Tag: Endangered Species

Nathan Edmondson is a writer and President of EDGE, an ambitious counter-poaching and conservation organization devoted to the innovative preservation of African wildlife. They bring new technologies and US special operations tactics and expertise to develop counter-poaching initiatives. He returns to the podcast to discuss the impact of the global pandemic on rhino poaching, what it will mean for the immediate future, and how you can help support their efforts to protect African wildlife. They cover the way poaching operates, the growing influence of poaching syndicates in Africa, the increasing sophistication of poachers’ gear and weapons, how they work with locals to deliver the support that is needed, what success looks like, and the legacy Nathan hopes to leave for his children. You can support EDGE here.

Full transcript available here: WiW81-NathanEdmondson-Transcript

Nathan Edmondson is a writer and President of EDGE, an ambitious counter-poaching and conservation organization devoted to the innovative preservation of African wildlife. They bring new technologies and US special operations tactics and expertise to develop counter-poaching initiatives. Bridget and Nathan discuss media coverage of extinction events, how he became involved in the conservation movement, and why increased cancer rates in south-east Asia have led to an explosion in rhino horn poaching. He explains that there’s a ticking clock on rhino extinction, which is absurd because it’s a solvable problem, how EDGE is involving local communities on the ground, and what you can do to help. Nathan describes bringing African rangers to train in the US for the first time in history, how they were able to see their actions through the eyes of the world and experience people looking at them as heroes. He talks getting the next generation into a conservationist mindset, making animals ambassadors for their species, and tells the story of his most terrifying moment in Africa. You can support EDGE here.

What Do You Owe The Law?

 

shutterstock_254582680In some ways, I’m one of the nuttier libertarians on Ricochet, always willing to put in a good word for David Friedman and his anarcho-capitalist theories. But I’m also a law-and-order gal: when people come together, it’s easy for me to see that they benefit from agreeing to some rules to guide their conduct (one of the reasons I sympathize with anarcho-capitalists: they, too, believe that rulemaking is such a ubiquitous feature of human behavior that there is a market for law). Moreover, I’m a lawyer’s kid, which means I grew up thinking of due process as a moral good.

For many reasons, I attempt to cooperate with the law. When our home was burgled, though nothing expensive was stolen, I took extensive notes, with accurate hand-drawn pictures of stolen items, and spent several days’ worth of time trying to expedite police action on my case. Not because I thought I’d ever get my stuff back, but in hopes that, if I cooperated with the police quickly, the burglar might actually be caught, and other residents spared the pain we had just been through. Despite my efforts, it took half a year for the police to follow up. The police refused to accept my notes and drawings at the time the case was fresh, and, months later, when a police detective finally took interest, my family had bigger problems to deal with, and we no longer could spare time to help. The material I prepared for the police still sits, collecting dust, on a shelf, a casualty of bad timing.

Even the bohemian crowd I ran with in college made efforts to help the police when we could. We were, for the most part, science and engineering students – the squarest kind of bohemian. When a pervert was roaming the village, half-climbing through women’s windows at night in order to cop a feel, we offered our ground-floor apartment in a rickety, easy-to-break-into house to the police for a stake-out. In retrospect, perhaps this wasn’t a practical offer, but who am I to judge? All I know is we tried to assist them, but were told nonetheless that the police would take no action: it seemed that this fellow (and he was a fellow – I remember his knuckly, hairy hands hovering over me) would have to completely enter someone’s abode and do something even worse before the police would care. Or whatever “We can’t act until he escalates” means.

Member Post

 

The hot question in politics that is currently being ignored by most media is not what the Republicans should do in the event of President Obama’s imperial decree that illegal aliens be issued work permits and social security cards and be exempt from deportation. The question is what are the Democrats in Congress going to […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Washington’s Unhelpful Efforts to Stop the Ivory Trade — Richard Epstein

 

Regular readers of my work are aware that I have had more than a few occasions to criticize the policy goals of the Obama Administration. In my column this week for the Hoover Institution’s Defining Ideas, however, I take on an issue of a different nature: one in which the Administration’s goals are laudable, but the means by which it aims to achieve them are hopeless.

The Department of the Interior announced last month that it is imposing a sweeping ban on the commercial trade of ivory — one that will cover both the sale of objects that contain any amount of ivory, however small, and the shipment across state lines by the owner of any object that contains ivory. This policy is part of a well-intentioned effort to protect animals like elephants and rhinos from poachers by strengthening enforcement mechanisms against the illicit markets in which products made from their horns and tusks are traded. It suffers, however, from a total disconnect between ends and means. As I write: