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

[RX-79G]

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.

"Education" isn't about thinking, it is about exposing people to ideas and letting them mull them over for themselves.

 

[stabman]

"Education" isn't about thinking, it is about exposing people to ideas and letting them mull them over for themselves.

You have to realize though that people often mull over the same facts and ideas and come to conclusions diametrically opposed to yours.

You cannot assume that people will get on board with your position (on anything, ever), nor can you conclude that they are wrong or possess faulty reasoning skills because their conclusions don't match your own.

 

[egally08]

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.

Well that would be pretty silly considering the rings you posted were not Mammoth Ivory, nice try though

 

[leghog]

Because at the end of the day they are nothing but socialist/communist drooling over a new confiscation scheme.

n2s

You have absolutely no idea of the political or social positions of those here favoring a ban on the trade in elephant ivory, and for you to assume you do is intellectually dishonest.

Why the continued childish comments/insults?

 

[egally08]

They were made of mammoth tooth, by the designer Bibi van der Velden. You almost got by with it.

And in case you were wondering, Mammoth tooth, and Mammoth Ivory are completely different.

 

[leghog]

You have to realize though that people often mull over the same facts and ideas and come to conclusions diametrically opposed to yours.

Apparently there are many of us here on both sides of this issue who can't comprehend that, of if they do comprehend that, can't accept it.

 

[Mark Knapp]

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?

I have been talking about it for 24 pages, I am afraid I'm not going to be able to enable you to see it. RedLynx sees it. He's more articulate than I, maybe he can help.

 

[Mark Knapp]

That was what I was saying about what I quoted. Is it bad when I call out a non-constructive statement, and good when you do the same?

No, you are misunderstanding me, when you said it was an insult I agreed with you. When you punch "reply with quote" it only copies what you said, not what you were talking about. I feel like what he said to you was an insult and not constructive to the discussion. I am not playing favorites here.

 

[Morrow]

You have absolutely no idea of the political or social positions of those here favoring a ban on the trade in elephant ivory, and for you to assume you do is intellectually dishonest.

Why the continued childish comments/insults?

I've already said once that post was dealt with. Move on.

 

[Mark Knapp]

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.

I am not dancing around anything, I read what you sited and found it was not saying at all what you wanted it to mean. Clear and simple.

Tell you what "Who" claims their reasons for the ban are?

 

[Mark Knapp]

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.

Tell me where what I said was false and the convince me of it with some credible research.

 

[AVigil]

I am not dancing around anything, I read what you sited and found it was not saying at all what you wanted it to mean. Clear and simple.

Tell you what "Who" claims their reasons for the ban are?

Well I just said what many articles on the matter said

"So it’s good to see the U.S.—the second-biggest market for legal and illegal ivory after China— beginning to take the problem more seriously."
http://science.time.com/2014/02/11/us-bans-ivory-products/

"US Second to China in Illegal Ivory Trade"
http://www.newseveryday.com/articles/175/20140731/second-china-illegal-ivory-trade.htm

"the United States is the second-largest market for ivory in the world. Daniel Ashe, the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the “unregulated domestic trade in elephant ivory has served as a loophole that gives cover for illegal trade.” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/opinion/banning-ivory-sales-in-america.html?_r=0

"Although China is ranked as the top consumer of illegal ivory, the US is considered the second largest market in the world."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/africa-wild/2013/oct/02/us-illegal-ivory-trade-elephants

"The United States is the world’s second-largest market, behind China, for illegal wildlife artifacts."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...666c5a-934e-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html

So it is not like I made up that claim and you are dancing around that because you know it is said over and over again in articles all the time which can be confirmed easily.


So now Mark...What are the official reasons given as to the Ivory ban?

 

[RedLynx]

I admire your wife's stance on the circus. While I know it likely brought and can continue to bring a lot of joy to people young and old, their treatment of animals was terrible in days gone by (I haven't done a lot of research into the current state of things.)

They were also very cruel to the people they employed who were physically different (the "freaks" that we'd call disabled, today, and I'm very passionate about that, being one myself). Granted, in older days, that was one of the few lines of honest work for people so noticeably different. But the the circus managers knew this and took terrible advantage. Good on her for seeing it.

