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

[Mark Knapp]

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.

I agree with you in almost all points, and you are correct about the current federal ban. Some points though, as an ivory dealer, I am expected by officials to be able to prove where the ivory I sell comes from, and I can. When I sell ivory, my customers have the expectation that the ivory I sell them is legal and that I can prove it. In cases when I sell pre-act walrus ivory, it's white and not distinguishable from fresh ivory, I provide proof of it's origin. It's not required but I do.

Anyone that buys pre-act elephant ivory in the U.S. should expect to get certification with it. If it has none, in one form or another, it should not be bought. The problem with the fed. ban and the state ones that I have read is that it raises the burden of proof as to be impossible to comply with. They ask for certificates that do not exist, and were never required. That's why everyone with ivory is against it.

 

[leghog]

You know, the ban on ivory trade was introduced in the Virginia General Assembly just this week (SB 1215), and the NRA sent me an email suggesting I contact the committee members and ask they oppose the bill suggesting it was about gun rights. The NRA even provided email contacts for each of the committee members. At lunch today I did contact those VA Senate committee members. I asked that they support SB 1215, the bill banning trade in ivory. The timing of this thread was perfect.

 

[Twindog]

This thread is part of a deliberate and ongoing propaganda effort by Knife Rights to ensure that a few knife makers can go on earning money by selling ivory handles. The Knife Rights advocates are bent on ensuring that there is no limit to their ability to make money — that is what “knife rights” means to them. Nonetheless, there are some issues in this debate that we should all be able to agree to:

African elephants are being wiped out at a rate so brutal, so efficient and so horrendous that elephants are likely to be extirpated from most of there current range in 10 to 15 years.

The original ban on blood ivory sales at the 1989 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) no longer works, largely because well-funded terrorist groups, armed insurgents and organized crime are driving the killing of elephants. CITES doesn’t even know how many elephants are being killed.

Political efforts to save elephants have become so watered down and shot full of loopholes by special interest groups as to be virtually worthless. Most of the blood ivory goes to China, but because of China’s political clout, CITES rates China as a responsible buyer.

Africa is so large and its governments are so corrupt and poor that poaching enforcement is all but impossible.

There is no way that any knife maker can know whether his ivory is legal or not under CITES because CITES has no way to track ivory from the bush to the store.

China is now the major player in African politics and in the commercial extraction of natural resources. As China grows in influence in Africa and as Chinese citizens earn more money for luxury goods, the demand for blood ivory is going to grow ever faster.


Here’s a link to a detailed report on the ivory trade coming out of Africa (I’ve added a couple of the conclusions from the end of the report:

http://a362a94f6d3f5f370057-c70bddd...36d0.r4.cf1.rackcdn.com/Ivorys-Curse-2014.pdf


Over the years since, and in reaction to, the 1989 CITES trade ban, organized crime and corruption has monopolized the trafficking of ivory and its associated profits at the hunting level. Harvesting ivory today requires violence, while its trafficking requires subterfuge, influence and connections. Over a period of two decades, illicit actors have consolidated their positions in the market to the extent that displacing them will prove extremely difficult. Most have learned to how use legislative loopholes to whitewash illicit profits while maintaining one foot in the licit world and another in the illicit.
…

In the opaque environments in which poaching takes place, such policing is beyond the ability of national governments, CITES, or indeed any organization involved. Moreover, given the role that political corruption plays in facilitating the trade, oversight agencies such as CITES, which must necessarily work through governments, are inherently handicapped.

 

[Mark Knapp]

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.

Now wait a minute, I can't let you get away with that. My questions are pretty valid.

On several occasions throughout this long thread you asked me questions that required some well thought out answers. I spent my time, I checked my sources and answered your questions to be best of my ability at some sacrifice of getting my work done around here. In many cases you accused me of dancing around the issue and worse and rejected everything I have said out of hand. (No one else echoed your opinion about the dancing).

Except now you see the difference between mammoth and elephant ivory.

That's the reason I felt there was no point in talking to you anymore.

I obviously can't make you answer the questions. But I would appreciate it if you would.

