Jump to content




See all Safaritalk Special Offers

Message to Guests.

Welcome to Safaritalk where we have been talking Safaris and wildlife conservation since 2006. As a guest you're welcome to read through certain areas of the forum, but to access all the facilities and to contribute your experience, ask questions and get involved, you'll need to be a member - so register here: it's quick, free and easy and I look forward to having you as a Safaritalker soon. Matt.


Photo

The Conservation Imperative


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#81 douglaswise

douglaswise

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Local time: 03:48 PM
  • Gender:Male
  • Category 1:Tourist (regular visitor)
  • Category 2:Researcher

Posted 18 June 2015 - 01:44 PM

Bugs:

 

You dismiss most of my comments as being irrelevant.  You signally fail to address the point I made (and others before me) that selling direct to TCM organisations would either send a wrong signal (endorsing a product of unlikely pharmaceutical benefit and thus inconsistent with demand reduction) or to the wrong target market (if the product is now little used by TCM practitioners). 

 

I think you risk being a poor ambassador for your cause because of your implacability.  Is it too much to ask that you listen to  and address points made by your opponents instead of  dismissing them out of hand?



#82 Bugs

Bugs

    Order of the Pith

  • Members
  • 3,478 posts
  • Local time: 04:48 PM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Category 1:Resident in Africa/Former resident
  • Category 2:---

Posted 18 June 2015 - 02:30 PM

Bugs:

 

You dismiss most of my comments as being irrelevant.  You signally fail to address the point I made (and others before me) that selling direct to TCM organisations would either send a wrong signal (endorsing a product of unlikely pharmaceutical benefit and thus inconsistent with demand reduction) or to the wrong target market (if the product is now little used by TCM practitioners). 

 

I think you risk being a poor ambassador for your cause because of your implacability.  Is it too much to ask that you listen to  and address points made by your opponents instead of  dismissing them out of hand?

 

I am sorry if I did so, and I didn't intend to sound dismissive. I am in fact genuinely trying to help. I have nothing personal to gain from what I am doing, its all done off my own steam and time. Its always far easier to talk face to face that to try and put your point across in writing. I can assure you that I meant no disrespect, I can see that you have a genuine interest and open mind.  

 

By selling horn to whoever the buyer is - is by no means endorsing the use as medicine. In fact, I would recommend that it is sold with a health warning, as in the case of cigarettes. If they are using illegal horn for medicine, then there is little we can do about that. We are just saying - if you have to have this horn - please let us give you horn without having to kill our rhino. 


There's none so blind as those who will not see.


#83 douglaswise

douglaswise

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Local time: 03:48 PM
  • Gender:Male
  • Category 1:Tourist (regular visitor)
  • Category 2:Researcher

Posted 18 June 2015 - 11:03 PM

@Bugs:

 

Thank you for your conciliatory reply.  I agree that demand reduction is unlikely to happen overnight and, in principle, I am  sympathetic to the concept of legalisation until such time as there is minimal demand for horn (legal or otherwise).  However, though I may have been shooting the messenger, I believe you published a document prepared, I think, by Dr Eustace, which suggested that an ideal trading partner for the CSO could be an official TCM body.  I really do think that this would be inappropriate and send out the wrong signal.  Attempting to sell directly to official TCM organisations with a health warning would seem absurd and insulting.  Selling to wholesalers with no overt links to recognised TCM bodies would make more sense - whether or not some product subsequently goes to TCM practitioners. Possibly of greater importance is the fact that the Chinese Government has signed up to Cites and has banned the import of horn.  I can't see how this stance is compatible with the CSO supplying an official Chinese institution even if Cites changes the rules to allow legalisation.  Rightly or wrongly, I wouldn't expect the Chinese to lift the import ban. 



#84 egilio

egilio

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,533 posts
  • Local time: 04:48 PM
  • Gender:Male
  • Category 1:Conservationist/Naturalist
  • Category 2:Ecologist

Posted 19 June 2015 - 12:09 AM

 

 

 

Apparently the president of the American College of TCM says that rhino horn is no longer approved for use by the TCM profession and there is no traditional use, nor evidence for its effectiveness as a cure of cancer. 

 

I wonder what the view is of the Chinese TCM organisation(s)? 

 

 

The myth about the cancer cure has not been verified. It seems that one was started by someone else. Perhaps by the syndicates - or they were just grateful that someone made it up for them. 

 

 

The myth about the cancer cure stemmed from a high Vietnamese official as far as I understand, that's why the huge increase in horns going to Vietnam. So another reason why Vietnam should be included in the equation.



#85 Bugs

Bugs

    Order of the Pith

  • Members
  • 3,478 posts
  • Local time: 04:48 PM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Category 1:Resident in Africa/Former resident
  • Category 2:---

Posted 20 June 2015 - 06:22 AM

 

 

 

 

Apparently the president of the American College of TCM says that rhino horn is no longer approved for use by the TCM profession and there is no traditional use, nor evidence for its effectiveness as a cure of cancer. 

 

I wonder what the view is of the Chinese TCM organisation(s)? 

 

 

The myth about the cancer cure has not been verified. It seems that one was started by someone else. Perhaps by the syndicates - or they were just grateful that someone made it up for them. 

 

 

The myth about the cancer cure stemmed from a high Vietnamese official as far as I understand, that's why the huge increase in horns going to Vietnam. So another reason why Vietnam should be included in the equation.

 

As I said there is no verification of this story. I have asked about it and was told by someone who did extensive research on it that he was unable to verify that story. 


There's none so blind as those who will not see.


#86 ellenhighwater

ellenhighwater

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 147 posts
  • Local time: 06:48 AM
  • Gender:Female
  • Category 1:Safari Guide
  • Category 2:Wildlife Photographer/Artist

Posted 10 November 2015 - 05:12 PM

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently the president of the American College of TCM says that rhino horn is no longer approved for use by the TCM profession and there is no traditional use, nor evidence for its effectiveness as a cure of cancer. 

 

I wonder what the view is of the Chinese TCM organisation(s)? 

 

 

The myth about the cancer cure has not been verified. It seems that one was started by someone else. Perhaps by the syndicates - or they were just grateful that someone made it up for them. 

 

 

The myth about the cancer cure stemmed from a high Vietnamese official as far as I understand, that's why the huge increase in horns going to Vietnam. So another reason why Vietnam should be included in the equation.

 

As I said there is no verification of this story. I have asked about it and was told by someone who did extensive research on it that he was unable to verify that story. 

 

 

Didn't Julian Rademeyer research this story?







© 2006 - 2016 www.safaritalk.net - Talking Safaris and African Wildlife Conservation since 2006. Passionate about Africa.

Welcome guest to Safaritalk.
Please Register or Login to use the full facilities.