PDA

View Full Version : Ginacue popped over ivory, hopefully much or all fake.


Pages : 1 [2]

dom_poppa
08-02-2016, 05:29 PM
While the US demand for ivory is low compared to Asia but Ginacue got popped for supposed knowledge of its cues going to the problematic region.

Global commerce is the norm and the best cue makers are in America.

Government is stopping this before America will be known as ivory cue capital of the world if it isn't already.

Perhaps we don't want to be known as
Ivory capital of anything.

The value doesn't help either. 85k is a cause for concern.

ghost ball
08-02-2016, 05:52 PM
There's a lot of shit laws being passed in CA that will be turning law abiding citizens into criminals. This situation is a perfect example.

classiccues
08-02-2016, 06:10 PM
Ask yourself.. what happened to the 15 million dollars those African countries netted.. ask yourself why did the number of poachers caught decrease in that time span, when they in fact had more money to combat poaching?

Why the study that cites the increased poaching and blame it on the 2008 sell off, was the theory of a few tree huggers? Not once did they say it was fueling terrorism, another "theory" that is commonly quoted....

These are the questions any logical person would ask...

There are laws in place, they are hardly ever enforced at the point of the killing. Do you know what would get the poachers attention? Start dropping them, then staking their bodies around to feed the animals and show the others what awaits them if caught.

JV

You're right. The ivory trade in no way harms elephants.

In 1999 and 2008, there were two massive legal selloffs of preban ivory to China. Care to postulate what happened during those two years with regards to poaching? Yet you and Joe have maintained that if the legal Ivory was controlled and sold off...that massive supply that apparently exists somewhere....that poaching wouldn't be necessary. Yet it boomed those two years. But what do us turnips know. Right?

overlord
08-02-2016, 07:25 PM
I played Ernie a few sets of nine ball about 1.5 months ago. We talked about this travesty. What they did here in California regarding legal ivory.

I've owned several of his cues over the years and he used to do work for me on cues that needed refurbishment. Over the years we've had mutual friends. He has always been a stand up guy to me. On top of that I like the man and admire him.

When I talked to him he was thinking of moving to Florida. I am sick about this. Ernie is a guy they should be giving awards to not putting in jail.

We talked about what happened to Gibson Guitars. I am surprised by this because he knew what was going down.

The California politicians should be ashamed of themselves. On top of that I smell a rat.

Tony_in_MD
08-02-2016, 08:33 PM
Save the Mastodon! No more Mammoth ivory in cues.......

O Snap, missed that by about 10,000 years.

:rolleyes:

Shawn Armstrong
08-03-2016, 08:41 AM
Don't make me laugh.

It is a small niche market in the US that it is insignificant compared to the ivory you'd see on open display walking down the street in Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Dongguan, Taipei, Chengdu, Hong Kong, Nanjing, Wuhan, Shenyang, Hangzhou, Chongqing, much less Chinatown in SF or NYC, or what you'd see at any pool event you'd care to name.

Lou Figueroa
please stop following me
around the forum

The US is actually the second biggest consumer of ivory goods in the world behind China. This is something you seem to lose sight of. The reason the law is in place in California is that after STUDY and RESEARCH, it was determined that about 90% of the ivory in the state was illegal. Even though people had CITES documentation, it was forged. Seriously, a bunch of you ivory proponents need to open your eyes, and start reading about the issue. Not just picking and choosing your material to suit your arguments. I'd take the results and opinions of world wildlife authorities over those that are ivory cue dealers and fans. You'll use any justification to make yourself feel good.

FACT - when ivory was banned for sale between 1989 and 1999, elephants started recovering. There was always a black market, but simply banning ivory sales worked. Widely known fact. When they decided to do the two massive sells in 1999 and 2008, elephant populations depleted.

So, argue with the facts, guys. During the ban, elephants recovered. During the ban, they went from an appendix 1 species to an appendix 2 species. Now that ivory is "pre ban" legal, the elephant is again an appendix 1 species.

So....Joe, Sean, Lou, SJD, Bava, etc......keep arguing that it isn't a problem. And that banning ivory sales won't work. It clearly did. It's the old expression "don't tell me it can't be done while I'm actually doing it".

jasonlaus
08-03-2016, 08:51 AM
The US is actually the second biggest consumer of ivory goods in the world behind China. This is something you seem to lose sight of. The reason the law is in place in California is that after STUDY and RESEARCH, it was determined that about 90% of the ivory in the state was illegal. Even though people had CITES documentation, it was forged. Seriously, a bunch of you ivory proponents need to open your eyes, and start reading about the issue. Not just picking and choosing your material to suit your arguments. I'd take the results and opinions of world wildlife authorities over those that are ivory cue dealers and fans. You'll use any justification to make yourself feel good.

FACT - when ivory was banned for sale between 1989 and 1999, elephants started recovering. There was always a black market, but simply banning ivory sales worked. Widely known fact. When they decided to do the two massive sells in 1999 and 2008, elephant populations depleted.

So, argue with the facts, guys. During the ban, elephants recovered. During the ban, they went from an appendix 1 species to an appendix 2 species. Now that ivory is "pre ban" legal, the elephant is again an appendix 1 species.

So....Joe, Sean, Lou, SJD, Bava, etc......keep arguing that it isn't a problem. And that banning ivory sales won't work. It clearly did. It's the old expression "don't tell me it can't be done while I'm actually doing it".

I don't need anything to feel better, I'm 100% ok owning the Ivory that I own - no matter what anybody does, it will not bring a DEAD Elephant back to life, so, destroying it WILL NOT HELP ONE BIT!

overlord
08-03-2016, 10:05 AM
The US is actually the second biggest consumer of ivory goods in the world behind China. This is something you seem to lose sight of. The reason the law is in place in California is that after STUDY and RESEARCH, it was determined that about 90% of the ivory in the state was illegal. Even though people had CITES documentation, it was forged. Seriously, a bunch of you ivory proponents need to open your eyes, and start reading about the issue. Not just picking and choosing your material to suit your arguments. I'd take the results and opinions of world wildlife authorities over those that are ivory cue dealers and fans. You'll use any justification to make yourself feel good.

FACT - when ivory was banned for sale between 1989 and 1999, elephants started recovering. There was always a black market, but simply banning ivory sales worked. Widely known fact. When they decided to do the two massive sells in 1999 and 2008, elephant populations depleted.

So, argue with the facts, guys. During the ban, elephants recovered. During the ban, they went from an appendix 1 species to an appendix 2 species. Now that ivory is "pre ban" legal, the elephant is again an appendix 1 species.

So....Joe, Sean, Lou, SJD, Bava, etc......keep arguing that it isn't a problem. And that banning ivory sales won't work. It clearly did. It's the old expression "don't tell me it can't be done while I'm actually doing it".

The biggest threat to elephants in Africa is the Africans themselves and the fact that they currently have the highest birthrate in the world.

Wild elephants do not mix well with civilized urban settings or even farming communities.

The entire state of California could commit suicide and it would do nothing regarding the " Climate " but the politicians voted in the cap and trade.

