That is only 1/2 of the problem.
The other half is that the population of humans in Africa needs to go down by 20%-50%
Reasons behind the Ivory ban
- Thread starter 9Ballr
- Start date
That is only 1/2 of the problem.
The other half is that the population of humans in Africa needs to go down by 20%-50%
Don't know where I stand.
For example, you will hear a vegan (for ethical reasoning, and not all vegans) say that their shoes and belt are from an animal that was killed already and that makes it ok (though those same ones would protest fur). To me that is a contradiction of their values.
So I guess i am against the use of ivory because I am against the slaughter of elephants period.
For example, you will hear a vegan (for ethical reasoning, and not all vegans) say that their shoes and belt are from an animal that was killed already and that makes it ok (though those same ones would protest fur). To me that is a contradiction of their values.
So I guess i am against the use of ivory because I am against the slaughter of elephants period.
Oh, good. Jut what we need - yet ANOTHER ivory thread.
You know... cause elephants are dying due to the harvesting of pre-ban ivory.
There are a ton of ivory laws out there. As long as people follow all of them, no one will be arrested and no elephants will be slaughtered.
The way to a man's heart is through his stomach, unless,
he's a vegan.
Then, it's through his vagina.:grin:
he's a vegan.
Then, it's through his vagina.:grin:
Can you point me to the laws that say you can no longer continue to own ivory that you already legally owned? I must have missed those. Continuing to own your legal ivory has not been made illegal. You can still own it.
You can still own the ivory that you already owned so no compensation is needed since you can still own it.
But if you think about it, almost every change in any law anywhere makes something illegal that was previously legal. Should everybody everywhere be compensated every time there is a change in any law? Of course not.
Start by looking in our own for sale forum where you can see ivory crossing the border in both directions constantly. That shows you just how easy it is for ivory to cross the border. If they didn't open the box with the cue with ivory in it, then they wouldn't have opened the box if it had a similar form factor and weight of raw ivory. If somebody doesn't stumble upon it by blind dumb luck as it is in transit ivory goes across the border just like all the other millions of packages.
The new State laws as well as those proposed have effectively rendered ivory worthless and nearly impossible to sell or transfer.
I have not seen ads for ivory outside of the US being offered to US buyers. If you would provide links, I would be interested in viewing those ads.
Last edited:
But you still own it and have it. It hasn't been taken from you so there is nothing to compensate. But like I said, almost every change in law everywhere makes something illegal that was not previously illegal. Should everybody get compensated for every change in law? Of course not. But in this particular case you still have your ivory so there is nothing to even compensate for as you still own it.
Then you haven't been in the for sale section much. Cues with ivory are sold into the US all the time. Frankly I think you are just playing stupid. You know it happens, and have seen it happen, a lot, but want to try to play stupid on it.
Last edited:
Cowboy Dennis
Banned
. Save the elephants!!!
I read the For Sale section daily. I agree that ivory can be selectively sold in the US subject to newly enacted laws in certain states.
What I was asking of you was to point me to the ads from outside the US offering ivory to US buyers which results in ivory being illegally imported into the US as you stated in a previous post.
I am not "playing dumb". I am simply asking you to provide an example to prove your allegation because I don't believe your statement to be true.
That fairy tale is all well and good.. however the laws that can be enforced are anti-poaching laws, IF the African Country is committed to doing so. The fact that they cannot be trusted should not lead to the devaluation of all other things, everyone else that has purchased, and collected, and deal in legal preban ivory. Yes, since the government is saddling you with something that you cannot sell, which means you cannot recoup any monies paid, so YES they should enact a buy back, it is what is fair. Its also what is done ALL THE TIME with guns.
America had the strictest laws on paper but chose NOT to enforce them. Had they enforced the laws they had, they still would have proven to the rest of the world, that yes, we care. We care enough that we are not looking to penalize a legal market, because some other country cannot police its own land. But we will actively prosecute anyone who brings in illegal ivory.
China will NEVER enforce the same laws as the US, and are equally as corrupt as the African nations. So where does that put the elephants at the end of the day??? Staring down the same rifle, and additional rifles, because the price of ivory just went up...
JV
America had the strictest laws on paper but chose NOT to enforce them. Had they enforced the laws they had, they still would have proven to the rest of the world, that yes, we care. We care enough that we are not looking to penalize a legal market, because some other country cannot police its own land. But we will actively prosecute anyone who brings in illegal ivory.
China will NEVER enforce the same laws as the US, and are equally as corrupt as the African nations. So where does that put the elephants at the end of the day??? Staring down the same rifle, and additional rifles, because the price of ivory just went up...
