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

I said tons because there are tons of Ivory in the USA after 2 hundred years coming in....You know that.

Mark what would you guess the amount of total elephant ivory in the USA is?


The source I quoted is from http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/S-F-ranks-No-2-U-S-city-for-elephant-killing-5650551.php

"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 killing in Africa is so extensive that the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife this year announced that it is beginning to tighten regulations to ban the import of ivory or elephant tusks for commercial purposes."

I did not gloss over it. You just did not get a chance to read all those articles I posted discussing the matter.

That article says "ivory" you can't assume, even if that article is true, that it is "illegal ivory"

I have called and emailed plenty of journalists and editors to call them on it when I see what I think is BS. Journalists only get space if what they write is sensational.

That sentence was written the way it was to make you react the way you did. Read things carefully, and then believe only half of what you read.

You do realize there is a huge difference between believing what you read in a magazine and an ETIS report, right. It used to be you could believe what you read in the USF&W website but now it is nothing more than a propaganda page, a campaigning tool.

You only know what you have been fed unless you search out the studies, the science. It's not your fault, there is no truth in journalism anymore, if there ever was.

I don't know how much ivory is in the US. I assume you are asking about elephant ivory, but all kinds of ivory is going to be affected in the US. There are studies going on to see how many people might be affected buy these bans but the numbers are not in yet. It will be in the millions. Here's a hoot, I saw a picture of Mrs. Obama wearing mammoth ivory jewelry today, on the internet. (Google Michelle Obama mammoth ivory) It's a hoot because her husband tried to ban the sale of it.
 
Last edited:
A very large landowner and ex SA rally car driver for Toyota buddy of mine will be here in the staes in a few weeks and I will see him than and I am sure he will give me some updates and what the current consensus
)

If this is still going on in a few weeks' time I hope you'll share your friend's info. I would be very interested to hear from him.
 
Mark I did read those articles from the department of justice and NFW you seem to have just gloss over them in ignore much of what they stated because it goes against what you want.

Mark you claim... "That sentence was written the way it was to make you react the way you did. Read things carefully, and then believe only half of what you read."

That also applies to what you are saying here as well.

This is not about knife rights it is about a commodity that is rapidly loosing its value and people scrambling trying to save their investment by trying to rally knife owners
 
Mark I did read those articles from the department of justice and NFW you seem to have just gloss over them in ignore much of what they stated because it goes against what you want.

Mark you claim... "That sentence was written the way it was to make you react the way you did. Read things carefully, and then believe only half of what you read."

That also applies to what you are saying here as well.

This is not about knife rights it is about a commodity that is rapidly loosing its value and people scrambling trying to save their investment by trying to rally knife owners

Show me where what I said was wrong, I try to back up what I say with credible research. If I did not do that show me where and show me credible research that proves me wrong. What some guy wrote in an article that may or may not have an agenda doesn't cut it. Those guys don't even site their sources anymore, it's not even journalism, it's just stories. There is a difference between that and what I have tried to form my beliefs upon, and what I am sharing here. I have been courteous to you because I respect other people but it's getting like you really don't want to see truth. Truth is truth and you don't get that from magazines. You have to look deeper if you are really seeking knowledge.

I am not here trying to sway peoples decisions just because I am in the ivory business. I am a seeker of knowledge and when someone here shows me something that educates me to the fact that I am doing something that is unnecessarily hurting elephants then I will change what I am doing. I'm sorry but you don't know me and for you to say I am just trying to save my investments is a slap in the face. I have more character than that. Please!

I am a talented person and have left more successful occupations than I care to talk about just because something else looked interesting to me. I like working with ivory. Until someone can show me why it's wrong I will use it. Again, I have said over and over again, I never want to see an animal die just for material to put on a handle, but if an animal dies for what ever reason, it's our responsibility to use every bit of it. To do otherwise is a waist and an injustice to the resources we were given. That's what I believe and that means more to me than any amount of money.
 
Last edited:
Except, that you did say this "Individual hunters, collectors, etc are always the problem, not the organizations that represent them."

That quite appalling, actually insulting to me, I am an individual hunter, and I, with other hunters form groups to make to make things better. Poachers are not hunters. A hunter is not just a killer with a gun. But that's a another issue.

