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

I don't believe that the knife makers are intentionally using poached ivory. The downside from their point of view does not make much sense to use poached ivory. If somehow poached ivory is intermixed with legal ivory in the US, that is an enforcement issue and not the concern of a knife maker.
 
After 5 days, 26 pages, and 518 posts, maybe at some point it's best to just agree to disagree.

At this point, I figure that everyone has fully explained and expressed their side of the matter. I seriously doubt that a few more pages, or posts, is going to convince anyone to change their mind.

Just my opinion. Feel free to ignore me. Just the opinion of someone who once participated in a discussion on this very same topic here on Bladeforums (I think that thread lasted 12 pages before we respectfully decided to agree to disagree). :)

I have learned a lot in this thread. And my opinion has been changed. I am still for some sort of ban but now I am much more in the middle between the two extremes.

And just on a side note, page count isn't really reliant. You can change how many posts you see per page in the settings. I am only on page 14. Saves a lot of clicking to get to the next page of big threads like this, or better yet, the EDC picture thread. It is a wonderful thing!
 
I have gotten a chance to read "Out of Africa, Mapping the Global Trade in Illicit Elephant Ivory" I did not read the whole thing as most of it deals with China and Africa, things no-one here is disputing. I did read pretty thoroughly the parts about the supply chain.

A few people asked me what was my definition of a good reference to back up an argument (on one side or the other) This is it. It's a good report because it is current, it is professional and unbiased. It was researched by scientists and statisticians. It has footnotes that reference where they get their information. There is a huge difference between this and the articles posted by Adam and others as a resource for the arguments they were making.

The authors were C4ADS they are " a 501c3 nonprofit organization dedicated to data-driven analysis and evidence-
based reporting of conflict and security issues world wide." If you want to more about them you can read about it in the report. I hope we can all agree they are competent.

The study was sponsored by Born Free.

"Born Free USA is a global leader in animal welfare and wildlife conservation. Through litigation, legislation, and public education, the organization leads vital campaigns against animals in entertainment, exotic “pets,” trapping and fur, and the destructive international wildlife trade.

I think we can all agree they are decidedly not pro-ivory. At the very least I think we could expect this report to be, if anything, pro-ban. I did not find it that way, it is not. I found the report objective in every way. That's what I expect a good scientific report to be.

The report says, on page 10, " in the period between January 2009 and June 31, 2014, including all greater than 500kg. This data set clearly highlights the primary axis of ivory trafficking; out of Africa, especially East Africa, and towards East Asia, with very little evidence of flows traveling anywhere else in the world"

On page 37 it says " Western markets appear to have shrunk considerably; between 2005 - 2011, per ETIS data , there were only five seizures greater than 100kg in Europe, while through the mid - 2000s, the U.S. market appeared to trade largely in
antique and worked ivory and not African raw ivory. Up until 2001, the largest seizure on the US West Coast was only around 115kg, while the largest seizure in US history as of 2014 remains the 2011 seizure of one ton of ivory illegally imported by a Philadelphia antiques dealer."

And " Wholesale prices have increased very significantly in China, reaching $2,100/kg in2014, almost five times a previous estimate in 2010." That's about $945.00 a pound. So again, smugglers have little incentive to bring ivory to the U.S. where it only sells for about $100.00 a pound.

For recommendations to help stop poaching they suggest putting more emphasis on the large shipping hubs where the large shipments get funneled through.(on page 57)

and on page 58 it says "Focusing enforcement efforts on the supply chain sidesteps targeting impoverished African poachers, as well as uninformed and ultimately unimportant retail consumers, to focus instead on the organized criminal networks that transport the majority of today’s illegal ivory."

I found the US was mentioned almost no where else in the report. We were mentioned in the spot that Adam pointed out. it describes less than 30 relatively small shipments over a 12 years period that came through the US on their way to Japan. In one place they had the top one hundred seizures mapped, we were not even close in terms of weight.

If any one can find something that I missed that points to more than I described coming to the U.S. let us know.

My conclusion, good report.

I am going to use this report when I write to my legislators.
 
