Perhaps in your mind they do lend that credence. Probably not so much for others. Else it would not have taken nearly 750 posts in this thread before someone brought it up.
Last edited:
Anti-Ivory Groups Take Aim at WA, IA & CA (Mammoth Included) + Fed Update
- Thread starter Critter
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2005
- Messages
- 19,385
Or perhaps nobody even thought of it, one central authority. I don't support such.
I'm sure there are people in the world that do, but I don't think I've ever met any. Different people from different cultures like the way their governments do things (to a degree, at least) and that they are in fact governed differently.
I'm not sure a global authority is feasible with human nature.
I don't think this has ANYTHING to do with the topic, and you were either trying to make the pro-ban people look bad by association, or you are the kind of conspiracy theorist that thinks that any government regulation is evidence of hidden, evil forces.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 2,217
So we should just destroy all those 19th century ivory handled Bowie knives and musical instruments so we don't feel all (boo hoo, boo hoo) ashamed of ourselves? That is a value judgment you have made for yourself but it isn't necessarily mine. Banning mammoth ivory to save modern elephants is pure emotional ignorance.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2014
- Messages
- 2,226
Again, this is actually a very simple issue.
The greatest threat to elephants is poaching. Poachers kill elephants and sell the tusks to the global illegal ivory industry.
The US is the #2 market for the trade in ivory. Intermixed with the legal trade is a significant market for illegal ivory.
It is extremely difficult to differentiate legally acquired ivory from ivory derived from elephant poaching. The creation of loopholes for "pre ban", mammoth, ivory from legal hunts, etc., makes it easier for the illegal ivory industry to operate.
EVERY major group (without a financial interest in the ivory trade) working to protect the elephants recommends a total ban on the sale and trade of ivory.
Eradicating the second largest market for ivory in the world (the US) WILL NOT increase demand. Instead, it will decrease demand and increase the cost for the illegal ivory trade to do business.
It is readily apparent that many posters primary goal is to protect their ability to sell ivory, and that they value that ability higher than the slaughter of elephants. If you sell / trade legal ivory your, actions indirectly support the illegal ivory trade and the activities of the poacher that are destroying the few remaining elephants.
The greatest threat to elephants is poaching. Poachers kill elephants and sell the tusks to the global illegal ivory industry.
The US is the #2 market for the trade in ivory. Intermixed with the legal trade is a significant market for illegal ivory.
It is extremely difficult to differentiate legally acquired ivory from ivory derived from elephant poaching. The creation of loopholes for "pre ban", mammoth, ivory from legal hunts, etc., makes it easier for the illegal ivory industry to operate.
EVERY major group (without a financial interest in the ivory trade) working to protect the elephants recommends a total ban on the sale and trade of ivory.
Eradicating the second largest market for ivory in the world (the US) WILL NOT increase demand. Instead, it will decrease demand and increase the cost for the illegal ivory trade to do business.
It is readily apparent that many posters primary goal is to protect their ability to sell ivory, and that they value that ability higher than the slaughter of elephants. If you sell / trade legal ivory your, actions indirectly support the illegal ivory trade and the activities of the poacher that are destroying the few remaining elephants.
It isn't "emotional ignorance". Aside from insulting many people, this phrase fails to address the fact that white mammoth ivory are pretty much interchangeable with the white elephant ivory whose consumer demand is causing an extinction. It isn't "emotional" to think that decreased consumer demand can decrease poaching - it's economics.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2005
- Messages
- 19,385
Get a life buddy. I mentioned elephants in my response.
Who is saying anything about destroying 19th century instruments? People just won't be able to profit from the sale of ivory; the law doesn't call for all privately owned ivory to be destroyed.
The reason mammoth ivory is included in the proposed and recent sale bans is that you cannot tell modern illegal ivory from mammoth ivory with the naked eye. This creates a loophole for illegal ivory dealers. They just have to say their ivory is "mammoth" or "pre ban" and it is considered legal. This loophole prevents the laws banning the sale of illegal ivory from being enforced.
This is also why the statistics about illegal ivory (used by people to defend grandfathered-in ivory) are not accurate. We cannot know how much of the "legal" ivory trade is actually illegal since this loophole exists.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 2,217
I have yet to see an chunk of 10,000 year old mammoth ivory that looked like modern elephant. None you pro-ban people seem to ever address the monetary loss to those owning antique items with ivory components. My family has a piano that has been the family since the 1880's with ivory keys that will be so much kindling if our family can no longer retain it. How about all those priceless San Francisco bowies? And as far as the modern elephants they will all be killed off to make room for more people and farm land if they have no value. Making Westerners feel all warm and cuddly inside is not a real world value. Going beyond this, what will be the next natural product you be demanding a total ban on ownership of to protect a species? Some have already taken aim at various tropical hardwood. And yes it is emotional ignorance.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 2,217
If you can't sell it at some point, it will end up being destroyed at the end of your life. It will become a dangerous liability to your family rather than an asset. And why is profit used as a curse word around here?
