Anti-Ivory Groups Take Aim at WA, IA & CA (Mammoth Included) + Fed Update

AVigil said:
And the Department of Fish and Wild life says it will help save elephants.
Click to expand...

Oh, well it's settled than. If they said it, it must be true.

I can see them all now, going hungry and broke because we implemented a ban. Oh wait, they haven't been able to import their poached ivory into the US in years - So essentially it would not change anything, would it?

There will always be a demand for ivory, whether it is legal or otherwise. Where there is demand, there will always be poachers willing to supply. You cannot change human nature by writing legislature.

You disregarded my response concerning mammoth ivory and knife handles. There is a fairly large number of collectors on this forum alone, many of whom own very expensive knives with mammoth handles or scales - Many of which are made by MS's than cannot be replaced. How is devaluing 100's of thousands of dollars of personal property not a knife issue?
 
There are two arguments here:
1. Banning the sale of ivory in the US will have a trickle down effect on global ivory demand, saving elephants.

2. Banning ivory sales won't help elephants (we think), so financial interests of a small group of people should be the only concern.


Does this debate really get any more complicated than this?


I'm surprised that the ivory proponents don't just carry their thinking to the logical conclusion:
The US isn't going to save the elephants.
The wild elephants will be all dead within 10 years.
The ban on ivory sales will be lifted when there are no more elephants.

So all of you guys that like ivory and think that any move the US makes is pointless only have to wait it out a few years to be proven right and get everything you want: Financial gain and being proven right about how global markets work.
 
craytab said:
Would this ban hurt my right to carry and use a knife? No.

And this is the problem I am having in understanding why this issue is being taken up by Knife Rights. This issue isn't about the controversial end of the tool. At this point it is not really about the Elephants any more for me. That is a problem that is much bigger and harder to get at. I am concerned about my right to carry and use a knife. Not about the value of a knife. Value will always be in the eye of the beholder. I am not concerned about making money. I am sorry, I am not in the knife making business. I know this issue is important for those that are. But you know what? There are other ways to make money. People change careers all the time. It sucks, I know but no matter what career one chooses, no matter where one chooses to live, no matter what you like to do day to day, you should have the right to carry and use you knife. This is what I am concerned about and I think this issue we are discussing has very little to do with protecting my right to carry and use an edged tool.
Click to expand...

Please see my above post directed at Mr. Vigil that has my view on why it's a knife rights issue.

I understand why you feel the way that you do. I don't think Ivory rights should be at the top of their list, and I am sure that it is not. That doesn't mean that he can't spend time on other aspects that effects a fairly large demographic of knife collectors.

If you recall, Mark Knapp raised more than $15,000 for Knife rights to fight specifically for this cause. Do you feel he should have said no, and turned him down when it effects many of us collectors, threatening to devalue a huge amount of personal property.
 
egally08 said:
Please see my above post directed at Mr. Vigil that has my view on why it's a knife rights issue.

I understand why you feel the way that you do. I don't think Ivory rights should be at the top of their list, and I am sure that it is not. That doesn't mean that he can't spend time on other aspects that effects a fairly large demographic of knife collectors.

If you recall, Mark Knapp raised more than $15,000 for Knife rights to fight specifically for this cause. Do you feel he should have said no, and turned him down when it effects many of us collectors, threatening to devalue a huge amount of personal property.
Click to expand...
No, its an IVORY issue. Your ivory just happens to be on a knife.
 
egally08 said:
There will always be a demand for ivory, whether it is legal or otherwise. Where there is demand, there will always be poachers willing to supply. You cannot change human nature by writing legislature.
Click to expand...
What makes you say this? Is it like whale bone? Bought any fresh scrimshaw lately?

Elephant ivory isn't even a spectacular material. If it all disappeared tomorrow, how tragic would that be to not have any more off white stuff around? Ivory has got to be one of the least attractive prestige materials ever. I think it's popularity stems largely from its exotic origins, rather than the beauty of tooth colored carving material.


No one would miss it.
 
egally08 said:
Oh, well it's settled than. If they said it, it must be true.

I can see them all now, going hungry and broke because we implemented a ban. Oh wait, they haven't been able to import their poached ivory into the US in years - So essentially it would not change anything, would it?

There will always be a demand for ivory, whether it is legal or otherwise. Where there is demand, there will always be poachers willing to supply. You cannot change human nature by writing legislature.

You disregarded my response concerning mammoth ivory and knife handles. There is a fairly large number of collectors on this forum alone, many of whom own very expensive knives with mammoth handles or scales - Many of which are made by MS's than cannot be replaced. How is devaluing 100's of thousands of dollars of personal property not a knife issue?
Click to expand...

I think you are talking to me with this. I understand that it will be devalued. I think that is the point of what the legislation is trying to do? I don't think it will work either.

Ivory is a complicated issue. The issue is so complicated you contradict your self. Y can't on one hand say that Ivory will be devalued but on the other hand argue the ban will only in fact increase the price of Ivory. I know it is more complicated than that but that is why this issue is tough. It is so tough, I don't want my right to carry a knife wrapped up with.

