Zimbabwe elephants poisoned by cyanide

[piwanoi]

Reading this BBC report of 81 Elephants being poisoned with Cyanide in a national park in Zimbabwe fills me with revulsion , not only for the Elephants but of the thousands of other animals that will die, for me the only way to stop this catastrophic destruction of wildlife world wide for profit is the death penalty, cos unless something drastic is done many endangered species will only be a memory in a few decades !BBC News - Zimbabwe elephants poisoned by cyanide

[Thormaturge]

This is incredibly sad, but some people aren't afraid of death.

A lifetime of hard labour where the proceeds of their work goes towards salaries and equipment of Rangers would be more appropriate.

[9999]

Is it wrong for a man to poach wild animals in order to feed his starving family?

Who is this guy, Richard I? Off with their heads!

Soon we'll be able to grow any animal we like in test tubes, even bring back the Wooly Mammoth and Sabre Tooth tigers. So it's not that big a deal really.

[piwanoi]

Is it wrong for a man to poach wild animals in order to feed his starving family?

Who is this guy, Richard I? Off with their heads!

Soon we'll be able to grow any animal we like in test tubes, even bring back the Wooly Mammoth and Sabre Tooth tigers. So it's not that big a deal really.

So you find nothing wrong that every animal or bird , of commercial value or otherwise that drinks from the water hole will die a lingering death in the bush , how strange .

[Kurgen]

Is it wrong for a man to poach wild animals in order to feed his starving family?

80 elephants could feed a big fukkin family, I hope they hang.

[Thormaturge]

Is it wrong for a man to poach wild animals in order to feed his starving family?

Except the meat is left to rot and only the ivory is sold.

Complete waste.

[RickThai]

IMO they (CITES) should legalize the selling of elephant ivory that was legally acquired, either through sport hunting, elephants who died a natural death, or illegally acquired ivory that was seized by government agenies.

Only when turned into a profitable business, will there be enough financial incentive to provide the elephants the "around-the-clock" protection they need to survive in a world where too many locals will kill elephants without regard for anything but a few bucks.

I read where African elephant ivory is worth over $8k USD a kilo in China. If the governments that have confiscated tons of illegally-acquired ivory sold that ivory to the Chinese than that money could be used to hire locals to guard the elephant herds.

The sport-hunted elephant kill can be easily managed resulted in an on-going source of revenue to help the struggling economies of those countries.

RickThai

[Rainfall]

Another thread rendered fit for the doghouse by Rickthai's complete nonsense. If there were money to be made, the governments themselves would start to shoot the elephants.

[The Big Fella]

Every time the well meaning do gooders force governments to introduce laws to protect certain species it always has the total and opposite effect. as is the case here. When they banned the sale of ivory they simply made it even more valuable than it ever was hence what happen here.
The fact they have also taken out the local water supply for all around as well is a crime in itself.

[Zooheekock]

....more of the usual rubbish....

So when some poor local fucker kills an elephant, it's "without regard for anything but a few bucks" but when good white folks like you fly in from the other side of the world to kill them for no reason at all, it's "sport". Lovely. Well, you seem to be giving up on the nonsensical Buddhist posturing so I suppose that's some kind of progress.

[Zooheekock]

Every time the well meaning do gooders force governments to introduce laws to protect certain species it always has the total and opposite effect. as is the case here.

As far as I know the exact opposite is true; elephant populations are substantially larger than they are projected to have been without the ban on ivory but I'd be interested to see data which shows the opposite. And what market solutions have actually worked? The free market certainly didn't do the passenger pigeon or the dodo too many favours.

