Destroyed Ivory

[jhanso18]

What % of pro players insist on an ivory ferrule and an ivory joint? If you can't provide evidence of at least 30% then I consider your claims about the superiority of ivory in a cue just bunk. Sorry.

Most pros wouldn't know a good cue if you hit them over the head with it. Efrin still likes playing with his $15 POS he started out with. I'm not a big ivory fan, but this argument holds as much water as the prior. Just for refference, I personally, like wood to wood, with a phenolic ring at the joint, and short elfrin, g10, or phenolic for ferrule material.

Just saying a lot of pro's don't have the best taste in cues.

 

[bdcues]

In fact, it didn't even increase the price.

Legal sales of ivory in China spurred more demand and poaching increased.

Those are the FACTS.


"Ivory destruction ceremonies have been a litmus test for where a country stands on the ivory trade ever since Kenyan President Daniel Arap Moi torched 13 tons of ivory in 1989, setting the stage for a vote to ban international trade in ivory by parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

That ban went into effect in 1990. Six months later, the U.S. ivory market collapsed*. [see below]

But the ban did not last. In 1999 and again in 2008 parties to CITES voted to allow ivory sales.

The first sale was of 55 tons to Japan and the second, of 115 tons to Japan and China. In the wake of the China sale, elephant poaching and ivory trafficking have boomed.

As recently demonstrated by criminal cases in New York and Philadelphia, America's legal ivory market has offered an incentive for ivory smugglers.

In 2012, New York state announced guilty pleas by two ivory dealers. In 2011, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) agents raided the African art

store of Philadelphia African art dealer Victor Gordon, seizing an estimated ton of ivory from his facilities and his customers."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...united-states/


*U.S. Ivory Market Collapses After Import Ban
Published: June 05, 1990

"A YEAR after the Federal Government banned the importation of ivory from the African elephant, the commercial ivory market in the United States has collapsed, a study by a conservation group has found.

Demand for ivory has plummeted, dragging down the price of products still legally available in this country, as well as the price of ivory obtained

illegally in Africa, according to a draft of the report being released today by the World Wildlife Fund.

Moreover, with demand down, the ban has evidently not spurred more poaching and smuggling in Africa, as had been feared, the report says.

''The U.S. market for ivory is dead,'' said Ginette Hemley, director of the Washington-based Traffic USA, a division of the World Wildlife Fund that

tracks trade in endangered species. In the last decade alone, the number of elephants has fallen from 1.3 million to 609,000, primarily because of poaching in Central and East Africa."
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/05/sc...mport-ban.html

Neither one of your links work.

 

[bdcues]

I posted this in previuos thread.

I believe the alleged problem with the selling of confiscated ivory is that illegal ivory was sold mixed in with the fresh infusion of legal ivory. Documents were forged and it was another way to legitimize illegitimate ivory.

Kind of like how it easier to hide in plain sight if you are in a crowd

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/world/asia/hong-kong-ivory/index.html?hpt=wo_bn4

I did read the report from CITES, "Elephants in the Dust, The African Elephant Crisis" , and it was quite the eye opener. A pretty tragic situation.

http://www.cites.org/common/resources/pub/Elephants_in_the_dust.pdf

Thanks, both are good articles. Both also don't conclude that an outright ban on ivory is the answer. The CITES report, on page 8, lists a number of things that will help stop the poaching. All of these require money. Where do the poor nations get this money?

 

[bdcues]

There's no reason to expect CNN to come up with an answer. They're journalists.

If CITES is recommending numerous means to strengthen anti-poaching enforcement it seems logical to assume that they don't think the ban on killing elephants for ivory is a bad thing.

The money for enforcement of anti-ivory programs can come from about 800,000 different sources than the sale of ivory.

It's also notable that the CNN article provided several reasons why seized ivory should be destroyed:

"For many countries where ivory is detected entering the country illegally and seizures take place, especially involving large amounts of ivory, there is the very real possibility, given its current high value and the expense involved with maintaining security, of it finding its way onto the market," said Dr Naomi Doak, the Greater Mekong Program Coordinator for the wildlife trade monitoring network TRAFFIC.

