This is an exception to the posts here recently and harks back to my time in Africa, but The Atlantic had a long article about elephant poaching that is worth a perusal. The article in parts evokes anger at massive illegal killing, but then at other parts the emotion turns to myopic hysteria.
What resonated for me: the scale of the poaching, some of which I heard about from a doctoral student at a lodge in Kenya. The majesty of watching these animals up close. The impact of China's partial colonization of East Africa, and the realization by many there that, in the end, they signed a Faustian bargain with China.
What turned me off: the not-even-veiled contempt for hunters and those who would argue for market-based plans to preserve the animals. At one point he explicitly muses that hunters may be more vile than poachers. Say what you will about hunters and their motivations, they are at least willing to respect the law and are killing only what governments let them, and the governments are entirely in control of this side of the equation. The entire problem with poachers is that, by definition, they do not respect the law and kill en masse, and use fearsome tactics.
Which leads me to the biggest thing I found missing from the article: a focus on corruption. He discusses corruption here and there, but I think the real problem here (like for many other issues in Africa) is rampant corruption. It limits resources for legitimate protection of animals, it makes it easy to smuggle ivory, it lets imported Chinese workers do whatever they will, and ultimately it makes governments in Africa loathe to invest the resources to do something.
I do like the author's point that "one-time" sales are not read as "one-time" by buyers, and each one whets the appetite for more. The biggest hope here, I think, is that that appetite is starved back to returns to its dormant state -- hopefully made easier by the fact that this is not an addictive substance.
What resonated for me: the scale of the poaching, some of which I heard about from a doctoral student at a lodge in Kenya. The majesty of watching these animals up close. The impact of China's partial colonization of East Africa, and the realization by many there that, in the end, they signed a Faustian bargain with China.
What turned me off: the not-even-veiled contempt for hunters and those who would argue for market-based plans to preserve the animals. At one point he explicitly muses that hunters may be more vile than poachers. Say what you will about hunters and their motivations, they are at least willing to respect the law and are killing only what governments let them, and the governments are entirely in control of this side of the equation. The entire problem with poachers is that, by definition, they do not respect the law and kill en masse, and use fearsome tactics.
Which leads me to the biggest thing I found missing from the article: a focus on corruption. He discusses corruption here and there, but I think the real problem here (like for many other issues in Africa) is rampant corruption. It limits resources for legitimate protection of animals, it makes it easy to smuggle ivory, it lets imported Chinese workers do whatever they will, and ultimately it makes governments in Africa loathe to invest the resources to do something.
I do like the author's point that "one-time" sales are not read as "one-time" by buyers, and each one whets the appetite for more. The biggest hope here, I think, is that that appetite is starved back to returns to its dormant state -- hopefully made easier by the fact that this is not an addictive substance.