This law in California making peoples' legal investments illegal in terms of trade is an outrage. The one party rule in Cali is out of control and the politicians keep voting more and more regulations in that require the hiring of an army of bureaucrats.

Poor Ernie when he was just about to retire is gonna be made into an example. It is very sad. He should of moved to Florida.

KissedOut
08-03-2016, 10:08 AM
Economics is the study of the allocation of resources and its principles apply to many items in marketplaces everywhere, including the scarce resource of elephants.

Also, value of anything is subjective, not objective, so there is no objective standard of who should use what resource for what purpose, who "should" use or not use ivory in a cue.

Lastly, there is a thing called property rights which in both the cues and the elephants cases have been reduced greatly by govt meddling, thus the increased scarcity and arguments about and pricing problems of ivory. If elephant populations were owned as cows, for one example, are owned, then scarcity would become a thing of the past as the owners, being selfish and greedy humans, would preserve their wealth and protect it from predators of any kind, thus a steady supply of ivory for the world just as there is a steady supply of milk and beef.

A good link (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Henry+Hazlitt%27s+classic%2C+Economics+in+One+L esson&t=ffab&ia=products)for more on these subjects.



Jeff Livingston

Yup. when "everyone" owns something then no one owns it and no one takes care of it. I think the most vociferous defenders of the current ivory situation must be the poachers, as it is their business that benefits most from having prices made artificially high by government "protecting" the elephants.

Tony_in_MD
08-03-2016, 10:12 AM
And Twice a Prince was second to Secretariat in '73 at the Belmont, if there is a first there usually is a second, whether it is relevant or not is another matter.

I hope you did not imply that Legislators did their own research, If so where do you buy your rose colored glasses I need a pair! Their votes are bought and paid for by the highest bidder, who likely did their own research to favor their position.

Until the ivory demand is slowed in the far east, nothing we do in the United States will matter.



The US is actually the second biggest consumer of ivory goods in the world behind China. This is something you seem to lose sight of. The reason the law is in place in California is that after STUDY and RESEARCH, it was determined that about 90% of the ivory in the state was illegal. Even though people had CITES documentation, it was forged. Seriously, a bunch of you ivory proponents need to open your eyes, and start reading about the issue. Not just picking and choosing your material to suit your arguments. I'd take the results and opinions of world wildlife authorities over those that are ivory cue dealers and fans. You'll use any justification to make yourself feel good.

FACT - when ivory was banned for sale between 1989 and 1999, elephants started recovering. There was always a black market, but simply banning ivory sales worked. Widely known fact. When they decided to do the two massive sells in 1999 and 2008, elephant populations depleted.

So, argue with the facts, guys. During the ban, elephants recovered. During the ban, they went from an appendix 1 species to an appendix 2 species. Now that ivory is "pre ban" legal, the elephant is again an appendix 1 species.

So....Joe, Sean, Lou, SJD, Bava, etc......keep arguing that it isn't a problem. And that banning ivory sales won't work. It clearly did. It's the old expression "don't tell me it can't be done while I'm actually doing it".

cueaddicts
08-03-2016, 01:50 PM
The US is actually the second biggest consumer of ivory goods in the world behind China. This is something you seem to lose sight of. The reason the law is in place in California is that after STUDY and RESEARCH, it was determined that about 90% of the ivory in the state was illegal. Even though people had CITES documentation, it was forged. Seriously, a bunch of you ivory proponents need to open your eyes, and start reading about the issue. Not just picking and choosing your material to suit your arguments. I'd take the results and opinions of world wildlife authorities over those that are ivory cue dealers and fans. You'll use any justification to make yourself feel good.

FACT - when ivory was banned for sale between 1989 and 1999, elephants started recovering. There was always a black market, but simply banning ivory sales worked. Widely known fact. When they decided to do the two massive sells in 1999 and 2008, elephant populations depleted.

So, argue with the facts, guys. During the ban, elephants recovered. During the ban, they went from an appendix 1 species to an appendix 2 species. Now that ivory is "pre ban" legal, the elephant is again an appendix 1 species.

So....Joe, Sean, Lou, SJD, Bava, etc......keep arguing that it isn't a problem. And that banning ivory sales won't work. It clearly did. It's the old expression "don't tell me it can't be done while I'm actually doing it".

You speak as if those two sales singularly did this. What about the economic changes in China (huge boom in the middle class there and disposable income) and the continual loss of habitat in Africa, plus the govts there getting involved in the lucrative poaching. Your simpleton view on this is a joke. There are many many more things in play driving the demand abroad, while demand here in the US continually diminishes.

dom_poppa
08-03-2016, 02:54 PM
Regardless of what you think about the ivory ban...

America has the best cue makers in the world. Most elaborate cues are made with ivory in them.

We don't want to be known as the ivory cue capital of the world especially if ivory is illegal in the world

BmoreMoney
08-03-2016, 03:47 PM
Regardless of what you think about the ivory ban...

America has the best cue makers in the world. Most elaborate cues are made with ivory in them.

We don't want to be known as the ivory cue capital of the world especially if ivory is illegal in the world

We are already known as the capital of the world for most things; especially illegal things. I think Ivory would / should be the least of anyone's concern .

BmoreMoney
08-03-2016, 03:54 PM
I think If Shawn or DP or anyone else for that matter feels SO STRONGLY about this issue then maybe then can / should just jump on the next thing smoking on over to AFRICA and go baby sit the elephants and actually do some good as opposed to supporting bs laws here in the states that are unnecessarily hurting GOOD US citizens !

BmoreMoney
08-03-2016, 04:08 PM
If you're too dense to realize that ivory comes from a living being, no amount of chalkboard talks or crayola diagrams are going to help you.

Perhaps we should talk about the plight of the poor cannabis plant, and its right to live. Or the millions of innocent poppies killed per year for the opium trade. Or all those wheat fields/potatoes/etc that are destroyed to make alcohol.

The comparisons may make you feel better. The problems are not related in the slightest. You're discussing things that people are addicted to. I don't have a cocaine statue in my house. Or a meth ferrule on my pool cue. Some people get high to feel better. I ride my motorcycle and work out. That pretty white ferrule of yours can be replaced with a material that is more durable, costs less, and is a sustainable man made material.

All I hear are arguments about drugs, screaming trees, killing cows for food, etc. These arguments hold NO WATER, as we are talking about sustainable resources. And things that are necessities. Ivory is not a necessity. It's a luxury. And you are condoning the elimination of a species by using and supporting its trade. Plain and simple. If you think it's the human's right and prerogative to destroy the other living creatures on the planet purely for "luxury", you have no social conscience.


