Poaching behind worst African elephant losses in 25 years(sciencebulletin.org)
sciencebulletin.org
Poaching behind worst African elephant losses in 25 years
http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/5677.html
141 comments
Your post made me spend the last half hour reading about this, your description of the situation as "absolutely hopeless" seems depressingly accurate :/
Maybe the most humane thing to do is to euthanize the remaining wild elephants. At least they wouldn't have to die by bleeding out after their faces are hacked off.
Breed tusklessness in as a dominant gene
Could you vote this president and his Mom out?
Well, he won the previous election while on trial for crimes against humanity[1](murder of 3000 Kenyans, displacement of 300,000 others), so he's gonna be pretty hard to beat next year since the International Criminal Court dropped the case after all the witnesses "disappeared."[2] Oh, and don't count on his Vice President either. They were in the crimes against humanity case together[1], and fellow politicians have openly shared stories of how the VP strangles his enemies to death(yes, this is in the literal sense)[3]. 3rd world politics man
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court...
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianoce...
[3] https://www.kenyans.co.ke/news/video-jirongo-narrates-how-ru...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court...
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianoce...
[3] https://www.kenyans.co.ke/news/video-jirongo-narrates-how-ru...
The solution strikes me as targeted killings of people like the president's mother then.
The title article says: "Although some sites have recorded declines, elephant numbers have been stable or increasing since 2006 in Uganda, Kenya, and Rwanda, and range expansion has been reported in Kenya."
That's why studies that fail to mention the president's mother's involvement miss out on a lot of nuances. A deeper look: who is in charge of official animal census in Kenya? The Kenya Wildlife Service, a government agency. The potential for bias cannot be ignored. Official numbers should be weighted against independent observations from conservationists. Here's an article that took all this into account and showed how the KWS goes to lengths to cover up poaching numbers
"The KWS, charged with protecting Kenya’s game, is accused of consistently underestimating the threat, and Paul Kipkoech, its head of security in Tsavo, claimed in an interview that only 20 elephants had been killed in the park this year. But conservationists say the figure in Tsavo is much higher, perhaps as much as three or four times that. The Tsavo Trust, which runs aerial surveillance of the park, said in its November report that it had discovered six elephants shot dead by poachers that month alone."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/elephant-appeal-...
"The KWS, charged with protecting Kenya’s game, is accused of consistently underestimating the threat, and Paul Kipkoech, its head of security in Tsavo, claimed in an interview that only 20 elephants had been killed in the park this year. But conservationists say the figure in Tsavo is much higher, perhaps as much as three or four times that. The Tsavo Trust, which runs aerial surveillance of the park, said in its November report that it had discovered six elephants shot dead by poachers that month alone."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/elephant-appeal-...
This is why I think it is better for wealthy nations to allow free import and settlement of foreign animals in their countries. African Elephants in American Zoos would be far more safer than the free ones in Kenya.
Even feudalism can be self-disciplined- aka medieval Japan according to Jared Diamond.
did obama's visit help or hurt the feudalism problem? it seems like he was pretty friendly with the whole bunch while he was there...
Thanks for that interesting history - had no idea that corruption was that high up the chain.
But I do also second your question: Why is this on HN? It is pretty common knowledge that overhunting + poaching and poor game management are the primary reason for the loss of megafauna on the African contient.
edit: People thought my first statement was snark - it isn't. I genuinely had no idea that poaching / corruption was that high up the chain.
But I do also second your question: Why is this on HN? It is pretty common knowledge that overhunting + poaching and poor game management are the primary reason for the loss of megafauna on the African contient.
edit: People thought my first statement was snark - it isn't. I genuinely had no idea that poaching / corruption was that high up the chain.
God forbid a collection of talented people devote their creativity to becoming aware of and solving a real pressing problem and not finding new ways to apply moustaches to live images.
You know - you are absolutely right. I am ashamed to admit that I let my expertise get in the way of my common sense here.
I will keep that in mind on all my comments going forward.
I will keep that in mind on all my comments going forward.
[deleted]
I think your first statement answers your question.
Really? I don't.
I don't find that something which is common knowledge - that poaching + habitat loss is the single driving force behind the loss of African (and other) megafauna - to be news.
We (zoologists) have known this for a long, long time.
I don't find that something which is common knowledge - that poaching + habitat loss is the single driving force behind the loss of African (and other) megafauna - to be news.
We (zoologists) have known this for a long, long time.
I don't believe anyone is requiring you to find it interesting.
However, enough readers of HN did find it interesting for it to make it to the front page. Maybe widespread understanding of the issues amongst non-experts isn't considered important for zoologists. I have no idea. But it's clearly interesting to some people.
However, enough readers of HN did find it interesting for it to make it to the front page. Maybe widespread understanding of the issues amongst non-experts isn't considered important for zoologists. I have no idea. But it's clearly interesting to some people.
Hacker News is not centered on zoologists. A lot of the comments that I really hope to provoke informed responses with just go unresponded to, because (I assume) they are in the area of linguistics and the HN population doesn't have a lot to say about that. Similarly, the bar for "interesting material from zoology" is lower here than it might be in a zoological journal.
I can appreciate all of that. Thank you for the civil reply - I will keep this in mind going forward before I comment next time.
You're referring to the article. the parent poster is (i think) referring to your comment "had no idea that ..."
In any case, you never know what discussion sparks insight. Poaching is driven by demand. Perhaps a campaign like the superman vs KKK could be employed.
In any case, you never know what discussion sparks insight. Poaching is driven by demand. Perhaps a campaign like the superman vs KKK could be employed.
Call me cold, but this strikes me as a situation that can be managed by altering the risk:reward landscape of poaching. Shoot people on sight who are poaching, and greatly increase the number of game wardens.
Remember Economics 101: Reduce the supply of something and you'll only make the reward of obtaining it that much higher.
You need to kill demand for this stuff, or you need to sabotage the market so the supply is through the roof like the team making fake rhino horn is doing: http://www.iflscience.com/technology/fake-rhino-horn-fight-p...
Shooting drug dealers, for example, doesn't make people not want to be drug dealers, it just kills off competition and makes the surviving dealers earn way, way more money.
You need to kill demand for this stuff, or you need to sabotage the market so the supply is through the roof like the team making fake rhino horn is doing: http://www.iflscience.com/technology/fake-rhino-horn-fight-p...
Shooting drug dealers, for example, doesn't make people not want to be drug dealers, it just kills off competition and makes the surviving dealers earn way, way more money.
