Virginia Ivory Ban Bill Defeated

[Screwdriver]

Here is the joke.....

OMG, They are trying to ban ivory....There goes my knife rights. Because if I cannot use ivory, I cannot own a knife.

Argue all you want, it is a handle material culled from an animal that is not used for anything else, but their tusks, to be used as a handle material.

Funny eh?

 

[trevitrace]

Narwhal all the way, baby. Par excellence!

 

[Sosa]

Narwhal all the way, baby. Par excellence!

At least they eat the whale.

 

[Mark Knapp]

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?

Yes, you have cited many articles that support your position, however, they are not supported by the studies that I cited. The articles you cited did not references where they got the information they try to portray as fact,(as I have done) and because they haven't, they cannot be considered credible. I have seen many of the same kind of articles that support the use of legal ivory in the U.S. I do not cite them here for the reason I gave.

I have explained many times why IMO, the USF&W service as the stance they now have. Dan Ashe, the director, is politically appointed to his position. It's a politically motivated stance that he has. You and some others believe what it says on the USF&W service website, but again, it is not supported by the studies.

I have cited lots of factual evidence, the three ETIS studies I cited are factual, and thorough.

Why is it, that because I have a financial stake (a very small one, I can do lots of other things) in the ivory issue, my point of view is so easily dismissed by you and others here. Who do you expect to stand up for the rights of people who own and use ivory, (though others are) than people who have the stuff. Why is that so unusual to you.

I try to only comment on things I know about, if I want to comment on something I don't know much about, I try to learn about it before I talk so I don't put my foot in my mouth. If you only search out the "articles" that support your position, you have little chance of learning anything new. The studies I get my information from, that I have cited, are objective, professional, research based, analytical works. One of them sponsored by a world renowned animal protectionist group. They cannot be seen as leaning in the pro-ivory direction. We should be able to agree that the information in them is unbiased. I believe it is the best information we have available to us.

I don't have much time to spend on this so I will not be repeating myself in this thread.

I am not disputing that some ivory from poached elephants gets into the U.S. What I am disputing is how large the problem is. The studies suggest that it is a very small amount (less than .01% of the overall problem) and to completely stamp it out in the U.S. would not solve the problem in Africa, or even slow it down.

I think that what the US has begun to do in the way of sanctions on countries that allow smuggling and poaching, along with the Yao Ming work in China, guarding our borders better and guarding elephants will go a lot further in solving the problem in Africa.

People like me did not have a seat at the table when the President formulated his strategy to end wildlife trafficking, fortunately we did have a seat in Virginia.

I cut up some mammoth ivory today to prepare it for knife handles. I snapped some pictures of it so you guys can have a look at what we are talking about.

I have cut up thousands of pounds of mammoth ivory in the last 15 years, this is what the core looks like. In fifteen years I have not seen one tusk that had a solid core. Nothing that you could carve an elephant out of like the ones that were posted in the other thread, that's how rare it is. I have a tough time finding any big enough for a hidden tang knife.

We used to be able to get some from Russia but now it all goes to China. That's a good thing, because it helps lesson the demand for elephant ivory there. Every pound of mammoth ivory that gets used is a pound of elephant ivory that didn't.

It's the same kind of thinking that is banning some styles and lengths of knives that is banning the use of legal ivory. A very small minority of people in the U.S. are contributing to the illegal ivory trade and a very small minority of people misuse knives but the knee jerk reactions to both go way overboard and affect a lot of good people, in my view, unnecessarily.

 

[Sosa]

This one looks pretty solid.

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[AVigil]

Mark,

It it time for you to put together a report or even a blog stating your claims with the research to back it up. Then it can be reviewed and critiqued by actual experts on this matter and that way you can actually discuss what you claim with people who actually are well informed on the subject.

A well written report can either prove your stance or show it is faulty.

You can then send it out to all media and orgs and wait for their response and see if they agree with you.

Discussing it with a bunch of knife guys you want to sell ivory to is not going to further your claim in any way that matters.

Until you can prove what you claim to the people who make policy the ban will continue.

You have admitted you do not know about smuggling and that is probably something the experts on the matter may be able to educate you on.

 

[SidTheMuss]

I really dislike the idea that 'ivory bans' has anything to do with knife rights. It only affects a handful of handle makers and distributors but really has no bearing on the knife community. I would hope the guy who started this thread would put more effort into real knife issues (like butterflies still being illegal in many states, or texas 5" fixed blade laws). peace

 

[22-rimfire]

Mark,

It it time for you to put together a report or even a blog stating your claims with the research to back it up. Then it can be reviewed and critiqued by actual experts on this matter and that way you can actually discuss what you claim with people who actually are well informed on the subject.

A well written report can either prove your stance or show it is faulty.

You can then send it out to all media and orgs and wait for their response and see if they agree with you.

Discussing it with a bunch of knife guys you want to sell ivory to is not going to further your claim in any way that matters.

Until you can prove what you claim to the people who make policy the ban will continue.

You have admitted you do not know about smuggling and that is probably something the experts on the matter may be able to educate you on.

