Re: A Different Perspective

From: Betsy Feuerstein ecuador at midsouth.rr.com> on 2001.07.28 at 04:47:37(7175) You know it is funny how what you say could mean either don't obtain that which is being destroyed in situ or get it at all cost because it is going to be gone in so few years. Think about that one and come to your own conclusions. You just made an argument that could go both ways. Is there a right or wrong? As a few have alluded to, this really is a power and control issue and really has so very little relevance to the saving or destroying of habitats and species. Perhaps when we see a bigger picture, like survival of ourselves, we will look back and realize by saving what is, we by all rights, save ourselves, but it just may be tooooo late. At that point fear of our own survival or that of our offspring will take on a precedence that has true relevance to so many that the power and control will be in the hands of those many who are in this day and age ignored and not cared about. It may come down to saving ourselves before we wake and see the bigger issue and let go of the old greed and control and callous nature of humanity and come to a respect of all that lives and that is on this planet. Does that sound philosophical? WEll, at some point, philosophy is likely to play out in reality and then where will we be? Each of us, in our own ways, wants the same thing. Tolerance and caring and sharing and helping and being there to assist each aspect in the chain, will potentially enable the chain to function and survival to result. Weak links, of which there are many now, make the outlook bleak. I, for one, hope that we wake up and start working together to not save individual plants, but those all along the chain from human, to animal, to plants so that it all will be there, to share. Is that not what we all hope for? +More Phil Bunch wrote: > I think we need to keep the purpose of CITES in mind. It is only meant to > regulate the international trade in some species, it is not a blanket > conservation measure. It is true that habitat destruction is the major > known cause of endangerment and probably extirpation. This however is not > amenable control through treaties. CITES represents an effort to control > one small part of a much greater problem. As collectors I think we have a > responsibility to do our part, small though it may be. > > Phil Bunch > > On Friday, July 27, 2001 11:57, Regferns@aol.com [SMTP:Regferns@aol.com] > wrote: > > We are indeed immersed in a difficult subject. I would like to be on the > side > > that says "the law is the law." But, being who I am I also realize that > at > > one time "laws" were created to prevent me from drinking out of the same > > water-fountains as those from a different race. Laws also prevented me > from > > voting, laws also prevented my grandparents from obtaining an education. > I > > like to think of myself as one who recognizes the need for rules and > order, > > but I am also a person who is not blind, my eyes are wide open.That said, > > this is what I have seen. > > > > The CITES agreement is haphazard at best. Those of you who have never > > stepped foot in a jungle nor visited a foreign country to witness for > > yourselves what is happening to not only the rainforest, but forests or > even > > woodlands, are living in a dreamworld, if you think that the creators of > > CITES know best. > > > > As Betsy mentioned, just listening to the chainsaws in the distance is > > chilling. Seeing huge numbers of barges floating down the Rajang River > in > > Sarawak (Borneo) is mesmerizing, flying over Peninsular Malaysia and > looking > > at the thousands, upon thousands of newly planted acres of oil palm > groves is > > enough to bring a tear to your eye. And if you really want to drop to > your > > knees and weep, go through an area where the legal loggers (from other > > countries who have paid HANDSOMELY) are working. Notice how they take > down a > > century old dipterocarp. Notice how many epiphytes: orchids (CITES > appendix > > 1), aroids, ferns are stripped from the trees and are allowed to bake in > the > > sun and ultimately die. Then it dawns on you that once these magnificent > > trees are gone, the understory quickly vanishes because of lack of > > protection. Once the understory vanishes, the fauna that depended on the > > understory now vanishes. > > > > My point: the CITES agreement does not really work. Many of these > countries > > require hard cash to operate--and logging is a wonderful source. There > are > > those of you who talk about working to change the laws--how noble. I > have > > always hated this saying, but the older I get the more I truly recognize > the > > meaning: "Money Talks..." you know the rest. > > > > This CITES situation really needs to be addressed, but because there are > so > > many different agendas at play, ultimately the flora and fauna will lose. > > And there will be no plants or animals to save--even with the best > > intentions. The jungles are disappearing at an alarming rate. And it is > not > > due to collectors. 85% of the state of Sarawak on the island of Borneo is > now > > destroyed because of logging. And even though Sarawak has signed a > > biodiversity agreement forbidding plants and animals to leave the area, > the > > loggers still have free reign. Just a view from one of the places I > visit. > > > > Reggie Whitehead > > South Miami, Florida > > << File: ATT00000.html >>

Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.