There aren't that many elephants left to guard, and there isn't an infinite supply of poachers. Unlike dealing drugs, for which the supply is worldwide and can be hidden, and for which no particular skills or guts are required, hunting elephants is not so simple or stealthy.
I'm happy to attack this from both ends though.
I'm happy to attack this from both ends though.
Elephants aren't content to sit in one spot, they wander over considerable distances and between many different countries. This makes them a lot harder to police than, say, a captive bear.
You can have all the guards in the world attached to these elephants but guards are human and they'll get lazy doing nothing. When they let themselves slip, someone will be there to take advantage of their lapse.
This is a game you can't win by protecting the animals alone. You need to kill demand, you need to make the risk way, way too high for the potential payoff.
One thing you could do to incentivize protecting elephants is offer a payout for a given herd. If someone poaching an elephant costs you money you'd be motivated to protect them, so long as the protection money is greater than any reward for poaching.
Hopefully over time we'll have more technology based solutions like drones that can spot poachers long before they're a threat or civilians who will snitch out poachers because their livelihood is at stake.
You can have all the guards in the world attached to these elephants but guards are human and they'll get lazy doing nothing. When they let themselves slip, someone will be there to take advantage of their lapse.
This is a game you can't win by protecting the animals alone. You need to kill demand, you need to make the risk way, way too high for the potential payoff.
One thing you could do to incentivize protecting elephants is offer a payout for a given herd. If someone poaching an elephant costs you money you'd be motivated to protect them, so long as the protection money is greater than any reward for poaching.
Hopefully over time we'll have more technology based solutions like drones that can spot poachers long before they're a threat or civilians who will snitch out poachers because their livelihood is at stake.
> This is a game you can't win by protecting the animals
> alone. You need to kill demand.
Why isn't that an acceptable solution for elephants? Developed western countries sell expensive hunting tags for large animals.
Are elephants stuck in some economical limbo where it's too expensive to raise them but too tempting to kill them in the wild? Or is profitable culling simply rejected out of hand for moral reasons that aren't applied to similar animals in the west (e.g. bears).
Morality aside, not every animal in the world can be bred and used for sport hunting. In fact, very few animals can even be domesticated, and the ones that are common now are in that exclusive club of those that are useful and can be domesticated.
People have tried for centuries to domesticate elephants and have failed. The best we can do now is train them.
Killing elephants for a small amount of ivory is extremely wasteful. If you could bio-engineer some kind of ivory-growing organism, or make some already domesticated animal grow ivory horns (e.g. cows, goats) then you might be able to boost supply to a degree that's meaningful.
People have tried for centuries to domesticate elephants and have failed. The best we can do now is train them.
Killing elephants for a small amount of ivory is extremely wasteful. If you could bio-engineer some kind of ivory-growing organism, or make some already domesticated animal grow ivory horns (e.g. cows, goats) then you might be able to boost supply to a degree that's meaningful.
What does domestication have to do with the utility of animals for sport hunting? Those are entirely different things.
The grizzly, black bear, moose, buffalo, deer, countless bird species etc. can't be domesticated, but they can be hunted without endangering their species as a whole.
The grizzly, black bear, moose, buffalo, deer, countless bird species etc. can't be domesticated, but they can be hunted without endangering their species as a whole.
They're notably not endangered any more than raccoons or skunks are. There's sufficiently large wild populations that limited sport hunting will have a minimal impact on their survival.
This is not the same with rare species like elephants, especially those that take decades to fully mature and have extremely complex social structures that are violently disrupted by poaching.
Bears and moose are largely independent. Buffalo and deer work in herds, but are constantly victims of predation to keep their numbers in check.
Elephants and rhinos do not have a lot of predators other than humans, and the biggest threat to their existence may very well be poachers.
This is not the same with rare species like elephants, especially those that take decades to fully mature and have extremely complex social structures that are violently disrupted by poaching.
Bears and moose are largely independent. Buffalo and deer work in herds, but are constantly victims of predation to keep their numbers in check.
Elephants and rhinos do not have a lot of predators other than humans, and the biggest threat to their existence may very well be poachers.
As far as I know you can't actually breed elephants in captivity very successfully. This link has some good info: http://right-tourism.com/2014/10/captive-elephants-arent-con...
I'm not talking about shooting captive elephants in zoos, but having legalized hunting in massive game reserves big enough for these animals to range in.
E.g. this Radiolab episode interviews a guy who paid to hunt a black rhino, it goes into how populations of wild animals have been boosted in certain parts of Africa by massive game reserves that are run for-profit for hunting purposes: http://www.radiolab.org/story/rhino-hunter/
E.g. this Radiolab episode interviews a guy who paid to hunt a black rhino, it goes into how populations of wild animals have been boosted in certain parts of Africa by massive game reserves that are run for-profit for hunting purposes: http://www.radiolab.org/story/rhino-hunter/
This might be news to you but it's pretty much an open secret that most of those ranges are barely distinguishable from poaching. They work hard to justify their kills, like they'll claim an animal needs to be put down anyway, or there's an unusually large concentration of them in one spot and it's not practical to relocate them, anything to meet the base legal requirement.
They give a thin veneer of legality to an otherwise illegal practice.
They give a thin veneer of legality to an otherwise illegal practice.
Sure, they'll figure out any excuse to kill some of their animals for profit. Let's say I give you that, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's what's going on there.
Still, wouldn't it be in their best interest to maintain a sustainable population of their animals least they kill the golden goose?
Because if that's the case their aims perfectly align with conservationists.
Still, wouldn't it be in their best interest to maintain a sustainable population of their animals least they kill the golden goose?
Because if that's the case their aims perfectly align with conservationists.
This isn't like Ducks Unlimited where they work hard to protect wetlands and duck populations even if they're only doing that so they can shoot them. Those ducks live natural lives and a very small percentage are shot down. As a side-benefit we get lots of natural wilderness left untouched for other wildlife to live in and thrive.
These "hunts" are usually injured or malnourished animals unleashed in fairly small pens and shot for trophies. It's absolutely ridiculous and there's no sport in it at all.
They have absolutely no interest in conservation and they'll let people shoot whatever animals they can get their hands on. If they run out of elephants they'll just move on to something else.
These "hunts" are usually injured or malnourished animals unleashed in fairly small pens and shot for trophies. It's absolutely ridiculous and there's no sport in it at all.
