Congrats to KNIFE RIGHTS - Ineffective & unfair IVORY ban FAILS in WA. State!

[Kohai999]

The ban in Washington State failed....better luck next time.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[cosmophonic12]

Big money and corrupt special-interest groups -- including Knife Rights -- have won yet again. Money talks: That's why we have Citizen's United.

And elephants lose, yet again. They are going extinct in Africa, being slaughtered by the tens of thousands, with much of the money going to terrorist groups who are using the money to kill American soldiers and innocent civilians around the world. There is no credible way to stop the slaughter of elephants without killing the demand from rich knife makers and gun makers and trinket salesmen who have a "right" to drive any and all species of animals into extinction.

No credible, independent organization believes the lies that Knife Rights and Doug Ritter have put forth, as proven many times in previous threads.

This is not a knife rights issue. This is a money issue. Doug Ritter has chosen to be part of the problem, not the solution. We'll all suffer in the end.

Even China has acknowledged that elephants cannot be saved without a total ban on ivory, but China is too corrupt to enforce its new importation ban. Sad to see America is following China's lead in succumbing to political corruption.

Couldnt agree with you more Twindog.

 

[Scrim]

ncrockclimb wrote: 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.


ncrockclimb, please reread my posts. You appear to have missed a lot of important, clearly stated details. I never said YOU "belittle important antiques and great works of art." Although promoting BAN IT ALL does just that. I said belittling by using simplistic phrases like, "just jewelry & trinkets" is a common and repetitive tactic of the BAN IT ALL contingent. However, if you've been following this issue, and apparently you have been, at least to a certain extent, you know what I'm saying is true. So again, let's not get silly with oversimplification of a complex issue. We will never agree, that's obvious. I just don't appreciate when words are distorted to try to justify a draconian, unethical & ineffective, proposed sweeping ban. Be a student of history. They never work. They are never a good idea, for lots of reasons. So again, I see I must restate some obvious facts...that have been stated so many times before. Here's one...This debate has always been about commerce, not possession.

 

[Mark Knapp]

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.

Why do you say the CITES?ETIS studies are false, it's the best knowledge we have. Show me any credible science that shows it is wrong.

It is the CITES/ETIS studies that governments are supposed to get information from. They are unbiased, international research organizations. They were set up for that purpose. The USF&W service is supposed to get their direction from the studies that ETIS does. It could be that the direction the USF&W service has taken is politically motivated, don't you think?

You have not shown any studies, you have only shown internet articles that really have no credibility.

The Animal Protectionist groups you touted cannot be seen as unbiased, they have a huge financial stake in the this issue, totaling in millions of dollars. The administrators of those groups are not volunteers, they make much more money than any of us do annually by keeping these controversies alive and well.

I have shown their financial records before and can do it again if you like.

Finally, There are inexpensive, practical ways to differentiate between mammoth and elephant ivory. Many places show how to do it, I have shown how to do it. Anyone can do it, without a lab. If you choose not to believe that, I can't help you.

What we have been able to do is prove that the things I am saying are true to the state legislators in Virginia and Washington. We did not get a seat at the table in New York and New Jersey.

 

[Mark Knapp]

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.

Those studies say that China is the problem, they say it most emphatically. You must have misread them. (did you read them?) I am not cherry picking anything, I am saying the same thing they are saying. I'm really not sure how you could have come to that misunderstanding after all the times I posted quotes directly from those studies that say China is the problem.

Studies do not show that poached ivory is flooding into the U.S. You have not shown us one, there is not a STUDY that shows poached ivory is coming into the U.S. Please don't show me more internet articles, those are not studies. Those are just sensational stories written by people who may be biased for one reason or another. I don't need to see more of them.

 

[ncrockclimb]

Those studies say that China is the problem, they say it most emphatically. You must have misread them. (did you read them?) I am not cherry picking anything, I am saying the same thing they are saying. I'm really not sure how you could have come to that misunderstanding after all the times I posted quotes directly from those studies that say China is the problem.

Studies do not show that poached ivory is flooding into the U.S. You have not shown us one, there is not a STUDY that shows poached ivory is coming into the U.S. Please don't show me more internet articles, those are not studies. Those are just sensational stories written by people who may be biased for one reason or another. I don't need to see more of them.

