You guys should consider donating to the International Anti-Poaching Foundation[0][1] which fights these poachers. The founder, Damien Mander[2], is an Australian ex spec-ops sniper who is using his military experience to train the park rangers since they, unlike the poachers, tend to be poorly equipped and trained as well as understaffed.
There is also the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust[3][4] which takes care of elephant and rhino orphans (most of them are orphans due to poaching). For $50 a year, you can become a sponsor of a particular animal and they'll send you photos and updates about how your sponsored animal is doing. You can for example sponsor this little fella [5][6].
I'm assuming that it was a dumb joke. The orphan literally got the orphanage yesterday. You can also choose another elephant[0] or rhino[1] orphan from the list if you want to
I was actually just at the Sheldrick Elephant Orphanage here in Nairobi last week and was really impressed with the work that they are doing. From what I can tell, they seem to operate of some fairly thin margins, I am sure that any donations would be hugely appreciated.
For what it's worth, their option to "adopt a baby elephant" makes for a great present for a lot of people I have found.
So happy to see Yao using his influence for good. I think Chinese consumption of shark fin and ivory are more habits than desire. Habits can change through education.
I'm not sure status symbols are as simple as "habits or desire". And that's what shark fins and ivory are to the chinese, much like caviar to westerners (and with similar consequences on providing creatures).
You might be able to fix "traditional medecine" issues (which China has in droves) using education, but status symbols acquisition is not about illiteracy or lack of education. You can only fix the problem through social shaming, by reversing those status and making them status of bad taste.
"Western culture" has very similar (and extant wrt sturgeons amongst others if mostly curbed when it comes to mammals) issues, Chinese weren't the ones slaughtering charismatic megafauna for fun and status symbols in the late 19th century and early 20th century.
Tiger's are another issue - a big reason for the decrease in India's tiger population is that the demand from China is so overwhelming; apparently a tiger's gonads are considered a valuable aphrodisiac. This kind of insanity has to stop before the animal is extinct.
Agreed. There are people doing good work in this area, but if we've learnt one lesson, its that the economic gravity tends to win out. In the drug war (not a perfect analogy by any means), as long as US consumer demand exists, people will find a way to provide it. In China, unless you can shape the underlying demand for poached materials in some form (and be more successful than the US has been on drugs), it's going to persist, especially as that country continues to grow richer.
I agree it is insanity, if i was Yao Ming, my PSA would go as follows.
Gentlemen, before going to the extremes of using tiger balls to get your Girlfriend, Wife or Xiao San in the mood... First try these proven western approaches.
- Put on a Sade album
- Give her a glass of rose wine
- light a candle beside the bed
- Tell her she looks pretty in that dress
- Give her a new Coach handbag
- Slip some Molly in her drink right before desert
Why may you ask... Lets say there are 3200 tigers in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger) 50% are likely to be male leaving 1600 male tigers * 2 balls. That leaves roughly 3200 balls - not counting ones lost in childhood slingshot accidents.
Sadly, there soon will be no more balls to use ;( and you do not want to be left with "No Game."
Wasn't intended to be, but i can see how it would be taken that way. If tiger's balls are as powerful as the legend has it... would it be the equivalent?
I've long thought that one of the highest impact things scientists and engineers could be working on is developing a form of ivory that is indistinguishable from real thing to collapse the market. It seems like it should be feasible.
People will always figure out ways to distinguish one thing from another, if that's what they choose to do. It's not just a technical problem, it's a social one.
We have to make it clear it is not okay to regard ivory hacked from the face of an elephant as better than a synthetic polymer. To regard diamonds scrabbled over the blood of Africans as better than their synthetic equivalents. To regard the flesh of tortured chickens as better than synthetic meat replacements.
And this can be done. There is now a consensus that it's not okay to regard the fur of tortured animals as better than synthetic fabrics. Sometimes there is actually such a thing as social progress.