Mark, I'm a hunter as well. And everyone who kills wild animals before there is a legal barrier to doing so is a hunter. Elephants were legally hunted until their numbers were so low that world organizations had to step in to declare them endangered. Then it became poaching. The buffalo was also hunted to near extinction.

Then there's the all the animals that were legally hunted to extermination for their parts and sport like the dodo, passenger pigeon, great auk, quagga, Falkland wolf, tasmanian tiger, Caribbean monk seal, Carolina parakeet, atlas bear, Toolache wallaby, sea mink, Bubal hartebeest, and the Zannzibar leopard - the last of which was hunted in 1990.

I think my use of the word "hunter" was entirely accurate. Being an ethical hunter doesn't make all hunting ethical.

Are you still offended?
 
"Show me what I said wrong, I try to back up what I say with credible research"


OK...how about this being a "knife rights" issue. I am open to reading the research on that topic and the specific laws about the knives.
 
"Show me what I said wrong, I try to back up what I say with credible research"


OK...how about this being a "knife rights" issue. I am open to reading the research on that topic and the specific laws about the knives.

I think you are confusing facts and opinions, when I say "this is a knife rights issue" that is my opinion, you are entitled to your opinion too and I won't fault you for it. The fact is, Doug Ritter thinks this is a knife rights issue too or he would not have tackled it. You can agree or disagree with my opinion and his if you like.

Now If you say " The U.S. is the 2nd largest consumer of illegal ivory" as a fact, then you will need some credible research to prove what you are saying is true. In fact it is not true, and I provided you with credible research to back up my assertion, the ETIS reports. Those reports were written by an unbiased international group of scientists, researchers and statisticians who job it is to see how many elephants are dieing and where the ivory is going. We have to trust that they are doing the job they were tasked with and trust that we can make good decisions based on their findings.
 
Mark, I'm a hunter as well. And everyone who kills wild animals before there is a legal barrier to doing so is a hunter. Elephants were legally hunted until their numbers were so low that world organizations had to step in to declare them endangered. Then it became poaching. The buffalo was also hunted to near extinction.

Then there's the all the animals that were legally hunted to extermination for their parts and sport like the dodo, passenger pigeon, great auk, quagga, Falkland wolf, tasmanian tiger, Caribbean monk seal, Carolina parakeet, atlas bear, Toolache wallaby, sea mink, Bubal hartebeest, and the Zannzibar leopard - the last of which was hunted in 1990.

I think my use of the word "hunter" was entirely accurate. Being an ethical hunter doesn't make all hunting ethical.

Are you still offended?

You said "Individual hunters, collectors, etc are always the problem, not the organizations that represent them." Now take the word "hunter" and "collector" and replace them with two ethnic groups and pretend I am one of those ethnic groups. Now I think you will see how I was offended, that's how I took it. I now understand you didn't mean it that way.

Just a matter of point here, the buffaloes that were shot from the trains by people with guns were not shot by hunters, those people were not hunting. Elephants are still legally hunted in many parts of Africa. But I see your point
 
I'm trying to understand the pro-ban reasoning and there seem to be four arguments presented about the effectiveness of a total ivory ban towards the TOTALLY ADMIRABLE GOAL WHICH I TOTALLY SUPPORT of protecting living elephants:

1. Banning all trade in any type of ivory in the US will send a message to the world that they should stop liking ivory. I can't see this - we already sent a message by banning the import or trade in elephant ivory taken after 1986 or whenever, with no noticeable effect on demand from the main customers for elephant ivory, who are Chinese (whether in China or abroad). Likewise the incredible lack of effect the "ivory crush" - which was specifically done to "send a message" - had on chinese consumption in the years since.

2. Banning all trade in any type of ivory in the US will prevent poachers from sending raw new ivory into the US under the pretext that it is mammoth ivory.
This doesn't make any sense to me. Elephant and mammoth ivory look different and if someone is going to send a massive amount to the US and declare it as mammoth ivory, I'm pretty sure customs or F&W would be able to test it when they inspected it - and they certainly would inspect it, and be educated in the difference.

