John Frederick Walker - Author and Conservationist Options

[Game Warden]

John Frederick Walker in Cangandala National Park, Angola

John Frederick Walker has been traveling to Africa and reporting on the continent since 1986. His latest book is Ivory’s Ghosts: The White Gold of History and the Fate of Elephants, which famed field biologist George Schaller called "superb...essential reading for anyone concerned with conservation." It's now available in paperback and ebook editions. He is also the author of the highly praised A Certain Curve of Horn: The Hundred-Year Quest for the Giant Sable Antelope of Angola, a narrative of his search for an endangered species in war-torn Africa. Walker’s writings have appeared in The New York Times, National Geographic Traveler, Africa Geographic, Wildlife Conservation, and numerous other publications, and have been short-listed for a Reuters-IUCN Media Award for Excellence in Environmental Reporting. He developed the Ivory Project at the African Wildlife Foundation to examine the impact of ivory on elephant management and frequently lectures on conservation at zoos and natural history museums across the US.

Visit his website at: www.johnfrederickwalker.com

Should countries be allowed to sell stockpiled ivory in order to help to fund conservation in that country?

My view is that no country with elephants inside its borders should be allowed to sell its stockpiled ivory unless their elephant population is stable in numbers and well-protected. However, if an African country meets that standard, then I think they should be allowed to sell off stockpiled ivory to raise funds specifically for elephant conservation, including anti-poaching efforts.

In your opinion, what is best – total ban on the sale of ivory, one off sales, such as has happened previously, and as Zambia and Tanzania are applying for now, or a regular series of sales of smaller quantities, thus not to release all the stockpiled ivory in one hit, in which countries alternate? (Please give pros and cons for each.)

The ivory ban was supposed to put an end to elephant poaching. It’s been in effect for two decades, but it hasn’t worked—illegal killings of elephants are once again at alarming levels. We can never return to an unregulated ivory trade, but it’s clearly time for some fresh thinking on how the ban could be revised.

The Kilimanjaro tusks, the largest ever recorded; Zanzibar 1898

Ivory has been a revered commodity for thousands of years, and frankly it’s unrealistic to think that interest in it will fade away. Besides, it’s not necessary to kill elephants to obtain ivory—they leave their tusks behind when they die. That’s why some African countries who are doing a good job by their elephants feel they have a right to sell off their ivory stockpiles to raise money for elephant conservation.

But these “one-off” sales are a poor way to go about it. Ivory traders in the countries that are allowed to buy ivory for domestic consumption (currently, Japan and China) can’t rely on a steady inflow of tusks—decisions on whether or not to allow these sales are made at each CITES meeting. This has the unfortunate effect of keeping the black market alive.

It would make far more sense to set up a strict mechanism for regular auctions of a small amount of ivory from states with demonstrably well-managed herds. (It should be noted that Tanzania and Zambia may fail to make their case.) It’s been estimated that natural deaths in the current African elephant population could yield a 100 tons of legal ivory a year, enough to supply the legitimate Asian market. That would undercut the black market.

The sale of ivory is an emotive subject, but in your opinion, who is best placed to decide if African countries can sell their ivory stockpiles?

Because there are political as well as biological dimensions to the sale of ivory, it’s a conservation issue that can only be decided at an appropriate international forum—inevitably, that’s CITES.

“One off ivory sales will lead to increased and unsustainable levels of elephant poaching.” Right or wrong? What is your assessment of such a statement?

Kenya and other countries opposed to any ivory trade argue that any legal ivory sales stimulate poaching. But TRAFFIC, the joint IUCN/WWF wildlife trade monitoring network, says there was no hard evidence for that following the 1999 one-off sale to Japan. In fact, illicit trade in ivory declined for five years. Following the 2008 sale, the trend isn’t definitive yet, though there was a strong upsurge in illegal trade in 2009. There are a number of factors that drive the illegal market in ivory—among them, poverty and human desperation, not just the existence of legal sales.

