Where do you stand?

Do trade bans help or hurt endangered species?

This month the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) will turn 40. From March 3rd to 14th delegates from 178 countries are gathering in Bangkok to review the treaty, which regulates the sale of wildlife and allows for a global ban in the trade of a species when it is threatened with over-exploitation. One of the subjects on the agenda is whether such bans work. Trade bans are controversial (see article). They can be effective in stabilising population numbers. But a growing chorus of scientists think they invariably lead to the emergence of black markets and ultimately hurt conservation efforts. Supporters of bans, meanwhile, argue that illicit trade can be dealt with by bolstering enforcement, increasing penalties, educating potential customers about the grisly source of the wares they covet, and ensuring that keeping the animals alive becomes more profitable for local communities, through eco-tourism, say, than slaying them is. So do trade bans do more harm than good? Cast your vote and join the discussion.

View results after you vote
Voting opened on Mar 6th 2013

Readers' comments




It really depends on the circumstances but there is no way that the sale of goods to raise money for strictly for conservation efforts (not conservationists) would be better than burning the goods or leaving them locked up, etc.


It provides atleast some form of scrutiny for the killers. It at least empower law enforcement agencies to catch the killers. Without ban it will be in mercy of them.
Countries like India and China (with 1B+ population each) where illegal trade is rampant, banning does not stop it but it does help to converse those animals. Imagine without banning Tiger killing; like China not single Tiger would have left today. Same in China, Govt is trying it best to converse many species whatever left.

And there we see the real issue. Trade bans are better than nothing. But nowhere near as good as a serious scheme for cultivation.
As long as essentially the only available available sources (of tusks or skins or whatever) are animals essentially in the wild and without owners, a trade ban is useful. To make it a bad thing, we first need to make those animal sources in the wild a small part of the total available supply.


Every year for the last 15 years my Dad has planted potatoes seed from the year before in his garden. Every year we have delicious potatoes to eat. If some stupid law was installed to make it illegal to eat the potato from the garden (to protect the potato for instance) then the next year there would be no-one to plant, fertilize, weed and water the potatoes. They would not last a year. If it pays it stays.

CnKQ7pSia6 in reply to Kosh924

"If you make ivory trade legal, there would still be a demand for more, and poachers would still be operating as usual."

That's a faulty argument. The main benefit of making any trade legal is that you incentivize anyone and everyone to protect the value of their investment in that trade. Yes, you will still have thieves and poachers but tell me - who do you think has a greater interest in protecting a tiger?

A. The guard who is paid a fixed salary at the local wildlife park and will see no real benefit from the tiger remaining alive OR

B. A trader who owns that tiger and has spent a lot of money feeding and raising it

I think we have a very enlightening parallel when you compare the treatment of prisoners in concentration camps with owned slaves. While both practices were despicable, who do you think got treated better? The slaves. Why? Not out of some virtue of the slave master but simply because he had an economic interest in not letting his property and investment be destroyed. The labor camp commandant had no such stake - he didn't care whether 10 prisoners died while making the bridge or 100 or a 1000.

I think the key question is not whether allowing trade in animal parts and organs - ivory, skins, horns and all - would help increase their numbers. That it most certainly would because of the simple law of supply and demand coupled with the inherent interest in people protecting their property.

The key question is not an economic one but a philosophical one. Is it OK to treat animals as property? You can argue that we already do that anyway for their meat or milk. Isn't it hypocrisy that it is fine to own a cow or a chicken as property and sell it or its products for money. But somehow it is sacrilege to do the same with a tiger or an elephant? If yes, then why?


Trading in endangered species is not like growing marijuana. Anything banned will stimulate an illegal market, but there is very little collateral damage to a small increased use of land for growing plants. If you make ivory trade legal, there would still be a demand for more, and poachers would still be operating as usual. Even if you were to cut the tusks and horns from every living elephant or rhino in the wild to prevent the slaughter, what do you do about the demand for tiger skins and bear's gall bladders?


The big game hunting ranches in south texas are a fine example of how to save endangered species without govenment money. The Scimitar Oryx was hunted to extinction in africa but there are over 2,000 in south texas supported and managed by money from hunters. These same sort of profitable habitats could be set up in an animals native country.

