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

ron_m80 said:
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.
Click to expand...
We can do both. Manage game and ban the trade in elephant ivory.
 
killgar said:
After 5 days, 26 pages, and 518 posts, maybe at some point it's best to just agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
You make a good point. Has anyone changed his position from pro-trade ban to anti-trade ban or from anti-trade ban to pro-trade ban here?

I think the only concrete thing this thread accomplished was to convince some to refrain from first donating or again donating to Knife Rights. We know that's occurred from reading the thread. Not sure there were any other real results or positions changed.
 
Last edited:
Mark Knapp said:
I don't see the point in going around and around with you, it leads to nothing constructive.
Click to expand...

Oh it is very constructive.

This thread has been educational and I learned a lot. What I learned is the trafficking of illegal ivory in the USA is far more then I realized and I think others as well have learned that.

For some it is about the elephants and for others it is about Ivory, but it really is not about knife rights.
 
Last edited:
The thread has been useful. Where as I would have opposed any ban on ivory at the beginning, I now say that the status quo is okay with me where the US has a ban on new ivory (not mammoth, walrus or other ivory). I detest the use of the term "blood ivory" as related to "blood diamonds". Some of the people supporting a total ban have used this term and it is akin to "assault rifle" for modern semi-automatic rifles in the US. We're talking about animals here, not people. Animals may be utilized by man for many purposes and reasonble or managed use of a resource is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. This includes African elephants, various rhino species, leopards, tigers, cobras, pandas and so forth.

If dinosaurs still roamed the earth (example T-Rex), there would be thousands of people holding up signs for a ban on killing these blood thirsty carnivores for any reason, essentially placing a higher value on the animal than human life. The answer to the African elephant question is one of economic development in these countries, game management, enforcement of laws against poaching and the subsequent sale of the ivory by poachers or their agents until hopefully herds begin to rebuild and the population is self supporting. If the poaching issue is not enforced, the African elephant will become extinct along with the white rhino. There will always be a market for the ivory as long as it exists and is available.
 
22-rimfire said:
If dinosaurs still roamed the earth (example T-Rex), there would be thousands of people holding up signs for a ban on killing these blood thirsty carnivores for any reason, essentially placing a higher value on the animal than human life.
Click to expand...


I agree about the misuse of "blood ivory," but I think the above is slightly disingenuous. It's purely hypothetical of course, but a T-Rex would just be doing what a T-Rex does. I don't think many people lose their lives to "bloodthirsty elephants" each year, so they're really two different things. We tend to avoid the creatures that stand a good chance of killing us, (as we should, out of respect for nature and common sense.)
 
RedLynx said:
.... I don't think many people lose their lives to "bloodthirsty elephants" each year, .....
Click to expand...

Animal: Elephant
Location: Africa and India
Size: 7,500 - 26,000 lbs
Speed: 25 mph
Food Source: Grass, leaves, fruits, flowers, bark, roots, and bamboo.
Defense Tactics: The best defense against an elephant is to stay calm and slowly back away while looking for a place to hide. They are too big and too wild to try any viable defense move against one, unless, of course, you have an elephant gun or tranquilizer.
Fatalities: 500+ per year - See more at: http://www.animaldanger.com/africa.php#sthash.qIUI35ob.dpuf
 
Perhaps Redlynx, but I tried to present it as an animal versus another animal. I have read that elephants can be very damaging to agricultural development. Can you imagine what a herd of elephants would do to a 100 acre field of corn or wheat? They are just doing what elephants do, eating as would a T-Rex.
 
Mark Knapp said:
Government Bullies Mom & Pop Businesses Over Ivory
Your activism is why the federal government is taking its time publishing the regulation we expect will alter or revoke the Special Rule on African Elephants that allows pre-ban ivory to trade in the United States. Unfortunately, non-government organizations like the Humane Society of the United States and the Wildlife Conservation Society have been busy with a PR campaign against ivory. They are continuing to lobby both the federal government and many individual states for an ivory ban.
We are already seeing the results, and they are worse than expected. Agents from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation hit at least 2 vendors at the Pier Antique Show on November 22-23 in New York City.
The government has long maintained that they don’t care about small time ivory owners. Instead, they want to catch and prosecute international criminal syndicates and terrorists to stop elephant poaching. So who were the kingpins that were busted in New York City?
Their first criminal mastermind was a lady of 72 years selling jewelry to supplement her Social Security income. Based in the Carolinas and in New York only for this show, the jewelry maker was stung by an undercover NYDEC agent who asked her questions about a necklace and earing set that she marked as containing beads from mammoth ivory. After freely identifying the ivory from long extinct animals, the NYDEC agent flashed his badge and others swooped in to search her entire collection. In total they seized two necklace/earing sets, a bracelet, a pin, and a set of earrings. She explained that she didn’t know about the New York law, and that she bought the mammoth beads used to make jewelry at least 8 years ago. She made the other jewelry with scrap ivory that she had for much longer than the mammoth beads. The agents didn’t care. The government seized $1400 worth of jewelry and issued a summons to appear i n court for violating the NY State Ivory Ban.
The second villain was a folk art dealer from New York. He also described NYDEC treating him like a drug dealer. His contraband – a couple of sets of “teethers” – crudely carved whale bone or ivory sticks made by sailors in the 1800s for babies to chew on when cutting their teeth. As with the senior citizen jeweler, agents seized what they believed to be ivory and issued the folk art dealer a summons to appear in court. He estimated the seized teethers to be worth about $250.00.
After the show, the folk art dealer and his wife contacted all of their elected officials to find out what they did wrong. His state representative warned him that he needs a lawyer because he faces a $5000 fine if convicted of dealing illegal ivory. When he asked about getting a license to sell ivory in accordance with New York law, he was advised that he could submit an application, but all of the applications to sell elephant ivory just sit in a pile on someone’s desk in Albany without further action.
This kind of government heavy-handedness is what we warned people about when the President’s Advisory Council started talking about imposing an ivory ban in March 2013. Instead of going after Chinese smugglers and criminal syndicates, the government is persecuting the most vulnerable and least culpable citizens in zealous pursuit of ivory ban enforcement statistics. No living animal was helped by this, but innocent small businesses will be crushed.
Fight back now, before it’s too late.
Rob Mitchell

It's safe to say that you probably want to stay away from New York or New Jersey with knives that have what might look like ivory handles. I would say it's a good reason for everyone to stay away from New York and New Jersey knife shows.
Click to expand...