Ok, once again and for the last time, I DO NOT have any cue currently with ivory in them. I DO NOT think that an ivory ferrule plays any better than any other material. I could care less if a cue has ivory in it for decorative purposes ( aside from value of cue ). I like elephants and would prefer for them not to be extinct. My ONLY issue with all of this is the bs legislative end of all of this. I only mention drugs as an example, not because of the item itself, but to demonstrate the flawed thinking of outlawing something, anything for that matter. It does not solve any problem, it only makes it worse by making said product MORE VALUABLE which in turn prompts even more people to get in on it - whatever it may be. Not only is that just common sense, it can be seen all day, any day of the week. If you or anyone else can not see that then there really is nothing I can do or say to help yall.And yes, I do have a problem - a major problem with good people - good us citizens getting rammed because of a law that will DO NOTHING to help the problem. While admittedly I have no first hand knowledge of Ernie's ivory, everything I've read is that he was well within his rights to make cues with the LEGAL ivory he had. That seems to be just what he did, legally. What someone else does after the fact SHOULD HAVE nothing to do with Ernie, nothing whatsoever!

lfigueroa
08-03-2016, 04:24 PM
The US is actually the second biggest consumer of ivory goods in the world behind China. This is something you seem to lose sight of. The reason the law is in place in California is that after STUDY and RESEARCH, it was determined that about 90% of the ivory in the state was illegal. Even though people had CITES documentation, it was forged. Seriously, a bunch of you ivory proponents need to open your eyes, and start reading about the issue. Not just picking and choosing your material to suit your arguments. I'd take the results and opinions of world wildlife authorities over those that are ivory cue dealers and fans. You'll use any justification to make yourself feel good.

FACT - when ivory was banned for sale between 1989 and 1999, elephants started recovering. There was always a black market, but simply banning ivory sales worked. Widely known fact. When they decided to do the two massive sells in 1999 and 2008, elephant populations depleted.

So, argue with the facts, guys. During the ban, elephants recovered. During the ban, they went from an appendix 1 species to an appendix 2 species. Now that ivory is "pre ban" legal, the elephant is again an appendix 1 species.

So....Joe, Sean, Lou, SJD, Bava, etc......keep arguing that it isn't a problem. And that banning ivory sales won't work. It clearly did. It's the old expression "don't tell me it can't be done while I'm actually doing it".


Please show me any credible resource that shows the US is the second largest consumer of ivory goods in the world AND that *second place* is any more than a dribble compared to the 95% that goes to Asia.

Lou Figueroa

poolhustler
08-03-2016, 04:48 PM
Please show me any credible resource that shows the US is the second largest consumer of ivory goods in the world AND that *second place* is any more than a dribble compared to the 95% that goes to Asia.

Lou Figueroa

I would also like to see accurate info on this.......

tattoo
08-03-2016, 05:12 PM
The biggest threat to elephants in Africa is the Africans themselves and the fact that they currently have the highest birthrate in the world.

Wild elephants do not mix well with civilized urban settings or even farming communities.

The entire state of California could commit suicide and it would do nothing regarding the " Climate " but the politicians voted in the cap and trade.

This law in California making peoples' legal investments illegal in terms of trade is an outrage. The one party rule in Cali is out of control and the politicians keep voting more and more regulations in that require the hiring of an army of bureaucrats.

Poor Ernie when he was just about to retire is gonna be made into an example. It is very sad. He should of moved to Florida.Winner........

jmurphy
08-03-2016, 05:42 PM
It went down IN Cali and the buyer tried to take them out of the country..Either way you can't sell ANYTHING with ivory in it in Cali period as of early July.

Maybe the argument can be that the cues were sold more then a year ago and Ernie was holding on to them until such time as the buyer could be here to pick them up.

classiccues
08-03-2016, 06:09 PM
You speak as if those two sales singularly did this. What about the economic changes in China (huge boom in the middle class there and disposable income) and the continual loss of habitat in Africa, plus the govts there getting involved in the lucrative poaching. Your simpleton view on this is a joke. There are many many more things in play driving the demand abroad, while demand here in the US continually diminishes.

He has no idea... its not worth the wasted bandwidth. Just another Canadian that thinks he knows whats good for everybody...

JV

HouseMan
08-03-2016, 06:16 PM
Just another Canadian that thinks he knows whats good for everybody...
JV
Uh oh, shit just got serious! Joe busted out the "C" word...

JoeyInCali
08-03-2016, 06:46 PM
http://nationalgeographic.org/media/trafficking-poached-ivory/
The vast majority of smuggled ivory—experts say as much as 70 percent—ends up in China, where a newly wealthy middle class fuels the demand for luxury ivory products. Although seizures of illegally obtained ivory take place, much of the smuggled ivory still gets through. Less than 1 percent of the shipping containers unloaded in the Port of Hong Kong are inspected for smuggled ivory. Ivory traders who do get caught are seldom arrested and, if they are, they face feeble penalties. The combination of improved international trade links and weak enforcement proves a powerful and extremely lucrative incentive for the criminal networks leading the poaching of African’s elephants.

According to John Heminway, writer, producer, and director of Battle for the Elephants, “In Africa, wildlife conservationists…are risking their lives to protect these animals, but they are losing the fight. The market for smuggled ivory is too lucrative for poachers to resist, and our research suggests demand for ivory in China is only going to rise.”

JoeyInCali
08-03-2016, 06:50 PM
Despite a ban on the international trade in ivory, African elephants are still being poached in large numbers. Tens of thousands of elephants are being killed every year for their ivory tusks. The ivory is often carved into ornaments and jewellery – China is the biggest consumer market for such products.
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/elephants/african_elephants/afelephants_threats/


Wow, I am so shocked.

yally
08-03-2016, 07:10 PM
Ebony and Ivory...
Two materials I can't use in harmony...
Some liberal jackass says that its not good
To mix elephant tusk with ebony wood...
Want to hang those tree hugging morons by a rope....
Starting with Obama and his change and hope...

I'm not even American but this is disgusting.

Posts like this not resulting in banning are I why I rarely visit this forum anymore.

Enjoy your small minded conservative trope and shitty poetry.

dom_poppa
08-03-2016, 09:51 PM
I think people are missing my point. A law was created whether you like it or not.

You cannot break a law because you do not like it.

It sucks that a famous cue maker got popped but he knew the law and decided to break it that is according to the Feds of course.

There is really nothing to disagree with me here.

I am neutral on ivory ban but breaking the law? I am not fond of.

Tony_in_MD
08-04-2016, 02:56 AM
So you have never exceeded a posted speed limit?

The holier then thou attitude just does not work for you.


QUOTE=dom_poppa;5629190]I think people are missing my point. A law was created whether you like it or not.

You cannot break a law because you do not like it.

It sucks that a famous cue maker got popped but he knew the law and decided to break it that is according to the Feds of course.

There is really nothing to disagree with me here.

I am neutral on ivory ban but breaking the law? I am not fond of.[/QUOTE]

jasonlaus
08-04-2016, 03:44 AM
I think people are missing my point. A law was created whether you like it or not.

You cannot break a law because you do not like it.

It sucks that a famous cue maker got popped but he knew the law and decided to break it that is according to the Feds of course.

There is really nothing to disagree with me here.

I am neutral on ivory ban but breaking the law? I am not fond of.

So, he's guilty??? No trial, nothing, just straight to the Electric chair.

Aren't you the guy who beat up bums in the street or pee'd on them, or some other insane crap?

chefjeff
08-04-2016, 05:39 AM
Yup. when "everyone" owns something then no one owns it and no one takes care of it. I think the most vociferous defenders of the current ivory situation must be the poachers, as it is their business that benefits most from having prices made artificially high by government "protecting" the elephants.