They have absolutely no interest in conservation and they'll let people shoot whatever animals they can get their hands on. If they run out of elephants they'll just move on to something else.
> They have absolutely no interest in conservation.
Do you only think that about Africa (why?) or e.g. also for U.S. National Parks or other areas where you can buy hunting tags?
Full disclosure: I don't hunt, I have no interested in doing so. I'm just perplexed that solutions that seem to work in the west to align economic incentives with conservation aren't being applied in Africa.
And furthermore, when you ask about it you don't get any sort of specific answers, but just out of hand dismissive answers seemingly based on motivated reasoning without any explanation of why certain systems would work for animals A in country X, but not animals B in country Y.
The companies that offer "hunting safari" programs aren't really concerned about what they're hunting so long as it's got the right cachet. If all elephants are wiped out they'll just move on to the next best thing. If everything but a handful of gazelle were wiped out, they'd be pitching gazelle hunting tours and making a fortune doing it. For them the closer something is to extinct the more they profit.
In the US hunting is far more closely regulated and the sorts of animals you can gun down are still limited. Endangered species are off the menu.
Also consider that Ducks Unlimited wants there to be more duck hunters, and for that to be possible they need more ducks, which means they need more wetlands. It's in their best interest to keep the wetlands large, healthy, and full of ducks. They don't make money off of hunting rare, nearly extinct ducks. In fact, that probably hurts them in the long run since it ruins it for future generations of hunters.
"Solutions that work in the West" may not work in Africa because while the US is a coherent political entity with federal policies regarding poaching, Africa is a multitude of countries each with their own local geopolitical and economic situations. There is no one authority that can protect elephants since their territory is so vast.
No other animal on earth wanders as far, as frequently, and is the target of such aggressive poaching.
That title of most persecuted used to be held by whales. They're only just starting to recover from the damage that was done over the last few centuries.
Poaching a whale is not an easy thing to do since you need very expensive, specialized equipment and a huge crew. Poaching elephants is something anyone with a truck and a big enough gun can do. It's a totally different situation.
In the US hunting is far more closely regulated and the sorts of animals you can gun down are still limited. Endangered species are off the menu.
Also consider that Ducks Unlimited wants there to be more duck hunters, and for that to be possible they need more ducks, which means they need more wetlands. It's in their best interest to keep the wetlands large, healthy, and full of ducks. They don't make money off of hunting rare, nearly extinct ducks. In fact, that probably hurts them in the long run since it ruins it for future generations of hunters.
"Solutions that work in the West" may not work in Africa because while the US is a coherent political entity with federal policies regarding poaching, Africa is a multitude of countries each with their own local geopolitical and economic situations. There is no one authority that can protect elephants since their territory is so vast.
No other animal on earth wanders as far, as frequently, and is the target of such aggressive poaching.
That title of most persecuted used to be held by whales. They're only just starting to recover from the damage that was done over the last few centuries.
Poaching a whale is not an easy thing to do since you need very expensive, specialized equipment and a huge crew. Poaching elephants is something anyone with a truck and a big enough gun can do. It's a totally different situation.
Due to all the anti-poaching laws, it's probably illegal to own elephants at this point. Assuming someone is willing to farm these creatures, they need to have some seed stock in order to start breeding (even if it is on a large game-farm). Good lucky trying to get any government to sell you some elephants that you will be trying to breed.
Then again, you get yet another side that thinks it's perfectly OK to destroy the existing supply of confiscated goods. I.e. Burning large amounts of ivory, just because. Have a look here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/30/africa/kenya-ivory-burn/
They burned 105 tons of ivory in one day.
Then again, you get yet another side that thinks it's perfectly OK to destroy the existing supply of confiscated goods. I.e. Burning large amounts of ivory, just because. Have a look here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/30/africa/kenya-ivory-burn/
They burned 105 tons of ivory in one day.
"Hopefully over time" will leave us with the tech and not the elephants. There's no reason not to both attack demand, and supply at the same time. Even if the result is less than perfect, delay at this point will allow for that tech you mentioned.
I'm not in a position to shorten that time by, say, pitching a Y-Combinator start-up proposal to buy some military grade drones with thermal imaging systems and deploy these over areas with vulnerable elephant tribes, but you're welcome to try.
People will Kickstarter some pretty crazy things, so maybe theres's a business to be had here. If the local authorities permit selling of naming rights, who knows how high the bidding could get.
People will Kickstarter some pretty crazy things, so maybe theres's a business to be had here. If the local authorities permit selling of naming rights, who knows how high the bidding could get.
I'd rather invest that same money in multiple shifts of spotters and snipers, and cash bounties for middlemen.
I don't think you recognize how big an area you have to patrol and how many threats you have to protect against.
Africa is huge and the area that elephant herds wander over is perhaps as large as continental USA. It's that big.
I doubt your approach would work in some place as contained as Texas. It might work in a place like Hawaii, if, say, raptor poaching at the local dinosaur exhibit was a problem.
Africa is huge and the area that elephant herds wander over is perhaps as large as continental USA. It's that big.
I doubt your approach would work in some place as contained as Texas. It might work in a place like Hawaii, if, say, raptor poaching at the local dinosaur exhibit was a problem.
Elephants have a wide range, but it's not as though they teleport across that range in the dead of night. They're large, you can track their calls for miles, and they often take predictable routes for their entire lives. You don't need to protect empty land, you just need to have rotating teams covering the elephants.
Rotating teams. Replacement vehicles. Spare parts. Fuel. Food. Batteries. Crew swaps. Visas and permits. Armed guards to protect the anti-poaching crew when they might run into conflict with local militia.
It's also not like elephants pick areas to travel that are particularly friendly to vehicles. Look at this track one group took from one side of Africa to the other: https://safarihorizons.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/in-the-track...
Africa is not known for having exceptionally well maintained roads, they make Russian backwoods trails look like the Autobahn, and that goes quadruple inside a nature reserve. Driving this distance in any vehicle would be absolute hell.
It's also not like elephants pick areas to travel that are particularly friendly to vehicles. Look at this track one group took from one side of Africa to the other: https://safarihorizons.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/in-the-track...
Africa is not known for having exceptionally well maintained roads, they make Russian backwoods trails look like the Autobahn, and that goes quadruple inside a nature reserve. Driving this distance in any vehicle would be absolute hell.
Yes, it would cost money, and require manpower and material support. We can take some of the billions we'll use to pointlessly fight the war on drugs and divert it, or pretend there's oil or REE's there...
