Raw LLM Responses

I doubt it. The *only* people who want a legalized trade in rhino horn are rhino farmers who stand to make a lot of money. Virtually all conservation groups have been warning against opening up a legal supply of horn, because *every single time* something like that has been tried, poaching ends up getting way worse. In 2008, for example, CITES (the international group that regulates international trade in wildlife) decided to do an experiment: they'd allow a one-time, legal sale of 108 metric tons of stockpiled ivory to China, with the idea that flooding the Asian market with legal ivory would knock black-market poachers out of business. But the sale had the opposite effect: [after the announcement, *illegal* ivory production shot up by over 60%, and the sale is often blamed as one of the factors that sparked the current elephant poaching crisis.](https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S46/59/11K97/index.xml?section=newsreleases) Why? >After the 2008 sale, observers reported that people's demand for ivory surged once it was legally available and had greater public visibility. At the same time, the presence of legal ivory in the market made it easier to conceal illegal ivory from the authorities — a phenomenon known as "masquerading." [The same thing has happened with tigers.](http://e360.yale.edu/features/how_tiger_farming_in_china_threatens_worlds_wild_tigers) In China, it's legal to sell parts or products made from tigers as long as they're accompanied by a government permit certifying that the animals were bred in captivity. As a result, there is a thriving "tiger farming" industry in China that produces legal, captive-sourced tiger products on an industrial scale. You'd think that this might take the pressure off wild tigers, but ever since these farms were legally established, tiger poaching has *increased* for the same reasons that legalizing ivory hurt elephants. A government-sanctioned trade in tiger products legitimizes their use, and also prov