To the best of your knowledge, how does the 23 member African Elephants Coalition function, and is this the right way forward in managing the elephant question and associated issues such as sale of ivory?

The African Elephant Coalition is facilitated by IFAW and reflects its anti-ivory stance. It does not represent the views of every African elephant range state.

If ivory sales do go ahead, how can the proceeds be directly channeled into wildlife / elephant conservation in the respective countries? What controls are there in country to ensure that the money is spent correctly, and not misappropriated?

According to CITES, any revenues from the sale of ivory stockpiles must be managed through conservation trust funds and go toward enhancing elephant conservation, monitoring and community development in elephant ranges. The revenues don’t just disappear into government coffers. Some $15 million was raised in the 2008 sales. I agree that more transparency on what happened to these funds would be desirable.

To where/whom can blame be apportioned for the high levels of elephant poaching in African countries. (In country, as opposed to those fuelling demand).

It’s not a coincidence that those African countries plagued with ivory poaching are also countries that are either at war, or suffering from drought or awash with displaced peoples, and often riddled with corruption or simply lacking effective conservation and enforcement. By contrast, stable countries in southern Africa, such as Namibia, Botswana and South Africa are able to keep poaching to a minimum. In fact, they have too many elephants for the habitat available to them.

Use of military force has been advocated in order to protect elephant and rhino populations, and indeed, the army has recently been deployed in Kruger for this purpose. (Source – San Parks) Is this the answer? How would different countries put this into practice, and would use of such force further alienate local communities who are often disenfranchised from their traditional lands due to national parks and reserves?

I’m not comfortable with “shoot on sight” anti-poaching policies in African parks. If it’s not a policy that would be tolerated in European and North American parks to combat poaching, then why should it be considered appropriate for African countries? To my mind, using military forces for wildlife enforcement is over-kill, and just reinforces the belief among many rural Africans that their governments care more about their elephants than their own people.

How is it that China, being a CITES member, (despite its poor track record in terms of illicit trade in endangered species / animal parts), and being the largest marketplace for ivory, can play an active role in any decision whether to permit the sale of ivory?

China is one of 175 nations that are parties to CITES and its conventions. Because of its size, and its historic interest in ivory, it is vital that ways be found for it to play a positive role in an evolving global ivory policy. China took strong steps to regulate its domestic ivory trade, which helped it get CITES approval as a buyer of legal ivory. However, it is not doing enough to police its nationals working in Africa, far too many of whom are engaging in ivory trafficking, which fuels poaching.

Animal rights advocates, (Not conservation NGOs working in the field) - well intentioned they may be, but in your opinion do they complicate the issue, especially if they operate from outside of Africa itself? Should they be able to have influence on any political decisions taken with regard to ivory sales and issues such as trophy hunting / culling?

It’s a positive thing when animal rights advocates focus attention on animal abuse and wildlife trafficking. It’s a negative thing when they advocate agendas which are divorced from biological realities. To be good stewards of the planet, it’s vital for us to protect biodiversity. That means tough decisions have to made—like ridding ecosystems of invasive species that are destroying them. It’s also negative when these groups completely dismiss the need for people in developing countries to benefit from the wildlife they live with. The amount of influence some of these animal groups have in African countries is wildly inappropriate. Would the US tolerate Nigeria telling it what should be done with grizzly bears in Yellowstone? African countries should be able to manage their own wildlife free of foreigners buying influence over conservation policy or threatening tourist boycotts if they don’t get their way.

Aside from the ivory trade, what other threats exist to the elephants in Africa, and what steps are being taken / should be taken to address these problems?

Human-elephant conflict. It’s almost completely ignored in the media, but rural Africans living in or next to elephant habitat suffer when these giants raid their crops, and sadly, sometimes even lose their lives. A country like Kenya, with a growing human population, is rapidly losing elephant habitat. The Kenya Wildlife Service doesn’t discuss it, but it has to shoot several hundred problem elephants a year on control work.

