Talk:Poaching/Archive 1

Archive 1

Older messages

---

Removed the baseless claim "31 % of animals are endangered because of poaching." There was no citation and there exists no logical reason to believe this. --Rachel S

---

I have been in trouble for poaching 2 times this year. And I did every thing I could to try not to. This duck season in Oklahoma was one.I had learned to identify all the ducks in the central fly way over the years and bought all appropriate licenses and stamps and shells, then after opening day a game warden came over on a routine check and found a hen pentail I had shot and fined me 150 dollars for it. when he asked me if i knew what it was i responded, a hen gadwall, he could barrely tell while it was in his hand, how hard does that make it to tell when its in the air! I was certain it was a hen gadwall even when he told me, however it was infact a hen pentail and it was out of season. It is impossible to stay legal. These sort of regulations make me not want to even hunt, or if i do do it under the radar and not under the law. The real poachers are just making it worse for every one else!

---

I added the cleanup tag; the article needs better formatting, grammar, etc. I'm on another mission at the moment; if it doesn't attract a fixer, I'll try to get back to it. Thanks. Catbar (Brian Rock) 02:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC) poaching is not cool and we should try our best to stop it

Page needs work

As of 9/4/2007, this page is woefully inadequate. It doesn't do enough to mention poaching as a global problem. It will only become more prevalent in years to come as overpopulation of humans and habitat loss results in a direct conflict with the interests of wild animals. Clearly, wild animals will only continue to be harvested for their valuable parts and extinction will continue to be rampant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James.Grubic (talk • contribs) 19:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Intro

The introduction, per Wikipedia guidelines, is supposed to be a genera introduction to the topic in full scope. In the case of this article it covers all of history and the whole world. As such the specific effects of modern Chinese medicine clearly don't belong.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that the section that Asidemes added is no longer in the introduction section try not to knee-jerk revert without a reason Whitehatnetizen (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Apologies. Given Asidemes recent behaviour I assume dhe was repeating the same here.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

certainly understandable :-) Whitehatnetizen (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

History

This article is inadequate in general, but needs information about the history of poaching to include historical land use restrictions under feudalism,etc. -ClockworkLunch 05:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"Poaching, like smuggling, has a long counter-cultural history." I question the use of the world 'counter-cultural'. It seems in violation of the neutral point of view - Bill O'Reilly could have said it. MrSativa (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

What the author getting at?

In the section as to why the hunting may be ilegal, their is a bullet point stating

• The type of bait is inhumane. (e.g. food unsuitable for an animal's health)

This sounds a bit strange to me, does it matter if the bait is bad for the animal, if the point of catching the animal is to kill it for food? could someone who know the subject better than I, give us all a better example. thanks Scott A Herbert (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't make sense...85.65.106.61 (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Effects if poaching

The description here seems more inspired by political views than by reason. The effects described are the effects of overhunting and seem to focus on africa. Someone who takes a single hare without a licence is a poacher, yet that will not really threaten the hare population. Overhunting - with a licence- is not poaching, but will likely wipe out the hunted population. E: 22 juli 2015

Definition of poaching does not include trasportation and use.

I removed the inclusion of poaching related activites that are not actually poaching. 69.205.203.32 (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

What makes you think that poaching only refers to the illegal hunting of wild animals or collecting of wild plants? And then what : a poacher leaves the goodies right on the spot? Are you of the opinion that a person is not a poacher anymore when s/he takes home illegally taken wildlife, and eats, sells or buys some? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

My first and the most accurate answer is: Because that is the definition of the word in every dictionary.

The poacher is guilty of poaching at all times after the illegal taking, even if they leave it laying where it fell. A person who buys illegally taken items is not a poacher they are in possesion of illegally taken items. Many times the poacher ends up being charged with possesion because taking can not be proven easily. The nuances in different jurisdictions can use all sorts of confusing language. That is the current, historical and predominant legal status of poaching, at least in the U.S.

