4 ms·

Any scheme like this results in poachers killing the elephant so they don't wind up wasting time tracking it again later. I think this was discovered when they

Any scheme like this results in poachers killing the elephant so they don't wind up wasting time tracking it again later. I think this was discovered when they poisoned rhino horns (ground rhino horn is a traditional oral medicine) and marked them with bright color to identify them as poisoned. Poachers killed the marked rhinos and left the horns.

thaumasiotes 10y ago
This suggests the obvious approach of poisoning the horn without dying it. Did anyone try that?
- csallen 10y ago
  That's a very interesting ethical question. Maybe the better solution is to poison all the horns, but mark them as well.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    Poachers don't have to kill the animals just to save themselves time in the future. If you mark the horns, you leave yourself wide open to poachers killing the animals to get you to stop doing that.
    - csallen 10y ago
      Well, considering the poachers' current strategy is already to kill as many animals as possible, I don't think that would be an effective move on their part. It's basically just the status quo, except now poachers are just wasting their time/ammo/money and not getting anything out of it.
      - thaumasiotes 10y ago
        Good point.
  - ericjang 10y ago
    Along the subject of ethics... what about poisoning all the horns... but not marking them?
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago
  How would that help? No one would know it was poisoned until the rhino was dead. The poachers wouldn't even find out until people stopped buying rhino horn because it was killing uneducated, superstitious people thousands of miles away - which is to say, far far too late. The loss of the rhino and the elephant would be tragic, but those people who consume it do not deserve to die - they don't understand what they're doing or what they're causing, and they are worth more than rhinos. Edit, since I can't respond to your comment: There is already an information battle to convince people that traffic in and using rhino horn is not possibly good for them. If they will not believe scientists telling them that, they won't believe it's poisoned. Nothing short of a mass market and culture shift is likely to change their beliefs. Telling them it's poisoned would certainly have too many misses and too little reach to be acceptable.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    > How would that help? No one would know it was poisoned until the rhino was dead. The poachers wouldn't even find out until people stopped buying rhino horn because it was killing uneducated, superstitious people thousands of miles away. You would tell them. How do people currently know that rubbing alcohol has been poisoned? > Edit, since I can't respond to your comment: There is already an information battle to convince people that traffic in and using rhino horn is not possibly good for them. If they will not believe scientists telling them that, they won't believe it's poisoned. Nothing short of a mass market and culture shift is likely to change their beliefs. Telling them it's poisoned would certainly have too many misses and too little reach to be acceptable. 1. Yes, you can respond to any comment on its own page. 2. Yes, if the horns are actually poisoned, people will learn that they're poisoned. The feedback loop here is quite short: you announce that you've poisoned the rhino horns, people scoff, say "they'd never have the guts", and eat the horns, and then a lot of those people die. Word will get around. If they're not poisoned, then of course people won't believe that, but it's hard to blame them for accurately not believing your self-serving lies.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - 10y ago
gozur88 10y ago
If all the horns were taken there would be no point in killing elephants (or rhinos) to avoid tracking problems.

thaumasiotes 10y ago

This suggests the obvious approach of poisoning the horn without dying it. Did anyone try that?

csallen 10y ago
That's a very interesting ethical question. Maybe the better solution is to poison all the horns, but mark them as well.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  Poachers don't have to kill the animals just to save themselves time in the future. If you mark the horns, you leave yourself wide open to poachers killing the animals to get you to stop doing that.
  - csallen 10y ago
    Well, considering the poachers' current strategy is already to kill as many animals as possible, I don't think that would be an effective move on their part. It's basically just the status quo, except now poachers are just wasting their time/ammo/money and not getting anything out of it.
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago
      Good point.
- ericjang 10y ago
  Along the subject of ethics... what about poisoning all the horns... but not marking them?
LeifCarrotson 10y ago
How would that help? No one would know it was poisoned until the rhino was dead. The poachers wouldn't even find out until people stopped buying rhino horn because it was killing uneducated, superstitious people thousands of miles away - which is to say, far far too late. The loss of the rhino and the elephant would be tragic, but those people who consume it do not deserve to die - they don't understand what they're doing or what they're causing, and they are worth more than rhinos. Edit, since I can't respond to your comment: There is already an information battle to convince people that traffic in and using rhino horn is not possibly good for them. If they will not believe scientists telling them that, they won't believe it's poisoned. Nothing short of a mass market and culture shift is likely to change their beliefs. Telling them it's poisoned would certainly have too many misses and too little reach to be acceptable.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  > How would that help? No one would know it was poisoned until the rhino was dead. The poachers wouldn't even find out until people stopped buying rhino horn because it was killing uneducated, superstitious people thousands of miles away. You would tell them. How do people currently know that rubbing alcohol has been poisoned? > Edit, since I can't respond to your comment: There is already an information battle to convince people that traffic in and using rhino horn is not possibly good for them. If they will not believe scientists telling them that, they won't believe it's poisoned. Nothing short of a mass market and culture shift is likely to change their beliefs. Telling them it's poisoned would certainly have too many misses and too little reach to be acceptable. 1. Yes, you can respond to any comment on its own page. 2. Yes, if the horns are actually poisoned, people will learn that they're poisoned. The feedback loop here is quite short: you announce that you've poisoned the rhino horns, people scoff, say "they'd never have the guts", and eat the horns, and then a lot of those people die. Word will get around. If they're not poisoned, then of course people won't believe that, but it's hard to blame them for accurately not believing your self-serving lies.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- 10y ago

gozur88 10y ago

If all the horns were taken there would be no point in killing elephants (or rhinos) to avoid tracking problems.