Anti-Ivory Groups Take Aim at WA, IA & CA (Mammoth Included) + Fed Update

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.

Good stewardship and responsible use as values are neither liberal nor conservative politically, and it is simply irresponsible or ignorant or both for anyone to suggest they are. But conservation does equate to responsible use.

Thank you.

In a way, almost nothing needs to be so politically divisive. We make it so. Far too often, I feel. You care about the environment? You must be liberal. You want smaller government? You must be conservative. Etc. The truth is, we politicize just about everything these days when at their cores, they're just different human values. Values that, for better or worse, have almost been co-opted by each major party to suit their (but not necessarily our) purposes.

Caring for the environment, wanting smaller government where more of your money stays in your pocket... these are just common things that I think a lot of liberal and conservative folks can already agree on. There are things I like about the conservative party and things I like about the liberal party. But it's not because I'm conservative, or because I'm liberal. It's because I've looked at the values of each issue that comes up, and pick one that I think is the best for me. It happens to fall into one camp or the other. I don't let the politics of it all bother me. I'm just a simple humanist that doesn't know much but is trying to do what is best for me, while doing my best not to hurt or bother anyone different from me in the process.

I learned about environmental conservation and responsibility, not at some "big liberal university" but my father. A very conservative fellow. Funny ol' world.

Mods: Apologies for making this post rather political, though hopefully not politically-charged. Some people keep trying to turn this into some sort of liberal vs. conservative issue, so I am addressing that point whilst using those terms. I think it's just a human issue. Well, an elephant issue... but you get my point. ;)
 
Last edited:
Imports can be restricted by executive order and the President has done that. I also hope that the African elephant survives this accelerated poaching period relative to their numbers. A lot can be accomplished with just good conservation and sport hunting. Some organizations have gotten involved in supporting enforcement in Africa and that is a good thing. The key is to stop the poaching. Then the elephants have a chance at replenishing their numbers over time. An outright ban will simply make ivory more appealing to many especially in China. China and it's people are the key to it all. Without their support, the poaching will likely continue at the present pace. I have signficant doubts that a ban in the USA will have much impact on the value or ivory (downward) or reducing poaching in itself.
 
22 Rimfire and Billco are using a common tactic: Paint the people that are for an issue as being the mindless minions of some socialist overmind in an attempt to discredit the issue.

An unregulated free market doesn't protect you, me, our kids or all the plants and animals that we rely on. The Second Amendment, for instance, is not free market device - it is a government regulation that prevents any large group or corporate entity from disarming you.

The Constitution, FDA, OSHA, nuclear anti-proliferation treaty, and whatever other central organizations exist to prevent one small group of people from doing something destructive to the rest of us. Killing all of our elephants forever so a few people can retain value on elephant products today is exactly the sort of incredibly short sighted destructiveness that we need protections against.


People get all upset when a chemical plant poisons their kids, but every time that happens and we rectify it other innocent people lose their jobs, stockholders lose their stock value and the poisoned people die anyway. Every time a wrong is righted, someone is going to lose out. That's just the way it is.


In this case, there is a ton a fair warning, so sell the ivory if it is an investment, and keep it if it is a keep sake. I'm sorry if it is difficult for you to have to pick one or the other.
 
22 Rimfire and Billco are using a common tactic: Paint the people that are for an issue as being the mindless minions of some socialist overmind in an attempt to discredit the issue.

An unregulated free market doesn't protect you, me, our kids or all the plants and animals that we rely on. The Second Amendment, for instance, is not free market device - it is a government regulation that prevents any large group or corporate entity from disarming you.

The Constitution, FDA, OSHA, nuclear anti-proliferation treaty, and whatever other central organizations exist to prevent one small group of people from doing something destructive to the rest of us. Killing all of our elephants forever so a few people can retain value on elephant products today is exactly the sort of incredibly short sighted destructiveness that we need protections against.


People get all upset when a chemical plant poisons their kids, but every time that happens and we rectify it other innocent people lose their jobs, stockholders lose their stock value and the poisoned people die anyway. Every time a wrong is righted, someone is going to lose out. That's just the way it is.