[piwanoi]

Thailand is one of the main destinations for illegal ivory , here the rich Thai Chinese ride roughshod over the "rules" with complete immunity , a good friend of mine who lives in BKK told me only last night that carved ivory is still freely available , I am well aware what Yinglink said a short while ago , that they was "clamping down" on this vile trade ,the endangered wildlife trade here is rife , with a few "busts" just to make it look that the Thai's are "on the ball", the problem is unless strict legislation is enforced with an Iron hand by respective Govts this evil trade will continue unabated ,cos were there is a demand there will always be a supply , so sad , so sad http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar...ivory-20130305 I suggest all those interested in Conservation read this link

[sabang]

carved ivory is still freely available

Mostly walrus tusk- but if you pay xtra (a lot xtra) you can still get elephant. You can get tiger penis soup, bear bile, and monkey brain too, if you really want. You can even pretend you have face, if you order some sharks fin soup in a public place.

[The Big Fella]

Every time the well meaning do gooders force governments to introduce laws to protect certain species it always has the total and opposite effect. as is the case here.

As far as I know the exact opposite is true; elephant populations are substantially larger than they are projected to have been without the ban on ivory but I'd be interested to see data which shows the opposite. And what market solutions have actually worked? The free market certainly didn't do the passenger pigeon or the dodo too many favours.

Have a read of this report

The Endangered Species Act: | PERC
I rest my case

[Zooheekock]

Elephants aren't mentioned a single time in that. Did you actually read it or was it just something which Google threw your way? It's got essentially nothing to do with protection of wildlife in developing countries.

[The Big Fella]

Elephants aren't mentioned a single time in that.

But lots of other species that were put on the endangered list were and they ALL suffered for it. Which part of this does your tiny mind have trouble comprehending ?
The elephants that were slaughtered in Zimbabwe were killed for their ivory. the reason the were killed for it was because they banned it ivory prices rose considerably and as such the elephants suffered. Basic market economics that even anyone with half a brain can understand.
maybe you could give me a link to show that since the banning of the sale of ivory elephant numbers have risen ?
read here

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) secured an agreement in 1989 among its member states to ban the international trade in ivory. This disruption of the international ivory market was intended to reverse a sharp decline in the African elephant population, which resulted from widespread poaching for ivory in the previous decade. The continent's overall population of elephants increased after the ban, but an analysis of elephant population data from 1979 to 2007 found that some of the 37 countries in Africa with elephants continued to lose substantial numbers of them. This pattern is largely explained by the presence of unregulated domestic ivory markets in and near countries with declines in elephant populations.

An initial increase and then downhill since.

[piwanoi]

Elephant's are not an Endangered species ,Yet, but the same could have been said of the White Rhino , The Sumatran Tiger, the clouded and Snow leopard and many others two decades ago , what it boils down to is MONEY and to a lesser degree habitat destruction ,having said that that boils down to dough too!

[piwanoi]

Elephants aren't mentioned a single time in that.

But lots of other species that were put on the endangered list were and they ALL suffered for it. Which part of this does your tiny mind have trouble comprehending ?
The elephants that were slaughtered in Zimbabwe were killed for their ivory. the reason the were killed for it was because they banned it ivory prices rose considerably and as such the elephants suffered. Basic market economics that even anyone with half a brain can understand.
maybe you could give me a link to show that since the banning of the sale of ivory elephant numbers have risen ?
read here

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) secured an agreement in 1989 among its member states to ban the international trade in ivory. This disruption of the international ivory market was intended to reverse a sharp decline in the African elephant population, which resulted from widespread poaching for ivory in the previous decade. The continent's overall population of elephants increased after the ban, but an analysis of elephant population data from 1979 to 2007 found that some of the 37 countries in Africa with elephants continued to lose substantial numbers of them. This pattern is largely explained by the presence of unregulated domestic ivory markets in and near countries with declines in elephant populations.

An initial increase and then downhill since.

Yeah Big fella you are not far off the mark, take away the demand which comes mainly from the far Eastern Countries and the killing will slow to a trickle , giving the buyers and users a rap on the knuckles is a complete waste of time ,in Thailands case a couple of years in the "Hilton" would be of great benefit.

[Zooheekock]

But lots of other species that were put on the endangered list were and they ALL suffered for it.

