Slashdot Mirror
Elephant DNA Helps Catch Poachers
hookedup writes "By mapping the genetic profile of elephant groupings across the African continent, a team of researchers can verify where siezed ivory originated, and alert police to poaching hot spots. The study indicated that 50 percent of the samples tested were accurately located within 300 miles and 80 percent were accurate to within less than 600 miles. While still not a proactive approach, it still is a helpful tool in catching poachers."
Poaching is illegal?? I'm going to have to scramble instead I think.
I couldn't think of a sig.
"The method allows a DNA sample to be assigned to a fairly specific location, with a relatively high confidence that the assignment is correct. The study indicated that 50 percent of the samples tested were accurately located within 300 miles and 80 percent were accurate to within less than 600 miles."
... a 300 mile radius is (approx) 283,000 square miles. and 50% doesn't seem like it would be regarded by anyone as 'relatively high' ... relative to the other 50%, as it were.
... this is a fight that will be fought using legislature. Which is much less glamorous.
I don't know
I caught an interview with one of these guys on the BBC last night, and they didn't manage to explain exactly how this would help. The article makes it clearer, in that it seems to be useful for determining in which areas laws should be tightened or relaxed.
But it should be made clear that there won't be truck loads of mobile biologists roaming the savannah and forests looking for poachers
sad that this story gets 2 replies, when the latest MS/linux/media player scandal gets a hundred in less time. arg, what else can i say really. i find the preservation of an ancient and intelligent creature just a wee bit more interesting, and yet there seems to be nothing anyone can do about it. from what i know the solution to poaching can only be economic/legislative, not scientific/technical. and the people who have the power don't seem to care enough. so so sad. anyone got recent figures on elephant populations?
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
Doing DNA tests on poached tusks might determine where the elephant came from, but does nothing to stop the poacher. In fact, they can only do the DNA testing if the poacher has been caught, or if the product was found on the market. Unfortunately, in both of these cases, the elephant is already dead.
Great news if you are a lab that does DNA testing; same old story if you're the endangered species.
Sorry about the depressing subject matter, but it is all too fitting in this electronic forum, which in a strange way is almost an ironical medium to discuss this topic in. Why? Because the real and truthful reason why these creatures are endangered is because we are more concerned with things that are virtually important: our worldly possessions, our machines' BogoMIPS, why TNT moved X-Files to only three nights a week, etc. The only reason why our leaders don't do something about this situation is because they, whether we want to admit or not, are directly representing our relative interest in the situation.
In fact, the correlation between the positions of political leaders and our own positions is almost comically parallel: cry some crocodile tears about it in a public forum, and then go back to worrying about the trimmings and trappings of our decadent self-centric modern civilization. I'm just as guilty as the rest of us.
Anything that cuts down on poaching is a good thing. But there are better ways.
The best is hunting. The history of hunting bans and poaching is a very sad one but one thing made clear a long time ago is that where hunting is legal (and, more arguably, where taking ivory is legal), poaching is far less likely.
It works like this: Where hunting is legal, men (they're almost always men) on safari pay utterly ridiculous amounts of money for the privilege of shooting an elephant. The governments hit these guys up for ungodly fees. Professional hunters make money and employ locals. Everybody profits and everybody appreciates that ensuring a permanent supply of elephants is absolutely mandatory. No more elephants == no more hunters == no more incoming money. Governments will field enough rangers, anti-poaching folks with guns, to keep the poachers away because if they don't commit to protecting the elephants, the gravy train dries up.
But if ivory and hunting are illegal, the ivory becomes very expensive. Poachers are then highly motivated. Protecting the elephants becomes expensive; they aren't bringing in any money so they become a fiscal liability. You have to spend money to protect them, money that those nations don't have. Do you think poor African countries will be sufficiently motivated by their love of Mother Earth to spend enough non-eixtent money to protect the animals? Not likely. Far more likely is that bribes will be paid to find out when the few rangers will be where so the poachers can be killing animals elsewhere. Corruption ensues. Elephants don't get hunted; they get wasted. The elephants are far worse off, as a whole.
Any sort of measures to fight poaching are good. Props to the people doing this DNA work. But in the real world, it's been shown over and over again that when you make it in the financial interest of the government (and everyone else) to preserve animals, that's when animals get protected.
Hunters are the true conservationists in this world. Google on Pittman-Robertson Act if you want a good example of that principle in action.
As I understand the purpose is to distinguish between legal and illegal ivory. Legal ivory is from government "harvests" in South Africa for example so the location the elephants came from is important.
I guess it could also work with one of the other poster's idea of allowing limited tourist-hunting. Sad that it seems impossible just to ban ivory completely..
The important thing to remember is that they don't get this elephant DNA together with pig DNA, for as we all know, elephant and pig DNA don't mix.