Burn or sell?

What should be done with the thousands of elephant tusks that are piled up in warehouses in the countries of East and South Africa and the hundreds of rhinoceros horns?

For everyone who visits the African reserves, the elephants are an exciting and beloved show, but the wild hunter threatens the possibility that our grandchildren will also be able to enjoy the great sight. According to various estimates, between 30 and 50 thousand elephants are killed every year. In the middle of the twentieth century, about one and a half million elephants lived in Africa, while today there are less than six hundred thousand.
Sad predictions show that if the killing continues within a generation there will be almost no elephants in Africa (a situation the rhinoceros population reached in less than a generation). Thousands of tusks confiscated in the ports and in the field are collected in the state warehouses. Each pair of tusks symbolizes a dead elephant and each pair of horns - a dead rhinoceros.

What should be done with the thousands of elephant tusks that are piled up in warehouses in the countries of East and South Africa and the hundreds of rhinoceros horns? Not long ago, there were ceremonies in which tons of tusks were burned to which were added rhinoceros horns, such as were collected from dead elephants and rhinos, but mainly those confiscated in African ports on their way to Eastern countries and especially to China,

In April, a ivory bonfire was lit in Kenya for the fourth time since 1989, in which 105 tons of ivory worth about 15 million dollars were set on fire. This is in the presence of government representatives from African countries and representatives of the UN.

The burning ceremonies were mainly due to the obligation of African countries to international agreements that prohibit the trade in elephant tusks. There are countries that own thousands of tusks and from time to time ask for a special permit to sell the tusks on the free market, this is from a critical approach to the sales ban which, according to the critics' approach, is enforced by Western countries on African countries that until recently were colonies, that is, the enforcement of the ban from a colonialist approach.

It is clear that the importance of preserving the African natural environment is highly rated, but it is also clear that the burning of elephant tusks and the ban on trade did not stop the killing of elephants and certainly did not contribute to the economy of the countries where there are elephants.

Despite the trade ban and according to the number of tusks burned since 1989, the statistics show that more and more elephants have been killed mainly in Tanzania and Kenya, but also in South Africa. Which raises the "burning" question of why the numbers are increasing, why the killing of elephants continues and what can be done to stop the killing?
The supporters of burning the tusks claim that in this way a clear message is sent that "tusks only have value when they are on living elephants" but such a message has no representation in reality, the trade in elephant tusks has been going on for hundreds of years and the killing of elephants in Africa for their tusks is as old and savage as the slave trade.

The "directive" of Western countries to burn tusks as a deterrent to poachers is compared to burning drugs. These are also the ones of high value and burning does not reduce their value nor their use. There is no economic sense in burning the tusks and then turning to various organizations to request funding for activities to protect the elephants.

Since the majority of the African population makes a living from farming in households, there are those who compare the burning of the tusks to the treatment of stealing food from the fields, when a banana thief is caught, would it be right to burn the bananas, or to compare it to our country, would it be right to burn a stolen car, slaughter a herd of goats or destroy agricultural equipment stolen?

To burn is the advice given by "friends" in the West, "friends" in whose countries there are no elephants but where there is a covert or open trade in ivory. The logic of the advice to burn a precious resource, even if it originates from magnificent animals is questionable...

According to surveillance, it turns out that after the burning of tusks in Kenya in 2011, ivory prices in China climbed and tripled, which of course led to an increase in poaching, that is, the burning of tusks in Africa sends a message to the ivory dealers - "buy a lot of tusks because the availability of ivory is decreasing"...

The question that must be asked is: why, despite the ban on ivory trade for 25 years and the burning of confiscated tusks, has the killing of elephants not been stopped or at least moderated? The partial answer is that African countries fail to identify the main reasons for the killing, or rather, fail to identify and implement the correct and effective ways to stop or at least moderate the killing, a failure that causes a wrong approach and a failed treatment.