These too are changing. In China, the highly educated are becoming involved in social advocacy for the environment and starting to avoid smoking. Smoking is still very common in Europe and increasing in France, despite the public health initiatives, high taxes, bans and public knowledge. Unfortunately, if these issues are seen as "status symbols" in China, we may see the populist backlash that we see in some countries such as the US where it is seen as "American" to drive SUVs, live in large, energy-consuming houses, and ignore climate change -- which is destroying a lot of wildlife.
I may be about to say something stupid, but couldn't we preemptively cut out the tusks from wild elephants so that there would be no point in poaching them?
Are tusks necessary for elephants to cut through the bush? I see elephants who don't have tusks in documentaries all the time, so I'm wondering.
And even if tusks are necessary, maybe we could replace the originals with prosthesis (of a different color) -- certainly not an easy task on a wild elephant, but worth a try maybe??
Or just somehow ruin the tusks while leaving them in place? Scratch them, turn them in a different color, something?
> I may be about to say something stupid, but couldn't we preemptively cut out the tusks from wild elephants so that there would be no point in poaching them?
De-horning programs were started for rhinos in the 90s following that idea, which theoretically held up (despite being a risk to the animal, you have to put him to sleep which may kill him, and de-horning remains traumatic). De-horned rhinos still got poached: http://www.savetherhino.org/rhino_info/issues_for_debate/de-...
There's little reason to believe elephants would fare better, sadly.
> Are tusks necessary for elephants to cut through the bush?
They're for battle (defence against predators animals as well as combats between males, in these case they also act as "bumpers" to protect the fragile trunk), and hard tasks: the trunk handles precision stuff, the tusks are used to move crap out of the way, dig for water or roots, removing bark from trees.
They're not technically necessary, although tuskless elephants are less fit.
Many thanks for this answer and link; very enlightening.
If I understand the article correctly, it seems de-horned rhinos are poached mostly because poachers don't see the rhino has lost its horns, and they kill it then because
1) they're furious when they find out
2) they don't want to waste more time hunting it again
If this is true it would probably be less of a problem for elephants as their tusks (or absence thereof) are more visible.
It still sounds like a horrible procedure, but I don't think trying to curb demand will ever be effective -- or maybe in the very long run, when there are no elephants left.
Having been fortunate enough to have visited the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust's Elephant Orphanage on the outskirts of Nairobi, and to have visited with an Anne K. Taylor Trust (http://annektaylorfund.org/) anti-poaching team in the Masai Mara area, I now give annually to both.
I am an animal lover - not an expert, but I am SO IMPRESSED by the work of both outfits.
Both organizations provide regular updates on their work to donors. Anne's writing is top notch, but the detailed stories that the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust provides are nothing short of truly beautiful.
I wish Yao luck. The total ban contemplated by the USA has me worried. It's an admission of defeat. Certainly something can be done to accommodate the ivory taken legally.
It also sparks memories - for instance, what happened to the "blood diamond" campaign waged by deBeers? I presume it had some success, because the US govt hasn't seen fit to ban all diamonds? They used a certification process.
Another similar situation exists with Brazilian rosewood. Gibson ran into some trouble over that. And yet nothing has been done except to ban trade. No attempt made at sustainability or habitat preservation.
Connecting the dots...deBeers making money, no ban. deBeers not making money, ban.
41 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 95.5 ms ] threadThere is also the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust[3][4] which takes care of elephant and rhino orphans (most of them are orphans due to poaching). For $50 a year, you can become a sponsor of a particular animal and they'll send you photos and updates about how your sponsored animal is doing. You can for example sponsor this little fella [5][6].
[0] http://www.iapf.org/en/
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Anti-Poaching_Fou...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Mander
[3] http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sheldrick_Wildlife_Trust
[5] http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp...
[6] http://instagram.com/p/sigT3IAUKb
I was going to donate tonight when I got home ..
[0] http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphans_history.as...
[1] http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphans_history_rh...
http://video.pbs.org/video/2365284372/
Daphne's efforts to save these amazing animals started with Aisha. It is a sad yet beautiful doc. Well worth the 50 mins or so.