Why are some countries so successful in managing their elephants populations, i.e. Botswana and South Africa to name but two, when others seem to be struggling?

Botswana and South Africa are functioning democracies, with well-run wildlife and parks departments and excellent anti-poaching units.

Is culling the best way to control elephant populations, especially in fenced reserves such as Kruger? If so, why? What are the alternatives, and have any been proven to be successful in managing large numbers?

I wrote about this complex issue in detail in Ivory’s Ghosts. You can use birth-control or translocate herds to keep elephant numbers down in very small parks, but these methods are simply unworkable in a park the size of Kruger. That leaves culling as the only practical method of population control—short of letting elephants denude their habitat and waiting for a mass die-off, something that would be far more cruel.

What should those African countries, who have successfully managed their elephant populations, do to help other nations who have a poor track record? Indeed, should they help, financially, or with expert assistance, or would the effort be better spent on protecting their own elephant populations? Should there be greater cross border co-operation between countries, and how could this work?

I think African countries with successful elephant management policies could certainly share their expertise, but the countries that need the advice often lack the infrastructure and political will to implement workable policies of their own. A huge problem is the failure of many Africa countries to police their own domestic markets where all too often ivory carvings are openly sold. These serve as headquarters for illegal ivory trafficking and must be shut down.

If a country’s infrastructure is recovering from the ravages of previous civil war, e.g. Mozambique, should large scale elephant translocations be considered as a way of thinning numbers from more populated countries, e.g. South Africa / Botswana, or would this be a huge waste of resources, financially and otherwise?

Elephant translocation is wildly expensive, requiring helicopters, veterinary teams, giant cargo jets—using translocation as a means to reduce elephant populations would be a huge waste of resources that could be put to better conservation use. Translocating a few elephants to restart populations that have been wiped out, however, is a different story.

"Trophy hunting can play a role in wildlife conservation." Do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?

Many people find trophy hunting personally abhorrent. But it brings in a lot of money to wildlife departments for very little environmental impact. Hunters pay stiff fees for the privilege of shooting a few animals. So long as the quota of animals that can be hunted is based on a careful biological assessment of how many can be shot without having any significant impact on an animal population, it’s pointless to pass up hunting fees as a source of conservation funds. Hunters are also after untouched wilderness and simple camps, unlike camera-toting tourists who look for lodges, flush toilets and restaurants—all of which have a negative impact on wildlife habitat. Besides, there are many African habitats that are wildlife rich, but of zero tourist interest. Hunters are the only ones who might spend money in these swamps and scrublands.

With or without the ivory ban, in your opinion, what is the best way to ensure the long term conservation of the African elephant?

The best way to ensure that the African elephant has a future is to start by being realistic about its plight. There are some hard decisions ahead. For example, it’s not a contradiction to care about elephants and yet accept that in some places their numbers have to be reduced. Elephants don’t mix well with fences, roads, villages, development in general. They need space and protection. In an Africa of ever-shrinking wildlife habitats, that won’t be cheap. We should let elephants help fund their future by allowing tightly controlled sales of the tusks they leave behind.

The views expressed therein are solely those of the interviewee and do not necessarily reflect those of Safaritalk.

[Game Warden]

John Frederick Walker in Cangandala National Park, Angola

John Frederick Walker has been traveling to Africa and reporting on the continent since 1986. His latest book is Ivory’s Ghosts: The White Gold of History and the Fate of Elephants, which famed field biologist George Schaller called "superb...essential reading for anyone concerned with conservation." It's now available in paperback and ebook editions. He is also the author of the highly praised A Certain Curve of Horn: The Hundred-Year Quest for the Giant Sable Antelope of Angola, a narrative of his search for an endangered species in war-torn Africa. Walker’s writings have appeared in The New York Times, National Geographic Traveler, Africa Geographic, Wildlife Conservation, and numerous other publications, and have been short-listed for a Reuters-IUCN Media Award for Excellence in Environmental Reporting. He developed the Ivory Project at the African Wildlife Foundation to examine the impact of ivory on elephant management and frequently lectures on conservation at zoos and natural history museums across the US.

