Yes. But the writing is on the wall. Just a matter of time.
Last edited:
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is available! Price is $250 ea (shipped within CONUS).
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/
Congrats to KNIFE RIGHTS - Ineffective & unfair IVORY ban FAILS in WA. State!
- Thread starter Scrim
- Start date
- Status
I am personally against the proposed ivory sale ban. But this doesn't seem like an appropriate fight to pick. Most knife enthusiasts are neither interested in nor can afford to buy expensive ivory-handled knives. When you look at everyday citizens as a whole the relevance of ivory is even less. On top of this, ivory affords no increase in functionality as a handle material.
In the meanwhile, restrictions on automatics and blade length affect tens of millions of people every single day.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2014
- Messages
- 2,379
The reason I have no respect for your "right" to make a living selling ivory is that it helps to support the illegal global ivory industry and the continued killing of elephants.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2014
- Messages
- 2,379
If that wasn't both pitiful and offensive, it would be funny. Readers should take note the total lack of any supporting evidence, the ad hominem attack and the appeal to emotion. Since the pro-ivory crowd doesn't have facts, they have to resort to this.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2006
- Messages
- 8,250
Which is why I only half heartedly care about this or other conservation issues. Do my part, hope it rubs off on others, and watch the world turn to crap anyway. Sigh.
And others like me have always thought ivory was fugly. I scratch my head when someone pays through the nose for it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2014
- Messages
- 1,855
ncrockclimg, You're referring to your position and repetitive misguided argument, right? Because you are describing your & the "BAN IT ALL" folks tactics to perfection. That is literally & exactly what the "BAN" folks are & have been doing, exclusively. Oh, and they constantly belittle important antiques and great works of art as "just jewelry and trinkets". And you claim to be factual, honest and informed? Sorry, you'll have to do a lot better than oversimplifying and knee-jerking. This is a complex problem that will require a well thought out solution, not just swinging a 2x4 around and hoping that will "take care of the problem". It won't. Your misguided proposed solution will have zero effect on accomplishing anything positive for elephants, rhinos or American citizens. You must, in reality, know that. I also see you don't seem to care. That's the saddest part of reading your posts, and I've read 'em all.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2006
- Messages
- 8,250
Nice to see it has only taken 46 posts for both sides to slip back into name calling again.
Bonus points for efficiency.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 4,423
That is your opinion, an opinion that I have heard you repeat over and over again. It can not be demonstrated that the use of pre-act and ancient ivory contributes to the poaching of elephants today (the studies show that the opposite is true) . It is a fallacy that was started by animal protectionist groups that make their lucrative livings from people like you by creating these controversial issues. It is very big business for them. They make millions of dollars on these issues. I have posted their financial reports before.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 4,423
Pardon me but you don't seem to know much about how wide spread the use of ancient ivory is on knives, historically and today, it's a huge issue. Also, your statement seems a little selfish to me. Go to a knife show.
If you go though this sub-forum it is apparent that D.R. and KR are spending quite a bit more time on other knife rights issues than ivory handled knives. I don't really care about automatics but I don't begrudge those issues that are important to many of you here.
It seems only fare and polite that you guys do the same for those of us who's area of interest is in ivory handled knives. Especially since many of you really don't know much about the ivory we use or the whole ivory issue.
In the early 1980s, there were more than 1 million African elephants in the wild. Today there are roughly 400,000, and those are being killed off much faster than they can reproduce. At this rate, African elephants will be extinct or nearly extinct in 10-25 years.
The driving force behind the destruction of the African elephant is ivory poaching. Ivory poaching is driven by demand for ivory products.
There is no practical way to protect elephants in Africa, given the vastness of the continent, the corruption of governments, the power of criminal and terrorist networks and the lure of ivory money. The only way we have to protect elephants is to stop the demand for ivory.
People who make a livelihood selling ivory products are going to be hurt with a ban. It's easy to see the issue from their standpoint.
But there is no other way to protect elephants without a total ban. US Fish & Wildlife and pro-elephant organizations across the world all say that the partial ban on ivory facilitates the sale of blood ivory. It's too bad that mammoth ivory and other ivory from non-threatened species has to be included, but it those sources have to be included in order to have a workable ban on blood ivory.