You said it better than I.

Thanks,


Jeff Livingston

Tony_in_MD
08-04-2016, 06:47 AM
Yes he is, good memory.

He will say anything to keep this thread alive, along with his TD thread.

It may be high time to go full blown English to get the threads locked and deleted.


So, he's guilty??? No trial, nothing, just straight to the Electric chair.

Aren't you the guy who beat up bums in the street or pee'd on them, or some other insane crap?

chefjeff
08-04-2016, 07:24 AM
Yes he is, good memory.

He will say anything to keep this thread alive, along with his TD thread.

It may be high time to go full blown English to get the threads locked and deleted.

I've had him on ignore for months.

It's a good thing.


Jeff Livingston

jasonlaus
08-04-2016, 08:40 AM
I've had him on ignore for months.

It's a good thing.


Jeff Livingston

Without him and Justin I'd have nothing to shake my head about. :rolleyes:

StuartTKelley
08-04-2016, 09:27 AM
I'm not even American but this is disgusting.

Posts like this not resulting in banning are I why I rarely visit this forum anymore.

Enjoy your small minded conservative trope and shitty poetry.

LOL @ the poem. I think Trump should build the wall out of Ivory.

overlord
08-04-2016, 11:12 AM
I think people are missing my point. A law was created whether you like it or not.

You cannot break a law because you do not like it.

It sucks that a famous cue maker got popped but he knew the law and decided to break it that is according to the Feds of course.

There is really nothing to disagree with me here.

I am neutral on ivory ban but breaking the law? I am not fond of.

I don't think that it is fair to make items valueless that folks bought and paid for in a legal way. If you want to make ivory illegal going forward that's OK although it won't save African Elephants in the wild.

Toni Atkins is a left wing extremist and they always destroy people's property rights. This broad is the one that came up with the legislation in California that Brown signed.

What if I said that I wanted all the folks' home equity out there because it violated " environmental " policy. Don't laugh it could happen.

Homes and over building cause all kinds of problems for the " environment ".

Short of a massive birth control effort in Africa the Elephants are in trouble. This has been known forever. I used to take National Wildlife Magazine when I was a kid and the number one problem for wildlife anywhere in the world was human over population and that was in the 1970s.

Nothing has changed but the " Kumbaya " crowd never gets the real problems in their sights.

Shawn Armstrong
08-04-2016, 03:31 PM
Please show me any credible resource that shows the US is the second largest consumer of ivory goods in the world AND that *second place* is any more than a dribble compared to the 95% that goes to Asia.

Lou Figueroa

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080505-us-ivory.html

2008 study. Perhaps that's too old to be valid. But they state the US is the second largest retail market for ivory in the world. National Geographic published it. It hasn't been taken down....so I'm assuming no one has found them to be libellous, or misleading in any way. But they're a bunch of tree hugging liberals, right? :)

overlord
08-04-2016, 04:03 PM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080505-us-ivory.html

2008 study. Perhaps that's too old to be valid. But they state the US is the second largest retail market for ivory in the world. National Geographic published it. It hasn't been taken down....so I'm assuming no one has found them to be libellous, or misleading in any way. But they're a bunch of tree hugging liberals, right? :)

I am all for saving the elephants. But making my cues worthless when they were made with legal ivory is not gonna help the elephants.

I am fine with them making ivory illegal from this point forward. The reality is you will have to kill the poachers and we will see if the Africans are willing to do that.

Ivory can be harvested by the passing of elephants from old age. There are still countries in Africa where you can legally hunt them.

In fact you can legally hunt elephants right now in S. Africa, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Namibia, Cameroon, Gabon and Tanzania. and its great for the elephant population to manage the herd.

Do the folks in Cali know that you can legally hunt elephants? Do they know that sport hunting brings mega needed cash into communities in Africa that need it and gives incentives to the populace to keep the resource alive?

Making my legal cues worthless while I can arrange a Safari as I write this is super ironic.

Sounds to me like there is a lot of ignorance out there.

Shawn Armstrong
08-04-2016, 04:15 PM
I am all for saving the elephants. But making my cues worthless when they were made with legal ivory is not gonna help the elephants.

I am fine with them making ivory illegal from this point forward. The reality is you will have to kill the poachers and we will see if the Africans are willing to do that.

Ivory can be harvested by the passing of elephants from old age. There are still countries in Africa where you can legally hunt them.

In fact you can legally hunt elephants right now in S. Africa, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Namibia, Cameroon, Gabon and Tanzania. and its great for the elephant population to manage the herd.

Do the folks in Cali know that you can legally hunt elephants? Do they know that sport hunting brings mega needed cash into communities in Africa that need it and gives incentives to the populace to keep the resource alive?

Making my legal cues worthless while I can arrange a Safari as I write this is super ironic.

Sounds to me like there is a lot of ignorance out there.

That's great. What's your point with all of the above? I was asked to provide a credible source for my claim. I did.

It's too bad about your cues. Really. I feel for you. Oh, wait. I don't. Ivory has always come from elephants. Or didn't you know that? Tell you what...hold onto them. When the last elephant on Earth is dead, there will be no reason to ban ivory sales, and your cue's value will skyrocket.

Shawn Armstrong
08-04-2016, 04:25 PM
You speak as if those two sales singularly did this. What about the economic changes in China (huge boom in the middle class there and disposable income) and the continual loss of habitat in Africa, plus the govts there getting involved in the lucrative poaching. Your simpleton view on this is a joke. There are many many more things in play driving the demand abroad, while demand here in the US continually diminishes.

Sean, I've tried to explain it to you. Keep blaming China. On a per capita basis, the US is about on par with China, regarding demand. There are 1.4 billion people in China. About 350M in the US. So, they are 4 times larger than the US. Lou threw out the number 95%. Joey ended up quoting NG at 70%.

Demand in the US isn't diminishing. Legal barricades are in place to curtail its availability. Otherwise, Bava would have 14 more ivory laden cues. And while we're talking about Chinese demand, wasn't Ernie caught exporting ivory goods into Asia? So, again, blame Asia. You have a case of an American facilitating the shipping of ivory into the very country you blame for the problem. Rich :)

CJH
08-04-2016, 04:40 PM
To: Armstrong and Poppa

From: Martin Niemoller

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

----------------------------------------

I really don't think there is anyone that wants Elephants poached. Whether or not this new law will help reduce poaching is very debatable. What is outrageous to most level headed human beings is that the law punishes and/or prohibits the actions taken with what was once very legal. The result will have significant financial impact to a lot of people. Only a hateful, mean spirited soul would find pleasure in that. I have cues and most have Ivory. I didn't buy any of them because they had ivory in them. I bought them as part of a collection of great cues from the great American cue makers. I bought them because of their playability, their beauty and with the hope of a value increase over time. If Ivory was never used in cue making, I would still have these cues with some other material in place of the ivory. The fact that you are pleased that I will have significant financial loss is pathetic.

