Keywords: elephant poaching essay, ivory trade ban
Poaching of elephants has been present from days gone by 1000 years. Nonetheless it increased substantially in the 1970's and consequently the elephant people of the world recorded a sharp drop with statistics displaying that the amount of elephants in Africa dropped from 1. 3 million in 1980 to just 400, 000 in 1990 ("Ivory trade threatens future of African Elephants"). Sudan and the Central African Republic have also registered a decrease in their elephant inhabitants. The key factor which results in the poaching of elephants is ivory trade. Therefore to save lots of the dwindling elephant society of the world, chopping the demand for ivory on the planet became necessary.
The first attempt against ivory trading was made in 1975 with the arrival of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Varieties of Crazy Fauna and Flora (CITES), which put elephants under the list Appendix II kinds (""White gold": The ivory trade ban"). These are the varieties that, though not threatened by extinction, are at risk of being endangered. This did not ban ivory trading and was simply a means of regulating it. However it failed to achieve its goal as the killing of elephants not only continuing but increased as the demand for ivory in the international market increased. Thus in 1989 CITES was obligated to revise its position in framework with elephants. As of 1990 the elephants were removed from Appendix II and somewhat placed under Appendix I (a species threatened by extinction) where the killing of elephants was illegalized and a complete ban was enforced on ivory trading (""White gold": The ivory trade ban"). After the ban was put under practice ivory trade was practically removed because "publicity bordering the issue converted public sentiment up to now contrary to the ivory trade so it nearly eliminated the demand for ivory worldwide; most poaching discontinued abruptly in response. " Following the imposition of the ban the amount of poached elephants in Kenya was reduced to 500 in 1993 from a huge 3500 in the 1980's (""White gold": The ivory trade ban"). Also because the demand for ivory got decreased, the price of ivory per pound also decreased from $125 to $5 (""White gold": The ivory trade ban"). This decrease in price made the poachers lose motivation and poaching of elephants reduced.
Another action, The Botswana Conservation and Management of Elephants Action of 1991 ("The Conservation and Management of Elephants in Botswana") also helps protect the elephant populace. By the application of strict guidelines by the government of Botswana, which include the establishing of anti-poaching units, poaching is prevented on a big scale within the united states. Because of this the elephant people of Botswana isn't just steady but is experiencing an increase.
There are many points and only the ban being continuing. These arguments derive from the success of live elephants to the countries they are simply in and on pet rights. Elephants provide a whole lot of benefits both to the country's overall economy in which they reside and also to the natural habitat of other crazy life. Some countries like Zimbabwe and Kenya thrive on the travel and leisure as a result of the existence of elephants in their lands. Zimbabwe has earned a world wide web total of $424 million and Kenya has acquired a net of $100 million due to the fascination their elephant people designed for the holidaymakers (""White gold": The ivory trade ban"). Thus, as ivory trade will involve the hunting and killing of the elephant inhabitants of the countries, it has a detrimental effect on the tourism companies without which these already poor countries will eventually lose significant amounts of money and a significant contributor to their gross local product (GDP). The past chief executive of the Zimbabwe Council for Travel and leisure, Paul Matamasia, explained with regard with poaching: "Without wildlife, we don't have a travel and leisure industry to talk of" ("Zimbabwe's Animals Threatened by Poachers"). Another good thing about elephants is that they help change woodlands into grasslands, an action which helps provide habitats for the varied animals. Thus if the elephant inhabitants is reduced credited to ivory trade it indirectly has an adverse influence on the habitats of other animals. This was exemplified in the 1970's in the Tsavo Country wide Park in Kenya whenever a reduction in elephant population led to a decrease in the population of other animals such as zebras ("Why Ivory Trade should be banned").
The other main discussion presented and only the ban is that of animal privileges. The indiscriminate slaughter of the elephants is necessary in order to acquire ivory as it cannot be obtained as the elephant is alive. After it has been killed the procedure of extracting ivory will involve the poacher to cut into the mind of the elephant because approximately 25% of the ivory is contained in the brain. This brutal getting rid of of elephants merely to take their tusks is a violation of creature protection under the law and of the law as elephants are considered to be an endangered kinds and according to The Endangered Species Work (ESA) of 1973 "ESA prohibits everyone, private person and federal government agency similarly, from "taking" endangered animals. The regulations expand this to threatened animals. "Take" includes "harming" a posted species. Harm: in the definition of "take" in the Action means an function which actually kills or injures animals. Such act may include significant habitat changes or degradation where it actually eliminates or injures animals by significantly impacting essential behavioral habits, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering" ("The Endangered Varieties Act").
