Banning the Transport of Elephant Tusks
According to CITES, it is legal to transport certain pieces of ivory from one country to another. This includes tusks from safari hunts, tusks sold to China and Japan in two approved sales in the early 2000's, and tusks from elephants killed before 1989.
Recently, some people have suggested starting a worldwide ban on the sale and transport of ivory from one country to another. Others have said such a ban would not reduce poaching because the ivory that is being moved into China is already being secreted in. In other words, making illegal smuggling more illegal will change nothing. At both the January 2016 and September 2016 meetings of CITES, members discussed the question of whether to begin a worldwide ban but voted against it.
Keep in mind, even if CITES starts a worldwide ban, CITES can regulate only the movement of ivory from one country to another country; CITES has no jurisdiction within countries. Only individual countries may make laws on ivory sales within their countries.
This is an important problem because the biggest obstacle to stopping poaching is stopping the internal trade within China.
Although China's legal internal ivory trade is the driver of all elephant poaching, some other countries have made laws against importing and exporting ivory. For example, the Obama administration recently created (and then updated) a law banning the import or export of all ivory, including that found in musical instruments and antiques. So far there is no indication that this law has had any effect on poaching levels.
According to CITES, it is legal to transport certain pieces of ivory from one country to another. This includes tusks from safari hunts, tusks sold to China and Japan in two approved sales in the early 2000's, and tusks from elephants killed before 1989.
Recently, some people have suggested starting a worldwide ban on the sale and transport of ivory from one country to another. Others have said such a ban would not reduce poaching because the ivory that is being moved into China is already being secreted in. In other words, making illegal smuggling more illegal will change nothing. At both the January 2016 and September 2016 meetings of CITES, members discussed the question of whether to begin a worldwide ban but voted against it.
Keep in mind, even if CITES starts a worldwide ban, CITES can regulate only the movement of ivory from one country to another country; CITES has no jurisdiction within countries. Only individual countries may make laws on ivory sales within their countries.
This is an important problem because the biggest obstacle to stopping poaching is stopping the internal trade within China.
Although China's legal internal ivory trade is the driver of all elephant poaching, some other countries have made laws against importing and exporting ivory. For example, the Obama administration recently created (and then updated) a law banning the import or export of all ivory, including that found in musical instruments and antiques. So far there is no indication that this law has had any effect on poaching levels.
Banning Elephant Hunting
Although legal hunting is not the cause of the huge decline in the elephant population, and although all the world governments recognize this, they are still considering banning all elephant hunting.
The Previous CITES Hunting Ban
From 1972 to 1983, CITES banned the hunting of all African elephants. During those years, poaching across the continent, and especially in Tanzania, skyrocketed and the elephant population decreased by over 75%. Since then, people have suggested many other reasons for the immediate decline; however, the fact remains that the total hunting ban and the astronomical decline went hand-in-hand.
In a 2003 tourist guide, the Tanzanian government described the 1972 to 1983 hunting ban and the results as follows: “About 90% of the [Selous Game] reserve’s annual income derives from sports hunting while the remainder comes from. . . photographic visitors. In other words, whether one approves of hunting or not, without it the reserve would not survive. Safari hunting was banned in Tanzania in 1973, but this ban was lifted in 1982 with hunting quotas based on ecological monitoring. The nine-year banning order proved very shortsighted for the finances of the Selous Game Reserve. . . With the hunting ban, the revolving fund that relied on foreign hunters for its income ceased to exist and the infrastructure, equipment and staff morale declined” (Selous, p. 7).
In the years after the elephant hunting ban was lifted, the elephant population in Tanzania stabilized, but the elephants did not do that on their own. “What you see is not fortuitous. It is the consequence of decades of efforts and fight against the poachers,” says Gerard Pasanisi, one of the creators of Tanzania’s animal management policies, including quota-setting, and a past owner of TAWISA, a hunting company.
Of course, a current halt to elephant hunting would be different because world leaders and governments are now putting money into fighting off poachers. The question is how long the rest of the world will fund the fight against poachers, and whether all that money will ultimately leave the game scouts with an effective infrastructure, such as the one the hunters have offered in the past. When will Tanzania again need the money and support of the hunters?
Although legal hunting is not the cause of the huge decline in the elephant population, and although all the world governments recognize this, they are still considering banning all elephant hunting.
The Previous CITES Hunting Ban
From 1972 to 1983, CITES banned the hunting of all African elephants. During those years, poaching across the continent, and especially in Tanzania, skyrocketed and the elephant population decreased by over 75%. Since then, people have suggested many other reasons for the immediate decline; however, the fact remains that the total hunting ban and the astronomical decline went hand-in-hand.
In a 2003 tourist guide, the Tanzanian government described the 1972 to 1983 hunting ban and the results as follows: “About 90% of the [Selous Game] reserve’s annual income derives from sports hunting while the remainder comes from. . . photographic visitors. In other words, whether one approves of hunting or not, without it the reserve would not survive. Safari hunting was banned in Tanzania in 1973, but this ban was lifted in 1982 with hunting quotas based on ecological monitoring. The nine-year banning order proved very shortsighted for the finances of the Selous Game Reserve. . . With the hunting ban, the revolving fund that relied on foreign hunters for its income ceased to exist and the infrastructure, equipment and staff morale declined” (Selous, p. 7).
