Out of Africa: Czechs seize 24 rhino horns, charge 16 traffickers

[James.Grage]

Out of Africa: Czechs seize 24 rhino horns, charge 16 traffickers

http://www.reuters.com/…/us-czech-rhinos-idUSBRE96M0JX20130…

(Reuters) - Czech authorities seized 24 white rhino horns and charged 16 suspected members of an international ring smuggling the prized material to Asia, the customs department said on Tuesday.
The horns, believed in parts of Asia to heal illnesses including cancer and sold as an aphrodisiac, were worth $5 million, customs and police officials said.

Demand has risen especially in Vietnam in the past years, leading to a rise in poaching of rhinos and smuggling of horns from Africa.
Police and customs said the ring employed proxy hunters who used a practice under which hunters can get permission to legally shoot one rhino in South Africa and take the horn as a trophy, strictly for non-commercial purposes.

"They were paid by the gang to hunt rhinos in the South African Republic bring the rhino horns as hunters' trophies to the EU," customs officer Ales Hruby said.

The Czech authorities did not give the nationalities of the suspects.
The suspects face up to 8-years in prison if found guilty.

 

[Wheels]

I'm torn on this issue.

Great news to close this loophole regarding rhinos.

Bad news regarding property rights. Should a person be able to sell their personnel property if they want for as much as they want?

 

[Royal27]

I'm OK with this and here is why. The hunters knew going in that the horn had no commercial value. Therefore, personal property with a value of zero. It isn't like the government is taking value away from the person.

I see the other side of the coin too, but in a case such as rhino horn I'm willing to make property right exceptions in extreme cases like this. It only becomes a "slippery slope" if we allow it to be. And yes, that is easier said than done....

What I also find interesting is that the smugglers do this? It can't be cheap, even if they are only paying the hunt fees for the hunter? Paying a poacher sure seems cheaper, unless I'm missing something int he process?

 

[Wheels]

What I also find interesting is that the smugglers do this? It can't be cheap, even if they are only paying the hunt fees for the hunter? Paying a poacher sure seems cheaper, unless I'm missing something int he process?

The Czech's probably don't know any poachers in SA, but word has probably gotten around the hunting community there that they can go hunt a rhino, bring the horns back and sell them to a third party smuggler, make money and have a trip and hunt thrown in.

I assume 24 horns equal 12 rhino. If the numbers are correct then they are getting over $400,000 for a rhino's set of horns. Any hunt and costs under that number equals a profit. Not sure those numbers are correct though.

The Czech's probably have no contacts in SA to sell the horns. It sounds like they do/did once they legally brought them back home.

Not sure what prisons are like in the Czech Republic but they are probably preferable, if caught, than the SA variety.

 

[Royal27]

^^^

That's got to be correct, but assuming that the smugglers are paying $100k or so for the horn I would think that they would find a way. I guess they just aren't that sophisticated? Who knows?

 

[Hank2211]

Bad news regarding property rights. Should a person be able to sell their personnel property if they want for as much as they want?

Not 100% sure about this, but I believe the exception to the CITES App. 1 is for hunting trophies. It is pretty clear - in most places - that these trophies can't be used in commercial trade. So the exception is for the hunter to bring mementoes back from a hunting trip, not to hunt something with commercial value and then sell it. If that were possible, then anyone - in fact, everyone - would get around CITES by going hunting, and then selling the ivory or horn, which these days will pay for the hunt and then some.

Now you (and I) may not agree with everything involving CITES, but we can agree that we know what it says in advance, and we go hunting on that basis. And if we don't know what CITES says, well, ignorance of the law is rarely an excuse.

 

[Wheels]

Not 100% sure about this, but I believe the exception to the CITES App. 1 is for hunting trophies. It is pretty clear - in most places - that these trophies can't be used in commercial trade. So the exception is for the hunter to bring mementoes back from a hunting trip, not to hunt something with commercial value and then sell it. If that were possible, then anyone - in fact, everyone - would get around CITES by going hunting, and then selling the ivory or horn, which these days will pay for the hunt and then some.

