Kevin Charles Redmon poses an interesting thought: can farming the horns of African rhinoceroses save the species? The horns of the rhinos are used throughout the world, from dagger handles to medicine. Though the animals are endangered, and protected under CITES, there is a lucrative black market business in poaching, especially when the horns fetch $65,000 a kilo; “demand for horn is inelastic and growing, so a trade ban (which restricts supply) only drives up prices, making the illicit good more valuable—and giving poachers greater incentive to slaughter the animal.” Poachers aren’t overly concerned with the long-term extinction risks of their prey. The focus is on the immediate value. Because the activity is illegal, timing is of the essence, and it’s apparently easier to kill and harvest the rhinos versus tranquilizing and waiting for them to go down. What if, Redmon wonders, we were to harvest the horns (they re-grow over time) by placing rhinos in captivity, guarding them well, and introducing a sustainable horn supply that doesn’t kill the rhinos?
It’s not an easy question on either side. On one hand, it is hardly unheard of to take a segment of an endangered species out of the wild to raise its numbers before reintroducing a revitalized, or at least stable, population. In the United States we have done this with the California Condor, the Bison, and the Grey Wolf, just to name a few charismatic megafuana. On the other hand, this wouldn’t be a strictly preservation move. The rhinos would be farmed for their horns. While what Redmon suggests is a long way from anything like a CAFO, it’s a step that likely makes many activists and conservationists wary. CITES would also have to legalize this method of horn harvesting, giving legitimacy to further animal exploitation. Rhinos would be just another animal that exists at our whim and for our uses.
As hard as it may be to stomach, a main issue is that current enforcement of the laws against poaching are not enough to discourage people from the business (even thought World Wildlife Fund is taking a page from the Obama playbook of terrorism deterrence). Supply and demand, as often is the case, are at the core. The focus has (and remains) on limiting the demand. It would seem that there are at least 65,000 reasons why that approach is not as effective as it could be. If we can’t control demand, can’t we try to control the supply? Don’t both ends need to be addressed? For those who seek to eliminate CAFOs, it isn’t enough to promote vegetarian/vegan habits. In the meantime, the supply must also be influenced, which is why you see campaigns to end gestation crates and battery cages. Maybe legalized production of rhino horns would help assuage the demand so that poaching would not be as profitable, and would therefore be worth a more humane form for exploitation, even if it isn’t a utopian one. Maybe it would backfire and instead increase the worldwide demand. Either way, we are running out of time to make a decision.
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal law, animal welfare, hunting Tagged: | activism, animal abuse, animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal law, animal welfare, black market, CITES, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, endangered species, Endangered Species Act, farmed animals, Kevin Charles Redmon, poaching, rhino horns, rhinoceroses, rhinos