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

Mark Knapp said:
We have gone around and around about what that says, I don't feel it would do any good to do it again.

But I ask you again, do you believe everything your government tells you?
Click to expand...

As opposed to people who peddle ivory on the internet and elswhere?

Right now the Fish and Wildlife is in the lead.
 
Mark Knapp said:
We have gone around and around about what that says, I don't feel it would do any good to do it again.

But I ask you again, do you believe everything your government tells you?
Click to expand...

I know that you don't want to talk about it again because the FACTS do not support your position and you have zero data to support the your assertions.

Mark, you continue to try and obfuscate the simplicity of this issue and parrot statements that are simply untrue. Indirectly, but as sure as if you pulled the trigger yourself, you support poachers and the global trade of illegal ivory.

This is actually a very simple issue.

The greatest threat to elephants is poaching to supply the global trade in ivory.

The US is the #2 market for the illegal trade in ivory.

It is extremely difficult to differentiate legally acquired ivory from ivory derived from elephant poaching. By advocating for loopholes for "pre ban", mammoth, ivory from legal hunts, you not make it easier for the illegal ivory industry to operate.

By eradicating the second largest market for ivory in the world (the US) you WILL NOT increase demand. Rather you will decrease demand and increase the cost for the illegal ivory trade to do business.

Let me be blunt with you Mark. You repeatedly say things in this thread that are untrue. When pressed, you provide no proof to back up your claims. The "logic" you espouse in your argument goes against the course of action recommended by every major group (without a financial interest in the ivory trade) working to protect the elephants. Why is that Mark? Could it be that you are biased and selfish, and put your economic gain above stopping the extinction of the elephants? To me the answer is pretty obvious.

To any unbiased observer it is readily apparent that your primary goal is protecting your ability to sell ivory, and you value that higher than the slaughter of elephants. You claim to want to discuss the issue, but that is not true. You just want to be able to continue to sell ivory, and will fabricate whatever argument is required to support that outcome. Despite your unfounded assertions to the contrary, your actions indirectly support the illegal ivory trade and the activities of the poacher that are destroying the few remaining elephants.
 
Mark Knapp said:
In an earlier post I tried t explain how people should buy ivory to make sure they are part of the solution not the problem.

In my "lecture" I was trying to let you and others know by what life experiences I find myself able to talk knowledgeably on the subject. If it sounds like a lecture, what's wrong with that. People learn a good bit of what they need to know from lectures.

It's possible that I know more about this stuff than you do.
Click to expand...

Mark Knapp said:
But I ask you again, do you believe everything your government tells you?
Click to expand...

So we are not supposed to believe the government, we are supposed to believe you. Got it. :thumbup:
 
ncrockclimb said:
I know that you don't want to talk about it again because the FACTS do not support your position and you have zero data to support the your assertions.

Mark, you continue to try and obfuscate the simplicity of this issue and parrot statements that are simply untrue. Indirectly, but as sure as if you pulled the trigger yourself, you support poachers and the global trade of illegal ivory.

This is actually a very simple issue.

The greatest threat to elephants is poaching to supply the global trade in ivory.

The US is the #2 market for the illegal trade in ivory.

It is extremely difficult to differentiate legally acquired ivory from ivory derived from elephant poaching. By advocating for loopholes for "pre ban", mammoth, ivory from legal hunts, you not make it easier for the illegal ivory industry to operate.

By eradicating the second largest market for ivory in the world (the US) you WILL NOT increase demand. Rather you will decrease demand and increase the cost for the illegal ivory trade to do business.

Let me be blunt with you Mark. You repeatedly say things in this thread that are untrue. When pressed, you provide no proof to back up your claims. The "logic" you espouse in your argument goes against the course of action recommended by every major group (without a financial interest in the ivory trade) working to protect the elephants. Why is that Mark? Could it be that you are biased and selfish, and put your economic gain above stopping the extinction of the elephants? To me the answer is pretty obvious.

To any unbiased observer it is readily apparent that your primary goal is protecting your ability to sell ivory, and you value that higher than the slaughter of elephants. You claim to want to discuss the issue, but that is not true. You just want to be able to continue to sell ivory, and will fabricate whatever argument is required to support that outcome. Despite your unfounded assertions to the contrary, your actions indirectly support the illegal ivory trade and the activities of the poacher that are destroying the few remaining elephants.
Click to expand...

And what you say is all true I take it, right? Like the US being the No. 2 market for illlegal ivory, it is the No. 2 market for ivory based on the references cited in this thread. There is a signficant difference. The US is a fairly rich country as a whole relative to the rest of the world and it only makes sense that we be a user of ivory. You read what you want to read and ignore the other facts because you think there should be a total ban on ivory in the US and the hell with anyone who owns ivory currently. If you own it, we all die, eventually stuff we own will be sold or move to the next generation. I prefer to have the option to sell if I choose.
 
Well, it finally got to the point of personal attacks and casting aspersions on the motivations of others.
Awesome. :rolleyes:
 
22-rimfire said:
...You read what you want to read and ignore the other facts because you think there should be a total ban on ivory in the US...
Click to expand...