3. Banning all trade in any type of ivory in the US will prevent poachers from smuggling elephant ivory into the US and then selling it as mammoth ivory.
I'm not getting this either. Mammoth ivory is generally prized BECAUSE it looks different than elephant ivory. It has color and creaminess and barkiness. And who are they going to sell it through? Not people like Mark, who know their ivory. Chunk by chunk on Ebay? (does ebay even allow ivory sales? maybe could petition them to stop if that's the big source of concern). Smugglers aren't interested in becoming piecemeal retailers, they need quick bucks so sell it off to wholesalers who sell to retailers. But any wholesale or retail dealer trying to sell large amounts of "core mammoth" would immediately be suspect because of the rarity of such elephant-ivory-like mammoth ivory.

4. Banning all trade in any type of ivory in the US will prevent poachers from smuggling it to US middlemen who will then export it.
Again this doesn't follow. Importing/exporting new elephant ivory in/out of the US is already illegal, so to the apparently minimal extent that ivory is being exported from the US it is being done in spite of the illegality. Is the idea that if illegal elephant ivory can be smuggled into the US, forbidding trade in non-elephant ivory in the US will make it harder to export illegal fresh elephant ivory out of the US? How? By labeling it mammoth ivory? Pretty sure that label will earn the package EXTRA inspection by educated individuals when outbound - it would probably be smarter to label it "camel bone" than "mammoth." Plus the economics don't make sense: why would an international dealer buy from a US middleman and pay the extra costs instead of buying cheaper from a less cost-and-hassle-intensive source?

Is there another argument I'm missing?

To me I don't see how it is supposed to be effective. And unless something is actually effective the government should not be doing it, and it ESPECIALLY should not be infringing on personal or economic liberty of its citizens. Ever. For any purpose, whether you or I or anyone else approves of the purported goal. If it's effective then we should engage in a careful cost-benefit analysis. But until a case is made that the action can be reasonably anticipated to have the desired effect, it's a non-starter.

As to whether this is a knife-rights issue, I'm not 100% but in the end I'm glad DR is on it.

As to the idea that elephants should be responsibly harvested, too much for my brain to handle right now but on its face it makes sense to give the locals a greater financial stake in carefully preserving the herds than in processing them en masse.
 
Last edited:
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.
Then if an executive order it only applies to the executive branch and their regulations. EO 13648 bans nothing. It is not as "federal ban" as you say. It seeks to assist foreign nations in combatting the trafficking of what is already illegal and to reduce the already illegal trade of exotic animal parts in the USA.


Executive Order 13648 on Combating Wildlife Trafficking:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to address the significant effects of wildlife trafficking on the national interests of the United States, I hereby order as follows:

Section 1. Policy. The poaching of protected species and the illegal trade in wildlife and their derivative parts and products (together known as "wildlife trafficking") represent an international crisis that continues to escalate. Poaching operations have expanded beyond small-scale, opportunistic actions to coordinated slaughter commissioned by armed and organized criminal syndicates. The survival of protected wildlife species such as elephants, rhinos, great apes, tigers, sharks, tuna, and turtles has beneficial economic, social, and environmental impacts that are important to all nations. Wildlife trafficking reduces those benefits while generating billions of dollars in illicit revenues each year, contributing to the illegal economy, fueling instability, and undermining security. Also, the prevention of trafficking of live animals helps us control the spread of emerging infectious diseases. For these reasons, it is in the national interest of the United States to combat wildlife trafficking.

In order to enhance domestic efforts to combat wildlife trafficking, to assist foreign nations in building capacity to combat wildlife trafficking, and to assist in combating transnational organized crime, executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall take all appropriate actions within their authority, including the promulgation of rules and regulations and the provision of technical and financial assistance, to combat wildlife trafficking in accordance with the following objectives:

(a) in appropriate cases, the United States shall seek to assist those governments in anti-wildlife trafficking activities when requested by foreign nations experiencing trafficking of protected wildlife;

(b) the United States shall promote and encourage the development and enforcement by foreign nations of effective laws to prohibit the illegal taking of, and trade in, these species and to prosecute those who engage in wildlife trafficking, including by building capacity;

(c) in concert with the international community and partner organizations, the United States shall seek to combat wildlife trafficking; and

(d) the United States shall seek to reduce the demand for illegally traded wildlife, both at home and abroad, while allowing legal and legitimate commerce involving wildlife.