Okay, so either billions of dollars shuttling people back and forth across hostile terrain in Africa, or say a tiny fraction of that disrupting the market by flooding it with fake or alternative ivory products, which one do you think is a better plan?
I agree, the war on drugs is hopeless, but like trying to dump all the alcohol during prohibition you can't win this by guarding things, you can only win it by changing the economics of the entire situation.
Cut demand, boost supply. If you can do that the problem goes way. Nobody poaches ragweed or dandelions.
I agree, the war on drugs is hopeless, but like trying to dump all the alcohol during prohibition you can't win this by guarding things, you can only win it by changing the economics of the entire situation.
Cut demand, boost supply. If you can do that the problem goes way. Nobody poaches ragweed or dandelions.
I don't know if fake rhino horns will help. 90% of all horns on the market are already fake (either bison horns or wood carving), and demand hasn't stopped. Adding fake horns into the market just seems to legitimise it and increases the deman for the real thing. Just like diamonds, where synthetic but identical diamonds haven't stopped for real diamonds, I don't see how fake rhino horns can help.
I think what needs to be done is a massive and widespread campaign in Vietnam of education about rhino superstition and shaming of those who contribute to the extinction of the rhino.
I think what needs to be done is a massive and widespread campaign in Vietnam of education about rhino superstition and shaming of those who contribute to the extinction of the rhino.
Synthetic diamonds has eaten into the real diamond market, don't kid yourself. They're having to work a lot harder for much smaller profits.
There's also a lot of effort from the diamond mining conglomerates to fight against synthetic diamonds. The poachers have no such capability, they're just doing it for money and will move on to whatever else pays better the moment poaching isn't profitable.
It's a two part thing: Increase supply, cut demand. You can't expect miracles without working both angles aggressively, and we've only just started with truly "fake" horns that test as the real thing.
There's also a lot of effort from the diamond mining conglomerates to fight against synthetic diamonds. The poachers have no such capability, they're just doing it for money and will move on to whatever else pays better the moment poaching isn't profitable.
It's a two part thing: Increase supply, cut demand. You can't expect miracles without working both angles aggressively, and we've only just started with truly "fake" horns that test as the real thing.
The thoughtful solutions on this forum remind me of this xkcd:
https://xkcd.com/538/
I am Kenyan. A conveniently left out truth when discussing the poaching menace here is that the big bad poacher in the story is non other than the president's mother. Your intelligence in this case will be no match for the force of sheer impunity backed by state resources
https://xkcd.com/538/
I am Kenyan. A conveniently left out truth when discussing the poaching menace here is that the big bad poacher in the story is non other than the president's mother. Your intelligence in this case will be no match for the force of sheer impunity backed by state resources
That's why I'm proposing an immediate, violent solution, not one based on nonexistent cooperation, politics, or locals who care.
>That's why I'm proposing an immediate, violent solution, not one based on nonexistent cooperation, politics, or locals who care.
You surprise me, from the comments you made a few days back on the European refugee crisis, I though you were a peaceful person. Now your true nature is revealed. Would you be willing to sacrifice your own life, to save the elephants? Would you be willing to kill another human being yourself, to save the elephants? If your not willing, I don't even know how you come up with this ideas!
You surprise me, from the comments you made a few days back on the European refugee crisis, I though you were a peaceful person. Now your true nature is revealed. Would you be willing to sacrifice your own life, to save the elephants? Would you be willing to kill another human being yourself, to save the elephants? If your not willing, I don't even know how you come up with this ideas!
I'm not a hawk or a dove, the world isn't black and white and situations should be examined on their own merits. People fleeing unlivable conditions, who are essentially helpless, and who are fleeing conditions with deep roots in the places they're fleeing to, are a very different set of circumstances. Not to mention that there is simply no need for the extremes of violence, that would just be a ridiculous choice to satisfy xenophobia.
In this case, the helpless and nearly extinct intelligent animals aren't humans, but elephants. For decades, peaceful attempts have been made to preserve them in some way, and all of those attempts are failing. The alternatives are very clearly to take drastic action, or accept the extinction of an intelligent species.
As for whether I'd be willing to kill a human to save an elephant, yes, I would frankly welcome the chance. I despise people who destroy life in the name of ideology, profit, and a general lack of giving a shit. The only difference for me personally is that I'd be much more willing to kill the people truly responsible, rather than the poachers themselves who are often tools of those people.
In this case, the helpless and nearly extinct intelligent animals aren't humans, but elephants. For decades, peaceful attempts have been made to preserve them in some way, and all of those attempts are failing. The alternatives are very clearly to take drastic action, or accept the extinction of an intelligent species.
As for whether I'd be willing to kill a human to save an elephant, yes, I would frankly welcome the chance. I despise people who destroy life in the name of ideology, profit, and a general lack of giving a shit. The only difference for me personally is that I'd be much more willing to kill the people truly responsible, rather than the poachers themselves who are often tools of those people.
And the folks funding it are tools of the folks merchandising the products (ivory etc). And they are the tools of the folks buying the products. Who are the tools of the fashion industry. Ad infinitum.
In the end, we are all responsible for our own part in the play. Go ahead and shoot poachers - they know what they're doing. Got to break the chain somewhere.
In the end, we are all responsible for our own part in the play. Go ahead and shoot poachers - they know what they're doing. Got to break the chain somewhere.
So to be clear, "you would not be willing to sacrifice your own life, to save the elephants", yet you would kill the father, the brother, the son of someone, to save the elephants?
I'm not interesting in committing suicide, but obviously assassinating people isn't likely to yield a long life for the assassin. The other reality is that "sacrificing my own life" while very symbolic, is totally useless, so I have to wonder why you're so focused on that one point to the exclusion of literally everything else.
Yes, this always seemed like a really easy to solve problem to me as well. I hear the poachers are very well armed. However, it seems like a few (military-?)drones that circle the area 24/7 could solve this problem once and for all. I think a sibling post hits the nail on the head though by explaining that in Kenya the problem is really political.
Wrong people. The shooters are just poor kids who are doing this to earn a meager living. Their "employers" care less about them than the elephants. They will simply find some other poor hungry kids and pay them to kill the elephants. What they need to do is catch the recruiters / middle men and shoot them.
I'm absolutely on board with that, if you can take some of these poor kids into custody without killing them, and flip them, that works for me.
Isnt that what's already happening in some areas?
it is, and they shoot back. so stakes are high already.
