Virginia Ivory Ban Bill Defeated

[Critter]

[Post in General approved by Spark]

The Virginia Senate Committee for Courts of Justice voted 13-0 to strike the recently introduced Ivory Ban bill, SB 1215, at the request of sponsor Senator Adam Ebbin (D-30). Ebbin made the request after an alliance of organizations opposed to the bill, including Knife Rights, helped make it clear to the committee members that it was terribly problematic for honest, law-abiding Virginians, stealing millions in value from them, and that it would not save a single living elephant in Africa.

When we are allowed the opportunity to explain the facts involved and the reality of the illicit trade in elephant ivory, in which Americans have virtually no involvement whatsoever, we have a good chance of changing the minds of those who have been mislead by emotionally charged and politically motivated efforts to ban legal elephant ivory that's been in the country for decades and mammoth ivory that's 10,000 years old.

The bright light of the truth and facts can carry the day given half a chance. Like all Americans, we find the poaching of African elephants appalling. Unfortunately, instead of going after poachers, smugglers and traders of illicit ivory, Ivory Ban bills only attack innocent Americans without any likelihood of having an impact on the poaching problem.

Historically, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintained the position that virtually all ivory in the U.S. has been legally imported and, most importantly, that its sale in the U.S. did not materially contribute to the illegal ivory trade.

Knife Rights abhors the poaching of all species. The proven solution is to attack poaching at the source, not punish those who cannot have any effect on poaching. Successful anti-poaching programs, such as those that have been implemented in Namibia, for example, have demonstrated that an integrated comprehensive approach that encourages the locals to fight poaching does work. This is the sort of solution that should be expanded and encouraged by the U.S. and by all who really want to end poaching.

Be the first to know. Get the latest Knife Rights updates:





And, sign up for our FREE News Slice™ Newsletter for more news you need to know.

 

[Twindog]

[Post in General approved by Spark]

When we are allowed the opportunity to explain the facts involved and the reality of the illicit trade in elephant ivory, in which Americans have virtually no involvement whatsoever, we have a good chance of changing the minds of those who have been mislead by emotionally charged and politically motivated efforts to ban legal elephant ivory that's been in the country for decades and mammoth ivory that's 10,000 years old.

The bright light of the truth and facts can carry the day given half a chance. Like all Americans, we find the poaching of African elephants appalling. Unfortunately, instead of going after poachers, smugglers and traders of illicit ivory, Ivory Ban bills only attack innocent Americans without any likelihood of having an impact on the poaching problem.

Historically, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintained the position that virtually all ivory in the U.S. has been legally imported and, most importantly, that its sale in the U.S. did not materially contribute to the illegal ivory trade.

Knife Rights abhors the poaching of all species. The proven solution is to attack poaching at the source, not punish those who cannot have any effect on poaching. Successful anti-poaching programs, such as those that have been implemented in Namibia, for example, have demonstrated that an integrated comprehensive approach that encourages the locals to fight poaching does work. This is the sort of solution that should be expanded and encouraged by the U.S. and by all who really want to end poaching.

Of course, what Doug Ritter doesn't say in all the "bright light of truth and facts" is that US Fish & Wildlife's current position is that the current limited ban serves as cover to support a strong and growing trade in the United States for blood ivory. Ritter doesn't say that in previous posts, it has been shown that tons of blood ivory are coming into this country and in places where enforcement has been pushed in the US, such as Los Angeles, more than half the seized ivory was blood ivory.

Ritter says the ban on mammoth ivory is "emotional," when in fact he knows that USFW itself says that its few agents do not have the means to distinguish from blood ivory and mammoth ivory without extensive training and enforcement resources that are not available.

It's virtually impossible to stop poaching, and it's extremely difficult to even stop trade in blood ivory because of corrupt countries like China and because of ill-motivated pressure brought by special interest groups like Knife Rights.

This issue is not about knife rights. It's about money and the special interest groups that profit from the blood ivory trade.

It's not surprising to see politicians cave to the money that feeds them, rather than serve the people who elect them.

 

[ncrockclimb]

I agree 100% with everything TwindDog said.

