Want to know how to identify elephants in the wild?

There are many ways to identify elephants, here we will show you. But stay tuned to see the rest. Original content from source at the bottom.

Here’s what to look for when identifying elephants.

Sex and Size



Photograph Courtesy of ElephantVoices

The general body size and shape, thickness of the tusks, and, of course, the genitalia are important factors to consider when aging and sexing elephants. This photograph shows an adult male with an adult female and her offspring in Amboseli, Kenya. Ed (at left) has just mated with Erin (second to left). Males grow to be twice the size of females. “Ed is only six years older than Erin,” Poole noted, “but he is twice her weight.”

Adult males like Ed have more massive, rounded foreheads and thicker tusks, while adult females like Erin have breasts between their front legs, slender tusks, and more angular foreheads.

Other members of Erin’s family are, from her right, an eight-year-old female, a two–year-old with emerging tusks, and an infant. (An infant is less than a year old and has no tusks.) The adult female at the far right has recently entered adulthood, but still has much growing to do. Elephants are unusual among mammals in that they continue to grow through much of their life, making body size a convenient characteristic for determining elephant age.

Source: http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/16/name-that-elephant-how-to-identify-elephants-in-the-wild/

Battle for the Elephants Episode 3: The China Ivory Market

 

TRAFFIC Responds to Blood Ivory: Ivory Worship

 

An anti-poaching patrol in Chad. Photograph by Michael Nichols/NGS File photo

Following publication of the Blood Ivory/Ivory Worship story by Bryan Christy in National Geographic last October, Steven Broad of TRAFFIC wrote the following letter. Owing to space constraints in the magazine, it was impossible to publish Mr. Broad’s letter and Mr. Christy’s response in full. In the interests of furthering the discussion about the illegal elephant ivory trade, we’re posting the correspondence here.

Dear Sir,

“Blood Ivory” by Bryan Christy (National Geographic Magazine, October 2012) amplifies two major conclusions of the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS): the illicit ivory trade is escalating and that China is the main driver. But the article gives the false impression that this ivory trade monitoring tool, operated by TRAFFIC on behalf of Parties to CITES, is a problem, rather than a solution. Indeed, for more than 20 years ETIS has helped illuminate the murky world of illegal ivory trafficking. Even the key statement in the opening paragraph—seizures of illegal ivory are at their highest level in years—is made possible thanks to the long-term, evidence-based analysis of ETIS.

Regrettably, the writer fundamentally misunderstands the design and analytical methods of ETIS. With seizure data, “what you see is what you get”, he seems to argue, not appreciating that the rigorous analysis to adjust for inherent bias allows us to “see through the raw data” and produce a robust contemporary portrait of the illegal trade. Further the writer implies that if a country does not provide ivory data, they duck notice or, alternatively, if they make lots of little seizures, they also get a reprieve. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In 2002, ETIS first identified China as the main driver of the illegal ivory trade—at a time when the world’s focus was still on Japan, and the number of ivory seizures involving China within the database stood at just 17 records. The article focuses on the Philippines, Thailand and China, all countries first indentified as significant players in the global ivory trade thanks to analysis from ETIS. Thailand, for example, has consistently rated as one of the top offenders where illegal ivory trade is permitted to flourish. Inexplicably, the article considers TRAFFIC’s advice to Thailand to take law enforcement action against the country’s retail ivory market as simply a move to “game ETIS” rather than deliver a blow to illegal trade in ivory.

ETIS indications of a declining illegal ivory trade trend following a legal ivory sale under CITES between three African countries and Japan in 1999 was backed up by analysis of thousands of seizure records. The article disputes these statistical findings, instead choosing to believe unspecified reports by unnamed NGOs, which claimed ivory trade had risen immediately following the sale, despite scant evidence to back up these claims.

And finally, to correct an error in your article, TRAFFIC’s Tom Milliken did not “remain” in the room when NGOs were expelled from the CITES Standing Committee meeting in August 2011.

TRAFFIC, like the writer of this article, remains deeply concerned at the current rising levels of illegal ivory trade and the associated poaching of elephants. It is a situation that demands global action, but action that should be guided by analysis of the many years of ivory trade monitoring data accumulated within ETIS.

Yours Faithfully,

Steven Broad

Executive Director, TRAFFIC International

 

Bryan Christy’s response:

The ETIS program run by TRAFFIC is one important tool for understanding the illegal ivory trade. However, it is not “a solution,” and overreliance on its results, especially in the case of the Japan Experiment and the question whether ivory sales cause ivory trafficking, has proved disastrous for elephants, as we detail in our story. Even China said illegal trade went up after the Japan sale, a point rejected by ETIS. [In March of this year TRAFFIC issued its latest ETIS report, concluding that illicit ivory trade for the period 1997 to 2007 did not decline, but rather “the salient pattern is really one showing relative stability.”]

As for whether ETIS Director Tom Milliken “remained” in the room when other NGOs were expelled from an important CITES ivory discussion in 2011, Mr. Milliken did initially leave the room with other NGOs, but he was then asked to return “to deliver his latest ETIS results” while other NGOs waited outside.

Source: http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/14/traffic-responds-to-blood-ivory-ivory-worship/

Battle for the Elephants Episode 2: Criminal Traders Exposed

A Powerful Weapon Against Ivory Smugglers: DNA Testing

Hong Kong Customs seized 113 ivory tusks in a cargo shipment at Hong Kong International Airport on April 30 this year. Officers detected the ivory when they X-rayed a consignment labeled "spare parts" being shipped from Burundi, Africa to Singapore via Hong Kong. DNA analysis could be used to identify the real origin of smuggled ivory. Press release photograph issued by Hong Kong Department of Customs and Excise.

