If you can’t beat them, join them—or so the saying goes. This ought to be the case when it comes to the harvesting of ivory and rhino horns in South and East Africa, where both are illegal.
I understand that this idea is not only often considered radical, but can even be viewed as unethical or, worse yet, downright evil and destructive—but hear me out.
Although the ivory and rhino horn trades have begun to decline slightly, their respective black markets—along with the majority of illicit goods going to America and China— are still flourishing. A pound of ivory can go for $1,500, and rhino horns can be sold for up to $1,000 per pound.
Elephants seem to be in the greatest amount of danger for their tusks. Elephant tusks are actually one set of deeply rooted teeth that continue to grow for the elephant’s entire lifetime. Elephants also use their tusks much like human beings use their hands, to the point where elephants are right tusked or left tusked. They are used to defend themselves, fight for mates, and dig up food and water in the savannah.
Ironically, the tusks, which are a necessity to the elephants, are also the cause of their subsequent poaching and deaths. Since ivory harvesting is illegal in every country in Africa, poachers shoot and kill elephants and take their tusks from the root—the fastest way to do it without getting caught—as opposed to the alternative which is safer for the elephant; tranquilizing and removing the tusks away from the root with a reciprocating saw.
This is why on many reserves, elephants have their tusks removed from the root to prevent their deaths by poachers. This begs the question: if poachers and buyers are only interested in the tusk and not the whole elephant, why not just humanely de-tusk the elephants?
De-tusking elephants without killing them allows sellers to sell the ivory and create a sustainable revenue stream that can be reinvested into conservation and the protection of said elephants. Second, it would de-incentivize poaching because the demand and scarcity of ivory will diminish. Third, it would lower the demand for Western big sport hunting on reserves, due to the existence of alternative and more profitable revenue streams.
In the case of the rhino—specifically the white rhino—ranchers with this very idea already exist in South Africa. John Hume, the owner of 1,500 white rhinos, believes that legalizing the trade of rhino horns is the only way to stop rhino poaching.
The fact that rhino horns, which are made out of keratin—the same substance that make up our fingernails and hair—grow for the entire lifetime of the rhino, is a massive plus to their chance of survival in the face of extinction.
This is because the value of these horns—which grow back to full length every three years—is $1,000 per pound. Hume has already compiled six tonnes of rhino horns from his rhinos, which he collects in a humane manner to deter poachers who kill his rhinos on a regular basis. This amounts to approximately $13.2 million in recurring profits from Hume’s population of rhinos alone.
For Hume and other conservationists, such massive amounts of funds are desperately needed, as defence spending on Hume’s 25,000 sq ft ranch alone totals $353,700—a sum that is most likely miniscule to that of larger reservations—to continue basic functions and cut down reliance on big sport hunting and wildlife tourism, which both negatively affect the environment.
In order to ensure the survival of elephants and white rhinos, two things are needed. First, there must be more international government and private level support of conservation. This is improving but governments still prefer to invest aid into developing future economic partners. Second, there needs to be a new alternative revenue stream to big sport hunting and wildlife tourism.
I believe that the complex and unstable affairs of international funding mean that, in order for elephants and rhinos to survive, they ought to be sustainably harvested for their tusks and horns, or face certain death at the hands of poachers.