 

[Mark Knapp]

This thread is part of a deliberate and ongoing propaganda effort by Knife Rights to ensure that a few knife makers can go on earning money by selling ivory handles. The Knife Rights advocates are bent on ensuring that there is no limit to their ability to make money — that is what “knife rights” means to them. Nonetheless, there are some issues in this debate that we should all be able to agree to:

African elephants are being wiped out at a rate so brutal, so efficient and so horrendous that elephants are likely to be extirpated from most of there current range in 10 to 15 years.

The original ban on blood ivory sales at the 1989 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) no longer works, largely because well-funded terrorist groups, armed insurgents and organized crime are driving the killing of elephants. CITES doesn’t even know how many elephants are being killed.

Political efforts to save elephants have become so watered down and shot full of loopholes by special interest groups as to be virtually worthless. Most of the blood ivory goes to China, but because of China’s political clout, CITES rates China as a responsible buyer.

Africa is so large and its governments are so corrupt and poor that poaching enforcement is all but impossible.

There is no way that any knife maker can know whether his ivory is legal or not under CITES because CITES has no way to track ivory from the bush to the store.

China is now the major player in African politics and in the commercial extraction of natural resources. As China grows in influence in Africa and as Chinese citizens earn more money for luxury goods, the demand for blood ivory is going to grow ever faster.


Here’s a link to a detailed report on the ivory trade coming out of Africa (I’ve added a couple of the conclusions from the end of the report:

http://a362a94f6d3f5f370057-c70bddd...36d0.r4.cf1.rackcdn.com/Ivorys-Curse-2014.pdf


Over the years since, and in reaction to, the 1989 CITES trade ban, organized crime and corruption has monopolized the trafficking of ivory and its associated profits at the hunting level. Harvesting ivory today requires violence, while its trafficking requires subterfuge, influence and connections. Over a period of two decades, illicit actors have consolidated their positions in the market to the extent that displacing them will prove extremely difficult. Most have learned to how use legislative loopholes to whitewash illicit profits while maintaining one foot in the licit world and another in the illicit.
…

In the opaque environments in which poaching takes place, such policing is beyond the ability of national governments, CITES, or indeed any organization involved. Moreover, given the role that political corruption plays in facilitating the trade, oversight agencies such as CITES, which must necessarily work through governments, are inherently handicapped.

I don't understand why you think a complete ban in the US will stop it then, given the paragraphs you posted. Much less a ban on mammoth ivory.

That's a really good report though.

 

[RedLynx]

I don't have the official rates, I think maybe Twindog does, but if we assume that at this rate there will be no more elephants in 10-15 years... can we save them? I ask that question not to suggest it is hopeless, I believe it is far from it.

What I mean is, with the way the wheels of government (pretty much any government) turn, can we do what must be done fast enough?

 

[B34NS]

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.

Thank you for the much appreciated clearification.

So far to my knowledge the NY DEC was: "In January, New York Assemblyman Sweeney conducted a public hearing to discuss the illegal trade in elephant ivory, and part of the testimony given by critics of the DEC and by the DEC itself was that the regulators didn’t have the staff or expertise to properly review these license applications. In consequence of this, Mr. Sweeney decided to introduce a bill in the Assembly to ban the sale of all ivory objects in New York State… In fact, all of the antique dealers’ organizations were in favor of more strict licensing and enforcement standards to deal with the problem of newly-carved tourist trinkets and decorative carvings entering the market. "

http://committeeforculturalpolicy.org/new-york-state-bans-ivory-sales/

 

[Twindog]

I don't understand why you think a complete ban in the US will stop it then, given the paragraphs you posted. Much less a ban on mammoth ivory.

That's a really good report though.

I don't know if a complete ban by the US will stop ivory poaching. Probably not, unless the rest of the world buys in. But USFW says the exclusions in the existing ban, including fossil ivory, make enforcement of the current limited ban impossible. A complete ban by the US is the best next move we have. Do we just give up? Or do we take a leadership role?

