Dear Editor:

It is of great concern that we could lose wild elephants in our lifetime. Poachers are killing elephants to satisfy the black market's demand for ivory at a rate that leads to one place: extinction. Elephants can't fight back against AK-47s, cyanide and snares.

Is that a sufficient definition of the problem? Is this a simple solution because humans can fight back when elephants cannot? Of course it is not simple, as the problem has existed going back to the 14th century BCE. We recently tried to turn it into a legal trade and the black market trade expanded, putting elephants at a greater risk. Imagine you know what you are doing is wrong, but you do it anyway because if you don’t, your support to be elected will be taken away. This has happened and officials did not do their job in order to keep their job. They forgot to examine the real problem before accepting extortion.

Define the elephant problem in its components. What makes ivory valuable? Why would a person risk their life to obtain the ivory to be sold for money and not for their own use? Do poachers lack access to livable wages? Is the elephant the only animal in which nature includes an ivory component? Is it the only source for making white piano keys? Is the ivory trade the only reason the elephant population dropped from 1.3 million to 600,000 in ten years? Do poachers also lose lives? Is greed and corruption part of this problem? Is need for weapons a driver to sell ivory a part of the problem? Are reasons for devaluing the life of elephants and other ivory bearing animals for mankind to survive or for mankind to get rich? Do we have all defined components of this problem?

Many solutions have been tried and failed. Does that mean we stop trying solutions, or do we need to find solutions that simultaneously solve all components of the problem? Simple answers do not solve complex problems. Step one is to define the problem before you offer a solution.

Jarryl Larson

Edgecomb