Visit his website at: www.johnfrederickwalker.com

Should countries be allowed to sell stockpiled ivory in order to help to fund conservation in that country?

My view is that no country with elephants inside its borders should be allowed to sell its stockpiled ivory unless their elephant population is stable in numbers and well-protected. However, if an African country meets that standard, then I think they should be allowed to sell off stockpiled ivory to raise funds specifically for elephant conservation, including anti-poaching efforts.

In your opinion, what is best – total ban on the sale of ivory, one off sales, such as has happened previously, and as Zambia and Tanzania are applying for now, or a regular series of sales of smaller quantities, thus not to release all the stockpiled ivory in one hit, in which countries alternate? (Please give pros and cons for each.)

The ivory ban was supposed to put an end to elephant poaching. It’s been in effect for two decades, but it hasn’t worked—illegal killings of elephants are once again at alarming levels. We can never return to an unregulated ivory trade, but it’s clearly time for some fresh thinking on how the ban could be revised.

The Kilimanjaro tusks, the largest ever recorded; Zanzibar 1898

Ivory has been a revered commodity for thousands of years, and frankly it’s unrealistic to think that interest in it will fade away. Besides, it’s not necessary to kill elephants to obtain ivory—they leave their tusks behind when they die. That’s why some African countries who are doing a good job by their elephants feel they have a right to sell off their ivory stockpiles to raise money for elephant conservation.

But these “one-off” sales are a poor way to go about it. Ivory traders in the countries that are allowed to buy ivory for domestic consumption (currently, Japan and China) can’t rely on a steady inflow of tusks—decisions on whether or not to allow these sales are made at each CITES meeting. This has the unfortunate effect of keeping the black market alive.

It would make far more sense to set up a strict mechanism for regular auctions of a small amount of ivory from states with demonstrably well-managed herds. (It should be noted that Tanzania and Zambia may fail to make their case.) It’s been estimated that natural deaths in the current African elephant population could yield a 100 tons of legal ivory a year, enough to supply the legitimate Asian market. That would undercut the black market.

The sale of ivory is an emotive subject, but in your opinion, who is best placed to decide if African countries can sell their ivory stockpiles?

Because there are political as well as biological dimensions to the sale of ivory, it’s a conservation issue that can only be decided at an appropriate international forum—inevitably, that’s CITES.

“One off ivory sales will lead to increased and unsustainable levels of elephant poaching.” Right or wrong? What is your assessment of such a statement?

Kenya and other countries opposed to any ivory trade argue that any legal ivory sales stimulate poaching. But TRAFFIC, the joint IUCN/WWF wildlife trade monitoring network, says there was no hard evidence for that following the 1999 one-off sale to Japan. In fact, illicit trade in ivory declined for five years. Following the 2008 sale, the trend isn’t definitive yet, though there was a strong upsurge in illegal trade in 2009. There are a number of factors that drive the illegal market in ivory—among them, poverty and human desperation, not just the existence of legal sales.

To the best of your knowledge, how does the 23 member African Elephants Coalition function, and is this the right way forward in managing the elephant question and associated issues such as sale of ivory?

The African Elephant Coalition is facilitated by IFAW and reflects its anti-ivory stance. It does not represent the views of every African elephant range state.

If ivory sales do go ahead, how can the proceeds be directly channeled into wildlife / elephant conservation in the respective countries? What controls are there in country to ensure that the money is spent correctly, and not misappropriated?

According to CITES, any revenues from the sale of ivory stockpiles must be managed through conservation trust funds and go toward enhancing elephant conservation, monitoring and community development in elephant ranges. The revenues don’t just disappear into government coffers. Some $15 million was raised in the 2008 sales. I agree that more transparency on what happened to these funds would be desirable.