This debate really comes down to which we value more: elephants or ivory products. We can't have both.
In Washington state, where I live, there was almost no coverage of the proposed ivory ban, making it easy for special interests to kill the ban. I'm pretty sure that if people understood the issue, they'd have been strong supporters of the ban.
The driving force behind the destruction of the African elephant is ivory poaching. Ivory poaching is driven by demand for ivory products.
There is no practical way to protect elephants in Africa, given the vastness of the continent, the corruption of governments, the power of criminal and terrorist networks and the lure of ivory money. The only way we have to protect elephants is to stop the demand for ivory.
People who make a livelihood selling ivory products are going to be hurt with a ban. It's easy to see the issue from their standpoint.
But there is no other way to protect elephants without a total ban. US Fish & Wildlife and pro-elephant organizations across the world all say that the partial ban on ivory facilitates the sale of blood ivory. It's too bad that mammoth ivory and other ivory from non-threatened species has to be included, but it those sources have to be included in order to have a workable ban on blood ivory.
This debate really comes down to which we value more: elephants or ivory products. We can't have both.
In Washington state, where I live, there was almost no coverage of the proposed ivory ban, making it easy for special interests to kill the ban. I'm pretty sure that if people understood the issue, they'd have been strong supporters of the ban.
Bonus points for efficiency.
Shame, since there are valid points on both sides. Too bad those points, yet again, have been lost in this slap fight.
What is this the third, fourth time we have been through this exact same thing?
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 4,423
What about the three studies I have posted to support my statements? Scientific, professional, analytical studies. Do you want me to post them again here? Two of those studies were done by CITES/ETIS for the use of government agencies to manage the poaching problem, and one done by Born Free, one of the leading conservation groups in the world. Why do you discount these studies so easily.
I have not seen such studies to support your arguments, only excerpts from internet articles where references and sources are not given. Where anyone with an ulterior motive could print whatever they wanted.
You keep ignoring that CITES/ETIS credits China with being a responsible buyer of ivory, which is completely false. China is the No. 1 buyer of blood ivory and the main source of the problem. USFW has testified that the partial bans promote the blood ivory trade. Organizations that defend elephants show the same thing. We have posted a lot of evidence to support this issue. We've given you studies that show most of the ivory entering the US through ports like LA and San Francisco are products from blood ivory. We've given you evidence that tons of blood ivory keep flowing into the US.
We've tried the partial ban, and through experience we've found that it doesn't work. Your position is to have us keep doing what we know doesn't work, and you take that position because it helps you make money.
You and the world would be better served by developing a foolproof method and a practical method of differentiating mammoth ivory from elephant ivory.
Kohai999
Second Degree Cutter
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2003
- Messages
- 12,554
1st of alll....ANYONE who has the intelligence of an average human can easily distinguish between fossil ivory and green elephant ivory.
Two, putting your trust in Fish and Wildlife to EFFECTIVELY police the issue makes no sense....they would botch the job....and prove it every year.
Three, banning the use of these materials puts indigenous peoples at a financial disadvantage....I have seen it from their side first hand.
I dig elephants, I really do.....but having to choose animals vs people? I'll vote for the people....and I don't even like people....but I do like animals.
How's that for a dichotomy? Gimme a ban that makes sense, or don't even talk about it.
BTW, what kind of knives are you into? For me, it's fixed blade fighters, and folders, preferably with trick lock mechanisms. Been at the game for 30 years. How 'bout you?
Best Regards,
STeven Garsson
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2014
- Messages
- 1,855
Mark,
I don't think there's a point to try to introduce actual facts, logic & ethics when the opposition reacts exclusively out of emotion, repetition of fallacies and simplistic assumptions & suggestions. Reality and an even-handed approach doesn't seem to enter the BAN IT ALL people's consciousness, unfortunately. So I'm beginning to agree with ONE of their points, which is, why even waste more time debating this situation with those that don't want to hear truth. We must simply continue to do what was done in the cases, thus far, of WA. & VA. Truth, logic & fairness does actually triumph these days, sometimes.