The ban will not impact my ability to carry a knife. Stopping the ban will not overturn length restrictions, it will not change the ability to carry autos, or address preemption issues. These are the things I give money to have fought for. In my opinion the right to carry a knife AT ALL is far more important that what the handle is made out of or whether a persons collection is devalued, or if a person has to find a new lively hood. I am sorry, I know it sucks but the ability to carry a knife is far more important.
 
RedLynx said:
By the way,

Doug, if you have an opportunity to come by this thread again and read what I've posted (not that it is terribly interesting), I want to say that, whatever else might be said I think you're a great guy going a fine job with a great organization. Unlike some, I am happy to support you and Knife Rights monetarily regardless of what issue is taking your attention at any given time. I know you are giving the proper attention to all issues as need be. I trust that is true. I've never met you but I can see you have a passion for this and as an enthusiast I'm happy to have that passion on my side (and I did win a very cool custom in giveaway, so, yay).

Thanks for all that you do.
Click to expand...

Doug is on airplanes for the next few days, that's why he hasn't around. He had asked me to enter into this fray while he's gone. Though I would have otherwise.
 
egally08 said:
You disregarded my response concerning mammoth ivory and knife handles. There is a fairly large number of collectors on this forum alone, many of whom own very expensive knives with mammoth handles or scales - Many of which are made by MS's than cannot be replaced. How is devaluing 100's of thousands of dollars of personal property not a knife issue?
Click to expand...

It is not an knife issue anymore then ivory inlays in shot gun and rifle stocks are a gun issue.

The ban on Tortoise shell is not a knife issue either. When the ban on Tortoise Shell came into effect the knife industry kept going and did not cry knife rights were in danger.
 
craytab said:
I think you are talking to me with this. I understand that it will be devalued. I think that is the point of what the legislation is trying to do? I don't think it will work either.

Ivory is a complicated issue. The issue is so complicated you contradict your self. Y can't on one hand say that Ivory will be devalued but on the other hand argue the ban will only in fact increase the price of Ivory. I know it is more complicated than that but that is why this issue is tough. It is so tough, I don't want my right to carry a knife wrapped up with.

The ban will not impact my ability to carry a knife. Stopping the ban will not overturn length restrictions, it will not change the ability to carry autos, or address preemption issues. These are the things I give money to have fought for. In my opinion the right to carry a knife AT ALL is far more important that what the handle is made out of or whether a persons collection is devalued, or if a person has to find a new lively hood. I am sorry, I know it sucks but the ability to carry a knife is far more important.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you sound very selfish in pretty much everything you say. The issue is very important to a lot of people around here, and we are happy to help you fight what ever battle is important to you (concerning knives) however, you are very one sided. I wish you the best.
 
RX-79G said:
What makes you say this? Is it like whale bone? Bought any fresh scrimshaw lately?

Elephant ivory isn't even a spectacular material. If it all disappeared tomorrow, how tragic would that be to not have any more off white stuff around? Ivory has got to be one of the least attractive prestige materials ever. I think it's popularity stems largely from its exotic origins, rather than the beauty of tooth colored carving material.


No one would miss it.
Click to expand...

You have a very narrow view from your own, kind of small perspective. If what you say is true, why are people wiping out elephants to get it? And by the way, do you mean all ivory, or just elephant ivory.
 
Last edited:
The #1 threat to elephants is poaching. That is a fact. Period. To claim otherwise is at best wrong, and at worst completely disingenuous. Are there other issues facing elephant populations, like loss of habitat? Yes. However, these issues are secondary, and to bring them up in this conversation only serves to diver attention from the facts that do not support the "pro ivory" argument. Again, the #1 driver for poaching is the global ivory industry.

The US is the second biggest market for that industry. Again, this is a fact. What we do (or do not do) impacts the world ivory market and the poaching industry. To say otherwise is wrong. Although (I hope) no one posting on this thread knowingly sells illegally sourced ivory, the US is the second biggest market for this stuff.

All of you that want to sell ivory are supporting this industry, which means you indirectly support poaching. All of you that want to create loopholes for mammoth ivory, pre-ban ivory, and ivory sourced from animals that died from natural causes / legal hunts, help to create an environment where poachers and smugglers can sell their wares. Again, you are indirectly supporting poaching.

I could care less about the "loss of value" experienced by those that currently own ivory. People that owned slaves probably cried in the same way in the 1860s. Despite your assertions to the contrary, you do not have the "right" to sell it and indirectly support poaching any more than a pedophile has the “right” to enjoy child pornography.

I could also care less that the "pro-ivory" crowd raised $15K and gave it to D Ritter / Knife Rights. Folks seem to think that makes it OK for D Ritter / Knife Rights to to take on this issue. To me, it makes it seem that D Ritter / Knife Rights are for sale and will support whatever special interest group will fund them. THIS IS NOT A KNIFE RIGHTS ISSUE.

I support a 100% ban on the sale ALL ivory. I am glad that there are people (not Knife Rights) that understand this issue and are fighting to destroy the global ivory market.
 
craytab said:
I think you are talking to me with this. I understand that it will be devalued. I think that is the point of what the legislation is trying to do? I don't think it will work either.