This is not an issue that effects my ability to own and use knives. This is an ivory issue, and I am disappointed and disgusted that Knife Rights has decided to expend its limited resources on this issue that is outside of its mission statement. The fact that Knife Rights post grossly inaccurate information about this issue is also deeply troubling.

Here are the points that the pro-ivory people and Knife Rights never talk about.

The greatest threat to elephants is poaching to supply the global trade in ivory.

The US is the #2 market for the trade in ivory. Illegal ivory sales represent a significant portion of the US ivory market.

It is extremely difficult to differentiate legally acquired ivory from ivory derived from elephant poaching. Illegal ivory dealers hide their sales by marketing their product as “legal” ivory. It is extremely difficult to (sometimes impossible) to tell the difference between legal and illegal ivory.

By advocating for loopholes for "pre ban", mammoth, ivory from legal hunts, etc, you make it easier for the illegal ivory industry to operate.

Every major group (without a financial interest in the ivory trade) dedicated to protecting the elephants supports a total ban on ivory sales. Why is it that the only people that oppose this ban have a significant financial interest in the global ivory trade?

Totally eradicating the #2 market for ivory in the world will make it more difficult for the illegal ivory trade to operate.

By opposing the ban on ivory trade, D Ritter, Knife Rights and the pro ivory crowd indirectly support the continued slaughter of the few remaining elephants.

 

[Screwdriver]

Of course, what Doug Ritter doesn't say in all the "bright light of truth and facts" is that US Fish & Wildlife's current position is that the current limited ban serves as cover to support a strong and growing trade in the United States for blood ivory. Ritter doesn't say that in previous posts, it has been shown that tons of blood ivory are coming into this country and in places where enforcement has been pushed in the US, such as Los Angeles, more than half the seized ivory was blood ivory.

Ritter says the ban on mammoth ivory is "emotional," when in fact he knows that USFW itself says that its few agents do not have the means to distinguish from blood ivory and mammoth ivory without extensive training and enforcement resources that are not available.

It's virtually impossible to stop poaching, and it's extremely difficult to even stop trade in blood ivory because of corrupt countries like China and because of ill-motivated pressure brought by special interest groups like Knife Rights.

This issue is not about knife rights. It's about money and the special interest groups that profit from the blood ivory trade.

It's not surprising to see politicians cave to the money that feeds them, rather than serve the people who elect them.

Agree 100% - Will not buy anything with Doug Ritter on it.

 

[22-rimfire]

Great to hear that the ivory ban bill was defeated in committee. Keep up the good work Doug!

 

[ron_m80]

Do you guys ever get tired of repeating yourselves?

 

[22-rimfire]

I didn't even read those couple of posts as I assumed it was the same dribble from the mega ivory thread that I have lost total interest in.

 

[ncrockclimb]

Do you guys ever get tired of repeating yourselves?

Do you? You and the pro-ivory movement continue to make the same disingenuous arguments that have zero basis in fact.

Again, EVERY group (without an financial interest in protecting the sale of ivory) working to protect the rapidly shrinking elephant population supports a total ban on the sale of ivory. The only groups fighting this ban have a financial interest in protecting the ivory trade.

 

[22-rimfire]

Do you? You and the pro-ivory movement continue to make the same disingenuous arguments that have zero basis in fact.

Again, EVERY group (without an financial interest in protecting the sale of ivory) working to protect the rapidly shrinking elephant population supports a total ban on the sale of ivory. The only groups fighting this ban have a financial interest in protecting the ivory trade.

I have no financial interest and you make the same statements that are not fact based. I support the little guy who might just happen to own some ivory and the ban would simply make it impossible to sell that ivory down the road. That is not fair. Enforcement is the key.

 

[ncrockclimb]

I have no financial interest and you make the same statements that are not fact based. I support the little guy who might just happen to own some ivory and the ban would simply make it impossible to sell that ivory down the road. That is not fair. Enforcement is the key.

Please point out which statement I made is not factual. EVERYTHING I said is supported with multiple sources in the longer thread on ivory.

You support continuing to allow the sale of ivory despite the fact that it contributes to the illegal ivory trade.

