California Cue-Makers - No More Ivory......

Status
Not open for further replies.
cueaddicts said:
I would be especially upset, given the fact that a rogue government is formulating these new rules while ignoring and distorting the research of the experts.
Click to expand...

Rogue government? That's rich. Just because you don't agree with legislation a government has passed does not automatically make it a rogue government.

How ever if said government fabricated evidence to justify invading a sovereign country to secure it's natural resources, I might go as far as to call that a rogue government.

Passing a law to preserve a species on the other hand doesn't quite cut the mustard.

How ever I don't expect the majority of you "I have the right to do what I please without government interference" types to really understand the difference.
 
skins said:
I expected as much... You just made my point and those here who know what they're talking about I'm sure understand... Enjoy your, or should I say what you're TOLD is your life.. Too funny Shawn.. You're a piece of work:boring2:
Click to expand...

I see, you have no respect for the rule of law. What is it with you? are laws only for poor people?
 
supergreenman said:
I see, you have no respect for the rule of law. What is it with you? are laws only for poor people?
Click to expand...

If that's what you take away from what Ive posted than you are not only in need of English lessons but incredibly ignorant as well... Keep smokin the green stuff..:rolleyes:
 
Actually I am all for the government interference. As long as they are interfering with the poaching and letting the market correct itself accordingly.

Which is the right thing to do.

JV

supergreenman said:
Rogue government? That's rich. Just because you don't agree with legislation a government has passed does not automatically make it a rogue government.

How ever if said government fabricated evidence to justify invading a sovereign country to secure it's natural resources, I might go as far as to call that a rogue government.

Passing a law to preserve a species on the other hand doesn't quite cut the mustard.

How ever I don't expect the majority of you "I have the right to do what I please without government interference" types to really understand the difference.
Click to expand...
 
classiccues said:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/10/ivory/elephant-ivory-poaching-graphic

Where is the US on this graphic?

JV
Click to expand...

I'm a Canadian. I'm not pointing out Canada on the map. Preserving elephants is a global issue, Joe. I'm sorry that you won't be able to use ivory anymore. But please.....read the article I posted in response to the one crackpot PhD that supports the legal ivory trade. Some very smart people, who advise policy for the countries he has referred to, have said his information is flawed and misguided.

Just read it. If you still think that all 24 of them are idiots, then you know better than them, and keep buying and trading ivory with a lily white conscience.
 
Shawn, common sense dictates they are going to drive up the demand by reducing the supply, therefore leading to more elephants dying. IMHO they are not big picture thinkers, they make valid points but do not know how to get to the end solution.

The US makes barely a dent in illegal ivory, and the times here that illegal ivory was actually in play 90% of those times an Asian was involved.

So again, the US market is not the issue, nor was it ever. The countries in that graphic however are a different story. Making ivory here illegal will do NOTHING where it's actually being smuggled and where the ILLEGAL ivory trade is an issue.

JV

Shawn Armstrong said:
I'm a Canadian. I'm not pointing out Canada on the map. Preserving elephants is a global issue, Joe. I'm sorry that you won't be able to use ivory anymore. But please.....read the article I posted in response to the one crackpot PhD that supports the legal ivory trade. Some very smart people, who advise policy for the countries he has referred to, have said his information is flawed and misguided.

Just read it. If you still think that all 24 of them are idiots, then you know better than them, and keep buying and trading ivory with a lily white conscience.
Click to expand...
 
IMO, Cali cue makers probably have their own reserve of ivory for local person to person orders, especially ferrules as they do hit different.

Shipping a cue out?.. that's a whole other situation.. don't think they would do ivory on a cue going out beyond California.
 
Runner said:
IMO, Cali cue makers probably have their own reserve of ivory for local person to person orders, especially ferrules as they do hit different.

Shipping a cue out?.. that's a whole other situation.. don't think they would do ivory on a cue going out beyond California.
Click to expand...

The estimates on "California" ivory is that 80-90% of the ivory being traded in the state is post ban ivory - "illegal". No one seems to want to discuss that, though.

And, apparently, cuemaker ivory is somehow all "legal".
 
Mumbo jumbo. The prevailing experts of the day also thought Copernicus was nuts. Here is the deal... Without a common sense and fair approach, no such ban as what's being proposed will be effective. You will not remove the desire for ivory from the Asian culture with a banlike this in the US. The habitat and conservation aspects have to be paramount... and part of that is having a monetary value on elephants, especially in a part of the world where people are starving. To think otherwise is foolish beyond comprehension. (Just like assuming every elephant that dies was poached. Or a cuemaker who has used the material did so without following the law or having a conscience.)
 
skins said:
If that's what you take away from what Ive posted than you are not only in need of English lessons but incredibly ignorant as well... Keep smokin the green stuff..:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Is it common where you come from to insult the other persons intelligence instead of actually responding to his arguments?

I don't seem to be very good at your style of debate.

Btw before you make more of an ass of yourself you might want to read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Man
 
Shawn Armstrong said:
The estimates on "California" ivory is that 80-90% of the ivory being traded in the state is post ban ivory - "illegal". No one seems to want to discuss that, though.