I have to say this is pure BS. Do you think the organizations put out their information to be critiqued by "professionals"? They would say that THEY are the professionals. Your opinion on the subject is colored by your view that ivory should be banned. Do you consider yourself a professional knife maker? I suspect you do. How do you feel if people question your abilities? Do you write a paper to defend yourself or your abilities?

 

[AVigil]

I have to say this is pure BS. Do you think the organizations put out their information to be critiqued by "professionals"?

Ummm... that is exactly what they do.

Professions are full of journals where all of it is published for review.

 

[Jesse B.]

I shall sacrifice a hundred kittens to honor this triumph!

 

[fishface5]

Thank you Doug! You not only have helped make it legal for me to carry autos but you are helping millions of Americans who own antiques and art that has old ivory.
No domestic mammoth ivory can be mistaken for elephant. A ban on legal ivory will not save any elephants. I want to publicly thank my friend Mark for defending the position us who use and appreciate this beautiful material.

Yep!!!

 

[egally08]

I really dislike the idea that 'ivory bans' has anything to do with knife rights. It only affects a handful of handle makers and distributors but really has no bearing on the knife community. I would hope the guy who started this thread would put more effort into real knife issues (like butterflies still being illegal in many states, or texas 5" fixed blade laws). peace

I'm not sure if you're just ignorant of the facts, or you're ignoring them completely.

I can't put an exact number on it, but there's tens of thousands of knives that utilize mammoth ivory. Take for example, what most people would consider the best folding knife of our time - The Sebenza. There's a huge amount that have mammoth ivory inlays, or the highly sought after annual sebenzas with Mammoth. Should all those people be robbed of their valuables to make others "feel good"

There's a huge variety of mammoth used on Case XX knives, GEC's, and many others. Most of the best custom makers of our time use mammoth on their dress models. Think about the gravity of that for a moment. The top makers in our industry - The majority of their most well crafted pieces will becoming illegal to sell or trade.

But Hey - It doesn't effect you, so why should you care? It makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.

 

[Mark Knapp]

Mark,

It it time for you to put together a report or even a blog stating your claims with the research to back it up. Then it can be reviewed and critiqued by actual experts on this matter and that way you can actually discuss what you claim with people who actually are well informed on the subject.

A well written report can either prove your stance or show it is faulty.

You can then send it out to all media and orgs and wait for their response and see if they agree with you.

Discussing it with a bunch of knife guys you want to sell ivory to is not going to further your claim in any way that matters.

Until you can prove what you claim to the people who make policy the ban will continue.

You have admitted you do not know about smuggling and that is probably something the experts on the matter may be able to educate you on.

You are correct about a lot of what you say in this post, but why do you think we are not doing those things? How do you think the Virginia ban got defeated?

Let me correct you on a couple of other things. First, I am not trying to sell you guys any ivory, I am giving you the other view point, one that you say you seldom hear from. Second I have some well written reports, I have been citing them in several threads.

I think you may have misunderstood me, I think I know a little bit about the smuggling of ivory and how the people that do it are caught. Where did I say I didn't know much about it?

Other than those things, I think you are right.

PS, those are the nicest words you have ever said to me.

 

[Mark Knapp]

Ummm... that is exactly what they do.

Professions are full of journals where all of it is published for review.

You are right, I got most of what I know about the ivory industry is from scientific journals, first hand experience and conversations with experts in the field. I have also been published in a scientific journal myself. It's a real neat work on the Origins of the Khutu. It's about ancient handle materials dating back to the ninth century. Here's the link if you would like to read it.

http://markknappcustomknives.com/pdf/LaversAndKnapp2008.pdf

But, I am not sure some of you have read much of the scientific reports I have cited, the two ETIS reports and the latest one "Out of Africa" by Varon Vira, Thomas Ewing and Jackson Miller. They support my arguments pretty well.

 

[Mark Knapp]

This one looks pretty solid.

[/URL][/IMG]

It does look solid, but what's your point. If I had to guess, I would say it came from Siberia. I didn't say it didn't exist, I said it is very rare, even in Siberia. It has already started to "ring out" give it a few weeks, you won't be able to carve an elephant out of that one either.

 

[zzyzzogeton]

When I was a kid, my brothers and I threatened to turn in our father for shooting an illegal deer. The situational aspects did not matter to me as I viewed it as a black or white issue. But in his case, it just happend to be a spike buck that the spikes were just a hair too short to be "legal". I am VERY anti-poaching to this day.

The correlation between legal and illegal elephant ivory may exist as you say, but I don't think you should throw away the dishes with the dishwater (or some similar analogy). It is up to fish & wildlfe and customs to deal with illegal imports of ivory. I am sure it is a tough job. But the quantities involved relative to numbers worldwide do not seem to me to be very signifcant. Oh sure, there was that one fairly large bust of illegal ivory in the US in 2012, but that was not common. Let the government do goverment things like enforcement and leave me the hell alone unless I break the law. The ban as proposed making the sale of ivory objects in the US is just plain wrong and there will be people impacted that have absolutely no knowledge of the law. But of course, ignorance is no defense.... until you get to a jury trial and then you have to have motive.

