Ideology in My Controversy

In this post I will be examining the controversy of elephant poaching and ivory trade in a larger scope, taking into account different viewpoints, opinions, prominent figures, and established points.

Most of the groups involved in elephant poaching and ivory trade are wildlife conservation groups who want to protect the elephants in danger, as well as national parks in southern Africa that contain elephant populations.  The trade aspect involves many governments, including from the US, and different parts of Asia and southern Africa.  Armies, both on the protective side and the hunting side, are deeply engaged in the action of the conflict.

Ossanna, Lia.
"Screenshot of National Geographic Tracking Ivory Article."
9/4/15 via
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/tracking-ivory/article.html

In the midst of the elephant poaching itself, Zakouma National Park has armed rangers on the front lines defending the elephants against hunters and terrorist groups such as Joseph Kony's Lord's Resistance Army (LPA).  Organizations like World Wildlife Fund, National Geographic, and Bloody Ivory are engaged by providing news, exposure, donations, petitions, and research.  The United Nation’s Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild and Fauna Flora (CITES) handles the political aspect of regulating ivory trade.  The National Rifle Association is the most prominent American group against the ban on ivory trade, since many weapons include ivory, and would then be confiscated.

CITES has the most political power, since the convention dictates the global ivory trade regulations.  CITES forms laws, controls ivory seizures and destructions, and monitors trade movement.  Governments on a lower level also have varying amounts of power.  As discussed earlier, California passed a bill to strengthen the ban on ivory goods.  The NRA fought against the bill with a petition.  Wildlife conservation organizations are influential by spreading news of the issue to gain support and donations.

On the other side of things, the LPA continues to hunt elephants with terror by militant force and supplies, because ivory funds their organization.  Ivory also is used for many Asian carvings, which is why there’s such a huge market in China.  Ivory carvings hold traditional and artistic value, giving organizations such as The Ivory Carving Committee cultural influence and viewpoints.

Most large groups (governments, conservation organizations) involved in the ivory controversy have numerous resources, including large budgets, access to cutting edge technology, and large staffs.  However, the rangers working with Zakouma National Park have inadequate weapons to defend themselves and the elephants against the LRA’s far superior weapons.

The groups who are against elephant poaching and trading ivory obviously value elephants, animal rights, and the environment.  These groups are concerned with the brutality of hunting, and the unsustainable poaching rates, which threaten the species.  There is also a more complex level of fighting crime, since most of the ivory trade is illegal.  Ivory can fund terrorist groups such as the LPA, but can also be used for decoratively, for something as innocuous as a carving. 

Those who are against the trade ban value retaining their rights to own ivory goods.  The NRA values gun ownership and private property rights.  Those who own decorative ivory carvings value their artistic and cultural aspects, and seek to preserve the ancient Chinese tradition.  The values of terrorist groups who are funded by ivory, like the LPA and Boko Haram, usually stem from extreme religious beliefs.  To them, elephants are not valued as animals, but instead as potential profit.

Conservation organizations get most of their evidence from research.  Many conduct studies investigating elephant populations and ivory trade.  A researcher from National Geographic manufactured a fake ivory tusk with a GPS chip implanted inside to try and track ivory trade routes.  For governments, Ivory seizures themselves are some of the strongest points of evidence, as well as the trends of elephant population counts.

The NRA uses private property rights as evidence for why ivory products (weapons with ivory) should be legal.  Terrorist groups are mostly working illegally, and are not concerned with evidence.

It is hard to regulate global trade, because many governments with different jurisdictions are involved, and that is the case with ivory.  Most of the power struggle revolves around the stringency of ivory ban laws.  Currently in the US it is legal to own, import, and export sport trophies,and goods containing ivory collected before 1976.  These goods usually include pianos with ivory keys, and household goods or carvings.  Many conservation groups are fighting to tighten these conditions.

The acknowledged common ground between positions are the laws already in place, such as the 1989 international ban on ivory.  The unacknowledged common ground revolves around the brutality of elephant poaching, and is utilized most by the pro-trade groups.  Pro-trade groups won’t talk about the brutality elephant poaching itself, but rather keep to the laws and rights of trade.

Conservation groups mainly focus on people who are already sympathetic to the cause.  They want to increase these people’s awareness and desire to do something personally about the situation, such as donate money or sign a petition.  In government, both sides have to interact directly with each other to work out regulations.