One of the significant factors in the failure is governmental corruption and the low pay of inspectors, a situation that "encourages" cooperation between criminals and inspectors. Another factor is the friction between people and wild animals - elephants kill people and "invade" agricultural lands, destroying crops and as a result hungry people turn their anger to hunting and killing elephants, whether as revenge and punishment and of course also as a way to receive financial compensation for the damage,
Populations that live close to the habitats of elephants and other animals are not educated for nature conservation and do not share in the economic benefits of nature conservation, sharing in tourism revenues, etc.
- Although there are modern measures to document and prevent wild poachers, they are not implemented, for example the use of tiny pilot instruments for monitoring, or the planting of hot peppers (chili) to prevent elephants from entering agricultural fields.
From this it follows that educating and lecturing populations to engage in conservation, use of technologies, improving the conditions of pay for inspectors, eliminating corruption and good will on the part of the government will be the right steps to prevent poachers.

Organizations and governments in the West can help with funding, but the key to nature conservation is in the hands of African governments, the "key" is an understanding that nature conservation on the continent is an economic resource that must be managed wisely and with a view to the future.

It is worth remembering and knowing that African wild animals in general and elephants in particular have become endangered species mainly because of Western greed for African resources. Already at the end of the 19th century, Dr. Livingstone estimated that in one year more than forty thousand elephants were hunted to satisfy the demand of the English market. About 120 tons of elephant tusks make their way every year from Africa to the markets of Europe and America. In 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt visited Africa and killed 11 elephants, 17 lions, 20 rhinoceroses, and about 450 different animals.

After the robbery of the resources, the West continues to organize attempts to police and supervise those resources, policing and supervision, the implementation of which obliges the African countries to "collect alms". This is at a time when Africans already understand the need to conserve their resources.

Is burning elephant tusks the solution? The West's support for a boycott of the ivory trade and the burning of elephant tusks as a method of protecting elephants is equivalent to the thought that only the West's help will solve the problem of poverty in the continent.

The ivory burning is done under the slogan "we will kill the ivory market once and for all", what advantage does Africa have in burning resources? Will burning resources guide Africa on the path to economic independence?

In order for African countries to manage their resources, they have an obligation to change the "status quo" dictated by the West, agreements such as: the Convention on Trade in Wild Animals (CITES) must be renewed and give local populations ownership rights over their environment, in the last five centuries Africa has been robbed of natural treasures worth Trillions. Are any of the Western countries willing to compensate the robbed for this, a compensation that would have magnified the African economy and allowed for the restoration of past damages?

According to the convention on trade in wild animals (CITES) there is no ban on trophy hunting. A hunter who continues to harm many species, see the dentist who killed Cecil the lion, or Trump's son who returned from a hunting trip loaded with elephants, lions, tigers and more. Is this the way Africa should protect endangered species?

The only justification for the nefarious hunter called trophy hunting is when it is necessary to intervene to prevent a population explosion or to remove sick individuals from the area, but in no case to satisfy the murderous lust of the despicable rich and the greed of equally despicable governors.

If there is any sense in burning tusks, it is when the burning will be of ivory that will be confiscated in the markets of countries in demand, not in countries where there are elephants. The right move is for the authority to regulate the sale of tusks and to direct the money received to projects and activities to preserve nature in general and elephants in particular. Activities that in time will eliminate or at least minimize the killing of elephants. Burning tusks is a focus on the results instead of at the root of the problem, as it turns out once again that the burning and the prohibition of the trade do not prevent the killing,

A total ban on ivory trade causes an increase in the wild trade as demand remains high. China and Thailand are the centers of demand, if there is close supervision of the market and at the same time the supply of tusks from legal sources there is a chance to regulate the demand.

Therefore, African countries must utilize their resources and not continue as "business as usual" in which Western countries enforce agreements that do not fit the situation and the fact that Africans must appropriate what is theirs.

Isn't it more correct to release the stocks of tusks for regulated sale and thereby lower the price and reduce demand? Like any crime and misdemeanor, poaching criminals will not disappear, but with proper activity, the damage can be reduced and minimized.
Instead of burning tusks as a futile altruistic act that originates from an arrogant attitude of the West, focus the effort and use the African natural resources to protect and preserve the natural environment in Africa.

And after all this, it is appropriate that even in Africa they learn that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment.