SphinxnihpS
Banned
http://www.cuemaster.com/RSB/ivory.htm
Text:
Laura Friedman & Thomas Wayne
Dialogue on Elephant Ivory
I’m reposting this in response to the apparent ignorance displayed in
the many recent posts addressing the use of Ivory in cues...TW
Laura Friedman wrote:
This will probably start a whole schmegegy of a discussion, but hey, I haven't started any long threads yet...
Using ivory encourages poaching! "We only use old ivory, blah blah blah. All our ivory is registered and numbered," blah blah blah." I'm sorry, but it's common knowledge that poaching is still a huge problem the world over. Indian elephants are almost extinct, and African elephants in many areas aren't doing much better. I'm pretty sure that I've read that the US has recently lifted an ivory embargo against Japan, a country that does not have any poaching laws, and illegally obtained ivory is expected to enter this county at even higher rates than before. You cuemakers should stop and think about the message you're sending by promoting ivory as an exotic and desirable material. Weather or not your ivory is indeed old "legal" ivory, by using it you encourage others who are not so scrupulous to obtain it by any means necessary. There are synthetic ferrels that hit just as well, if not better, than ivory. And there are plenty of other interesting materials you can use for inlays. Players, I encourage you to specifically ask for no ivory to be used on your custom cues.
This is important to me, so today I'm just
Laura
Thomas Wayne wrote:
Well, Laura, this subject is important to me , too. In fact, it is so important that I have done considerable research over the last several years in an effort to keep current on the subject. What is most distressing to me is that so many people come by their "facts" in the same way you have - believing "common knowledge" and quoting things they’re "pretty sure" they read somewhere. In keeping with this practice, the article you’ve posted is composed mostly of distorted halftruths. Please don’t take offense at this statement, I know it’s not your fault. There has been a powerful, if misguided, effort to convince the general public that nothing short of an outright ban on elephant ivory will "save" the elephant. That you’ve bought into this disastrous hogwash is due to the fact that no one has given you the unvarnished facts. What follows is ‘the rest of the story’ to the AFRICAN elephant ivory issue. Hope you’re ready...
______________________________________________________________
THINGS YOU DON’T KNOW ABOUT ELEPHANTS AND THEIR IVORY:
______________________________________________________________
Elephants are herbivores, surviving on abrasive plant matter available in their natural habitat. In the process of chewing this plant matter, the elephant tends to wear out its teeth at a rather rapid rate. While a good set of teeth might last us 60 years or more, the elephant goes through a set of teeth in 6 - 10 years. When these teeth are worn out, they are replaced by a new set, allowing for a ‘fresh start’. But there is a limit. Elephants have the capacity for only SIX sets of teeth. When the last set wears out, the elephant, by this time large and masterful, dies a slow and unpleasant death by starvation. Period.
Elephants have no natural enemies; disease and starvation are the only limitations to their continued success in the wild. For this reason, a well protected herd can grow quite rapidly, in fact TOO rapidly for most habitats.
Elephants compete with man for land. As the human populations of the African countries grow, the elephants have increasingly less space to call home. With no commercial value currently attached to the elephant herds, there is little incentive for the local inhabitants to preserve this majestic ‘land hog’.
Elephant Ivory has NEVER sold for more in the United States than it does right now; $110 per pound is about the maximum one has to pay for top quality tusks. By contrast, the Asian countries have ALWAYS been willing to pay premium prices, as high as $200 or more, for the same ivory. This ivory is used for, among other things, the personal "name chops" with which these cultures like to "sign" (ink stamp) their names, hence the term. Because they often cut the ivory into such small pieces, aging and dryness is not so important to them. Logistically, it is much easier to smuggle poached ivory into the Asian countries than to the U.S.; I am unaware of any case of elephant ivory being smuggled into THIS country.
WHO HAS BANNED THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN IVORY?
The international trade in wildlife is regulated by the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (C.I.T.E.S.). Formed in 1973, this multinational (more than 100 countries) division of the UN, housed in Switzerland, meets every two years to determine guidelines for governing the protection of endangered species. In 1990, C.I.T.E.S. officially changed the status of the African elephant from ‘Appendix 2’ (protected/threatened) to ‘Appendix 1’ (endangered). This change banned all international trade in elephant ivory, though the United States had been under a self-imposed ban since 1989.
EVERBODY LOVES ELEPHANTS, SO WHAT COULD BE WRONG WITH BANNING COMMERCIAL TRADE IN ELEPHANT IVORY?
