This email from Sam Wasser was posted on another forum. For those that don't know, Mr. wasser experimented with DNA'ing ivory stocks to set a database which can be used to trace origin of illegla ivory that has been seized. For example, a recent seizure of contraband ivory in Singapore was traced as Zambian stock.


"Dear xxxxxx

Thank you for the note. Regrettably, there is no viable way to distinguish poached (or new) from unpoached (or old) ivory. A dye would have to penetrate the tusk, rendering them less valuable. Even it worked, others would get the dye and use it illegally, as they do everything else.

The problem now is that the demand for ivory is soaring due to a growing middle class in China and Japan, the price of high quality ivory has quadrupled in the last two year to $850/kg, and the law does not prevent any country from selling ivory within their country. It only prohibits international trade. So, the dealers merely have to get their stash to the country in which they wish to sell it. This is a very lucrative, relatively low risk endeavor for them, especially since none of the bigger dealers are ever prosecuted for their crimes.

In fact, these conditions have caused an unfortunate turn of events never seen before. Organized crime is now heavily involved in the trade, like never before. We can't fight such crime in our own country. So, how can we ever expect poor African nations to combat it? Commodity speculators are also jumping in the fray, buying up all the ivory they can as an investment.

The trade simply needs to stop completely for at least a while until we can get things back under control. Otherwise, elephants as we know them will be doomed. The trade must be stopped and remain so for many years. There really is no other way to do this realistically under the circumstances. Hence, Kenya's proposal to CITES for a 20 year moratorium on legal ivory trade.

I am currently at CITES testifying on the above issue. My hope is that we will be able to shut down the trade completely, for a long time.

Thanks for your interest. If you wish to explore our Center's work, please visit our webpage at the URL below.

Best wishes,


Sam
Samuel K. Wasser, Ph.D
Endowed Chair in Conservation Biology
Research Professor, Department of Biology, Box 351800
Director, Center for Conservation Biology
University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-1800
Ph: 206-543-1669; FAX: 206-616-2011

http://depts.washington.edu/conserv/"

Oh, hooey.

This is the standard format of "more controls are desperately needed."

I can't discern how any of the problems that he addresses are going to affected by a ban.

A ban might stop the official trade but will do nothing to top poaching, which is presumably the REAL problem. Stopping the official trade is going to stop the demand for ivory? No way. He complains about all the illegal trade. How is a ban going to change that?

Little Mr. Government Controls. That will stop the illegal trade, just like it does in the US. Ha! It works so well for rhino horn!

Damn near every consumer product that is purchased in the USA is now made in China. Hmmm .... I wonder where China is gettiing all this money from to purchase ivory, inundate Zim, etc.

A buddy of mine used to be one of the biggest ivory dealers in the industry and talking to him and reading Ian Parker's books, one of the major problems with illegal ivory is that it's so easy to slip into the legal market...... one could therefore argue that it isn't the (very limited) legal trade that needs further control, it's the CITES system that needs to be better organised.

Personally, I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to legalize the trade in it -- allow companies to get involved, who could probably under-cut the black market suppliers. It would also ensure more interest and presence interested in preventing poaching.

Now, while I think we all realize that it's very unlikely that the Chinese or Indian markets would ever care about legitimacy, it might be able to be verified by having a quick DNA ID done of the intact tusk, which could then be serial numbered, sold intact, and then verified again at customs -- yes, it would add some expense, but probably not a significant percentage, relative to the value of a tusk.

I wonder if you could dye the living teeth pastell orange or some other color making it worthless>

I would need to know a lot more than I do about the nature of the demand for ivory before I could possibly agree with this. And even with the little I do know, I doubt that a ban on all commercial trade would be effective, even if the ban applied within the borders of CITES member countries as well as internationally.

Making such trade illegal might force the closure of now legal outlets in places like Japan and possibly other Asian nations such as China. It might also prevent many if not most people from trading in pre-ban ivory in the USA.

But wouldn't this just ultimately create a larger black market and have little effect on demand and trade? I am afraid it would.

On the other hand, I absolutely do not agree that we should just throw up our hands and give up on the war against elephant poachers. If half the money spent on the do-gooder legislative agenda were put into effective law enforcement in affected African nations, we might see some real gains.

In this month's issue of The Hunting Report, there is a long article on the elephant poaching problem in the CAR. Sudanese poachers are apparently running wild in the north of the country. Local safari operators have taken to hiring private armies and have in some cases adopted a shoot-on-sight policy against poachers. One operator claims to have personally killed a hundred poachers. A French PH was allegedly ambushed and killed by poachers in retaliation.

The French Foreign Legion would sure as hell put a stop to that, if only there was the will to bring them in and the money to pay for it.