Banning all ivory trade will collapse consumer demand.Д¦. The China market is so huge that there are not enough elephants in Africa to supply demand.ДҐ. Increasing ivory supply will only increase ivory demand, as demonstrated by the two вЂњone-offвЂќ ivory sales from southern Africa.Д¤. Corruption is so widespread that no system of legal trade could ever work.ДЈ. The existence of legal ivory can be used to вЂњlaunderвЂќ illegal ivory.Дў. (Since China is the prime recipient of poached ivory, it determines the future of elephant poaching, and the discourse below applies mainly to China.) The arguments go like this:ДЎ. The prohibitionist argument depends on six premises. This coalition mischaracterizes the situation to rally public opinion and high-level political support in Western governments for a policy opposed to what in past years was a holy grail вЂ“ sustainable development. IFAWвЂ™s president recently wrote an article headlined, вЂњ ThereвЂ™s no such thing as a Sustainable Wildlife Trade.вЂќ Now, conservation organizations such as the Wildlife Conservation Society and World Wildlife Fund have joined forces with the prohibitionists. They consistently oppose all commercial use of wildlife, regardless of whether such uses are sustainable, and even positive, for habitat and species conservation. This prohibitionist approach is advocated by groups such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the Humane Society of the United States.

The complete ivory ban strategy relies on the same prohibitionist thinking, without considering the alternative of regulated use and taxation accompanied by consumer education to lower demand, a strategy which has shown success in reducing tobacco use.

The results have been the rise of brutal criminal gangs, widespread corruption of government officials, and increasing use of illegal drugs. It recalls the вЂњWar on DrugsвЂќ вЂ“ and we have seen how well the War on Drugs has worked. The ban-ivory-everywhere policy pursues a top-down, authoritarian approach that aims to protect wildlife through prohibiting trade, increasing law enforcement, and constricting supply by confiscation and destruction. It inflicts questionable policies on African countries, with disastrous consequences for both AfricaвЂ™s people and wildlife. Regrettably, this вЂњ Stop IvoryвЂќ approach reflects an overly simplistic, Western viewpoint founded in animal rights ideology. After studying the issue closely, IвЂ™ve come to the conclusion that a limited legal trade in ivory is likely to help elephants more than the current prohibitionist regime.ДЄ coalition of US and European groups is encouraging worldwide domestic trade bans on elephant ivory and destruction of national ivory stockpiles as a strategy to save elephants from extinction. If I believed it were that simple, I would be leading the charge to close legal ivory markets. It is a false assumption.ДЄnother false assumption is that banning the legal ivory trade will stop poaching. They all make the assumption that elephants have to be illegally killed for there to be trade in ivory.

вЂњHow about no more ivory trade, and no more deaths of these intelligent peaceful creatures due to poaching?вЂќД¬omments like the one above, posted as a response to an article advocating a legal ivory trade, reflect a widely held sentiment in the West. He is a member of the IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group. Daniel Stiles, PhD is an independent consultant who has carried out extensive research on the ivory trade and the causes of elephant poaching.

What is ivory