Reasons behind the Ivory ban

[Mr. Bond]

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.

Sorry you feel that way.
Oh well. Hang on to that dream bro.

In case you're interested in reality, the demand for ivory will not cease no matter who runs the propaganda campaign. It won't. As long as there are third world countries and crooked governments on earth it won't.

So you wanna keep chasing peddlers? Or stop the actual killing?

Oh wait....you said that " it would never be enough to stop the decline and extinction"

So I guess we say screw it and chase the peddlers because elephants are going extinct anyway.

" it can't be done" is code for : we love elephants, but not quite as much as our space program and allowing presidential candidates to blow 898 million on bumper stickers and tv ads.

 

[classiccues]

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 cannot stop the ivory trade. You couldn't stop the drug trade, alcohol, or any other type of business. You will not stop the ivory trade, thinking that you're putting a dent in it, is ludicrous, dumb.

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..

I have the right to expect compensation IF something that is legal one day, becomes somehow illegal. Yes, this is correct. Its not about ivory and its value decreasing naturally, this is incorrect government intervention. This is not a market fluctuation. BTW again, its been done before, the buyback scenario with guns.

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...

I disagree. There was never an onus placed on ivory. It was seld and bought just as anything else, regardless of the law. If the laws were enforced, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. The only time a bust was made, was when it was substantial.

OK so tell me how now, it will be easier to catch ivory? The shipping has not changed, they certainly aren't x-raying every package. So tell me, how this law is going to be enforced... I'll wait...

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....

See above... this in not changing in any way shape or form. So why the "new" law if you're going to enforce it the same was as the old law? Remember Ernie got caught on a federal law BEFORE the new bans took effect.

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.....

I never said the ivory value is decreasing, what the law has done is made it worthless because you CANT sell it. This is a huge difference. If you could sell it, the value would be the same. The black market price will rise, and that is a fact.

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......

You are wrong. In the US you will see some effect, we all ready know the largest markets are not going to change. China will say they will enact stricter laws, but we know that won't happen. So let me set the record straight for you, not one elephant that would have died anyways, will be saved. By driving the market price up elsewhere, you will kill the elephants faster, this is a no brainer.

The rest is purely fiction... I expect a feel good article from the libs, this is almost guaranteed. But the reality is, if the US ain't buying there is an area 3x the size of the US that will. Not one elephant will be spared..

JV

 

[classiccues]

Bingo...

JV

Sorry you feel that way.
Oh well. Hang on to that dream bro.

In case you're interested in reality, the demand for ivory will not cease no matter who runs the propaganda campaign. It won't. As long as there are third world countries and crooked governments on earth it won't.

So you wanna keep chasing peddlers? Or stop the actual killing?

Oh wait....you said that " it would never be enough to stop the decline and extinction"

So I guess we say screw it and chase the peddlers because elephants are going extinct anyway.

" it can't be done" is code for : we love elephants, but not quite as much as our space program and allowing presidential candidates to blow 898 million on bumper stickers and tv ads.

 

[overlord]

I hunt quite often, about twice a month or so, but I would never hunt animals that are almost extinct.

They are not almost extinct and in fact you can legally hunt them in 6 African countries. If you want to save the elephants you are gonna have to drastically effect the rate of African human population expansion.

Short of that you are just pissing into the wind.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Jay wants you to show us where these sales are coming from or advertised to buy illegal stuff from out of the country.

Any of those same boxes that had a cue with ivory in it that was shipped to the US could have instead had chunks of raw ivory in it. And of course it happens all the time since there is an exceptionally small chance of getting caught as proven by all the cues with ivory that go back and forth. You know that, you just want to keep lying about it and playing dumb but you will never in a million years be able to convince me that you are that dumb.

 

[skins]

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.

For MOST of those who collect high end cues IN the USA, the ivory content is very minor to what makes the cues they own have "value". It is, if not ALL, overwhelming that it has to do with who made it and when than ANYTHING else. That being said the "dumbness" and "ludicrous-ness" belongs to those who think that taking away ones right to FREELY liquidate ones leagally obtained item that has "earned" it's desirability AND value, DESPITE the material content, is the right thing. Well, those who think that way are wrong. PERIOD. It is morally, politically, socially, and ignorantly inept.

Continue on your soapbox....

 

[RickLafayette]

I'm amazed at the arrogance of those that think American pool players have such an impact on the poaching of elephants. Ninety-five per cent of the ivory demand comes from Asian countries. You are not just asking them to help prevent poaching. You are asking them to change their culture. Good luck with that. When you take into consideration all the other countries that use ivory in consumer products, American pool cues are the equivalent of the proverbial ice cube in the ocean. Yet, these same elitists think that they can inconvenience my life for their own feel good personal / political agendas. "Oh, let's just pass a law so I can feel good".
You don't want to use ivory? Don't! Just stay out of my business. That means my pool cues, my guns, what truck I drive, what I hunt and how I recycle my trash.
Jeeez!

 

[rhinobywilhite]

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.

Bava warned every one of you that this will get nasty.

 

[jasonlaus]

For MOST of those who collect high end cues IN the USA, the ivory content is very minor to what makes the cues they own have "value". It is, if not ALL, overwhelming that it has to do with who made it and when than ANYTHING else. That being said the "dumbness" and "ludicrous-ness" belongs to those who think that taking away ones right to FREELY liquidate ones leagally obtained item that has "earned" it's desirability AND value, DESPITE the material content, is the right thing. Well, those who think that way are wrong. PERIOD. It is morally, politically, socially, and ignorantly inept.