A larger definition can be found back when possession of the kings game animals was a capital offense. While people starved. The current well funded elitist drive to broaden the definition falls on the backs of the rural poor on every continent.

I can comfortably argue the position that if one needs it to feed oneself or family that it is not poaching. Baiting and spotlighting are perfectly valid techniques for feeding ones family. That is not a legally valid position in the current environment and would also be inappropriate for this article.

Until the modern era poaching was only about who owns the animals and had nothing to do with the environment. It was and is a human rights issue. The move to broaden the definition hurts only the poor people on the ground. Nothing will change until there is severly draconian punishment for the wealthy with their snuff tins of Rhino horn and Bear gall bladders sitting on tiger skin rugs and those who persue wealth and power in the trade of these illegal items.

Using inaccurate, misleading information will not achieve your goal. Economic Refugee (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Reworked language

I started poking at this and it got more extensive than I expected. Feedback welcome. Economic Refugee (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Considered your poking at the list as a kind of feedback, and therefore revised it somewhat. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I have only been here for a couple days and I am already in an editing war? My poking was not a comment. This is the place for comment. I saw Poaching was on the list for requested editing. I started with simple definitions and tried to smooth the flow and language.

I did not significantly change the article except to remove the politically wishful definition of Poaching that is not consistent with any dictionary or common usage. Poaching is the act of illegal harvesting, usually closely tied to land rights, not the associated illegal activities. http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/poach--2 http://www.merriam-webster.com/home-aol.htm

The reversion returns to one very uncommon politically motivated definition apparently insisting that this definition be the one at the top of the page. In that case there needs to be a qualifier to indicate the fact that is not the common usage. Something like---According to, (insert source here) poaching is..... or while the common definition of poaching is... (insert source here) defines poaching as...) something like that. The definition of poaching is straight forward and should not be change because of political activism.

Such a change, or the attempt to broaden the definition needs to be noted in an encyclopedia. Transportation and sale of illegal animal parts, at this time, is a different offense and it only muddies the water to try to play those political motivated redefinition games.

The opening to Acts Of Poaching is not consistent with the heading and belongs in a different spot. There also seems to be and inordinate attachment to the wording "Violations of hunting laws and regulations concerning wildlife management, local or international wildlife conservation are typically punishable.[3]" That is not connected to the heading and is nearly a non sentence, of course violations are punishable that is the nature of laws, when you break them you get punished. That statement belongs in a paragraph or section about legalities which is where I moved it.

The term Freeze killing smells like politically motivated term, The common term is "Spot Lighting" and it is still legal in many places. Please show a reference to the term from another source that does not source back to the original source. I have never seen the term Freeze killing used in any regulation, law or technical document. The reference supplied is a politically active, inflammatory book designed to shock, not a bad thing, but not the best reference. This article has been returned to its original, loaded, politically active language.

I split the bullet list of poaching activities into two lists because that is the accurate way to show that some of those activities are still legal in some places. This was done to clarify the misleading statement that all of those activities are illegal, they should be, in my opinion, but they are not. I combined some of the points into one item consistent with flow and elimination of repetitive language. The repetitive use of Prohibited makes the list technically correct but extremly misleading, I contend by design. Perhaps a sublist under "Prohibited use of" could satisfy both requirements. Or "The following acts constitue poaching in areas where they are prohibited"

I wish I had done it in smaller steps. I also had a couple glitches that resulted in a larger paste that I wanted. I am still learning.

An almost total reversion was uncalled for without discussion. I asked for comment , I did not get any.

Poaching is unquestionably one of the largest problems we have in sustainable wildlife management but some of the things you have listed as poaching are LEGAL in some areas therefore they are not poaching in those areas. If one wishes to join a political movement to make those activities illegal everywhere,I support that , but this article is WRONG in that respect.