Unfortunately for the elephant, the ban has hurt more than it has helped. When the president of Kenya (Daniel arap Moi) burned a large pile of elephant tusks on international television in 1989, he set fire to a movement for a worldwide ivory ban directed at stopping poaching. While this was fine for the countries of East Africa, where poaching actually WAS a problem, it has spelled disaster for the elephants of southern Africa. Three countries in particular - Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Botswana - had, for over 20 years, successfully managed to INCREASE the size of their herds through careful game management.
Remember the leading causes for elephant deaths: disease and starvation? In a well managed herd, these animals are culled (killed and removed from the herd) in order to allow the rest of the herd to thrive. In fact, most of the news footage of "wanton elephant slaughter by poachers" seen on ‘nature shows’ around the time of the ban was actually film of government-managed herd thinning programs. Not coincidentally, after culling, the commercially desirable ivory, hides and meat are then sold on the open market. Or at least they WERE sold, until the ban took effect. The successful game management programs of these exemplary countries were paid for, in abundance, through the sale of salvaged elephant products. By 1992, for example, Zimbabwe had culled more than 44,000 elephants over a 25 year period, yet their herds continued to increase in numbers. South Africa and Botswana have similar tracks records. In fact, by 1992 there were more than 650,000 elephants in the wild! Never before in history has a species with such huge numbers been labeled "endangered".
Now, the problem is land. The unchecked growth of elephant herds has collided squarely with the humans’ growing need for living space. With this conflict, the ability of these countries to manage their herds has all but evaporated. Botswana’s planned schedule of limiting its elephant population at about 55,000 has become financially impossible. The success of any game management plan hinges on its finances. It is very hard to justify using continually larger tracts of land to house an abundant species that isn’t even allowed to pay for its own keep. And you can just about forget about defending against poachers. Since poachers are most generally shot to death on sight, they tend to fight back pretty ferociously. It’s kind of hard to find game officers willing to risk their lives battling heavily armed ivory thieves for minimum wage!
SO, WHAT THE HELL AM I SAYING HERE, ANYWAY?
What I am saying here is, Laura - with all due respect - your plea for cuemakers to stop using ivory, while clearly quite passionate is, in a word: misguided. African elephants are not only NOT in danger of extinction, at this point they are actually suffering from OVER-population. Meanwhile, poaching is under control, but not for much longer. These African countries are running out of resources, and when something finally has to give, it’s going to be the elephants. Without the income from salvaged elephant products, these successful game management programs are doomed. It’s just a matter of time.
Your suggestion that "the US has recently lifted an ivory embargo against Japan" is way off base. In fact, C.I.T.E.S. has just recently approved (the U.S. opposed this) a ONE-TIME bulk sale of elephant ivory to Japan to help satisfy that market demand and to defray southern African game management expenses. This ivory is from the culled stockpiles that countries like Zimbabwe have collected and stored since the ban was imposed. The amount allowed was significantly smaller than the Southern African Centre for Ivory Marketing (SACIM) had requested. This highly controlled and greatly limited trade agreement, while merely a ‘drop in the bucket’, has been hailed by the southern African conservationists as a first step in the right direction.
As for your statement that: "Using Ivory encourages poaching", well, allow me to respectfully disagree:
Ivory can be found in the finest of all art forms, both ancient and modern. In a multitude of examples throughout history, it has created the greatest impact of any material used. It is really only a recent fad to look at ivory as a negative thing. This frenzied ‘knee-jerk’ reaction to sensationalistic journalism - at its worst - has resulted in a political climate wherein the African elephant might finally be destroyed by the very forces that would seek to "save" it. Your argument that "using [ancient, legal] ivory encourages poaching" is, at best, naive. It presupposes that the entire population of the earth can be persuaded by a few idealistic ‘tree-huggers’. Why do you think synthetic ferrule materials are made ivory colored? One of the more popular materials for this purpose is even called "Ivorine 3"! Laura, are your ferrules a non-ivory color (say black phenolic, for example)? No? Well, aren’t you worried that you’ll help feed the public desire for ivory with your look-alike substitute? :-] People want ivory. It’s that simple. The solution to protecting the elephant is to REGULATE ivory use, not ban it. In that way, the elephant can fund (in excess) its own survival. But without the regulated sale of salvaged ivory, the elephant may ultimately be doomed.
As for cuemakers, you can sleep peacefully on that issue. Any cuemaker foolish enough to use fresh ("green") ivory in a cue will get what he so richly deserves. As a general rule, if I can’t document that a tusk was taken (at a minimum) BEFORE I was born, I won’t buy it.
If you REALLY want to do something to ‘save’ the elephant, perhaps you’d be willing to send large sums of money to some of these south African countries to help fund their game management programs. I’ll be happy to provide you with the addresses...