I have learned a lot in this thread. And my opinion has been changed. I am still for some sort of ban but now I am much more in the middle between the two extremes.

And just on a side note, page count isn't really reliant. You can change how many posts you see per page in the settings. I am only on page 14. Saves a lot of clicking to get to the next page of big threads like this, or better yet, the EDC picture thread. It is a wonderful thing!

Great, and good point about page count.
 
I don't believe that the knife makers are intentionally using poached ivory. The downside from their point of view does not make much sense to use poached ivory. If somehow poached ivory is intermixed with legal ivory in the US, that is an enforcement issue and not the concern of a knife maker.

It's a concern to this knife maker, and IMHO should be to all knife makers. I have worked very hard to make sure none of the materials I use and sell are illegal, and I encourage everyone to do the same. It's important. I think we should be decidedly on the side of catch the bad guys. You seem neutral on it, please correct me if I am wrong.
 
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?

I didn't say anything about your activism, I think you are mistaken.
 
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.

I posted this a couple of days ago. I posted it for a few reasons, first of all to demonstrate what a really bad article to support ones argument looks like. You guys should have nailed me on it second I posted it, I waited to see if anyone would and finally B34NS came close, he challenged me to show the sources for the incident in the report. I did not write the piece and the responsibility to show references falls to the author and not me. Kudos to B34NS

This is clearly supposed to defend my side of the discussion but I think it is a horrible example of how to do it. It was written to garnish support and get people to write their representatives and it probably did a good job of that.

It illustrates nicely the difference between the scientific reports I have been using to support my argument and the articles Adam and others have used.

This one uses sensationalism and doesn't show references. It's fine for what it was intended but not for this. Though I am sure the actual details of the cases are accurate.
 
The OP says that mammoth ivory is being included into the bans. Your last sentence is unclear to me.

I meant that it would make sense to me, and possibly to you, to remove the obviously brown mammoth ivory from the ivory trade ban, because it can't be mistaken for ivory.

The problem with that is that the lobby against the ivory ban isn't going to support that sort of compromise. The money you have donated to fight the ivory sales ban is earmarked for the protection of all ivory trade.

So there won't be any money to fight just the mammoth part of the ban.


This is similar to a gun rights group that refuses to agree to any deal that doesn't also make machineguns legal. I suspect the pro-ivory lobby is all-or-nothing, and mammoth will be part of that nothing when ban passes.

You'd really need to start over with a pro-mammoth ivory group that is separate from the rest of the ivory folks.
 
I didn't say anything about your activism, I think you are mistaken.

Post 431, in response to B34NS:
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.
 
Last edited:
I meant that it would make sense to me, and possibly to you, to remove the obviously brown mammoth ivory from the ivory trade ban, because it can't be mistaken for ivory.

The problem with that is that the lobby against the ivory ban isn't going to support that sort of compromise. The money you have donated to fight the ivory sales ban is earmarked for the protection of all ivory trade.

So there won't be any money to fight just the mammoth part of the ban.


This is similar to a gun rights group that refuses to agree to any deal that doesn't also make machineguns legal. I suspect the pro-ivory lobby is all-or-nothing, and mammoth will be part of that nothing when ban passes.

You'd really need to start over with a pro-mammoth ivory group that is separate from the rest of the ivory folks.

That's not true at all, we will take all we can get. The Presidents original strategy was to outlaw the use of all ivory in the US. Through a rigorous campaign we got it backed down to just elephant. But now the states are again including mammoth. I'm not saying any one on the pro-use side would compromise because that's not the way this works. What is being passed is already a compromise from being able to use pre-act ivory. I'm not sure I'm saying this well. Do you see what I mean though.
 
Post 431, in response to B34NS:

That wasn't written by me that was a post that Rob Mitchell wrote in a news letter to members of a group dedicated to the preservation of elephants and the use of pre-act elephant ivory. He asked me to post it around for him. I should have made that clear. The heading of the piece was inadvertently cut off. That was my mistake, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

His name is on the bottom of the news letter but I should have been more clear.
 
