Analysis Summary:

The article appears mostly accurate, with the central claim about reduced poaching rates after dehorning supported by the general understanding of the practice. However, the specific claim of "more than half" reduction lacks direct verification from the provided sources, though the practice itself is discussed. The article presents a generally positive view of dehorning as a deterrent, which could indicate a slight bias.

Detailed Analysis:

• Claim:** Poaching rates dropped by more than half in African reserves where veterinarians removed the animals’ horns.
  • Verification Source #2: Discusses dehorning as a method to prevent poaching but doesn't provide specific figures on poaching rate reduction.
  • Verification Source #5: Mentions deterring poaching as a goal of dehorning.
• Verdict:* The claim of "more than half" is unverified by the provided sources. The general concept of dehorning deterring poaching is supported.
• Claim:** Horns are in high demand in some parts of Asia.
  • Verification Source #4: States that rhino poaching has escalated due to demand for rhino horn.
  • Verification Source #1: States that rhino horn is believed to have medicinal properties.
• Verdict:* Supported by Verification Source #4.

Supporting Evidence/Contradictions:

• Verification Source #4: Supports the claim that rhino horn demand drives poaching.
• Verification Source #2: Supports the idea that dehorning is used to deter poachers.
• Verification Source #1: Supports the idea that rhino horn is believed to have medicinal properties.
• The specific claim of "more than half" reduction in poaching rates is not directly supported by any of the provided sources. This is a significant piece of information that is unverified.