To where/whom can blame be apportioned for the high levels of elephant poaching in African countries. (In country, as opposed to those fuelling demand).

It’s not a coincidence that those African countries plagued with ivory poaching are also countries that are either at war, or suffering from drought or awash with displaced peoples, and often riddled with corruption or simply lacking effective conservation and enforcement. By contrast, stable countries in southern Africa, such as Namibia, Botswana and South Africa are able to keep poaching to a minimum. In fact, they have too many elephants for the habitat available to them.

Use of military force has been advocated in order to protect elephant and rhino populations, and indeed, the army has recently been deployed in Kruger for this purpose. (Source – San Parks) Is this the answer? How would different countries put this into practice, and would use of such force further alienate local communities who are often disenfranchised from their traditional lands due to national parks and reserves?

I’m not comfortable with “shoot on sight” anti-poaching policies in African parks. If it’s not a policy that would be tolerated in European and North American parks to combat poaching, then why should it be considered appropriate for African countries? To my mind, using military forces for wildlife enforcement is over-kill, and just reinforces the belief among many rural Africans that their governments care more about their elephants than their own people.

How is it that China, being a CITES member, (despite its poor track record in terms of illicit trade in endangered species / animal parts), and being the largest marketplace for ivory, can play an active role in any decision whether to permit the sale of ivory?

China is one of 175 nations that are parties to CITES and its conventions. Because of its size, and its historic interest in ivory, it is vital that ways be found for it to play a positive role in an evolving global ivory policy. China took strong steps to regulate its domestic ivory trade, which helped it get CITES approval as a buyer of legal ivory. However, it is not doing enough to police its nationals working in Africa, far too many of whom are engaging in ivory trafficking, which fuels poaching.

Animal rights advocates, (Not conservation NGOs working in the field) - well intentioned they may be, but in your opinion do they complicate the issue, especially if they operate from outside of Africa itself? Should they be able to have influence on any political decisions taken with regard to ivory sales and issues such as trophy hunting / culling?

It’s a positive thing when animal rights advocates focus attention on animal abuse and wildlife trafficking. It’s a negative thing when they advocate agendas which are divorced from biological realities. To be good stewards of the planet, it’s vital for us to protect biodiversity. That means tough decisions have to made—like ridding ecosystems of invasive species that are destroying them. It’s also negative when these groups completely dismiss the need for people in developing countries to benefit from the wildlife they live with. The amount of influence some of these animal groups have in African countries is wildly inappropriate. Would the US tolerate Nigeria telling it what should be done with grizzly bears in Yellowstone? African countries should be able to manage their own wildlife free of foreigners buying influence over conservation policy or threatening tourist boycotts if they don’t get their way.

Aside from the ivory trade, what other threats exist to the elephants in Africa, and what steps are being taken / should be taken to address these problems?

Human-elephant conflict. It’s almost completely ignored in the media, but rural Africans living in or next to elephant habitat suffer when these giants raid their crops, and sadly, sometimes even lose their lives. A country like Kenya, with a growing human population, is rapidly losing elephant habitat. The Kenya Wildlife Service doesn’t discuss it, but it has to shoot several hundred problem elephants a year on control work.

Why are some countries so successful in managing their elephants populations, i.e. Botswana and South Africa to name but two, when others seem to be struggling?

Botswana and South Africa are functioning democracies, with well-run wildlife and parks departments and excellent anti-poaching units.

Is culling the best way to control elephant populations, especially in fenced reserves such as Kruger? If so, why? What are the alternatives, and have any been proven to be successful in managing large numbers?

I wrote about this complex issue in detail in Ivory’s Ghosts. You can use birth-control or translocate herds to keep elephant numbers down in very small parks, but these methods are simply unworkable in a park the size of Kruger. That leaves culling as the only practical method of population control—short of letting elephants denude their habitat and waiting for a mass die-off, something that would be far more cruel.