Last edited:
That's not true at all, we will take all we can get. The Presidents original strategy was to outlaw the use of all ivory in the US. Through a rigorous campaign we got it backed down to just elephant. But now the states are again including mammoth. I'm not saying any one on the pro-use side would compromise because that's not the way this works. What is being passed is already a compromise from being able to use pre-act ivory. I'm not sure I'm saying this well. Do you see what I mean though.

Then I've mistaken the majority of this thread's discussion - US ivory owner's rights - for the posted topic, which is more just about mammoth ivory enforcement above and beyond the Federal ban.

Seems like the states might have gotten to where they are by the fact that whatever forces have slowed the Federal ban from being enacted. If the ivory-only ban had been put in place, the individual state congresses wouldn't be wasting time on this.

Any chance the ivory lobby could help put the Federal ban in place faster to take the wind out of the state congress's sails?
 
Last edited:
Then I've mistaken the majority of this thread's discussion - US ivory owner's rights - for the posted topic, which is more just about mammoth ivory enforcement above and beyond the Federal ban.

Seems like the states might have gotten to where they are by the fact that whatever forces have slowed the Federal ban from being enacted. If the ivory-only ban had been put in place, the individual state congresses wouldn't be wasting time on this.

Any chance the ivory lobby could help put the Federal ban in place faster to take the wind out of the state congress's sails?

Yes, the states are going farther than the feds. I can't talk for the "ivory lobby" but I would say most decidedly not, though some knife makers would be happy to settle for just mammoth ivory the great majority think that the way it has been for 25 is just fine. The research bears it out. The "ivory lobby" is, rightfully so in my opinion, working hard for full repeal of the federal executive order.

As side note, after reading the C4ADS report, do you still think there is a huge problem with poached ivory coming into the US?

Do you think the magazine articles you posted have more credibility than the scientific research in the C4ADS report?
 
It's a concern to this knife maker, and IMHO should be to all knife makers. I have worked very hard to make sure none of the materials I use and sell are illegal, and I encourage everyone to do the same. It's important. I think we should be decidedly on the side of catch the bad guys. You seem neutral on it, please correct me if I am wrong.

If I were a knife maker, it would be a concern to me. One could take that point of view in general (neutral issue) as I do consider it an enforcement issue. How would a knife maker even know if some ivory purchased for use in knife handles was illegal for sure. They are accepting the word of their source. That is my point and I don't think the knife maker should be held responsible at that point. I am comfortable with the import restrictions currently in place in the US and any further efforts to ban ivory in the US are not supported by me. Neutral.... not really, but honestly, I don't really care other than I really would prefer the African elephant to continue being viable in the wild and with good enforcement and perhaps restricting the flow to Southeast Asia it can happen. I said in the beginning of this thread that I do not support this new ban, and I still do not support any new restrictions. As I understand it, there is already a ban on new ivory in the US except for the small amount hunters may bring back. Selling this ivory is not going to impact their bottom line one bit after dropping 30K or more to hunt with huge taxidermy fees added to that.

I really think that the new affluence in China and Southeast Asia countries is driving the illegal ivory trade. It is part of their culture and with more resources available, they will purchase more.
 
Yes, the states are going farther than the feds. I can't talk for the "ivory lobby" but I would say most decidedly not, though some knife makers would be happy to settle for just mammoth ivory the great majority think that the way it has been for 25 is just fine. The research bears it out. The "ivory lobby" is, rightfully so in my opinion, working hard for full repeal of the federal executive order.

As side note, after reading the C4ADS report, do you still think there is a huge problem with poached ivory coming into the US?

Do you think the magazine articles you posted have more credibility than the scientific research in the C4ADS report?
I don't think poached ivory in the US is really the central issue. Ivory is a leftover from a time when men viewed anything that can be killed should be if it tasted good, looked nice or was fun to shoot at. That legacy is getting increasingly hard to shake, and a lot of people are just pretty much grossed out that ivory was ever "harvested", given what we're looking at now.

Bookkeeping tells us a lot about who is willing to commit a crime, and how easy it was to commit. It doesn't tell us much about the attitudes of the people involved.
 
Back
Top