Ivory is a complicated issue. The issue is so complicated you contradict your self. Y can't on one hand say that Ivory will be devalued but on the other hand argue the ban will only in fact increase the price of Ivory. I know it is more complicated than that but that is why this issue is tough. It is so tough, I don't want my right to carry a knife wrapped up with.

The ban will not impact my ability to carry a knife. Stopping the ban will not overturn length restrictions, it will not change the ability to carry autos, or address preemption issues. These are the things I give money to have fought for. In my opinion the right to carry a knife AT ALL is far more important that what the handle is made out of or whether a persons collection is devalued, or if a person has to find a new lively hood. I am sorry, I know it sucks but the ability to carry a knife is far more important.
Click to expand...

The contradiction is there, but only in a very vague sense. Limiting the supply by way of a ban will increase the price of raw, black market ivory sold and traded illegally. I can't speak for others, but IMO most collectors, and myself included wouldn't take the chance of trying to openly, and illegally sell their knives that contain mammoth.

I am in complete agreement with you, that the harsher laws restricting length and carry are more important. However, when something like this affects a lot of the most skilled bladesmiths in our industry, and all of their customers that own a knife with mammoth on it, I think it's fair to direct some of KR's resources towards it, especially considering Mark raised the funds specifically for this cause.
 
Mark Knapp said:
You have a very narrow view from you own, kind of small perspective. If what you say is true, why are people wiping out elephants to get it? And by the way, do you mean all ivory, or just elephant ivory.
Click to expand...
Because it is an increasingly rare prestige material, and they don't care about elephant populations. Why are Rolex watches so much more expensive than similar Swiss watches? Because they are Rolex.

I thought I said "elephants ivory", and told you earlier that your mammoth ivory handles were spectacular.


And Mark, don't you think calling Craytab "selfish" a little bizarre? The whole point you're making is that there isn't enough justification in the ban to risk the wallets of a small group of people. If what Craytab wants for elephants is "selfish", where does that put you?

I wouldn't have chosen that word.
 
RX-79G said:
What, exactly, did I say about elephant conservation that is factually incorrect?

I think calling me out this way after a whole bunch of people with no concept of what's happening in China is a little funny.
Click to expand...

You said that there aren't enough elephants to support hunting them. Quite to the contrary there are countries (quite a few) that have a thriving hunting industry where people go to hunt elephants. The herds are self sustaining, only mature bulls are killed and the herds are healthy. Guess what, they don't have a poaching problem. The money that people pay to hunt elephants pays for wildlife conservation, it pays for the protection of the elephants. Excess elephants are killed each year to keep the herds within the carrying capacity of the habitat they occupy. The people that run the hunting concessions protect the elephants from poachers. We are talking about vast herds here, ranging free, not a few elephants in a fence.

It's only a percentage of the countries that have a poaching/elephant population problem, not all of Africa. The ETIS reports I sited explain that it is only the countries with week and/or corrupt governments that have a poaching problem.

Don't take my word for it, the information is all over the internet. The reason we are all talking about the poaching side of it is because it is an emotional issue. No-one wants to hear about where things are going well, it doesn't make the news

Joe knows more about this than I do, I am sure he will answer you.
 
The fish and wildlife website specifically states that banning mammoth ivory will not benefit elephant conservation.
 
Mark Knapp said:
Doug is on airplanes for the next few days, that's why he hasn't around. He had asked me to enter into this fray while he's gone. Though I would have otherwise.
Click to expand...

I wish him various safe flights, as a nervous flyer (ironic in that my father and grandfather built their own airplanes).
 
Sosa said:
You guys can keep your precious ivory. No one will take it away. If you treasure it so much keep it forever. Meanwhile the bark from mammoth is made into knife scales. The core is sold as elephant ivory.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone sell mammoth ivory core as elephant ivory? That's not true at all, in fact the claim is that people are bringing elephant ivory into the US and selling it as mammoth ivory to make it easier to sell.

BTW, do you know how hard it is to find good core in mammoth ivory. It's very rare and highly sought after as an alternative to elephant ivory. Only a fool would try to sell mammoth ivory as elephant ivory because it is such a hot button issue. The reason the core is so uncommon is because ivory rots from the inside out. I have bought hundreds of mammoth ivory tusks over the last 15 years and cut them up for knife handle scales and less than one percent of them had partially usable interior ivory (core).

Mammoth ivory core sells for more in the U.S. than elephant ivory for obvious reasons, it is prettier, and there is no stigma attached.
 
leghog said:
The USA is a representational democracy, a republic. Write your representatives if you don't like the legislation then credit them or hold them accountable for their action on it.
Click to expand...

The problem with the Federal ban, at least, (I have not had a chance to become familiar with the state bans) is the federal ban was done through executive order, not the legislature. Our representative did not get a chance to hear from us and weigh in.
 
I have sold over 30 tons of mammoth from Alaska and none of it could be mistaken for elephant. I have seen jewelry made from Siberian mammoth that without close inspection looks like elephant. How about making mammoth ivory that looks like elepant illegal. I somehow do not think that would satisfy the antis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top