Hence: "Greatly increase the number of game wardens." At some point the risk vs. reward gets skewed in the elephant's favor, and as a bonus you're employing people who might otherwise be in a militia or mercenary group.
It is, but typically it's a local affair, undertrained, understaffed, and underfunded. For the sake of saving a possibly intelligent species, we could afford to pool a bit of money and manpower and make it less of a fight and more of a slaughter of the poachers.
There is nothing cold about it. It is the smart thing to do. Give people ownership of the animal and they will defend it. But as one of the Kenyan person has mentioned about the Government (the law) itself is engaging in this so you cant really expect any private property laws being honored.
Best is to import these animals to USA and breed them.
Best is to import these animals to USA and breed them.
Makes me wonder if some sort of adopt-a-block approach for tagged endangered species could work.
The cost to tourism is likely staggering compared to the profit a poacher makes. Perhaps state and environmental campaigns can fund protection of the animals. One part prestige and one part economic? For-hire endangered species body guards?
The cost to tourism is likely staggering compared to the profit a poacher makes. Perhaps state and environmental campaigns can fund protection of the animals. One part prestige and one part economic? For-hire endangered species body guards?
As the Kenyan citizen mentioned above, the government itself is doing this. These are the countries where poachers would put a hammer in your head in-front of entire village and throw your body to rot and nothing will happen. I doubt if any campaign can make a difference. Bringing those animals to safe places is a much better idea.
Unfortunately there really isn't the time to spend on waiting for reforms either... we either stand by and do nothing and let an intelligent species be killed off, or protect them with violence.
Are we at the point where corporations can have private militias? I'm really impressed at how committed we are to acting out a cyberpunk novel.
I'd say the best thing would be to maintain elephant populations domestically on wildlife reserves. Saving the species is important, but it doesn't give us the right to interfere with foreign affairs.
I'd say the best thing would be to maintain elephant populations domestically on wildlife reserves. Saving the species is important, but it doesn't give us the right to interfere with foreign affairs.
I'll worry about the right to interfere in foreign affairs when we stop invading "because we can", when we end the war on drugs, and a number of other frankly hostile and ridiculous international policies. Then, we can start to worry about the right to save an intelligent species from extinction, because of international barriers.
An invasion to save the species is something I would support if it makes economic sense. But I think just like legalizing drug use would solve drug problem I think it would be lot more cost effective if American billionaires are allowed to buy these animals. Ivory is worth X, the elephant could be legally sold of 5x.
It would be lot more cost efficient than invading kenya or creating political instability.
It would be lot more cost efficient than invading kenya or creating political instability.
Well lets not kid ourselves about the political stability of Kenya without (modern) interference, never mind other surrounding countries. Certainly I've never noticed a particular hesitation on the part of the international community to invade or interfere in Africa when there is money to be made.
This is a good strategy. I think it'd be even more effective if large bounties were offered for the body parts of poachers. Macabre, yet, somehow fitting.
Belgium paid on the basis of body parts received already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
You'd run into the same problem everybody who pays for body parts runs into - defenseless people become a source of income for the unscrupulous.
Sounds like you should run for president of the Philippines.
That seems more than a little unfair. If you're in the middle of a protect nature preserve in the African bush, with the tools of your trade, you're not a victim. This isn't a case of mistaken identity, or just being in the wrong place, or pissing off the wrong people.
You don't see any way that giving incentives to people for killing poachers without a trial could go wrong?
I can't imagine any human endeavor that lacks the potential to go wrong, but I also don't think that's a reason not to try anything, ever.
I believe extrajudicial killings have a bit more than "the potential" to go wrong.
It's a pretty limited use case, unless you think that people tend to wander the African bush with chainsaws and elephant guns just because... reasons? You'd have to quite literally go well out of your way and leave civilization behind to be targeted.
Maybe you can tell me what exactly you suspect would go wrong in this limited scenario?
Maybe you can tell me what exactly you suspect would go wrong in this limited scenario?
Well the person I responded to said we should offer rewards for murdering poachers. So the incentive would be to go out and murder people and plant chainsaws/rifles on them.
You wouldn't really even have to "go out in the bush" to kill them. You could kill someone and claim they were out there poaching.
You wouldn't really even have to "go out in the bush" to kill them. You could kill someone and claim they were out there poaching.
Well, that's another person with their own ideas that have nothing at all to do with mine. Bounty programs on human lives is a terrible idea. Still, the fact that you've now decided to respond, not to me, but someone else by way of me tells me that you've run out of sensible objections and are grasping at straws.
I also think you're underestimating just how far out in the middle of nowhere we're talking about here, and how rough the area is. If you want to kill someone and get away with it, there are much much easier ways to make that happen in rural Africa.
I also think you're underestimating just how far out in the middle of nowhere we're talking about here, and how rough the area is. If you want to kill someone and get away with it, there are much much easier ways to make that happen in rural Africa.
"Well, that's another person with their own ideas that have nothing at all to do with mine. Bounty programs on human lives is a terrible idea. Still, the fact that you've now decided to respond, not to me, but someone else by way of me tells me that you've run out of sensible objections and are grasping at straws."
I have no clue what you are talking about. You initially responded to me [0]. You are very confused.
Anyway, I still think proximity to civilization should not be the main justification for extrajudicial executions. Thats just like my opinion man.
"I also think you're underestimating just how far out in the middle of nowhere we're talking about here, and how rough the area is. If you want to kill someone and get away with it, there are much much easier ways to make that happen in rural Africa."
I didn't mean kill someone and get away with it. I mean, if person x wants to kill person y to get payout z. That is why I responded to the initial commenter. Without a trial you can claim anyone was anywhere doing anything. You don't have to go to the bush. You can drive 2 miles out of town and kill them. But I obviously don't even know what your position is and honestly don't care so I may be "grasping at straws".
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12586019
I have no clue what you are talking about. You initially responded to me [0]. You are very confused.
Anyway, I still think proximity to civilization should not be the main justification for extrajudicial executions. Thats just like my opinion man.
"I also think you're underestimating just how far out in the middle of nowhere we're talking about here, and how rough the area is. If you want to kill someone and get away with it, there are much much easier ways to make that happen in rural Africa."
I didn't mean kill someone and get away with it. I mean, if person x wants to kill person y to get payout z. That is why I responded to the initial commenter. Without a trial you can claim anyone was anywhere doing anything. You don't have to go to the bush. You can drive 2 miles out of town and kill them. But I obviously don't even know what your position is and honestly don't care so I may be "grasping at straws".
