Jenica Woolley

5 September 2012
AP Environmental Science
Elephants Dying in Epic Frenzy as Ivory Fuels Wars and Profits
A recent influx in the number of elephant killings in the Democratic Republic of
Congos Garamba National Park is catching the attention of many authorities and
conservationists nationwide. All are trying to identify the root of the problem in order to
snuff out poachers. Most of the ivory is sold to Chinese markets at very high prices. The
article mentions that Chinas recent economic fortune has enabled many middle class
citizens the ability to purchase ivory. The article dictates that one pound of ivory can sell
for as much as $1000 on the streets of Beijing, while alternately; native poachers could
hand over tusks for the mere price of a bag of salt. What sets this current story apart
from other poaching incidents is what a US wildlife official describes as the greatest
percentage loss of elephants in history. The Garumba area historically supported an
elephant population of 20,000. Today, that number has dwindled to 2,800 last year.
The article mentions several groups involved in the elephant poaching. These
include rebel armies such as the Lords Resistance Army, Shabab, and Janjaweed, as well
as an official Ugandan military helicopter team. The organizations supposedly use the
ivory money white gold to buy weapons and supply other needs. Additionally, the
article describes Tanzanian villagers poisoning pumpkins for elephants to eat, and
Garumba park rangers selling tusks to support their families.
So how does this New York Times article relate to our Environmental Science
class? There are two ways. Firstly, the elephants are in danger. If poachers continue to
kill the elephants at the current rate, the population is headed for the endangered species
list. This is a prime example of humans directly hurting the environment. There is a
quote by Jonas Salk that reads If all the insects on earth disappeared, within 50 years all
life on earth would disappear. If all humans disappeared, within 50 years all species
would flourish as never before. And in this situation it rings true; if humans would leave
the elephants alone, their population would most certainly flourish. Secondly, this is a
prime example of reporters altering the information to appeal to readers. For example,
even though the Lords Resistance Army was one source of the ivory, the article
emphasizes that Ivory may be Mr. Konys new lifeline, and has many paragraphs
dedicated to Joseph Kony and his organization. This is a clear reaction to the KONY 2012
campaign scam that millions of people fell victim to. Despite a elephant researchers
statement that the Congolese military is the main perpetrator of illegal elephant killing
in the D.R.C., the article repeatedly mentions Joseph Kony. Other blatant uses of
buzzwords are found throughout the entire article. At one point, in response to elephant
defense shootings, the chief ranger says that these guys were shooting like they were in
Iraq. What does an American-initiated war in Iraq have to do with elephant poaching?
Also, towards the end of the article it is described like the drug war. Now, America is
quick to blame the Africa-based, Asian-run crime for this issue, however, if they are
using the drug war analogy, America would represent China with its demand for illegal
drugs leading to thousands of deaths in Mexico. Are they any better? I laughed when I
read the sentence that Somalia has been spawning Islamist militants, gunrunners,
human traffickers and modern-day pirates . . . pledged to Al Qaeda. Excuse me, but
Somalia is thousands of miles away. The reporter is only mentioning Al Qaeda and
Islamists to spark reactions within American readers. But what really takes the cake,
more than the article calling the park rangers debt-owing alcoholics, is the American
taxpayer money paying for the jet fuel for the [Ugandan] helicopter. Nothing gets
Americans more riled up than hearing about the misuse of their precious tax dollars.
In conclusion, my analysis of buzzwords and reader influence should not
minimize the injustice inflicted on elephants. Their future is in danger, and in the hands
of human beings. Theres no way for them to save themselves. It is just very
disappointing to see a writer inserting such propaganda and obvious manipulation into
an otherwise pure-intentioned environmental issue.