JV
How about this. Point to any cue with ivory in the for sale section that was being offered prior to July 6th which is what we were talking about that was offered for sale by an overseas seller that you yourself couldn't have bought if you had chosen to do so.
You could have bought almost any of them from right there is the northeast USA where you sit, and probably even have at least once. Plenty of other Americans certainly have even if you haven't. Like I said, you have seen it a million times and are just playing dumb.
And I don't believe that you don't believe it. You are playing dumb. There is nobody who has spent more than an hour in the for sale section that doesn't know and hasn't seen that cues with ivory were being bought and sold into and out of the US constantly prior to July 6th. It still happens now too but with the new laws as of July, combined with someone in our midst just recently getting busted and successfully prosecuted for ivory violations (Ernie), it has both been scaled back some and is also often being done more discreetly.
Even if the US/Europe sends thousands of soldiers to control the poaching, there will always be people willing to risk their lives for a large reward, especially when those people are living on a dollar a day. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria all show that there is no humane or controlled way to defeat a determined enemy. You can't just send special forces and then the problem will be resolved, when there is always someone willing to pick up the AK that the dead guy dropped. Special forces operations are often referred to as "small scale", but they are hideously expensive. You don't only need a few operators, but a huge staff and intel to guide their actions, not to speak of expensive high-tech equipment. The costs may be lower than all-out war, but they are still higher than almost anyone would be willing to pay for a problem of this sort. There is a huge potential political cost as well. Just wait and see what happens when a Western soldier shoots a couple of 12 year olds or even younger kids. It's Africa, don't forget..Rebel armies (which often poach) rely heavily on child soldiers.Doesn't matter what the circumstance, one provocative picture of this sort could jeopardize the entire operation and all associated with it.
Not to speak of the tricky border problems in many areas and general difficulty of controlling large areas of land. The scale of such an operation has to be absolutely massive both in terms of manpower and land areas. Areas that are in a state of civil war or failed states make the complete success even more difficult.
Most such operations have failed miserably. The war on drugs, the war on terror...They both failed to achieve the desired result. All that was gained was HUGE loss of human life and money. You can't just throw money and soldiers at complex problems.
Certificates etc. dont' work when an entire country's administration is basically corrupt to the core.
The only reasonable way to combat this problem is to somehow destroy the demand, as the supply part is almost impossibly difficult to combat efficiently. This isn't fair for the people who have invested in these items, but there is simply no other way. Maybe there should be some kind of buyback program, but that won't happen because the goverment obviously will not pay top dollar. Some people are completely unrealistic about the worth of their cues, anyway.
Last edited:
These are poachers, and an endangered species that is being hunted.. the first error is the humane part. The laws are written, enforce them in AFRICA where the poaching occurs. This is a single strike offense and the penalty is capital.
Yes, it costs money, and you know what, if the money paid by the US government to those supposed wildlife org.s and the supposed donated money went to anti-poaching efforts and not the CEO's million dollar mansion with the carbon footprint of a mall, I would say , yes then we are at an impasse. But equally corrupt is the circle of money that flows into the pockets of the "liberal" donation machine... 20 million to the wildlifer "saviors" they have 15 million in expenses and payroll, 4.5 million back to the democrats as a donation, and the rest might get to the army of rangers, or the corrupt government they work for....
..and this operation is also going to fail and yes there are alternate ways to combat it.
JV
Yes, it costs money, and you know what, if the money paid by the US government to those supposed wildlife org.s and the supposed donated money went to anti-poaching efforts and not the CEO's million dollar mansion with the carbon footprint of a mall, I would say , yes then we are at an impasse. But equally corrupt is the circle of money that flows into the pockets of the "liberal" donation machine... 20 million to the wildlifer "saviors" they have 15 million in expenses and payroll, 4.5 million back to the democrats as a donation, and the rest might get to the army of rangers, or the corrupt government they work for....
..and this operation is also going to fail and yes there are alternate ways to combat it.
JV
Yes, more needs to be done. Africa needs to be more committed to the cause. Laws worldwide will have to become much, much tougher. A worldwide population decrease in humans would be a help too. But just because someone else isn't doing as much as they should doesn't mean that you shouldn't.
You are essentially saying that you have the right to expect that anything you own maintains its value, and that if it doesn't, that you should have legal recourse against whoever did anything that had any affect on the market value. Ludicrous. Dumb. I know you will see how silly that is if you think about it without bias for about two seconds also. Every day lots of people are responsible for market value fluctuations for lots of things and we have neither the right to expect it not to happen, nor the right to be compensated when it does. You have no inherent right that your ivory or anything else must maintain its value. The price of stuff goes up and down for lots of reasons and that is just part of life.
