I have looked into it. It is very possible to breed the elephant back to sustainable numbers.
Well have it then. Nobody else has been able to figure out how this is doable in a way that is even remotely close to making more sense than an ivory ban. Care to fill us in on exactly how you would do it?
Also as I mentioned before, no number is sustainable if they are being poached faster than they are being born. That's simple math, but you conveniently ignored it. If you just mean that you can captively breed them and successfully get them reintroduced back into the wild at a rate that is faster than they are being poached then on top of it being an impossible pipe dream it isn't even a wild population sustaining itself to begin with which the goal is.
Your logic relates only to one's agreement with your premise-ban ivory.
You have it backwards. All logic leads to needing to make the ivory market substantially smaller. All logic leads to the only way to do that effectively and in enough time to help is to make the sale of it illegal, and perhaps even the possession. I also didn't say it was the only thing that should be done. I am all for increased protection for the elephants in other ways such as stiffer laws, more patrols and guards etc.
I will assure you it is far simpler to increase the size of the game reserves and assist the elephant population than it is to stop the wars, starvation and land grabs in African nations.
I agree. But eliminating the ivory market world wide will be enough to allow the elephants to sustain or even grow their population. The wars and farmers will still be a problem, but not enough by themselves to cause the long term decline of their numbers, at least not yet.
But in any case I don't want them relegated to a few reserves anyway. That isn't the goal of most people and isn't much better than just having them in a few zoos.
I fail to understand why YOUR way is the highway.
While there are conceivably several solutions, there is only one best solution, and in this case it isn't even close.
Banning the use of ivory is senseless. If every speck of ivory that exists today were destroyed(except on live elephants), you would not save the elephants.
I agree. Getting rid of ivory does nothing, you have to kill most of the desire to acquire ivory.
Elephants are doomed unless we work to increase the size and number of refuges.
No, elephants are doomed as long as there is a large market for their ivory.
Ban ivory, increase the black market profits and, just like drugs, those that want it will find a way to get it.
Have you read any of my posts? How badly a few people want to get ivory is largely immaterial. What matters is
how many want to get their hands on ivory. If very few people want to get ivory, then very few elephants will have to be killed to meet that demand. It is simple math. Cost is immaterial. What matters is the size of the market, not the cost of the market. The extreme example I gave earlier to illustrate the point was that if ivory was one billion dollars a pound, but only one guy wanted to get a pound of ivory, then only one elephant is needed to fulfill that market need. How much it costs is immaterial. It is how much is needed that matters, because however much is needed is how much the poachers are going to take. When it is illegal world wide only a fraction of the current amount will be needed and therefore far fewer elephants will be poached.
Finally, you will never change the value of this item to the Asian population.
You might be right, but you can change their desire to actually acquire it with stringent enough laws even if they all wished they could still have it. As I have said repeatedly, you will never eliminate the desire for ivory from every last person on earth, but you eliminate most of the market pretty easily but making it illegal and that would be enough to allow the elephant to sustain itself in the wild.
We, in America have saved the Whitetail deer, Elk, and the buffalo(Bison) through refuges and controlled hunting seasons.
The buffalo comes closest but none are even remotely similar. For the most part these are not relegated to preserves either (although the buffalo isn't too far off), but even if they were it doesn't mean we should make the same mistake with the elephants. There is also not the desire for these animals anywhere even remotely close to the desire for the elephant because of their tusks. Domestically probably the closest analogy would be the problem with bear poaching for gall bladders and that is only manageable because the sale of bear gall bladders is illegal otherwise the bears would be a billion times worse off and in as bad or worse shape than the elephant. Just like with the bears, making elephant ivory illegal will not completely eliminate the ivory market but it will eliminate the majority of it and with only a fraction of the market left only a fraction of the amount of elephants will have to be killed to meet the substantially reduced demand.