Thomas Wayne
Text:
Laura Friedman & Thomas Wayne
Dialogue on Elephant Ivory
I’m reposting this in response to the apparent ignorance displayed in
the many recent posts addressing the use of Ivory in cues...TW
Laura Friedman wrote:
This will probably start a whole schmegegy of a discussion, but hey, I haven't started any long threads yet...
Using ivory encourages poaching! "We only use old ivory, blah blah blah. All our ivory is registered and numbered," blah blah blah." I'm sorry, but it's common knowledge that poaching is still a huge problem the world over. Indian elephants are almost extinct, and African elephants in many areas aren't doing much better. I'm pretty sure that I've read that the US has recently lifted an ivory embargo against Japan, a country that does not have any poaching laws, and illegally obtained ivory is expected to enter this county at even higher rates than before. You cuemakers should stop and think about the message you're sending by promoting ivory as an exotic and desirable material. Weather or not your ivory is indeed old "legal" ivory, by using it you encourage others who are not so scrupulous to obtain it by any means necessary. There are synthetic ferrels that hit just as well, if not better, than ivory. And there are plenty of other interesting materials you can use for inlays. Players, I encourage you to specifically ask for no ivory to be used on your custom cues.
This is important to me, so today I'm just
Laura
Thomas Wayne wrote:
Well, Laura, this subject is important to me , too. In fact, it is so important that I have done considerable research over the last several years in an effort to keep current on the subject. What is most distressing to me is that so many people come by their "facts" in the same way you have - believing "common knowledge" and quoting things they’re "pretty sure" they read somewhere. In keeping with this practice, the article you’ve posted is composed mostly of distorted halftruths. Please don’t take offense at this statement, I know it’s not your fault. There has been a powerful, if misguided, effort to convince the general public that nothing short of an outright ban on elephant ivory will "save" the elephant. That you’ve bought into this disastrous hogwash is due to the fact that no one has given you the unvarnished facts. What follows is ‘the rest of the story’ to the AFRICAN elephant ivory issue. Hope you’re ready...
______________________________________________________________
THINGS YOU DON’T KNOW ABOUT ELEPHANTS AND THEIR IVORY:
______________________________________________________________
Elephants are herbivores, surviving on abrasive plant matter available in their natural habitat. In the process of chewing this plant matter, the elephant tends to wear out its teeth at a rather rapid rate. While a good set of teeth might last us 60 years or more, the elephant goes through a set of teeth in 6 - 10 years. When these teeth are worn out, they are replaced by a new set, allowing for a ‘fresh start’. But there is a limit. Elephants have the capacity for only SIX sets of teeth. When the last set wears out, the elephant, by this time large and masterful, dies a slow and unpleasant death by starvation. Period.
Elephants have no natural enemies; disease and starvation are the only limitations to their continued success in the wild. For this reason, a well protected herd can grow quite rapidly, in fact TOO rapidly for most habitats.
Elephants compete with man for land. As the human populations of the African countries grow, the elephants have increasingly less space to call home. With no commercial value currently attached to the elephant herds, there is little incentive for the local inhabitants to preserve this majestic ‘land hog’.
Elephant Ivory has NEVER sold for more in the United States than it does right now; $110 per pound is about the maximum one has to pay for top quality tusks. By contrast, the Asian countries have ALWAYS been willing to pay premium prices, as high as $200 or more, for the same ivory. This ivory is used for, among other things, the personal "name chops" with which these cultures like to "sign" (ink stamp) their names, hence the term. Because they often cut the ivory into such small pieces, aging and dryness is not so important to them. Logistically, it is much easier to smuggle poached ivory into the Asian countries than to the U.S.; I am unaware of any case of elephant ivory being smuggled into THIS country.
WHO HAS BANNED THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN IVORY?
The international trade in wildlife is regulated by the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (C.I.T.E.S.). Formed in 1973, this multinational (more than 100 countries) division of the UN, housed in Switzerland, meets every two years to determine guidelines for governing the protection of endangered species. In 1990, C.I.T.E.S. officially changed the status of the African elephant from ‘Appendix 2’ (protected/threatened) to ‘Appendix 1’ (endangered). This change banned all international trade in elephant ivory, though the United States had been under a self-imposed ban since 1989.
EVERBODY LOVES ELEPHANTS, SO WHAT COULD BE WRONG WITH BANNING COMMERCIAL TRADE IN ELEPHANT IVORY?
