"Ivory Ban" foolishness
- Thread starter commswatch
- Start date
We'll put. Especially first paragraph.
If they have jobs and are registered republicans, we'll take them.
Paul
eBay stopped allowing listings that contained Mastodon Tusk
about three years ago. I tried to explain to them that these
Tusks are 25k+ years old, but they refused to listen to me.
I have at least 35 Custom Knives with Mastodon Tusk as
Scales (handles) and have to list them elsewhere.
I agree with this completely. I do agree in principal to bans on ivory, however, it is very hypocritical of me as my cue contains ivory.
Rethinking my position that cue makers are only a drop in the bucket when it comes to ivory use, if you add up all the niche craft use together, I think that amounts to a fairly large percentage of use. There have been bans in place in China for awhile, but showrooms are full of statutes and carvings that are all "documented" to have been made and bought before the ban.
If the elephants have a chance, I think a big shift in the way people think is necessary, as well as alot of work on the ground to physically stop the poaching, not just trying to stop it with a pen.
I think you are 100% correct. No one, including the lawmakers, believe that written law, by itself, will prevent further needless slaughter. It is yet another means for bringing attention to the crisis and further educating people on the nonsense of desiring ivory in whatever it is we have. I do not believe this is a law that will necessarily have to be enforced to assure change in behavior. I think its influence has already made an impact.
Cue makers are changing. My last cue, Manzino's Gatsby, has no ivory and was done that way because of the threat of a ban and my rethinking about ivory as a cue material. I will never have another cue made that has ivory, regardless of whether the law gets overturned or modified.
My only regret to the California law is in how it was drafted. This, referring to worked ivory that was either obtained legally or under the assumption of, needs further addressing by our state legislatures. I think (hope) that California, as well as a few other states, will eventually begin to see that injustice and take, or be forced to take, steps that bring us back in line with those exemptions included under the broader federal ban.
Paul
Injustice is correct.To the extend that the law is written, particularly in California makes it a de facto law for which parts of it will be (and are being) challenged in the courts. My opinion is that parts of the law that make illegal what was, at the time the action took place, perfectly legal, will be overturned and eventually rewritten.
You are not using any logic here. Your argument might have some weight if there were lots of elephants right now that poachers could be killing, but are not killing, simply because the price of ivory isn't high enough. That simply isn't the case though. The price of ivory is high enough that they are killing every last single elephant that they can where they think they have a very good chance of getting away with it. In fact, even at much, much lower ivory prices they would still be killing every last single elephant they thought they could get away with.
And the reason for all the killing is because of how much ivory is needed. The prices are way, way past high enough. It is just that the market for ivory is huge. The amount of volume that is needed is substantial. There aren't enough elephants on earth to provide all the ivory that people would like to have and use just this year. The demand for ivory is simply overwhelming worldwide.
The only way to ever stop them from killing as many elephants as they possibly can is when there is no market, no demand, no buyers. And the only way you will significantly kill the demand and eliminate buyers is to make it illegal worldwide. Will some sheik still want some illegal ivory at $50,000 per pound so he can have it for his personal collection that will never been seen by anyone? Yep. Will someone still go out and kill an elephant to get that ivory to sell it to him at those outrageous prices? Damn right they will. But how many are they going to have to kill to provide the ivory he wants? Exactly one elephant. And the left overs of that ivory from that one elephant can take care of the need from the rich Russian prince that wanted some and the billionaire Chinese CEO that thinks is works like viagra too.
Get the point? Price doesn't really matter as far as affecting how many elephants get shot unless you can get the price so high that not much is wanted any more. It is the amount of ivory that is needed to supply the market demand that really matters. Price only really matters in regards to how much it can reduce demand. The fact is that you have it exactly backwards and higher ivory prices will actually drastically reduce the amount of demand. And when there is less ivory needed, less elephants have to be killed to meet that lessened demand.
