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

[RX-79G]

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.

Mark, the annual total African elephant herd loss is 2%, which isn't sustainable. If legal hunting produces .5% herd loss, poaching will have to produce the rest of the 1.5% to match demand.


If you are saying that ending all poaching is possible by instituting universal and completely secure game reserve status throughout Africa by funding it entirely with controlled hunting, I wouldn't argue against that. But you're still left with an ivory production rate well below demand on a huge continent full of desperately poor people, so the likelihood that poaching could be so totally curtailed seems unlikely.

Poaching isn't happening on the game reserves because there are better places to poach. When everywhere is equally difficult, the poaching will be more evenly distributed. The risk to poachers will increase, but it will never be harder than smuggling cocaine into the US or weapons into Africa.


The real solution to all of this is Africa having an economy worth a damn so people aren't so desperate that they aren't constantly starting revolutions, genocides and destroying resources. But no one has a method for that, either.

 

[RX-79G]

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.

It is even less likely to satisfy the ivory folks either. But I would support it.

 

[Mark Knapp]

Earlier in this thread I posted some articles about the smuggling of ivory into the USA.

a qoute from the SFgate article says ...

"Federal agents say they have seized 6 tons of ivory smuggled into the United States over the past 25 years. Kinzley said that is only about 10 percent of illegal ivory sales.

"And Chinatown is one the top spots to buy ivory in the United States, which ranks second - behind China - on the list of nations with the biggest ivory markets, according to experts."

The USA is part of the problem.

Hi Adam, first off let me say that I am in agreement that poaching in African is a big problem. I think I can safely say that I have done more to try and actually stop it or slow it down than most people writing on this thread. Second, I believe that if one pound of poached ivory gets into the U.S. it's one pound way too much. But remember this, you have to be very careful what you read, and you have to read it carefully.

So lets look at the two quotes you just used.

"Federal agents say they have seized 6 tons of ivory smuggled into the United States over the past 25 years. Kinzley said that is only about 10 percent of illegal ivory sales."

We have known about the six tons for quite some time, it is the same six tons that was in the great ivory crushing a couple of years ago. It was an accumulation of the last 25 years. It was everything they "seized" in the last 25 years except some that is in display cabinets around the country as examples of stuff you're not supposed to buy.

Here's the thing, some of that stuff that was "seized" wasn't really seized at all. Some of it was actually legal, pre-act ivory that had been in the country since way before the ban of 1989.

What happens is, somebody dies and the grandchildren inherit a bunch of stuff from grandma or grandpa. Among all that stuff is a couple of elephant ivory tusks that grandpa got on safari in Africa in 1952. The grand kids don't know what to do with it, they know it's been around for a while but they really don't have the details, and they really don't have any interest in the tusks. So they call a state or federal fish and game agency (or they call someone like me, I get calls like this quite a bit) and they are instructed that since they don't have any knowledge about the origin of the tusks, the only real thing they can do with it is surrender it to the U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service. The tusks are surrendered and it goes into the stock pile.

I know this from personal, first hand knowledge, from conversations with a U.S. Fish and Wildlife officer that I know.

The other thing that happens is, whenever a burglary ring, or a burglar is caught with some booty and it happens to have some ivory in it, they don't know where it came from, and besides, ivory is bad, so it goes to the U.S. F&W for disposal.

OK just for this discussion lets assume that all of the ivory they were talking about in your article is in fact smuggled, poached ivory, we know it's not but lets pretend it is.

That's 6 tons over a 25 year period. 12,000 pounds or 480 pounds per year. If you give each elephant 100 pounds of ivory (that seems fare having looked at the size of the tusks in that pile of burning tusks) that means about 5 elephants were poached and the ivory was sent to the U.S. per year that we know of. Your quote said it's probably 10 percent, of what's really coming here. I don't know how they know that but lets go with it.

Fifty elephants were killed each year, and the tusks were sent to the U.S. It's actually a lot less than that now because in your articles there was only one seizure that I remember that was since 2002, all the others were prior. It must be going to other countries where they are paying higher prices, and the governments are not as diligent. One report I read said in 2011 38.8 tons of ivory was seized world wide or the equivalent of 4000 elephants, the report said. If we use the same ten percent formula (fare is fare) that means 388 tons of ivory or 40,000 elephants were killed in 2011.

The percentage of ivory coming to the US as to what is being poached is not even a blip on the screen. That's what the ETIS reports reflect.

Problem solving specialists will tell you that if you want to solve a problem you attack in the high percent areas and don't waist your time in the areas that are way down below one percent.