Fossil ivory is not an emotional issue. I think all of us are OK with crafts people using mammoth ivory, which is quite common. And as the permafrost continues to melt at an accelerated rate, more and more mammoth ivory is hitting the market.
The problem is that it is not easy to tell mammoth ivory from elephant ivory, especially when criminals are highly motivated to hide origins of their blood ivory and because federal law enforcement officials don't have the resources to test all the ivory they come across.
Here's a link to the methodology available for agents to tell mammoth ivory from elephant ivory. It takes a lot of careful and repeated measurements of ivory that can be properly presented. In many cases, only DNA testing can tell the difference. Expecting a handful of trained agents to conduct multiple tests of properly presented slides prepared from all the ivory items they must inspect is unreasonable. If Knife Rights has a reasonable workaround for this problem, I'm sure all the groups working to save elephants would be more than willing to cooperate.
http://www.fws.gov/lab/ivory_natural.php
Here's some relevant text from the link:
A photocopy machine is used to capture Schreger angles from mammoth and elephant ivory cross-sections. The cross-section is placed on the glass plate of a photocopy machine. A blue photocopy transparency sheet may be placed between the object and and the glass plate to enhance the detail of the photocopy. Enlargement of the photocopy may also improve the image and facilitate the measurement process.
After a photocopy of the ivory cross-section has been obtained, Schreger angles may be marked and measured. Use a pen or pencil and a ruler to mark and extend selected outer Schreger angle lines.
NOTE: Only outer Schreger angles should be used in this test.
Once the angles have been marked and extended, a protractor is used to obtain an angle measurement. Several angles, including both concave and convex angles, should be marked and measured. Once the angles have been marked and measured, calculate the angle average.
Because specimens from both extinct and extant sources may present angles between 90 degrees and 115 degrees in the outer Schreger pattern area, the differentiation of mammoth from elephant ivory should never be based upon single angle measurements when the angles fall in this range.
When averages are used to represent the angles in the individual samples, a clear separation between extinct and extant proboscideans is observed. All the elephant samples had averages above 100 degrees, and all the extinct proboscideans had angle averages below 100 degrees.
Another feature may be used to identify mammoth ivory. Mammoth ivory will occasionally display intrusive brownish or blue-green colored blemishes caused by an iron phosphate called vivianite. Elephant ivory will not display intrusive vivianite discoloration in its natural state. It is of interest to note that when the discoloration is barely perceptible to the eye, the use of a hand-held ultraviolet light source causes the blemished area to stand out with a dramatic purple velvet-like appearance. Even if discolored, elephant ivory will not have the characteristic fluorescence of vivianite.
The problem is that it is not easy to tell mammoth ivory from elephant ivory, especially when criminals are highly motivated to hide origins of their blood ivory and because federal law enforcement officials don't have the resources to test all the ivory they come across.
Here's a link to the methodology available for agents to tell mammoth ivory from elephant ivory. It takes a lot of careful and repeated measurements of ivory that can be properly presented. In many cases, only DNA testing can tell the difference. Expecting a handful of trained agents to conduct multiple tests of properly presented slides prepared from all the ivory items they must inspect is unreasonable. If Knife Rights has a reasonable workaround for this problem, I'm sure all the groups working to save elephants would be more than willing to cooperate.
http://www.fws.gov/lab/ivory_natural.php
Here's some relevant text from the link:
A photocopy machine is used to capture Schreger angles from mammoth and elephant ivory cross-sections. The cross-section is placed on the glass plate of a photocopy machine. A blue photocopy transparency sheet may be placed between the object and and the glass plate to enhance the detail of the photocopy. Enlargement of the photocopy may also improve the image and facilitate the measurement process.
After a photocopy of the ivory cross-section has been obtained, Schreger angles may be marked and measured. Use a pen or pencil and a ruler to mark and extend selected outer Schreger angle lines.
NOTE: Only outer Schreger angles should be used in this test.
Once the angles have been marked and extended, a protractor is used to obtain an angle measurement. Several angles, including both concave and convex angles, should be marked and measured. Once the angles have been marked and measured, calculate the angle average.