In the years after the elephant hunting ban was lifted, the elephant population in Tanzania stabilized, but the elephants did not do that on their own. “What you see is not fortuitous. It is the consequence of decades of efforts and fight against the poachers,” says Gerard Pasanisi, one of the creators of Tanzania’s animal management policies, including quota-setting, and a past owner of TAWISA, a hunting company.
Of course, a current halt to elephant hunting would be different because world leaders and governments are now putting money into fighting off poachers. The question is how long the rest of the world will fund the fight against poachers, and whether all that money will ultimately leave the game scouts with an effective infrastructure, such as the one the hunters have offered in the past. When will Tanzania again need the money and support of the hunters?
Tanzania's Response to the Pressure to Ban Hunting
Dr. Adelhelm Meru from TMNRT says the Tanzanian “government has made it clear there are no plans to suspend sports hunting in the country as demanded by conservationists” (“Tanzania Not”). He adds, “If hunting. . . is suspended, instead of having legal hunting there will be illegal hunting.” Pasanisi, the Chair of the Tanzania Hunting Operators Association and the President of TAWISA has consistently said that any suspension of hunting harms wildlife conservation because “abandoning tourist hunting blocks will amount to exposing our wildlife to poachers” (“Tanzania Not”).
Although Tanzania’s government officials insist they will not abandon hunting, they have not spent much breath arguing with USA and the European Union about those countries' new laws which make it illegal for legal hunters to import their elephant tusks. This is because Tanzania’s officials have been trying to get the American and European governments to donate millions of dollars to the fight against poaching. (“Africa U.S.”) Tanzania’s officials cannot disagree with the bans and ask for money at the same time.
By the same token, Tanzanian government officials did not complain about the pressure from conservationists to halve Tanzania’s export quota from 200 to 100 tusks per year. Nyalandu even agreed to it willingly (Kimati, “Tanzania Jumbo”). This was a political maneuver, because agreeing put Tanzania in a better spot with the western governments, and hunters were exporting only 100 tusks per year up until 2013 (and almost none in 2014 and 2015), anyway.
Dr. Adelhelm Meru from TMNRT says the Tanzanian “government has made it clear there are no plans to suspend sports hunting in the country as demanded by conservationists” (“Tanzania Not”). He adds, “If hunting. . . is suspended, instead of having legal hunting there will be illegal hunting.” Pasanisi, the Chair of the Tanzania Hunting Operators Association and the President of TAWISA has consistently said that any suspension of hunting harms wildlife conservation because “abandoning tourist hunting blocks will amount to exposing our wildlife to poachers” (“Tanzania Not”).
Although Tanzania’s government officials insist they will not abandon hunting, they have not spent much breath arguing with USA and the European Union about those countries' new laws which make it illegal for legal hunters to import their elephant tusks. This is because Tanzania’s officials have been trying to get the American and European governments to donate millions of dollars to the fight against poaching. (“Africa U.S.”) Tanzania’s officials cannot disagree with the bans and ask for money at the same time.
By the same token, Tanzanian government officials did not complain about the pressure from conservationists to halve Tanzania’s export quota from 200 to 100 tusks per year. Nyalandu even agreed to it willingly (Kimati, “Tanzania Jumbo”). This was a political maneuver, because agreeing put Tanzania in a better spot with the western governments, and hunters were exporting only 100 tusks per year up until 2013 (and almost none in 2014 and 2015), anyway.
Hunting Bans in Other Countries
Although it is still legal to hunt elephants in Tanzania, other countries have already voluntarily made it illegal to hunt elephants inside their borders. These bans have been mostly unsuccessful in protecting the elephant population and the bush ecosystems.
For example, in the 1970s Kenya banned hunting in order to stop poaching (which made no sense). Immediately people began saying that Kenya's government officials had an ulterior motive: kicking the hunters out would make poaching easier, and these officials were in on the poaching. In fact, after the ban was put in place, three times more elephants were poached than before the ban (Saayman). Since then, Kenya has never managed to bring back its elephant herds.
In Botswana, the elephant hunting ban that has been in effect since 2014 is also failing, but for a completely different reason. There, the elephant areas are so overrun with elephants that the vegetation has been picked clean. The trees are not only void of leaves, but they are sprawled in dead, tangled messes. There is very little brush and grass, and there are few other animals because there is little for them to eat or nest in. The elephants have destroyed the ecosystem so completely that it will take decades for it to come back.
Although it is still legal to hunt elephants in Tanzania, other countries have already voluntarily made it illegal to hunt elephants inside their borders. These bans have been mostly unsuccessful in protecting the elephant population and the bush ecosystems.
For example, in the 1970s Kenya banned hunting in order to stop poaching (which made no sense). Immediately people began saying that Kenya's government officials had an ulterior motive: kicking the hunters out would make poaching easier, and these officials were in on the poaching. In fact, after the ban was put in place, three times more elephants were poached than before the ban (Saayman). Since then, Kenya has never managed to bring back its elephant herds.
In Botswana, the elephant hunting ban that has been in effect since 2014 is also failing, but for a completely different reason. There, the elephant areas are so overrun with elephants that the vegetation has been picked clean. The trees are not only void of leaves, but they are sprawled in dead, tangled messes. There is very little brush and grass, and there are few other animals because there is little for them to eat or nest in. The elephants have destroyed the ecosystem so completely that it will take decades for it to come back.