The population of animals (mammals, amphibians, fish, reptiles, birds) is less than half of what it was in the 1970s. We need to wake up to this crisis.

 

[AVigil]

Here it is laid out as to why and what when it comes to the ivory trade in the USA what is allowed and what is not.

http://www.fws.gov/international/travel-and-trade/ivory-ban-questions-and-answers.html#11

 

[Mark Knapp]

I don't have the official rates, I think maybe Twindog does, but if we assume that at this rate there will be no more elephants in 10-15 years... can we save them? I ask that question not to suggest it is hopeless, I believe it is far from it.

What I mean is, with the way the wheels of government (pretty much any government) turn, can we do what must be done fast enough?

I think the only thing that would help is the immediate guarding of elephants, that can be done without the government, any government. Though government help would help. Some private organizations are already providing much needed funds to supply and pay elephants guards. I understand, it's transforming poachers into guards.

I would also add that the 10-15 year thing might have some hype involved.

 

[Mark Knapp]

I don't know if a complete ban by the US will stop ivory poaching. Probably not, unless the rest of the world buys in. But USFW says the exclusions in the existing ban, including fossil ivory, make enforcement of the current limited ban impossible. A complete ban by the US is the best next move we have. Do we just give up? Or do we take a leadership role?

The population of animals (mammals, amphibians, fish, reptiles, birds) is less than half of what it was in the 1970s. We need to wake up to this crisis.

I don't think it is the best move we have, it has not been demonstrated that it will save elephants. The studies show that there is almost no poached ivory is coming to the US. I have already showed a couple of times why the USF&W web site says what it says, it's political and not about saving elephants.

The best move we have is protecting elephants, guarding them. If we all got behind that, it could be done. IMO

 

[Mark Knapp]

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.

I think that quite a few people around here would agree that this is quite a bit of dancing around the question. I tried to ask you nicely, now I have to bring out the emojis

 

[RX-79G]

Now wait a minute, I can't let you get away with that. My questions are pretty valid.

On several occasions throughout this long thread you asked me questions that required some well thought out answers. I spent my time, I checked my sources and answered your questions to be best of my ability at some sacrifice of getting my work done around here. In many cases you accused me of dancing around the issue and worse and rejected everything I have said out of hand. (No one else echoed your opinion about the dancing).

Except now you see the difference between mammoth and elephant ivory.

That's the reason I felt there was no point in talking to you anymore.

I obviously can't make you answer the questions. But I would appreciate it if you would.

I didn't fully read that report and I have made no comments in this thread about ivory smuggled into the US. I didn't have a strong opinion before, and I don't have one now.

I have consistently posted about the value of a ban based on social and economic effects, not smuggling enforcement. You're not asking me to answer a question, you're asking me to focus on a different aspect of this issue than I have before, become well read on it, then provide you an answer that will still have no bearing on my interest in this subject or the points I have argued.

Why do you suddenly need me to have an opinion on a topic you were discussing with other folks? Have I asked you to answer questions about topics you don't know or have an interest in? I'm sorry if that is the case.

The main thing I've asked you to stop dancing around is when you implied that the banners won't back direct action. You have yet to clarify the logic of a statement YOU made - not to explain someone else's report.

 

[Twindog]

I don't think it is the best move we have, it has not been demonstrated that it will save elephants. The studies show that there is almost no poached ivory is coming to the US. I have already showed a couple of times why the USF&W web site says what it says, it's political and not about saving elephants.

The best move we have is protecting elephants, guarding them. If we all got behind that, it could be done. IMO

No one knows how much blood ivory is coming to the US. We've seized a few tons over the years, but no one knows how much of the illegal trade we're catching. One percent, 2 percent, 5 percent 10 percent? And everything that goes to China or Thailand or other Asian markets quickly becomes certified as "pre ban" ivory and can enter the US "legally."

The problem with guarding elephants is that their range is massive and often in extremely rugged and remote regions. Several African governments are actively supporting the blood ivory traffic, and no private group could offset that kind of political power. Poachers often go out in groups of 30 or 40 heavily armed, well-funded platoons. Whose going to stop them? The Humane Society? And how do you stop someone from sneaking up and poisoning water holes, as has happened? Africa is just to big and too unstable to guard.