Because specimens from both extinct and extant sources may present angles between 90 degrees and 115 degrees in the outer Schreger pattern area, the differentiation of mammoth from elephant ivory should never be based upon single angle measurements when the angles fall in this range.
When averages are used to represent the angles in the individual samples, a clear separation between extinct and extant proboscideans is observed. All the elephant samples had averages above 100 degrees, and all the extinct proboscideans had angle averages below 100 degrees.
Another feature may be used to identify mammoth ivory. Mammoth ivory will occasionally display intrusive brownish or blue-green colored blemishes caused by an iron phosphate called vivianite. Elephant ivory will not display intrusive vivianite discoloration in its natural state. It is of interest to note that when the discoloration is barely perceptible to the eye, the use of a hand-held ultraviolet light source causes the blemished area to stand out with a dramatic purple velvet-like appearance. Even if discolored, elephant ivory will not have the characteristic fluorescence of vivianite.
If it's not a "dangerous liability" for you before you die, it will not be a "dangerous liability" for your heirs when you die. Why would it be destroyed? Neither legislation nor regulations call for that.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2005
- Messages
- 19,385
Enforcement is their problem. There is supposed to be a presumption of innocence. It sounds to me that the presumption is guilty until proven otherwise. That seems to be the case with certain posters in this thread. There is already a ban. A more complete ban is not likely going to save the African elephant if the existing ban is not effective in the US. The government has no right to restrict the resale of a legal product. It is a matter of principle. But if the US government wants to inflict a ban, then they need to provide the mechanism to legalize ivory currently inside the US with supporting paperwork provided by the government to the owner. Then we go from there.... It suspect that it would be too expensive to do this..... But that is not my problem.
I have no ivory to sell and never have, but 20 years from now, I just might want to resell a knife or musical instrument, or carving that utilized ivory. There needs to be a practical mechanism to accomplish that. No crime has been committed. The only crime is that the government wants to make something a crime that has been legal until this time (centuries).
Yes, the next bans will be jungle hardwoods. I read some where that cocobolo was banned or was in the process of being banned.
I have no ivory to sell and never have, but 20 years from now, I just might want to resell a knife or musical instrument, or carving that utilized ivory. There needs to be a practical mechanism to accomplish that. No crime has been committed. The only crime is that the government wants to make something a crime that has been legal until this time (centuries).
Yes, the next bans will be jungle hardwoods. I read some where that cocobolo was banned or was in the process of being banned.
Billco
Gold Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2013
- Messages
- 56
I feel very sorry for the time you have spent Mark, trying to use logic in arguing with this bunch of liberal thinkers. These people will be eternally happy if they can just impose their thinking on your freaking life.
Do you suppose these folks wear leather shoes, eat chicken fish and beef, live in a house made of wood, drive a vehicle that (god forbid) uses fossil fuel. Do you think they understand that there are substantial numbers of people in the world that would take them to task for any one of these transgressions.
As long as they can live the way THEY choose, and get you to live the way THEY want YOU to live, they will be happy. Until then... well.
It might just be time to give up the fight. At least with this group.
You likely haven't a clue of how people here think or of their political leanings or persuasions. I know you don't have a clue as to my thinking or my politics.
Being a former conservative and modern-day "in-betweener," I have to say that your last paragraph there doesn't exactly constitute the hypocrisy you'd like it to.. (for the record, I'll say again I think Mark has probably the most logical arguments in the thread here. I don't 100% agree with him, but I definitely do to a degree, mammoth ivory issues particularly so.)
The use of the products above, in moderation, aren't on par with what could likely be the extermination of a species. When I was a boy, we raised our own chickens for eggs and eventual meat. There were always more chickens in the coop than on the table. Etc, etc.
I do agree with your last point, no one should be forced to live in a way that they do not wish merely for the sake of others. But, as some of us (Mark included, actually) feel a responsibility to elephants and other animals and the planet of which we are stewards in general. If you don't, that's alright. Others will pick up the slack.
Our resources can and should be used for our benefit, where possible, provided they are either sustainable or can be replenished. In this case, as a higher thinking life form, it is incumbent upon us, if we do make use of these resources, to both acknowledge that use and see to it that the plants and animals we use, as a species, can remain. It's pretty simple.
Well put.
Plus the animal that gave up the leather for the holster on my hip wasn't killed just for that leather nor was its species endangered. On the contrary just about every part of the animal was used in any number of products which is why it was raised and slaughtered.
Good stewardship and responsible use as values are neither politically liberal nor politically conservative, and it is simply irresponsible or ignorant or both for anyone to suggest they are. But conservation does equate to responsible use and vice versa.
Last edited:
Not much unlike the mitsubishi corp with bluefin tuna.