And, apparently, cuemaker ivory is somehow all "legal".
Click to expand...

Most of that ivory are small finished items smuggled to the country.
Cue makers use rods and slabs that are stable and have been around for decades.
Mammoth and mastodon ivory , for sure are pre-ban.
 
classiccues said:
Shawn, common sense dictates they are going to drive up the demand by reducing the supply, therefore leading to more elephants dying. IMHO they are not big picture thinkers, they make valid points but do not know how to get to the end solution.

The US makes barely a dent in illegal ivory, and the times here that illegal ivory was actually in play 90% of those times an Asian was involved.

So again, the US market is not the issue, nor was it ever. The countries in that graphic however are a different story. Making ivory here illegal will do NOTHING where it's actually being smuggled and where the ILLEGAL ivory trade is an issue.

JV
Click to expand...

Did you read the whole article, Joe? The US is the second largest consumer of ivory in the world. Daniel Stiles' article only addressed the countries they were discussing, and Sean is using that as a parallel as to why "legal ivory" is the answer to the problem, not banning it entirely.

The estimates are that 80-90% of the ivory in California is illegally obtained. That even came from Stiles himself. He stated that the amount of illegal ivory imported into the US had doubled since 2007. Illegal ivory - imported into the US. Yes, the US is a problem. Is it as bad as China? No, based purely on population. But it's still a problem, nonetheless. How much illegal ivory is too much, Joe? Legal trading of ivory does nothing to get rid of the issue. There isn't enough "legal ivory" to fulfill the world "need". The crux of Stiles' argument was to fulfill China's and Japan's need by providing them with their needs in legal ivory, and there would be no need for poaching. This simply can't happen, and was stated quite clearly by more than a few experts in their rebuttals. And, as one expert so eloquently put it, humans have never succeeded in sustaining any animal larger than a cow as a sustainable species. They are worth more, financially, dead than alive. There are three white rhinos left on Earth.

There were roughly 5-10 million African elephants in 1930. By 1979, there were 1.3 million. By 1989 (the ban year), there were 600,000 left.

Don't tell me that openly traded ivory guarantees elephant survival. Long before there was a black and gray market for ivory, elephants have been slaughtered by the millions. We lost 700,000 elephants in a decade. All while ivory trading was legal.
 
cueaddicts said:
Mumbo jumbo. The prevailing experts of the day also thought Copernicus was nuts. Here is the deal... Without a common sense and fair approach, no such ban as what's being proposed will be effective. You will not remove the desire for ivory from the Asian culture with a banlike this in the US. The habitat and conservation aspects have to be paramount... and part of that is having a monetary value on elephants, especially in a part of the world where people are starving. To think otherwise is foolish beyond comprehension. (Just like assuming every elephant that dies was poached. Or a cuemaker who has used the material did so without following the law or having a conscience.)
Click to expand...

Ah. So your PhD is a Jedi, but the 24 that punched his dissertation full of holes are mumbo jumbo. Got it.

Again, 1979 - 1.3 million elephants. Ivory trading was legal. 1989 - 600,000 elephants. Where did 700,000 elephants go? Ivory was legal to trade, right? Isn't the legal trade of ivory the way to sustain the population? I can't follow you and skins....your arguments seem to go in circles. So...what's the key to keeping the elephants alive, with regards to the ivory trade?
 
supergreenman said:
Is it common where you come from to insult the other persons intelligence instead of actually responding to his arguments?

I don't seem to be very good at your style of debate.

Btw before you make more of an ass of yourself you might want to read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Man
Click to expand...

It MUST be common from where you come from to infer from someone's writing a fictitious conclution to suit your own delusional belief... I AM AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN. Your comment to me is one from ignorance. Just because I disagree which what is eminently going to happen does not mean I WONT follow its direction. Like I said, how much more ignorant can you possibly be by getting an idea that I wouldn't follow the rule of law from what I've posted? I call them as I see them. You Sir/Mam are blatantly out of line and just trolling along... Let's try this a different way, STOP smoking that green stuff. You may be able to think a little more clearly and actually comprehend what you read...
 
skins said:
It MUST be common from where you come from to infer from someone's writing a fictitious conclution to suit your own delusional belief... I AM AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN. Your comment to me is one from ignorance. Just because I disagree which what is eminently going to happen does not mean I WONT follow its direction. Like I said, how much more ignorant can you possibly be by getting an idea that I wouldn't follow the rule of law from what I've posted? I call them as I see them. You Sir/Mam are blatantly out of line and just trolling along... Let's try this a different way, STOP smoking that green stuff. You may be able to think a little more clearly and actually comprehend what you read...
Click to expand...

Even after I provided you the source of my screen name you still insist on making the assumption I choose to argue against your point because you think I smoke pot.

That's ok buddy, I'm glad I provided you the opportunity to let your inner little b1tch out. :)

Have a great day. :thumbup:
 
Last edited:
It really sucks when you agree with the message someone is saying but they are such a complete douche bag that you are embarrassed to have anything in common with them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top