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

[TheThaiger]

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

I am freely able to express my opinion on what is moral and what is immoral, and pervading morality is ultimately what drives public policy. But the real driver for change is peer pressure. When the pool playing community sees the light on this issue, you and other greedy cue makers will be driven out of business.

Economics 101.

 

[TheThaiger]

Answer the question. Stop deflecting.

I have answered the question - you draw a line in the sand somewhere, irrespective of what other people might do. Just because other people may steal from old ladies does not mean I shall.

Let me pose one for you. What do you think an elephant would say if you asked it your question? Do you think it would say "I appreciate your point about ivory for cues being only a very small part of the overall demand, and few of my family are butchered directly for the purposes of cue making. Actually, now you mention it, my great aunt Ellie is becoming a bit of a burden, so I wouldn't mind if you took her out for me. Lovely tusks, she has. She won't be no bother, guvnor."

Or perhaps the elephant would deem your question disingenuous?

 

[bdcues]

Yes, I saw your real driver of change...shame. I wonder if that is what you use to teach your children?

And yes, you are free to spout your opinion about morality. But your morality is not free to interpret mine.

Bob Danielson

 

[TheThaiger]

Yes, I saw your real driver of change...shame. I wonder if that is what you use to teach your children?

And yes, you are free to spout your opinion about morality. But your morality is not free to interpret mine.

Peer pressure is a tremendously effective driver for change, far better than legislation, for instance. Of course I teach my kids to shame the act.

I fear there's a morality gap here. The new economics of the coming decades is very likely to shame the act of wanton greed and rapacious decadence of our current consumerist society. Be prepared to be shamed.

 

[poolmouse]

So what do you suggest, start killing humans?

I know that was tongue in cheek but have you seen the world population numbers?

China - 1,341,335,000
India - 1,224,614,000
United States - 310,384,000

Source:

http://geography.about.com/cs/worldpopulation/a/mostpopulous.htm

Poolmouse

 

[risky biz]

[/B]

Then poachers would just have to kill a bunch more to supply the demand.
Wherever there's a demand for something, there will be someone trying to fill it, whether it be legally, or illegally. I guess the forever ongoing waste, called the drug war, has taught you nothing. The more ivory that is burned, and wasted, the more dead elephants there will be. Yes, that is a period, and i'm glad this pleases you.

Did you somehow develop the belief that marijuana is in danger of becoming extinct like elephants? The lopsided thinking here is astounding. If everything that is made illegal just encourages more of it why are there laws against running red lights? By your reasoning, if we just let people run red lights they'll get all the red light running they want and then there would be less of it. Fines would just increased the demand rather than discourage it.

Do you really not understand why there are laws that punish people for certain behavior? If it's a bad law that punishes behavior that most people don't think should be punished then it should be repealed. Many drug laws fall into this category. If you think most people in the United States think there isn't anything wrong with hunting elephants to extinction you're living on another planet.

 

[bdcues]

My point was missed by you again, it was not that you would teach your children to shame something but that you would use shame to teach your children. The shame is that you believe you have the right to tell the world how to act. That you believe you have a right to tell Africa or any where else, what it can do with it's ivory and what it can't. That you believe by depriving poor countries the ability to sell ivory, taken legally in what ever country that might be, that you are helping the situation of any animal. If you don't want to use legal ivory than don't use legal ivory. If a cue maker wants to use legal ivory he has every right to use the legal ivory no matter what your morality on it.

The shame is that your morality wishes to impose its self on others. Even if, as you fantasize that the majority of the people would want to take from someone something that is not theirs, (oh, except those for the socialist CHANGE we were all promised, so maybe your closer than patriots fear) we happen to live in a republic that says the rights of the many shall not take away the rights of the few. Though this seldom happens any more due to those such as your self who believe their moral judgement is the only one that matters it is still what this country was founded on. My judgement to let others do with their own property what they will does not infringe on their rights. Your judgement that you should decide what someone else does with their own property does infringe on their rights. Who should have shame now?

Bob Danielson

 

[risky biz]

Actually, if you read the link it does not discourage the extinction of elephants - but that doesn't seem to be a big concern for you.

Well, no, actually- that link was a bunch of hokum.

And if your read my previous post about Richard Leakey he admits that burning the ivory is the wrong thing to do, that instead it should be sold to raise money to help stop the poachers, which, if your read my post, the Kenyan government is not doing much to stop when it releases poachers shortly after they are caught.

You may want to raise Richard Leakey to the status of some kind of God because he made an offhand comment that is conducive to your let's-harvest-ivory-from-a-nearly-extinct-species agenda but it's plain dumb to maintain that ivory sales can be the only possible way to fund elephant conservation. Atlas should have been fined $1,500,000 for doing something that facilitated illegal ivory sales and some of that could have been used for elephant conservation for a single example.