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12586019
My thought has always been that poaching is a economic problem and requires an economic solution.
The reason why elephants are being killed is because they're worth more dead than alive to the poacher and likely the local community or otherwise the local community would do more to protect the animals from poachers. What if there was a fund that paid local communities for each live elephant? The community now has an incentive to prevent poaching.
I suppose some of the foreseeable side effects could be the community preventing elephant migration in order to increase the local numbers, but these types of details could be worked out.
The reason why elephants are being killed is because they're worth more dead than alive to the poacher and likely the local community or otherwise the local community would do more to protect the animals from poachers. What if there was a fund that paid local communities for each live elephant? The community now has an incentive to prevent poaching.
I suppose some of the foreseeable side effects could be the community preventing elephant migration in order to increase the local numbers, but these types of details could be worked out.
>My thought has always been that poaching is a economic problem and requires an economic solution.
Sure. Problem is the economic problem is...well Africa sized. You're not going to fix that any time soon. Plus Asia sized as well...a fair amount of the drive is coming from there esp on the rhino poaching side.
Sure. Problem is the economic problem is...well Africa sized. You're not going to fix that any time soon. Plus Asia sized as well...a fair amount of the drive is coming from there esp on the rhino poaching side.
I'm an idiot here, so allow me this uninformed suggestion:
Could the elephant's tusks be removed and replaced with false tusks? I'm assuming there would be some way to replace them the way an implant is used to replace a tooth in a human.
If the prosthetic tusk were obvious (a bright color for example) it would signal to the would-be poacher, "No ivory here."
The tusks removed would be destroyed.
Could the elephant's tusks be removed and replaced with false tusks? I'm assuming there would be some way to replace them the way an implant is used to replace a tooth in a human.
If the prosthetic tusk were obvious (a bright color for example) it would signal to the would-be poacher, "No ivory here."
The tusks removed would be destroyed.
Any scheme like this results in poachers killing the elephant so they don't wind up wasting time tracking it again later.
I think this was discovered when they poisoned rhino horns (ground rhino horn is a traditional oral medicine) and marked them with bright color to identify them as poisoned. Poachers killed the marked rhinos and left the horns.
I think this was discovered when they poisoned rhino horns (ground rhino horn is a traditional oral medicine) and marked them with bright color to identify them as poisoned. Poachers killed the marked rhinos and left the horns.
This suggests the obvious approach of poisoning the horn without dying it. Did anyone try that?
How would that help? No one would know it was poisoned until the rhino was dead. The poachers wouldn't even find out until people stopped buying rhino horn because it was killing uneducated, superstitious people thousands of miles away - which is to say, far far too late.
The loss of the rhino and the elephant would be tragic, but those people who consume it do not deserve to die - they don't understand what they're doing or what they're causing, and they are worth more than rhinos.
Edit, since I can't respond to your comment: There is already an information battle to convince people that traffic in and using rhino horn is not possibly good for them. If they will not believe scientists telling them that, they won't believe it's poisoned. Nothing short of a mass market and culture shift is likely to change their beliefs. Telling them it's poisoned would certainly have too many misses and too little reach to be acceptable.
The loss of the rhino and the elephant would be tragic, but those people who consume it do not deserve to die - they don't understand what they're doing or what they're causing, and they are worth more than rhinos.
Edit, since I can't respond to your comment: There is already an information battle to convince people that traffic in and using rhino horn is not possibly good for them. If they will not believe scientists telling them that, they won't believe it's poisoned. Nothing short of a mass market and culture shift is likely to change their beliefs. Telling them it's poisoned would certainly have too many misses and too little reach to be acceptable.
> How would that help? No one would know it was poisoned until the rhino was dead. The poachers wouldn't even find out until people stopped buying rhino horn because it was killing uneducated, superstitious people thousands of miles away.
You would tell them. How do people currently know that rubbing alcohol has been poisoned?
> Edit, since I can't respond to your comment: There is already an information battle to convince people that traffic in and using rhino horn is not possibly good for them. If they will not believe scientists telling them that, they won't believe it's poisoned. Nothing short of a mass market and culture shift is likely to change their beliefs. Telling them it's poisoned would certainly have too many misses and too little reach to be acceptable.
1. Yes, you can respond to any comment on its own page.
2. Yes, if the horns are actually poisoned, people will learn that they're poisoned. The feedback loop here is quite short: you announce that you've poisoned the rhino horns, people scoff, say "they'd never have the guts", and eat the horns, and then a lot of those people die. Word will get around.
If they're not poisoned, then of course people won't believe that, but it's hard to blame them for accurately not believing your self-serving lies.
You would tell them. How do people currently know that rubbing alcohol has been poisoned?
> Edit, since I can't respond to your comment: There is already an information battle to convince people that traffic in and using rhino horn is not possibly good for them. If they will not believe scientists telling them that, they won't believe it's poisoned. Nothing short of a mass market and culture shift is likely to change their beliefs. Telling them it's poisoned would certainly have too many misses and too little reach to be acceptable.
1. Yes, you can respond to any comment on its own page.
2. Yes, if the horns are actually poisoned, people will learn that they're poisoned. The feedback loop here is quite short: you announce that you've poisoned the rhino horns, people scoff, say "they'd never have the guts", and eat the horns, and then a lot of those people die. Word will get around.
If they're not poisoned, then of course people won't believe that, but it's hard to blame them for accurately not believing your self-serving lies.
[deleted]
It wasn't clear to me at first that the people you're talking about in your edit are the buyers of the horn. It does seem to me though that if the horns were all poisoned people would stop using them rather quickly. The question remains whether that would be worth it.
> but those people who consume it do not deserve to die
Don't have to kill them.
Take some rhino horn and find yourself with a couple days of crippling stomach cramps and you probably won't want to do it again.
Don't have to kill them.
Take some rhino horn and find yourself with a couple days of crippling stomach cramps and you probably won't want to do it again.
>How would that help?
Demand will crumble.
Demand will crumble.
That's a very interesting ethical question. Maybe the better solution is to poison all the horns, but mark them as well.
Poachers don't have to kill the animals just to save themselves time in the future. If you mark the horns, you leave yourself wide open to poachers killing the animals to get you to stop doing that.
Well, considering the poachers' current strategy is already to kill as many animals as possible, I don't think that would be an effective move on their part. It's basically just the status quo, except now poachers are just wasting their time/ammo/money and not getting anything out of it.