Continue on your soapbox....

Yep, there's alot of cuemakes that owe Elephants an apology, putting Ivory in their cues is a complete waste of Ivory.....hell, some of them shouldn't be allowed to use wood

Then there are the few that should have an endless supply(legal) of Ivory
Jason

 

[chefjeff]

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. (snip).

The reason is because, without property rights, profits are not enough to protect the species.

If someone actually owns those animals and there is a free market for what they produce, the owners' incentives to protect them are greater and the poachers' cost higher, thus fewer rustled/killed.

The answer is simple and it always works where it has been done already: make elephants property of individuals, not the commons. Punishing cue makers is a diversion from that...it is the OPPOSITE of that, in fact, and will actually cause MORE, not fewer, elephants to be poached.

Here in Iowa, there are thousands upon thousands of cattle with few being rustled. Some are, as Utopia isn't one of the choices, but few are for the reason I stated, above. That's why making/selling cue tips doesn't get people thrown in a cage and there are more cue tips available that a user could possibly want.

Freedom's principles are real and do work when allowed. Maybe a guy oughta look into THAT?

Jeff Livingston

 

[MitchAlsup]

The answer is simple and it always works where it has been done already: make elephants property of individuals, not the commons. Punishing cue makers is a diversion from that...it is the OPPOSITE of that, in fact, and will actually cause MORE, not fewer, elephants to be poached.

How does this work when the reason that Elephants migrate around is that portions of the land are completely unlivable during portions of any given year.

Thus, in order for them to survive, they need an area so large and across multiple countries that no one group of people could even conceivably own it.

So if you followed through and instantly set up fences to keep the given animals in their new territory, they would not make it through the first year.

 

[Mr. Bond]

How does this work when the reason that Elephants migrate around is that portions of the land are completely unlivable during portions of any given year.

Thus, in order for them to survive, they need an area so large and across multiple countries that no one group of people could even conceivably own it.

So if you followed through and instantly set up fences to keep the given animals in their new territory, they would not make it through the first year.

Sometimes true but not always. There are plenty of elephant herds that never need to cross borders. The countries where they live could protect them within their own borders in many if not most of the countries across southern Africa.

http://www.elephanttag.org/general/range_african.html

South Africa, for example, has VAST wildlife preserves already in place, as many African countries do. Focusing less on safari tourism and more on actual preservation would be a great start. Creating safe nurseries would be another. Enforcing international preservation laws would be another.

**The economy of South Africa is the largest in Africa, followed by Nigeria. South Africa accounts for 24 percent of Africa's gross domestic product (PPP), and it is ranked as an upper-middle-income economy by the World Bank – one of only four such countries in Africa (alongside Botswana, Gabon and Mauritius).

 

[chefjeff]

How does this work when the reason that Elephants migrate around is that portions of the land are completely unlivable during portions of any given year.

Thus, in order for them to survive, they need an area so large and across multiple countries that no one group of people could even conceivably own it.

So if you followed through and instantly set up fences to keep the given animals in their new territory, they would not make it through the first year.

That problem has been made much easier with technology. Physical fences are not necessary or even desired. Each animal can be tracked, and thus better protected by someone who has the incentive to do so, easily now.

The size of the area isn't really the issue, but who owns the area is. And who owns any of the animals is, too.

This is also the solution to whale over-harvesting, too...and other fishes. To every natural resource.

This is a basic tragedy-of-the-commons issue. More violence against those who own/sell ivory is not the answer, as is evidenced by this problem we're discussing here.


Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Sometimes true but not always. There are plenty of elephant herds that never need to cross borders. The countries where they live could protect them within their own borders in many if not most of the countries across southern Africa.

http://www.elephanttag.org/general/range_african.html

South Africa, for example, has VAST wildlife preserves already in place, as many African countries do. Focusing less on safari tourism and more on actual preservation would be a great start. Creating safe nurseries would be another. Enforcing international preservation laws would be another.

**The economy of South Africa is the largest in Africa, followed by Nigeria. South Africa accounts for 24 percent of Africa's gross domestic product (PPP), and it is ranked as an upper-middle-income economy by the World Bank – one of only four such countries in Africa (alongside Botswana, Gabon and Mauritius).

Those are great examples of the "How will it be done" question.

First off, NO ONE KNOWS how anything will be done until it is done. So, in order for that to happen, there FIRST needs to be the freedom to do. This is preceded by the axiom that property is necessary to do anything. You have to stand somewhere, right? You have to have a tool(s) to do. You have to have property to do it to. etc.

Asking "how it will be done," and if someone doesn't have the exact answer does not mean that freedom, therefore, can't work; it means that freedom MUST be allowed to work to discover peaceful and prosperous solutions that are in harmony with freedom, not in direct opposition to it.


Jeff Livingston

 

[classiccues]

Recent Summit

So interesting read regarding a summit for the total ban of the ivory trade and anything made of ivory. Certain countries, including those in Africa, want to regulate the trade, instead of banning it...

But Canada, interestingly enough, also only wants restrictions, since it could effect their people.. nice liberal country.. wants to tell you how to live but doesn't want the same rules... just like those liberal Canucks here in AZ... who would have thought it.

Personally I don't think China, or many other countries, will ever enforce a rule regarding ivory anyways. BTW the UK has also been very non-committal in regards to an ivory ban.

JV