I didn't read through the other thread, but I will just say this. I tend to see it the same way Twin Dog and ncrockclimb do, however that said, I DO think it's crap that the Government can pass laws against something that people already own. That is unConstitutional. I am having trouble remembering which Amendment it breaks, to declare something formerly legal as suddenly illegal and then prosecute the folks who own that now-illegal item, and I haven't studied the Constitution in awhile. Can anyone refresh my memory?

Making it illegal to sell my 100 y.o. piano is unconstitutional. That is a direct violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Yes, you have sited many articles that support your position, however, they are not supported by the studies that I sited. The articles you sited did not references where they got the information they try to portray as fact,(as I have done) and because they haven't, they cannot be considered credible. I have seen many of the same kind of articles that support the use of legal ivory in the U.S. I do not site them here for the reason I gave.

I have explained many times why IMO, the USF&W service as the stance they now have. Dan Ashe, the director, is politically appointed to his position. It's a politically motivated stance that he has. You and some others believe what it says on the USF&W service website, but again, it is not supported by the studies.

I have sited lots of factual evidence, the three ETIS studies I sited are factual, and thorough.

Why is it, that because I have a financial stake (a very small one, I can do lots of other things) in the ivory issue, my point of view is so easily dismissed by you and others here. Who do you expect to stand up for the rights of people who own and use ivory, (though others are) than people who have the stuff. Why is that so unusual to you.

I try to only comment on things I know about, if I want to comment on something I don't know much about, I try to learn about it before I talk so I don't put my foot in my mouth. If you only search out the "articles" that support your position, you have little chance of learning anything new. The studies I get my information from, that I have sited, are objective, professional, research based, analytical works. One of them sponsored by a world renowned animal protectionist group. They cannot be seen as leaning in the pro-ivory direction. We should be able to agree that the information in them is unbiased. I believe it is the best information we have available to us.

I don't have much time to spend on this so I will not be repeating myself in this thread.

I am not disputing that some ivory from poached elephants gets into the U.S. What I am disputing is how large the problem is. The studies suggest that it is a very small amount (less than .01% of the overall problem) and to completely stamp it out in the U.S. would not solve the problem in Africa, or even slow it down.

I think that what the US has begun to do in the way of sanctions on countries that allow smuggling and poaching, along with the Yao Ming work in China, guarding our borders better and guarding elephants will go a lot further in solving the problem in Africa.

People like me did not have a seat at the table when the President formulated his strategy to end wildlife trafficking, fortunately we did have a seat in Virginia.

I cut up some mammoth ivory today to prepare it for knife handles. I snapped some pictures of it so you guys can have a look at what we are talking about.

I have cut up thousands of pounds of mammoth ivory in the last 15 years, this is what the core looks like. In fifteen years I have not seen one tusk that had a solid core. Nothing that you could carve an elephant out of like the ones that were posted in the other thread, that's how rare it is. I have a tough time finding any big enough for a hidden tang knife.

We used to be able to get some from Russia but now it all goes to China. That's a good thing, because it helps lesson the demand for elephant ivory there. Every pound of mammoth ivory that gets used is a pound of elephant ivory that didn't.

It's the same kind of thinking that is banning some styles and lengths of knives that is banning the use of legal ivory. A very small minority of people in the U.S. are contributing to the illegal ivory trade and a very small minority of people misuse knives but the knee jerk reactions to both go way overboard and affect a lot of good people, in my view, unnecessarily.

The word it "cite" not "site". "Cite" means that the user is referring to a verbal statement or written document to support their position. Site refers to a place. Big difference.

I really dislike the idea that 'ivory bans' has anything to do with knife rights. It only affects a handful of handle makers and distributors but really has no bearing on the knife community. I would hope the guy who started this thread would put more effort into real knife issues (like butterflies still being illegal in many states, or texas 5" fixed blade laws). peace

And for accuracy, it's 5.5" max length FOR IN-PUBLIC CARRY. We can carry any length bladed object on our own property, whether it's a 5.6" dagger or a 3 ft Bastard sword.

 

[Sosa]

It does look solid, but what's your point. If I had to guess, I would say it came from Siberia. I didn't say it didn't exist, I said it is very rare, even in Siberia. It has already started to "ring out" give it a few weeks, you won't be able to carve an elephant out of that one either.

It just seems to me your drab pics of low quality mammoth shards don't really represent the entire mammoth ivory industry accuratly.

 

[BonhamBlades]

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.

Get off your soap box! If we criminalize all ivory poaching will increase to keep up with demand. Think about it long and hard.

 

[BonhamBlades]

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.

IF knife rights facts are inaccurate please school us on the facts. Please list your references so we all may see it as you do.

 

[Mark Knapp]

Making it illegal to sell my 100 y.o. piano is unconstitutional. That is a direct violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.






The word it "cite" not "site". "Cite" means that the user is referring to a verbal statement or written document to support their position. Site refers to a place. Big difference.





And for accuracy, it's 5.5" max length FOR IN-PUBLIC CARRY. We can carry any length bladed object on our own property, whether it's a 5.6" dagger or a 3 ft Bastard sword.

Thank you , I stand corrected. I will change it. For what it's worth, the word is "is" not "it". But I know you knew that.