Markets in Everything: Confiscated Wildlife Items
Pictured above is a pair of cobra sandals, available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's online auction of confiscated wildlife items that have been seized at U.S. ports for violating laws regulating international trade in wildlife.
See related article in today's WSJ "Uncle Sam Wants You to Bid on This Fine Weasel Fur Coat" about the rolling online auction of 300,000 that started in February and will run through the summer. One item recently sold is the raccoon fur coat pictured below. Price? Only $220.
45 Comments:
Hmmm, having perused both the WSJ article and the auction site listed I for one can't see why one would buy from the government when blackmarket prices are cheaper...
Because the government gives you a certificate authorizing your possession of the goods in question as legal. You have clear registered title to your property, which helps protect individual liberty, legal trade, and the animals in question.
Blackmarket prices are cheaper because they don't include the total cost of the goods.
Let's have a free market in buffalo hunting! Wa-hoo!
Oh, we tried that before--nearly led to extinction of a national symbol.
There are unintended consequences to free markets in hunting, trapping and poaching--such as permanent extinction for many animal species.
We nearly lost the bald eagle to DDT. The buffalo to hunting.
Well, we can always generate new national symbols, such as the weasel or coyote. The cockroach. They are survivors.
Hey Juandos-
We need another post from you making light of the Gulf Coast oil spill. It's all yuks down there.
Spill, baby, spill..I mean
drill, baby, drill!!!
Don't forget the Passenger Pigeon and the Heath Hen.
The problem wasn't With hunting buffaloe, or heath hens or passenger pigeons.
It was not paying the full market price where Total Cost = Production Cost + External Cost + Government Cost.
anon @ 11:07 said: "
Because the government gives you a certificate authorizing your possession of the goods in question as legal. You have clear registered title to your property, which helps protect individual liberty, legal trade, and the animals in question."
So, it's OK for the government to traffic in illegal items, but not anyone else?
Based on this logic, the government could auction off seized drugs and weapons to the public. I would be legitimate as long as I had that government certificate.
If the goal is to discourage trafficking in wildlife products, then these auctions are really counterproductive. Only someone in government could come up with such a laughable idea.
Probably the best way to protect animals in the wild would be to raise lots of them in captivity to supply the market.
Anon,
Doesn't it also seem like the government should be abiding by its own prohibitions? Isn't illegal trade...illegal trade? Doesn't this merely tell the public that it's still ok to buy cobra skin sandals.
This seems a bit strange....like the police selling cocaine from a drug bust. I can see the case for confiscating the Ferrari of the drug dealer and auctioning it, but not the product itself which would seem to encourage public consumption/acceptance of these items.
Benjamin,
Check your facts on DDT. The controversial study which purported this claim subjected the birds to other know eggshell thinning substances such as petroleum and removed calcium from the birds' diets. For decades, the US government paid farmers to kill bald eagles.
The banning of DDT was one of the greatest tragedies of modern history resulting in the deaths of millions from malaria and creating grinding poverty in many developing nations where 1/2 of the health care costs are attributable to malaria.
...oh, and it doesn't cause cancer either which is why the WHO is pressing to bring back interior spraying for the prevention of malaria which poses no environmental or health hazards. You can check out the WHO website for more details if you're interesting.
>"Oh, we tried that before--nearly led to extinction of a national symbol."
Benji, you should be aware that the American bison wasn't an icon when they were hunted to near extinction, but were considered to be sort of like big prairie dogs.
Also, I believe one of the main reason for killing vast numbers of bison was to deprive various groups of Native Americans of their main source of livelihood, thus forcing them to move out of areas desired by white settlers.
QT said... Benjamin,
Check your facts on DDT.
Thank you QT, I am trying hard to educate Benji on so many issues, but it's a never ending task. I was going to address the DDT issue with him, but I got tired of typing.
Based on this logic, the government could auction off seized drugs and weapons to the public. I would be legitimate as long as I had that government certificate.
Not quite.
The government DOES auction off confiscated goods. It also keeps and used confiscated goods for its own purposes (probably including weapons, and maybe even drugs as bait).
The government doesn't ordinarily auction off guns and drugs because it wants to keep them off the streets as dangerous.
