14 DAY TRIAL // As mind-boggling as it may sound, one researcher working with AsiaCat recently stated that, in some cases at least, banning wildlife trade did little to help protect biodiversity. More precisely, such legislations need in fact be held accountable for an increase in trafficking activities.
Kirsten Conrad explains that this is because, once in place, most of the rules and regulations meant to keep people from buying and selling either animals, or animal parts, cause two noteworthy and undesired consequences.
First of all, because such trading activities are forbidden by law, those who are in the businesses of buying and selling wildlife have no choice but to move their entire business agenda on the black market.
Granted, they could simply quit engaging in such activities, but as long as this is their primary source of income, odds are the aforementioned option will be much more appealing.
Secondly, since such wildlife markets are outlawed, the prices they bring forth are relatively big, meaning that those illegally trading animals and animal parts make even more money.
According to Kirsten Conrad, “When certain consumers will pay dearly, there is a significant profit to be made, trade networks are well established, ownership is vague, the animals are worth more dead than alive, and the odds of getting caught are slim, how can a trade ban be effective?”
“Given the abject failure of the trade ban to stem the decline of wild populations in the case of tigers, rhinos and elephants, legal trade needs to be given due consideration. Put another way, the solution to controlling the illegal market may be to outcompete it,” Kirsten Conrad goes on to argue.
From where we stand, this proposal is bound to stir up some very heated arguments, seeing how most conservationists will probably refuse to give this idea any sort of credit.
However, the fact remains that something needs to be done as soon as possible, otherwise several animal species are to become extinct in the not so distant future.