In this case, there is a ton a fair warning, so sell the ivory if it is an investment, and keep it if it is a keep sake. I'm sorry if it is difficult for you to have to pick one or the other.

I find 22-rimfire to be a pretty reasonable, decent bloke, I personally have no problem with him and I think he was just bringing up other issues that were related to some overarching issue at hand. I don't feel he was being deliberately disingenuous. Bill on the other hand, yes, in addition to having no constructive points to make. But Bill could be a decent guy too, underneath it all. Maybe he's just upset.
 
22 Rimfire and Billco are using a common tactic: Paint the people that are for an issue as being the mindless minions of some socialist overmind in an attempt to discredit the issue.

An unregulated free market doesn't protect you, me, our kids or all the plants and animals that we rely on. The Second Amendment, for instance, is not free market device - it is a government regulation that prevents any large group or corporate entity from disarming you.

The Constitution, FDA, OSHA, nuclear anti-proliferation treaty, and whatever other central organizations exist to prevent one small group of people from doing something destructive to the rest of us. Killing all of our elephants forever so a few people can retain value on elephant products today is exactly the sort of incredibly short sighted destructiveness that we need protections against.


People get all upset when a chemical plant poisons their kids, but every time that happens and we rectify it other innocent people lose their jobs, stockholders lose their stock value and the poisoned people die anyway. Every time a wrong is righted, someone is going to lose out. That's just the way it is.


In this case, there is a ton a fair warning, so sell the ivory if it is an investment, and keep it if it is a keep sake. I'm sorry if it is difficult for you to have to pick one or the other.

Sorry. I haven't painted that picture at all that you claim. I do believe in a free market. I frankly have nothing to loose of any consequence if you believe otherwise, you're dead wrong. I do not invest in ivory. If all the ivory on the planet dissappeared tomorrow, it would impact me zero. The same applies to elephants in general. But I personally would prefer that they survive and reproduce. I just don't believe in bans that simply do not do what they are intended to do and impact a lot of innocents in the process who probably don't even know there is a ban. They might find out when some Federal agent cites them for the illegal sale of their chess set in the future. That is simply wrong.
 
Ignorantia juris non excusat. I love it when I'm fishing and some other guys get busted for breaking the regs and act like they can't speak English.
 
I find 22-rimfire to be a pretty reasonable, decent bloke, I personally have no problem with him and I think he was just bringing up other issues that were related to some overarching issue at hand. I don't feel he was being deliberately disingenuous. Bill on the other hand, yes, in addition to having no constructive points to make. But Bill could be a decent guy too, underneath it all. Maybe he's just upset.

You hit it on the head RedLynx. Bill (that's me) IS a "decent guy".

I have a number of knives, one of which happens to have scales that are made from ivory (I think). Believe me; I would give it up in a heart beat if I thought there was even a chance that it would save the elephants. WE ALL LOVE ELEPHANTS!!!
I simply thought Mark (OP) made some very valid points regarding the fact that making already produced ivory illegal to own or sell in the U. S., or burning large stockpiles of elephant tusks, only serve to make the stuff more rare and perhaps more valuable and is not likely to affect poaching in any meaningful way.

Okay, the shoe/chicken/beef analogy wasn't my best effort at making a point. I'll have to give you guys that one. :D

No hard feelings I hope.

Bill
 
You hit it on the head RedLynx. Bill (that's me) IS a "decent guy".

I have a number of knives, one of which happens to have scales that are made from ivory (I think). Believe me; I would give it up in a heart beat if I thought there was even a chance that it would save the elephants. WE ALL LOVE ELEPHANTS!!!
I simply thought Mark (OP) made some very valid points regarding the fact that making already produced ivory illegal to own or sell in the U. S., or burning large stockpiles of elephant tusks, only serve to make the stuff more rare and perhaps more valuable and is not likely to affect poaching in any meaningful way.

Okay, the shoe/chicken/beef analogy wasn't my best effort at making a point. I'll have to give you guys that one. :D

No hard feelings I hope.

Bill

No hard feelings on my end Bill.