In this case the object sold is not dangerous, and it is already dead. Should government just waste it and throw it away, or try to make sure the animal did not "live in vain" (Or vanity) in order to help its kin?
I agree it is seems odd, but it also strikes me as utilitarian.
Then there are other similar restrictions like Scrimshaw, which you cannot sell unless you can verify its age. Old (antique or historical) scrimsahw can be bought and sold. But new scrimshaw is illegal if it is on ivory. Scrimshaw like carvings on other materials are OK.
Same with pre-columbian Art, I believe. If you get caught with pre-columbian art that you cannot prove you acquired before the art laws wee passed, government will confiscate it.
I imagine it gets auctioned off to museums, or returned to the country of origin, which is really just a sale in return for goodwill.
I don't see this as a case of you being legitimate (!?) but rather the government recognizing your ownership and promising to protect it, same as a land deed.
Government has become very lax in protecting people's property so any additional "promises" should be viewed as a good thing, I think.
==============================
Probably the best way to protect animals in the wild would be to raise lots of them in captivity to supply the market.
Yes, and raising them in captivity means you accept more of the true cost of production. But that might not be the lowest cost option, and it stillmight not alleviate all the external damage.
The lowest cost minimizes TC where TC = PC + EC + GC.
It takes a Lot of government intervention to zero out External Costs, and it may not be cost effective. If it raises production cost + government oversight and regulation costs more than the cost of the damage, better to allow the damage and compensate those damaged.
"Also, I believe one of the main reason for killing vast numbers of bison was to deprive various groups of Native Americans of their main source of livelihood, thus forcing them to move out of areas desired by white settlers."
Same as the Union Army crippled Mosby by burning off anything in his hunting grounds that would support a horse.
I don't doubt thee were secondary motives; still there had to be a direct profit motive for the hunter, and I think that was in the hides.
Anyway you slice it, the ultimate user of the hides was not paying a price that covered the true cost. Part of that cost was the cost of ignorance in thinking Bison were like praried dogs (Bison reproduce slowly).
The banning of DDT was one of the greatest tragedies of modern history resulting in the deaths of millions from malaria and creating grinding poverty in many developing nations where 1/2 of the health care costs are attributable to malaria.
Let's not get carried away on DDT.
You are correct that the optimum economic amount of pollution (or production) for almost anything is not zero. A total ban on DDT was a waste of resources.
DDT and Thalidomide have valid uses that could be managed such that the disbeneits don't outweigh the benefits. I just wouldn't go so far as to claim banning DDT was one of the greatest tragedies in history.
A greater tragedy might be that Silent Spring so stigmatized DDT that many people now think ALL chemicals should be treated the same way. Silent spring sprouted generations of chemophobes.
So, DDT use need to be managed such that it is not overuused and its benefits are not underused. Who do you trust to do that managing, free market or government?
DDT is a bioaccumulator, so it has taken decades to reduce its concentration in the food pyramid. What corporation has an interest beyond the next quarter? What government has an interest beyond the next election?
A friend suggests that we use the fear of hazardous waste to our advantage and turn it into the icons of faith for the Jews and Hindus and Buddhists. They have the resumes that suggest they can successfully contemplate the half life of some of these products.
"doesn't cause cancer"
Doesn't mean it does not have other bad effects, like neurodisorders or liver failure. I'm pretty certain it is also an ozone depletor.
It is only that WHO in its caclulations has deterinied the benefits outweight the damages, in limited use.
Not the same as saying DDT is safe. It is important to get the dispassionate correct answer rather than the politically desired one, because only the correct answer minimizes total cost.
Your argument is essentially that people lives are being wasted (not getting equal protection) becuase DDT is overregulated. That's undoubtedly true, but other peopls lives will be equally wasted if DDT is under regulated.
And that is if you only consider DDT. Suppose thee is some other compund that could in its applicatin save more lives even cheaper (less collateral damage)?
By your argument you would be ethically bound to use the other compound first, and to use it until dimininishing returns raises the cost of benefit to equal DDT.
Then thee is the problem of how you get DDT, and what byproducts you produce making it, which are all part of the costs of DDT.
