Evaluating General Sources: Elephant Poaching

Ohlssen, Trevor. "African Elephant."
12/26/06 via Wikimedia Commons.
Public Domain License.

Elephant poaching may not initially seem like an environmental science controversy, but across Africa and Asia the issue is extremely potent.  Debate over the legality of hunting elephants for their ivory tusks has lasted decades.  The aspect of criminal gangs and terrorist groups profiting from black market ivory trade makes elephant poaching more than just an animal rights issue.  Here, I will analyze the reliability of two general sources covering the elephant poaching controversy.

DOMAINS

But before I get to the articles, a note on domain names.  Different domains (URL endings) indicate the type of owner.  The most common domains are .com, .edu, .org, .biz, .name, .info, and .net.

The domain “.com” stands for commercial.  Most websites have this domain, including businesses, social network, and miscellaneous sites.  The domain “.edu” stands for education, usually used by schools and universities.  The domain “.org” stands for organization, usually used by nonprofit organizations.  The domain “.gov” stands for government, and is used only by official US government (local, state, or federal) websites.

The domain “.biz” stands for business, and obviously is used by businesses.  The domain “.name” has URLs containing personal names, signaling that website will be solely about that person.  The domain “.info” is for information.  And finally, “.net” stands for network, and in theory supposed to be used for networking sites, but now is used as an alternative to .com.

Domains .edu and .gov are generally credible, since they come from established and respected sources.  Depending on the organization, .org domains could also lead to credible sites.

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC ARTICLE

The first article I looked at, “Can Elephants Survive a Legal Ivory Trade?  Debate is shifting Against It,” came from National Geographic.  Its URL ends in .com.  The credibility of this domain varies widely, since the types of websites under this domain are so diverse.  However, given the respect and standing of National Geographic, I find this site credible.

The National Geographic article was written by Christina Russo.  She works as a reporter for The Dodo, an online newsletter about animals and caring for animals, both domestic and wild.  Prior to working for The Dodo, she was a freelance reporter, which is how he story was featured in National Geographic.  Russo earned a master’s degree in Animals and Public Policy from Tufts University.  Based on her degree and the prestige of Tufts University, I believe it’s still safe to say this article remains credible.

The article was published on August 30, 2014.  The site does not indicate if it has been updated since.  By looking through other articles on elephant poaching, however, I know the information is not out of date.  My second article, “Elephant poaching crisis unchanged a year after global pledge” indicates this article is still relevant.

The purpose of this article is to inform.  Russo gives the viewpoint of those opposing and advocating banning ivory trade.  She examines the issue of ivory trade from ecological, economic, and cultural aspects.  Although the article headline does indicate a support against legal ivory trade, Russo seems committed to covering the complexity of this many faceted issue.

The graphics reflect the diversity of the text, better illustrating the ideas presented.  They range from showing finished ivory products (depicting the goods of ivory trade), to live elephants (showing zoologist interacting with the animals), to freshly hunted elephants (illustrating the brutality of poaching).  There is also a helpful map that charts ivory trade routes across Africa and Asia.

As mentioned before, the article seems only slightly biased towards supporting an ivory trade ban.  Readers of National Geographic are interested in protecting and preserving wildlife, and this article appeals to that audience.  However, they aren’t completely biased, and are still reporting factual evidence, as well as pro-ivory trade viewpoints.

The links within the article are frequent and functional.  They lead to different reports on different organizations’ support for or against ivory trade, as well as statistics about elephant killings.  These links lead to reputable sites, and are given within context that resonate credibility, such as descriptions of the professionals interviewed.

THE GUARDIAN ARTICLE

Many credible aspects of the National Geographic article apply to second article I found.  Published by The Guardian, it is titled “Elephant poaching crisis unchanged a year after global pledge.”  Similar to the first article, although the URL ends in .com, The Guardian is a respected general source.

Karl Mathiesen, an environmental journalist for The Guardian, wrote this article.  He also runs Eco Audit, a weekly series dedicated to investigating the facts of current environmental issues.  Based on this, Mathiesen seems very dedicated to his work and field, and would most likely be considered an expert.

This article was written March 23, 2015, and has not been modified since.  Because this article has been written so recently, and because the statistics given in the article seem credible, this article is not out of date.  The links are functional.  They lead to statistics on elephant poaching and ivory trade; further information on the global accord of countries agreeing to fight illegal wildlife trade, which was mentioned in the National Geographic article; and a quote by the former UK foreign secretary, taken from the official government website.

The purpose of this article is to provide information on the lack of progress in decreasing elephant poaching.  Mathiesen is interested in raising awareness on the topic, and through his language subtly expresses his frustration that more has not been done since the accord was signed a year ago.  This article is more biased than the first one, obviously advocating for not only a ban on ivory trade, but also an effective way of enforcing the ban.  It focuses more on the elephants themselves and politics of hunting, rather than the economic aspects.

There are two graphics in this article: a photo and a chart.  The photo is of a huge pile of severed ivory tusks that a national park seized, illustrating the magnitude of elephant poaching.  The chart shows how hunting levels have generally increased since 2002, and how hunting levels of the last five years are unsustainable (higher than natural birth rates).