting!!! I still believe that the whole CITES concept is flawed since CITES are only interested in the protection of species, rather than habitats. How can you protect a species without protecting its habitat?!?! As a matter of fact, a lot of species became extinct due to loss of habitat without ever making it to CITES appendices. And a lot of CITES-listed species are and will still be traded through the black market as poachers will keep on hunting species for money, especially outside reserves. Reserves and protected areas are the only solutions for effective protection.

With reference to the change in P. hospiton, I believe that its protection has always been unwarranted. There are lots of other not so beautiful butterflies which deserve stricter protection than hospiton & apollo for example. Take a look at what is happening in Morocco for example where overgrazing is bringing many species on the verge of extinction!!

Habitat protection is the only solution. Otherwise in my opinion CITES is just a waste of resources.

CITES is just one tool. You can't fault it because it doesn't solve every problem.

It was never planned that it would help preserve habitat. That is a problem for the range countries.

You are mostly right, you can't preserve a species without habitat (although some zoos seem to try).

CITES helps non-range countries preserve species, especially in situations where the range country can't (or won't) protect it's own wildlife. In those situations, there may also be a need to control poaching and over collection.

There is plenty of habitat for rhinos and elephants, but their numbers have continued to drop precipitously. The control of the illegal trade has been shown to have a definite effect on ivory poaching.

Modern conservation requires that species be protected on every front. CITES (like every approach) has limited utility. It does regulate the legal trade in the listed species, and it has had a significant impact on the illegal trade in others.

No one, thinks it's perfect, but it's certainly better than just sitting on your hands and hoping that the illegal trade in wildlife will regulate itself.

I do agree with Jonathan & Adam.

Of course, it is important to preserve the environment for both elephants, rhinos, tigers, snow leopards and for insects. That said, I do not think that the protection of large mammals arises in the same terms as butterflies. How many P. hospiton flying in Corsica? Thousands! Ditto for O. priamus in New Guinea or T. helena in Thailand. How many rhinos in Kenya? A few dozen? Scarcity (today) of some mammals is a fact attested and the result of hunting and poaching. The rarity of many butterflies (not all!) comes mainly from their inaccessibility (distant mountains, canopy, etc.).

If bureaucrats CITES were not distant bureaucrats from realities wild, they would not put on the same plane P. hospiton and the Asian elephant (or the Mekong dolphin).

'If bureaucrats CITES were not distant bureaucrats from realities wild, they would not put on the same plane P. hospiton and the Asian elephant (or the Mekong dolphin).'

- Very correct point, Jean-Marc. And I think it's not only their lack of real knowledge in entomology, but also the hypocricy involved and their economic benefits of course. As said above, Cites keeps in jobs many people and makes governments look good. At the same time some very knowledgeable and useful entomologists are unemployed or get paid very low. Of course having a job like working in Cites, doesn't require talents and hard work -if you have a contact, you get a good sallary from there, without doing anything special- (in contrast with a real entomologist-collector, whom Cites and other pseudo-ecologists with economic benefits have fighted not a few times, doing bad to research and science of entomology). And of course someone can't compare an animal poacher with an insect-collector entomologist (here I don't mean the pure dealers who over-collect illegally and clearly and only for money really endangered and vulnerable species that are not in any Cites list, only against whom Cites and law enforcers should act, and also remove from their appendices species like chikae, hospiton for whose existance there there is no real reason, and add really endangered insects -protecting also their habitats from destruction actively and not prohibiting/limiting the trade of some species for which this is not needed with this bureaucracy- by co-operating with real entomologists with field experience, while they should give collecting permits easier to real entomologists (and also breeding permits for species like O. alexandrae, P. homerus for both releasing to the preserved/protected natural habitat and for supplying collectors, who would support economically the breeding programmes for the survival of such species), as they for sure will not hurt any insect's population with their moderate collecting, and they will offer also to the science).