To make DDT I think you start with vinyl chloride and that is some nasty stuff. Then when DDT is burned you probably get dioxins. Of course quantity and concentration make the difference, but the point is there is no point in talking about DDT without considering the wole DDT system.
Same as you don't consider job creation or tax costs by themselves: you have to figure the jobs that job creates, or the jobs that tax destroys as well as the ones it makes.
Anon said: -"The government doesn't ordinarily auction off guns and drugs because it wants to keep them off the streets as dangerous."
You are missing the point. The issue here isn't whether or not something is dangerous, but that it's ILLEGAL.
-"In this case the object sold is not dangerous, and it is already dead. Should government just waste it and throw it away..."
Yes.
Contraband that is seized is mostly destroyed.
Your other examples are not comparable, as they apply to items that were once legal, and no longer are. The government is not currently auctioning scrimshaw, or pre-columbian art that's been seized.
"I imagine it gets auctioned off to museums, or returned to the country of origin..."
You IMAGINE? Find a real reference.
As for the rest of it, pick a name to use instead of
anonymous. Then we can talk.
QT-
"You can check out the WHO website for more details if you're interesting."
Well, I hope you find me interesting, even if ill-informed.
On DDT: I am happy to learn that properly used and regulated, it is a useful chemical.
That is far different from a wide-open free market where anybody can dump as much DDT as they want, or other pesticides.
Pesticides are a perfect case in point of unintended consequences from free markets. Many have been introduced over the years that poisonous effects on surrounding environs. Some even cause human sterility.
Proper regulation of use has been a boon to mankind.
Contraband that is seized is mostly destroyed.
Not when it is valuable property. Drug cars are sold all the time, or converted to police use.
You don't destroy historic art, even though it is contraband.
I think it is wierd, too. Like selling lost luggage to pay for a better luggage handling system.
I just don't think it is wrong. My knee jerk is that it seems wrong, doesnt feel right, somehow.
That is usually a pretty good hint. But after thinking about it, I don't see the problem: plenty of other confiscated stuff gets sold.
It is only that this was an animal.
The perp is in jail, so HE doesn't benefit, and the money isused to track down his cousin.
Where is the problem?
"I imagine it gets auctioned off to museums, or returned to the country of origin..."
You IMAGINE? Find a real reference.
I believe there is a current well known case in which a fabulous dinsosaur was found. Subsequently there was a dispute over whether trespassing was involved,in which case the dinsaur became state property. The museums were drooling over a chance to bid.
Dont know the specifics any more but that doesn't mean I don't have reasons for believing as I do.
That is far different from a wide-open free market where anybody can dump as much DDT as they want, or other pesticides.,
Almost.
The market SYSTEM as defined by the left side of te equation ought to be free to seek its own lowest level. Since externalities and cost of regulation of them are addressed on the right side, your concerns are fully addressed.
The problem comes with people who believe there should be zero externalities or zero pollution. That results in a ban or something similar, with costs being higher than necessary. Those people that demand the ban get excess protection of their property at the expense of others.
The other way to look at this is to consider pollution permits as property. Companies bid for the right to pollute. Whichever company can sell the most valuable product, will have the most money to bid for permits with, so you get maximum producton value within the allowable pollution level.
Proper regulation of use has been a boon to mankind.
I'm not convinced we have proper regulation of use. We probably have too much regulation of some chemicals and too little on others.
There is no quality control check on the regulations except a constant drumbeat to make them tighter.
If we had a free market in [a limited number of] buffaloe hunting licenses, the Indians coud have bid more because they used every scrap of the animal, which the hide hunters wasted.
Hydra said: - You are correct that the optimum economic amount of pollution (or production) for almost anything is not zero. A total ban on DDT was a waste of resources.
DDT and Thalidomide have valid uses that could be managed such that the disbeneits don't outweigh the benefits. I just wouldn't go so far as to claim banning DDT was one of the greatest tragedies in history.
It is truly surreal that we can discuss the costs/benefits of DDT in this manner.
Here is what World Health Organization says about malaria world wide.
The fact is that worldwide hundreds of million of people suffer, and several million, mostly children, die each year from what is all for all practical purposes a preventable disease.