With illegal ivory trade at its highest level in almost two decades, and large-scale ivory seizures more than doubling since 2009, a new commitment to submit ivory shipments for DNA testing is a welcome development.

At the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) Conference of Parties meeting in March, countries agreed to submit samples from all future ivory seizures of more than 500 kilos (about 1,340 pounds), as well as those of that size from the past 24 months, to determine the origin of the smuggled ivory.

The goal is to establish where the organized criminal networks responsible for these massive shipments are targeting elephants and then to focus law enforcement efforts on those poaching hot spots.

The latest report of the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) noted that almost none of the 34 large-scale seizures made from 2009 through 2011 resulted in successful investigations of the criminals behind the transactions. Thus far, DNA from less than 5 percent of ivory seizures has been provided for analysis.

“The single most important thing we can do is figure out where the killings are taking place,” says Samuel Wasser, Director of the Center for Conservation Biology at the University of Washington.

Wasser and his team innovated techniques for extracting and analyzing DNA from ivory. The team also developed a DNA map for African elephants that allows the geographic origin of a tusk to be ascertained within a 160-mile radius.

DNA analysis focused on origin has already produced interesting results. Testing of 6.5 tons of illegal elephant ivory seized in Singapore in 2002, 3.9 tons confiscated in Hong Kong in 2006, and another 11 tons confiscated in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan (also in 2006) determined that the massive consignments came from closely related elephants in specific localities: eastern Zambia for the Singapore seizure, a small section of eastern Gabon and neighboring Congo for the single Hong Kong seizure, and southern Tanzania/northern Mozambique for all samples in the 11-ton seizure.

Those findings proved that organized gangs were filling purchase orders by targeting whole herds in certain areas rather than by collecting ivory from disparate sources, as was previously thought.

Many agents involved in wildlife law enforcement suspect that there are a finite number of poaching hot spots, which makes targeting those areas more feasible. Anti-poaching units could patrol specific locations, and wildlife law enforcement agents could monitor well-worn smuggling routes—ensuring the biggest bang for the limited bucks.

Forensic analysis also has the power to link suspects to specific crimes. In addition to providing information on where a tusk came from, DNA analysis can be used to identify individual elephants killed in a particular incident.

When a mass killing occurs, tissue samples from carcasses can be analyzed, so that when and if the tusks enter the illegal market, they can be matched to that same incident.

Or a different one. Such was the case recently when 22 elephants (18 adults and 4 calves) were killed in Garamba, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). A short time later 36 tusks were confiscated. DNA analysis showed that the tusks did not come from those 22 elephants but from other elephants in the same overall population.

DNA analysis could also be used to show domestic ivory markets are operating legally. Recently, Chinese officials have disputed allegations of large-scale importation of illegal ivory and insisted that there is no linkage between their legal imports and the massive elephant poaching presently taking place.

One way they could prove their point would be to provide random samples of ivory from China’s legal markets for DNA analysis. If that analysis showed that it is all from Botswana, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Namibia, where one-off sales were allowed, such allegations could be rejected. But if the DNA analyses pointed to origins elsewhere, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chad, Tanzania, or Kenya, there would be clear grounds for rejecting the Chinese claims.

 

Ivory Samples as a Proxy for Government Commitment

 

In the coming months, compliance with the CITES agreement to submit ivory samples should be closely watched. While some countries might assert that financial constraints prevent them from sending in DNA samples, the truth of that claim is suspect because the analysis itself will be funded by outside sources.

And the cost of shipping samples is minimal. Each sample is about the size of a one-inch coin, and only one tusk per pair needs to be tested. So a six-ton seizure would require shipping samples weighing less than a pound in all.

If a country opts not to submit samples, one might wonder whether it is doing everything it can to stop elephant poaching and ivory trafficking. And it might cause one to wonder if the government was allowing seized ivory to find its way into the illegal trade.

In contrast, a willingness to supply samples from seized ivory will help demonstrate a country’s commitment to stopping the illegal ivory trade.

 

Ones to Watch Now

 

Following are some recent large-scale ivory seizures that should be subject to the agreement:

In January 2013:

• Hong Kong officials intercepted a container from Kenya holding 779 pieces of ivory tusk weighing 1.3 metric tons.


• Singapore officials uncovered a shipment of 1.8 metric tons of ivory (a total of 1,099 pieces of raw tusks in 65 sacks) that had been labeled “waste paper.”


• Kenyan officials confiscated 2 metric tons of ivory (600 pieces) labeled “decorating stones” and bound for Indonesia from Tanzania.

In December 2012:

• Malaysian officials confiscated two cargo containers from Togo headed to China and labeled as “wooden floor tiles.” Instead they held 2,341 pieces of tusks weighing 6,034 kilograms.

In November 2012:

• Hong Kong officials intercepted 569 pieces of tusks weighing 1.3 metric tons that were hidden in a shipping container from Tanzania marked “sunflower seed.”


• Dubai officials uncovered a shipment of 215 pieces of ivory hidden in 40 boxes containing beans.

In October 2012:

• Hong Kong officials intercepted a container from Tanzania with 972 pieces of raw ivory tusks (1.9 metric tons), along with ivory ornaments inside 91 bags of plastics scraps.


• Hong Kong officials also seized a container from Kenya with 237 pieces of raw ivory tusks (about 1.9 metric tons) that were hidden inside 50 bags of “roscoco beans.”


• Tanzania authorities arrested three men with 214 elephant tusks, secreted in several fertilizer bags.

-Source National Geographic