First, you know nothing of my "activism". Prove it! I haven't been able to find this 72 year old lady anywhere in the news. Got a link or court docs?
 
leghog said:
You make a good point. Has anyone changed his position from pro-trade ban to anti-trade ban or from anti-trade ban to pro-trade ban here?

I think the only concrete thing this thread accomplished was to convince some to refrain from first donating or again donating to Knife Rights. We know that's occurred from reading the thread. Not sure there were any other real results or positions changed.
Click to expand...

I think some peoples minds were changed. I think that a lot of good information has come out.
 
That is a much larger number than I had expected. Intriguing. Thanks.

not2sharp said:
Animal: Elephant
Location: Africa and India
Size: 7,500 - 26,000 lbs
Speed: 25 mph
Food Source: Grass, leaves, fruits, flowers, bark, roots, and bamboo.
Defense Tactics: The best defense against an elephant is to stay calm and slowly back away while looking for a place to hide. They are too big and too wild to try any viable defense move against one, unless, of course, you have an elephant gun or tranquilizer.
Fatalities: 500+ per year - See more at: http://www.animaldanger.com/africa.php#sthash.qIUI35ob.dpuf
Click to expand...
 
Mark Knapp said:
I think some peoples minds were changed. I think that a lot of good information has come out.
Click to expand...

A lot of good information has come out, along with a lot of misinformation as well.

I appreciate you being here and fielding all these questions, I really don't have the time or patience to do so. It's always a struggle when you argue Facts Vs. Emotions
 
Mark Knapp said:
Wow, just wow.
Click to expand...

Or I can assume you just ripped it from these copy and paste resources? What evidence do you have to backup these claims? I'm sure a congressperson would ask the same question?

http://www.blademag.com/blog/steve-shackleford-blog/nydec-hammers-little-old-lady-carolina
http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4321690
http://www.ammoland.com/2014/02/obama-department-of-interior-ban-ivory-handle-knives-guns-by-executive-fiat/#axzz3PZY3d3UU

The NRA states: "The NRA supports efforts to stop poaching and the illegal trade of ivory, but this proposed ban on legally owned ivory sold domestically will have no impact on poaching of elephants and the illegal ivory trade. On the contrary, this ban will only affect honest law-abiding Americans by making their possessions valueless." Based on what evidence?
 
Like the gun control arguments, it really comes down to a facts versus emotions argument for the most part (versus crime). That makes it difficult to change people's minds on a given topic. Knife Rights through their activism had legislation passed in Tennessee which eliminated the blade length issue as well as making carrying of switch blades and other knives legal. I still have a little problem with daggers, but people carry what they like and perceive danger based on their own environment and situation.

B34NS, I would just let it go. I don't even know what you're reacting to.
 
22-rimfire said:
Like the gun control arguments, it really comes down to a facts versus emotions argument for the most part (versus crime). That makes it difficult to change people's minds on a given topic. Knife Rights through their activism had legislation passed in Tennessee which eliminated the blade length issue as well as making carrying of switch blades and other knives legal. I still have a little problem with daggers, but people carry what they like and perceive danger based on their own environment and situation.

B34NS, I would just let it go. I don't even know what you're reacting to.
Click to expand...

I hear you on that! That's why I'm confused, I knew Knife Rights to be a positive organization for things like you mentioned above. I'm trying to understand this position shift of taking the gunny lobby approach to this issue. Being from CA we have a notorious history of banning things rather than comprehensively dealing with them. Foie gras was banned by PETA nutjobs a couple years ago, but groups of chefs including myself voiced evidence as to why the ban had to be lifted. Just two weeks ago the ban was deemed unconstituntional and overturned. Assuming all of us in CA are PETA hippy types doesn't help seeing I'm the one you should be convincing to call my congressman. Give me something better to stand on in that case.
 
As I said earlier, I am now persuaded to not ban the sale of mammoth ivory (or teeth) that doesn't look like elephant ivory. That was not my position at the start.
 
B34NS said:
Or I can assume you just ripped it from these copy and paste resources? What evidence do you have to backup these claims? I'm sure a congressperson would ask the same question?

http://www.blademag.com/blog/steve-shackleford-blog/nydec-hammers-little-old-lady-carolina
http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4321690
http://www.ammoland.com/2014/02/obama-department-of-interior-ban-ivory-handle-knives-guns-by-executive-fiat/#axzz3PZY3d3UU

The NRA states: "The NRA supports efforts to stop poaching and the illegal trade of ivory, but this proposed ban on legally owned ivory sold domestically will have no impact on poaching of elephants and the illegal ivory trade. On the contrary, this ban will only affect honest law-abiding Americans by making their possessions valueless." Based on what evidence?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your question is. What would you like me to prove.

When you quote the NRA, you would have to ask them what evidence they have to support that statement. I cannot be expected to defend what someone else says.

Show me a direct quote from me and I will defend it. That's all I should be expected to defend.

You still have not shown proof that many knife makers are using poached ivory for knife handles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top