The bullet pointed list of acts of poaching is inaccurate, for the reasons I gave before and seems to be intentionally misleading. The layout, over inflated bullet point list and choice of wording appears to be done for effect not information. This article seems to be being edited for a political purpose at the expense of clarity. That is a form of dishonesty and it hinders the ability to effect positive change.

I know I got carried away yesterday but it basically was put it back to its original, incorrect and misleading form.

I guess you(BhagyaMani) have decided this is your private research project and are not willing to allow editing for clarity and accuracy. I will let someone know I tried to help here but was rebuked by the political activist who has taken possession of this article. I am disinclined to play this game. Economic Refugee (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC) I fully agree with you Economic refugee, The article seems more as if someone has an exe to grind than too give factual information [User:Ed] 22 juli 2015

I certainly did not mean to offend you, no less start an editing war. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank You. I was mostly disapointed. It took longer than expected and I thought I did a good job of including all the points and materail that was already there when I started.

I had some kind of wierd glitch that said I was not logged in and I could not figure out how to recover the work withour a big cut and paste. That, I am sure is a newby mistake. Economic Refugee (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Definition of poaching

The 1st and 3rd referenced sources -- i.e. Muth and Bowe 1998, and Musgrave et al. 1993 -- accord in the definition of poaching as comprising also transport, sale and purchase of illegally taken wildlife. Illegal "taking" includes carrying it away from the spot of killing or harvesting, i.e. transporting. At the time of writing Musgrave et al. (1993), the 1st author Ruth Musgrave was professor at the University of New Mexico's Institute of Public Law where she taught wildlife law. Hence she is a person with a professional knowledge regarding this subject, which is why I referenced this particular article. Some authors even go further than Muth and Bowe (1998), e.g. Eliason 2003 who published several articles about poaching and motives of poachers. He defines poaching as comprising also the unintentionally illegal taking of wildlife. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Those authors definitions are not the generally accepted definition. Your response is a very good beginning to address my concern about the broadening of the definition for political purposes. Those references are people trying to broaden the definition beyond what is the generally accepted definition in order to bring into focus the problem that poaching represents. Doing so in a politicized academic environment does not represent the accepted current usage of the word. I am sorry, sort of, but using a lawyers definition of anything is questionable.

Those definitions as the exception to the common meaning are not suitable as the only reference in the intro to an article of this nature.

Insisting their definition is the correct or common usage is perpetuating the political agenda I refered to in my rant. It is inapropriate for a project of this nature. By insisting on that definition it leads people to believe that this is the definition that is in use when they communicate about the issue. It is not. It is devisive not informative.

A discussion of the differences is in order for the article to be a balanced, reliable source of information. As I stated in my rant.

FYI: In all jurisdictions, that I am aware of, inconsistant enforced not withstanding, unintentional illegal taking is still punishable as poaching. Ignorance is not a defense.

Thank you Economic Refugee (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Golden seal

The continued removal of my additions without discussion is B.S. There should have been a question put here first. The reference you provide does cover this information. Here are a more.

Wild goldenseal is listed in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

Illegal of removing goldenseal for transplant without registration.

Millions of wild Goldenseal plants are picked each year without being replaced.

Economic Refugee (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm.... Economic Refugee, I'm so sorry you've not been having a welcoming experience so early in your time here at Wikipedia. Please do not let that get to you. While I do not know the specifics of this issue, I'm sure if you give BhagyaMani a buzz (simply by linking him into the discussion like so: User:BhagyaMani), then [s]he'll give you a very reasonable explanation behind why they decided to revert your contributions. If you dont see eye to eye, you could always find another article that interests you. Maybe something nostalgic, perhaps? I know for a fact that the majority of kids shows/games/etc I used to watch have quite bad articles (Carmen Sandiego, the Magic School Bus, Cluefinders, etc.) so I like editing them from time to time. Might be a place place to go. At least in the meantime. :)--Coin945 (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

