Did you even read the opinion presented in the article you posted? I don’t think it’s quite the comeback the tone of your post would suggest. The two camps seem

Did you even read the opinion presented in the article you posted? I don’t think it’s quite the comeback the tone of your post would suggest. The two camps seem to break down in terms of “signaling” or “sending a message”, and the argument I represented which is grounded in the evidence. For spice we have the person pointing out that in fact these burns/crushes present a ripe opportunity to steal the ivory. In some corrupt countries, ivory burns and crushes can act as a way to steal ivory because it is not all carefully recorded in its destruction. Although initially these acts made a statement as a cry for help, such as with the first Kenya burn in 1989 that helped put ivory out of fashion in the U.S. and Europe, many in Asia find destruction to be against their culture and think the ivory could be used for making an artistic monument as a long-term statement instead. It is the Asians, especially the Chinese, whose viewpoints on this issue count the most, as they are the main consumers of ivory. Ivory crushes can detract from what is really needed to save elephants: much greater efforts on law enforcement and improving ways to protect elephants in their natural habitat. Experts clearly disagree, but I find arguments about sending messages or deterrence unconvincing, as they tend to come from the gut rather than the evidence. It’s just that kind of sloppy thinking that death penalty advocates often use when confronted with evidence as well.