Sec. 2. Establishment. There is established a Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking (Task Force), to be co-chaired by the Secretary of State, Secretary of the Interior, and the Attorney General (Co-Chairs), or their designees, who shall report to the President through the National Security Advisor. The Task Force shall develop and implement a National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking in accordance with the objectives outlined in section 1 of this order, consistent with section 4 of this order.

Sec. 3. Membership. (a) In addition to the Co-Chairs, the Task Force shall include designated senior-level representatives from:

(i) the Department of the Treasury;

(ii) the Department of Defense;

(iii) the Department of Agriculture;

(iv) the Department of Commerce;

(v) the Department of Transportation;

(vi) the Department of Homeland Security;

(vii) the United States Agency for International Development;

(viii) the Office of the Director of National Intelligence;

(ix) the National Security Staff;

(x) the Domestic Policy Council;

(xi) the Council on Environmental Quality;

(xii) the Office of Science and Technology Policy;

(xiii) the Office of Management and Budget;

(xiv) the Office of the United States Trade Representative; and

(xv) such agencies and offices as the Co-Chairs may, from time to time, designate.

(b) The Task Force shall meet not later than 60 days from the date of this order and periodically thereafter.

Sec. 4. Functions. Consistent with the authorities and responsibilities of member agencies, the Task Force shall perform the following functions:

(a) not later than 180 days after the date of this order, produce a National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking that shall include consideration of issues relating to combating trafficking and curbing consumer demand, including:

(i) effective support for anti-poaching activities;

(ii) coordinating regional law enforcement efforts;

(iii) developing and supporting effective legal enforcement mechanisms; and

(iv) developing strategies to reduce illicit trade and reduce consumer demand for trade in protected species;

(b) not later than 90 days from the date of this order, review the Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime of July 19, 2011, and, if appropriate, make recommendations regarding the inclusion of crime related to wildlife trafficking as an implementation element for the Federal Government's transnational organized crime strategy;

(c) coordinate efforts among and consult with agencies, as appropriate and consistent with the Department of State's foreign affairs role, regarding work with foreign nations and international bodies that monitor and aid in enforcement against crime related to wildlife trafficking; and

(d) carry out other functions necessary to implement this order.

Sec. 5. Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking. Not later than 180 days from the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), in consultation with the other Co-Chairs of the Task Force, shall establish an Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking (Advisory Council) that shall make recommendations to the Task Force and provide it with ongoing advice and assistance. The Advisory Council shall have eight members, one of whom shall be designated by the Secretary as the Chair. Members shall not be employees of the Federal Government and shall include knowledgeable individuals from the private sector, former governmental officials, representatives of nongovernmental organizations, and others who are in a position to provide expertise and support to the Task Force.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable domestic and international law, and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof, or the status of that department or agency within the Federal Government; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d) Insofar as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.) (the "Act"), may apply to the Advisory Council, any functions of the President under the Act, except for that of reporting to the Congress, shall be performed by the Secretary in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Administrator of General Services.

(e) The Department of the Interior shall provide funding and administrative support for the Task Force and Advisory Council to the extent permitted by law and consistent with existing appropriations.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/01/executive-order-combating-wildlife-trafficking






The resulting National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking only bans the commercial import and export (excepting antique ivory) of African elephant ivory and restricts the interstate sale of new African (1990 and newer) and Asian (1975 and newer) elephant ivory. It directs Executive Branch agencies to act administratively to:

•Prohibit Commercial Import of African Elephant Ivory: All commercial imports of African elephant ivory, including antiques, will be prohibited.

•Prohibit Commercial Export of Elephant Ivory: All commercial exports will be prohibited, except for bona fide antiques, certain noncommercial items, and in exceptional circumstances permitted under the Endangered Species Act.

•Significantly Restrict Domestic Resale of Elephant Ivory: We will finalize a proposed rule that will reaffirm and clarify that sales across state lines are prohibited, except for bona fide antiques, and will prohibit sales within a state unless the seller can demonstrate an item was lawfully imported prior to 1990 for African elephants and 1975 for Asian elephants, or under an exemption document.

