your mail

[J. Charles Delbeek]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2000, James M. Cervino wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2000, J. Charles Delbeek wrote:
> 
> Or the coral was misidentified according to the inspector, therefor an
> entire shipment can be confiscated. For an act, whose purpose at some level
> is to only monitor a trade, some are using to completely hinder a trade by
> relying on technicalites when perhaps a system of fines might be a better
> way of dealing with such errors.
> 
> 
> James comments:
> I agree that this has happened, however there are still shipments that make
> it through that contain endangered species all the time.  Shell World and
> Evolution display (for sale) Helipora which is an endangered species. 

Where is Heliopora listed as an endangered species?

> These
> particular merchants profit from corals and other endangered species. 

You seem to imply that corals are an endangered species .. where are they
technically classified as endangered?


> I think the CITES agents are short handed and need help, they are
> probably doing the best that they can with the limited staff they
> have. They need more agents, that are trained in coral ID.

I agree.

> My question is, WHY would the
> agents themselves want to hinder the trade, it is possible that they
> witnessed more than sand grains attached to the bottom of a leather coral.

I think you would want to ask the people involved why they did what they
did. No it is not possible that they witnessed more than just sand grains
in this particular incident, if they did then then that too would have
been documented. In most of these cases the incidents can be tracked down
to a few agents at certain points of entry.

> There is not one indigenous family that I have spoken to that is claiming
> that this destructive practice benefits them and their families for the
> long term. They all claim that their particular reefs were in better shape
> before collection and NaCN fishing started.

I was speaking about black coral.

Charles