Many political figures and higher up people have argued that the depletion in the elephant population shouldn’t be blamed on the ivory trade. Martin Meredith shares the views of Ian Parker, a former game warden, and how he “ explained poaching losses and the decline of elephant numbers generally as the outcome of human population growth and shrinking elephant ranges, not as a result of the demand for ivory or the rising price of it” (qtd. in Meredith 202-203).  Ian Parker didn’t see the decline in the species as a major issue. He wasn’t the only one though. Not only was Parker able to project his opinion to the general public but scientists and politicians also agreed. Richard Laws, a prominent figure,  pointed out that “ for decades, the political authorities in East Africa have explained away their own very parochial failures by attributing the decline of elephant populations to poaching in the mistaken belief that the problem will evaporate once poaching is controlled. But the problem will not evaporate...increasing concentration of any species in arbitrarily restricted areas will result in overpopulation, habitat destruction, and local- perhaps even wholesale- extinction of that species” (qtd. in Meredith 205).  Richard Laws feels that this species need to be controlled. He puts aside the argument about the ivory trade and focuses on whether elephants should have the right to live due to the  “overpopulation” problem. Laws explains how the world only has a limited amount of land and resources that shouldn’t all be dedicated to one species (205). With this mentality Richard Laws is promoting the erroneous belief that society has the right to choose who lives and who dies. This is not the case though because this rationality is allowing the poachers to have the power.