Atlas Billiard Supplies fined $162,000 for illegal ivory export

classiccues said:
Being around pool all I know is bull sh*t, a lot has been put forth in this thread by the other side. A cue has a tip, it is leather (animal), wood that is harvested fore cues ultimately endangers the animals in the forest, the chemicals used for finishing, dying, etc.. all contribute negatively to the enviroment as a whole. Has this stopped anyone from playing pool? No.

The gas you use to drive to the pool room, etc.. etc ... etc... everything endangers an animal in some form or another. Everyone reading this thread I guess will now give up pool and run into the woods naked, right? I didn't think so, and lets be thankful for that.

JV
Click to expand...

A wholly unsatisfactory answer. Risible, even.

I think the answer you meant to give was "Yes. Yes, I'll sell anything - ANYTHING - so long as there's a buck in it for me and someone else to blame".
 
cueaddicts said:
Kelly, you are absolutely right. Some of these "elightened scholars" are also some of the most ignorant and uninformed people out there. The facts are out there....but you have to look beyond the news headlines to get to them. Ivory is not the problem. The pool community is not the problem. If all the ivory here in the US was collected and done away with (along with the desire for it) and no more was EVER brought into the US, the elephants would still be facing an extremely grave situation. The demand from Asia (nothing to do with pool & billiards) is so great and elephants are not being conserved when they could and should be....plain and simple. Btw, poached ivory is not even suitable for the cue industry here as "green" ivory must season for decades before its stable enough to use.

It's a daunting task to conserve such an grand animal across multiple countries, most third world. Conservation IS the solution and I think that was TW's point in the article I posted. I pray all the involved governments do come up with an actual conservation plan before it's ultimately too late.
Click to expand...

So, are you lobbying your government to ensure elephant protection is moved up the political agenda?

No? Oh. :rolleyes:
 
TheThaiger said:
So, are you lobbying your government to ensure elephant protection is moved up the political agenda?

No? Oh. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It would be more compelling to lobby our government to write and implement laws that actually do good and make sense, instead of pandering for votes and/or preying on the citizenry's fears. This issue transcends our country's politics.
 
cueaddicts said:
It would be more compelling to lobby our government to write and implement laws that actually do good and make sense, instead of pandering for votes and/or preying on the citizenry's fears. This issue transcends our country's politics.
Click to expand...

Precisely, which is why we, as individuals, should take our own principled stance on the matter, and not justify our actions by saying "other people do it, why shouldn't we".
 
Kelly_Guy said:
You guys should give up. Some people just do not understand the concept of conservation. They simply don't want to understand. They focus on the words "killing" and "extinction" and latch on to them and don't care about the words "responsible management", "renewable resource", and "self sustaining income".

When responsible people are in charge of a renewable resource that generates an income and provides them a way of life, they will value its protection.

In the US, when a hunter goes and buys a hunting license, he is purchasing it from the wildlife and fisheries department. They have employees who monitor/survey/evaluate/study the wildlife. Their job is to make sure the environment is providing a healthy habitat for the survival of the species. If the numbers are down, guess what, the hunting license procured by the hunter allows fewer numbers to be harvested. When population numbers go up, harvesting goes up in order to strive for an equilibrium between the wildlife population and the environment. The hunters themselves who kill <gasp> the animals are helping to fund the management of the populations to guarantee the survival of the species in the future.

A good example of this is the American alligator. This is a quote from Wikipedia.

"Historically, alligators were depleted from many parts of their range as a result of market hunting and loss of habitat, and 30 years ago many people believed their population would never recover. In 1967, the alligator was listed as an endangered species (under a law that preceded the Endangered Species Act of 1973), meaning it was considered in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

A combined effort by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, state wildlife agencies in the South, and the creation of large, commercial alligator farms were instrumental in aiding the American alligator's recovery. The Endangered Species Act outlawed alligator hunting, allowing the species to rebound in numbers in many areas where it had been depleted. As the alligator began to make a comeback, states established alligator population monitoring programs and used this information to ensure alligator numbers continued to increase. In 1987, the Fish and Wildlife Service pronounced the American alligator fully recovered and consequently removed the animal from the list of endangered species. The Fish and Wildlife Service still regulates the legal trade in alligator skins and products made from them."

Did you follow that? The American alligator was on the endangered species list. What was the solution? The solution was wildlife management and commercial farming <gasp>. Hunting of the alligator was banned, monitoring and breeding programs were created (costs money), commercial farms were created (generates money), and then controlled hunting was re-instituted (generates more money). As a result, the population is healthy and striving without any threat to the longevity of the species. That is how conservation is supposed to work. Because alligators are not as majestic looking as an elephant and don't have the stigma attached to them that ivory has, people around the world were not trying to tell the US what to do and not do with their alligators. I don't have an ivory tusk in my display cabinet, but I do have an alligator head bought from Florida in my display cabinet.