There are people here on this thread that just don't want ivory to be used period, I understand that. I have nothing to say that will make them happy. To those that are seriously interested in solving the poaching problem we need to attack it at the 99% area. Where it is happening on the ground in Africa. It's going to take all of us to solve a problem this big. If half of us want to take away personal wealth from the other half of us we are never going to be able to work together to solve this problem.

I am not trying to make less of the ivory that makes to the U.S. if we need to work harder at that then we should, but that won't stop what's happening in Africa.

 

[craytab]

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.

If we want to talk about a large demographic of knife collector who are effected we should really be talking about the millions of people who are impacted by the thousands of draconian protectionist laws right now. Hell, Just think of Philadelphia alone. Every person in that city or visits that city cannot carry a knife of any kind. Of course some do and it is no doubt a pain for cops to actually enforce but it is a law on the books non the less. I am willing to bet that more peoples rights are violated in that single case than all the people who would be impacted from a ban on Ivory. This is the type of issue I want my money and Doug's time going to. And yes it is good that Mr. Knapp raised the funds for Doug's work as hopefully it won't take away from money that could go to other efforts. But I think we can all agree it is not just a money thing. The real value in Knife Rights is Doug himself. I want his effort protecting my working tools.

We certainly won't agree on this part of the issue but I your thoughts do have merit and I am glad we have discussed this civilly.

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.

I am sorry but I think you have greatly misunderstood me. I agree there should not be a ban like this. There should be some sort of ban or legislation or better enforcement or a better representation of the actual problems. I Do not want Elephants to be killed for their ivory. I am worried about the everyday Joe who doesn't even know of Ivory but who carries a knife everyday and is at risk for having his right to do so infringed upon. I think if even one moment of Doug's time is taken away from what I consider the issue Knife Rights stands for (carrying and using a knife) then this whole Ban battle is hurting Knife Right's efforts. I also think Knife Right's getting involved in this very controversiual issue can make Knife Rights and knife owners look bad, not that they are bad, but sheeple generally don't understand knives or the Ivory issue so putting them together hurts Knife Rights, IMO.

That said, I may not agree with Doug or Knife Rights getting involved with this issue, but I will still continue to support Knife Right's because overall, it is the best game in town. I will however voice my displeasure over this issue. I wish there was an organization you could turn to that could help you like Knife Rights helps me.

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.

I really don't need you having my back. Please keep my name and what I want out of your mouth. If you would have paid attention I am not even talking about elephants anymore.

 

[Mark Knapp]

OK, I'm tired of people thinking this is a knife rights issue because people use ivory in knives. By that logic, artists speak through their art, so if the medium is ivory to ban ivory would be an infringement on freedom of speech by this logic. Let's make an ivory bullet so the NRA can get involved, cuz then it'd be a gun rights issue. Or an ivory stent so its a medical care issue. This is NOT knife rights, its ivory rights. Until one shows where the legislation mentions knives, this isn't knife rights. Objectively.

It is knife rights if the people in charge of knife rights want it to be. You have already said what you are going to do so do it. I will pay the dues of everybody that chooses not to renew with knife rights. I have already raised $13,000.00 for them with the help of some pretty good dudes, so I think we are already way ahead. Doug started this thread as a ivory ban thread and that is what it is. Why are you using it as a knife rights thread?

 

[Mark Knapp]

You are correct. If the handle makes it a knife rights issue then it would also mean it is a "Gun Rights" issue correct?... and it is not.

It is a gun rights issue too. I am sorry to tell you that the NRA is hugely involved with the ivory ban issue.

 

[RX-79G]

Maybe it's a women's reproductive rights issue, too?

It does all seem like a stretch. I do think that some of the hard core gun and knife rights people might not like having their issue "tainted" in the public eye with a very divisive issue that has nothing directly to do with it.

 

[AVigil]

If half of us want to take away personal wealth from the other half of us we are never going to be able to work together to solve this problem.

Mark thanks for the response.

I think that is an honest statement and that it is more about "wealth" and not at all about knife rights.

You know how we know it is not really about knife rights? Because if you take the ivory out of the equation the knife is still there.

I guess what this all boils down to is... There are going to be a lot of ivory owners who get hosed and they invested in the wrong thing.

 

[AVigil]

It is a gun rights issue too. I am sorry to tell you that the NRA is hugely involved with the ivory ban issue.

They are but it is not "Gun rights" issue it is an ivory ownership issue.

 

[Mark Knapp]

And the Department of Fish and Wild life says it will help save elephants.