What should those African countries, who have successfully managed their elephant populations, do to help other nations who have a poor track record? Indeed, should they help, financially, or with expert assistance, or would the effort be better spent on protecting their own elephant populations? Should there be greater cross border co-operation between countries, and how could this work?

I think African countries with successful elephant management policies could certainly share their expertise, but the countries that need the advice often lack the infrastructure and political will to implement workable policies of their own. A huge problem is the failure of many Africa countries to police their own domestic markets where all too often ivory carvings are openly sold. These serve as headquarters for illegal ivory trafficking and must be shut down.

If a country’s infrastructure is recovering from the ravages of previous civil war, e.g. Mozambique, should large scale elephant translocations be considered as a way of thinning numbers from more populated countries, e.g. South Africa / Botswana, or would this be a huge waste of resources, financially and otherwise?

Elephant translocation is wildly expensive, requiring helicopters, veterinary teams, giant cargo jets—using translocation as a means to reduce elephant populations would be a huge waste of resources that could be put to better conservation use. Translocating a few elephants to restart populations that have been wiped out, however, is a different story.

"Trophy hunting can play a role in wildlife conservation." Do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?

Many people find trophy hunting personally abhorrent. But it brings in a lot of money to wildlife departments for very little environmental impact. Hunters pay stiff fees for the privilege of shooting a few animals. So long as the quota of animals that can be hunted is based on a careful biological assessment of how many can be shot without having any significant impact on an animal population, it’s pointless to pass up hunting fees as a source of conservation funds. Hunters are also after untouched wilderness and simple camps, unlike camera-toting tourists who look for lodges, flush toilets and restaurants—all of which have a negative impact on wildlife habitat. Besides, there are many African habitats that are wildlife rich, but of zero tourist interest. Hunters are the only ones who might spend money in these swamps and scrublands.

With or without the ivory ban, in your opinion, what is the best way to ensure the long term conservation of the African elephant?

The best way to ensure that the African elephant has a future is to start by being realistic about its plight. There are some hard decisions ahead. For example, it’s not a contradiction to care about elephants and yet accept that in some places their numbers have to be reduced. Elephants don’t mix well with fences, roads, villages, development in general. They need space and protection. In an Africa of ever-shrinking wildlife habitats, that won’t be cheap. We should let elephants help fund their future by allowing tightly controlled sales of the tusks they leave behind.

The views expressed therein are solely those of the interviewee and do not necessarily reflect those of Safaritalk.

[sniktawk]

Matt,

Thanks a lot for this, good questions and well reasoned responses!

THIS REALLY NEEDS TO BE PUBLISHED IN A MAJOR PAPER, PREFERABLY WORLD WIDE!

Pleases pass on my thanks to John.

[ZaminOz]

Gee Dub'ya,

Thanks for publishing a great interview.

[Game Warden]

John is making available to Safaritalk members signed copies of his most recent book, "Ivory’s Ghosts: The White Gold of History and the Fate of Elephants". For full details visit the Members only topic here.

Thanks for the feedback, I know he's looking in occasionally. Matt

[twaffle]

There is quite a bit here to digest and his expertise is way beyond mine, however I'm wary of commercialisation without control and I guess that is at the crux of it all. Selling ivory from naturally dead elephants is a far cry from culling and as I have little experience with southern countries I can't comment on the trials they have to endure with large elephant populations.

I must get this book as I really enjoyed A Certain Curve of Horn.

[dikdik]

Now here is a man who knows what he is talking about.

I totally agree with everything he has said here; most of all the comment about "Animal rights activists", however he puts it more politely than I would.

Thanks for bringing us this interview.

[twaffle]

Now here is a man who knows what he is talking about.

Apparently this is rarer than A Snow Leopard

Snik, I think that photo which went with the article was taken in a camera trap!