It can work with elephants also. Elephants require a great deal of space per head. Someone said cattle has more of an affect on the environment than elephants. That is laughable. Perhaps collectively since cattle is in nearly every country in the world, but not per head.

It has been said over and over again. When a herd is closely managed and the sale of ivory is regulated, an elephant is not harvested FOR its ivory. An elephant is harvested for the good of the herd. Either it does not exhibit the best traits for survivability, it is old, it can no longer reproduce, it is weak, or the population is up and a population cull is warranted. When the animal is responsibly harvested, the reservation will generate income from the ivory, the hide, the meat will be used, etc. Some of the money will buy guns and bullets so the workers who are paid (there is that need for income again) to take care of the herd are a threat to poachers. Those workers will be making a living from managing and taking care of the herd, and will protect that living and honor the existence of the elephant. Poachers do not do that.

Poachers who would come in and kill an animal and cut the tusks and run leaving the carcass to rot will be robbing the reservation from many thousands of dollars. The threat is to both the elephant and the way of life of those who manage the herd. They won't take kindly to that, and neither will the courts when a poacher is caught. If there is no income and no thriving way of life threatened by poachers, then poaching has little consequence to those doling out sentences. But, if poachers are robbing money from the reservations, robbing tax money from the government, and threatening a way of life, they will be taken more seriously and judged more harshly. Guess what? Poaching will nearly stop.

As the population of the herd goes up and down, numbers that are allowed to be harvested goes up and down. The price of ivory and other elephant products goes up and down with it. This ensures the survivability of the species. That is conservation.

Kelly
Click to expand...

Well said ad honestly portrayed. Wildlife would be much better protected if more people understood the relationship between value and wildlife. Just look at the devastating effect the US ban on leopard skins has had on their populations in parts of Africa.
 
TheThaiger said:
I don't think you understand conservation.

Elephants, and other rare animals, will always face the threat of extinction whilst there's poverty in Africa and demand in America. There's very little we can do on an individual basis about overall poverty, but demand can easily be curbed. It is reduced through peer pressure - shaming the act. When using ivory in pool cues is universally seen as shameful and disgusting, the poaching will stop.

If you want to modify behaviour, 1. shame the act, and 2. withdraw your dollar. I have made a note of the selfish and greedy and will not be buying anything from them, ever.
Click to expand...

I must say that you haven't a clue about what your talking about. Preban ivory used in cues has been in America for years. The demand for ivory is not coming from America, it is coming from Asia. Try doing a search on who bought all the ivory from the past several legal sales from Africa. It was not the USA, it was China and Japan. To believe that the use of ivory in cues today is harming elephants is so short sighted as to be laughable and to think that stopping the use of ivory in cues will stop the poaching is down right ridiculous. And if you think you can shame the Chinese or Japanese into changing their actions....Maybe you should join Greenpeace and see what kind of response the Asians have given them.

Bob Danielson
 
Some 239 tusks worth US$ 3.6 million were seized.
Click to expand...

I can see why it would be pretty much impossible to stop the poaching.

And Bob is correct in saying that to try and tell the Asians anything.

Take the east cost of Canada. While the Maritimers have to sit out and suffer fishing limits on their livelyhoods, the Chinese and Japanese trawlers can sit outside the Canadian international boundary and rape the fish stock.

Try a Google search and see if anything pops up on the Japanese slaughter of dolphins. See if you can stomach watching that one. Once was enuff for me and I could barely take it. But thats what happens when a race of people will eat anything that breathes and s hits.
 
Do you think for one minute if all of the cue makers in the world stopped using ivory today, that the illegal activities associated with the buying and selling of ivory would immediately stop?



TheThaiger said:
And the same risible line of argument...

I may as well put my daughter on the game myself, because if I don't, someone else will.
Click to expand...
 
bdcues said:
I must say that you haven't a clue about what your talking about. Preban ivory used in cues has been in America for years. The demand for ivory is not coming from America, it is coming from Asia. Try doing a search on who bought all the ivory from the past several legal sales from Africa. It was not the USA, it was China and Japan. To believe that the use of ivory in cues today is harming elephants is so short sighted as to be laughable and to think that stopping the use of ivory in cues will stop the poaching is down right ridiculous. And if you think you can shame the Chinese or Japanese into changing their actions....Maybe you should join Greenpeace and see what kind of response the Asians have given them.

Bob Danielson
Click to expand...

Whoooosssshhhhhh!

