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

ncrockclimb said:
The arguments presented by Mark and a few others convinced me that this was an important issue. I just donated $300 each to two groups that support the total ban on the sale and trade of ivory in the US. Cheers! I'm out of here!
Click to expand...

Funny, the arguments presented here by Mark and a few others have shown me that even when I am more or less on the opposite side of an issue, I can see the logic of the other side, and even admit that it is, in fact, much more logical than my own. I feel like I want the ban, because I want to do "whatever it takes," but my brain knows that it likely won't accomplish what I really want: saving elephants.
 
RX-79G said:
Who ever said they supported the ban but not funding for Africa? Are they mutually exclusive?

I believe I previously mentioned that the best long term solution to ALL of Africa's problems was economic development.
Click to expand...

Except that, one of them has been proven to be effective and the other will undoubtedly hurt good people. It's amazing to me that it is so easy for some of you to just disregard those people. Pretend you know them, pretend some of them are family members.
 
RX-79G said:
Who ever said they supported the ban but not funding for Africa? Are they mutually exclusive?

I believe I previously mentioned that the best long term solution to ALL of Africa's problems was economic development.
Click to expand...

really, after all my careful answers to all your questions, this is all you got?
 
Last edited:
AVigil said:
Mark it is not my "argument"

The facts are you are going to have to convince other people who argument this is... and I do not think they agree with you yet.
Click to expand...

You are the one I am discussing this with at the moment. It was your assertion that the paragraph you copied proved your point. I think you will have to do better to prove that point. The point being, your claim that the U.S. is the 2nd largest consumer of illegal ivory.
 
RedLynx said:
Funny, the arguments presented here by Mark and a few others have shown me that even when I am more or less on the opposite side of an issue, I can see the logic of the other side, and even admit that it is, in fact, much more logical than my own. I feel like I want the ban, because I want to do "whatever it takes," but my brain knows that it likely won't accomplish what I really want: saving elephants.
Click to expand...

Make the leap, you can do it, I'll buy you two beers and take you on a rafting trip when you come to Alaska.

Read this http://akflytyer.blogspot.com/

Here's some info on identification http://www.fws.gov/lab/ivory_natural.php
I wrote a longer thing about it earlier in this thread but this is pretty good. Being it was written by the USF&W Service, any one of there agents aught to be able to follow it.

Back to grind on a blade.
 
Mark Knapp said:
Except that, one of them has been proven to be effective and the other will undoubtedly hurt good people. It's amazing to me that it is so easy for some of you to just disregard those people. Pretend you know them, pretend some of them are family members.
Click to expand...

Even easier, I pretended that I am one of them, and have a few thousand in ivory. Why did I buy it?

To keep? I can keep it.

To sell? I can sell it right now.


What is the dire circumstance you're hinting at?
 
Mark Knapp said:
You are the one I am discussing this with at the moment. It was your assertion that the paragraph you copied proved your point. I think you will have to do better to prove that point. The point being, your claim that the U.S. is the 2nd largest consumer of illegal ivory.
Click to expand...

Mark,

No you always wanted a reference and so I provide one then you dance around it.

I am discussing what is going on. I did not make the argument I simply pointed out what some were saying was contrary to what is being claimed by those reports.

Mark....tell us what they claim their reasons are for the ivory ban.
 
Mark Knapp said:
really, after all my careful answers to all your questions, this is all you got?
Click to expand...

You presented a false dichotomy: That those favoring a ban are somehow against more direct action. I'm not going to dedicate a lot of words to a canard you throw out to make those opposing your view point look like they lack conviction.

So unless you have some basis for the assertion, it just looks like a cheap shot at worst, and a distraction from the topic at best.
 
skyhorse said:
leghog said:
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.
Click to expand...
I was quoting the executive order unless your first name is Barack leghorn don't be offended,it's a joke my friend.;)
Click to expand...
No, you were quoting my post then changing it as if I posted the Obama slam. Again, I ask you not to do that while attributing the slam to me regardless of who the slam is against. Slam whomever you want, just don't attribute it to me.
 
RX-79G said:
How is this not to be viewed as directly insulting to fellow forum members? Am I missing the levity?
Click to expand...

leghog said:
No, you were quoting my post then changing it as if I posted the Obama slam. Again, I ask you not to do that while attributing the slam to me regardless of who the slam is against. Slam whomever you want, just don't attribute it to me.
Click to expand...

