The goal is to have no market. Your inner economist thinks there must be a market. These two are at odds. Your inner economist is correct. There will always be

The goal is to have no market. Your inner economist thinks there must be a market. These two are at odds. Your inner economist is correct. There will always be a black market. The goal then is to change the demand. One way is to change the social understanding. Take "blood diamonds" as an example. That was a social movement to tie diamonds to diamond production used to fund wars and atrocities. That was enough of a concern that the diamond industry started to certify the origin of their diamonds. By publicly declaring "ivory has no worth", and with visual displays like this, it makes the point that it's simply not acceptable to have any trade in ivory, and that even possession isn't worthy goal. If there is a market of "legal" ivory, it becomes harder to identify illegal ivory. We see that now, where people will advertise that a given ivory is pre-ban even though it isn't. Also, if the government starts to get an income stream from selling captured poached ivory, I think the government will start to plan its budget around that income. I think about the various places which marketed a state lottery plan as a supplemental income source for schools or historic preservation, only to find that it became a way to shift away existing funding, making the schools, etc. dependent on lottery income.