We can have this calm, academic discussion because these people are well below our radar, in poor third world countries, especially in Africa. They are only numbers.
If several million US children died each year from malaria and DDT could prevent these deaths, but with some "external costs", what do you think the outcome would be?
Wasn't DDT banned because of the time it takes to breakdown particularly in the colder regions of the planet.
>"Not when it is valuable property. Drug cars are sold all the time, or converted to police use."
Pick a name. It's just as easy as commenting anonymously on this blog.
The government is not currently auctioning scrimshaw, or pre-columbian art that's been seized.
Every year my city has a large and highly anticipated auction where they sell off all kinds of stuff (stolen property)that has been seized, after a reasonable effort to find the owners.
I dont think they are destroying any pre-columbian art, but if it shows up in the audtion a stolen goods to begin with, how do you know if it is also contraband? It might have been legal to the person it was stolen from, or maybe not.
Either way, the city is going to sell it, and now it is legal. You have "settled" a noisy deed.
What happened in Prohibition? You bought a legal keg of booze which suddenly became illegal and the government breaks in and destroys it.
Somehow we got this idea that it is OK to confiscate sinful property, but not valuable property. Sometimes it is OK to confiscate valuable proeprty based on the BELIEF that it came from sinful sources.
You won't find the city auctoning off kiddie porn, but you might find some adult art.
Reference the Texas guy going to a farm show in Oklahoma. He is carrying a large amount of cash in case he finds the tractor he wants.
He gets stopped for speeding, the car is searched and the cash is confiscated as an assumed drug stash.
He is still trying to get his money back.
I don't see how the government auctioning off illegal cobra sandals encourages cobra hunting since the hunter gets no return on his effort. Instead his efforts helpthe government track down others like him.
The moral hazard is that government will be corrupt, and look the other way on some cobra poaching so that they can keep their piece of the income flowing.
Sorry about the name.
Wasn't DDT banned because of the time it takes to breakdown particularly in the colder regions of the planet.",
If that is the reason, we could ban almost everything. Sounds like environmental activist science. Most chemical reactions happen slower at cold temperatures.
The problem with DDT (I think) is that it is a bioaccumulator. The higher up the food chain you are, the more you ingest and the more you keep.
It is related to trichlorethylene and perchlorethylene AND it is a polychlorinated phenyl. It misses only a little of being a polychlorinated biphenyl which is more stable.
Like Kepone and perchlorethylene it causes CNS disorders. If you rip off the chlorines and replace them with Phosphorous, now you are in nerve gas territory, or weed killer.
PCBs were invented precisely because they are extraordinariy stable: they don't break down under high heat and electric fields.
It was thought that since they don't break down they must be non-reactive, and that is mostly true. but when you produce and release tons and tons stuff the cumulative effect of small probabilities starts to add up.
WHO isn't planning on releasing DDT wholesale, as it once was.
None of this stuff is good, but some of it is not the end of the world, either. PCB basically won't break down, ever, unless you violently take it apart. So you collect all this stuff and put it in a "secure" landfill. Who is going to watch and own the landfill for a thousand years?
That is basically what happened at Love Canal. The governement took over that site under eminent domain and destroyed (what little integrity there was in) the landfill.
Hydra, you are right that there was a tremendous market for buffalo hides, but that was only part of the story.
US Policy To Exterminate The Buffalo.
See section E.
Here's
an interesting article that includes a description of shooting buffalo from trains, and a common attitude at the time voiced by General Phillip Sheridan.
From this story.
"On average, however, the hide hunter could kill sixty buffalo a day. The tanneries were so overwhelmed by buffalo hides that the price began to plummet. From a one-time high of $22 a hide, the price plunged to fifty cents. Still the killing continued."
In many places, hides were left to rot, as the cost of transporting them was higher than their price.
If we had a free market in [a limited number of] buffaloe hunting licenses..., the Indians coud have bid more because they used every scrap of the animal, which the hide hunters wasted.
Limited number of licenses and free market aren't terms you can use in the same sentence.
Some Indians did bid more, and paid more - their lives.
