Discuss about banning on killing elephants?
The articles provided herein, deals with one of the most relevant topics of today’s world “BANNING OF IVORY SALES”. Ivory obtained from elephant tasks are being sold in the market illegally and to meet this sort of illegal businesses, elephant killing is increasing day by day thereby endangering the life of the largest living mammal on land. The articles have been published by the editorial board of two leading newspapers in United States of America. The first Article has been published by the editorial board of The New York Times. It provides a brief report on the Banning of the Ivory Sales in America. Herein the Editorial Board provides that a briefing of the killing rates of elephant in Africa and the need for framing a strict law against the people who are doing offence. The second Article have been published by the Editorial Board of The Los Angeles Times. It provides a general briefing on the grounds and basic needs of Approving the bill on Ivory Sales. The Editorial Board herein speaks about the requirements for passing of the bill that would completely ban the export and import of the ivory tusk within the whole world, that is being practiced rigorously by people without any fear of being caught for doing such an offence. According to my point of view, I would like to put forward Article 1 i.e Article issued by the New York Times Editorial Board as a more eloquent and efficacious among the two for the Banning of Elephant Killing in Africa and putting a bar to the Export/Import of Ivory tusk. This Editorial Report says that the killing of elephants are increasing day by day and now the recent statics of that at least 30000 to 35000 of elephants are being killed day by day, thereby endangering the life of this species. It also herein provides that there should be a total banning of the sale of ivory tusks whether new or old, so as to completely reduce the rate of killing the elephants in Africa
Review of Article 1:
The Article has been published in the New York Times by the Editorial Board of the daily and was published on 17th February, 2014. The Article is titled “Banning Ivory Sales in America”.
The author in the Article has highlighted the dwindling problem related to ivory sales and the illegal poaching on elephants to boost up their sales. In order to save the African elephants, various steps have been taken by the Government as well as the International Bodies, yet no fruitful gain has been made in this regard (The New York Times).
In the inception of the Article, the author has very lucidly explained that because a widespread black market persists in the world, the poachers find it very beneficial for their financial conditions. Concrete figures have been pointed by the Author that directly point to the fact that the market rate of ivory is too high and hence, the rate at which elephants are being hunted is also rising for which it is very likely that the species shall soon become extinct if this continues.
The author has also very appropriately used certain numeric figures in the Article to pin point the amount of damage that has already been done or the amount of damage that is likely to be done. Considering the number of poaching activities, and the concern it has caused to the ecological balance, steps have been taken by the Obama Administration as well. It has banned virtually all imports of ivory in any form (The New York Times).
The Interior Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service clearly pointed that all the imports shall be banned so that no amount of ivory that has been received after the year 1990 enters into the market of USA.
The main points that the editorial board has tried to highlight is that if ivory import obtained after 1990 is stopped, then, it shall have an effect on the business strategy and may be as a result, the illegal poaching of the elephants might come to a stop. The elephants are regularly being killed so that the ivory can be sent to the international market and USA being one of the leading importers of ivory products, it is very likely that if USA stops buying products obtained after 1990, then the market shall go through a set back and hence the poaching will come down to a great extent (The New York Times).
The purpose of this is to cut down the rate at which elephants are being poached simply to get benefits.
Review of Article 2:
The second Article has been published in The Los Angeles Times by The Times Editorial Board on 7th June, 2015. The Article is titled “Editorial Assembly Bill on Ivory Sales is Worth Approving”.
In this Article, the researchers and the authors have maintained the view as expressed by the authors of the previous article. They also have pointed that elephants are poached mercilessly in various parts of Africa just in order to obtain the ivory and result in the species becoming endangered (Los Angeles Times).
The states of California, New York, New Jersey etc have banned the business dealings with any products related to ivory. Even then, the rate of poaching has not come down considerably and the elephants are still being killed for their tusks.
The Article points that the US government had passed a law that prohibited the import of ivory procures after 1990 (as stated in the previous article). But presently, focus has been shifted to stop all kinds of imports as many forgeries are being done by the traders to mark the ivory to be an old one. Statistical data has been shown by the authors who provide that in various instances, traders have resorted to stain the new ivory to give it the look of an antique (Los Angeles Times). The innocent customers under the falsified impression buy the ivory and enter into illegal dealings.
There have been certain exemptions that have been planned by the Government agencies. These exemptions extend to musical instruments which have proper documentation which represents that the same was not obtained after 1975 and other exemptions relate to antique objects which have an ivory content of less than 5%.
A threshold limit of six months is proposed by the bill to ensure that all dealings that are going on get finalized before July 2016.
In the first Article, the authors have pointed the audience to be the public at large who might be interested in ivory products and to let them know of the regulations so that they refrain from getting close to the products.
But it has also been pointed that the poachers will forge the documents to prove that none of the ivory is new and that all was obtained prior to 1990. There are several exigencies associated with this. While on the one hand, there will be forged documents; there can also be a situation that illegal imports shall start taking place. Thus, it might prove to be a fatal step rather than being beneficial.
On the other hand, there are positive aspects as well. The move seems to have been taken on a correct point when the number of these animals has still not entered in to the endangered category. There have been steps to ban trading with ivory to any extent within the state of New York. Thus, there shall be no confusion regarding the date on which the product is obtained. This way, control can be brought down to a larger extent.
In the second Article, it has been pointed that this new measure also has certain advantages as well as certain loopholes. There were times when constitutional claims were put forth by the traders when California had planned to outlaw dealings related to shark fins. Similar claims can appear in this instance as well. But generally, the judiciary does not extend benefits in these matters (Los Angeles Times).
It has been pointed by the authors that this Bill if turned into a law can help to a great extent to control the situation. But because of the exemptions, chances do not fade away that the law shall not be misused.
On evaluating both the articles herein provided, Article 1 is more compelling and credible than
Article 2. There are quite a few reasons behind choosing Article 1 as the more eloquent one in this matter. If we properly go through both the articles attached, we would find out that though article speaks of banning of ivory sales, it doesn’t provides for the complete banning of it entirely within the country. It states that educational institutions and scientific research centers can be allowed to purchase ivory tusk with certain restrictions as well as owners can hold ivory tusk legally and if wishes can give it away or bequeath as there no such rules prohibiting it. Such a rule means that would completely stop the killing of the elephants. It also provides that if the bill is passed during this time, it will not be having effect before 2016, which means till then killing of elephants will continue and by that time elephants will almost reach to the number of being treated as extinct species. Article 1 is more preferable in my eyes for it claims for complete dissolution of killing of elephants thereby protecting them from being called as extinct group of animals. Article 1 says that there would be a complete ban as to the purchasing or selling of ivory tusk within the states. There should be an enforced law that would provide for complete ban unless it is seen that the holder holds an ivory tusk which is more than 100years old i.e the burden of proving that the tusk has been obtained before 1990 depends on the tusk holder and if he cannot prove it, he will be charged with an offence and will be penalized for such offence.
The conclusion that can be drawn from the topic, “BANNING ON KILLING ELEPHANTS”, may be summed up in this manner. If immediate measures are not taken in respect of the business of ivory tusk that is being practiced all over the world, then it is not to far when we would get to hear that the largest land mammal have become extinct. The thesis that have been provided by article 1 should be reflected as early as possible so that we can make sure that there is no more killing of elephants in future. And strict laws should be enforced against the offenders so that people fear to kill an elephant and that they exist on this earth with no fear of being endangered.
Los Angeles Times,. 'Editorial Assembly Bill On Ivory Sales In Worth Approving'. 2015: n. pag. Print.
The New York Times,. 'Banning Ivory Sales In America'. 2014: The Opinion Pages. Print.