-------------------------------------------
I don't think there's a point to try to introduce actual facts, logic & ethics when the opposition reacts exclusively out of emotion, repetition of fallacies and simplistic assumptions & suggestions. Reality and an even-handed approach doesn't seem to enter the BAN IT ALL people's consciousness, unfortunately. So I'm beginning to agree with ONE of their points, which is, why even waste more time debating this situation with those that don't want to hear truth. We must simply continue to do what was done in the cases, thus far, of WA. & VA. Truth, logic & fairness does actually triumph these days, sometimes.
-------------------------------------------
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 4,423
Some of your statements are not correct.
There are many herds of elephants who's populations are growing (through proper game management) Those herds have no poaching problem. There is no reason to think that even if every elephant was poached in the areas where poaching is rampant (actually a small area in Africa) that elephants would disappear in areas where they have successful management programs. Why is it not probable that the programs in use in those areas would not be equally as successful in all of Africa.
There are practical ways to protect elephants in Africa, it's already being done in vast areas of Africa and it is working. I think you have gotten some bad information.
The demand for poached elephant ivory is in China. We cannot change the demand for ivory in China by enacting laws in the U.S. There are proven programs that can help change the demand for ivory in China that have worked. The studies have concluded that changing laws in the U.S. do not influence elephant populations in African.
I have cited the studies that support my arguments before, I can do it again if you want.
Total bans are the bans that make sense, if your goal is to save elephants.
I and others have posted the technical procedure for differentiating elephant ivory from other types of ivory, and it takes a lot of time and money to get it right, especially when so many ivory traffickers are highly motivated to conceal the differences.
People who are sincere in trying to save elephants don't care if you use mammoth ivory. Why would they? They have been forced to include non-elephant ivory in the bans because there is no practical way to distinguish them, given the money and manpower available for enforcement.
Knife Rights was boasting that USFW supported the partial ban, until the agency -- after years of experience -- acknowledged that the partial ban was facilitating the ban on blood ivory. Suddenly, USFW went from a credible source to an incredible source.
Elephants are almost out of time. The total ivory bans are the best chance we have. Even China has now acknowledged that sad fact.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2014
- Messages
- 2,379
Mark, feel free to post your studies. When you do, I will again point out that your numbers don't pass the most cursory test for validity. A simple google search shows documented seizures that exceed what you claim is the size of the illegal ivory trade in the US. To put it another way, every single organization in the world that does not have ties to the global ivory industry and is working to protect the few remaining elephants has concluded that the illegal ivory trade in the US is significant. You, the ivory trader with a vested financial interest in selling ivory, come to a different and unsubstantiated conclusion.
You continue to claim that differentiating "legal" ivory from illegal ivory and all other types of ivory is easy. The USFW and many other sources have a different opinion. SOME ivory for extinct species and non-elephant sources can be easy to differentiate, but not all. The creation of loopholes for "pre ban", mammoth, ivory from legal hunts, etc., creates an environment where the illegal ivory industry can easily operate.
... Wow.
Please show me where I "belittle important antiques and great works of art." None of the legislation proposed wants to confiscate or destroy privately held ivory. The legislation being discussed is a ban on the sale and trade, not confiscation and destruction.
I have covered the rest of your comments in a previous post. There is no reason to repeat myself.
You keep ignoring the central points. The group you study says China is not part of the problem, and then you say China is the problem. You are just cherrypicking the evidence to support your position.
The truth is, according to University of Washington researchers who testified for the bill, that elephants are being poached out of existence. As the poachers destroy one herd after another, they move to new herds. Africa is so vast and so remote that it is impossible to protect elephants. Poachers are even poisoning watering holes, killing not just elephants but many, many other animals. As long as people can make big money poaching elephants, they will continue to do so, just as poaching salmon in the US is a big business, despite our laws.
Even China now says that only a ban on ivory imports will save the elephants. Unfortunately, China is a corrupt, totalitarian regime where special interests corrupt government agents as part of their regular business.
We've banned blood ivory, but it still pours into the US as studies show.
None of the CITES data is even credible because there is no chain of custody of the ivory taken.
- Status