I hope no American or other world citizen will be financially hurt someday by a similar circumstance. Something you own or have invested in legally at the time, later confiscated or restricted by government resulting in financial loss or even financial devastation. Heed the famous quote from Martin Niemoller. That but for the grace of God be you.

overlord
08-04-2016, 05:09 PM
That's great. What's your point with all of the above? I was asked to provide a credible source for my claim. I did.

It's too bad about your cues. Really. I feel for you. Oh, wait. I don't. Ivory has always come from elephants. Or didn't you know that? Tell you what...hold onto them. When the last elephant on Earth is dead, there will be no reason to ban ivory sales, and your cue's value will skyrocket.

The outlawing of sport hunting always ends up in the decimation of the game. Hunters place so much cash in these communities that can't be made up when game hunting is outlawed. Then the locals are starving and start poaching.

I think that I will do more for the elephants than your lame A$$ will ever do. I think I will book a Safari soon. No time like the present to actually take effective action.

Its Jumbo time. A friend of mine has a son that is a hunter in S. Africa. I think I will contact him about possibilities. Will have to practice up with the .375 H & H Magnum.

lfigueroa
08-04-2016, 05:18 PM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080505-us-ivory.html

2008 study. Perhaps that's too old to be valid. But they state the US is the second largest retail market for ivory in the world. National Geographic published it. It hasn't been taken down....so I'm assuming no one has found them to be libellous, or misleading in any way. But they're a bunch of tree hugging liberals, right? :)


lol, did you even read the article?

"Cleva also took aim at the report's conclusion. 'The vast majority of U.S. seizures ... involve small non-commercial quantities, a fact that refutes the claim that large-scale illegal ivory trade exists in the United States,' she said."

Sandra Cleva is the spokesperson for the US F&WL Service, lmao.

Lou Figueroa

dom_poppa
08-04-2016, 06:15 PM
To: Armstrong and Poppa



From: Martin Niemoller



First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.



Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.



Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.



Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.



----------------------------------------



I really don't think there is anyone that wants Elephants poached. Whether or not this new law will help reduce poaching is very debatable. What is outrageous to most level headed human beings is that the law punishes and/or prohibits the actions taken with what was once very legal. The result will have significant financial impact to a lot of people. Only a hateful, mean spirited soul would find pleasure in that. I have cues and most have Ivory. I didn't buy any of them because they had ivory in them. I bought them as part of a collection of great cues from the great American cue makers. I bought them because of their playability, their beauty and with the hope of a value increase over time. If Ivory was never used in cue making, I would still have these cues with some other material in place of the ivory. The fact that you are pleased that I will have significant financial loss is pathetic.



I hope no American or other world citizen will be financially hurt someday by a similar circumstance. Something you own or have invested in legally at the time, later confiscated or restricted by government resulting in financial loss or even financial devastation. Heed the famous quote from Martin Niemoller. That but for the grace of God be you.


I didn't wish you a financial loss. Maybe you got me mixed up with someone.

CJH
08-04-2016, 07:13 PM
I didn't wish you a financial loss. Maybe you got me mixed up with someone.

I think you are correct. Sorry for that.

Chopdoc
08-04-2016, 07:15 PM
wasn't Ernie caught exporting ivory goods into Asia?



As far as I can tell, no.


But all of it is speculation anyway, including your own statement.


I think your throttle is stuck wide open....



.

THE MONTREALER
08-04-2016, 07:39 PM
HI Back in the 1800 they slaughered over 10,000 elephants in
Africa just to make Pool or Snooker Balls until someone decided
to make there own balls because of lack of Elephants

Shawn Armstrong
08-04-2016, 07:59 PM
As far as I can tell, no.


But all of it is speculation anyway, including your own statement.


I think your throttle is stuck wide open....



.

He's already guilty of a crime. Under current law, it is illegal to sell any goods containing ivory after July 6, 2016. Even within the state. There are some exceptions, but they don't apply in this case. So, at the very least, he's in some hot water.

A sale is completed when the goods change hands. So, he's already committed a criminal act. How criminal is yet to be determined.

justaplayer
08-04-2016, 08:00 PM
For clarification, these are the actual charges from the US Department of Justice. He is in a very bad spot here.

U.S. Attorneys*»*Central District of California*»News

Department of Justice

U.S. Attorney’s Office

Central District of California

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, July 28, 2016

North Hollywood Pool Cue Maker Charged with Helping Smuggle Elephant Ivory

**********LOS ANGELES*– A North Hollywood man surrendered to U.S. Marshals this morning after an arrest warrant was issued on federal charges of aiding and abetting the illegal smuggling of protected elephant ivory.

********* Cesar Ernesto Gutierrez, 75, was charged in a criminal complaint filed Wednesday in United States District Court with aiding and abetting the attempted illegal exportation from the United States to Taiwan of protected African elephant ivory.

********* The affidavit in support of the criminal complaint alleges that Gutierrez, a well-known custom pool cue maker in the United States, operates Ginacue, a custom pool cue manufacturing business in North Hollywood. Gutierrez allegedly manufactured and sold two people approximately 41 sections of custom pool cues containing the protected elephant ivory inlays.* The two individuals were subsequently arrested at Los Angeles International Airport when agents with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service discovered the pool cues in their luggage.* The seized pool cues were purchased from Gutierrez for approximately $75,000 to $85,000.* Gutierrez is charged with aiding and abetting the attempted illegal smuggling of the high-value pool cues.

********* “The protection of threatened and endangered wildlife is an international concern,” said United States Attorney Eileen M. Decker. “Illegal trafficking of protected species, even small parts of them, creates a market and demand that can lead to the decimation*of these vulnerable populations.”

********* Gutierrez appeared this afternoon in United States District Court and was released on a $10,000 appearance bond.* Post-indictment arraignment was scheduled for August 24.

**********A criminal complaint contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty in court.

********* The charge alleged in the complaint carries a statutory maximum penalty of 10 years in federal prison.

********* This case was investigated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, with assistance by United States Customs and Border Protection personnel. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Amanda M. Bettinelli of the Environmental and Community Safety Crimes Section.

16-179

USAO - California, Central

THE MONTREALER
08-04-2016, 08:02 PM
SO WHAT!!!! If a car dealer sells a friend a car and knows his buddy is a drunk and then said guy is dui and has a wreck and injures / kills someone is the car dealer responsible???? I think not and rightly so! All this kind of stuff IS SO STUPID AND SO OUT OF CONTROL!!!!! I truly do not know what if anything can be done but boy I REALLY hope someone tries to do something ! It's really really sickening imo, and getting worse by the day. DP, you sound like you're right where you belong - CA.

You purchase a gun and you sell it to someone and he make a holdup
in a bank Are you responsible for that

Shawn Armstrong
08-04-2016, 08:10 PM
lol, did you even read the article?

"Cleva also took aim at the report's conclusion. 'The vast majority of U.S. seizures ... involve small non-commercial quantities, a fact that refutes the claim that large-scale illegal ivory trade exists in the United States,' she said."

Sandra Cleva is the spokesperson for the US F&WL Service, lmao.

Lou Figueroa

Let me get this straight. A study comes out slamming the US over their enforcement of the importing and exporting of illegal ivory, and the spokesperson for the agency under fire vehemently disagrees? Shocking.