No. That is not what I am doing.

22-rimfire said:
...and the hell with anyone who owns ivory currently...
Click to expand...

No, I never said that. but they should not be allowed to sell it, trade it or export it.

The"pro-ivory" crowd keeps on bringing up the economic loss they will experience from this. You made an investment choice and lost. It happens all the time in a free market. Simply put, that is an issues YOU need to deal with and I feel no pity for you. I place MUCH greater value on stopping the slaughter of elephants than on allowing you to trade ivory and support the illegal global ivory industry.

edited to fix poor formatting.
 
ncrockclimb said:
22-rimfire said:
...You read what you want to read and ignore the other facts because you think there should be a total ban on ivory in the US...

No. That is not what I am doing.



No, I never said that. but they should not be allowed to sell it, trade it or export it.

The"pro-ivory" crowd keeps on bringing up the economic loss they will experience from this. You made an investment choice and lost. It happens all the time in a free market. Simply put, that is an issues YOU need to deal with and I feel no pity for you. I place MUCH greater value on stopping the slaughter of elephants than on allowing you to trade ivory and support the illegal global ivory industry.
Click to expand...

So do we lift the ban in 5-10 years when the last wild elephant is officially extinct?

n2s
Click to expand...
 
egally08 said:
So you agree that the elephant will be extinct in 5-10 years whether we ban ivory or not.
Click to expand...

They are playing with variables to try to stop that from happening. If they are able the at least...some people don't seem to even want them to try. If we didn't do things because a few people disagree nothing would ever get done.
 
egally08 said:
So you agree that the elephant will be extinct in 5-10 years whether we ban ivory or not.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I have my doubt that any U.S. Ivory ban, not matter how extensive, will have an impact on the longevity of these species. I still see the problem as a balance between the economic value of the animal vs. the cost of maintaining that animal in the wild. If an ivory ban reduces the value, whether legal/illegal or otherwise, then it is hard to see why the local population would be willing to sacrifice resources to maintain these herds.

n2s
 
ncrockclimb said:
No, I never said that. but they should not be allowed to sell it, trade it or export it.

The"pro-ivory" crowd keeps on bringing up the economic loss they will experience from this. You made an investment choice and lost. It happens all the time in a free market. Simply put, that is an issues YOU need to deal with and I feel no pity for you. I place MUCH greater value on stopping the slaughter of elephants than on allowing you to trade ivory and support the illegal global ivory industry.
Click to expand...

The African Elephant will likely be extinct within your lifetime. I don't want your pity or anyone else's. I bought a legal product and I will treat it as such. These are not investments. But we all die, and sometimes trinkets we purchase ultimately become "investments" depending on how you look at it. My selling a trinket that contains legal ivory is no more in support of illegal ivory than buying a modern semi-automatic rifle supports war in the Ukraine or Syria/Iraq or some terrorist in England or France.
 
22-rimfire said:
The African Elephant will likely be extinct within your lifetime. I don't want your pity or anyone else's. I bought a legal product and I will treat it as such. These are not investments. But we all die, and sometimes trinkets we purchase ultimately become "investments" depending on how you look at it. My selling a trinket that contains legal ivory is no more in support of illegal ivory than buying a modern semi-automatic rifle supports war in the Ukraine or Syria/Iraq or some terrorist in England or France.
Click to expand...

Creating loopholes in the ban that allows for the sale of "legal" ivory does support the illegal trade of ivory. That is a FACT that has been demonstrated many times in this thread. You saying it isn't true does not change the fact that it is.
 
Rhinoknives1 said:
Mark,
Look before any of this Medical Pot BS. when I sold pot as a teenager It didn't matter that I could get twice as much for it in New York because I lived here in S. Cal.


If the smuggler has a distribution/sales network here in the USA and lives here in the USA. They would receive smuggled Ivory here, sell it here and possibly try to sell some of it headed to china.

Remember that we have a lot of people of chinese ancestry here.
Second only to china in amount would be my guess? Defiantly well heeled compared to other places around the world with chinese populations.

Also green Ivory can be chemically treated to look like old. You might be able to tell. I doubt most could. Paperwork can be duplicated and used to cover.

So the Poached/smuggling Ivory trade needs to be stamped out around the world and , yes, here in the USA.
Click to expand...

Laurence you make good points. You think things out before you say them. That's why I think you and I would be good friends regardless of our differing opinions of some things.

The problem as I see it, regarding your first two points, and the last big study we learned about here suggests it. The Chinese syndicates that smuggle ivory can sell it for so much more to Chinese importers than an American importer can afford to pay them for it because resale in the US is so low. It is much cheaper for a Chinese American, or anybody for that matter, to buy legal ivory that is already here, than it is to compete on a global market. The price is one tenth the price here.

Now, the guy that goes to Africa and tries to bring back illegal ivory for himself is a whole other story. I'm sure it happens on a very small scale, and that guy should be strung up. But even if we stamp all that out, it won't even be a blip on the radar screen, the reports suggest.