So you recommend that I allow the politally motivated, infflamitory, inaccurate language to stand? That does not seem consistant with the community guidlines I have been trying to digest. Economic Refugee (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

My point is that sometimes it is better to leave a volotile article for a bit until the editing cools down, and refocus your mind onto something else, and then when you return you'll be a lot happier and cheerier, comie into it with a fresh new perspective, and will also more experienced when it comes to wikipedia and handling such dilemmas. These sorts of edit wars never seen to end well, and I fear for a new user especially, it may be enough to turn you away. An edit war was almost what turned me away, all the way back in 2005. Take a short Wiki-break (as they say), and then come back. It's good for you. :)--Coin945 (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

:-) Economic Refugee (talk) 05:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Protected herbs

Ginseng is not a wildflower, or if it is then is one of those plants that is refered to differently depending on context. Ginseng and goldenseal are most often associated with herbal medicine, that is why they are so valuable, and are generally referred to as herbs. That is why I would like the term protected herbs. I will check but I do not think the Federal government regulations refer to herbs they use terms like botanicl specimens unless the plant is named in the regulation which ginseng and goldenseal frequenty are.

Anyway all those could be referd to as protected plants to avoid parsing what is an herb and what is a flower, since most herbs have flowers.

How about someting like this

Commercial poachers illegally collect millions of endangerd(CITES) plants each year, American ginseng, Golden seal as well as orchids and trilliums are particularly at risk. Commercial poachers collect hundreds of protected plants in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park alone each year, in particular American ginseng, orchids and trilliums.

Rangers seized about 11,000 illegally harvested ginseng roots in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park between 1994 and 2004, and attribute ginseng poaching to the illegal domestic and international black market. In 2004 the National Park Service estimated that fresh roots of wild ginseng being poached were worth $65–100 per pound, and dried roots about $260–365 per pound. .

I am still getting the hang of properly coding reference but that is the general idea.

While i was working on this you came up with some good references too. I am having some sort of technical problem too so if this shows up wierd i will re do it.

Let's make this work. Economic Refugee (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not showing up correctly there must be a formattin error in there Economic Refugee (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok Let's will try that. I have had a real struggle getting this back together, I guess I stayed up too late.Economic Refugee (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There is my proposed new language for the herbs and flowers. What do you think? Economic Refugee (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have the same problem with double references here. I can not yet figure what I am missing. Economic Refugee (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have sussed out the references confusion and fixed the doubling. Economic Refugee (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

In my questionably functional society, failure to say no is most often interpreted as a yes. I will therefore assume that my proposed wording is acceptable and I will move it to the article. Economic Refugee (talk) 05:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

References thread from my talk page

I moved this here because this is where it belongs.Economic Refugee (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Poaching : references

Hi. I appreciate your recent contribution to the list of species affected by poaching. You added "protected Herbs" and "Goldenseal" within the 2 sources referenced at the end of the paragraph. But in none of these sources herbs or goldenseal are mentioned as being illegally harvested in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Please provide a correct reference. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You replied:

Ths proper way to communicate an article is on the article talk page. I see you are only adding references that support you polical positon.

You have reverted my edit again without discussion. Golden seal is endagered and is illegally collected, just because it does not appear in your book does not negate the statement. Your reference still supports the statement especially the fact about ginseng.

Deleting non referenced material the way you did does not comply with wiki guidlines.

You started the editing war before I arrived I just didn't know. I was working on how to resolve the issue withour getting into a shouting match.

You have precluded that possibility with your latest arbirtary reversion.

If you continue to hold the article hostage it will call for help. Your comment on my page should have beenon the talk page for the article.

I asked for another reference for the politically created term frezze kill, provide another or I am taking it down. Your insistance on cann hunt is also only motivated by politics and will be removed. :Get it together and get some non-activist refernces because when I get back to this I will have properly neutral references be ready to deal with your activist editing.

The bullet point list about acts of poaching is intentially exagerated and is blantantly incorrct. I will be reediting it and a reversion will result in a request for arbitration.