Sorry for the slight tangent, back to topic.

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.

 

[ron_m80]

Game managment works. Its proven to have brought several species back from near extinction.

Total bans do not work, this has also been proven by history.

Fighting poaching as "poaching" is the way this will get fixed. Fighting for "Elephants" only serves to make some people rich, and camoflages the real work that needs to be done to actually save an endangered population.

We all need to rember this thread is about retaining a right that is under attack where no statistically significant crime has occurred. A wholely American concept, which for many is non negotiable, where there is no crime there is no judgement to be made.

 

[Twindog]

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.

Let her hear the full story and see if she changes her mind. The knife industry and others have used the limited bans to cover its tracks to use blood ivory to make knife handles. There are no enforcement resources available -- and Doug Ritter and his group are fighting all ivory bans, limited or not -- for agents to tell non-elephant ivory from elephant ivory. And there are no enforcement resources available to tell pre-ban ivory from post-ban ivory. Many in the knife industry have used the limited ban to increase the use of poached blood ivory.

The knife industry could work with USFW to ensure enforcement agents have the resources available to distinguish non-elephant and pre-ban elephant ivory, but it won't. Doug Ritter has taken the same approach as the NRA, which is fighting all bans, limited or not, because any ban is a violation of the Second Amendment. Really, the NRA says if you can't have ivory handles on your 1911, you have lost your right to keep and bear arms.

Many musicians are fighting all bans, too, because it violates their First Amendment rights (freedom of expression).

Ritter starts these posts and then has his minions post misleading information in order to persuade knife owners that their rights are under attack.

Have your wife read USFW's experience with the pre-ban ivory legislation, which opened up the knife market for yet more poached blood ivory.

The reason people are pushing for a total ban is because the limited bans -- bans that didn't included pre-ban ivory or fossil ivory -- made elephants more likely to go extinct. If she still wants to block ivory bans, than you can stop saying she cares about elephants.

 

[stabman]

If she still wants to block ivory bans, than you can stop saying she cares about elephants.

I had some choice things to say in relation to your snarky comment, but I'll just leave them to everyone's imagination.

 

[RedLynx]

Many musicians are fighting all bans, too, because it violates their First Amendment rights (freedom of expression).

This is probably somewhat off topic but, what are you referring to here? What bans are they fighting (that I presume you think they should not be)?

 

[Twindog]

Game managment works. Its proven to have brought several species back from near extinction.

Total bans do not work, this has also been proven by history.

Fighting poaching as "poaching" is the way this will get fixed. Fighting for "Elephants" only serves to make some people rich, and camoflages the real work that needs to be done to actually save an endangered population.

We all need to rember this thread is about retaining a right that is under attack where no statistically significant crime has occurred. A wholely American concept, which for many is non negotiable, where there is no crime there is no judgement to be made.

There are no resources of meaningful scale in Africa to stop poaching when such powerful consumer forces are driving profits for illegal blood ivory.

Elephants are grossly over-poached and over-hunted. Wildlife officials say the very survival of elephants as a species -- at least the African elephants -- are at risk. You may think it's an American value to ignore this plight, but many other Americans are proud to stand up to you and your industry to do the right thing. Knife rights are not under threat from this ban.

 

[Twindog]

This is probably somewhat off topic but, what are you referring to here? What bans are they fighting (that I presume you think they should not be)?

A lot of instruments, especially antiques instruments, are made with ivory, and musicians are not able to travel abroad to play their music for fear that their instruments will be seized. Some of these musicians have been put in a tough position. Others want to use ivory for their instruments because they look at music as the way they express themselves, and they believe that the First Amendment protects their freedom of expression, even to the point of having a First Amendment right to use ivory to make instruments.

The NRA uses the same kind of argument, saying unless people can put ivory handles on their guns, they have lost their Second Amendment rights.

 

[Twindog]

I had some choice things to say in relation to your snarky comment, but I'll just leave them to everyone's imagination.

You give your wife one side of the argument, without telling her the whole story, and then you hide behind her opinion. Give her the full truth, in context, and then see what she says.