If the Kenyan government isn't doing enough to effectively stop poachers what's your solution? To let the poachers run wild so you can get all the ivory you want?

And how can you be given a fine for not getting a permit for something that you can not get a permit to do?

Bob Danielson

It's really pretty simple. If Atlas can't get a required permit to do something then they shouldn't do it.

 

[risky biz]

Maybe I'll talk slower so you can get the point. Ivory has been sold BY the people that are protecting it. It was poached ivory. I said "IF" the cops could sell the drugs, meaning "IF" there was a LEGAL outlet to do so, they could then use that money to fight the illegal heroin trade.

JV

Selling ivory increases the demand. It doesn't lessen the demand. You know damned well that you and people like you just have to have a cue with ivory if someone else has one. You'd all be proud as hell if elephants went extinct because you'd then be among the few with ivory on your cue.

 

[risky biz]

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

The laws to discourage trading in ivory were instituted because elephant populations were dropping precipitously. Is there anything you mentioned above that exhibits the same pattern? What's your point?

 

[risky biz]

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.

The laws implemented to restrict the ivory trade have slowed the plunge in elephant populations and they are actually increasing in some areas. Your comments to the effect that these laws don't do any good and don't make any sense are ridiculous. And I haven't seen anyone campaigning on a save the elephants platform, either. You must be living in a fantasy world.

 

[bdcues]

Well, no, actually- that link was a bunch of hokum.



You may want to raise Richard Leakey to the status of some kind of God because he made an offhand comment that is conducive to your let's-harvest-ivory-from-a-nearly-extinct-species agenda but it's plain dumb to maintain that ivory sales can be the only possible way to fund elephant conservation. Atlas should have been fined $1,500,000 for doing something that facilitated illegal ivory sales and some of that could have been used for elephant conservation for a single example.

If the Kenyan government isn't doing enough to effectively stop poachers what's your solution? To let the poachers run wild so you can get all the ivory you want?



It's really pretty simple. If Atlas can't get a required permit to do something then they shouldn't do it.

I am only going to make my point one more time and like classiccues I promise to type slower so you can keep up.

I am not elevating Dr. Richard Leakey to any position. If you looked at the history you would already know that Leakey was the one that proposed to the Kenyan Government to burn the ivory in hopes of raising the level of awareness concerning the plight of the elephants. In doing this they burned 12 tons of ivory. And now I will type even slower. That 12 tons equates to 24,000lbs of ivory that would have sold for over $100.00 per pound or at minimum $2.4million. If in your wildest dreams you don't think that 2.4m would not have gone a long ways towards securing the elephants safe future than I, (and Dr Leakey in later years seeing that it did nothing to curb the demand for ivory), think your mistaken.

Point 2. Show me where once I have stated that i am not for the protection of the elephants and in favor of the poachers. My whole point about the mistaken idea that burning the ivory helps the elephants is that the sale of the ivory would and does increase the safety of them. Not only do I think that the Kenyan Government should be doing more, if in fact they are letting poachers out of jail within days, I also believe the punishment for poaching should be harsher. Although, how you get a punishment harsher than death I don't know. Maybe the poachers should be fined 1.5m like you think Atlas should.

Point 3. OK, let me explain it once more. No one is arguing that Atlas should not have sold the legal ivory illegally. Of course they knew the law and the ramifications. However, what they are guilty of is illegally shipping legal ivory out of the country. What they were charged with and plead guilty to was shipping ivory without a permit. To my knowledge there are no permits for the sale of ivory out of the US, period. So, how can you get fined for not having a permit that does not exist? The permit is the issue and the permit does not exist. That Atlas was fined is not the problem. That they were fined for not having something that does not exist is. Does this excuse what they did... no. Were they wrong....yes.

Am I writing any more about this...no. Am I done explaining myself...yes.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

So Great Britain has cleaned up it's ivory problem huh?

As far as great aunt Ellie, I will use myself as an example. If given the choice between a bullet, and a pack of lions, I take the bullet.

I have answered the question - you draw a line in the sand somewhere, irrespective of what other people might do. Just because other people may steal from old ladies does not mean I shall.

Let me pose one for you. What do you think an elephant would say if you asked it your question? Do you think it would say "I appreciate your point about ivory for cues being only a very small part of the overall demand, and few of my family are butchered directly for the purposes of cue making. Actually, now you mention it, my great aunt Ellie is becoming a bit of a burden, so I wouldn't mind if you took her out for me. Lovely tusks, she has. She won't be no bother, guvnor."

Or perhaps the elephant would deem your question disingenuous?

 

[risky biz]

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

Wholesale nonsense. Correlation is not causation. Demand is rising in Asia because incomes are increasing in Asia not because of laws against ivory trading. If there were no restrictions elephants probably would have disappeared from the face of the earth already.

 

[risky biz]

I am only going to make my point one more time and like classiccues I promise to type slower so you can keep up.