The list of poaching acts is a wish list from a political movement is is factually innacurrate and absolutly unacceptable under NPOV. Economic Refugee (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no doubt that protected herbs and golden seal are illegally collected. Please read my initial message again: the cited sources do not mention them. This is why I did NOT delete your additions but merely placed them after these cited sources with a "citation needed" template. See Wikipedia:Citing sources if you want to learn how to cite properly.
Please also note that the references in the section "Acts of poaching" are all peer-reviewed articles published in scientific journals, i.e. they have all been reviewed by competent scientists before being published. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, Thank Yo, I am getting very frustrated and did not see that you had moved it. That passing reference is inadaquate, golden sel is as threatened as ginseng, possibly more so due to lack of awareness.

The peer reviewed sources are being used to push a political agenda, they are specialized acedemic arguments and are only valid as information about the issue of poaching and do not represent accurate information, or definitions for those looking to understand poaching. I am not going to get into another argument over beliefs.

Freezkilling and canned hunting are legal in many areas and do not constitute poaching in those areas. To define them as poaching in this context is innacurate. As I said the common term is spotlighting Freeze kill is a made up, inflammitory term by the author you qoute and is not in common use or a generally used legall term. It has to be qualified, as do the other offenses you list that are still legal in some places.

Canned hunting is not really poaching, Poaching is the act of capturing or disabling the animal so the paying customer can shoot it easily. Its primary use in the U.S. is to shut down commercial hunting operation on large tracts of land, not the cages the entry leads on to believe. It is leagal in many places, calling it poaching is inaccurate except from the point of view of those who whish to control the debate. Inhumane, yes, illegal? Gaining speed but not illegal everywhere.s If it is not illegal, it is not poaching. End of story. Untill it is unversally illegal it canot be lised as poaching without a qualifier.

I will make change proposal when I am ready. I will not be bullied into letting a political agenda highjack this article.

Economic Refugee (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Spotlighting, Freeze kill

Thank You for hearing what I said about freeze kill. I appologize if I got too excited, it is one of my challenges. I changed your new entry a little to include freeze kill, the citation needs to be redone, it is pertainent just not the only term or source.. I am still reference and citation formatting challenged. Please chat with me before we keep undoing each others work. I will try to do the same. Thanks again. Economic Refugee (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That is all the changes I will make until I get comment here. Economic Refugee (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't insist on using the term freeze-killing and therefore had changed this list entry already, omitting the term altogether. Right now, the reference Green (2002) is listed twice, hence once too much. If okay with you, I'll change it back to a) without using freeze-killing, b) using the reference only once. BTW: Green states that spotlighting deer constitutes animal abuse and is a crime of violence. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

All research pretty much agrees that interferring with a wild animal more that intermitantly is detrimental to the health of the animal. I am sure you know it does not take very much human disturbance to completly disrupt the life cycle of many animals and plants. That is not what I had issue with. I am not directly impacted by expanded definitions or environmental protection laws. I am severly and directly effected, in a negative way, by the poaching were I live. That is the poaching that is actually illegal here, not even counting some of the techniques that are still legal.

I am very challenged by how references are rendered and can not get the reference to appear only once. I am having the same problem on one of my draft articles too.

I do not have a problem with changing it back, I like to be as inclusive as possible. I gues that was my original problem. I am sorry for that first huge edit. It must have been shocking after all the work you have done.

I always strive for clarity and I really want to help this to be a balanced article. Economic Refugee (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Collaborate on more precise accuracy with language in the Acts of Poaching section?

