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

[Mark Knapp]

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.

Yes, this seems a little silly. Many of the hard core knife and gun people have knives and guns with ivory on them. From my perspective it is a very small minority that wants to separate ivory from knives and guns. This is the only place I have seen it.

The Safari Club, NRA and Knife Rights are all working very well together.

 

[RX-79G]

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.

That shouldn't really be a surprise. It's hard to have a hunting organization if you don't have any hunters because there's nothing to hunt. Individual hunters, collectors, etc are always the problem, not the organizations that represent them.

 

[Insipid Moniker]

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.

Given that you've repeatedly brought up the fact that one of the reasons Mr. Ritter is involved in this issue is the money you raised and, in fact, dismissed another argument by stating that if they raised money for Knife Rights their argument would have more merit, this seems more than a little hypocritical.

 

[egally08]

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.

It's not nearly that simple. Take for instance the best bowie of the year thread. Just on the first page alone there are 10 entries that contain ivory. In the final 6, 3 had ivory, and the winner was comprised of mammoth for the handle. If you're not familar with the thread, check it out -

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...T-BOWIE-2014-Voting-CLOSED-Finalists-Selected!

These knives are the best in their class, by the best makers alive today. Most of them value $2500 +

Most of those are hidden tang, and you cannot just replace the handle without screwing up the entire fit/finish of the blade and guard. Even if they could be replaced, the time and money involved to have it completed is ridiculous. Like I've said previously, I own a a John White bowie with Mammoth ivory. He's questionably one of the best makers of our time. He passed late last year, and I'd never let another maker work on his knife, nor would many want to.

I'm not against an ivory ban, although I do feel it wouldn't help the situation in Africa at all. I am however strongly against the ban of ancient ivory, especially when 99.9% of the time you can tell that's not elephant just by simply glancing at it.

 

[Mark Knapp]

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.

Yes, a lot of ivory owners, you probably know some of them. There are millions of them. Some people on this site don't care about those people, it's just too bad.

It's too bad that a nice retired couple from North Carolina went to a jewelry show in New York with some mammoth ivory beads on a necklace she made and she was busted for less than an once of mammoth ivory beads she bought legally. She was fined $2,500.00. I think she was asking $40.00 for the necklace.

A guy the had some antique "teethers" on his table was also arrested and prosecuted because they were assumed to be ivory. Nobody new what they were made of, they are normally made with whale bone.

We are talking about normal, everyday people that will go through some of the worst ordeals in their lives because they will be blind sided by these laws. There are not signs at the boundaries of these states that say what you can't bring in there.

From the enforcement standpoint it's a nightmare. The money spent on enforcing these bans would be much better spent dealing with smuggling at the US border and in Africa guarding elephants in my opinion. Guard one border instead of inspecting each table at each gun show and knife show, antique shows, duck call shows and custom pens, well you get my point.

We are not talking about wealth as in the top one percent, we are talking about regular people. Someone on this thread said it was only about knives that nobody can afford anyway. I sell mammoth ivory handle pieces for knives for as low as $50.00. You can get a real nice mammoth ivory handled knife at a knife show for only a couple of hundred dollars. It's everyday people stuff, not just the elite.

Besides, if you (not you personally but all of us) really care about elephants what difference does it make if we call it a knife issue, an ivory issue, or a wealth issue. It's an elephant issue and this is where we gathered to talk about it.

 

[BenchCo Spydermade]

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?

OK, a few things. First, I don't remember saying I would do anything, as of now I am just an individual voice on this matter. If I did, please refresh my memory. Anyway, this is a long thread, so no worries.

You posted your ivory ban thread (well, DR did) in a public knife discussion forum informing knife enthusiasts that Knife rights will be advocating for this cause. Then, the vast majority of people said they were against it, and explained that they didn't understand why knife rights is spending their time, and more importantly, putting their rep on the line with this "cause" that most knife owners are showing they disagree w in the first place. Knife rights, you are polarizing yourself from your OWN people, let alone the people that want peoples real knife rights to diminish. Knife rights, IMO, has shown they do not care about the populace opinion of who they represent as long as a select few are giving them money, they will throw down in the fight. Even when those they represent are telling them en mass it doesn't represent the knife community.

It seems to me that a few elite folks are using knife rights for their personal lawyer/representative. If that is the case, then Knife Rights, do what you may, but know you are jeopardizing a LOT in the process. For those poor, unfortunate souls who ivory collections are going to be worth less. Or worthless. That's business, you played into a taboo market and lost money. The people here seem to understand what a real cause is and what problems truly curse the world. If you need examples of the true tragedies people are facing in the world today, let me know, I'll provide them.

If "knife rights" decides to turn their back on the masses of knife lovers and enthusiasts to represent an arbitrary cause then they should think about changing their name.

But don't get mad because you took something public and were met with staunch disagreement.

In summary, "knife rights", you are making a terrible political move with this cause. I hope the voices in this thread help you re-think that.

 

[Mark Knapp]

That shouldn't really be a surprise. It's hard to have a hunting organization if you don't have any hunters because there's nothing to hunt. Individual hunters, collectors, etc are always the problem, not the organizations that represent them.

You are completely missing the point, individual hunters that form groups are the solution (or part of it) not the problem. The US and the world is full of hunting organizations that have done nothing but preserve and protect habitats for wildlife of all kinds for everybody. They form organizations to enhance wildlife and habitat. They don't form groups to kill things.