Did you read the full article, Lou? Or just look for the loophole?

CJH
08-04-2016, 08:29 PM
He's already guilty of a crime. Under current law, it is illegal to sell any goods containing ivory after July 6, 2016. Even within the state. There are some exceptions, but they don't apply in this case. So, at the very least, he's in some hot water.

A sale is completed when the goods change hands. So, he's already committed a criminal act. How criminal is yet to be determined.

I believe the transaction took place prior to July. Besides, he was not charged with selling goods containing ivory. He was charged for aiding and abetting the illegal export of ivory.

BmoreMoney
08-04-2016, 08:37 PM
That's great. What's your point with all of the above? I was asked to provide a credible source for my claim. I did.

It's too bad about your cues. Really. I feel for you. Oh, wait. I don't. Ivory has always come from elephants. Or didn't you know that? Tell you what...hold onto them. When the last elephant on Earth is dead, there will be no reason to ban ivory sales, and your cue's value will skyrocket.

I truly think you have no idear what you are talking about ...... again- just like when you responded to my post saying drugs were never legal. CLUELESS

He's already guilty of a crime. Under current law, it is illegal to sell any goods containing ivory after July 6, 2016. Even within the state. There are some exceptions, but they don't apply in this case. So, at the very least, he's in some hot water.

A sale is completed when the goods change hands. So, he's already committed a criminal act. How criminal is yet to be determined.

HE IS NOT ALREADY GUILTY OF A CRIME ---- INNOCENT TILL PRO VPN GUILTY????? Ever heard of that obscure thought ? ?? Once again you have no idea r what you're talking about. Not to mention it's gonna take some doing to PROVE he knew what was gonna happen to the cues once they left his possession. Get a clue, get a life.

For clarification, these are the actual charges from the US Department of Justice. He is in a very bad spot here.

U.S. Attorneys*»*Central District of California*»News

Department of Justice

U.S. Attorney’s Office

Central District of California

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, July 28, 2016

North Hollywood Pool Cue Maker Charged with Helping Smuggle Elephant Ivory

**********LOS ANGELES*– A North Hollywood man surrendered to U.S. Marshals this morning after an arrest warrant was issued on federal charges of aiding and abetting the illegal smuggling of protected elephant ivory.

********* Cesar Ernesto Gutierrez, 75, was charged in a criminal complaint filed Wednesday in United States District Court with aiding and abetting the attempted illegal exportation from the United States to Taiwan of protected African elephant ivory.

********* The affidavit in support of the criminal complaint alleges that Gutierrez, a well-known custom pool cue maker in the United States, operates Ginacue, a custom pool cue manufacturing business in North Hollywood. Gutierrez allegedly manufactured and sold two people approximately 41 sections of custom pool cues containing the protected elephant ivory inlays.* The two individuals were subsequently arrested at Los Angeles International Airport when agents with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service discovered the pool cues in their luggage.* The seized pool cues were purchased from Gutierrez for approximately $75,000 to $85,000.* Gutierrez is charged with aiding and abetting the attempted illegal smuggling of the high-value pool cues.

********* “The protection of threatened and endangered wildlife is an international concern,” said United States Attorney Eileen M. Decker. “Illegal trafficking of protected species, even small parts of them, creates a market and demand that can lead to the decimation*of these vulnerable populations.”

********* Gutierrez appeared this afternoon in United States District Court and was released on a $10,000 appearance bond.* Post-indictment arraignment was scheduled for August 24.

**********A criminal complaint contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty in court.

********* The charge alleged in the complaint carries a statutory maximum penalty of 10 years in federal prison.

********* This case was investigated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, with assistance by United States Customs and Border Protection personnel. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Amanda M. Bettinelli of the Environmental and Community Safety Crimes Section.

16-179

USAO - California, Central

Same thing here ------ PROVE IT!!!!

You purchase a gun and you sell it to someone and he make a holdup
in a bank Are you responsible for that

NO, no I am not. As long as it was a legal gun, and I could legally have it and I followed the state rules for private party gun sales ( which are very lax ) I have ZERO liability after the sale. Period.

Pangit
08-05-2016, 04:49 AM
Link (http://en.rfi.fr/wire/20160805-cambodia-seizes-600-kilograms-ivory-africa)

It's time to read between the tea leaves boys. Times change and what was once legal and accepted by some is not what the general population likes today. Get used to it.

430295

Cambodian customs Friday seized more than 600 kilograms of illegal ivory in a container packed with corn that had languished unclaimed at a port for two years after being shipped from Africa.

The haul was made after officials decided to open the container, which had been left at the southwestern port of Sihanoukville weeks after a crackdown on ivory smuggling in 2014.

"The shipment arrived at the port more than two years ago... but nobody has come to claim it," Kin Ly, head of the port's customs office.

"The elephant tusks were hidden underneath sacks of corn," Kin Ly said, adding that the ivory had been shipped from Africa and was destined for a third country.

He was unable to say which country or provide an estimate of how much the tusks worth.

In 2014, Cambodia seized more than three tonnes of ivory -- the country's largest-ever haul of elephant tusks -- hidden in a container of beans.

The same year, Cambodian police arrested two Vietnamese men who were trying to smuggle nearly 80 kilograms (180 lbs) of illegal ivory from Africa.

Kin Ly said the container may not have been claimed because of links with those smuggling groups.

Conservationists have voiced concern that Cambodia is emerging as a key transit route for African ivory, which often makes its way to wealthy buyers in Vietnam or China.

Poaching of elephants has risen sharply in Africa to meet demand in Asia.

More than 35,000 elephants are slaughtered each year on the African continent from an approximate population of more than 450,000 in the wild.

chefjeff
08-05-2016, 04:59 AM
And I'm dumbfounded that people don't understand animals die to provide ivory.

If that makes me a creep, I'm totally ok with that.

Don't forget they die to provide cue tips, too.

But gee, leather isn't endangered....golly, a guy might want to understand why that is. Might.


Jeff Livingston

chefjeff
08-05-2016, 05:02 AM
He's already guilty of a crime. Under current law, it is illegal to sell any goods containing ivory after July 6, 2016. Even within the state. There are some exceptions, but they don't apply in this case. So, at the very least, he's in some hot water.

A sale is completed when the goods change hands. So, he's already committed a criminal act. How criminal is yet to be determined.

He MAY have violated some unlawful legislation, but for him to commit a crime, there's gotta be a victim. There's not victim here, ergo, no crime.

Your appeal to an unlawful authority doesn't change any of that.

fyi,


Jeff Livingston

jimmyg
08-05-2016, 05:04 AM
He MAY have violated some unlawful legislation, but for him to commit a crime, there's gotta be a victim. There's not victim here, ergo, no crime.

Your appeal to an unlawful authority doesn't change any of that.

fyi,

Jeff Livingston

Our "Masters" have determined that the elephant is the "victim".

Grantstew
08-05-2016, 05:41 AM
He MAY have violated some unlawful legislation, but for him to commit a crime, there's gotta be a victim. There's not victim here, ergo, no crime.

Your appeal to an unlawful authority doesn't change any of that.

fyi,


Jeff Livingston

Why not export some cocaine, no victim, ergo, no crime?