"A number of countries have come out and acknowledged that they have lost ivory from stockpiles," she added.

While the Hong Kong stockpile is among the best protected in the region, and authorities have been quick to cooperate with the DNA database program, Gabriel said stockpiles in general present a risk.

"We feel that confiscated ivory requires a lot of capacity to keep it in a secure location and leaving it in these places will always tempt people to get their hands on it."

According to the Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species (CITES) which wrapped up in Bangkok this week, a large amount of confiscated African ivory goes missing every year."

Where to even start? CNN journalists? No one has accused them of that in a long time. As for the reasons stated being reasons to destroy the ivory... that is your opinion, not a fact. Lack of money, corruption and many other factors are to blame for the loss.

As for being a ban on killing elephants... you are wrong once again. Not only that but when you bring home those tusks you are free to sell them to anyone in the USA. http://www.africanskyhunting.co.za/trophies/elephant-hunting.html
And if you had bothered to read the CITES article you would have read that the largest long term danger to the elephant is not poachers but habitat related.

I realize none of this will make any difference to you but that is OK as someone reading this will find some truth and realize that the issue will not be resolved just by crushing or burning confiscated ivory. You will not convince the killers that ivory now has no value as the reality is quite different than your rose colored view of results.

 

[bullsfan_1_23]

This makes me sick how stupid is it to destroy art work.To me destroying the ivory makes the price go up.

http://news.yahoo.com/6-tons-seized-ivory-being-121846970.html

Wow, crazy!..

 

[bdcues]

That's a ridiculous twisting of reality. Stockpiled ivory has often shown up in the illegal market. But you don't want it destroyed so that can't happen. You want the status quo to continue while faux-wringing your hands about "lack of money". I'll bet you spend a lot of time campaigning for more money to enforce the ivory poaching ban, don't you?



In regulated numbers. You're just throwing out a red herring.



Your conclusion from that being to just let the ivory flow and let the elephants go extinct? That's a separate issue, not an excuse to allow the other problem.



"Rose colored view"? Everything that you are advocating has proven to have results that are the exact opposite of what you claim they will be. I, and others, have provided information proving that to be the case and yet you keep enunciating the same disproven creed. Why don't you just say, "I want ivory and I don't give a damn if elephants go extinct"? It would be so much more honest.

As I said, none of this would sink in for you. There is no ban on killing elephants, there is regulated killing just like other species are regulated. So you stating there is a ban is incorrect and not a red herring on my part as you suggest.

As for twisting things... you seem plenty able to do that without my help. Have you bothered to read the CITES report yet? Have you bothered to read Richard Leakey's book "the Sixth Extinction?

As for your last couple of sentences... all I can say is you must be under 25, single and a Democrat.

 

[Majic]

Actually they could have sold it (after marking it) & used the money to help people that are in need. But as we all know, the government is here & ain't here to help.

they would rather raise taxes ........no politics...........too bad for the elephants

 

[Celtic]

I believe in parts of africa it is legal, and even encouraged to shoot poachers on sight. I think I read that somewhere.

Gonna be blunt here. They should sell hunting safari vacation packages with the "prey" being poachers. In effect a legal hunt for human prey. There are many hunters that would pay huge sums of money to go and hunt and have the chance to kill a human, and pose for the picture while holding theIr recent kills head up for the camera by the hair. I am guessing that if that type of hunt became fairly common and poachers started getting killed with no more regard then is given to the elephants those poachers would go find something else to do instead.

 

[Rasputin]

Gonna be blunt here. They should sell hunting safari vacation packages with the "prey" being poachers. In effect a legal hunt for human prey. There are many hunters that would pay huge sums of money to go and hunt and have the chance to kill a human, and pose for the picture while holding theIr recent kills head up for the camera by the hair. I am guessing that if that type of hunt became fairly common and poachers started getting killed with no more regard then is given to the elephants those poachers would go find something else to do instead.

