Given your position, what would you consider "credible research"? No one is saying that US's share of the illegal ivory trade is the main problem. The main problem is that ivory, worldwide, is considered a valuable commodity and that value is causing an extinction event.
Credible research, regardless of my stance, is unbiased reporting of scientific research. Like the ETIS reports and the one Mr. Pugman just showed us. There a big difference between those and the articles that Adam posted. I agree with the rest of that statement.
[/QUOTE]
Ban supporters, like US Fish and Wildlife and individuals like me, feel that banning the
trade of ivory here will depress prices slightly, lead to other similar trade bans and make the material less appealing worldwide.[/QUOTE]
Many of us disagree with that opinion. But that's OK everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The problem is your opinion doesn't cost you anything. You give up nothing to try this experiment. A lot of good people will be harmed by these bans, many people here said they don't care about these good people, Tough.
[/QUOTE]
Those opposing the ban feel that banning the
trade of ivory feel that it will increase the price. Both can't be right. Who do we ask? Socialogists, economists?[/QUOTE]
Any commodity is subject to the principals of "supply and demand" if supply does not meet the demand the price goes up, if supply surpasses the demand the price goes down. Our economists tell us that is the reason gas is so cheap right now, ask an economist.
[/QUOTE]
You guys feel the Fish and Wildlife are lying, so they clearly don't know anything.[/QUOTE]
In an earlier post I copied a quote from the USF&W website that said the exact opposite of what it says now, it was changed after the appointment of Dan Ashe by President Obama, It coincided with the "Clinton Initiative" and the presidents strategy to combat the trafficking of illicit animal parts. What am I supposed to think. I'll find that quote again for you if you like, I have it somewhere.
[/QUOTE]
Is this situation like Prohibition, or is it like whaling? Which model better applies, and why? [/QUOTE]
I leave those analogies to others, it's a big enough job for me to just try to keep up with the ivory issue.
[/QUOTE]
Mark, you have a special problem in that the ban should probably not apply to obviously mammoth ivory, which is likely to be a defensible position with Fish and Wildlife. Unfortunately, you'd have to part with the rest of the pro-ivory lobby to make that work, and they will string you up for it. Which is too bad.
[/QUOTE]
I don't owe those people anything, and they don't owe me. I am not a paid spokesman so I don't see how anyone could have any ill feelings toward me regardless of how this comes out in the end. How this debate changes my thoughts and actions or if it doesn't. I am just a guy doing what I think is the right thing to do for people and elephants both, regardless of what others think of me on either side of the issue.
[/QUOTE]
In terms of grandma's brooch, grandma can likely get the piece authenticated today, if she really wants the government involved in her probate. Otherwise, not every little thing needs to be held up to government scrutiny. The ban is
trade, after all. It would take an unusual reading of law to subject willed objects - especially among family members - as trade. This objection just doesn't appear to be something that will cause any sort of wide spread injustice.[/QUOTE]
First of all burden of proof is set so high as to make it impossible to authenticate, I will find it and show it to you if you like but it's big, this is arduous and I have knives to build.
Second, ultimately some time down the line, the heirs to these things may want to, or need to, realize the cash value of these things for whatever reason. We are talking about family wealth. Not wealth in the sense of the "top one percent" but in terms of the car breaks down and we gotta get it fixed.
What if you had a Windser chair with Brazilian rose wood in it made in 1852, yesterday your chair was worth $8,000.00. You like the chair and probably would never sell it but if you needed the money, it was that little rainy day fund. You did nothing wrong. Now because of the ban, your chair is worthless. I don't have a chair like this (in ivory) but millions of people do totaling in billions of dollars. Is that proper. In my opinion it is not.
I asked a question earlier, and no-one addressed it except RedLynx.
Of the two choices that might help solve the poaching problem, one being initiate these bans that might help slow poaching. It's a matter of opinion as to weather or not it will, we have no evidence either way. They will cost a lot of money to enforce, and hurt a lot of good people that did nothing wrong.
Or we could encourage our legislators to provide funding to help guard elephants from poachers. Take all the money that would have been spent enforcing the bans, and use it to guard elephants. We know for a fact that guarding elephants works, it's working right now. We can also beef up security at our border if needed to make sure no new ivory get in. This approach hurts no-one.
Why are you people in favor of a ban more willing to do that than the latter?
