|
|
|
Introduction | Websites & Email Addresses |
Background
Information | Arguments - Pros/Cons |
STOP IVORY TRADE - DON’T
LIFT THE BAN!
Email your opinion today
to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Convention on Trade in Endangered
Species, Your State and Federal Legislator, Your Business Contacts, Your Friends
submit
comments online
|
|
Supporting Trade In
Elephant Ivory
|
Lobbying Against the
Resumption In Ivory Trade |
|
1. No hard evidence exists that poaching has
increased since last year's experimental auction. |
1a. If there is the
slightest bit of doubt that resuming the trade in ivory could threaten
this majestic species, then let humanity take a chance in it is favor
versus the risk of doing irreparable damage.
1b. According to the Director of Kenya Wildlife
Services, during 1999 in Kenya, over 60 elephants were poached vs. an
average of 15 per year prior to 1999. According to ITN News, in
Zimbabwe, poachers have also killed a very large number of elephants.
In the past year alone, Kenya authorities have seized at least 4 times
the amount of ivory being smuggled as compared to the previous year.
This does not include any estimation of actual poaching.
1c. Prior to the CITES imposed ban in 1989, in Kenya
alone, the elephant population plummeted from over 140,000 in the
early 70's to under 20,000 at the time of the ban. After the ban in
Ivory trade was imposed, demand was suppressed due to international
enforcement. According to the Director of Kenya Wildlife Services, if
the ban had not been imposed in 1989, Kenya's elephant population
would have been wiped out. |
| 2. South African Director of
Conservation claims the stockpiled tusks are numbered. |
2. Can proponents of the
ivory trade be relied upon to provide unbiased verification of the
origin of tusks? A simple number on a tusk is not sufficient proof of
the origin of the ivory. |
| 3. The Southern African
countries have effective conservation and anti-poaching programs. The
nations reporting about their inability to protect their elephant
herds can do more. |
3. This is great.
Unfortunately there is a high value being created by the resumption of
ivory trade. |
| 4. Ivory being sold is from
culled elephants only since it is possible to verify the origin of
tusks. |
4a. How practical is it to
verify that a particular piece of Ivory is from Kruger and not another
location such as Mozambique or Congo? Chemical substance, DNA or
serialization certainly are possibilities but let's be realistic. The
cost and resources for doing this would exceed the one-time sale
proceeds of $4.0 million, unless substantially more sales of ivory are
planned.
4b. For many East and Central African countries,
tourism is the leading source of employment and income. When National
Parks become killing grounds for wildlife, tourism numbers drop
dramatically and the economies become more reliant on foreign aid,
thus eroding human dignity.
It is quite unlikely that a visitor interested in a
big game, photographic safari will want to be in the same area as an
elephant hunt. This is not to say that strictly controlled hunting on
condition that the ivory can never be traded, cannot be incorporated
as part of the culling process.
Unfortunately the countries in many parts of east
and central Africa just do not have the resources and their economies
and budgets are smaller than those of the Southern African countries
proposing the trade. For example:
Pro-trade countries - Budget (est.
1998)
S Africa $30.5 billion
Zimbabwe $2.9 billion
Botswana $1.8 billion
Zambia $2.9 billion
Against trade - Budget
Dem Republic Congo $0.3 billion
Tanzania $0.7 billion
Uganda $0.8 billion
Kenya $2.6 billion |
| 5. South African Director of
Conservation has stated that various steps will be taken to reduce the
chances of 'dirty ivory' being laundered. One of these methods is to
sell the stocks only to Japanese carvers who show identification. |
5. By its own admission, the
South African government has recognized the possibility of 'dirty
ivory' being laundered by lifting the ban, and this should be
sufficient reason enough to maintain the ban. |
| 6. Money realized from the
sale of ivory is utilized for conservation projects and local
communities. |
6. It would be interesting
to review internationally verifiable accounts of the proportion of
revenue that is actually, and directly assigned back to local
communities in hard cash from the sale of ivory, and not masked as
services provided, nor commissions or management costs. |
| 7. Legalized trade will
ensure trade in "clean" ivory. Elephant populations are
viable and growing. |
7. If the trade in ivory is
legalized, there is bound to be a surge in demand, which cannot be met
from just culled elephants or those from natural death. There is no
question that bloody ivory from poaching will re-enter the market. |
| 8. There is no proof that
the increase in the price of Ivory is due to 1999 sales of Ivory. |
8. According to Director of
the Kenya Wildlife Services, the price of ivory has increased from
about $22 per kilo to around $300 per kg, which represents windfall
profit by any standards - whether for poachers or groups succeeding in
legalizing the trade. |
| 9. Botswana, Zimbabwe,
Namibia and South Africa claim that there will be payments for rural
communities on whose land ivory is harvested. |
9. South Africa claims that
the proposed sale of 30 tons is from the Kruger National Park.
