Wildlife advocates disagree on how humans fit into picture

So, it looks like a resolution was raised at CITES to consider the potential impact of wildlife trade restrictions on impoverished local communities. As the article says, this seems like a simple and practical request.

But it's not. It's actually very dangerous and, frankly, a bit delusional.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species is the only international organisation beside the International Whaling Commission with the power to institute a total ban on the commercial exploitation of a plant or animal.

The purpose of CITES is to protect endangered species, not humans.

Now, some people may throw their hands up in the air and say, aha! so you don't care about people after all! It's all about the plants and animals. What are you, an animist?

Well, that's not the point. The point is that by introducing people issues into the equation, it provides false leverage to those who want to look at these plants and animals, not as treasures to protect or a vital part of a healthy ecosystem for all Earth's inhabitants, but merely as an economic product to harvest. The individual worth and legacy of each species is subsumed to what they can offer humans. If you introduce human concerns into the discussion, you can make an argument that any protection effort is going to hurt someone.

Of course, I don't even buy that. How much are the poor really hurt by a ban on the trade of certain products? What about the pre-Rwanda war when Mountain Gorillas were the source of a lucrative ecotourism. Weren't there any economic benefits there? And even if there were a negative consequence, how much would it really hurt? How much is really being made in the short-term by harvesting a nonrenewable resource? Is it a long-term investment in the health of a community or a short-term gain that disappears in a short period of time with no lasting impact?

Is the poverty due to protection of endangered species or worse issues like the imbalance between rich and poor nations and the exploitation of the poor by the rich? Who exactly is buying the ivory, the hides and the furs? It's those who can afford to buy them and let's be honest, the only person getting rich is the middle person, not the harvester or hunter.

And if anyone thinks that linking endangered species with poverty is going to create some sort of fundraising windfall, they have got to be deluding themselves there too. Poverty is not sexy and it doesn't seem to get all that much attention on its own.