Essay On Ivory Trade

The number of elephants and Rhinos in the world has dwindled significantly in the past few years. The reason for this population decrease is the Ivory trade. The Ivory trade is the selling and obtaining of the Ivory tusks and horns from elephants and rhinos. The Ivory trade pushed the populations of wild elephants and rhinos to almost extinction, so the Ivory trade was banned internationally on January 18th, 1990 (Ted). The international ban spurred stockpiling and exposed poaching. Daniel Stiles, a member of the IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group, proposed in his article, Can Elephants Survive a Continued Ivory Ban, to legalize the Ivory trade again to help stop the poaching on theses endangered animals (Stiles). Stiles’ proposition to reinstate the Ivory trade would not help the elephant and rhino populations rebound; it would also not stop the poaching that is making these populations dip to an all-time low (Stiles).

In his article, Stiles

quotes Albert Einstein saying “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” (qtd. In Stiles). He quoted Einstein to say that the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) made a bad decision when the international ban was put into action (Stiles). With Stiles proposition wouldn’t we be doing the same thing over again with the legal trade and still expect a different outcome. He also says that when the ban was put into place people began to see a lucrative business in poaching for Ivory (Stiles). The poaching of these animals has existed longer than the ban has; people during the legal Ivory trade didn’t pay as much attention to them as they were to the dwindling species numbers. Stiles stated that if the Ivory trade was legalized again the Ivory could come from the stockpiles that the African governments have collected throughout the years (Stiles). He also has a plan for when the stockpiles are depleted; the Ivory can come from the natural elephant and rhino deaths and “problem” animals (Stiles). The plan he created claims that the unmerciful and non-constituted deaths of elephants and rhinos, but people can always claim that they were “nuisance” animals to make some quick money. In his article he argues that the poaching would stop in the Ivory trade was legalized because people could go through legal channels to obtain Ivory (Stiles). However, the poaching would never stop because companies are always looking for cheaper was of producing their goods; poaching is the Ivory industries version of American society’s outsourcing jobs. Companies will always look to the poachers; first because of the loyalty during the ban and secondly because poachers will be offering cheaper and quicker Ivory sales. Also when the stockpiles from the African governments run out these companies will be looking for more Ivory quickly and poachers will see this as their time to strike; if this happens the elephant and rhino population may look bleaker by the minute. Stiles’ goal for this article is to stop the elephant and rhino killings, but not the Ivory trade (Stiles). If this is his goal there is not a way to carry it out because there is not a way to remove the Ivory from the elephants and rhinos without killing the animal. There won’t be a stop to poaching if the legalization is put into place.
Stiles’ idea to legalize the Ivory trade would have to create government agencies to monitor this new commerce option.

The African governments are unstable at best, so having a committee that monitors Ivory trade would fall through the cracks of these developing countries. He also says that having a legal system monitoring Ivory trade would get rid of some of the “forbidden fruit” feelings that exist around the Ivory trade causing the sale of Ivory to go down (Stiles). Even with a legal system in place the stigmatism Ivory has because of the ban will last and keep the sale of Ivory on the rise, doing the exact opposite of the goal Stiles is trying to accomplish. Keeping the ban in place will keep some of the corrupt officials in these developing countries from abusing the Ivory trade for their own gain. The legal system that would have to be create would have to be strict and on top of things, with the state of most of the African countries it wouldn’t be a viable option because their resources are needed

elsewhere.
Stiles’ proposition will also lead to people abusing the legal system. Even today with the ban still in place CEOs of large companies and just rich people in general come out of the wood-work to go on an African game hunt. The CEO of Jimmy John’s, for example, has participated in several wild game hunts throughout the years. The Jimmy John’s CEO has photos of himself posing with dead elephants, rhinos, zebras, leopards, and lynx. Donald Trump Jr. also has been on an elephant hunt in the past few years, which was influenced by the African game hunt Theodore Roosevelt went on. If the Ivory trade were legalized again people with money coming out of their ears would think that it was okay to hunt the endangered species of the world without consequences. If the people who can afford to go on game hunts learn that the Ivory ban has been lifted they will probably try and kill to bird with one stone; obtain new Ivory and prove their masculinity.
Daniel Stiles’ proposition to legalize the Ivory trade won’t solve the poaching problem that surrounds this taboo industry. If the Ivory trade is legalized the elephant and rhino populations will dwindle into extinction. The way legal system would have to work to control the Ivory trade isn’t feasible for developing countries. The ban helps prevent unnecessary killing of elephants and rhinos but if it was lifted the unnecessary killings would sky-rocket Also the regulation of the trade would fall to the wayside if the threat of war or other serious problems arose. The legalization of the Ivory trade wouldn’t solve any of the current problems surrounding elephant and rhino conservation.