Tell me, how are we in the west able to dictate what those in the east do if we do the same?

Do TRY to see the bigger picture, chap.
 
Tony_in_MD said:
Do you think for one minute if all of the cue makers in the world stopped using ivory today, that the illegal activities associated with the buying and selling of ivory would immediately stop?
Click to expand...

So we should use more?

The only argument you present is to continue using ivory - whether pre-ban or post-ban is entirely irrelevant - until the last elephant is dead.

The use of ivory today legitimises the use of ivory tomorrow. Sooner or later you draw a line in the sand, irrespective of what others do.
 
Answer the question. Stop deflecting.

TheThaiger said:
So we should use more?

The only argument you present is to continue using ivory - whether pre-ban or post-ban is entirely irrelevant - until the last elephant is dead.

The use of ivory today legitimises the use of ivory tomorrow. Sooner or later you draw a line in the sand, irrespective of what others do.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TheThaiger said:
Whoooosssshhhhhh!

Tell me, how are we in the west able to dictate what those in the east do if we do the same?

Do TRY to see the bigger picture, chap.
Click to expand...

Chap, the bigger picture is that the US has already put in place laws that prohibit the exportation of ivory already in the US. That the US already has put in place laws that prohibit the importation of ivory into the US - except that ivory brought in as part of a "legal" safari -ie legal killing of an animal, paid for by the hunter. So, if hunting the elephant legally is driving the animal to extinction than maybe someone would be smart enough to figure that out and change the practice. But that is not what is happening is it? As for ivory already in the US legally, how can you begin to believe that restricting it's use will have any impact on elephants. Those that have ivory use it knowing that what is here is pretty much all that is ever going to be here and the smallest pieces are put to use... not burned. Speaking of burning maybe you would like to look up the stats on how much gasoline it took just to burn the tusks and what that costs the people of Kenya. As I have stated 3 times now, even Dr Richard Leakey (look him up, he is quite interesting) stated that it was wrong to have burned the ivory, it did not cause the great change in attitude that he originally thought it would and did nothing to curb poaching. As stated before the alligators survive now because of the commercial aspects in raising them, the same helps the elephants. Selling legal ivory helps preserve the elephants. Putting ivory on a total black market system insures the extinction of them.

Bob Danielson
 
TheThaiger said:
So we should use more?

The only argument you present is to continue using ivory - whether pre-ban or post-ban is entirely irrelevant - until the last elephant is dead.

The use of ivory today legitimises the use of ivory tomorrow. Sooner or later you draw a line in the sand, irrespective of what others do.
Click to expand...

Who are you or anyone else to say that something someone purchased legally can now not be sold/trade/used? Those in the US have stopped using ivory for many items and some day the use of ivory in cues will stop, but who is privileged enough to have the power to tell someone that what is theirs is not theirs any more. Maybe Obama will add ivory use in the NDAA and lock them up without due process for using it.

Bob Danielson
 
TheThaiger said:
A wholly unsatisfactory answer. Risible, even.

I think the answer you meant to give was "Yes. Yes, I'll sell anything - ANYTHING - so long as there's a buck in it for me and someone else to blame".
Click to expand...

I can see you're one to not walk the walk. Give up everything that could possibly cause harm to "any animal" and see where you get to...

JV
 
risky biz said:
Taking ivory off the market INCREASES the PRICE which makes it less desirable. That's exactly why the amount Atlas was fined should have been much higher. So that the cost of trafficking in ivory would be so high that the demand for it would DECREASE and poachers wouldn't have any extinction advocates to sell to. Economics 101. .
Click to expand...

So lets see if your theory holds water... or if my theory is the correct one.

http://www.earthtimes.org/conservation/record-illegal-ivory-seizures-2011/1732/

Looks like the BURNING of the tusks created more of a demand. Hmmm who would have thought that. So far no articles about the DECREASE of poaching have arisen... wonder why that is??? OH I know... because the harder it is to obtain, the more it will cost and the poachers will have MORE of an incentive to poach...

Economics 101...

JV
 
classiccues said:
So lets see if your theory holds water... or if my theory is the correct one.

http://www.earthtimes.org/conservation/record-illegal-ivory-seizures-2011/1732/

Looks like the BURNING of the tusks created more of a demand. Hmmm who would have thought that. So far no articles about the DECREASE of poaching have arisen... wonder why that is??? OH I know... because the harder it is to obtain, the more it will cost and the poachers will have MORE of an incentive to poach...

Economics 101...

JV
Click to expand...

Ah, economics; not called the dismal science for nothing. If we - the whole world - decided ivory was a substance we wanted nothing to do with, what would happen to prices?

Economics 101 indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top