Good point.
Along the subject of ethics... what about poisoning all the horns... but not marking them?
If all the horns were taken there would be no point in killing elephants (or rhinos) to avoid tracking problems.
Removal sounds a little invasive but various schemes for sabotaging elephant tusk and rhino born have been proposed over the years.
https://www.savetherhino.org/rhino_info/thorny_issues/dyeing...
https://www.savetherhino.org/rhino_info/thorny_issues/dyeing...
What about impregnating it with some kind of dye that's very difficult or impossible to bleach out?
Alternatively could introduce a mutation that causes the elephants to not grow tusks.
Alternatively could introduce a mutation that causes the elephants to not grow tusks.
I think the Rhino's need tusks for life.
Variations of this come up all the time. Last reply I heard to this came down to.
The difficulty of actually sedating the elephant. The danger of the elephants waking up during tusks removal and hurting them self or the remover. Poachers would still kill the elephant to avoid needlessly tracking it
The difficulty of actually sedating the elephant. The danger of the elephants waking up during tusks removal and hurting them self or the remover. Poachers would still kill the elephant to avoid needlessly tracking it
There's a state sponsored hackathon series coming up, to create solutions to tackle the demand of ivory and other illicitly poached animal goods. Worth contributing to if you care about this cause: http://www.zoohackathon.com/
I read another article recently that had a picture of a huge pile of illegally poached tusks being burnt in a large pyre.
I wondered about the logic of doing this. Wouldn't destroying a large number of tusks just increase the scarcity and thus the value, thus incentivising more poachers to kill more elephants?
Burning the tusks wouldn't bring the elephants back to life. I would have thought instead that suddenly flooding the market with tons of cheap ivory would kill the value and reduce profit for distributors. Then again, it would probably spur demand when people see the increase in availability?!?
No easy answer, but at the crux of it, we have to remove the almighty Dollar (oh, ok - Schilling) from the whole equation somehow.
I wondered about the logic of doing this. Wouldn't destroying a large number of tusks just increase the scarcity and thus the value, thus incentivising more poachers to kill more elephants?
Burning the tusks wouldn't bring the elephants back to life. I would have thought instead that suddenly flooding the market with tons of cheap ivory would kill the value and reduce profit for distributors. Then again, it would probably spur demand when people see the increase in availability?!?
No easy answer, but at the crux of it, we have to remove the almighty Dollar (oh, ok - Schilling) from the whole equation somehow.
Probably there will be no more elephants in 25 years, except for small numbers in zoos and wildlife sanctuaries in developed countries.
At the rate it is going, African wildlife will largely disappear even as the human population explodes. Already there are over 1.2 billion humans on the continent, and not enough food, not enough stability or prosperity. Bush meat is popular and can be bought anywhere, which of course means people are hunting and eating protected species.
There are a couple hundred thousand chimpanzees left in Africa; there were once millions. There are maybe 20,000 lions, down from half a million. There were once millions of African elephants; now they're down to half a million and still dropping. Many other species are facing similar fates.
We humans are like a blight on this planet. Maybe we should quickly develop extraterrestrial colonization technologies, get the population off world, and preserve the Earth as a giant animal sanctuary.
At the rate it is going, African wildlife will largely disappear even as the human population explodes. Already there are over 1.2 billion humans on the continent, and not enough food, not enough stability or prosperity. Bush meat is popular and can be bought anywhere, which of course means people are hunting and eating protected species.
There are a couple hundred thousand chimpanzees left in Africa; there were once millions. There are maybe 20,000 lions, down from half a million. There were once millions of African elephants; now they're down to half a million and still dropping. Many other species are facing similar fates.
We humans are like a blight on this planet. Maybe we should quickly develop extraterrestrial colonization technologies, get the population off world, and preserve the Earth as a giant animal sanctuary.
[deleted]
The problem is that Chinese use Ivory figures as traditional gifts, and they will not ban them, just in the same way the Spanish won't ban bullfighting. This increases the cost of ivory, which places a high reward for elephant tusks, which translates into their death sentence.
Likewise high end pianos, billiard balls, and such, make use of ivory.
According to surveys, the majority Chinese believe that elephant tusks grow back in the same way nails do, and they do not know that elephants need to be killed in the process.
At least there are studies to make use of synthetic ivory. Now, the use of ivory itself doesn't respond to any actual need other than a cultural one. Many materials that are cheaper can replace ivory in most use cases.
Likewise high end pianos, billiard balls, and such, make use of ivory.
According to surveys, the majority Chinese believe that elephant tusks grow back in the same way nails do, and they do not know that elephants need to be killed in the process.
At least there are studies to make use of synthetic ivory. Now, the use of ivory itself doesn't respond to any actual need other than a cultural one. Many materials that are cheaper can replace ivory in most use cases.
If ivory is a Veblen good, efforts to raise the price might actually stimulate demand instead of reducing it.
I know this is politically naive but I'll say it.
Self-declared police nations (like USA & UK & France & their allies) are so quick to intervene in Not Their Country when issues like oil or political alliances are at stake. So can we see the same level of committment (e.g. military intervention) when large scale extinction events or environmental devastation are at stake?
Soldiers lives are precious. So this is easy for me to say, but would we really be putting much at stake to drop a peacekeeping (read: anti-poacher) presence into Kenya?
Self-declared police nations (like USA & UK & France & their allies) are so quick to intervene in Not Their Country when issues like oil or political alliances are at stake. So can we see the same level of committment (e.g. military intervention) when large scale extinction events or environmental devastation are at stake?
Soldiers lives are precious. So this is easy for me to say, but would we really be putting much at stake to drop a peacekeeping (read: anti-poacher) presence into Kenya?
Wonder if this is related to the rise of China's economy.
I thought China had brought in a total ban (finally) on both import and sale last year. Obviously there's still smuggling, but I'd hoped the ban would have a noticeably positive effect.
>but I'd hoped the ban would have a noticeably positive effect.
The US bans and controls the sale of a lot of drugs, all we've got 50 years later is another out of control government department.
The US bans and controls the sale of a lot of drugs, all we've got 50 years later is another out of control government department.
IIRC I read somewhere that the initial result were positive but we have to wait a bit for the markets to respond to the change.
Smuggling in poached horn is not helping China's economy.
Presumably the commenter intended the opposite relationship: a growing Chinese economy means more money to spend on luxuries like ivory.
I think it would be rather the reverse. If China's economy booms, people there has more money to spend. Among other things they spend it on poached horn.