It doesn't say that and it doesn't say that protection has been detrimental to the listed animals through causing an increase in their value. It's also about the specifics of an American law which has very little relevance to what goes on in the African bush (since so much of it is about property rights and the structure of property rights is very different in the two environments). Why not read things before you post them or before accusing others of not understanding them? You only make a fool of yourself.

[Zooheekock]

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) secured an agreement in 1989 among its member states to ban the international trade in ivory. This disruption of the international ivory market was intended to reverse a sharp decline in the African elephant population, which resulted from widespread poaching for ivory in the previous decade. The continent's overall population of elephants increased after the ban, but an analysis of elephant population data from 1979 to 2007 found that some of the 37 countries in Africa with elephants continued to lose substantial numbers of them. This pattern is largely explained by the presence of unregulated domestic ivory markets in and near countries with declines in elephant populations.

Really. Read before you post. This is the abstract from a paper published in The British Journal of Criminology by Lemieux and Clarke. You can download a copy here.

This is from the conclusion:

The results of this study indicate that the CITES ban on the international trade in ivory has succeeded in reversing the decline in the African elephant population. However, the ban has not benefited every country alike, some of which have continued to lose elephants. Poachers in these countries have greater access to ‘ unregulated’ domestic markets for ivory, perhaps facilitated by corruption and civil war. These findings call for coordinated action to govern the domestic sale of ivory. The existence of unregulated markets has left open a loophole for poachers, traders and carvers that they continue to exploit. There is an urgent need to close unregulated markets or bring them under greater control, both of which present a considerable political challenge. If they are to be closed, all those in neighbouring countries should be closed at the same time, otherwise the poached ivory will continue to be transported to where it can easily be sold
....
Lemieux (in press) has identified a number of possible measures to prevent elephant poaching, which fall under these categories, including: the closure of logging roads; the use of pilot-less drones, gun shot detectors and concealed metal detectors in trails (for detecting guns); DNA coding of ivory; and the provision of technology to customs officials that would help them to identify ivory. In choosing among these measures, however, it would be necessary to have detailed information about: who the poachers are and where they come from; whether they seek meat, ivory or both; how they find the elephants; how they evade detection; how they transport the tusks; who they sell them to and where, how much they are paid; how the ivory is sold on and whether it is exported; etc.
...
In fact, the primary economic value of elephants, apart from ivory sales, comes from tourism, which can bring considerable sustainable income to an African country. Unfortunately, local people do not always directly benefit from this income, at least in terms that they can perceive and understand. There are many reasons for this. Government income from taxes on tourism might be used to fund a broad range of government programmes, rather than be used to support tourism by improving local roads and services. Some of this government income, in some countries, will also be lost to corruption. Profit made by tour operators will often end up overseas, in the countries where they are based. While tour operators might employ local people to service their game lodges, much of this work requires skills or sophistication that that local people do not possess. This means that those employed by the tour operators are often from outside the local area. For the local population, the perceivable benefits of tourism might therefore come mostly from the sale of carvings and artwork and from small sums handed out by the visitors. Indeed, it is possible to make the argument that eco-tourism brings the most direct benefits to a handful of wealthy people from the developed world and some indirect benefits to the world at large through the maintenance of bio-diversity. These benefits are subsidized by poor people in the destination countries whose livelihoods are constrained through controls on farming, grazing and the taking of bush meat, and whose crops are sometime destroyed by the animals tourists come to see. It is not simply enough, therefore, to promote tourism to African countries, desirable as this may be. Ways must also be found of bringing some tangible benefits of tourism to local people. This is a topic that goes well beyond the scope of the present discussion, which is concerned with situational measures to prevent poaching. But, in closing, we should mention ways in which situational measures could help to reduce crop destruction. Omondi et al. (2004) have discussed some ways to reduce this problem, including planting barriers of plants that elephants find noxious (such as Mauritius thorn), training farming communities in the use of thunder flashes to scare off marauding animals and creating local sanctuaries for elephants that are managed by local communities who might, as a result, benefit from tourism. Just as with poaching, however, more needs to be learned about crop raiding if it is to be brought under control. This means that if the support of local populations for conservation is to be enlisted, the field of wildlife crime should perhaps be as much concerned with ways to control the ‘ delinquent ’ behaviour of wild animals as with controlling those who prey upon them.

