African wildlife officials appalled as EU opposes a total ban on ivory trade (theguardian.com)

  Clarification needs to be made as to 
  the scope of the proposal 
  -
  the call 
  for a general closure of domestic 
  ivory markets does not seem 
  justified but the EU could show 
  openness to initiatives aiming to 
  restrict domestic ivory trade, 
  provided that the measures are 
  proportionate (for example call for 
  closure of domestic market except 
  for pre-Convention ivory 
  or in cases where there have been 
  evidences that domestic legal 
  markets have been used as a cover 
  for illegal ivory trade).

  Oppose the transfer to Appendix I
  of the populations of BW, NA, ZA, 
  ZW. These four national 
  populations have an increasing 
  population trend (tbc for Zimbabwe)
  and do not meet the 
  criteria for transfer to Appendix I. 
  Recognizing the efforts made by 
  Southern African countries to 
  sustainably manage their elephant 
  population and combat poaching, 
  those countries should better be 
  encouraged to pursue their efforts.

"Oppose the transfer to Appendix I of the populations of BW, NA, ZA, ZW. These four national populations have an increasing population trend (tbc for Zimbabwe) and do not meet the criteria for transfer to Appendix I. Recognizing the efforts made by Southern African countries to sustainably manage their elephant population and combat poaching, those countries should better be encouraged to pursue their efforts"

The PDF also says, for Namibia and Zimbabwe:

"Given the continuous high levels of elephant poaching and illegal ivory trade, it is premature to agree on a resumption of trade. The efforts by Namibia for wildlife conservation and to combat poaching and illegal trade should nonetheless be recognised and further encouraged."

So, as is often the case, a nuanced statement by the EU that gets misrepresented in the press.

Moving elephants to appendix I would make it harder or even prohibit South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe, countries where the elephant population grows, to shoot down elephants to keep their total number under control.

What the EU says basically is that those countries should be allowed to shoot elephants (in theory, that would give them the freedom to kill all 'their' elephants, but they aren't that stupid, as it would kill tourism, too.) but that Botswana and Namibia shouldn't be allowed to sell the ivory to (partly) make up for the costs they make for protecting their wildlife. South Africa and Botswana apparently are deemed to have poaching under control.

I guess this means there are ways to determine where an elephant lived from its teeth. That's not surprising, given that we can do that for humans, too.

http://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/opinion/controversial-call-fo...

"About half the continental population was lost in the decade before the Appendix I listing in 1989, and a dramatic spike occurred again after a “one-off” ivory sale in 2008 to China and Japan."

"Cites [Appendix I] saved African elephants from certain extinction 27 years ago by listing them on Appendix I. It ended the poaching crisis and elephant populations began to recover, until their protection under Cites was weakened, causing poaching to escalate again."

We can see how bad the previous bans went and how the wild life suffers in those same African countries that already banned poaching... but where the elephants keep dying awfully because the local governments are corrupt and let the poaching continue gaining even higher margins after the ban.

It's exactly that the EU wants to avoid.

A possible parallel is that in France the trade of wolf fur is forbidden. There are still a few sellers per month on our equivalent of Craig's list and ebay, but they quickly get taken down by 'vigilantes' reporting them to the website. Not sure about the black market running completely outside of the Internet.

Additionally, since it's very scarce, you might see a very large price increase (because of increased demand due to no risk of law enforcement and less stigma), and if that price increases to more than the prior black market prices, that will incentivize more poachers.

Markets are inherently complex beasts. Trying to tweak a market for desired behavior is hard enough. Creating a new market and thinking we understand all the consequences and how it will play out when it's this important is insane.

With all due respect, "ITT:" (In This Thread) is hardly constructive. First off you cannot generalise all of the replies already made, and secondly you cannot know the direction of future replies or how the conversation will evolve.

If you want to make a point comparing the ivory trade to the war on drugs, that's great, it might generate some thoughtful discussion. But this "ITT" nonsense from Reddit is just that, nonsense.

If it is easy to legally create as much material as is needed, legal trade works. If you can't meet demand legally, there will be a black market.

As others pointed out there is no reliable way to trace the supply chain of ivory (not that sellers would also have a huge incentive for fraud) to ensure poached ivory cannot enter the market. So this "think of the restorers!" trope is actually a great argument for confiscating and destroying all existing ivory products and stockpiles. The market for ivory needs to be entirely eliminated for poaching to cease to be an attractive economic activity.

Also if you tried to establish a farm where you raised elephants for ivory, the moral outrage would almost certainly get you shut down, with an new law if no existing ones covered it. The "countries with local demand for ivory" are in general countries that have made ivory trade largely illegal already, because most of the population agrees it's pretty repugnant.