I have already discussed the changes in the USF&W service since the appointment of Dan Ashe by President Obama. If you seek knowledge read what I said, or don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself. Do you believe everything your government tells you?

When President Obama put his committee on wildlife trafficking together there were three of the top animal protectionist groups at the table, the person in charge of EBAY that banned the sale of any materials from any ivory bearing animal from eBay and a few others. There was not one scientist at the table, not one biologist or statistician. No ivory experts or Africa experts and no-one from the ivory trade was at the table. If you want to see the list of names I will find it again.

The Presidents ban was passed through executive order without legislative procedure, fortunately our legislators are working hard to de-fund the ban. Otherwise it would be a huge mess. Under the Presidents ban all ivory objects would be illegal to sell unless you could prove it's origin. The burden of proof is on the owner of the object, it is assumed to be illegal unless you can prove it is legal, and the burden of proof is so high that it is impossible to do. So much for the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

 

[STEELHEADBULLY]

Mark thanks for the response.

I think that is an honest statement and that it is more about "wealth" and not at all about knife rights.

You know how we know it is not really about knife rights? Because if you take the ivory out of the equation the knife is still there.

I guess what this all boils down to is... There are going to be a lot of ivory owners who get hosed and they invested in the wrong thing.

I would not collect knives if it wasn't for the Mammoth/mastodon ivory/bark handled ones, and I have to say with anything just banned, it will be a long time before the value goes down and people start thinking they invested in the wrong thing. If anything the value will sky rocket at first. Yeah, maybe wont be able to list them for sale on Bladeforums anymore, but there will still be a market for a long time. I am an American citizen, and I have the right to break a law if it is unjust, not only a right, but a duty

 

[Mark Knapp]

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.

In your quote I posted you said "ivory", you did not say "elephant ivory". When you mean elephant ivory please say "elephant ivory" so we all know what you mean. The lumping of all ivories together is confusing and troublesome to this discussion.

If you read craytab's quotes he goes on and on about how he does not want Knife Rights fighting this issue, he payed them money and they are supposed to be using his money for the things he thinks are important, not anything else. To me that's selfish. I missed it if he said he wanted to help elephants. In the quote I copied in that post, it was purely about how Doug was mis-using his money.

 

[craytab]

If you read craytab's quotes he goes on and on about how he does not want Knife Rights fighting this issue, he payed them money and they are supposed to be using his money for the things he thinks are important, not anything else. To me that's selfish. I missed it if he said he wanted to help elephants. In the quote I copied in that post, it was purely about how Doug was mis-using his money.

Again, I think you are miss characterizing what I am saying. Don't make it sound so crass. Did you also see the several times I mention that even though I don't agree with this aspect of what Doug is doing I will still support him. No where do I simplify the matter down to just "Doug miss-using my money". I really hope that is not all you heard.

Oh, and no need to respond to whats-his-name about anything he thinks I said. He has misrepresented what I have said worse than you.

 

[RedLynx]

Hell, Just think of Philadelphia alone. Every person in that city or visits that city cannot carry a knife of any kind.

Do you happen to know if there is any logical reason for this? I mean to say, did some event or events happen, wherein city government deemed it appropriate to say that no one living or visiting that city cannot carry a knife of any kind, unlike the rest of the state and most other U.S. cities? It's a very curious thing.

 

[Mark Knapp]

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.

If your Rolex watch had diamonds on it and it was made way before there were "conflict diamonds" or blood diamonds. Would it be proper for the government to make the sale of all watches with diamonds illegal? Would it be proper for them to make anything made with any gem that might resemble a diamond illegal to sell?

 

[RX-79G]

In your quote I posted you said "ivory", you did not say "elephant ivory". When you mean elephant ivory please say "elephant ivory" so we all know what you mean. The lumping of all ivories together is confusing and troublesome to this discussion.

If you read craytab's quotes he goes on and on about how he does not want Knife Rights fighting this issue, he payed them money and they are supposed to be using his money for the things he thinks are important, not anything else. To me that's selfish. I missed it if he said he wanted to help elephants. In the quote I copied in that post, it was purely about how Doug was mis-using his money.

This quote?

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.

From the context of talking about off white stuff and the first word, I had thought the paragraph was clearly enough dealing with elephant ivory and other ivory that looks just like it. I will be more specific in the future.

I won't make any mistakes when it comes to dealing with craybab, again, rest assured.

But the majority of my last response was about the demand vs. legal harvesting/security problem. Any response to that stuff?

