While stocks last

Some ivory sales are a good idea. This one isn’t

See article

Readers' comments



Perhaps we ought to be asking ourselves, why, in this apparent 'age of enlightenment' are people buying and using ivory? The science shows there is no medicinal value to it, just as there is none in rhino horn. (No surprise here; elephant tusks are just teeth and rhino horns are hair).
The real beasts are the ones who provide the market, thus perpetrating a bloody trade, destroying the lives of people who poach to eke out a living (poachers can be legally shot on site) and at the end of it all pay a price that doesn't compensate for a fraction of the damage caused to livelihoods and to the environment.


I have been quoted out of context. Evidence that one-off sales lead to increased poaching is said to be conflicting because illegal trade declined after the 1999 one-off sale; however, following the sales in 2008, the total volume of illegal trade increased. On the basis of seizures of large amounts of illegally exported ivory, however, it appears that poaching has steadily increased since the first approved petitions and sales (1997-1999). There was a dramatic spike in ivory seizures (in kg) in 2002, the year the second petition was approved (and the first year that Zambia made a petition to sell its ivory). There was another spike in 2006, the year Tanzania first made a petition to sell its ivory (and also the year that a record seizure of 11 tons of ivory was made...shown to have originated from Tanzania). The problem lies with the data analysis (and lack of an integrated MIKE-ETIS analysis) not the evidence. If one-off sales encourage poaching, the funds generated will likely have to go entirely to anti-poaching efforts (more lives and money spent on anti-poaching) if elephants are to be protected. And what exactly is gained then by Tanzania and Zambia?


It is a recognized (if unpalatable) fact that black markets for poached ivory exist, similar to ones for "blood diamonds". So, there must be a workable methodology in place to prevent sanctioned ivory sales becoming a means to "launder" poached ivory.
In short, there must be means in place to exclude poached ivory from any sanctioned ivory sales all the way down its product chain.

Now, if it is possible to obtain DNA saples from ivory, then it would be theoretically possible to obtain DNA from EACH AND EVERY tusk subject to the sale beforehand, and then conduct DNA checks at every stage of transport, crafting, and/or sale. If there are any 'unsanctioned' DNA found anywhere along this chain, then the DNA samples of the OFFENDERS may be obtained for blacklisting or worse.

Sensible GaTech Student

17.5 million? That sounds like a moment's worth of interest on my country's national debt. Not the right price for the life of an animal who was there in the first place.


A person can be family oriented and loving but at the same time very brutal and vile to others. I guess most people will still call him beast.

Nic Roets

The article mentions 4% growth in parts of Southern Africa, which is certainly plausible given a lack of natural predators. It is however not sustainable and relocating the animals to places where they face extinction is extremely expensive, if not impossible.

Game wardens and scientists in South Africa generally agree that overpopulation has been occurring in the Kruger National Park for the last number of decades. From informal discussions I recall that is caused by fencing them in and other artificial barriers. I believe them, but I would like to see a written explanation with details such as an estimate of elephant density in the "low veld" before the human population exploded, e.g. 1000 years ago.


While this may seem trivial to some, I can assure you it is not to others. You used the word beasts to describe elephants. While my dictionary says that yes beast refers to an animal, it also says the other definition is a person who is brutal and vile. I contend that in today's society, the two definitions have become, one.

I would ask that for this reason, you remove the word beast and never use it when referring to an elephant. You are giving the total opposite impression of this animal, who is by nature, 100% family oriented and loving, and in nature would not harm so much as a turtle. The ONLY reason we hear about damage being done by elephants in today's world is due to the encroachment by humans into their land..... used for centuries by the elephants' ancestors and somehow that use is genetically programmed into the modern elephants at birth. They do not understand and are reacting by defending what is theirs and seeking their food and water over well traveled routes used for thousands of years. The countries who are homeland to elephants must give their elephants vast regions, fenced and protected....areas that are sufficient food and water. Give citizens jobs to create these reserves and security jobs. These countries need better management to create industry for their citizens.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