I am not elevating Dr. Richard Leakey to any position. If you looked at the history you would already know that Leakey was the one that proposed to the Kenyan Government to burn the ivory in hopes of raising the level of awareness concerning the plight of the elephants. In doing this they burned 12 tons of ivory. And now I will type even slower. That 12 tons equates to 24,000lbs of ivory that would have sold for over $100.00 per pound or at minimum $2.4million. If in your wildest dreams you don't think that 2.4m would not have gone a long ways towards securing the elephants safe future than I, (and Dr Leakey in later years seeing that it did nothing to curb the demand for ivory), think your mistaken.

Point 2. Show me where once I have stated that i am not for the protection of the elephants and in favor of the poachers. My whole point about the mistaken idea that burning the ivory helps the elephants is that the sale of the ivory would and does increase the safety of them. Not only do I think that the Kenyan Government should be doing more, if in fact they are letting poachers out of jail within days, I also believe the punishment for poaching should be harsher. Although, how you get a punishment harsher than death I don't know. Maybe the poachers should be fined 1.5m like you think Atlas should.

Point 3. OK, let me explain it once more. No one is arguing that Atlas should not have sold the legal ivory illegally. Of course they knew the law and the ramifications. However, what they are guilty of is illegally shipping legal ivory out of the country. What they were charged with and plead guilty to was shipping ivory without a permit. To my knowledge there are no permits for the sale of ivory out of the US, period. So, how can you get fined for not having a permit that does not exist? The permit is the issue and the permit does not exist. That Atlas was fined is not the problem. That they were fined for not having something that does not exist is. Does this excuse what they did... no. Were they wrong....yes.

Am I writing any more about this...no. Am I done explaining myself...yes.

You don't need to type slower. You need to think more. You just keep repeating the nonsense. Richard Leakey is not an imprimatur of correctness. Demand has increased because Asian incomes have increased. Demand didn't increase because ivory was burned. Why do you continue with this nonsense that the only possible source of funds is from ivory sales? Answer: because you want the ivory.

What do you mean no one is arguing that Atlas should not have sold the ivory illegally? I am and several others would also.

You're stubbornly sticking to your "there is no permit" line. The government may decide to issue permits in the future. But it isn't now. Therefore Atlas doesn't have a permit. However, Atlas shipped anyway. Atlas broke the law. Atlas got fined. Get it yet?

 

[risky biz]

I'm done with this thread. Expiration date.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

Exactly right.

Once China was given approved buyer status by CITES the "genie" was let out of the bottle, so to speak.

Wholesale nonsense. Correlation is not causation. Demand is rising in Asia because incomes are increasing in Asia not because of laws against ivory trading. If there were no restrictions elephants probably would have disappeared from the face of the earth already.

 

[classiccues]

Selling ivory increases the demand. It doesn't lessen the demand. You know damned well that you and people like you just have to have a cue with ivory if someone else has one. You'd all be proud as hell if elephants went extinct because you'd then be among the few with ivory on your cue.

In the cue world, more ivory would lessen the demand. An average cuemaker would take 8-10 years to disperse of a 70 lb tusk, unless he started making ivory handled cues.

JV

 

[classiccues]

Wholesale nonsense. Correlation is not causation. Demand is rising in Asia because incomes are increasing in Asia not because of laws against ivory trading. If there were no restrictions elephants probably would have disappeared from the face of the earth already.

You lost the point. See, again, you stated something that was incorrect and got caught. The demand would be less in Asia had they sold them the 50 tons they burned. I think that is pretty clear.

JV

 

[danutz]

Did you somehow develop the belief that marijuana is in danger of becoming extinct like elephants? The lopsided thinking here is astounding. If everything that is made illegal just encourages more of it why are there laws against running red lights? By your reasoning, if we just let people run red lights they'll get all the red light running they want and then there would be less of it. Fines would just increased the demand rather than discourage it.

Do you really not understand why there are laws that punish people for certain behavior? If it's a bad law that punishes behavior that most people don't think should be punished then it should be repealed. Many drug laws fall into this category. If you think most people in the United States think there isn't anything wrong with hunting elephants to extinction you're living on another planet.

Reading comprehension is obviously not one of your strong suits. All i said was that as long as there is a demand for it, there will be people trying to meet the demand, just like with the drug trade. How you got all that other crap out of it, is beyond me. But, while i'm here, i will say that i don't really think having wild elephants roaming around is a neccesity. If there were only a few hundred, or thousand, or whatever, living in captivity, i don't think the world would end. Lucky for the elephants that most of africa is still in the stone age, or they'd probably be extinct already. Face it, this is the 21st century, and there's not much room for elephants, and alot of other beasts in the not so distant future. Hell, at the rate we humans multiply, there may not be much room for us there either Maybe you could use your over active imagination to find a way to save the human race from itself, rather than spending so much energy hugging elephants and what not.