In 2013, the Wisconsin International Law Journal published Emily Hutchens article, “The Law Never Forgets: An Analysis of the Elephant Poaching Crisis, Failed Policies, and Potential Solutions,” focuses on the threat of elephant populations, failure to ban illegal poaching and trading, and possible solutions. Hutchens is also points out the reason on why poaching is increasing so much recently. The author provides a background information of legal trading way back to 1970s and 1980s and how poaching started to increase again in 2013. Hutchens described the ban at the beginning stopped all the trading market at the time and reduced the threat for elephant lives. But with a disagreement from Hong Kong and Japan, the trading from Zimbabwe, Botswana, …show more content…
The author resources are clear given with proper publisher, authors and URL link. The author credentials will increase more in readers’ eyes. Hutchens explains more into a high demand from Asian countries. “China and Thailand are the two primary destinations for illegal ivory consignments” (948), with such high need from big consumers like China and Thailand, suppliers (poachers) hunt for more, and more. It is a delicious undeniable offer for poachers. The ivory is a symbol for wealthy and status in some Asian countries along with tiger claws and teeth. Because the demand rises, price goes up. One kilogram of ivory can cost up to 100,000 dollars, that amount of money is tempting to everyone. “Without the demand in China the black market for ivory essentially disappears, according to Robert Hormats, a Senior United States State Department official” (949). Hutchens includes that in the article, aiming to highlight the main cause of illegal poaching. A strong back up point, because if it’s not the demand from China, poaching wouldn’t even exist. Additionally, the author adds in a comparison of laws between Botswana and Kenya. Hutchens states, “While Botswana allows for limited trade of ivory, Kenya prohibits the trade of ivory. However, Kenya’s laws regarding the treatment of elephants are fairly similar to those of Botswana” (953). Both countries still consider elephants as “dangerous animals”, elephants can be hunt with license and listed weapons. “While the laws of Kenya and Botswana are not vastly different, their disparate punishments and enforcement mechanisms allow poachers to pick and choose which laws they would rather be exposed to” (954). Clearly, the punishment is not hard enough to deter any poachers. Government laws are not effective and even destroy the whole purpose of anti-poaching. She also