If I understood what you wrote, I am in agreement that the burning of that stockpile was needless waste. And a sad photo to boot. I understand on some level it is a symbol of "here's what we think of your poaching." On the other hand, it's still a waste of resources and serves to make the deaths of those elephants even more meaningless, if that's possible. I understand why it was done, but I don't agree with it.
 
No hard feelings on my end Bill.

If I understood what you wrote, I am in agreement that the burning of that stockpile was needless waste. And a sad photo to boot. I understand on some level it is a symbol of "here's what we think of your poaching." On the other hand, it's still a waste of resources and serves to make the deaths of those elephants even more meaningless, if that's possible. I understand why it was done, but I don't agree with it.

I know where you come down on this issue, but I think that viewing any fresh ivory as a "resource" is a part of the problem. It needs to stop being something that anyone thinks of as a raw material to feed any sort production.
 
I know where you come down on this issue, but I think that viewing any fresh ivory as a "resource" is a part of the problem. It needs to stop being something that anyone thinks of as a raw material to feed any sort production.

RX,

I agree, I don't think it should be looked at as a resource.

It's just that right now, at this time, and with my feelings on resources, it seemed very wasteful. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a perfect conservationist. I waste things sometimes, because I'm not in a position to conserve or through accident or just plain not thinking. But I do try my best to conserve every resource or use it, what have you. I agree, it shouldn't be looked at as a resource and I hope it changes. It's just that in my head, right now, it CAN be put to better use than burning in a pile like that. But again, I understand what was behind it.
 
...made some very valid points regarding the fact that making already produced ivory illegal to own or sell in the U. S., ...
Again, there's nothing in the proposed bills making ivory that is legal today illegal to own no or in the future. Nor is there any extant ban on ownership. The ban is a ban on the trade in ivory.

Why does the non-existent ban on ownership or non-existent legislative bills proposing to ban ownership keep getting brought up?
 
Why does the non-existent ban on ownership or non-existent legislative bills proposing to ban ownership keep getting brought up?

I think it's the ban on trade that needs clarification; can it be passed down within a family?

For instance, when my father passes away (hopefully many years from now), there are firearms I will not be able to inherit.
Will ivory be the same way under the proposed bans?
 
I think it's the ban on trade that needs clarification; can it be passed down within a family?

For instance, when my father passes away (hopefully many years from now), there are firearms I will not be able to inherit.
Will ivory be the same way under the proposed bans?

what will happen to his firearms?
 
Me too.
I'll be able to have some of them, but many of the coolest ones will get destroyed.

Can you explain why some are okay but others no? It must have been different when your dad originally acquired them?

You can PM me if you don't want to tangent the thread here. Or just completely ignore me if you don't want to discuss it at all. ;)

I'll get very little when my dad goes, to remember him by, but he has a few guns. Don't know if I'd get any (some were my grandfather's and even great-grandfather's) and even if I did, guns make the girlfriend too uncomfortable. I try to talk to her about it sometimes, but I figure, she's okay with my knife hobby, I'll take what I can get for now. :p

(and for now she lives 4500 miles away)
 
Can you explain why some are okay but others no? It must have been different when your dad originally acquired them?

They made it so that firearms of 4 inches or less barrel length are prohibited. They were just restricted when he bought them (perfectly legal), but reclassified as prohibited, in order to cut down trade in such things, and reduce their market value (which does have an eerie similarity to the ivory thing in some respects). If you already had them you could keep owning them...

Supposedly this would also cut down on the illegal trade of guns in Canada, although that didn't happen; all it did was lower the value of legally acquired goods held by law-abiding citizens...and made it so that their children couldn't inherit them.
 
They made it so that firearms of 4 inches or less barrel length are prohibited. They were just restricted when he bought them (perfectly legal), but reclassified as prohibited, in order to cut down trade in such things, and reduce their market value (which does have an eerie similarity to the ivory thing in some respects). If you already had them you could keep owning them...

Supposedly this would also cut down on the illegal trade of guns in Canada, although that didn't happen; all it did was lower the value of legally acquired goods held by law-abiding citizens...and made it so that their children couldn't inherit them.

Sorry man. Thanks for clarifying though, about the law and its intended vs. actual effects. It's nice to hear about it from someone who is there and in the know.
 
Back
Top