For what it's worth, their option to "adopt a baby elephant" makes for a great present for a lot of people I have found.
You might be able to fix "traditional medecine" issues (which China has in droves) using education, but status symbols acquisition is not about illiteracy or lack of education. You can only fix the problem through social shaming, by reversing those status and making them status of bad taste.
[0] https://medium.com/full-belly-reports/every-spring-game-ward...
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/201...
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/201...
http://www.popsci.com/article/science/pangolin-smuggling-sho...
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/04/opinion/sutter-ch...
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/201...
Gentlemen, before going to the extremes of using tiger balls to get your Girlfriend, Wife or Xiao San in the mood... First try these proven western approaches.
- Put on a Sade album
- Give her a glass of rose wine
- light a candle beside the bed
- Tell her she looks pretty in that dress
- Give her a new Coach handbag
- Slip some Molly in her drink right before desert
Why may you ask... Lets say there are 3200 tigers in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger) 50% are likely to be male leaving 1600 male tigers * 2 balls. That leaves roughly 3200 balls - not counting ones lost in childhood slingshot accidents.
Sadly, there soon will be no more balls to use ;( and you do not want to be left with "No Game."
The sort of people who will pay extra for brand new ivory aren't going to bought off with fake ivory.
From 11 years ago: http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html
We have to make it clear it is not okay to regard ivory hacked from the face of an elephant as better than a synthetic polymer. To regard diamonds scrabbled over the blood of Africans as better than their synthetic equivalents. To regard the flesh of tortured chickens as better than synthetic meat replacements.
And this can be done. There is now a consensus that it's not okay to regard the fur of tortured animals as better than synthetic fabrics. Sometimes there is actually such a thing as social progress.
The best thing to do would be to make natural ivory anything boorish and in bad taste.
Although there's a risk of exciting the morons: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
Are tusks necessary for elephants to cut through the bush? I see elephants who don't have tusks in documentaries all the time, so I'm wondering.
And even if tusks are necessary, maybe we could replace the originals with prosthesis (of a different color) -- certainly not an easy task on a wild elephant, but worth a try maybe??
Or just somehow ruin the tusks while leaving them in place? Scratch them, turn them in a different color, something?
De-horning programs were started for rhinos in the 90s following that idea, which theoretically held up (despite being a risk to the animal, you have to put him to sleep which may kill him, and de-horning remains traumatic). De-horned rhinos still got poached: http://www.savetherhino.org/rhino_info/issues_for_debate/de-...
There's little reason to believe elephants would fare better, sadly.
> Are tusks necessary for elephants to cut through the bush?
They're for battle (defence against predators animals as well as combats between males, in these case they also act as "bumpers" to protect the fragile trunk), and hard tasks: the trunk handles precision stuff, the tusks are used to move crap out of the way, dig for water or roots, removing bark from trees.
They're not technically necessary, although tuskless elephants are less fit.
If I understand the article correctly, it seems de-horned rhinos are poached mostly because poachers don't see the rhino has lost its horns, and they kill it then because
1) they're furious when they find out
2) they don't want to waste more time hunting it again
If this is true it would probably be less of a problem for elephants as their tusks (or absence thereof) are more visible.
It still sounds like a horrible procedure, but I don't think trying to curb demand will ever be effective -- or maybe in the very long run, when there are no elephants left.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/opinion/the-poisoning-of-a...
https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_worl...
I am an animal lover - not an expert, but I am SO IMPRESSED by the work of both outfits.
Both organizations provide regular updates on their work to donors. Anne's writing is top notch, but the detailed stories that the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust provides are nothing short of truly beautiful.
It also sparks memories - for instance, what happened to the "blood diamond" campaign waged by deBeers? I presume it had some success, because the US govt hasn't seen fit to ban all diamonds? They used a certification process.
Another similar situation exists with Brazilian rosewood. Gibson ran into some trouble over that. And yet nothing has been done except to ban trade. No attempt made at sustainability or habitat preservation.
Connecting the dots...deBeers making money, no ban. deBeers not making money, ban.