However some claim that the ban is wrong and should not be enforced. There's a debate about the endangerment of the elephants with one side claiming they are not endangered in any way. This aspect argues that rather than being at risk of extinction, the elephant are experiencing a growth in their society. The advocates of this viewpoint cite the types of Kruger National Recreation area and Botswana. In Kruger Country wide Park the population of elephants increased from 7000 in 1994 to 12000 in 2005. Also in Botswana the elephant people isn't just increasing however the authorities registered a risk of overpopulation. The amount of elephants increased from 54700 to 60935 (""White gold": The ivory trade ban"). The ban enforced on ivory trade by CITES requires the elephant population to be below 2000 to meet the requirements. Thus these advocates claim that the ban has been wrongly imposed and really should be lifted as the population exceeds that mentioned for legal reasons (""White gold": The ivory trade ban"). .
It must be noted however that this increase in people of the elephants only registered after the ban had been imposed in the first place and can be straight related to it because after it was enforced the poaching happenings were reduced to negligible portions. So far as the situation of overpopulation is concerned it can be justified to still position the elephants under Appendix I of CITES to be able to protect the population from falling to such low level that it will become too overdue to save lots of elephants from extinction; as the old clich should go: prevention is better than cure.
The primary get together opposing the ban is the Southern African Development Community (SADC) which include 12 countries including Botswana, Tanzania and Namibia. The reason why SADC's opposition of the ban is the increased loss of revenue it acquired from ivory sales. It argues that because of the ban these countries can't even trade in legitimate ivory which is obtained following the elephant dies a natural loss of life. These countries also declare that the populace of elephants in their territories is a lot greater than the particular level at which a species is known as endangered. Actually these countries claim that they lack the region and resources to appeal to the growing people of the elephants (""White gold": The ivory trade ban"). This, they promise, poses a threat to their population as elephants come incompatible with the villagers and are accountable for destroying many plants.
Another argument they present is the fact that allocating areas especially for elephants is indirectly very costly as they want that area to grow crops as agriculture assists as a main form of livelihood it is very difficult. Jon Hutton summates the condition by declaring: "Plants give survival. Elephants don't" (""White silver": The ivory trade ban"). SADC further says that the ban should be raised so these countries can sell up to collective stockpile of $8 million dollars (""White gold": The ivory trade ban") that is accumulated from elephants that passed on a natural fatality. These countries claim that the revenue generated from these deals will be utilized to conserve the elephant populace because they build better places for them to live in.
In respond to the debate that legal ivory and stockpiles should be permitted to be traded which elephants should alternatively be put under Appendix II by CITES, it can be inferred from an identical situation that this is wii solution. Before, in response to the appeal by Botswana, CITES positioned elephants under Appendix II alternatively than Appendix I in 1997 which allowed a one off trade of ivory with Japan. However this gave way to increased poaching activity in the region as the demand for ivory tusks was restored which acted as a stimulant for the poachers which resulted in a considerable decrease in elephant population. A complete ban was soon located afterwards to avoid the poaching as unlawful advantage have been taken of your lenient decision. This just helps reinforce the idea that a ban is the only real solution to protect the elephant human population and if lifted gives surge to illegal trade in ivory which is difficult to differentiate from reliable trade because while DNA assessment has been presented it is very costly and it will be very hard to check each batch of ivory.
If we consider the debate of the destruction of existing vegetation and too little space for rehearsing agriculture we can easily see that lifting the ban is not the only real solution and neither is the getting rid of of elephants a good option as it might aggravate the situation rather than so that it is better. Much better and effective answers can be found in the form of relocation of elephants. The relocation of elephants from overpopulated areas to areas where they exist in very few numbers is a very feasible solution as it right answers both the problem of overpopulation in a few countries and dearth of elephants in others and will help reach equilibrium between your two. This idea was used in 2001 when some elephants were moved from Kruger Country wide Park in South Africa to Mozambique. Will Travers, a member of the Born Free Groundwork, said: "Translocation as a management option, rather than culling, is likely to be progressively used" ("World's Biggest Elephant Relocation Begins")
The discussion that the income generated will be utilized to help the elephant inhabitants is impractical on two bases. First of all for the majority of the countries the total amount gained from legal ivory trade is much lower than the total amount earned by travel and leisure. Thus harming the elephant populace for lesser income is not a good option. Secondly the majority of these countries are growing countries and the amount required to raise the living standards of the elephant human population will be too high and cannot be fulfilled together by revenues made from trade of ivory tusks which is damaging to the elephant society in the first place.
By carefully considering the arguments offered by both the advocates in favor of the ban and those who are opposed to it and by considering the statistical evidence provided in this article, it could be firmly concluded that the ban on ivory should remain and is the one barrier standing between live elephants and the extinction of any species. Some other scenario, whether it was a nonexistent ban or a lenient one, has proven damaging to the population of elephants on earth. When a ban had not yet been enforced the numbers of elephants was dwindling at a worrying rate while when a little leverage was allowed to some countries for genuine trade the consequent rise in demand of ivory and the increase in poaching pushed the elephants one step closer to being wiped of the world. Also the getting rid of of elephants for ivory is an extremely atrocious criminal offense as the life of a living being is much more important than the huge benefits it can provide in loss of life and the conservation of an species is much more essential than monetary benefits. Thus a full ban is really the only answer and the protagonists of the group who feel that the ban should be raised should reconsider their arguments.