Related to this thread, another cache of ivory has been burned, this time by the government of Kenya, as noted by many news outlets. npr.org reports:
On Saturday morning, it hosted the most spectacular burn event yet: The tusks of nearly 7,000 elephants — 105 metric tons’ worth — were set alight in 11 separate pyres in Nairobi’s National Park.
The tusks, taken from elephants that were poached as well as from those that died naturally, were collected from Kenya’s parks and confiscated at its ports.
The haul represents the bulk of Kenya’s entire ivory stockpile. In addition, a 1.5-ton basket of rhino horn was set on fire. All told, more than $300 million worth of contraband went up in flames.
“Kenya is leading the way in saying that ivory has no value, unless it’s on an elephant,” says Robin Hollister, an engineer and pyrotechnics expert, as he adjusts the knobs on an air compressor.
To my mind this is a dubious remark, so I went looking for why elephant ivory is desirable. In 2012, The Atlantic pointed a finger at China and its burgeoning middle class. Author Rebecca Rosen:
In China, according to Ivory’s Ghosts by John Frederick Walker, artistic ivory carvings exist from as far back as the sixth millennium BCE, excavated in Zhejiang Province. “By the Shang Dinasty (ca. 1600-ca. 1046 BCE) a highly developed carving tradition had taken hold,” he writes. Specimens from this period are today in museums around the world.
But ivory wasn’t solely prized for its aesthetic value. Ivory’s properties — durability, the ease with which it can be carved, and its absence of splintering — uniquely suited it for a variety of uses. Archaeologists and historians have recovered many practical tools made out of ivory: buttons, hairpins, chopsticks, spear tips, bow tips, needles, combs, buckles, handles, billiard balls, and so on. In more modern times we are all familiar with ivory’s continued use as piano keys until very recently; Steinway only discontinued its ivory keys in 1982.
So, couple a large population to ambition and a cultural legacy, and elephants are caught in the cross-fire. The ivory in Kenya comes from elephants both poached and dead from natural causes, so it’s difficult to say whether the previous destruction of ivory had any effect on the supply & demand equation, which is quite unfortunate since, as previously noted, the destruction of ivory does is controversial in relation to the question as to whether it discourages poaching.
Ultimately, discouraging the trade on the demand end may be more effective than constricting supply. Towards that endgoal, some prominent Chinese have tried to set an example, as reported by WildAid in early 2014:
Business leaders in China took a public stand today against the ivory trade by signing a pledge to never purchase, possess, or give ivory as a gift. WildAid China Chair, Huang Nubo, spearheaded the effort by 36 prominent Chinese to raise awareness of the ivory poaching crisis. The group includes Charles Chao, CEO of Sina Corp., China’s largest Internet portal, Liu Chuanzhi, Chair of Lenovo, and 10 individuals from the Forbes 2013 China Rich List including Jack Ma, founder of the Alibaba Group.
“As China grows up, Chinese companies should do the same and take on more social responsibility,” said Nubo. “This is why we are joining efforts to protect our planet’s wildlife. We hope this ethic becomes engrained in us and is passed down to future generations.”
Recent surveys indicate a large portion of China’s population is unaware of the death toll to create ivory and rhino horn products, yet a greater number of residents support government enforced bans. (Read the ivory and rhino horn surveys.)
At the same time, Grace Ge Gabriel opined in IFAW:
The best way to counter greed is by increasing the risk for criminals engaging in wildlife crime, by strengthening laws to ban ivory trade combined with vigorous enforcement and meaningful punishment for violators.
Those that engage in trade and consumption of protected wildlife are as criminal as the poachers who actually pull the trigger.
With which I disagree. Remove the demand by through moral reasoning and the poaching fades away. Laws may be necessary, but keep in mind that relying on law alone runs the risk of appearing arbitrary, capricious, or worse: corrupt.
Late last year China made a commitment to shut down the ivory trade, but without a timeline. National Geographic’s Rachael Bale reported:
After years of defending and supporting a legal domestic trade in ivory, China made a big announcement in September: It’s shutting down the trade.
The United States is, too. Together, the presidents of both countries have made an unprecedented public pledge to put a stop to all ivory trading—legal and illegal.
The U.S. is on track to approve new regulations within a year that essentially would fulfill its promise under the September pledge to take “significant and timely steps” to end the ivory trade. But the joint pledge doesn’t have any deadlines, and the Chinese government hasn’t said what time frame it’s aiming for.
The Chinese government may, however, consider an ivory buyback program, says Li Zhang, a professor at Beijing Normal University who is studying the feasibility of such a plan. The idea is that the government would use an eco-compensation fund, similar to those Beijing has used to improve watersheds, to buy back legal raw and unfinished ivory owned by licensed carving factories.
So after all is said and done, what do the statistics show? It’s hard to say, as the data is difficult to collect. Poaching Facts‘ information on elephants is here, and for some African countries they have good data, and for others none at all. So drawing firm conclusions, at least from my drafty little room, is a mugs’ game. The information for Kenya does appear to have some detail:
In a 2013 annual report the Kenya Wildlife Service reported 302 elephants were lost to poaching that year. However according to the census cited in that annual report elephant populations within KWS-monitored areas were steadily growing and in 2013 had reached 1,940 individuals. The country is known to have lost 137 elephants and 24 rhinoceros to poachers in 2014. The total elephant population within Kenya is estimated at roughly 38,000 according to the KWS annual report of 2012.
They also have an interactive chart.
Amidst all these numbers, some important truths are lost. In NewScientist (30 April 2016), Paola Cavalieri brings them forward:
Older females are the overall leaders, acting as hubs to connect many groups and as reservoirs of vital knowledge, such as where to find scarce food and water.
Poaching can rip apart this society, leaving elephants more vulnerable than ever.
State-sanctioned “cullings” in the 1970s and 1980s illustrated the risks. Social links and stored knowledge were disrupted and surviving elephants showed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, such as persistent fear, abnormal startle response, dejection and hyper-aggression. Asocial behaviour in young elephants also rose.
Simple numbers must give way towards to a more sophisticated analysis to take into account the loss of group knowledge when the elder females are (so quaintly) culled. Mr. Cavalieri then goes on to call for what some might label a fantasy, and others an ultimate solution:
Philosophers Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka have argued that international law could allot animals “sovereign” territories, where they might live a self-determined life. It is time to try this for elephants. Of course they would be unable to defend such territories, so elephant “nations” would have to be protectorates.
To protect humans, we have devised global institutions under which countries administer territories with an obligation to protect inhabitants. Why can’t progressive African states carve out elephant territories within their boundaries, assuming a similar responsibility towards them, under UN supervision and backed by international law?
Given our currently overpopulation problems, I hardly see this happening until the first problem is solved; and no doubt the populations of Kenya, et al, would ask why they should be the ones asked to uproot from ancestral homelands merely to save some elephants? As much as I might like to see Mr. Cavalieri’s proposal come to solution fruition, the human claims on the area in question are not without validity and would need answering.
And the loss of elephants has, and will have, a great impact on the ecosystem, much to the disadvantage of nearly all other species, including humans. Much like the wolves of Yellowstone, the elephants are big animals with a big impact, not all of which is understood – but will certainly be profound.
[Edits 1/17/2017 – evidently I never proofread this post. No changes to content, however.]