The laws were enforced as much as was feasible. The problem is that they were all but worthless laws because it is impossible to tell the difference poached illegal ivory from legal ivory, and impossible to catch ivory being imported, and exceptionally easy to launder illegal poached ivory into being "legal" ivory.
Talk about a fairy tale. Sounds good, but how do you catch them? You can't. For every 1,000 packages that are shipped into the US with ivory in them, how many do you think are caught? Probably 1 if even that. There is no way to detect illegal ivory being brought into the US.
Well above you say the price of ivory is going down and for some silly reason think you deserve compensation for that. Now you are saying it is going up. Make up your mind, which story are you going with? It can't be up and down at the same time.
Let me set the record straight for you on two things. The value of ivory, as a whole and on average, will be going down because of the stricter laws.
Even if the price of ivory went up, not a single one more elephant would be killed than would be killed at the current prices. The prices are already high enough that poachers are killing every single possible elephant they can. You can't kill elephants at a faster rate than when you are already killing as many as you can as fast as you can as is happening now.
The one thing that will slow down the killing of elephants though is if little ivory is needed to meet the demands of the market. If say for example twenty tons of elephant ivory is being harvested ever year right now, it is obviously because there is a market demand for those significant quantities. But what happens if the market only needs say two tons of elephant ivory a year? Well now you only have to kill 10% of the amount of elephants to meet the need for two tons ivory that you were having to kill when the market needed twenty tons.
The only way to slow the killing of elephants is to kill the market demand so not nearly as much ivory is needed. And the way to do that is obviously by making people not want ivory. And the most surefire way to make people not want ivory (short of making it illegal to even own or possess) is by making it no longer a prestige item to own by educating people about what is happening to the elephant population, and by killing the value of ivory, and by making ivory a little more difficult to buy and sell.
At the end of the day, by far more than anything else by a long shot, what determines how many elephants are killed is how much ivory is needed by the market. You aren't going to save the elephants any other way other than by making people not want ivory--period.
I like ivory. I have owned lots of it. In fact I like it way more than most people, probably including you and most of the other "ivory supporters" on here. Almost all of my cues have had ivory in them, and usually not a tiny bit either, but loaded. My typical cue had many and sometimes dozens of ivory inlays, ivory Hoppe rings, ivory ferrules, ivory joints, and often even solid ivory points. I am also a hunter. I have no compunction against killing things if it is done humanely and if there is enough of those things so that their population can afford it. I am not coming from a place of anti-hunting or bleeding hearts or anything remotely similar.
I am simply coming from a place of having seen the reality without bias and being honest with myself. But as much as I hate that it has come to this regarding ivory, it has. We are either going to have ivory niceties, or we are going to have the majestic elephants alive on this earth, but we simply are not going to be able to have both as much as we wish we could. Elephants are impossible to adequately protect by patrolling, they are absolutely impossible to farm, they take far too long to reproduce, etc, etc, etc. Everything is stacked against the elephants and there literally is no alternative than curbing the desire for and use of ivory.
We have to decide which is most important, and for me, having elephants and not having ivory niceties is far more important than having the ivory niceties and no longer having elephants because they were poached into extinction (and we aren't very far at all from being at this point). As intelligent humans we have the moral obligation not to put other species into extinction even if that means having to make some sacrifices ourselves (and doing without ivory isn't even that big of a sacrifice if we are being honest with ourselves--especially when you consider that without exception there are similar looking but equally or better suited materials that can be used anyway).
Last edited:
If you really want to understand the issue better, read the following report.
Here are some highlights in regards to the American market:
REDUCING DEMAND FOR IVORY
An International Study Aug. 2015
National Geographic
In the United States, quantitative research was conducted online. Data were collected through online self-completion of the questionnaire. Invitations to complete the survey were emailed to a managed panel of adults in the United States who agreed to take part in online research....
....Key Findings
Among the five countries studied, the United States stands out as having the smallest segment of potential buyers of ivory (i.e., “Likely Buyers”) and among the lowest rates of current ownership and past-three-year purchase. In addition, Americans are the least likely to express positive attitudes about objects made of ivory...
....American respondents (along with those in Thailand) indicate the lowest level of awareness of issues related to the ivory trade. Nonetheless, support for actions to limit the trade in elephant ivory is widespread among Americans, with two-thirds expressing support for a total ban on all ivory trading in the United States, and only 13% stating that they would be opposed...
