Doesn't destroying ivory art simply make ivory more scarce, thus more valuable, and thus increase poachers' incentive to kill elephants?

I watched that last night and I agree with you, I think it drives demand. And now those beautiful elephants were killed for naught. Of course the Asian markets should have major penalties for breaking the law if elephants could truly be extinct in the next ten years. The whole thing is so sad.

(Good!)

I agree with @KNOWITALL. Above, it’s the demand that drives it, though.

Along the same line of thinking, we should keep existing child pornography. Destroying it just makes pedophiles seek out new victims.

The obvious flaw in this besides being nauseating is that the perpetrators are not satiated with the existing supply. Demand is endless so long as there is a market.

This isn’t just a gesture toward cutting down the supply. It’s a movement toward crushing the market.

This is what happens when the government meddles in the free market.

What we need are elephant breeding programmes to meet the market demand for ivory.

Without regulations, prohibitions and red-tape, we’d be seeing entrepreneurs and innovators running elephant farms and supplying ivory in large quantities. Elephant farmers would compete for market share and drive down prices, benefiting the consumers who desire ivory trinkets.

I didn’t open the link.

However in Alaska we have a law that allows the Native Alaskans to hunt otherwise protected species. At one point they put limits on whale hunting for example per tribe dictated every year and this actually created an industry for it and more whales were killed for it.

But generally this has played out ok for the other sea creatures I.e.walruses that I know of. The natives use the ivory obtained as part of tourist industry, generating an income. The prices are overblown in my estimation yet while poaching does on occasion happen here the population remains healthy.

Maybe something similar can be put into effect for the elephants.

They should start crushing ivory dealers and collectors to curb the demand. They are the true villains, imo. At least put them in a cage for ten years and strip them of their rights as human beings. No buyers, no poachers!

I have a lot of ivory jewelry, my grandpa bought it in Africa before they made it illegal in the U.S.

@dougiedawg Everywhere there is a demand for something and legal means of acquiring are prevented a black market flourishes.

One of the better arguments for gun right activists. But historically true. Alcohol and the prohibition, marijuana, meth and other drugs. Abortions, slavery, organs, guns in certain areas, hunting to name a few.

Imo there is more legal recourse in regulation then in attempting to squash.

Sorry for another post but I find this topic interesting. I want to explain.

There are two situations possible as I see it but allowing certain people to hunt elephants. Hopefully they add the proviso that more of the animal is used indicating respect and not wastefulness.

1 The hunters that hopefully respect the animal and its gift would make enemies with would be poachers reporting them. This would also impact them fiscally so they would even without respect be financially motivated to do so. They would be out there more frequently so reports would benefit the legal department in charge of enforcing it. The ivory would be expensive thus limiting the demand as it is a luxury item. The poachers would have to take additional risk and still undercut the legal prices so they have less motivation.

2 The poachers and the legal hunters create an alliance. I see this as unlikely but who knows. In which case the hunters that are legal would be in a system where they can be leaned upon by the appointed enforcers. They would be in the position of losing their lively hood and possible incarceration to generate a bigger income. And such hunting would also be short sighted in that the supply would cease to exist.