 

[RX-79G]

If your Rolex watch had diamonds on it and it was made way before there were "conflict diamonds" or blood diamonds. Would it be proper for the government to make the sale of all watches with diamonds illegal? Would it be proper for them to make anything made with any gem that might resemble a diamond illegal to sell?

Maybe. Especially when you could send your Rolex (or knife) in to have the diamonds (ivory) removed and replaced with a similarly prestigious substance, like ruby (or jade).

It doesn't stop being a Rolex or nice knife at any point.

 

[Mark Knapp]

If we want to talk about a large demographic of knife collector who are effected we should really be talking about the millions of people who are impacted by the thousands of draconian protectionist laws right now. Hell, Just think of Philadelphia alone. Every person in that city or visits that city cannot carry a knife of any kind. Of course some do and it is no doubt a pain for cops to actually enforce but it is a law on the books non the less. I am willing to bet that more peoples rights are violated in that single case than all the people who would be impacted from a ban on Ivory. This is the type of issue I want my money and Doug's time going to. And yes it is good that Mr. Knapp raised the funds for Doug's work as hopefully it won't take away from money that could go to other efforts. But I think we can all agree it is not just a money thing. The real value in Knife Rights is Doug himself. I want his effort protecting my working tools.

We certainly won't agree on this part of the issue but I your thoughts do have merit and I am glad we have discussed this civilly.



I am sorry but I think you have greatly misunderstood me. I agree there should not be a ban like this. There should be some sort of ban or legislation or better enforcement or a better representation of the actual problems. I Do not want Elephants to be killed for their ivory. I am worried about the everyday Joe who doesn't even know of Ivory but who carries a knife everyday and is at risk for having his right to do so infringed upon. I think if even one moment of Doug's time is taken away from what I consider the issue Knife Rights stands for (carrying and using a knife) then this whole Ban battle is hurting Knife Right's efforts. I also think Knife Right's getting involved in this very controversiual issue can make Knife Rights and knife owners look bad, not that they are bad, but sheeple generally don't understand knives or the Ivory issue so putting them together hurts Knife Rights, IMO.

That said, I may not agree with Doug or Knife Rights getting involved with this issue, but I will still continue to support Knife Right's because overall, it is the best game in town. I will however voice my displeasure over this issue. I wish there was an organization you could turn to that could help you like Knife Rights helps me.



I really don't need you having my back. Please keep my name and what I want out of your mouth. If you would have paid attention I am not even talking about elephants anymore.

I stand corrected, I did misunderstand you. Thanks for clarifying. I too do not want any animal killed solely for a knife handle. I will take help wherever I can get it.

 

[akivory]

For a little perspective in the early 90s I sold 5 tons of mammoth ivory in one year.
I have seen bleached bone ivory jewelry from China and Indonesia to all but a tiny fraction of 1% of the population can tell the difference from ivory. Should white bone knife scales be banned? I watched a video of a guy in GB who insinuated all ivory in museums and collections be destroyed. I have been told by buyers of my mammoth ivory carvings that they give them a tangible connection to our incredable natural history. If your world is plastic and computers this my be hard to understand. .
I cannot post photos from my phone but I would appreciate it if someone could post photos of Michelle Obama wearing her beautiful mammoth ivory jewelery.

 

[Mark Knapp]

Mark, the annual total African elephant herd loss is 2%, which isn't sustainable. If legal hunting produces .5% herd loss, poaching will have to produce the rest of the 1.5% to match demand.


If you are saying that ending all poaching is possible by instituting universal and completely secure game reserve status throughout Africa by funding it entirely with controlled hunting, I wouldn't argue against that. But you're still left with an ivory production rate well below demand on a huge continent full of desperately poor people, so the likelihood that poaching could be so totally curtailed seems unlikely.

Poaching isn't happening on the game reserves because there are better places to poach. When everywhere is equally difficult, the poaching will be more evenly distributed. The risk to poachers will increase, but it will never be harder than smuggling cocaine into the US or weapons into Africa.


The real solution to all of this is Africa having an economy worth a damn so people aren't so desperate that they aren't constantly starting revolutions, genocides and destroying resources. But no one has a method for that, either.

I am not sure what it would take to stop poaching. I am convinced as I can be that the ban is not the way to do it because I have read the reports, I understand the principals of sound game management and have been listening to both sides of this issue for 15 years.

It might surprise some people to know that the Safari Club International has provided more funding to help guard elephants from poachers than ( I want to say, any other organization ) but I can't say that. I will try to get the numbers if I can.

I think it will take a lot of things to solve the problem and it will take all of us. We are not going to do it if we are fighting amongst ourselves.