Should the current ban on ivory trading be lifted?
Yes
Side Score: 10
|
No
Side Score: 16
|
|
|
|
3
points
The elephant populations of southern African states are growing rapidly, placing a strain upon the resources of the national parks in which they live. This has necessitated culls with the result that government environment agencies have built up large stockpiles of ivory (also acquired from animals that died naturally), which they are currently unable to sell. Relaxing the CITES ban on trading ivory, subject to careful regulation, would bring much needed cash to the environmental programs of these impoverished countries, helping them to safeguard the long-term survival of African elephants. Side: yes
|
Elephants are highly intelligent animals, clearly sentient in ways which are continually being revealed by research. As such it is unethical to use them for the harvest of ivory, legitimising the view that they can be exploited in any way convenient to humankind. At present demand for ivory is low and shrinking, and prices are actually lower than before. Lifting the trading ban would renew interest in ivory artefacts and increase the size of the market for them, raising their price. This will ensure there is always a long-term threat to elephants from man, and encourage poaching to continue. In any case, incomes in Africa are so small that even a large reduction in the price of ivory would fail to affect the motivation of poachers. Side: No
2
points
Lifting the ban on the ivory trade, even if it is highly regulated, will just result in more killing of these creatures. I understand the idea of making use of things which have died to avoid waste but the positive intention will serve as a facade for the killing of these creatures secretly in order to turn a profit. Selling ivory will only increase its demand and thus increase the incentive to kill elephants and other creatures for ivory. The poor economic state of the countries, where the selling of ivory is proposed could to help lift the economy, are not the result of the ban and in reality would not gain much if ivory were sold only from animals that died of natural causes. Also there isn't an economical way to ensure that the ivory was collected from elephants that died of natural causes. Ivory might look pretty to some people but lifting the ban to bring in some money will only create more problems for the elephants and the ecosystem as well as people. Side: No
2
points
No, the ban should not be lifted lest we find ourselves in the same situation we were in some time ago! The elephant is a most intelligent creature and we need them in the wild, as we do gorillas and such. What a crime it is to debase a creature for the paltry sum it can give you. Thank God the Ivory trade has lessened through the years and these poachers are out of work! Side: No
It's such a waste to kill an entire animal just for its tusks or fur! If we used elephants for food, then yes go ahead and lift the ban. But until I see some good recipes for elephant steak, keep the ban :) I think it's horrible to kill one of God's creatures just for ivory, which can be manufactured fake, or fur, which can also be manufactured. Side: No
1
point
1
point
No, the elephant population is not growing fast, the elephant has a 14 month germination period and they only give birth to one or two at a time, and two is extremely rare. Because the Asian elephant adult male only having tusks, the males are the ones being poached. the ratio of adult male Asian elephants to adult female Asian elephants is 1:30 or 40! The elephant is also a very emotional creature, they will never get over a loss in the family. Side: No
|