*I don't buy the tortured logic in that article that "such production would create opportunities for laundering real wildlife products as cultured products" - if the fake horn is cheaper to make, that's like laundering blood diamonds as coal, at coal's price point.
"Another concern is that the fake horns could drive up the demand for real horns. The status that came with owning a real horn would increase as fake horns become commonly available to everyone" likewise doesn't make sense. How could one tell something is indeed a real horn, and not a fake? And why do fakes make real horns more desirable than they were before? Does Rolex encourage counterfeits, to raise their own prices? It also talks only of "ownership", when horns are used for medicine, not just status. I get the impression they worked backwards from their conclusion to find this logic.