Guessing you are not a lawyer

lfigueroa
08-05-2016, 05:49 AM
Let me get this straight. A study comes out slamming the US over their enforcement of the importing and exporting of illegal ivory, and the spokesperson for the agency under fire vehemently disagrees? Shocking.

Did you read the full article, Lou? Or just look for the loophole?


The quote proves the study in the article is of dubious validity, per US authority. Ergo, you have not, yet, provided a credible source. Anything else?

Lou Figueroa

lfigueroa
08-05-2016, 05:51 AM
He's already guilty of a crime. Under current law, it is illegal to sell any goods containing ivory after July 6, 2016. Even within the state. There are some exceptions, but they don't apply in this case. So, at the very least, he's in some hot water.

A sale is completed when the goods change hands. So, he's already committed a criminal act. How criminal is yet to be determined.


Once again you fail to read the pertinent documents. Within the F&WL press release it says, "A criminal complaint contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty in court."

Lou Figueroa

Chopdoc
08-05-2016, 05:53 AM
He's already guilty of a crime. Under current law, it is illegal to sell any goods containing ivory after July 6, 2016. Even within the state. There are some exceptions, but they don't apply in this case. So, at the very least, he's in some hot water.

A sale is completed when the goods change hands. So, he's already committed a criminal act. How criminal is yet to be determined.



How do you know on what date the transaction occurred?

You don't.

As I said. Your throttle is stuck open.



This thread is way out of hand and not in the least because of statements like your own. I am not singling you out. There are numerous out of hand posts.


This is an important topic for cue aficionados and cue makers. I do enjoy some rational discussion and debate about it.

As for the cue maker, I wish him the best and hope he is on the right side of the law.


To make a point: I do not mention his name in my posts on this matter. This forum is indexed by Google and it's bad enough he has a legal battle. There are fringe elements involved in this controversy that can get on Google and read what we are posting here. I do not wish to fan flames. As a physician and former researcher I have experienced bomb threats on laboratories by radical activists, so I am careful to avoid fanning flames.


.



.

Grantstew
08-05-2016, 06:01 AM
I dunno when the transaction took place, but Chady Lui and Azen (Zen Cues) were arrested late April when the cues were discovered in their luggage. Chady is still being held, not sure about the other guy.

zpele
08-05-2016, 06:38 AM
I'm sure I'll get some flack on here for this but I've never understood why people are ok with using ivory in a cue unless it is that legal stuff from a long time ago.

So many people try to justify it for some reason- maybe to make themselves feel better.

If Ernie did commit a crime he should be tried and serve out his sentence. It doesn't matter if you commit a crime without knowing. I hear he is a nice guy and I hope he is proven not guilty but in this case the law is justified in my opinion and it all is there to prevent hunting of an endangered species. Elephants are endangered because of us humans, God forbid we try and rectify our mistake by not using a part of an elephant in a cue. Just use one of the myriad other ivory substitutes and get over it.

chefjeff
08-05-2016, 06:40 AM
Why not export some cocaine, no victim, ergo, no crime?

Guessing you are not a lawyer

Why not?

Guessing you're not a libertarian.


Jeff Livingston

Poolplaya9
08-05-2016, 06:45 AM
You purchase a gun and you sell it to someone and he make a holdup
in a bank Are you responsible for that

Contrary to what a lot of people keep saying here, the answer is sometimes "yes", you are in fact sometimes responsible for what somebody does with the item you sell or give them. What makes the difference is typically what knowledge you had of what they planned to do with said gun (or ivory).

If a guy comes to buy a gun from you and you sell it to him and then he goes and kills his wife with it are you responsible? Nope, not if you didn't know and there is no way you should have known what he planned to do with it. But if he comes to you and says he is going to kill his wife with it, and you sell it to him, then you are in fact responsible for and will be charged with murder (or sometimes accessory to murder) and will often even get the same sentence he does. You were in fact a part of the murder in such case and are guilty of murder in the eyes of the law.

Same with ivory. If Ernie was selling ivory to someone in California, which was legal, and he did not know or should not have known that it was to be exported, then if it ends up getting exported then Ernie did nothing wrong and broke no law. He did not know and there was no reason he should have known. But if he knew or should have known that the cues were to be illegally exported then he is in fact a part of the act of illegally exporting the cues and is guilty of breaking that law.

If the transaction went something like this, Ernie's goose is cooked:
Chady email: Yo Ernie, Chady from China here. Finally sold out the last batch of cues I got from you, need to get another batch. I will taken whatever you can get me.
Ernie email: Ok, well you know the drill. Like always you are going to have to come pick them up in person here in Cali. You know I'm not going to be the one that ships them out of country.
Chady email: Sounds good, just booked my flight, see you on the 19th!

Obviously the feds think they have some good evidence that Ernie knew that Chady might intend to export the cues, and if they actually do have that evidence, Ernie is guilty of breaking the exportation of ivory law because he was a part of doing exactly that, exporting ivory. To be clear I am not saying that is what he did as I have no idea as I wasn't privy to all of the transaction nor do I know what kind of evidence the feds have, but they do definitely have some evidence. Now whether that evidence is strong enough for a conviction or not remains to be seen.

And for the record the "well I didn't know for sure that he was actually going to export the cues even though he said he was" or "well even though he lives in China and flew in from China he never specifically told me he was going to fly back there with the cues" and similar arguments don't hold water or work. It goes back to what you "should have known", meaning what a reasonable and prudent person who wasn't intentionally trying to ignore the facts would likely believe or highly suspect.

For example, you go to the convenience store and a 16 yr old is standing around outside and as you approach they explain to you that their mom sent them to the store to buy beer for her but they can't because the store won't sell it to them, so would you please buy them the beer so they can take it back to their mom. You can't use the "well I didn't know the 16 year old was actually going to drink it himself and it was actually for him because he told me it was for his mom" or "he never told me who it was for so I had no way to know for sure it was for him" or "he never told me he might drink it" and other similar arguments. Well I guess you can use those arguments but they won't work under the law. A reasonable and prudent person would have immediately suspected the story was BS and the 16 yr old was just trying to get beer for themselves and that is kind of how "should have known" works. "Should have known" is often a case where you did know or highly suspected but were just trying to play dumb for whatever reasons whether it be in an attempt to fool yourself or fool others.

overlord
08-05-2016, 08:04 AM
He's already guilty of a crime. Under current law, it is illegal to sell any goods containing ivory after July 6, 2016. Even within the state. There are some exceptions, but they don't apply in this case. So, at the very least, he's in some hot water.

A sale is completed when the goods change hands. So, he's already committed a criminal act. How criminal is yet to be determined.

Ernie is a much better human being than you are. I always am impressed with folk that do something very well.

The guy is 75 years old. For you to act as judge and jury with the facts unclear is reprehensible. Ernie is not guilty of anything until this case is adjudicated.

jasonlaus
08-05-2016, 08:29 AM
I'm sure I'll get some flack on here for this but I've never understood why people are ok with using ivory in a cue unless it is that legal stuff from a long time ago.

So many people try to justify it for some reason- maybe to make themselves feel better.

