Mammoth Ivory Fixed Blades

Bob Leedy said:
I can't provide any photographs, but think it might be important to show some interior "white" mammoth ivory that can be contrasted with elephant ivory to demonstrate that the two can be distinguished from one another. To show only colored bark ivory would leave an opening to attack from those who would claim they are indistinguishable. It seems to me that to ignore this issue could potentially undercut your/our point. Maybe Mark Knapp could help.
Click to expand...

I am afraid that you are only going to prove that they are indeed indistinguishable to the unsophisticated viewer (i.e., your average politician or regulator). In fact, I believe that Don Hanson's pictures above prove that very thing. If you are going to try to prove to politicians/regulators by pictures that "interior 'white' mammoth ivory" can be "easily distinguished" from elephant ivory . . . I wish you good luck - I think you are going to need it.
 
The Virginian said:
I am afraid that you are only going to prove that they are indeed indistinguishable to the unsophisticated viewer (i.e., your average politician or regulator). In fact, I believe that Don Hanson's pictures above prove that very thing. If you are going to try to prove to politicians/regulators by pictures that "interior 'white' mammoth ivory" can be "easily distinguished" from elephant ivory . . . I wish you good luck - I think you are going to need it.
Click to expand...

I thought the same thing Ken, after I posted the above photos. Doug it might be a better idea to disregard white mammoth and I will delete the photos if it is best to do so.
 
I understand your points all too well but think we must convince others that the two ivories CAN be told apart. I agree, no hope for the general public, but regulators should be held to a higher standard. The burden of proof should rest with the regulator, not the owner of the product. I don't know the difference between corn starch and cocaine but police labs sure do. lf the Fish and Wildlife Service LE lab can use genetics to distinguish between bobcat and lynx hair (and they can), they can sure as hell teach LE to tell the difference between elephant and mammoth ivory. States should be held to the same standard.

That said, yes, it will be a hard sell. But ignoring the issue only allows someone else to bring it up and may undercut our credibility. Giving only examples of colored ivory invites claims of selective misrepresentation. I didn't say the 2 ivories are "easily distinguished". We must, however, make the point that telling them apart is possible. Along similar lines, someone is bound to bring up the question of dying mammoth. It certainly has been done with walrus. I would hate to think that "natural" color is our sole defense.
 
Last edited:
The Virginian said:
I am afraid that you are only going to prove that they are indeed indistinguishable to the unsophisticated viewer (i.e., your average politician or regulator). In fact, I believe that Don Hanson's pictures above prove that very thing. If you are going to try to prove to politicians/regulators by pictures that "interior 'white' mammoth ivory" can be "easily distinguished" from elephant ivory . . . I wish you good luck - I think you are going to need it.
Click to expand...

Our basic rule dealing with legislators is "don't lie." The other guys have to lie, because their entire case for a ban (any ban, not just ivory, but switchblades, daggers, bowies, etc.) is built on lies. We change minds by shining a bright light on their lies. Most legislators don't like being lied to by bill supporters and react negatively against those who do when it is pointed out. Certianly not always, but enough that this is a primary strategy for us.

The point is that while some fossil ivory looks similar to elephant ivory, they are hardly "indistinguishable" to someone who knows what to look for. It isn't all that difficult to tell the difference in most cases, if you are provided with the knowledge necessary. A number of artificial ivories or other whitish materials are even closer looking to the inexpert eye. The point is that mostly they are clearly distinguishable and it should be on law enforcement to do their job and not put the onus on innocents to prove their innocence. We oppose the ivory bans in their entirety, this is just a very small part of the larger issue that helps show how irrational and over-the-top the proponents of the ban are. One of the recent bills doesn't just name fossil mammoth and walrus ivory, it also gives the state F&W carte blanche to add anything else they want to the ban that might be confused with ivory with no restriction or notice requirement!
 
Bob Leedy said:
I understand your points all too well but think we must convince others that the two ivories CAN be told apart. I agree, no hope for the general public, but regulators should be held to a higher standard. The burden of proof should rest with the regulator, not the owner of the product.
Click to expand...

Preaching to the choir there.

Bob Leedy said:
I don't know the difference between corn starch and cocaine but police labs sure do. lf the Fish and Wildlife Service LE lab can use genetics to distinguish between bobcat and lynx hair (and they can), they can sure as hell teach LE to tell the difference between elephant and mammoth ivory. States should be held to the same standard.
Click to expand...

I agree with that argument, but I do not know how those pictures are going to support that argument. Seems to me if that is your argument, you would be better served to show pictures of lab test results or genetic patterns that make the differences clear and obvious. All those pictures say to me is: "It is really difficult without forensic tests for folks to tell these things apart." If that is the point you want to make, then I suppose showing those pictures will support that. Just not sure why someone would want to make that point.