However, on the western boundaries of Kruger are private conservancy
areas on which are luxury tourist lodges, on the entire eastern
boundary is Mozambique; to the north the park borders Zimbabwe; then
there are local communities who live within the boundaries of Kruger
National Park and have no title to the land. Yet South Africa claims
that the ivory is from 'Kruger National Park'. Verifying the origin of
Ivory is difficult. |
| 10. Namibia, Botswana,
Zimbabwe are now pushing for annual quotas of approx. 25 tons. |
10. In 1997, these countries
requested, and were allowed a 'one-off sale' and now they are
requesting an annual quota. At what point does this cease being a
one-off sale and how are the elephant numbers going to sustain these
ivory harvests? |
| 11. Limits should be placed
on growth in elephant population, or they will destroy themselves. |
11. If proper conservation
programs were in place, there would not be the 'excessive growth' in
elephant populations to a point where they become self-destructive or
a danger to local communities, unless the excessive increases was
deliberately allowed with the objective being to harvest them
eventually for the ivory. |
| 12. Culling and hunting
activities are a source of revenue for local communities |
12. There is no doubt that
culling is part and parcel of a sustainable conservation system to
ensure long term protection of the wildlife environment, safety of the
local communities, and to avoid wildlife over population. In this
context, if hunting activity can be incorporated as part of the
culling process, and actually creates localized income, then that too
is acceptable. However, there should never be trade in the elephant
ivory obtained as a result. To this end, there can be no compromise.
We have to look at the big picture and protection of the elephant
throughout the continent. |
| 13. Income from trade in
ivory will allow purchase of additional land for the elephant. |
13. Land is already limited
in wildlife regions and if any is purchased, it is often from a
non-local individual investor. Elephants require large areas according
to density studies and therefore token land purchases, which profit
selected investors, cannot be the answer. Instead, proper conservation
policies limiting the population growth and encouraging tourism are
more sustainable policies. |
| 14. To the 11th CITES in
April, South Africa has proposed a one-off sale of 30 tons of whole
elephant tusks from the Kruger National Park. |
14. In 1997, CITES allowed
Botswana, Zimbabwe and Namibia to make "one-off sales" of 60
tons of Ivory (over 1000 elephants). That obviously was not enough.
Now, these three countries are lobbing support of South Africa's
request for "one-off" sale of 30 tons. It gets interesting
… Zimbabwe, Namibia and Botswana are now also seeking an annual
Ivory sales quota of about 25 tons, which S Africa is supporting. An
advisor to the South African Ministry of Environmental Affairs has
been quoted by Reuters to say, "they will back us and we will
back them". |
| 15. Southern African
countries should be permitted to sell their 'natural' stocks because
elephant populations are increasing. |
15. Population statistics
mentioned in the media are questionable. For example, since 1981 the
population of elephants in Botswana has been reported to grow from
20,000 to over 100,000. In South Africa and Namibia, it has supposedly
grown from 10,000 to 22,000. Given the gestation period, mortality and
life expectancy averaging 60 years, there would not be a significant
number of tusks originating from natural deaths. Furthermore, the
growth in elephant population is questionable; a population
undisturbed can grow at only 6 percent per year according to the IUCN
(International Union of Conservation of Nature), an elephant
specialist group. |
| (The comments
and arguments contained herein are an expression of personal opinions,
figures indicated may be erroneous, and there is no intention for the
contents to be hurtful to any person or entity.)
|