But to actually solve the problem you are going to have to do one or both of two things: either make people not want it at any price, or somehow make the prices so high that hardly anyone can afford it. There is really only one way to do either or these things, and it turns out it actually will do both. And that is to make it illegal worldwide.
Few people are going to want it when they can't ever even let anyone know they own it. They can't show it off for fear of being reported and turned in so what is the point of owning it? And because it is illegal worldwide the price will sky rocket, so out of the few that would still want some ivory anyway, even though they could never let anybody know they own it, only an extremely few of those would actually be able to afford it. When very few people want something, and even fewer can afford it, the volume of ivory needed by the market will be extremely small. The amount of elephants that have to be killed to meet this very small volume need will also be very small.
Given the limited number of elephants left, the only way to have a legal ivory trade would be to harvest only a sustainable number of elephants. Thus a real free free market is not possible.
{And in particular, in order to create sustainability, only harvest the oldest ones, letting the groups to have their elders for as long as possible, since the elders understand survival in Africa significantly better than the youngsters.}
The above would only encourage poaching (available $$$)
The combination of the two above will make elephants extinct.
Banning ivory is never going to happen. Maybe in the US....but never in China or anywhere in the far east sector of Asia. While I am strongly opposed to the poaching of elephants I am also a realist, not an emotion-driven activist. The demand will be there until the last elephant walks this earth (at least in the wild). They try to ban guns and gun sales sky rocket. They've tried to ban illegal drugs and there's more drugs now than ever. It's human nature that some people will never get it. In the meantime, banning the possession of ivory is just another politically correct action to make people feel good and to feel like they're accomplishing something.
When the fish & game wardens starting patrolling the cue shows, people are going to realize how dumb the CA regulation actually is........not one elephant will be spared from slaughter because the legal ivory
cue-makers use does not contribute to poaching. You can tax the heck out of legal ivory and use the proceeds to help fund more African game wardens but banning legal ivory accomplishes nothing.
cue-makers use does not contribute to poaching. You can tax the heck out of legal ivory and use the proceeds to help fund more African game wardens but banning legal ivory accomplishes nothing.
This is the ridiculous nature of this argument here on AzB. There is more "legal" ivory already here in the USA than could EVER be used by all the cuemakers put together. It is a silly argument at best, and at worst is an abomination and abuse of privilege. Poachers do not kill elephants to serve the cue market. All that ivory is going to black market purveyors in the Far East. Ivory things are rampant in China, as mentioned, will never be banned in that country.
Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
tap tap tap
Hey Scott........Blue Fin Billiards in Fresno now exists...... it opened for business today........I think you'll like this parlor.
Matt B.
Matt B.
Thank you for saying what I thought.
It wont work and is exactly like all of the liberals here in the US wanting to ban guns. The only ones that will be affected are the honest folks. The criminals who don't obey the law wont be affected at all.
They can have my guns and cues when they pry them from cold dead fingers.
Ken
I don't have a problem with trying to control ivory and limit the poaching. But this ban won't work and I am not sure it will survive legal challenges as it is essentially seizure of existing property that is otherwise legal. Old pianos are exempted. Existing pool cues should be exempted. I have no issue with restricting the ability to produce any further items with ivory in them, though it would seem easy to identify who has legal ivory and allow use of that ivory. Any ivory import should be strictly illegal as well as anything that has high levels of ivory. Cant see this law surviving the lawsuits, since it will remain legal to own it.
The ban will not help the living elephants.
If they had any brain, they should allow exporting old and seasoned ivory from the US to China.
Thst way, that market gets satisfied for a while and reduce the demand for poached ivory.
If they had any brain, they should allow exporting old and seasoned ivory from the US to China.
Thst way, that market gets satisfied for a while and reduce the demand for poached ivory.
Matt...I know I will. Tommy and I are holding pool school there Aug. 5-7! Can't wait to get there! See you then, my friend! 
Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com