Critter said:
Our basic rule dealing with legislators is "don't lie." The other guys have to lie, because their entire case for a ban (any ban, not just ivory, but switchblades, daggers, bowies, etc.) is built on lies. We change minds by shining a bright light on their lies. Most legislators don't like being lied to by bill supporters and react negatively against those who do when it is pointed out. Certianly not always, but enough that this is a primary strategy for us.

The point is that while some fossil ivory looks similar to elephant ivory, they are hardly "indistinguishable" to someone who knows what to look for. It isn't all that difficult to tell the difference in most cases, if you are provided with the knowledge necessary. A number of artificial ivories or other whitish materials are even closer looking to the inexpert eye. The point is that mostly they are clearly distinguishable and it should be on law enforcement to do their job and not put the onus on innocents to prove their innocence. We oppose the ivory bans in their entirety, this is just a very small part of the larger issue that helps show how irrational and over-the-top the proponents of the ban are. One of the recent bills doesn't just name fossil mammoth and walrus ivory, it also gives the state F&W carte blanche to add anything else they want to the ban that might be confused with ivory with no restriction or notice requirement!
Click to expand...

I never proposed and I do not support lying - to legislators or anyone else. I am glad that is your policy. So I do not know where that is coming from.

But, again, if you are showing politicians/regulators pictures of "interior 'white' mammoth ivory" because you think that will prove to them that it can be "easily distinguished" from elephant ivory . . . I wish you good luck - I think you are going to need it.
 
"Easily distinguished" is not the point. Nor is genetics or lab work. I mentioned those examples only to demonstrate the lengths to which FWS/LE can and will go when needed to make a case on other species. Telling mammoth and elephant apart can be done visually in the field if agents are taught how and are given minimal aids. We just need to make them do it.

White mammoth ivory needs to be shown to demonstrate that we are aware of the concern, but should be followed by close-up photos of both ivories showing the differences. Such pictures already exist on this forum. If I were computer literate I'd post them here. We cannot risk being accused of trying to deceive anyone by omission. If we don't acknowledge the problem up-front and address it head on, we have little hope of a favorable outcome. Difficult? Yes. But necessary. We have to at least try.

Thanks for the wish of good luck.
 
Last edited:
Good luck banning that ivory micarta.

That would be a hoot at the legislative level.

I've got some plastic grips on a Ruger blackpowder pistol that come from the Ruger factory, and they look enough like ivory that your average legislator would have a cow on the spot and start frothing at the mouth.

Some of them are so stupid you wonder how they put their shoes on.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
even with cross cuts is not always easy tell the ivory just from the Shreger's line.
The distance from the bark and the dimension of the cross section have a strong influence on their appeareance. Just look at the lines in the colored, obviously mastodon ivory of Don's bowies, difficult to say they are <90°. On the contrary i have seen small distal pieces of elephant's with acute angle Shregen's.
If you have a full cross section you won't have any doubts, but with white scales/small pieces you may have hard time telling by sight, sad but true.
 
The Virginian said:
I never proposed and I do not support lying - to legislators or anyone else. I am glad that is your policy. So I do not know where that is coming from.
Click to expand...

Sorry, was not directed at you. It was directed at the concept expressed somewhere along the line that we maybe shouldn't be showing interior white fossil ivory. I was simply stating our policy which is to always cover all the bases, we don't leave stuff out, we don't lie, we are as truthful as we can be.

The whole issue of fossil ivory is a red herring. But, it must be dealt with. The vast majority of fossil ivory is readily differentiated. It is not just or legal to use a rare exception as an excuse to punish an entire population of citizens. But, again, this is not the major issue.

Ivory bans are a nuclear option for a problem that does not actually exist. Ivory bans are throwing the baby out with the bath water, again for a problem that doesn't exist. The U.S. legal ivory market has no connection to the abhorrent illegal poaching of elephants in Africa. Banning a perfectly legal item of commerce and investment in pursuit of some theoretical benefit that files in the face of historical precedent, the reality of the actual circumstances of the illegal ivory trade, and plain old commonsense, is an offense to citizens who expect to be treated honestly and fairly by the government they elected. Taking their private property without compensation is neither.

Yesterday there was a joint hearing on a bill in Massachusetts that would ban all trade in any ivory, with no exceptions except for museums and educational institutions. Our side showed up with facts and figures and studies that supported our position that this is a solution in search of a problem. The proponents showed up with school kids, sobbing co-eds and speakers who had only emotional arguments or outright lies that we could refute with facts. No vote was taken on the bill. That's a good outcome for us, but the fight there and elsewhere will continue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top