Mark, Again, your "data" and extrapolations don't pass the most cursory test for accuracy. I cannot demonstrate it any more than others and I have in other threads.

What you continue to avoid is that EVERY organization, including USFW, that is dedicated to saving the few remaining elephants and does not have an interest in making money off hunting them or selling their ivory, sees things vastly different than you. Why is that, Mark? Why do you and the other shills for the US ivory industry come to such a different conclusion?

There is a connection between the legal and illegal ivory trade. and a complete ban on the sale and trade of ivory will make it much more difficult for the illegal ivory trade to operate in the US. I have outlined all this before, as have others. In the end, Marc and his ilk just want to continue to buy and sell ivory, and the negative externalities of their actions that lead to the extinction of a species are not important to them.

Edit to add:
This is not a knife issue. This is about ivory and politics. This thread was not started by Knife Rights and is not a call to action. Should it really be in "general knife discussion?" How many times have knives even been mentioned in this thread? Mods, what say you? Can we move this to politics or somewhere more fitting for a discussion that barley touches on knives?

 

[22-rimfire]

Ahh, this is the third time this thread has been done with the same responses. Ncrockclimb depends heavily on what the US Fish & Wildlife people say NOW on their website. The current website is the result of directives by the President and are not necessarily FACTS. There will always be illegal trade of anything that is illegal as the fact that it is illegal creates a market. So, believe what you want. You're mind is made up just like mine (Ban vs no new ban). But one fact remains, unless the market dries up in Asia, poaching will continue unless the countries begin riguorous enforcement of their game laws. And even then, the poaching will continue. The US contribution is not significant to use of new ivory.

Knife Rights would not be involved if ivory was not used in making knives.

 

[Scrim]

!00% correct. Accuracy & honesty gets a big, two-thumbs up...:thumbup::thumbup:

Ahh, this is the third time this thread has been done with the same responses. Ncrockclimb depends heavily on what the US Fish & Wildlife people say NOW on their website. The current website is the result of directives by the President and are not necessarily FACTS. There will always be illegal trade of anything that is illegal as the fact that it is illegal creates a market. So, believe what you want. You're mind is made up just like mine (Ban vs no new ban). But one fact remains, unless the market dries up in Asia, poaching will continue unless the countries begin riguorous enforcement of their game laws. And even then, the poaching will continue. The US contribution is not significant to use of new ivory.

Knife Rights would not be involved if ivory was not used in making knives.

 

[Kohai999]

Edit to add:
This is not a knife issue. This is about ivory and politics. This thread was not started by Knife Rights and is not a call to action. Should it really be in "general knife discussion?" How many times have knives even been mentioned in this thread? Mods, what say you? Can we move this to politics or somewhere more fitting for a discussion that barley touches on knives?

I think that is disingenuous to move to Political...it IS a knife issue, BECAUSE it is about ivory.

Don't know any "RICH" knifemakers, unless they inherited money. Some people are drawn to ivory, some are not.

Like I said previously, don't care for just about ANY ivory for knives, but have an awful lot of friends who do....and not one of them supports elephant slaughter or poaching. They have a right to work with legal material, and you have a right to oppose that and work for a sea change in legality, but are unlikely to find huge support for this cause on a knife forum.

This seems to be one of your "hot button" issues, and it is safe to say that your outlook would find more acceptance and less pushback in Political.

However, if you look at custom knives, especially high end custom knives currently produced, you will see a massive amount of fossil ivory used....and to outlaw this material is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I agree with SOME of your thoughts, and commend you for having the cojones to bring it here, but I cannot accept a blanket ban, and there is nothing that you or anyone else is going to say or do that will change my thoughts on that.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[Twindog]

CITES has been abused by ivory traffickers for years, which is why Mark keeps citing it. It has certified China as a responsible buyer of ivory, when in fact China is the single largest part of the problem.

