Did you think we were all just blowing smoke? Banning the ownership of ivory

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mark Knapp said:
Wait just a moment, you are giving the NRA credit for putting Pittman -Robertson funds back on track because Don Young is a board member of the NRA? That's kind of a reach, it doesn't say the NRA did it, it says Don Young did it. It doesn't even say he did it in behalf of the NRA. Anyway here we are beleaguering the point. Talk to you later.
Click to expand...

Rhetorically speaking- do you think it's safe to say that the tax, (on gun sales to pay for the fund) would have occurred without the NRA helping the manufacturers and members that it represents understand the benefit of the investment? My guess is that, had the NRA fought the 10% tax/legislation, it likely wouldn't have passed. NRA stepped in in the 80's to lobby for an overhaul of the fund due to perceived misallocation of monies etc. Really just bolsters your argument that regulated hunting, subsidized by willing participants, helps provide funding for conservation.

I don't disagree with that- at all. And I understand how that works wrt elephants and other species that are under threat. I don't know why anyone would want to kill these animals, but I concede that their doing so does support conservation efforts generally, given the current reality of things. It may or may not be the 'right' way, but I'm not prepared to draw a line in the sand and step over it. It's a complicated issue with a lot of past and present baggage that would take someone like me forever to unpack.

Anyway, since you asked a question, I figured I should answer. I'm happy to leave it at that if you are, Mark :)
 
GaryFlorida said:
I have no idea what you are saying. The more I read your comments, the more confused I get. Must be me.

Gary
Click to expand...

Yes. It is just you.

GaryFlorida said:
Ok thanks. Big Picture thinking here. We, the USA, can not tell everyone else the party is over without making sacrifices ourselves. Whether we are guilty or not. We are the power. We control or influence much of the World's decisions. We need to show total commitment. Sure there will be grey areas with ivory ban but there always is. When we sit at the table with the rest of the World, our stance must be squeaky clean.
Now the WWF can print this without the fear of finger pointing.
" America's role in the consumption and sale of ivory makes us complicit in the crisis and weakens our moral authority to lead internationally.
We must strengthen our laws to prevent this from happening and to encourage other countries to act with similar urgency."

Gary
Click to expand...

Why is any of what you posted above true? "Whether we are guilty or not." Really?

BTW, when has lack of "moral authority" EVER kept the U.S. government from trying to pursue its objectives?

GaryFlorida said:
Now here is the one that really makes one wonder. American hunters are allowed in certain African areas to still bring up to four "trophy" tusks per person per year into the USA. Safari Club members and others are licensed to kill elephants for fun.
How anyone could take pleasure in destroying creature such as an elephant needs to have their head examined.

Gary
Click to expand...

What makes you qualified to determine who needs to have their head examined? Are you a psychiatrist?

GaryFlorida said:
http://www.africanskyhunting.co.za/trophies/elephant-hu numerous hunting camps still offer trophy hunts.

I just don't understand why you would wake up one morning and decide to blow away an elephant. Just not me I guess.

Gary
Click to expand...

I do not understand why a lot of people do things I do not want to do. But I don't want to make all of those things illegal.

GaryFlorida said:
What gives some of our "hunt clubs" the right to formulate some of these statements? I am sorry but to me it is a self serving argument with one goal in mind. Pay me to shoot your trophy to hang on your wall and we will make sure the World will think we are doing the wildlife and locals a huge favor. Here is some material I read all the time.
"Without trophy hunting wild animals, in most parts of Africa (the wild animals) would have little value for the locals and would be killed indiscriminately as they compete with their livestock as well as human beings for ag land and urban development"

This type of self serving attitude is shocking to me. Is this the message we want to teach in the long run?

Gary
Click to expand...

Well, first off, the First Amendment gives them the "right to formulate some of these statements." The same thing that gives you the "right" to spout some of the ill-informed and IMO self-centered nonsense that you posted here.

As for that statement you quoted above . . . are you saying that it is not true? Or that it is true, but for some reason we are not allowed to acknowledge and say it?

GaryFlorida said:
Some flora or living trees and brush do have the right of protection as well Paul.

Gary
Click to expand...

Who decides which ones? And on what basis?

GaryFlorida said:
It is called a debate Mark. It takes two or more view points to have a constructive debate. There are no winners or losers.
You are trying to construct an argument to educate a less knowledgeable person on the subject.
There is no point in slamming the door on the way out imo.

Gary
Click to expand...

You have not debated. You have not responded to Mark's comments to you - or really to anyone else's. You seem to have only been interested in pontificating, not debating.

Mark Knapp said:
In a debate you would have answered my questions and addressed the points I have made. You have done none of that. I have addressed every comment you have made. A debate is reciprocal, you have not been reciprocal.

You have only used this forum to spout your beliefs, not to try and understand the opposing viewpoint. This has been no debate, that's why I feel like I am wasting my time with you.

Incidentally, I have not slammed any doors, and I am not on my way out. I'm probably not going to spend much more time with you though.

Your kind of like a brick wall with false graffiti on it. Nothing gets in and no matter how many times we correct your misunderstandings of the issue with facts and statistics, you just keep painting more wrong stuff on there. :D:D
Click to expand...

This.