Kunshan Laowai

I voted "Hurt," but it obviously depends a lot on the host country. If they use export earnings or duties on same to fund improved policing of poaching and wildlife management, then allowing exports will help. Likewise sport hunting... I am a lifelong hunter and the fees that hunters pay (in the U.S. anyway) go to support wildlife habitat and policing programs.

The real harm comes from well-intentioned city dwellers who, though they know better, act as though meat grows in shrink-wrapped containers. There is nothing wrong with killing animals, it's part of our nature. So, set an economic value on scarcity and use that revenue to benefit the species in question.

jason9139 in reply to Funnyme

"The key to stop this is to educate people, inculcate in them a sense of responsibility in protecting the other inhabitants of earth,making them realize that it is with successful coexistence with the other species that our future will be secure and a balance maintained in nature."

And since this has been shown to be quite easy to teach anyone really, might as well not ban the product in the time being. Tell me, how many people have been educated in this fashion? Because when I look around I see a planet of human bent on self-destruction, so until you get that educating-thing down, might want to have an alternative.


Trade bans definitely hurt than help!The article puts light on the hard fact that it might lead to an increase in black market trading.AS long as there is a demand from people for these goods there will be inhumane slaying of animals be it endangered or not.The key to stop this is to educate people, inculcate in them a sense of responsibility in protecting the other inhabitants of earth,making them realize that it is with successful coexistence with the other species that our future will be secure and a balance maintained in nature.

Kosh924 in reply to CnKQ7pSia6

No, the argument is not faulty, but I see that it deserves further explanation. You bring up the case of the incentive in safeguarding the wildlife, i.e. the salaried guard or the trader. It is certainly true that the trader has a greater interest in protecting his supply, but two key issues have been ignored in that statement: 1) is he able to? 2) is he willing to? (I will maintain simple rules, such offer and demand, and ignore all the pesky non-linear effects).
Consider the first one: wild animals generally require vast tracts of land - some of them live in dense forest habitats, very difficult to penetrate and even less to control (in fact, poachers in those cases do not really hunt - too difficult - they trap!). How can you expect anyone, trader or not, to prevent a small group of people to infiltrate the habitat and kill the animals?
Consider then number 2: how much resources is the trader willing to spend? Obviously he still has to make a profit, so he will decide to limit his range of operation to something that is easily manageable. The rest of the wildlife is, well... doomed.
We can now move the chess pieces forward a bit. In order to maximize his profit, the trader should avoid dealing with wild animals. All he has to do is capture them and keep them in a small place; basically a farm that looks like a zoo. Since he has no interest in protecting the rest, the poachers are still free to roam at will. This is the origin of my previous statement.
This brings us to the philosophical question that you correctly bring up: should we allow wild animals to be treated in such conditions? Well... we are doing it in a zoo. But is that what we want? Are we that callous a species that we should extinguish the life out of all others (however intelligent and sophisticated their social life) and treat the few - the luck few - remaining as ambulant bank accounts? A philosophical issue indeed....


I didn't notice this in the article, but I believe that if that trade of many of these goods is made legal and there is a static price placed on these goods then poachers will (probably) have less incentive to hunt and sell their wares. Not entirely sure about it, I'm not a poacher, but there's a decent possibility.

Most of my information is based entirely on the article linked in the short paragraph above so what do I know?


Trade bans are what Ai believe are only used in the case that a point needs to be made. In any other case, I would find them unnecessary, but as in the case of Iran, North Korea, and the African countries dealing in ivory, they are proven to be much needed as a wake up call.

Terence Hale

Do trade bans help or hurt? A trade ban is an “end of the chain” resolution synonymous with the legalization of drugs, to take the market out. When kings and queens and rich men go on holyday to kill such animals such bans make no sense.


If ivory trade ban - for example - had been established, it's because african Elephants population were decreasing incredibly fast. It's been only a few years since it's increasing, so it looks like it succeeded. It had been the same about whales and many others species.

We could think about a legal ivory market, made only in elephant's farms, but it would need huge regulation. Because it would cost much much less to kill a wild elephant than to raise one. And maybe the regulation cost is not worthy.

In my opinion trade bans will always be better than doing nothing. And it doesn't prevent to try - at the same time - other approaches. Illicit trade will always exist for scarce ressources, legal (gold) or not (ivory).



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

