PoolSleuth
Banned
Anyone have a Quick Link on the Law Governing the Sale of Ivory for Ferrel, Inlays, etc, On Cues.
Trying to settle an argument....
Trying to settle an argument....
Lets talk about Ivory Real Elephant Ivory that is.
- Thread starter PoolSleuth
- Start date
http://www.cuemaster.com/RSB/ivory.htm
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
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
I'm not sure what you are looking for, but, if you stick "ivory ban" into Google, you will get a ton of reading on the subject.PoolSleuth said:Anyone have a Quick Link on the Law Governing the Sale of Ivory for Ferrel, Inlays, etc, On Cues.
Trying to settle an argument....
IIRC, only pre-ban ivory should be used, in this country, for any purpose, not just pool cues.
Also, I beleive cue makers need old ivory anyway, because it has to be very dry to be used in cues.
Sheldon said:
I don't really know what the facts are, although I do know that Thomas Wayne is so whacked that anything he would say you can take with a grain of salt. He views the world through his own alternate reality and what ever facts he unearthed once filtered through his mind and put into print would at the very least, be suspect. I would not really copy and post what he say as being any representation of fact. One would have to do their own research.
macguy said:
The question posed was about the laws governing the use of ivory. I believe that the information provided is correct. I haven't done much research, but this site http://www.bagheera.com/inthewild/van_anim_elephant.htm seems to back up what Thomas Wayne wrote concerning the laws. This site has a different take on the elephant population than TW but it does seem to support the facts that TW provided.
Please don't dismiss somebody's opinion just because they have said things that you don't agree with in the past. And especially don't dismiss them as being "whacked out" I'm sure he can provide you with insight in certain subjects and you do yourself a disservice to dismiss him offhand.
Runtboy said:
I have no agreement or disagreements with him now or in the past. The guy is nuts though and I would take what ever he said with a grain of salt. He would have no problem misstating facts to support his opinion because it is so important to him he be right. Ever met the guy, he used to come on these boards threatening to kill people, he is totally whacked.
PoolSleuth
Banned
Runtboy said:
Well my Point is Xuemaker today are building Cue with the Real Stuff, he say it is a No No. I say the Ivory was in their Hands Pre Band, and grandfathed. He says all SALE are a NO NO...
macguy said:
My point is that if you dismiss everything they say and don't take the time to listen to a word you'll miss out on getting the information that they DO have.
I have no idea what kind of stuff he used to post. The post that was quoted was very civil even though he was trying to sway other people's opinions. From what I saw his FACTS were right although I had some disagreements with the interpretations. Personally, I like it if somebody is spewing out a load of crap and claiming it to be true, it forces me to go look up the facts for myself.
It rubbed me the wrong way when TW started out his post with "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." and you start yours with "I don't really know what the facts are although I do know that Thomas Wayne is so whacked that anything he would say you can take with a grain of salt. "
I just don't understand how you can throw out everything he says while you're admitting your own ignorance.
PoolSleuth said:Well my Point is Xuemaker today are building Cue with the Real Stuff, he say it is a No No. I say the Ivory was in their Hands Pre Band, and grandfathed. He says all SALE are a NO NO...
According to this article http://www.coupdefoudre.com/Ivory.html you would be right.
macguy said:
If you are incapable of reading something and drawing your own conclusions and verifying what you need to, I am sorry.
I really don't think the SOURCE of what I posted needs to be questioned.
I realise that this is the popular way to dissect information these days, but it's WRONG, and a convenient way for people to disregard what they fear or disagree with. (that last is NOT directed at you, just a generalization)
Runtboy said:
I just know the way he is. What he wrote was a lot of spin to support his opinion. I'm sure there are many facts mixed in but as many left out that may not help support his argument. It's not important other then the way it is presented it takes on an air of being indisputable fact when it is just his take on the subject. I would not go quoting from it, but if the subject interests someone they should do their own research so they have the facts and not just one persons spin on the subject. Thats all I was saying.
The sale of ivory is not an illegal act, nor is the use of ivory in a manufactured product illegal (Assuming it being from a legal source of course).PoolSleuth said:Well my Point is Xuemaker today are building Cue with the Real Stuff, he say it is a No No. I say the Ivory was in their Hands Pre Band, and grandfathed. He says all SALE are a NO NO...
According to the Wildlife Comission, it does however lose it's "pre ban" status when it crosses a "state line". I understood this to refer to bulk ivory though.
Their website isn't perfectly clear in defining a "state line". Is it the state boundary line as in between AZ & CA, or the boundary line of a country? I would think they mean the latter. Like most other govermental laws & regulations though, it's written in such a way that it might take a lawyer to accurately interpret it.
states and countries
Disclaimer:
I have not checked on this lately, but I don't think the
situation has changed for several years
Importation/exportation was banned circa 1988(?) because the
African Elephant was classified as 'threatend', the last step before
'endangered'
So, it is legal to use, sell, buy, etc Ivory that was already in the USA
prior to the ban
had the status been changed to endangered, any commerece would be
illegal, and IIUC, crossing a state line<within USA> would be also
Dale Pierce
TellsItLikeItIs said:
Disclaimer:
I have not checked on this lately, but I don't think the
situation has changed for several years
Importation/exportation was banned circa 1988(?) because the
African Elephant was classified as 'threatend', the last step before
'endangered'
So, it is legal to use, sell, buy, etc Ivory that was already in the USA
prior to the ban
had the status been changed to endangered, any commerece would be
illegal, and IIUC, crossing a state line<within USA> would be also
Dale Pierce
Another thought I've had~~~There must have been a heckuva lot of ivory located within the US when the ban went into effect, to have supported all the commerce/industry usage since then. Pool cues, jewelry, etc, etc.pdcue said:
http://www.traffic.org/news/press-releases/ivory_markets_usa.htmlTellsItLikeItIs said:
PoolSleuth
Banned
TellsItLikeItIs said:
Thanks...
My understanding is that the state line issue applies to Asian Elephant Tusks and not African Elephant Tusks. The Asian Elephant is on a more endangered list than African Ivory.TellsItLikeItIs said:
Chris
www.cuesmith.com
www.internationalcuemakers.com
pre-post
I can say without reservation that once cut up it is not possible to tell if ivory is pre ban or post ban, except for those who can tell a Sunkist orange from a non Sunkist orange without the printing or sticker. This may explain the robust supply of ivory in the U.S.
I can say without reservation that once cut up it is not possible to tell if ivory is pre ban or post ban, except for those who can tell a Sunkist orange from a non Sunkist orange without the printing or sticker. This may explain the robust supply of ivory in the U.S.
PoolSleuth
Banned
Well maybe my Question is if the Sale of Deal Elephant Tusk (aka Ivory) is illegal than how come Cuemaker can sell Cues with Ivory Butt Caps, Joints, Ferrules, and Inlays, add to that Meuller's, and other suppliers sells Ivory Ferrules. Are we beating a DEAD PAKADIRM to death or what is the REAL DEAL..... with the Sale of Ivory?????