Lorien said:
to your first point, I find it a little unfortunate that Kniferights seems to be increasingly under the umbrella of the NRA. Personally, I'd like to see Kniferights stand alone as an advocacy group focused on the utility aspect of knives. But that's besides the point entirely, a conversation to be had another time perhaps.

to the rest, all I can say is 'huh?'. I'm not following you there. However, I will note here that I'm aware of what plant species are protected, and tend to leave them be when I'm building and clearing trails.

the NRA has been successful in supporting conservation efforts in the past, (through taxation!) and the point I was trying to make is that their powerful lobbying arm could be utilized for educating people about the value of sport hunting wrt endangered species. There are a lot of NRA members, (claimed to be 5 million) who could be mobilized in these efforts.
Click to expand...

As one of those 5 million members, I can tell you that I am an NRA member for one reason and only one reason. To stop gun control laws that make no sense. I have zero interest in anything else the NRA may want to do. I am thinking I have a lot of company.

Lorien said:
Mark, I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on what the NRA's hands are full of ;)

But I think you and I would agree that, when it comes to powerful lobby groups in Washington, the NRA is at the top of the list. If they were interested in issues pertinent to the conversations that we're having here, and it's a fact that that's where the NRA had its origins, then I would think that they could be a powerful asset for conservation efforts around the world.

But, there is really only one driving issue for the NRA these days, so there would have to be fundamental, institutional changes in that organization in order to position itself back to what it once was- which would, in turn, diminish its lobbying power...damn. I think I just broke my own argument.
Click to expand...

As a Washington area resident for a quarter century, IMO the NRA is powerful, but nowhere NEAR the top of the most powerful lobby groups. Not even in the top ten. They could not even stop the election of a fairly militant anti-gun governor and anti-gun Attorney General in Virginia, which had traditionally been a pretty strong pro-gun-ownership state. And the NRA's influence is waning in DC. Wait until the political see-saw tips again and I think you will see exactly how little influence the NRA has anymore.
 
Mark Knapp said:
Wait just a moment, you are giving the NRA credit for putting Pittman -Robertson funds back on track because Don Young is a board member of the NRA? That's kind of a reach, it doesn't say the NRA did it, it says Don Young did it. It doesn't even say he did it in behalf of the NRA. Anyway here we are beleaguering the point. Talk to you later.
Click to expand...

No, but it DOES say that "The NRA backed bill passed the House 423-2." How much did they push it? Don't know. And sure, this is a bit speculative, but I doubt that there was no connection at all between Young being on the NRA Board and him pushing this legislation through.
 
Thanks Ken,

Lorien, I'm going to back out of the debate about the NRA's role in getting Pittman -Robertson passed except to say that just because they didn't oppose it doesn't mean they were instrumental in passing it. Further discussion on it seems to be off topic.

It seems Gary has left the building. I hope we have given him and others some things to think about even if he doesn't come back and show us a little bit of new understanding.
 
rickmenefee said:
Ivory is gone rather we like it or not. The consumer's think it has hepatitis. Sad
Click to expand...

I had one of my best years selling ivory at Blade this year, I sure hate to hear about people giving up on it. They only do it to us if we let them.
 
GaryFlorida said:
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/issues/biodiversity

Scroll down to Killing in the Name of Conservation.
Jonathan Adams has a good outline.
Might be a little deep for Joe but give it a try my man.

Gary
Click to expand...

Gary are you the same guy who called me the other day trying to get a knife ?

Have you been to Africa ?

Do you know anything about this subject other than what you have read on anti hunting sponsored sites ?

Doug no worries

I'm sure Gary from Florida eats meat and uses animal byproducts daily

So we all know what that makes him

Guys this is why I don't say to much these days. There are so many people that think they know but they have never been there

They drop 5 dollars in a can and think they are saving the world

When sportsman have been footing the bill all along

If it were not for TR Gary from Florida wouldn't have parks to visit to begin with


You just can't fix stupid
 
Last edited:
I sure wouldnt shoot a elephant for sport. That being said if American hunters didn't the elephant would surely be gone. They pay 100,000.00 for tags in certain areas.

I never even heard of poached elephant ivory in the u.s.
P.s Have 4 family members in the U.S.F.W.

I figure most if not all is being used for Weenie Dust in Asia.

If a guy going thru the trouble to smuggle something into the u.s. a man would think Cocaine would be the ticket. It Brings more than 150.00 lb

What a joke! Bad thing they have all but got it done. Even if they don't it will never be the same.
 
Last edited:
2knife said:
Ted Turner wanted to save a buffalo herd and found that making them a food source was possibly the best way to protect them. Killing elephants in a managed way is like having a human sacrifice to appease the gods.
David
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with this, there is a case to be made for limited harvest of ivory- it's a very different case than buffalo, though, in that a large population would pay absurdly high prices to buy the ivory from the last elephant. Better to take a larger view of the problem- prices for ivory obtained under any circumstances are so high on the other side of the Pacific that poaching will continue until they're gone. The big unanswered question is, how to intercede on the elephants' behalf?
Draconian laws in the USA are a red herring. We could burn all the ivory in North America, and it wouldn't affect the real problem a single percentage point.
 
I have reconsidered. I looked it up

Pruning knife- I will steal make it. IT will only be hafted with pre-ban Female killed in 1946 my a woman. Let me know
best
Rick Menefee
 
The problem here is, Gary, you never really wanted tho engage in the discussion, you just want to stir the pot. Whatever turns your crank. I hope somebody got something out of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top