[Jude]

It’s a positive thing when animal rights advocates focus attention on animal abuse and wildlife trafficking. It’s a negative thing when they advocate agendas which are divorced from biological realities.

It is also a positive thing when animal rights advocates focus attention on agendas which, divorced from biological realities - such as the "sustainable utilisation" of the body parts of elephants brings this to the attention of the world and a global movement is created to oppose the greedy, corrupt and incompetent from benefitting from the sale of the ivory.

A rabid dislike and powering over those who have opposing views does not further a solution - it shuts down debate.

A complex argument is not rendered simple by saying "it's bloody well so". Where is the discussion at length about population, the education of women to ensure reproductive sustainability? Musn't mention there are too many humans - just too many elephants.

The biological reality of this picture is that a juvenille elephant is dead and had her or his face hacked off for two teeth.


"Spare a thought for the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight"~Albert Schweitzer.
This photo souced from:
http://bushwarriors.wordpress.com/2009/12/...er-ivory-sales/

Further information about the reasons knowledgeable people are in opposition to the sales of Ivory can be found here:
http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/upda...ates.asp?ID=252
http://www.elephantvoices.org/elephant-int...act-sheets.html
and here
http://www.facebook.com/notes/the-kenya-el...de/306183521698


Proud to be an elephant advocate and activist, always have been, always will be.

Write to the EU Commision to urge them to support the EU Parliament's reccomendations to oppose the sale of ivory.

Now is the time the world has to fight for the Elephants

[dikdik]

You shouldn't let scientific facts get in the way of your cause.

[Pangolin]

You shouldn't let scientific facts get in the way of your cause.

I'm not pointing to anyone in particular, and I'm not citing any specific example here or elsewhere; however, I do want to point out that both sides of this issue (and hunting, and other issues), are often guilty of the above reproach.

When we happen to agree with something, it is well reasoned and credible. When we happen to disagree, it is rubbish.

[dikdik]

You shouldn't let scientific facts get in the way of your cause.

I'm not pointing to anyone in particular, and I'm not citing any specific example here or elsewhere; however, I do want to point out that both sides of this issue (and hunting, and other issues), are often guilty of the above reproach.

When we happen to agree with something, it is well reasoned and credible. When we happen to disagree, it is rubbish.

I accept your comment Pangolin, and also accept that I may be a little clouded in opinion.

But take a look at the post it shows a picture of a dead elephant tusks hacked off. So what!!! We know elephants get killed by poachers regularly - so what is the point? I dont see how it contributes to any argument.

We also know that the Shedrick trust loves looking after baby elephants whose parents are killed by poachers. Good for them. They are so good at looking after baby elephants that they wont allow anyone else to do so. Once again - What is the point? And how does that contribute to facts about whether or not selling stockpiled ivory is good or bad. Or indeed how does that show whether sustainable utilization works or doesn't work. If anything it is an indication that Kenyas policy of non utilization is not working as poaching appears rampant.

[Game Warden]

Perhaps the question this raises, and the recent CITES decision, is will the continued ban reduce/prevent, or increase levels of poaching?

[dikdik]

Perhaps the question this raises, and the recent CITES decision, is will the continued ban reduce/prevent, or increase levels of poaching?

It is a question that very few people can answer, as it has not been tried before.

I don't think that it works to suddenly sell masses of ivory on one hit. I would prefer it if there were a continual controlled supply.

I mean look at diamonds - there is no global shortage of diamonds, but the price is controlled by controlling the supply.

[Pangolin]

You shouldn't let scientific facts get in the way of your cause.

I'm not pointing to anyone in particular, and I'm not citing any specific example here or elsewhere; however, I do want to point out that both sides of this issue (and hunting, and other issues), are often guilty of the above reproach.

When we happen to agree with something, it is well reasoned and credible. When we happen to disagree, it is rubbish.

I accept your comment Pangolin, and also accept that I may be a little clouded in opinion.

