There's a group at USC that has been working for a few years on using AI to combat poaching, with some interesting results.

http://teamcore.usc.edu/people/Paws/index.html

I'm not sure how restrictions on drone ownership would be a hindrance if drones become a useful tool in preventing poaching. After all, guns are used in fighting poaching yet gun ownership is restricted in (I presume) most countries.

It would be much better to soak some ivory in cyanide or something stronger and get it into market.

Relevant: https://www.savetherhino.org/rhino_info/thorny_issues/dyeing...

Would the cyanide slowly leach out when people touch it or something like that?

Tusks are used in "traditional medicines", among other uses.

Even the threat of poisoned ivory would be a strong disincentive for that market.

Permanently stained tusks have been used to dissuade material use (e.g., statues or figures).

Would not stained tusks have an impact on the elephants perception of each other? We as human beings have all sorts of perceptions on obesity, skin colour, hair colour..

The rhino horn dye story appears significantly overstated, looking further into it:

https://www.savetherhino.org/rhino_info/thorny_issues/dyeing...

[I]n terms of injecting dye mixed with poison into the horn (also discussed in our 'thorny issues'), it has been proven that rhino horn is not porous and that a liquid mix does not diffuse throughout the horn. In other words, the poison/dye mix remains in the drilled holes, making it relatively easy to remove and “detox” the horn if it is, indeed, to be consumed. Any remaining external discolouration can be sanded off. And tellingly, dyeing/poisoning Sabi Sands’ rhinos’ horns did not prevent animals from subsequently being poached.

I think what eknkc suggested was that the cyanide was to be applied to ivory which had already been collected, not on live elephants.

I'm not referring to cyanide, i'm referring to the colour staining of ivory on animals that are alive. The colour stops poachers wanting to kill the animal, but does it not impact the animals life - that's the question i'm asking.

Just outlawing it might be simpler.

Ivory's a beautiful, extremely useful substance; outlawing it makes as little sense as outlawing alcohol, marijuana or beef. What needs to be done is to create the appropriate legal framework and property rights to give Africans an incentive to ranch elephants. Cattle will never go extinct because people like hamburgers; the idea of elephants going extinct solely because people like ivory is mad.

Elephants are going extinct because no-one has an interest in keeping them alive. Give someone a reason to keep them alive, and the species will last forever.

> Ivory's a beautiful, extremely useful substance;

Beautiful maybe, useful, not really.

> outlawing it makes as little sense as outlawing alcohol,

Not really, prior to 2008 when the CITES relaxed ivory sale regulation, poaching was minimal. The current poaching crisis is a result of this relaxation. Not every good behaves the same way as alcohol.

> What needs to be done is to create the appropriate legal framework and property rights to give Africans an incentive to ranch elephants.

Not possible for ecological, zoological economical and ethical reasons. Elephants take at least 20 years to start growing tusks but the 'big tuskers' are ~50 years old. Also, you won't be able to produce ivory cheaper than a poacher who doesn't have to invest into the elephant. Also elephants aren't domesticated. Also they are an extremely intelligent and social species and one of the species that come up in "non-human personhood" discussions.

> What needs to be done is to create the appropriate legal framework and property rights to give Africans an incentive to ranch elephants.

Right. Establishing legal frameworks and enforcing laws in Africa is very easy.

> Elephants are going extinct because no-one has an interest in keeping them alive. Give someone a reason to keep them alive, and the species will last forever.

It's a lot more complex than that.

I've argued this before, media shaming could be really effective here. Ivory dealers as incompetent villains. Pathetic ivory consumers. It's not an addiction, it's a status symbol. Destroy the status.

Superman vs the kkk was super effective.

> Elephants take at least 20 years to start growing tusks but the 'big tuskers' are ~50 years old.

Trees also take decades to grow, and yet tree farms are a viable economy.

> Also, you won't be able to produce ivory cheaper than a poacher who doesn't have to invest into the elephant.

So the elephant rancher shoots the poacher. That's what we used to do when cattle rustling was a thing, and it worked pretty well.

> Also they are an extremely intelligent and social species and one of the species that come up in "non-human personhood" discussions.

Frankly, I don't care. Pigs are pretty damned intelligent too, but bacon tastes wonderful. Neither pigs nor elephants are men, and I'm find with killing them.

> Establishing legal frameworks and enforcing laws in Africa is very easy.

It was easier when Africa was better-run, but it can be done again.

> > Elephants are going extinct because no-one has an interest in keeping them alive. Give someone a reason to keep them alive, and the species will last forever.

> It's a lot more complex than that.

No, that is exactly the problem. Species which are useful to man survive; species which are not die; species which are inimical to man are destroyed. We're talking about exterminating mosquitoes, for Pete's sake!

If you want an animal to survive, figure out a way for it to be in someone powerful's interest. The rest will follow as day follows the night.

> Trees also take decades to grow, and yet tree farms are a viable economy.

How much does it cost to grow a tree? It costs quite a bit to raise an elephant.

> So the elephant rancher shoots the poacher. That's what we used to do when cattle rustling was a thing, and it worked pretty well.

You are implying that in your plan there would be no elephants in the wild right? Also can you tell me a bit about your knowledge of animal and in particular elephant husbandry?

> Frankly, I don't care. Pigs are pretty damned intelligent too, but bacon tastes wonderful. Neither pigs nor elephants are men, and I'm find with killing them.

Well not everyone is a psychopath so there's that.

> It was easier when Africa was better-run, but it can be done again.

I like your detailed plan. Also what African countries in particular are you talking about?

> We're talking about exterminating mosquitoes, for Pete's sake!

Idk how that's related? Do you have some device that turns poachers into mosquitoes? Do you?

> If you want an animal to survive, figure out a way for it to be in someone powerful's interest. The rest will follow as day follows the night.

Fuck yeah, fuck ethics, fuck empathy for intelligent beings, fuck ecosystems, libertarianism fuck yeah! On some level I envy you that you have one belief system you think works for everything.

>> You are implying that in your plan there would be no elephants in the wild right?

No, I think the idea is that once we have elephant breeded on ranches then the ivory becomes cheap and easily available thus making poaching business not profitable anymore, making wild elephants safe.

Of course the problem with that approach is that raising an elephant is not cheap, so ivory from domesticated elephants won't be that much cheaper. Unless you can make enough money on elephant's meat, which is also unlikely, since, as someone in this thread noticed, growing nice pair of tusks takes 50 years, and meat of old animals tend to taste much worse than that from younger ones.

Let the market solve it: patently not libertarianism.

I saw plenty of domesticated elephants in Thailand (and I assume all of South East Asia). Are African elephant some how different when it comes to this?

Those were tamed. Domesticated means selectively bred. Those animals that you saw might have seemed tame, but they are actually pretty dangerous.