 

[AVigil]

I have already showed a couple of times why the USF&W web site says what it says, it's political and not about saving elephants.

But the same could be said for your position as well.

 

[Mark Knapp]

I didn't fully read that report and I have made no comments in this thread about ivory smuggled into the US. I didn't have a strong opinion before, and I don't have one now.

I have consistently posted about the value of a ban based on social and economic effects, not smuggling enforcement. You're not asking me to answer a question, you're asking me to focus on a different aspect of this issue than I have before, become well read on it, then provide you an answer that will still have no bearing on my interest in this subject or the points I have argued.

Why do you suddenly need me to have an opinion on a topic you were discussing with other folks? Have I asked you to answer questions about topics you don't know or have an interest in? I'm sorry if that is the case.

The main thing I've asked you to stop dancing around is when you implied that the banners won't back direct action. You have yet to clarify the logic of a statement YOU made - not to explain someone else's report.

You know what, you are completely correct, I apologize, I confused you with someone else. Please disregard. I'll go ask him.

 

[Mark Knapp]

No one knows how much blood ivory is coming to the US. We've seized a few tons over the years, but no one knows how much of the illegal trade we're catching. One percent, 2 percent, 5 percent 10 percent? And everything that goes to China or Thailand or other Asian markets quickly becomes certified as "pre ban" ivory and can enter the US "legally."

The problem with guarding elephants is that their range is massive and often in extremely rugged and remote regions. Several African governments are actively supporting the blood ivory traffic, and no private group could offset that kind of political power. Poachers often go out in groups of 30 or 40 heavily armed, well-funded platoons. Whose going to stop them? The Humane Society? And how do you stop someone from sneaking up and poisoning water holes, as has happened? Africa is just to big and too unstable to guard.

No, you are absolutely wrong, ivory cannot come into the US because it was certified as pre-ban in another country. It has to stay in that country. Just like ivory that came to the US pre-ban cannot be exported. Wrong wrong wrong. We have a pretty good handle on how much is coming in. At least the experts agree we do. They have assigned a 10% catch rate on what is coming in. And that is still really a very small amount, really.

You can hire armies to do it, they are already doing it successfully in some areas, with helicopters. They hire the poachers and make them elephant guards. I will try to find some concrete numbers on them.

 

[Mark Knapp]

But the same could be said for your position as well.

I have already showed a couple of times what leads me to say it's political. And if you think the things I have said in this thread are because of my political leaning then I guess after all this, you still don't know me very well. I don't know what else I can tell you.

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?

 

[RedLynx]

I think the only thing that would help is the immediate guarding of elephants, that can be done without the government, any government. Though government help would help. Some private organizations are already providing much needed funds to supply and pay elephants guards. I understand, it's transforming poachers into guards.

I would also add that the 10-15 year thing might have some hype involved.

That's a very common sense approach that I hope is happening and will grow. Physical guarding of elephants would probably help a lot.

 

[Twindog]

No, you are absolutely wrong, ivory cannot come into the US because it was certified as pre-ban in another country. It has to stay in that country. Just like ivory that came to the US pre-ban cannot be exported. Wrong wrong wrong. We have a pretty good handle on how much is coming in. At least the experts agree we do. They have assigned a 10% catch rate on what is coming in. And that is still really a very small amount, really.

You can hire armies to do it, they are already doing it successfully in some areas, with helicopters. They hire the poachers and make them elephant guards. I will try to find some concrete numbers on them.

Certified pre-ban ivory products can come into the country. No one knows where it came from. Ever seen any Chinese-made Sebenza's? Or other US-designed knives sold from China? Why do you think the Chinese black market is more honest with ivory?

There is no chain of evidence with ivory, so no one can know if it was blood ivory or not.

The 10 percent guesstimate is based on USFW's experience with other types of poached animals; it was applied to elephant ivory with no verification.

Guarding elephants can be done on a small scale. Not on an Africa scale.