Dikdik-

Again, I was not referring to anyone in particular, and definitely not singling out your comment. We are all guilty of it to some extent.

[dikdik]

Dikdik-

Again, I was not referring to anyone in particular, and definitely not singling out your comment. We are all guilty of it to some extent.

I was not taking it personally, - promise. What I meant is that I am willing to accept the possibility that my views may be clouded, in the interests of being open-minded.

I will also accept that sustainable utilization is not a perfect system, but I believe that it is the best and most effective. It certainly makes sense to me, and its the animal rights activists that cant see past it as they are too narrow minded.

[Game Warden]

I think there is a difference between hunting vs anti-hunting debate, and the sustainable utilization argument.

[twaffle]

Game Warden, I have to agree with your comment. If the arguments for game utilization in a sustainable manner and with due consideration to the humane treatment of the animals was separated from the trophy hunting debate I think there would be a lot less angst.

I would be in full agreement with supporting efforts of many kinds of game utilization such as game farming for meat and hides. I remember a trial that was tried in Kenya many years ago where eland were farmed instead of cattle, needless to say it failed badly. Having seen eland jump, you can imagine the type of fences required which would be beyond the means of most farmers.

Whether it is possible for there ever to be consensus on trophy hunting depends very much on your point of view. It is a long way off, probably beyond my life time.

[dikdik]

I think there is a difference between hunting vs anti-hunting debate, and the sustainable utilization argument.

Exactly!. And those against all forms of utilization are the animal rights groups. I wish you could ask Richard Estes what he thinks about the Animal rights activists and how much power and influence they have on conservation.

[Chris Ingham]

Matt,

Thanks a lot for this, good questions and well reasoned responses!

THIS REALLY NEEDS TO BE PUBLISHED IN A MAJOR PAPER, PREFERABLY WORLD WIDE!

Pleases pass on my thanks to John.

Absolutely! Thanks from me as well for publishing the interview. Although I have been checking back on the forum each day, I somehow missed this interview. Off to catch on the signed copy now. Pass my best regards and thanks to John as well.

[Jude]

But take a look at the post it shows a picture of a dead elephant tusks hacked off. So what!!! We know elephants get killed by poachers regularly - so what is the point? I dont see how it contributes to any argument.

The point is an individual animal suffered in the making of this mobile phone cover...what can be more banal than a mobile phone cover?

So What!!!

Sustainable utilisation approach/argument ignores the fact that when one individual is euphamistically 'harvested' or in plain english 'killed' the family, dependants or kin of that individual is traumatised, disoriented, may lose a leader - or a daughter - who may one day be the leader.

If every animal, rock, substrata, air, river, sea on the planet has a value only in the 'harvest' for the dollar it might bring to a nation or individual - we are, as a planet, totaly 'stuffed'. Speaking of stuff...

The Story of Stuff Video Link



And for those who have found an alternative view such as mine useful, or provocative, and you wish to arm your self with facts and figures... the information from both the EIA and a pre-eminent group of scientists can be read right here!

The Environmental Investigation Agency (Well known as a bunch of 'bunny huggers...") tabled at the CoP15 is an interesting read.
 EIA_report_Tanz_Zam_Elephan_poaching_pre_CITES_15.pdf ( 1.27MB ) Number of downloads: 0


As is the report tabled by Joyce Poole, Sam Wassar, Ian Douglas Hamilton et al (another group of outrageous bunny huggers!).
 Joyce_sam_Wassar_Ian_DH_papaer_policy_CITES_15.pdf ( 395.07K ) Number of downloads: 0


And in case you missed it in the first post I reiterate the insanity of killing a juvenile elephant for 12 inch tusks to make a quick buck. Even from a sustainable utilisation argument one would expect to wait another 20 years and make the haul worth the effort.


So What?

To paraphrase Lady Bracknell in the play, The Importance of Being Earnest - "To lose one planet*, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness."

Oops, thats right - we only have one...


*parent