David Cassuto
It’s been quite a week over at the meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Up for discussion was a ban on hunting polar bears and bluefin tuna. The discussions yielded some predictably (and yet still astonishingly) shortsighted conclusions.
The delegates rejected a ban on polar bear hunting because “hunting is not the most serious threat the polar bear faces” (recall that the bear was listed as endangered last year because of the pressures created by climate change and the consequent loss of icepack). Here’s a simple logical sequence: Hunting kills bears. If people stopped hunting them that would be one less thing killing bears. Unfortunately, this reasoning did not carry the day. Rather, opponents successfully argued that there is no point to killing fewer bears until we know for certain that we won’t kill them some other way. Follow this reasoning with me if you will. It is like refusing to treat your compound fracture until you’re certain that there exists a cure for your brain tumor. Continue reading
Filed under: animal law, endangered species, environmental law, fishing, hunting | Tagged: animal abuse, animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal law, animal suffering, animal welfare, bluefin, CITES, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, e, elephants, endangered species, environmental advocacy, environmental ethics, environmental law, ivory, Japan, polar bears, shark fins, sharks, tuna | 8 Comments »
