I agree Ranbir. I would also add to this that I'd met a particular someone who was a senior Forest Official and had two giant 6 foot long Tusks in his house. He also had a leopard and a tiger skin adorning his drawing room wall. also hanging were antlers to name a few. When asked, he replied... "Oh these... They were confiscated from poachers". Now my point is that if they were confiscated, should they not have been destroyed. Have we not seen footages of huge heaps of tusks being burnt in Serengeti, Masaimara or the Kalahari. The whole point is that there are often lots of leak holes where these 'products' find their way back into the market.

Another aspect which i would also bring in, although is a fringe point, is the fact that it it has become really difficult to displace villages from inside sanctuaries.
CASE: Similipal Tiger Reserve. It houses a large number of villages both in its core and buffer areas. The authorities tried to coerce them into moving to land outside the park as they had started razing grounds for cultivation. The next move of the authorities was to establish a "Sabuja Bahini" or the "Green Army" from people belonging to these villages to help protect the forest and make up for the lack of forest staff thereby providing them employment under the condition that they leave the park area. That should have been an incentive to the villagers to move out but on the contrary, in my last visit, I found a two storeyed concrete house being built in a village inside the park. They seem to have no intention to move.
Now here my point of contention is that if they stay ---> poachers stay ---> animals lose without even a chance. Under such circumstances how feasible would a new law's introduction be when old strategies are backfiring???