If Ernie did commit a crime he should be tried and serve out his sentence. It doesn't matter if you commit a crime without knowing. I hear he is a nice guy and I hope he is proven not guilty but in this case the law is justified in my opinion and it all is there to prevent hunting of an endangered species. Elephants are endangered because of us humans, God forbid we try and rectify our mistake by not using a part of an elephant in a cue. Just use one of the myriad other ivory substitutes and get over it.

I don't think anybody here is wanting to use illegal Ivory. As far as I know most(or all) cuemakers have pre-ban Ivory.
What we're upset about is taking something that was legal and making it illegal and with that making it worthless(if you follow the law).

Making our Ivory illegal will not save one single Elephant! Destroying the cue/Ivory will not save a single Elephant.

I would bet that most people on here agree with the Ivory ban and would not use "Illegal" Ivory. What they don't agree with is making us criminals for something that was legal.
Jason

Michael Webb
08-05-2016, 08:49 AM
I don't think anybody here is wanting to use illegal Ivory. As far as I know most(or all) cuemakers have pre-ban Ivory.
What we're upset about is taking something that was legal and making it illegal and with that making it worthless(if you follow the law).

Making our Ivory illegal will not save one single Elephant! Destroying the cue/Ivory will not save a single Elephant.

I would bet that most people on here agree with the Ivory ban and would not use "Illegal" Ivory. What they don't agree with is making us criminals for something that was legal.
Jason


That might just be the most logical post I've read so far in this thread.
Thank you.

Type79
08-05-2016, 10:26 AM
I don't think anybody here is wanting to use illegal Ivory. As far as I know most(or all) cuemakers have pre-ban Ivory.
What we're upset about is taking something that was legal and making it illegal and with that making it worthless(if you follow the law).

Making our Ivory illegal will not save one single Elephant! Destroying the cue/Ivory will not save a single Elephant.

I would bet that most people on here agree with the Ivory ban and would not use "Illegal" Ivory. What they don't agree with is making us criminals for something that was legal.
Jason

This is right on point.

By rendering something worthless that was acquired legally is in U.S. law is known as "taking" and it is unjust to do so without compensation.

Shawn Armstrong
08-05-2016, 10:31 AM
This is right on point.

By rendering something worthless that was acquired legally is in U.S. law is known as "taking" and it is unjust to do so without compensation.

Slavery was legal until 1810. Are you suggesting their masters be fairly compensated for losing his slaves? I mean, they were obtained legally, right?

justaplayer
08-05-2016, 10:36 AM
I dunno when the transaction took place, but Chady Lui and Azen (Zen Cues) were arrested late April when the cues were discovered in their luggage. Chady is still being held, not sure about the other guy.

DING DING...we have a winner.

Shawn Armstrong
08-05-2016, 10:53 AM
Making our Ivory illegal will not save one single Elephant! Destroying the cue/Ivory will not save a single Elephant.

So how do you explain elephant populations recovering between 1989 and 1999, when the trade of ivory was illegal? Just wondering. You know, seeing as you said making ivory illegal wouldn't save a single elephant. You're actually right. It saved thousands.

Are you people really this dense?

Argue with the numbers. Between 1989 and 1999, elephants went from "endangered", to "protected". That means there was an improvement in the population.

JoeyInCali
08-05-2016, 11:19 AM
So how do you explain elephant populations recovering between 1989 and 1999, when the trade of ivory was illegal? Just wondering. You know, seeing as you said making ivory illegal wouldn't save a single elephant. You're actually right. It saved thousands.

Are you people really this dense?

Argue with the numbers. Between 1989 and 1999, elephants went from "endangered", to "protected". That means there was an improvement in the population.

Because they improved their conservation program.
Then what happened after that ? The ivory exportation to the US was still illegal. How come they kept shooting elephants then?

The new laws here ain't going to save the elephants .
I'll bet you $1000.
There will be more dead elephants by the end of the year .
NOT ONE ELEPHANT WILL BE SAVED BECAUSE IT IVORY trade is illegal in the US.
We can escrow the money now if you want.

overlord
08-05-2016, 11:21 AM
Slavery was legal until 1810. Are you suggesting their masters be fairly compensated for losing his slaves? I mean, they were obtained legally, right?

Your mind is enslaved.

jasonlaus
08-05-2016, 11:25 AM
Slavery was legal until 1810. Are you suggesting their masters be fairly compensated for losing his slaves? I mean, they were obtained legally, right?

Are you suggesting the slaves should have been burned like Ivory?:eek:
Jason

gutshot
08-05-2016, 11:28 AM
The information below is taken from the following report.

"Status of African elephant populations and levels of
illegal killing and the illegal trade in ivory: A report to the African Elephant Summit, December 2013"

Factors associated with levels of illegal killing:

"The MIKE programme has statistically evaluated relationships between PIKE levels and a wide range of
ecological, biophysical and socio-economic factors at the site, national and global levels. Three such
factors consistently emerge as very strong predictors of poaching levels and trends: poverty at the site
level, governance at the national level and demand for illegal ivory at the global level. The quantitative
relationships between PIKE and these factors are illustrated in Figure 5.

Human infant mortality in and around MIKE sites, which is interpreted as a proxy for poverty at the site
level, is the single strongest site-level correlate of PIKE, with sites suffering from higher levels of poverty
experiencing higher levels of elephant poaching. This suggests that there may be a greater incentive to
facilitate or participate in the illegal killing of elephants in areas where human livelihoods are insecure.
Furthermore, this relationship highlights a close linkage between the well being of people and that of the
elephant populations with which they coexist.

At the national level, the strongest correlate of PIKE is governance, as measured by Transparency
International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). High poaching levels are more prevalent in countries
where governance is weaker, and vice versa. This is likely to be a causal relationship, with poor
governance facilitating the illegal killing of elephants and movement of illegal ivory, be it through
ineffective law enforcement or active aiding and abetting by unscrupulous officials.

Ultimately, the illegal killing of elephants for ivory is driven and sustained by demand from consumers
who are willing to pay for illegal ivory, as measured by household consumption in China. ETIS analyses
indicate that, in recent years, China has become the world’s largest consumer of illegal ivory. This is
corroborated by the fact that that temporal PIKE trends are strongly related to patterns in consumer
spending in that country. This relationship does not hold for other traditional destination markets for ivory
(Europe, USA or Japan) or for countries known to be important transit points in the ivory trade chain
(Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand or Viet Nam). Temporal PIKE trends are also strongly correlated with
another demand-related variable, namely trends in large-scale ivory seizures as reported by ETIS."

My take is while placing a ban on ivory does has some affects on limiting kills, it is not the only factor causing the reduction. I think it's safe to say it's not the controlling factor at all. The controlling factor is the Chinese economy.




So how do you explain elephant populations recovering between 1989 and 1999, when the trade of ivory was illegal? Just wondering. You know, seeing as you said making ivory illegal wouldn't save a single elephant. You're actually right. It saved thousands.

Are you people really this dense?

Argue with the numbers. Between 1989 and 1999, elephants went from "endangered", to "protected". That means there was an improvement in the population.