"Doesn't mean it does not have other bad effects, like neurodisorders or liver failure. I'm pretty certain it is also an ozone depletor."
Curiously, the World Health Organization seems to disagree. WHO position paper on DDT in malaria control
Be glad to consider any long term, large scale studies you have to prove your assertions. Isn't is also true that pesticide alternatives to DDT are less effective, require more applications thereby implying greater human exposure and ...therefore greater health consequences? Isn't it also true that in areas where interior spraying of DDT was discontinued malaria has increased by as much as 1000 percent?
The banning of DDT was largely motivated by misguided notions about the need for population control...one of the uglier chapter of human history.
"Let's not get carried away on DDT"
Hydra,
With all due respect, 1 million deaths per year of mostly children and 300 million falling ill each year seems to be sufficient preventable human suffering to justify the highly controlled use of minute quantities of DDT which according to the world health organization endangers neither humans nor the environment.
Benny,
"Well, I hope you find me interesting, even if ill-informed."
Most of us were fed this liberal pablum in school. Personally, I am still quite shocked about this subject which I learned about a couple of years ago. I found it quite difficult to believe so I started downloading large scale, long term studies which showed that the claims by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring were unfounded and grossly mischaracterized the scientific findings.
It was like being hit by a 2x4. I don't think I have trusted anything I have read since.
Curiously, the World Health Organization seems to disagree. WHO position paper on DDT in malaria control
Thanks for the link, QT. I've been looking for this for some time now.
Ron,
Your welcome. Here are a couple more links.
DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards gives a very succinct overview.
Dr. Don Roberts has written a book about this subject called "The Excellent Powder".
Another article that you might enjoy
van Wendel de Joode B, Wesseling C, Kromhout H, Monge P, Garcia M, Mergler D (2001). "Chronic nervous-system effects of long-term occupational exposure to DDT". Lancet 357 (9261): 1014–6. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04249-5. PMID 11293598
Here is my long term study: I ahve a friend who had a string of drycleaners. She is now a mental vegetable as a result of exposure to perchlorethylene.
Many chlorinated hydrocarbons are known to affect CNS.
DDT is structurally similar to Perchlorethylne, just with a coupl of phenyl groups thrown in.
As a chemist, I'm convinced the stuff is dangerous.
Not as dangerous as Rachel Carson Claims, and not the risk free panacea that QT seems to thinks it is.
Think of your typical cost benefit or supply demand graph.
Concentration of "Bad Stuff of Choice" from zer to 100 on the bottom. On he right vertical axis, "Cost of Damage from Bad Stuff". It goes up from left to right. (Benefits form Bad Stuff are negative damages)
On the left verial axis "Cost to Eliminate damage from Bad Stuff, and it goes up from right to left. (one of the costs is you no longer get the benefits.)
Where they cross you get the maxium benefit and minimum damage at the lowest cost.
Problem is, those curves are typcally exponential: they have a long flat run and curve up suddenly. They are going to cross in the flat part where the answer is ambiguous and the mragin of error is high.
That's what causes the disagreement. Rachael carson thought we were way up in the damage curve, and QT thinks the benefits are sufficient to lower the curve substantially.
I don't disagree.
But, what I see is a little too much glee in discovering that DDT is useful and can save lives. it smacks more of dicrediting the other side than it does of an actual serach for the right answer.
Besides, DDT isn't the only way to save lives. If that is the goal, then what we ought to do is rank every know way of saving lives and start with the cheapest one first. Diminishing returns make each life saved more expensive ntilt eh cost for that method equals the cost of the next highest method, and so on.
Otherwize if you save Z's life and it is more expensive than saving A's life would have been you are valueing Z more than A.
If you do that ranking, DDT is pretty far down the list. So are a lot of other thngs.
We spent billions on TSA since 9/11 to make sure that never happens again. But we lose almost 3000 people a year in swimming pool accidents, without spending anything like what we spend on TSA.
==================================
"Ten projects, all part of the global programme “Demonstrating and Scaling-up of sustainable Alternatives to DDT in Vector Management”, involving some 40 countries in Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean and Central Asia are set to test non-chemical methods ranging from eliminating potential mosquito breeding sites and securing homes with mesh screens to deploying mosquito-repellent trees and fish that eat mosquito larvae.