Unfortunately for the elephant, the ban has hurt more than it has helped. When the president of Kenya (Daniel arap Moi) burned a large pile of elephant tusks on international television in 1989, he set fire to a movement for a worldwide ivory ban directed at stopping poaching. While this was fine for the countries of East Africa, where poaching actually WAS a problem, it has spelled disaster for the elephants of southern Africa. Three countries in particular - Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Botswana - had, for over 20 years, successfully managed to INCREASE the size of their herds through careful game management.
Remember the leading causes for elephant deaths: disease and starvation? In a well managed herd, these animals are culled (killed and removed from the herd) in order to allow the rest of the herd to thrive. In fact, most of the news footage of "wanton elephant slaughter by poachers" seen on ‘nature shows’ around the time of the ban was actually film of government-managed herd thinning programs. Not coincidentally, after culling, the commercially desirable ivory, hides and meat are then sold on the open market. Or at least they WERE sold, until the ban took effect. The successful game management programs of these exemplary countries were paid for, in abundance, through the sale of salvaged elephant products. By 1992, for example, Zimbabwe had culled more than 44,000 elephants over a 25 year period, yet their herds continued to increase in numbers. South Africa and Botswana have similar tracks records. In fact, by 1992 there were more than 650,000 elephants in the wild! Never before in history has a species with such huge numbers been labeled "endangered".
Now, the problem is land. The unchecked growth of elephant herds has collided squarely with the humans’ growing need for living space. With this conflict, the ability of these countries to manage their herds has all but evaporated. Botswana’s planned schedule of limiting its elephant population at about 55,000 has become financially impossible. The success of any game management plan hinges on its finances. It is very hard to justify using continually larger tracts of land to house an abundant species that isn’t even allowed to pay for its own keep. And you can just about forget about defending against poachers. Since poachers are most generally shot to death on sight, they tend to fight back pretty ferociously. It’s kind of hard to find game officers willing to risk their lives battling heavily armed ivory thieves for minimum wage!
SO, WHAT THE HELL AM I SAYING HERE, ANYWAY?
What I am saying here is, Laura - with all due respect - your plea for cuemakers to stop using ivory, while clearly quite passionate is, in a word: misguided. African elephants are not only NOT in danger of extinction, at this point they are actually suffering from OVER-population. Meanwhile, poaching is under control, but not for much longer. These African countries are running out of resources, and when something finally has to give, it’s going to be the elephants. Without the income from salvaged elephant products, these successful game management programs are doomed. It’s just a matter of time.
Your suggestion that "the US has recently lifted an ivory embargo against Japan" is way off base. In fact, C.I.T.E.S. has just recently approved (the U.S. opposed this) a ONE-TIME bulk sale of elephant ivory to Japan to help satisfy that market demand and to defray southern African game management expenses. This ivory is from the culled stockpiles that countries like Zimbabwe have collected and stored since the ban was imposed. The amount allowed was significantly smaller than the Southern African Centre for Ivory Marketing (SACIM) had requested. This highly controlled and greatly limited trade agreement, while merely a ‘drop in the bucket’, has been hailed by the southern African conservationists as a first step in the right direction.
As for your statement that: "Using Ivory encourages poaching", well, allow me to respectfully disagree:
Ivory can be found in the finest of all art forms, both ancient and modern. In a multitude of examples throughout history, it has created the greatest impact of any material used. It is really only a recent fad to look at ivory as a negative thing. This frenzied ‘knee-jerk’ reaction to sensationalistic journalism - at its worst - has resulted in a political climate wherein the African elephant might finally be destroyed by the very forces that would seek to "save" it. Your argument that "using [ancient, legal] ivory encourages poaching" is, at best, naive. It presupposes that the entire population of the earth can be persuaded by a few idealistic ‘tree-huggers’. Why do you think synthetic ferrule materials are made ivory colored? One of the more popular materials for this purpose is even called "Ivorine 3"! Laura, are your ferrules a non-ivory color (say black phenolic, for example)? No? Well, aren’t you worried that you’ll help feed the public desire for ivory with your look-alike substitute? :-] People want ivory. It’s that simple. The solution to protecting the elephant is to REGULATE ivory use, not ban it. In that way, the elephant can fund (in excess) its own survival. But without the regulated sale of salvaged ivory, the elephant may ultimately be doomed.
As for cuemakers, you can sleep peacefully on that issue. Any cuemaker foolish enough to use fresh ("green") ivory in a cue will get what he so richly deserves. As a general rule, if I can’t document that a tusk was taken (at a minimum) BEFORE I was born, I won’t buy it.
If you REALLY want to do something to ‘save’ the elephant, perhaps you’d be willing to send large sums of money to some of these south African countries to help fund their game management programs. I’ll be happy to provide you with the addresses...
Thomas Wayne