I started working on proposed language for the acts of poaching section but it does not make sense for me to do it that way. The article edits are going to conflict with my draft and we both seem to have an idea how we want it to sound. It is in my sandbox and I would like to move it to this section or to a subpage of this talk page so anyone who is interested can collaborate before any of us do major edits on the main article. Plus if I watch you folks I might get a hang of this reference thing. How does that sound? Economic Refugee (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently collaboration is not in the cards for this one either. I have almost finished the draft and I will be moving it to the article. I expect to be communicated with here before any reversions or changes are made. Economic Refugee (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems unreasonable, I expect communicaton before any reversion or major changes are made. Economic Refugee (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

lede

I have perused the history of this article and the lede was changed on july 18 to the current incorrect definition. The current lede is factually incorrect and is using a wishful definition of poaching, from environmental law advocates and animal rights activists. It is not in use anywhere else, that I can find, except the nonNPOV sources provided. I am reverting the lede to that July 18 version and we can collaborate on proper language here. It is lacking references but is a much more appropriate than the current lede for this article. Economic Refugee (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I added references from the lede draft i am working on.Economic Refugee (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is the draft lede I am proposing. I think it is a good start at a balanced intoduction to poaching. It contains the basic and extended definitions. I reconfigured the citations to conform with wiki markup parameter definitions. Pleae try to maintain reference and citation layout for my old eyes. Thanks Economic Refugee (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

proposed lede

Poaching has traditionally been defined as the illegal hunting, killing or capturing of wild animals, usually associated with land use rights. Historically "most poaching was subsistence poaching—i.e., the taking of game or fish by impoverished peasants to augment a scanty diet." As poaching has become an international environmental issue, the generally accepted definition has grown to include the illegal harvest or collection of protected plants.

Corrected citations, removed last paragraph, the new current lede has the original edit of the extended definition. I still can not find the wording *"any act that intentionally contravenes the laws and regulations established to protect renewable wildlife resources"* anywhere and I question its veracity without a copy of the book. Economic Refugee (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

lede edit with 1998 date

Once again the lede has been changed to try to reflect a politically devisive definition that does not represent any common or legal use. To continue to try to lead readers to believe that since 1998 the definition has been the one stated there, is another departure from NPOV that first attracted my attention to this article. In no way does it represent the current definition in any other source and it belongsd in the history section explaining the reason those people wish to expand the definition.

Both of these sources seem to very highly cited in the activist litureature, primarily radical animal rights liturature, and the only references to this language are always refered back to these two sources. No one else is using this definition.

This edit in the main article with no discussion here, after I opened the discussion, would appear to be an indication of a lack of willingness to create a balanced article. Economic Refugee (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I have already run across several reference sites that have the incorrect definition I am complaining about at the top of their page. It was the lead for less than a month and they are citing wikipedia as the source. When one does a search on poaching the wiki article is at or near the top of the list. This continued attempt to use a radically expanded definiton smells very much like the typically corrupt way infomation is manipilated for political purposes. I am almost done playing this game and will be requsting outside help if it continues. Economic Refugee (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Poaching and CITES

FYI: CITES is ONLY relevant for CROSS-BORDER transport / trade of wildlife, both animals and plants, that are protected either by national legislation or are red listed internationally by IUCN. Therefore removed the link to CITES in paragraph re: protected herbs in North America. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to keep the relavent references that were there already.

The U.S has signed on to CITES and laws are in place to conform with the terms of the treaty. In the U.S. all the species covered by CITES are protected by law.

Are you aware of a different reference for the list of protected species covered by CITES that would work better

I will look for a better one too. Economic Refugee (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the U.S.centric response. I know Canada and Mexico have signed on to the treaty, since there is a seperate section on central america that precludes the usual discussion debating if central america is part of north america. Perhaps subsections for the different countries in North America would help? Economic Refugee (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI: links in wikipedia articles are an offer to check out more detailed infos provided in the linked articles, e.g. protected plants. Again: CITES has not the function to *protect* species but aims at regulating the legal trade of protected species.
You may have noticed that I am not at all u.s. centered but have only just begun to compile species affected by poaching in other parts of the world, and am nowhere to close to an end, just jumping a bit between continents lately. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)