Ownership and Perceptions of Ivory
...Americans express the lowest level of interest in ivory. In the United States, the rates of current ownership and purchase of ivory within the past three years are among the lowest of the five countries studied. The percentage of Americans who hold positive views of ivory is lower than in any of the other markets....
Likely Buyers
The segment of Americans who are categorized as Likely Buyers, i.e., those consumers who are most responsible for fueling demand for ivory, represents 13% of total American respondents. This rate is on par with that in Thailand and Vietnam, but substantially lower than for both China (36%) and the Philippines (34%).
Firm Rejecters, who are the least likely segment to buy ivory, represent 24% of American adults....
Drivers of Demand for Ivory
In the United States, four additional drivers are found to be important in predicting purchase intent.
The first is the belief that purchasing small pieces of ivory does not contribute significantly to overall demand. The second is faith in governments to ensure elephants do not become extinct. Both of these beliefs may represent ways to rationalize ivory consumption. The remaining motivators of purchase intent relate to a desire for products that might serve to solidify belonging to and/ or impressing one’s peer group. Of these, one is the perception of ivory as exotic and noble, while the other speaks to the concept of products or brands representing a badge of style – more specifically defined as buying a product/brand because it is fashionable and/or one’s friends buy it.
Awareness and Attitudes Toward Ivory Issues
A majority (66%) of Americans do not believe that governments around the world are doing a good job at protecting nature. This level of disenchantment is more pronounced among Americans than among any of the other populations studied. As to how they feel about their own country’s ability to enforce national laws and regulations, Americans are also skeptical, with 52% expressing a lack of faith in this capacity.
Two-thirds of American respondents say they would support a ban on all buying, selling, importing and exporting of ivory in the United States. Among Likely Buyers in the United States, support for this action falls to 47%, with 24% of this group saying they would not support such a proposal.
Elsewhere, majorities in each country are in favor of a universal ban on trade, and opposition in the remaining four countries is limited to 16% or less.
When asked how much they would support various specific government actions to limit the trade in elephant ivory, around eight in 10 American respondents would at least somewhat support each of the measures. The three actions generating the highest level of support in the United States are large fines, stricter laws and the signing of an international treaty by the U.S. government banning the purchase and sale of ivory.
Over two-thirds of Americans indicate strong support for large fines and stricter laws, and 61% would strongly support an international treaty. Nine in 10 would support these actions to varying degrees. Support for such measures is fairly consistent across all countries surveyed.
Whole Report: http://press.nationalgeographic.com/files/2015/09/NGS2015_Final-August-11-RGB.pdf
What is very clear :
- If someone REALLY wants to save the Elephants, then the Elephant poaching must first and foremost be addressed where it happens, which is where the elephants live.
Our laws WILL NOT and CANNOT stop illegal hunting in another country.
OUR CURRENT LAWS ONLY CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE KILLING IS DONE, AND THE IVORY IS BROUGHT TO US.
- America is not the nearly the biggest threat. However, we do in fact use ivory, so we can't just eliminate ourselves from the issue. But you will also never convince 100% of the people that legally obtained ivory is bad, so it's a matter of balance.
To many restrictions and the black market thrives - the inmates run the asylum.
Proper guidelines and controls - and the black market cant sustain itself.
Here are some highlights in regards to the American market:
REDUCING DEMAND FOR IVORY
An International Study Aug. 2015
National Geographic
In the United States, quantitative research was conducted online. Data were collected through online self-completion of the questionnaire. Invitations to complete the survey were emailed to a managed panel of adults in the United States who agreed to take part in online research....
....Key Findings
Among the five countries studied, the United States stands out as having the smallest segment of potential buyers of ivory (i.e., “Likely Buyers”) and among the lowest rates of current ownership and past-three-year purchase. In addition, Americans are the least likely to express positive attitudes about objects made of ivory...
....American respondents (along with those in Thailand) indicate the lowest level of awareness of issues related to the ivory trade. Nonetheless, support for actions to limit the trade in elephant ivory is widespread among Americans, with two-thirds expressing support for a total ban on all ivory trading in the United States, and only 13% stating that they would be opposed...
Ownership and Perceptions of Ivory
...Americans express the lowest level of interest in ivory. In the United States, the rates of current ownership and purchase of ivory within the past three years are among the lowest of the five countries studied. The percentage of Americans who hold positive views of ivory is lower than in any of the other markets....
Likely Buyers
The segment of Americans who are categorized as Likely Buyers, i.e., those consumers who are most responsible for fueling demand for ivory, represents 13% of total American respondents. This rate is on par with that in Thailand and Vietnam, but substantially lower than for both China (36%) and the Philippines (34%).
Firm Rejecters, who are the least likely segment to buy ivory, represent 24% of American adults....