Both posts were taken care of so let's continue with on-topic discussion please.
 
For a dose of home-grown common sense, I'll share this.

My wife likes the elephants, as well as other animals.
It makes her sad when she sees that someone stepped on a snail.
She won't go to the circus because of how they treat the animals (especially the elephants).
She won't watch the part of nature shows where the lion eats the gazelle.

I asked her if she though that banning the sale and trade of mammoth ivory would help anything.
She said "Aren't mammoths already extinct? And they aren't elephants anyway, so no."

You know what, I'm with her on this one. :)

PS: she ain't just agreeing with me for the heck of it either; she has no problem telling me when she thinks I'm an idiot.
 
not2sharp said:
You say this with a lot of conviction. Unfortunately, that doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...
And the same can be said of your statement that this about freedom vs. totalitarianism.

Anyone who wants to approach this logically has to temporarily forget about elephants and how they feel about them. What is being proposed is a ban on a product which has been traded commercially for thousands of years, including within the US until recently. It is an innocuous product that does not in and off itself cause health issues or criminal risks; we are talking about piano keys, key chains, chess pieces and the like. And the nexus for regulation is at best weak if not a complete fantasy. The elephants and other animals who were harvested for the vast majority of the ivory in U.S. died long before any of us were born; in the case of mammoth tens of thousands of years; nor can it be argued that the confiscation of these items will bring any of these beast back to life. It is doubtful that such a ban would help any of the remaining elephants in the wild. They are being exterminated because of the challenged posed by agricultural development in parts of the world where civil wars and weak government prevail. Perhaps the focus should be on the millions of Africans who have been butchered, but that would be a different topic altogether.
Click to expand...
Try as you might, you cannot separate the material being traded from the source of the material. That is why your argument then falls flat. It's also also precisely why such discussions as these are, and have been, occurring in many circles, not just knife circles.

So on the basis of this dubious argument, we are willing to invest a vast fortune to create a policing force capable of detecting the movement of your great grandmothers ivory pendant. And on the basis of such a proposition, we are willing to confiscate lawfully acquired property and punish all involved. Someone is using your emotional ties to Disney's Dumbo to justify the establishment of a police state and the weakening of your property rights. Again, if this had anything to do about elephants there would be much more effective propositions to look at; including spending such fortune to purchase and staff elephant preserves or perhaps aiding key countries to regain the necessary stability so as to be able to protect their populations of both people and animals.

Assuming that we are blind enough to be led down this road, what would prevent the authorities from designating additional prohibitions on other products? What if the dictate said that you could no longer fuel, service, or transfer your gasoline powered vehicles; after all, these things are said to be the cause of global warming, wouldn't such a thing also contribute to the demise of your precious elephants? What if they decide to ban wood and paper products, I mean those trees should be preserved, it is they who primarily filter the excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Allowing you to buy a wooden chair means that some tree somewhere will need to die. So perhaps no more chairs. Then again our homes incorporate wood in their construction. There is no need for that. We can learn to use aluminum studs and other man made materials. Let there be air.

But, aren't those same man-made materials often made from evil petroleum. How can we allow such a devastating industry to continue to be rewarded.....

My point is that once you go down this road you set a precedent. In this case a very dangerous precedent that allows the authorities to confiscate antique and fossil ivory because they care not distinguish between that and the stuff that may have been harvested last week. We are back at the "kill them all and let god sort them out" level of due process. And nothing that you own can be safe from this mechanism once it becomes accepted law. When they finally come for your smart phone, you will say nothing, because there will be nothing left to be said; a enslaved peasant has no rights, and you have no one to blame but yourself.

n2s
Click to expand...
"You say this with a lot of conviction. Unfortunately, that doesn't make it so."
 
Last edited:
Stabman,

My wife feels the same way about animals.

I showed her the picture of the mammoth ivory ring I posted earlier. The one that looks like elephant ivory. She wants to ban the sale of all of it, too.

You could show your wife the picture and explain the thought process, if you want.
 
RX-79G said:
Stabman,

My wife feels the same way about animals.

I showed her the picture of the mammoth ivory ring I posted earlier. The one that looks like elephant ivory. She wants to ban the sale of all of it, too.

You could show her the picture and explain the thought process, if you want.
Click to expand...

She has seen pictures.
She already knows how to think; she does not require "education" from myself or anyone else.

She'd agree to castration of poachers and people who smuggle elephant ivory though. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top