Because of the work the Safari club is doing there are more elephants, is that a problem for you? The people that just wantonly kill things, without regard, are not hunters they are poachers that will use any means to kill what they want. Some of them use a rifle but many do not. We should all be working together to find those people and stamp them out. They do not form conservation groups like Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever and the Ruffed Grouse Society. I could literally name a thousand of them.

You can't be an anti hunter that kind of hinted earlier that I was biased because I am an ivory owner. That would be too good.

 

[stabman]

This thread helped me in a roundabout way.

Before class, I discussed the mammoth ivory issue with a classmate, who took the anti-ivory side (big surprise at a university), and couldn't see why anyone would ever possibly want or need any. He got rather emotional.
Of course, he also couldn't see why anyone would possibly want or need a knife either...

So thanks to this thread, there is now one less person I need to make pointless small talk with in real life.
Thank you Bladeforums!!! :thumbup:

 

[Mark Knapp]

Given that you've repeatedly brought up the fact that one of the reasons Mr. Ritter is involved in this issue is the money you raised and, in fact, dismissed another argument by stating that if they raised money for Knife Rights their argument would have more merit, this seems more than a little hypocritical.

I don't think it's hypocritical at all. I didn't place restrictions on Doug on how he could use the money I raised. I do not begrudge him spending his time and money donated to him on any of the projects he is working on, I'll help him do it.

I will leave that up to Doug to decide, I don't tell a man how to take care of business. Maybe some of the others here will follow my lead. (but probably not)

 

[Insipid Moniker]

I don't think it's hypocritical at all. I didn't place restrictions on Doug on how he could use the money I raised. I do not begrudge him spending his time and money donated to him on any of the projects he is working on, I'll help him do it.

I will leave that up to Doug to decide, I don't tell a man how to take care of business. Maybe some of the others here will follow my lead. (but probably not)

Except you pretty explicitly stated that you got a bigger say in how he does business because of the money you raised.

 

[Mark Knapp]

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.

If I did that, would it save an elephant? Or in the case of blood diamonds, stop the conflict in Africa? I think you and I both know it would not.

 

[Mark Knapp]

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.

I wrote that before I was able to see your answer to my original post, again, I understand you better now. Thanks

 

[Insipid Moniker]

Furthermore, I raised the money for him so he could use it as it was intended. You raise him some money and then maybe what you say will have some merit.

This is the bit I'm referencing, in case you ask.

 

[craytab]

I wrote that before I was able to see your answer to my original post, again, I understand you better now. Thanks

No worries Mark. You are dealing with a lot of angles here. I can see how you missed what I said.

 

[RX-79G]

You are completely missing the point, individual hunters that form groups are the solution (or part of it) not the problem. The US and the world is full of hunting organizations that have done nothing but preserve and protect habitats for wildlife of all kinds for everybody. They form organizations to enhance wildlife and habitat. They don't form groups to kill things.

Because of the work the Safari club is doing there are more elephants, is that a problem for you? The people that just wantonly kill things, without regard, are not hunters they are poachers that will use any means to kill what they want. Some of them use a rifle but many do not. We should all be working together to find those people and stamp them out. They do not form conservation groups like Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever and the Ruffed Grouse Society. I could literally name a thousand of them.

You can't be an anti hunter that kind of hinted earlier that I was biased because I am an ivory owner. That would be too good.

I didn't miss anything. I agreed that hunting groups definitely help with conservation and aren't the problem.


Would replacing the ivory in one knife help an elephant: No. Would a society banning the sale ivory help an elephant: Many people say yes, you say no. Banning all ivory? Maybe, just because the sale ban might be impossible to police.

 

[stabman]

Would replacing the ivory in one knife help an elephant: No. Would a society banning the sale ivory help an elephant: Many people say yes, you say no. Banning all ivory? Maybe, just because the sale ban might be impossible to police.

All bans are impossible to police.
Unless you are somehow able to brainwash people to not want something, they will keep getting it (drugs, alcohol, guns, etc.).

If no one wanted it, the trade would go away...a ban isn't going to do that.

 

[Mark Knapp]

This quote?
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?

There are few white ivories, wort hog tusks, hippo teeth, walrus ivory. They are all legally hunted with no restrictions to the use of the ivory (with the exception of fresh walrus ivory,we can still use pre-act walrus ivory) and no problems with populations. Would you like to see the use of that ivory banned.

It was unclear to me what you meant.

Please let me know what it is you want me to respond to. I think I got to it all.

 

[ncrockclimb]

edit because the quote function did't work the way I wanted it to, and not the text I wanted to quote is gone...

 

[RedLynx]

That's a shame, Stab. No common ground was reached?

This thread helped me in a roundabout way.

Before class, I discussed the mammoth ivory issue with a classmate, who took the anti-ivory side (big surprise at a university), and couldn't see why anyone would ever possibly want or need any. He got rather emotional.
Of course, he also couldn't see why anyone would possibly want or need a knife either...

So thanks to this thread, there is now one less person I need to make pointless small talk with in real life.
Thank you Bladeforums!!! :thumbup:

 

[RX-79G]

All bans are impossible to police.
Unless you are somehow able to brainwash people to not want something, they will keep getting it (drugs, alcohol, guns, etc.).

If no one wanted it, the trade would go away...a ban isn't going to do that.

This is no different than saying that murder should be legal because it impossible to prevent.

Whaling example, chemical dumping, blah, blah, blah. No one needs all poaching to 100% end. We just need the extreme amount of poaching to end.