Drivers of Demand for Ivory
In the United States, four additional drivers are found to be important in predicting purchase intent.
The first is the belief that purchasing small pieces of ivory does not contribute significantly to overall demand. The second is faith in governments to ensure elephants do not become extinct. Both of these beliefs may represent ways to rationalize ivory consumption. The remaining motivators of purchase intent relate to a desire for products that might serve to solidify belonging to and/ or impressing one’s peer group. Of these, one is the perception of ivory as exotic and noble, while the other speaks to the concept of products or brands representing a badge of style – more specifically defined as buying a product/brand because it is fashionable and/or one’s friends buy it.
Awareness and Attitudes Toward Ivory Issues
A majority (66%) of Americans do not believe that governments around the world are doing a good job at protecting nature. This level of disenchantment is more pronounced among Americans than among any of the other populations studied. As to how they feel about their own country’s ability to enforce national laws and regulations, Americans are also skeptical, with 52% expressing a lack of faith in this capacity.
Two-thirds of American respondents say they would support a ban on all buying, selling, importing and exporting of ivory in the United States. Among Likely Buyers in the United States, support for this action falls to 47%, with 24% of this group saying they would not support such a proposal.
Elsewhere, majorities in each country are in favor of a universal ban on trade, and opposition in the remaining four countries is limited to 16% or less.
When asked how much they would support various specific government actions to limit the trade in elephant ivory, around eight in 10 American respondents would at least somewhat support each of the measures. The three actions generating the highest level of support in the United States are large fines, stricter laws and the signing of an international treaty by the U.S. government banning the purchase and sale of ivory.
Over two-thirds of Americans indicate strong support for large fines and stricter laws, and 61% would strongly support an international treaty. Nine in 10 would support these actions to varying degrees. Support for such measures is fairly consistent across all countries surveyed.
Whole Report: http://press.nationalgeographic.com/files/2015/09/NGS2015_Final-August-11-RGB.pdf
What is very clear :
- If someone REALLY wants to save the Elephants, then the Elephant poaching must first and foremost be addressed where it happens, which is where the elephants live.
Our laws WILL NOT and CANNOT stop illegal hunting in another country.
OUR CURRENT LAWS ONLY CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE KILLING IS DONE, AND THE IVORY IS BROUGHT TO US.
- America is not the nearly the biggest threat. However, we do in fact use ivory, so we can't just eliminate ourselves from the issue. But you will also never convince 100% of the people that legally obtained ivory is bad, so it's a matter of balance.
To many restrictions and the black market thrives - the inmates run the asylum.
Proper guidelines and controls - and the black market cant sustain itself.
Poolplaya9, i wish you would stop playing dumb already. Jay is asking you to show him where the sale of illegal ivory from other countries are that is being sold to people in the US and subbed into legal ivory sales becasue records werent propey kept. He isnt aski g about a cue with ivory for sale being sold from another country to the US.
STOP AVOIDING JAY'S QUESTION AT HAND. YOU ARE MAKING US SICK OF YOUR 7 PAGE RESPONSES OF COMPLETE BS ALREADY.
Wrong. It can't effectively be done. Elephants have a home range that is just too large and just too remote. Obviously doing your best to patrol and protect is needed, but it will never be close to being enough to stop the decline and extinction of elephants from poaching. The only thing that will actually save the elephants is when people don't want to own ivory which means little ivory is needed and therefore few elephants have to be killed to meet that small need. The only real question is how to make people not want ivory and that's not even really a question as it is pretty obvious.
Wrong. They can. The laws make people not want ivory. When less ivory is needed, less elephants are killed to meet the need. This isn't rocket science.
Wrong. See above.
I am not going to pander to somebody who is lying and playing stupid. Everybody knows that cues from foreign sellers have been, can be, and are bought by American buyers. Anybody who claims different is a liar. Want the examples, go find them yourself. They are easy to find. And stop lying and saying you haven't seen them. Here, I will give you a hint. Find any foreign seller that has a cue with ivory in it for sale in the for sale forum, especially before July 6th. A US buyer can (or often did) buy it. Exceptions are few. So if you want to find a cue with ivory that can and often will be bought by a US buyer, just find any cue for sale in the for sale section with ivory from a foreign seller. You should be able to handle that.
But Jay isnt asking about cue sales. We all know its still happening. In your 1st post in this thread you said how a guy with 500 pounds sells off a bunch without paperwork. Then buys illegal ivory from out of the country. When inspected it looks like its the original legal stuff. Jay wants you to show us where these sales are coming from or advertised to buy illegal stuff from out of the country.