Now you (and I) may not agree with everything involving CITES, but we can agree that we know what it says in advance, and we go hunting on that basis. And if we don't know what CITES says, well, ignorance of the law is rarely an excuse.

Hank,

I understand exactly what you are saying. Also understand CITES......well kind of.

Lets say you have 100 pounds of post 1989 ( I believe that is the date) ivory at home. Your kids don't want it. (Pre 1989 ivory was selling for $125-150 per pound apx. 5-8 years ago. Someone told me that it is now around $300. Not sure if that is correct.) It has no value. Do you throw it away or let your kids throw it away. The government has effectively taken property that may be worth $15,000-$30,000 from you by not letting you sell it.

I understand the whole thought process of trophies going to commercial purposes. My thoughts are why not let it happen. Let a rhino hunt go for $500k-$1m+. Put a value on the rhinos so you can have 24 hour guards on them if need be. Make trade in ivory and horn legal. Let markets set the value. When animals have value they will be taken care of. When they aren't you have Kenya.

 

[Hank2211]

Wheels, I don't disagree with the point you are making - in fact, I strongly believe that the best way to save the Rhino is to allow free trade in Rhino horns. People would raise them, horns would be cut off, and there would be lots of Rhino and eventually supply and demand would come into balance, or people would figure out that nails don't cure cancer.

I also agree that if your kids don't want your hunting trophies, you're kind of stuck.

My point was that this is the state of the law currently. We all have to live with it as it is,, until it changes.

So let's not feel too bad for the poachers who got caught - they deserved to, because breaking the law gives hunters a bad name. But let's also work for some sanity in game laws. Or, as you say, we'll have Kenyas all over the place.

 

[Nyati]

When I bring my trophies into my country, I sign a statement for Customs which says they are personal hunting trophies without any commercial value, and thus do not pay any customs duty.

If I sold them, I would be clearly breaching the law.

By the way, a few years back, I got a very strange phone call by someone with a strong american accent posing as a hunter who had lost his trophies and wanted to know wether I or any of my hunting friends would sell him some. He was specially interested in rhino and leopard. Makes you wonder....

 

[Dragan N.]

Hank,

I understand exactly what you are saying. Also understand CITES......well kind of.

Lets say you have 100 pounds of post 1989 ( I believe that is the date) ivory at home. Your kids don't want it. (Pre 1989 ivory was selling for $125-150 per pound apx. 5-8 years ago. Someone told me that it is now around $300. Not sure if that is correct.) It has no value. Do you throw it away or let your kids throw it away. The government has effectively taken property that may be worth $15,000-$30,000 from you by not letting you sell it.

I understand the whole thought process of trophies going to commercial purposes. My thoughts are why not let it happen. Let a rhino hunt go for $500k-$1m+. Put a value on the rhinos so you can have 24 hour guards on them if need be. Make trade in ivory and horn legal. Let markets set the value. When animals have value they will be taken care of. When they aren't you have Kenya.

First of all one thing I don't understand about this article is whether these rhino horns where being sold within the Czech Republic or did they try to export them abroad to Asia? The latter is illegal because INTERNATIONAL trade in parts of CITES 1 animals is forbidden, domestic trade is legal.

When you bring up elephant ivory those prices you quoted are prices for it in the US. You can legally sell your old elephant ivory to buyers within the US. The US government recently wanted to ban interstate trade or sale of pre 1989 ivory thats already in the US however this appears to have failed. Now in the US trade in a lot of CITES 1 species is restricted to intra state sale only so if you have sperm whale teeth, a tiger rug, black rhino horns etc... and all are pre-ban or pre CITES you can only sell them to residents of your specific state, in the states that allow it. The US is unique in this regard in that each state is in many ways like a country for example they have different criminal law in each state.

On the other hand in Canada and in most countries I would assume this is not the case. In Canada, sperm whale teeth for example that where imported into the country in say the 50s before any bans existed are completely legal to sell within the country as are other parts from CITES 1 species but you can't export it.