 

[stabman]

Agree 100% - Will not buy anything with Doug Ritter on it.

Well, I don't agree 100%, and I like annoying people...so I think the next knife I get may just be a Ritter Grip. :thumbup:

 

[22-rimfire]

NC RockClimb; Any time you use the word "EVERY", it is almost always an incorrect generalization. I don't agree that selling pre-77 ivory supports poaching in Africa at all. Nor do I think a private individual should be potentially penialized because he owns some thing that was later "banned" and as a result becomes a criminal if he sells it by normal means. I support saving the African Elephant from poachers, I simply do not feel any new US bans will have any impact what so ever here in terms of saving elephants and certainly the Asian countries where most of the illegal ivory is transported and sold have no enforced ban.

 

[ncrockclimb]

Any time you use the word "EVERY", it is almost always an incorrect generalization. I don't agree that selling pre-77 ivory supports poaching in Africa at all. Nor do I think a private individual should be potentially penialized because he owns some thing that was later "baned" and as a result becomes a criminal if he sells it by normal means. I support saving the African Elephant from poachers, I simply do not feel any new bans will have any impact what so ever in the US and certainly the Asian countries where most of the illegal ivory is transported and sold have no enforced ban.

It has been demonstrated that the illegal ivory trade uses the sale of "legal" ivory as a screen for its smuggling activities . Again, it has been demonstrated that it is very difficult (and often impossible) to differentiate between "legal" ivory and poached / smuggled ivory. By allowing the continued sale, you create an environment where smugglers can flourish. Again, this is documented and agreed to by every elephant protection group that does not have a vested interest in the sale of ivory.

 

[ron_m80]

Do you? You and the pro-ivory movement continue to make the same disingenuous arguments that have zero basis in fact.

Again, EVERY group (without an financial interest in protecting the sale of ivory) working to protect the rapidly shrinking elephant population supports a total ban on the sale of ivory. The only groups fighting this ban have a financial interest in protecting the ivory trade.

I am not pro Ivory. I am anti-poacher you nitwit. I have said it several times.

 

[Mark Knapp]

It has been demonstrated that the illegal ivory trade uses the sale of "legal" ivory as a screen for its smuggling activities . Again, it has been demonstrated that it is very difficult (and often impossible) to differentiate between "legal" ivory and poached / smuggled ivory. By allowing the continued sale, you create an environment where smugglers can flourish. Again, this is documented and agreed to by every elephant protection group that does not have a vested interest in the sale of ivory.

None of the things you say have been demonstrated have been. Your continuing to repeat it over and over does not make it true. Some of you guys just don't want ivory to be used in the U.S. We get that.

 

[ncrockclimb]

None of the things you say have been demonstrated have been. Your continuing to repeat it over and over does not make it true. Some of you guys just don't want ivory to be used in the U.S. We get that.

Mark, I have cited multiple articles and factual sources. Others have posted many others. US Fish and Wildlife supports our stance. You offer no factual evidence, and continue to dismiss anything that you cannot disprove.

Again, Mark, help me to understand why you have such different point of view than all the organizations that do not have a financial interest in protecting the global ivory trade. Could it be that you make your living selling ivory products?

 

[John_0917]

I agree with about 98% of what posts #2 and 3 said...I really couldn't care less about ivory related legislation, I would much rather see lobbying groups like KR focus solely on loosening (as much as reasonably possible) restrictions on knife possession, carry etc. I don't financially support Knife Rights or the NRA for the same reason: while they do lobby for issues that I support, they push others that I either don't agree with their stance on or I feel ambivalent towards.

 

[craytab]

I am not pro Ivory. I am anti-poacher you nitwit. I have said it several times.

I dont fully agree with one side or the other. Like a lot of things, I am somewhat in the middle. What I do know is calling people names does no good.

I don't necessarily like the fact that knife rights is involved in this fight but I will still support Doug and knife rights on their other endeavors.