The paper does not conclude that protection has been a failure or that allowing trade in ivory is a good way of protecting elephants.

[The Big Fella]

I did read it. I read that birds that were on the endangered list suffered and declined after being put on the list. Which part of this do you have trouble understanding ? regardless of land rights or any other reason more species suffer and decline after being put on the list than before
Does your logic say that if a product is banned like ivory then it becomes less valuable and so will save the species simply because it is banned ?
I bet you believe in manmade global warming as well don't you ?
Carry on

[Zooheekock]

maybe you could give me a link to show that since the banning of the sale of ivory elephant numbers have risen

From the same paper:

Three conclusions can be drawn from the data in Figure 2 . First, it appears the ban helped to increase the overall number of elephants in Africa by about 140,000 between 1989 and 2007. Eighteen countries had increases in their populations post ban, onethird of which added more than 10,000 animals each. Two of the countries, Kenya (5) and Tanzania (2), are particularly important, as they suffered greatly from poaching in pre-ban years. Second, the ban has been effective at slowing the off-take of elephants from some countries that have continued to lose them. Thus, the loss of 60,000 elephants in the DRC (1) between 1989 and 2007 was one-fi fth of the number of elephants lost in the DRC during the pre-ban period. Third, the international ban has not yet benefited every African country. As in the pre-ban years, a few countries are accounting for much of the total loss on the continent. In fact, since 1989, nearly 180,000 elephants were lost in 17 countries with declining populations; 110,000 of these were lost in the DRC (1) and Congo (34) combined. The other three countries accounting for a large proportion of elephant losses are the Central African Republic (6), Zambia (4) and Angola (21).

Obviously many factors are going to coincide in a situation as complex as this, not least of which is the total clusterfuck in places like the DRC but the numbers seem fairly clear.

[piwanoi]

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) secured an agreement in 1989 among its member states to ban the international trade in ivory. This disruption of the international ivory market was intended to reverse a sharp decline in the African elephant population, which resulted from widespread poaching for ivory in the previous decade. The continent's overall population of elephants increased after the ban, but an analysis of elephant population data from 1979 to 2007 found that some of the 37 countries in Africa with elephants continued to lose substantial numbers of them. This pattern is largely explained by the presence of unregulated domestic ivory markets in and near countries with declines in elephant populations.

Really. Read before you post. This is the abstract from a paper published in The British Journal of Criminology by Lemieux and Clarke. You can download a copy here.

This is from the conclusion:

The results of this study indicate that the CITES ban on the international trade in ivory has succeeded in reversing the decline in the African elephant population. However, the ban has not benefited every country alike, some of which have continued to lose elephants. Poachers in these countries have greater access to ‘ unregulated’ domestic markets for ivory, perhaps facilitated by corruption and civil war. These findings call for coordinated action to govern the domestic sale of ivory. The existence of unregulated markets has left open a loophole for poachers, traders and carvers that they continue to exploit. There is an urgent need to close unregulated markets or bring them under greater control, both of which present a considerable political challenge. If they are to be closed, all those in neighbouring countries should be closed at the same time, otherwise the poached ivory will continue to be transported to where it can easily be sold
....
Lemieux (in press) has identified a number of possible measures to prevent elephant poaching, which fall under these categories, including: the closure of logging roads; the use of pilot-less drones, gun shot detectors and concealed metal detectors in trails (for detecting guns); DNA coding of ivory; and the provision of technology to customs officials that would help them to identify ivory. In choosing among these measures, however, it would be necessary to have detailed information about: who the poachers are and where they come from; whether they seek meat, ivory or both; how they find the elephants; how they evade detection; how they transport the tusks; who they sell them to and where, how much they are paid; how the ivory is sold on and whether it is exported; etc.
...
In fact, the primary economic value of elephants, apart from ivory sales, comes from tourism, which can bring considerable sustainable income to an African country. Unfortunately, local people do not always directly benefit from this income, at least in terms that they can perceive and understand. There are many reasons for this. Government income from taxes on tourism might be used to fund a broad range of government programmes, rather than be used to support tourism by improving local roads and services. Some of this government income, in some countries, will also be lost to corruption. Profit made by tour operators will often end up overseas, in the countries where they are based. While tour operators might employ local people to service their game lodges, much of this work requires skills or sophistication that that local people do not possess. This means that those employed by the tour operators are often from outside the local area. For the local population, the perceivable benefits of tourism might therefore come mostly from the sale of carvings and artwork and from small sums handed out by the visitors. Indeed, it is possible to make the argument that eco-tourism brings the most direct benefits to a handful of wealthy people from the developed world and some indirect benefits to the world at large through the maintenance of bio-diversity. These benefits are subsidized by poor people in the destination countries whose livelihoods are constrained through controls on farming, grazing and the taking of bush meat, and whose crops are sometime destroyed by the animals tourists come to see. It is not simply enough, therefore, to promote tourism to African countries, desirable as this may be. Ways must also be found of bringing some tangible benefits of tourism to local people. This is a topic that goes well beyond the scope of the present discussion, which is concerned with situational measures to prevent poaching. But, in closing, we should mention ways in which situational measures could help to reduce crop destruction. Omondi et al. (2004) have discussed some ways to reduce this problem, including planting barriers of plants that elephants find noxious (such as Mauritius thorn), training farming communities in the use of thunder flashes to scare off marauding animals and creating local sanctuaries for elephants that are managed by local communities who might, as a result, benefit from tourism. Just as with poaching, however, more needs to be learned about crop raiding if it is to be brought under control. This means that if the support of local populations for conservation is to be enlisted, the field of wildlife crime should perhaps be as much concerned with ways to control the ‘ delinquent ’ behaviour of wild animals as with controlling those who prey upon them.

The paper does not conclude that protection has been a failure or that allowing trade in ivory is a good way of protecting elephants.

Of Course this tragedy did happen in Zimbabwe so I suppose almost anything goes, and I dare say this may not happen in Other African Country,s .

[Rainfall]

Elephants aren't mentioned a single time in that.

But lots of other species that were put on the endangered list were and they ALL suffered for it. Which part of this does your tiny mind have trouble comprehending ?
The elephants that were slaughtered in Zimbabwe were killed for their ivory. the reason the were killed for it was because they banned it ivory prices rose considerably and as such the elephants suffered. Basic market economics that even anyone with half a brain can understand.

Ok, let's use basic economics on half a brain; what could possibly happen if ivory trade were legalized again, and the price falls?

[piwanoi]

Elephants aren't mentioned a single time in that.

But lots of other species that were put on the endangered list were and they ALL suffered for it. Which part of this does your tiny mind have trouble comprehending ?
The elephants that were slaughtered in Zimbabwe were killed for their ivory. the reason the were killed for it was because they banned it ivory prices rose considerably and as such the elephants suffered. Basic market economics that even anyone with half a brain can understand.

Ok, let's use basic economics on half a brain; what could possibly happen if ivory trade were legalized again, and the price falls?

No need for personal insults Rainfall but of course you do have a point, as indeed Big Fella has too, we all know how desperate things are in Zimbabwe and I would hope this terrible tragedy is just a one off, but as stated previously by myself and others the real fault lies with the Ivory dealers who at this moment in time are mainly from the far East , the various Govts can make any legislation they want but if its not rigidly enforced its just one whole sick joke .