Wikipedia has a good explanation of how CITES has increased the problem, often putting the profits of ivory poachers ahead of the needs of elephants. Here's part of the explanation:


In 1986 and 1987 CITES registered 89.5 and 297 tonnes of ivory in Burundi and Singapore respectively. Burundi had one known live wild elephant and Singapore none. The stockpiles were recognised to have largely come from poached elephants.[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP] The CITES Secretariat was later admonished by the USA delegate for redefining the term "registration" as "amnesty".[SUP][6][/SUP] The result of this was realised in undercover investigations by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), a small under-funded NGO, when they met with traders in Hong Kong.[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP] Large parts of the stockpiles were owned by international criminals behind the poaching and illegal international trade. Well known Hong Kong-based traders such as Wang and Poon were beneficiaries of the amnesty, and elephant expert Iain Douglas-Hamilton commented on the Burundi amnesty that it "made at least two millionaires".[SUP][10][/SUP] EIA confirmed with their investigations that not only had these syndicates made enormous wealth, but they also possessed huge quantities of CITES permits with which they continued to smuggle new ivory, which if stopped by customs, they produced the paper permit. CITES had created a system which increased the value of ivory on the international market, rewarded international smugglers and gave them the ability to control the trade and continue smuggling new ivory.[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_trade


Tons of blood ivory continues to flow into the US, as proven by seizures of tons of blood ivory in what authorities acknowledge is just the tip of the iceberg.

Unless we stop all ivory trade, we won't save elephants. The problem is getting worse, not better, and Knife Rights just wants to preserve the status quo because a few of it's members make money trafficking in ivory. The thing to remember is that Knife Rights does not represent knife users, just knife makers.

 

[Twindog]

I think that is disingenuous to move to Political...it IS a knife issue, BECAUSE it is about ivory.

Don't know any "RICH" knifemakers, unless they inherited money. Some people are drawn to ivory, some are not.

Like I said previously, don't care for just about ANY ivory for knives, but have an awful lot of friends who do....and not one of them supports elephant slaughter or poaching. They have a right to work with legal material, and you have a right to oppose that and work for a sea change in legality, but are unlikely to find huge support for this cause on a knife forum.

This seems to be one of your "hot button" issues, and it is safe to say that your outlook would find more acceptance and less pushback in Political.

However, if you look at custom knives, especially high end custom knives currently produced, you will see a massive amount of fossil ivory used....and to outlaw this material is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I agree with SOME of your thoughts, and commend you for having the cojones to bring it here, but I cannot accept a blanket ban, and there is nothing that you or anyone else is going to say or do that will change my thoughts on that.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

And there is the problem.

 

[B34NS]

After reading through the proposed bills I'll say what I said in the last ivory thread. I understand Mark's position as he sells mammoth. I agree that mammoth is in no way an arguable material in regards to the conservation of African and Asian elephants. In both bills http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5241.pdf both clearly state "The most effective way to discourage illegal trafficking isto eliminate markets and profits." So I understand your opposition. I personally feel there should be better language in the bill regarding legal ivory and exclusion of ancient long extinct animals, mammoth/oosik/etc as not to sustain any impact on those doing it right in the industry. Although I can't help but feel this hardlined approach on either side has done anything for the constituion or conservation.

What I don't understand is how a CATO institute post is grounds for saying a ban on poached ivory isn't going to help the US aspect of the trade? Help me out here Kniferights, show me the studies that support the anti-ban position. Enough blaming China without numbers of the US trade from you guys.

Want to see what the DFW is stuck with in reality? Watch for yourself.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/Costly-Keepsakes-How-the-Government-is-Cracking-Down-on-Animal-Contraband-260014181.html

 

[Kohai999]

And there is the problem.

IF I was on an Earth Action Forum or something like that....it would be a problem.

I'm a knife lifer and fellow resident of Planet Earth. I have five cats. no kids. There are many people who would criticize me for having five cats. There are people closer to the radical left that would gather outside my house and pray for my damnation for having 5 cats. I would park my gas guzzling truck on these people happily. 4 of those cats are shelter rescues, two of them were feral born orphans and the mother was killed by a car.

I support custom knives and the rights of the people who buy them, make them and sell materials for them to use materials legally purchased. I have already stated my lack of interest in Elephant Ivory, and indicated that the only thing I own is estate ivory in a pool cue. The support that I have for those who use legally obtained ivory is unwavering, and that may be a problem for you and a problem for the elephants and I am not proud of that, but there it is.

Not a problem for me.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[Charr]

I've never understood it either. Why would I want to ignore people with differing opinions? If I only wanted to converse with like minded views, I'd just talk to myself all day.

Don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to say that this is the best post I've read in a very long time.

 

[rycen]

No knife discussion. Closed. Those that want to continue this discussion go to the political arena.