Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday October 24 2016, @12:38PM   Printer-friendly
from the tusk-tusk-tusk dept.

A recent survey of savanna elephant populations estimated that poachers killed 30,000 animals annually between 2007 and 2014, reducing the population to fewer than 400,000. Overall, researchers estimate that African elephant numbers have plummeted more than 95% over the past century.

[...] Zimbabwe, Namibia, and South Africa—are expected to offer proposals for restarting a legal ivory trade. All argue that some elephant populations are healthy enough to be managed for ivory production. The proposals envision taking tusks from both animals that are intentionally killed—sometimes because they become nuisances, trampling crops and threatening people—and those that die naturally.

A study in Current Biology concludes that the demand for ivory far exceeds any sustainable harvest model and that there is a high risk that lifting the ivory ban will make things worse. The authors note that attempts must be made to reduce the demand for ivory:

At the same time, we cannot brush aside the fact that poaching has reached industrial scale fuelled by an increase in consumer demand driven by the rise of the middle class in countries like China. We must urgently work on finding ways to change consumer behavior as the only avenue by which we can resolve the ivory trade tragedy.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/09/legalizing-ivory-trade-wont-save-elephants-study-concludes
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)31005-3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_ivory


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by riT-k0MA on Monday October 24 2016, @01:41PM

    by riT-k0MA (88) on Monday October 24 2016, @01:41PM (#418137)

    The idea is that the stockpiles could be used to let the elephant population recover without being poached.

    The problem with elephants is they tend to over-populate an area surprisingly rapidly. When that happens, they are culled.
      A few decades ago you could buy canned elephant meat (as pet food) from Kruger Park [wikipedia.org].

    If you're culling elephants regularly, one may as well sell their tusks. The proceeds can go to managing the game park more efficiently, benefiting everyone.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by riT-k0MA on Monday October 24 2016, @01:57PM

    by riT-k0MA (88) on Monday October 24 2016, @01:57PM (#418141)

    I should add that a female elephant's fertility's linked to fat levels. If a female elephant's fat levels drop below a certain level (I think it was 30%), she becomes temporarily infertile. Once fat levels reach or exceed the minimum amount, she becomes fertile again.

    The problem with this is that an elephant will keep bearing young until she starves or dies. Starvation means the elephants have eaten everything they can find, almost creating a desert. (they will uproot a tree to get to the uppermost leaves).

    • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday October 24 2016, @03:17PM

      by mhajicek (51) on Monday October 24 2016, @03:17PM (#418179)

      Sounds like humans.

      --
      The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
      • (Score: 4, Funny) by VLM on Monday October 24 2016, @04:58PM

        by VLM (445) on Monday October 24 2016, @04:58PM (#418212)

        If a female elephant's fat levels drop below a certain level (I think it was 30%), she becomes temporarily infertile.

        Sounds like humans.

        If anything I've seen the reverse at walmart.

        I'll admit it could be simple orbital mechanics, the kids just cant break free of the gravity field.