I think it may clarify matters more and give an indication of the ways in which the ivory trade happens, but DNA evidence is like a piece of string, it has to have two ends. At the other end of this string is the corpse of an elephant which doesn't have it's tusks.
DNA has only added to information that we already knew and cleared up a few logistical details. It is still only a reactive measure that can't fully eliminate illegal ivory from the market. If you focus anti-poaching efforts in one area, the responsible cartels will only move to another area and with national borders in the way responding to this is timely and expensive. Better to decommodify ivory at the consumer end of the market.
I think it may clarify matters more and give an indication of the ways in which the ivory trade happens, but DNA evidence is like a piece of string, it has to have two ends. At the other end of this string is the corpse of an elephant which doesn't have it's tusks.
DNA has only added to information that we already knew and cleared up a few logistical details. It is still only a reactive measure that can't fully eliminate illegal ivory from the market. If you focus anti-poaching efforts in one area, the responsible cartels will only move to another area and with national borders in the way responding to this is timely and expensive. Better to decommodify ivory at the consumer end of the market.