•Clarify the Definition of “Antique”: To qualify as an antique, an item must be more than 100 years old and meet other requirements under the Endangered Species Act. The onus will now fall on the importer, exporter, or seller to demonstrate that an item meets these criteria.

•Restore Endangered Species Act Protection for African Elephants: We will revoke a previous Fish and Wildlife Service special rule that had relaxed Endangered Species Act restrictions on African elephant ivory trade.

•Support Limited Sport-hunting of African Elephants: We will limit the number of African elephant sport-hunted trophies that an individual can import to two per hunter per year.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...y-combating-wildlife-trafficking-commercial-b

Although, in reality one can still non-commercially import antique ivory items.


I have absolutely no problem with any of the above.
 
Last edited:
Then if an executive order it only applies to the executive branch and their regulations. EO 13648 bans nothing. It is not as "federal ban" as you say. It seeks to assist foreign nations in combatting the trafficking of what is already illegal and to reduce the already illegal trade of exotic animal parts in the USA.





Executive Order 13648 on Combating Wildlife Trafficking:
By the authority vested in me as KING by the Constitution and the laws THAT I MAKE UP of the United States of America, and in order to address the significant effects of wildlife trafficking on the national interests of the United States, I hereby order as follows:

]

Another Executive order. :rolleyes: Poaching has been illegle for a long time.
 
Last edited:
Now that the elephant has been made economically worthless, I continue to look forward to their swift extinction, along with the communist thugs who worship at their alter. I will spend not a cent in their preservation and would volunteer to personally put down the last of these beasts. This is not about elephants or ivory, it is about freedom vs. totalitarianism and I know which side I am on.
This issue is no more about freedom vs totalitarianism any more than bans of any number of other commercial activities, practices, or trading.
 
Another Executive order. :rolleyes: Poaching has been illegle for a long time.

Firstly, please do not quote me and then change the wording of the quote. I respect others enough not to do so when quoting them and expect the same.

Secondly, how about addressing that the EO executes no new bans on ivory.
 
Last edited:
Firstly, please do not quote me and change then wording of the quote. I respect others enough not to do so when quoting them and expect the same.

Secondly, how about addressing that the EO executes no new bans as was earlier stated that it did.
I was quoting the executive order unless your first name is Barack leghorn don't be offended,it's a joke my friend.;)
 
OP stated mammoth was included in the ban, which is not true. It is stated in the legislation as part of the definition of "ivory", but in every instance I've found, Fish and Wildlife is very clear about the differences and how they tell other ivories apart http://www.fws.gov/lab/ivory_guide.php

I still don't see how this ESA antiques loophole closure has anything to do with non-commercial private owenership of CITEs legal African/Asian elephant ivory. It's not an all out ban on ivory, FWS allows you to go and hunt and import 2 elephants per year.
http://www.fws.gov/international/travel-and-trade/ivory-ban-questions-and-answers.html
 
Come on guys. We can do better than this. Rycen just thanked us for keeping things civil and now it seems to have degraded again.

On topic, I can't say I see a lot wrong with the EO. That said, the proof will be in the pudding. How will all that stuff be accomplished? I am curious to hear Mark's take on the specifics of the EO, though I think he has already addressed much of it.
 
Now If you say " The U.S. is the 2nd largest consumer of illegal ivory" as a fact, then you will need some credible research to prove what you are saying is true. In fact it is not true, and I provided you with credible research to back up my assertion, the ETIS reports.

"The United States is the world's second-largest retail market for elephant ivory products, behind only China, a new study says.

The study, published today by British-based conservation group Care for the Wild International (CWI), makes the claim based on investigations of thousands of retail outlets in 16 American cities between March and December 2006 and March and May 2007."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080505-us-ivory.html


"The United States is the second-largest market for ivory in the world after China. Though some ivory items can be traded legally, contraband products have made their way to American customers who have no way of knowing their origin. "
http://www.ibtimes.com/illegal-ivory-trade-us-authorities-target-american-auction-houses-1656750

cq2mz8u.jpg



So who is second then? And what number does the USA fall on if not second then where?

China far outpaces the USA in Ivory for sure.
 
Last edited:
Actually the man made materials we have nowadays are far better suited for knife handles than real ivory imho .
 
Back
Top