The new projects follow a successful demonstration of alternatives to DDT in Mexico and Central America. Here pesticide-free techniques and management regimes have helped cut cases of malaria by over 60 per cent.
The success of the five year-long pilot indicates that sustainable alternatives to Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (DDT) are emerging as cost effective solutions that may be applicable regionally and globally"
WHO
Seems like WHO is hedging its bets/
Isn't is also true that pesticide alternatives to DDT are less effective, require more applications thereby implying greater human exposure and ...therefore greater health consequences?
common misperception, but no, it does not NECESSARILY follow.
However, it might.
"The banning of DDT was largely motivated by misguided notions about the need for population control"
Sorry, that sounds like conspiracy mongering. There were plenty of other reasosn to ban DDT. Unfortunately none of them were really sufficient to ignore the benefits of DDT.
It shold never have been a total ban and it also should never be deregulated.
There is only one correct amount to use and we should be looking for that, rather than championing for one side or the other.
"Limited number of licenses and free market aren't terms you can use in the same sentence."
You are letting ideology get away from you.
How does the free market manage a limited resource, like say billions of passenger pigeons?
So we have a stream and having that streamis useful for a number of things, fishing, swimming, and carrying off wastes.
But we know how much waste it can carry and still support fishing and swimming. So you issue a limited number of licences to use that waste capacity, but you let those licences trade freely.
Whoever can produce the most valuable product for the least waste can afford to bid the most for a license, so you maximize the benefit for the cost.
You are correct, the Indians were not allowed to bid on a level playing field.
============================
I had forgotten the hide price collapsed. Once that happened, why did they keep shooting? Just to impoverish the Indians?
>"I had forgotten the hide price collapsed. Once that happened, why did they keep shooting? Just to impoverish the Indians?"
Yes.
Follow the links in my previuos comment.
Hydra,
Thanks for the long term study. Will order it. I note the following description:
"We investigated chronic nervous-system effects of long-term occupational exposure to DDT by comparing the neurobehavioural performance of retired malaria-control workers with a reference group of retired guards and drivers. DDT-exposed workers did worse on tests assessing various neurobehavioural functions than controls; performance significantly deteriorated with increasing years of DDT application."
It seems ironic that death from malaria, dengue, or yellow fever seems preferable to losing a bit of mental acuity. How much worse does risk get than death?
Looking forward to reading more about this...ie. the size of the sample group. One notes that an applicator would have far greater exposure than someone living in a home with microscopic trace amounts of DDT sprayed once or twice a year.
Interior spraying of DDT remains the most effective and least expensive method of malaria prevention lowering transmission by 90% according to the WHO. That's a bit better than the 60% achieved in MX.
You & I aren't going to agree on this but thanks for your thoughts on the matter.
QT,
your link One of the uglier chapters... doesn't work.
Is this what you were referring to?
@Benjamin 5/26/2010 11:27 AM
I've seen your mindless posts before. Start posting under your real name: Naomi Klein.
>"I've seen your mindless posts before. Start posting under your real name: Naomi Klein."
AHH! (slapping self in head) Why didn't I realize that before! Now it all makes sense.
"Because the government gives you a certificate authorizing your possession of the goods in question as legal"...
Typical, mewling nonsense, can't stand on his/her own feet but needs the government to O.K. to do something the government has no business butting into...
Grow a spine, you'll feel better for it...
I see pseudo benny is still babbling...
BTW I'm still laughing at all the fools with their faux concerns over the gulf, the wetlands, the cute little animals, and on and on...
Hey pseudo benny, got someone around the house that can read and explain the following to you?
Deepwater Cementing Consideration to Prevent Hydrates Destabilization
Remember this isn't about social justice...
BTW I wonder how many other pseudo benny types bought into the hoax foisted off by Rachel Carson?
Ron,
This thread is getting pretty old so I'm not sure if you are still on.
Fatal Misconception by Matthew Connelly follows the history of the population control movement.
This thread is getting pretty old so I'm not sure if you are still on.
Thanks for the link, QT.
Post a Comment
<< Home