It's eye-rolling that you should jump straight to a demand for an objective reason when getting into an ethical discussion. It's like demanding nothing less than irrefutable proof; an astronomically high, untenable, uncharitable, and unfair standard to start a discussion with.

No it isn't. It is acknowledging that there is a problem which cannot be solved by looking at it from a purely ethical perspective. How many millions more have to be spent before you accept that the war cannot be won by prohibition? Particularly when those making the ethical arguments don't even agree amongst themselves.

It's easy to say "raise elephants for tusks" without giving one brain cells worth of thought to what that involves. And, unlike your demand for objective moral reasons, I can reasonably demand that you answer these questions before you carry on with your asinine idea of raising elephants for tusks - because the idea necessarily entails these considerations, especially the last question.

The market price of the Ivory will be set such that it is a viable buisness. Essentially all you need is a large area of land which is fenced in, exactly like many safari parks are currently. The contact between owners and elephants can be almost zero until the best point which the animal is to be killed. It may even be cheaper than current black market ivory due to criminal elements not taking cuts of the eventual sale price for smuggling etc. You are assuming that the market for ivory is so large that it requires "battery farms" when it doesn't.

which tells me you care about intelligent animals' gratuitous suffering

I am a realist. You may as well be an anti - drug campaigner who tries to take a moral stand against cocaine use while ignoring the horrific deaths in South america caused by prohibition. There is no solution to this that doesn't involve elephants being killed for ivory, the choice is between it being controlled or not.