 

[22-rimfire]

I am also anti-poacher. Ncrockclimb, when you say "every" organization that supports the ban.... again a generalization but obviously correct in this case. Facts are not always facts, just their facts. I do not support the illegal ivory trade in the USA or the world for that matter, but I don't believe making my piano which might have ivory on the keys illegal to sell is fair play. You as I recall mentioned before that I just need to get used to it as something being banned years later is just the way it is. I don't agree with that line of reasoning one bit and I don't agree that you can ban the ownership and sale of modern rifles or handguns in the US and have an apprecible impact on crime. The ban on alcohol did not work. The ban on certain drugs did not work and now we have states legalizing pot. Why is it so difficult to believe that this new ban will make one bit of difference in the US or the world for that matter in relation to African elephants and the poaching going on?

I would hate to see the African Elephant become extinct. But the US ban on ivory sale is not likely to make much difference. In terms of the extinction of these elephants or other animals, most of which have no impact on me what so ever, so it is mostly a theoretical discussion and not particularly personal to me. If I lived in Africa, I might feel different. But I suspect that the common man in Africa only views the ban business as cutting into their source of income and ability to survive the way things are structured now. Change the structure and you can impact the survival of African elephants in their natural habitat.

The climate change debate has been going on a long time now relative to man's impact on such. At first, we were headed for another ice age and it was going to happen. Then it was global warming. Now I hear talk about another ice age. Well, it is my opinion that climate change is a natural thing and is primarily influcenced by volcanism in the world. The carbon caps is just a money game for people like Al Gore and environmentalists that dislike coal and oil production and use in the power industry. The same environmentalists are against nuclear power. What's left that practical? So, I believe the ivory ban in the US is mostly a political gesture and a bone tossed to the environmental pro-ban organizations. I have said something similar to this in the last thread (about bans in general) and the comment by one was .... well, what does that have to do with ivory?

 

[ncrockclimb]

I am also anti-poacher. Ncrockclimb, when you say "every" organization that supports the ban.... again a generalization but obviously correct in this case. Facts are not always facts, just their facts. I do not support the illegal ivory trade in the USA or the world for that matter, but I don't believe making my piano which might have ivory on the keys illegal to sell is fair play. You as I recall mentioned before that I just need to get used to it as something being banned years later is just the way it is. I don't agree with that line of reasoning one bit and I don't agree that you can ban the ownership and sale of modern rifles or handguns in the US and have an apprecible impact on crime. The ban on alcohol did not work. The ban on certain drugs did not work and now we have states legalizing pot. Why is it so difficult to believe that this new ban will make one bit of difference in the US or the world for that matter in relation to African elephants and the poaching going on?

I would hate to see the African Elephant become extinct. But the US ban on ivory sale is not likely to make much difference. In terms of the extinction of these elephants or other animals, most of which have no impact on me what so ever, so it is mostly a theoretical discussion and not particularly personal to me. If I lived in Africa, I might feel different. But I suspect that the common man in Africa only views the ban business as cutting into their source of income and ability to survive the way things are structured now. Change the structure and you can impact the survival of African elephants in their natural habitat.

The climate change debate has been going on a long time now relative to man's impact on such. At first, we were headed for another ice age and it was going to happen. Then it was global warming. Now I hear talk about another ice age. Well, it is my opinion that climate change is a natural thing and is primarily influcenced by volcanism in the world. The carbon caps is just a money game for people like Al Gore and environmentalists that dislike coal and oil production and use in the power industry. The same environmentalists are against nuclear power. What's left that practical? So, I believe the ivory ban in the US is mostly a political gesture and a bone tossed to the environmental pro-ban organizations. I have said something similar to this in the last thread and the comment by one was .... well, what does that have to do with ivory?

I have no reason to doubt that you are anti-poacher. However, I see a direct relationship between the poaching / the illegal ivory trade and the continued sale of "legal" ivory in the US. To me and many others who are not emotionally or financially vested in the continued sale of ivory, this relationship is obvious.

Like many others, I do not see this as an issues that impacts my right to own and use a knife, and I really wish I was not having this conversation. I would much prefer to talk about knives. However, I find it difficult not to state the opposing logical argument to the emotional infused propaganda that D Ritter and his ilk continue to post to support their position.