I understand that you are joking (and surely hope so). However my understanding is that in many of the countries where poaching happens, also some of the people live in extreme powerty and to go poacher might not be a question of ethics to them.

The real villains are the people who sell and deal with (the poached) ivory.

 

[bdcues]

That's exactly why it is one of several reasons why illegal ivory should be destroyed. As several people have documented in this thread releasing seized ivory just provides cover for more illegal ivory, subsidizes dealers in ivory, encourages demand, and when it isn't destroyed it has been documented that it shows up in the illegal market.

Ebay has banned sale of ivory objects and everyone else should, also.

Here is a current Ebay ad you might be interested in - http://www.ebay.com/itm/MURRAY-TUCK...219?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3cd8a4a3ab

So lets see, the pc police outlaw the sale of ivory... World wide? How do they do that? Those that have legal ivory now are banned from selling it? So the $1t's that one has invested one can now not sell? Really? You are going to get the whole world to follow this how? Stopping the poaching would be far easier although obviously not an easy thing in itself. Telling another nation that it can not sell something takes away the sovereignty of that nation... something you probably consider the correct path. We don't own the elephants, the countries in Africa/Asia own them. What they do with them is their business, what we decide to do with the ivory in our country is our business. For you or anyone else to presume to know what is best for them, crushing/burning the ivory instead of selling it for profit, is pretty crazy. As I stated before, even Leakey admitted that burning the ivory did not have the effect that was hoped for and that the sale of the ivory would have supplied needed money to protect the elephant and it's habitat. Seems like one would learn a lesson somewhere along the way... how is gun control working in Chicago?

 

[YubaCushion]

Sorry, but there aren't enough pro players sponsored by cuemakers for that one to fly. Try again.

Let's say there's only 50 sponsored, that's not enough?

 

[bdcues]

By the way- great job alienating every pool player who votes Democratic.

Yes, between getting my bank card hacked, finding out that someone wants to put a cemetery across the road from me and listening to you twist shit around and be a general asshat I got a little carried away.

 

[bdcues]

So the basis of your argument is "Richard Leakey agreed with me in 1996, so there"? Really? Yeah. That's pretty weak.

You really are good at twisting and putting words in people mouths. I have no interest in continuing as you have no interest or intent on answering any questions put to you. Enjoy yourself.

 

[YubaCushion]

Let's say you identify ONE SINGLE pro player who has said he/she prefers an ivory joint and ferrule because they play better.

The play better part was to get the anti ivory people heated. I am sure there are pros that like ivory for whatever reason like a lot of people do.. I'll see if I can find one.

 

[YubaCushion]

"liking ivory for whatever reason like a lot of people do" is something a lot different from considering it a better performing component.

The only thing that can be proved is the durability. The playability is subject to opinion.
Since that can't be proven I'll say it is, you say it isn't and that's the end of that. You may now return to aggravating the gentleman displaying his cue in his avatar. Thank you.

 

[JB Cases]

Yes, between getting my bank card hacked, finding out that someone wants to put a cemetery across the road from me and listening to you twist shit around and be a general asshat I got a little carried away.

What's wrong with a cemetery across the road? Well kept landscape and quiet. No large buildings blocking the view.....lot of old bones to use for inlays.....which brings the question has any cue maker every used human teeth for inlay material? The inlays would be small of course but would probably work for dots or small diamonds.

 

[JB Cases]

I understand that you are joking (and surely hope so). However my understanding is that in many of the countries where poaching happens, also some of the people live in extreme powerty and to go poacher might not be a question of ethics to them.

The real villains are the people who sell and deal with (the poached) ivory.

Um, extreme poverty isn't a valid excuse to run around breaking the law and killing animals for their teeth. Billions of people are poor. If being poor makes it ok to break the law then poor people would be taking over the mansions of rich people and redistributing the wealth.

Fact is that wherever there is demand for anything there will be people willing to fill that demand. Anyone who is a poacher knows damn well that they are breaking the law and in most African countries they can already be shot on sight.

I personally like the idea of human hunting. Poachers have KILLED conservationists whom they think were interfering with their activities, they have killed researchers who just happened to be in the wrong place and time.

