<doc.id=0168.a2>
<title> The Ivory Trade-why the selling of elephant ivory should be made legal </title>
Ivory trading dates back hundreds of years, and did not present any serious threat to the elephant populations until the sudden influx of whites into Asia and Africa during the last two centuries. Following this, the Indian and African elephant populations have since plummeted. The Great White Hunter decimated the vast herds until only a few hundred remained. Ivory that then constituted the proud trophies of these hunts came into focus of environmentalists. Following a successful campaign, an international agreement banning the trade of elephant ivory was signed. However, lately this ban has come under fire. The rise of elephant populations, along with the increasing poverty of the African countries in particular, has changed the elephant, in the eyes of local populations, from an endangered species to a pest. In this essay, I shall therefore argue for a lifting of the ban on the trading of elephant ivory. My arguments are based on giving elephants the status of a resource rather than a pest. The economic incentives for farmers and the government, will protect them better than laws. My essay shall explain this further. I shall also take into account the counter-arguments of my proposal. 

	The ban on ivory trading was mostly concerned with the African elephants. These had, as mentioned above, suffered as massive drop in numbers due to over-hunting by whites wanting a trophy, or professional hunters supplying carvers, who created status goods. The ban allowed the elephants to increase in number. 

Yet in recent years African farmers have remained poor and become more dependent on agriculture as a source of income. Elephant herds eat vast amounts of food; crops and trees. Herds destroy crops when migrating. To protect resources, elephants are killed, much like pests, despite laws protecting them. If elephants themselves had the monetary value of a resource, farmers would have less reason to eradicate them. Pests are creatures which destroy resources without having any value themselves. However, one does not kill a pest which can produce money. Currently, farmers know ivory has a black market value, and feel bitter over rangers burning tusks they have confiscated. Poverty only increases this bitterness. In India, elephants are not as mistreated as their African counterparts because they have value(1).

Both government and elephant would, for two reasons, also benefit from lifting the ban. Firstly, the selling of ivory would allow nature reserves to fund themselves. This would allow the governments to divert funds to more pressing issues. Currently rangers shoot elephants to keep numbers down and burn their tusks. In South America state selling of furs from endangered monkey species has allowed more funds to be diverted to the preservation of these species. Secondly, governments wish to use the resources available to generate the income needed to care for their population. They are reluctant to set aside land for nature reserves, as elephants generate little income in proportion to the land used(2). Giving elephants the status of a natural resource would create an economic justification for their continued existence. Therefore, if elephants had value besides adding to the diversity of the savannah, governments would be more willing to grant elephants land, allowing their numbers to increase. Governments of poor countries will respect the income elephants can bring in more than laws banning ivory sales(3). 

Of course, similar schemes have failed when countries were unable to provide proper regulation. This is especially true of poor countries. However, many reserve rangers make up what they lack monetarily and legally, with loyalty, determination and sheer bloody-mindedness. If the local population had incentive to protect elephants from poachers, they could be used to guard herds too. Currently, they have none. Legalising ivory trade would also stop poachers. Buyers of ivory will buy tusks from a legal source, rather than obtaining it illegally.

Though I find it sad that humans need an economic justification to allow the continued existence of creatures, the fact that this is deplorable, does not change the reality of it. In the current world of free markets, the best way to protect something, is to give humans an economic reason to do so. Lifting the ban on the trade of elephant ivory would do that for elephants. For better, for worse, appealing to human greed would seem to be the best way to protect the elephant from extinction. 

(1) Indian elephants are in fact much more integrated with humans than African elephants, raised lovingly by individuals, and highly valued and respected by the rest of the population. They are used as beasts of burden and have religious significance. When domesticated elephants die, their bells are hung above a plaque designating whom they belonged to, much like a gravestone.

(2) This has changed somewhat in recent years what with the upswing in eco-tourism. However, since most creatures living on the African savannah are migratory, they require vast areas to live on, and are therefore hard to find. Some tourists are unwilling to pay money on the off-hand chance of seeing wild-life, forcing guides to use abusive methods to force wild-life to the tourists.

(3) This is not to say that these governments endorse the killing of elephants, but they do have schemes to keep their numbers down, and some agencies will turn a blind eye to local farmers killing them if they destroy crops. A single elephant can destroy the livelihood of an entire family.
</doc>