It used to said in the U.S. that we would rather a hundred guilty people get off sooner than punish one innocent person. Sadly that is no longer the case, a lot of people on this thread are willing to see a whole bunch of innocent, good people in the US be punished for the deeds of a very small minority. Millions of people will lose the value of there valuable stuff. People will go to jail and be fined large fines for things that were legal to sell "yesterday". Things things like mammoth ivory, that have nothing to do with poaching in Africa. I'm not be dramatic. It's already happened.

There is no way to change Schreger lines so mammoth ivory should be dropped. Any piece of ivory that has been chemically treated should be able to be easily chemically tested. Like with stain remover, there are lots of stain removing chemicals the will remove a fake aging but not alter honestly aged ivory. A genuine patina cannot be removed with acetone for instance but the stain on most faked ivory can.

There's not the importance put on protecting the innocent in this country anymore, it's just too much bother. Beat cops run around with test kits to prove what drug some guy is using or pedaling. It's not such a big deal to ask trained wildlife agents to do the same thing. It's not that hard, if I can do it, they should be able to do.

People try to sell me illegal stuff all the time (walrus) a fare amount of them are undercover agents, (this is not conjecture, it's a fact) it is my job to be able to know the difference between legal stuff and illegal stuff so I don't get into trouble. If I am expected to do it, it seems a small thing to expect wildlife officials to do it, they have training for that.

Thanks for talking to me about it, thanks for listening to what I have to say.
 
AVigil said:
As opposed to people who peddle ivory on the internet and elswhere?

Right now the Fish and Wildlife is in the lead.
Click to expand...

It's a simple question do you believe everything your government tells you? Did you ask them to tell you where they got their information? You asked me to show you. I have defended my argument with some pretty good research IMO.

I asked them? We are asking them, they have not been able to tell us.
 
ncrockclimb said:
I know that you don't want to talk about it again because the FACTS do not support your position and you have zero data to support the your assertions.

Mark, you continue to try and obfuscate the simplicity of this issue and parrot statements that are simply untrue. Indirectly, but as sure as if you pulled the trigger yourself, you support poachers and the global trade of illegal ivory.

This is actually a very simple issue.

The greatest threat to elephants is poaching to supply the global trade in ivory.

The US is the #2 market for the illegal trade in ivory.

It is extremely difficult to differentiate legally acquired ivory from ivory derived from elephant poaching. By advocating for loopholes for "pre ban", mammoth, ivory from legal hunts, you not make it easier for the illegal ivory industry to operate.

By eradicating the second largest market for ivory in the world (the US) you WILL NOT increase demand. Rather you will decrease demand and increase the cost for the illegal ivory trade to do business.

Let me be blunt with you Mark. You repeatedly say things in this thread that are untrue. When pressed, you provide no proof to back up your claims. The "logic" you espouse in your argument goes against the course of action recommended by every major group (without a financial interest in the ivory trade) working to protect the elephants. Why is that Mark? Could it be that you are biased and selfish, and put your economic gain above stopping the extinction of the elephants? To me the answer is pretty obvious.

To any unbiased observer it is readily apparent that your primary goal is protecting your ability to sell ivory, and you value that higher than the slaughter of elephants. You claim to want to discuss the issue, but that is not true. You just want to be able to continue to sell ivory, and will fabricate whatever argument is required to support that outcome. Despite your unfounded assertions to the contrary, your actions indirectly support the illegal ivory trade and the activities of the poacher that are destroying the few remaining elephants.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely wrong. We are not the No. 2 consumer of illegal ivory in the world. No research bears that out, not even Adam ids saying that anymore. I have provided the best proof that the world has to back up what I am saying. All you have to do is read it. If you just choose not to accept it, there's nothing else for you and I to talk about.
 
It used to said in the U.S. that we would rather a hundred guilty people get off sooner than punish one innocent person. Sadly that is no longer the case, a lot of people on this thread are willing to see a whole bunch of innocent, good people in the US be punished for the deeds of a very small minority. Millions of people will lose the value of there valuable stuff. People will go to jail and be fined large fines for things that were legal to sell "yesterday". Things things like mammoth ivory, that have nothing to do with poaching in Africa. I'm not be dramatic. It's already happened.
Click to expand...

The sale of "legal" ivory supports the illegal ivory industry and the slaughter of elephants. That is a fact that you continue to ignore. Numerous sources have been cited that support this fact and you have yet to disprove a single one. Calling those that support the slaughter of elephants "innocent" is inaccurate. Anyone who sells ivory is culpable for the slaughter of elephants.
 
ncrockclimb said:
The sale of "legal" ivory supports the illegal ivory industry and the slaughter of elephants. That is a fact that you continue to ignore. Numerous sources have been cited that support this fact and you have yet to disprove a single one. Calling those that support the slaughter of elephants "innocent" is inaccurate. Anyone who sells ivory is culpable for the slaughter of elephants.
Click to expand...

I missed the sources that proved this. Could you cite them again? I have not seen good sources for the "ban-ivory" crowd yet.

We all seem to want to same thing, but we believe in different methods for attaining those goals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top