Quite often the rangers who fight poachers claim that they are outgunned and they are.

So yeah, issue licenses to deputize these big game hunters who have tons of money. Let them arm themselves and form their own private armies to hunt the most dangerous game of all, the armed opponent. Make a reality series out of it.

Betcha that a lot of these "poor" poachers would very quickly find another line of work.

 

[Rasputin]

Um, extreme poverty isn't a valid excuse to run around breaking the law and killing animals for their teeth. Billions of people are poor. If being poor makes it ok to break the law then poor people would be taking over the mansions of rich people and redistributing the wealth.

Fact is that wherever there is demand for anything there will be people willing to fill that demand. Anyone who is a poacher knows damn well that they are breaking the law and in most African countries they can already be shot on sight.

I personally like the idea of human hunting. Poachers have KILLED conservationists whom they think were interfering with their activities, they have killed researchers who just happened to be in the wrong place and time.

Quite often the rangers who fight poachers claim that they are outgunned and they are.

So yeah, issue licenses to deputize these big game hunters who have tons of money. Let them arm themselves and form their own private armies to hunt the most dangerous game of all, the armed opponent. Make a reality series out of it.

Betcha that a lot of these "poor" poachers would very quickly find another line of work.

At first reading I thought that you also must be joking, but by the wording it seems that you are at least half serious. If so, this attitude is disgusting.

Poaching is a big business, and a very criminal one. The leaders of the poaching gangs are disgusting human beings, and even though I won't agree with your idea of a capital punishment for them (even less if executed by wealthy hunters for fun), I do agree that they deserve severe punishments. And the same goes for those ''businessmen'' who arrange the global selling of poached bone.

I would imagine however, that some of the participants of poaching gangs are young, poor people, even children, hired by the leaders by very wrong premises. Quite similar to those child armies in some of the countries where the elephant roams. I may be streching here, and might well be even completely wrong, I am not a specialist in this area.

However, the attitude that some rich hunters should have the right to play god and kill poachers for fun, is very wrong. I do hope you were joking.

Ok, this is also somewhat off -topic for this thread as well, for which I apologize.

 

[JB Cases]

At first reading I thought that you also must be joking, but by the wording it seems that you are at least half serious. If so, this attitude is disgusting.

Poaching is a big business, and a very criminal one. The leaders of the poaching gangs are disgusting human beings, and even though I won't agree with your idea of a capital punishment for them (even less if executed by wealthy hunters for fun), I do agree that they deserve severe punishments. And the same goes for those ''businessmen'' who arrange the global selling of poached bone.

I would imagine however, that some of the participants of poaching gangs are young, poor people, even children, hired by the leaders by very wrong premises. Quite similar to those child armies in some of the countries where the elephant roams. I may be streching here, and might well be even completely wrong, I am not a specialist in this area.

However, the attitude that some rich hunters should have the right to play god and kill poachers for fun, is very wrong. I do hope you were joking.

Ok, this is also somewhat off -topic for this thread as well, for which I apologize.

Only half joking. These poachers have guns and use them to murder people in service to their job.

 

[Pathetic Shark]

Um, extreme poverty isn't a valid excuse to run around breaking the law and killing animals for their teeth. Billions of people are poor. If being poor makes it ok to break the law then poor people would be taking over the mansions of rich people and redistributing the wealth.

Fact is that wherever there is demand for anything there will be people willing to fill that demand. Anyone who is a poacher knows damn well that they are breaking the law and in most African countries they can already be shot on sight.

I personally like the idea of human hunting. Poachers have KILLED conservationists whom they think were interfering with their activities, they have killed researchers who just happened to be in the wrong place and time.

Quite often the rangers who fight poachers claim that they are outgunned and they are.

So yeah, issue licenses to deputize these big game hunters who have tons of money. Let them arm themselves and form their own private armies to hunt the most dangerous game of all, the armed opponent. Make a reality series out of it.

Betcha that a lot of these "poor" poachers would very quickly find another line of work.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you make (or offer to make) a case out of an old tiger skin?