Ethical, Ecological and Economic Dilemmas of De-Horning Rhinoceros As blunt as it may sound, portrayal of dehorning as a conservation tool will only disgrace the blood and sweat of bold Nepalese officials and organisations involved in the anti poaching operations. By Subas Dhakal Reflecting back on the events of 2006 as a conservation enthusiast is nothing but an appalling experience. The very New Year’s Day, political influence was (mis)utilised to impose an ordinance-based amendment of the protected area policy (now nulled) in favor of a particular NGO. The country suffered the insurmountable loss of human resources in a tragic Ghunsa chopper crash. Last but not the least; uprising of organised poaching in an unparalleled rate expunged the outcomes of revered rhino translocation as well as the outputs of anti poaching teams. It is evident that the sudden detour from ‘conservation success’ to ‘conservation failure’ has demanded quick fixes to the ubiquitous structural holes in our conservation policy/programs that have been politically inflamed. Not surprisingly, one of the noted naturalists recently proposed - ‘sawing off the horns of rhinos-removing the motivation for killing them-has been successfully tried in Namibia and Zimbabwe . De-horning Nepali rhinos may be the only way to save them’ (The Nepali Times: Issue # 337). Apart from being a superficial and provocative proposition, it also undermines the country’s efforts to save the endangered rhinos from going extinct since 1960s. An attempt is made here is to contribute to the debate by arguing that dehorning rhino is not a viable conservation tool for ethical, ecological and economic reasons. First, dehorning involves tranquilising the rhino and inhumanely removing (sawing off) the horn just above the skin line. Needless to say, dehorning is no different than deforming the body-parts thereby raising serious concerns from the animal welfare perspective. The significant ethical concern however arises after the dehorning; will the horns be destroyed or traded? There are some conservationists and conservation organisations across the globe that advocate as well as practice trading sawed off horns in the black market in the name of supporting conservation initiatives. It is very likely that dehorning experimentation with such an ethically handicapped belief of legal poaching to curb illegal poaching would actually bolster consumption instead of conservation. In contrary, some countries have destroyed the horns to ensure that it will not end up being illegally traded. However, with the backdrop of unethical politicians and their ties with the poachers, can either destroying or trading the horns be accountable and transparent enough to serve its intended purpose? Second, the underlying assumption that dehorning does not necessarily affect the overall ecological well-being of rhinos in the long term ‘if done in a right way’ is a paralogy. Animal cognition studies have clearly implied that in some species of rhino, horns play a significant role in selecting mates. Since males of some species tend to have larger horns than their female counterparts, horn size is likely a consequence of and a contributor to a natural sexual selection process. Size of the horns is also associated with the dominance aspects of behavioral ecology suggesting that dehorning may actually have adverse consequences on overall species ‘fitness’. Furthermore, studies have linked dehorning to the mortality as well as the compromised capability of females to safeguard their neonates. Thus, will comparing rhino’s horns with human finger nails and inferring that there are no functional/ecological significances actually contribute to the informed decision-making process? Third, it is often the economics rather than the ecological or ethical reasons that have inspired models of dehorning. It is assumed that rhino as a species possess a ‘total economic value’ comprising of ‘use values’ (that can be traded in the market for its worth such as the horn itself, ecotourism revenue, benefits from ecosystem maintenance and so on) and the ‘non-use values’ (that can not be traded in the market but has aesthetic worth such as the aspects of existence or bequest). Since, poachers are interested only in the horn (which is not necessarily true in Nepal ), it is argued that removing them economically deters the poachers and helps lower the cost of maintaining (legal instruments/anti poaching efforts) total economic value while denting some of the use values. However, horns are regenerative by nature and at any given point; poachers cannot be completely deterred as they will take risks to get a hold of whatever size of the horn. Thus, is country willing to pay the ultimate price of extinction if the models fail to optimise the regenerative nature of horns? It is obvious that dehorning raises more questions than answers because the root cause of recent poacher’s uprising is strengthening of their social network involving influential national and international actors. There have already been some signs of foreign involvement in bolstering the horn trade from Nepal . It is also noteworthy here to mention that Cambridge educated Bhutanese princess was arrested in Taiwan for possessing 14 kilos of rhino’s horn in 1993; indicating how camouflaged and influential the poachers network can be. Coming back to the noted naturalist’s reference that dehorning was a success in Africa is an old rhetoric as several countries have already discarded such inhumane conservation tool. Hence, without adequate ecological and socioeconomic studies, dehorning of rhinos (if it is to be carried out) is the next debacle destined to happen in Nepal . Lessons learned from rhino translocations are such that conservation efforts that lack in-depth studies, scenario analysis (few ad hoc translocations were carried out amidst the escalated insurgency and poaching), allocation of adequate budget and manpower for the monitoring and evaluation actually end up hindering rather than helping the species. As blunt as it may sound, portrayal of dehorning as a conservation tool will only disgrace the blood and sweat of bold Nepalese officials and organisations involved in the anti poaching operations. Thus, amplifying enforcement of existing legal instruments as well as disintegrating poacher’s network and their political tentacles should be the way forward, not the dehorning! (The author is a PhD candidate at the Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy, Murdoch University – Western Australia and can be contacted at subasdhakal@gmail.com)