Yea, it looks like China. We need to stop making cultures rich by making products in the cheapest country--Blah--Blah--Blah. It doesn't look like business as normal will Not change.
The older I get, and the more I find out about the cultural norms in certain countries; the more I want high tariffs, and flat out bans. We will get by with paying more for our stuff.
To send a message, I wouldn't mind seeing a complete ban on ivory here. Yes, gather up all that pre-19whatever Ivory, and burn it. If it sends a slight message to the Chinese, it would be worth it. And this is comming from someone who appreciates old ivory artifacts/collectables. No--I don't own any, out of moral reasons.
Teaching a dumb country, including a large swath of Americans, traditional medicine doesn't work is a whole other problem.
I would like to see guys like Zuckerburg, Buffet, and Gates send Placebo missionaries over to countries like China, and the rest. They could just try to educate these people. They could pay to put up bill boards. They could try?
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/what-is-...
The older I get, and the more I find out about the cultural norms in certain countries; the more I want high tariffs, and flat out bans. We will get by with paying more for our stuff.
To send a message, I wouldn't mind seeing a complete ban on ivory here. Yes, gather up all that pre-19whatever Ivory, and burn it. If it sends a slight message to the Chinese, it would be worth it. And this is comming from someone who appreciates old ivory artifacts/collectables. No--I don't own any, out of moral reasons.
Teaching a dumb country, including a large swath of Americans, traditional medicine doesn't work is a whole other problem.
I would like to see guys like Zuckerburg, Buffet, and Gates send Placebo missionaries over to countries like China, and the rest. They could just try to educate these people. They could pay to put up bill boards. They could try?
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/what-is-...
China & the U.S. both banned trade in ivory last September:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory#Controversy_and_conserva...
And the U.S. confiscated and crushed a ton of ivory in Times Square last year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory#Controversy_and_conserva...
And the U.S. confiscated and crushed a ton of ivory in Times Square last year.
Yeah, those damn Chinese and their idiot culture, not like us Americans with our highly refined sensibilities...
If you're interested in education, rather than having the Great White Hopes do it, perhaps you would consider that there are people there already fighting this fight, and that countries have their own reformers and don't need an injection of Western wisdom.
http://www.upworthy.com/thanks-to-yao-ming-killing-sharks-fo...
If you're interested in education, rather than having the Great White Hopes do it, perhaps you would consider that there are people there already fighting this fight, and that countries have their own reformers and don't need an injection of Western wisdom.
http://www.upworthy.com/thanks-to-yao-ming-killing-sharks-fo...
Of course China is a factor. Since Mao killed all of the intellectuals during the Cultural Revolution, China has lost morality and knows only the ethics of greed and material wealth. With globalization they gained money, and unrestrained by ethics black markets flourish in China, fueled by the nouveau riche.
> Since Mao killed all of the intellectuals during the Cultural Revolution, China has lost morality
That didn't help, but I think throwing the whole country into desperate, starving poverty was a much larger contributor.
That didn't help, but I think throwing the whole country into desperate, starving poverty was a much larger contributor.
> Since Mao killed all of the intellectuals during the Cultural Revolution, China has lost morality
There are people protesting this in China and China banned trade of ivory. So don't damn the entire nation.
There are people protesting this in China and China banned trade of ivory. So don't damn the entire nation.
I was in Tanzania last summer and saw elephants in one of these parks where poaching is a big problem. We were lucky to see them; it was beautiful.
Our guides told us that natural selection causes elephants there to grow ever smaller tusks, making them less attractive to poaching. That seemed somewhat hopeful to me: maybe evolution will happen fast enough so they can re-bounce in numbers after they produce no ivory anymore.
Our guides told us that natural selection causes elephants there to grow ever smaller tusks, making them less attractive to poaching. That seemed somewhat hopeful to me: maybe evolution will happen fast enough so they can re-bounce in numbers after they produce no ivory anymore.
Or else the smaller tusks will mean poachers kill more elephants each hunt to meet their ivory tonnage criteria?!? Could be a double edged sword.
I heard on a podcast recently that the main cause of elephant deaths in the 1920's and 1930's was.... the manufacturing of billiard balls. Apparently it took roughly 2 elephants worth of tusks to manufacture one set of ivory billiard/snooker balls. Astounding - whereas a piano keyboard would usually only take up less than 1/2 a tusk because they used laminated sheets of ivory.
At least we can be thankful that the modern plastics industry was born out of the need to create 'artificial ivory' billiard balls which exhibited the same bounce and noise properties. Although one could argue that modern plastics are a whole ecological blight in their own right...
I heard on a podcast recently that the main cause of elephant deaths in the 1920's and 1930's was.... the manufacturing of billiard balls. Apparently it took roughly 2 elephants worth of tusks to manufacture one set of ivory billiard/snooker balls. Astounding - whereas a piano keyboard would usually only take up less than 1/2 a tusk because they used laminated sheets of ivory.
At least we can be thankful that the modern plastics industry was born out of the need to create 'artificial ivory' billiard balls which exhibited the same bounce and noise properties. Although one could argue that modern plastics are a whole ecological blight in their own right...
> Our guides told us that natural selection causes elephants there to grow ever smaller tusks
Huuuuuh... scientific source on that? Seems like an extremely specious claim, given the life span of elephants, and the fact that poachers are probably happy to harvest ivory even if the elephant has slightly smaller tusks.
Huuuuuh... scientific source on that? Seems like an extremely specious claim, given the life span of elephants, and the fact that poachers are probably happy to harvest ivory even if the elephant has slightly smaller tusks.
Lets look at africa, then look at medieval japan. Two cultures, two times limited ressources (wilderness - forrests).
One time, the allmend ressources are managed and tight self-controll is established over society - even during times of warfare and strife.
Why does this not work in africa?
Medieval Japan didn't have many opportunities to engage in global trade. Oh and what happened to their feudal system once they were exposed to international products?
Eh, they transfered it into a cooperate-feudal system, where your feudal Lord is your cooperations CEO?
The Foundation for Wildlife and Habitat Conservation - Zambia is doing some great work on promoting alternatives to poaching. Your donations will do a lot of good there.
http://fwhc.net/
http://fwhc.net/
I really wish ivory wasn't confiscated and burnt, but rather was infused with poison and released to continue to its eventual destination.
[deleted]
[1] http://mavulture.com/political-corruption/mother-of-the-nati...