New US Ban on Sale of Elephant Ivory

Mark Knapp said:
Banksy, typos come out when I type fast, generally I think I have done a pretty good job. Please, cut me a little slack on grammar, and I will do the same for you, so that we can stay on point. It is becoming clear to me that you may not be here to solve a problem but to stir things up. I have better things to do. If you have a constructive comment to make, I will address it. Otherwise I will do something else, I have a lot of material to cover.

Please have a good night.
Click to expand...

I gave an opinion, you said, twice, that I have no grasp of the situation. I find that quite offensive. I'm happy to stick to the debate, if you are.
I asked you a question about your source for wide scale business closures as a result of the proposed legislation, which you have not answered, other than to post a link to a six year old document in which I cannot find an answer.
 
So... you are in favor of destroying museum collections across the country? George Washington's pocket knife and dentures? Netsuki and inlaid furnature in the Smithsonian? More than half the old pianoes and organs in the country? How will all that solve the problem of elephants killed in Africa and their ivory being smuggled to China?
 
Codger_64 said:
So... you are in favor of destroying museum collections across the country? George Washington's pocket knife and dentures? Netsuki and inlaid furnature in the Smithsonian? More than half the old pianoes and organs in the country? How will all that solve the problem of elephants killed in Africa and their ivory being smuggled to China?
Click to expand...

Did you read what I wrote? I said I support the ban on commercial ivory sales.
Anyway, the legislation excludes antiques over 100 years old, which I think would include Washington's effects.
 
For a while it was difficult to find any information of elephant trafficking after 2007. I kept seeing the phrase "Illicit imports of poached ivory to the US was insignificant". I could not find out what insignificant meant in terms of numbers of pounds, or seizures. Finally I did, in a report named

Status of African elephant populations and levels of
illegal killing and the illegal trade in ivory:
A report to the African Elephant Summit
December 2013

Prepared by:
CITES
Secretariat
IUCN / SSC African Elephant Specialist Group
TRAFFIC
International

Here's the link
https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/african_elephant_summit_background_document_2013_en.pdf

It shows on pages 16, 17, and 18 in figures 12, 13, and 14 respectively, that reported seizures to the US in the years from 2000-2008 amounted to less than 2000 kilos and in the years 2009-2013 it was so insignificant that it was statistically insignificant, they don't show it on the maps.

In earlier posts I sighted were ETIS said that the US was, by far, the country doing the most out of 90 other counties in their study to fight trafficking of elephant parts.

I hope this information helps clear things up a little bit, at least as far as how much the US contributes to the current world demand in elephant ivory.
 
Here's what your Whitehouse spokesman says (from an article in the UK press)

"The United States will continue to lead global efforts to protect the world's iconic animals and preserve our planet's natural beauty for future generations," the White House said.
Senior administration officials said the United States is one of the world's largest markets for wildlife products, both legal and illegal.
"Much of the trafficking in ivory and other wildlife products either passes through or ends up in the United States and so we are committed to putting an end to the illegal trade in elephant ivory and also other wildlife products," one official told reporters on a conference all.
Another said that, under the ban, it would be legal to own items made from ivory and gift these to your children or children - but it would not be legal to sell them.
"We are facing a situation where rhino horn is worth more than its weight in gold. Elephant ivory is going for as much as $1,500 a pound," the official said.
"So we believe that an outright ban on domestic trade in ivory and rhino horn is appropriate because it will help us be more effective in law enforcement and it will demonstrate a US leadership worldwide."
"We can't ask other consumer nations to crack down on their domestic trade and markets unless we're prepared to the same here at home."
Click to expand...
 
banksy said:
I gave an opinion, you said, twice, that I have no grasp of the situation. I find that quite offensive. I'm happy to stick to the debate, if you are.
I asked you a question about your source for wide scale business closures as a result of the proposed legislation, which you have not answered, other than to post a link to a six year old document in which I cannot find an answer.
Click to expand...

I am not sure why it is offensive to you when I say you do not have a grasp on the situation, I don't and can't possible have a grasp on lots of things around me, and when people tell when I don't have a grasp of things, I listen to them to find out what I don't know, I don't get offended.

I will get you your numbers as soon as I can, hopefully more up to date numbers. I have seen them, I will see them again and when I do I will show them to you. I have a lot of work to do. You have demonstrated to me that I am not going to be able to persuade you in my argument anyway so I will do it when I can. Please be patient.
 
banksy said:
There is no benefit to outlawing photography.
Click to expand...

No, you simply repeated an opinion, my assertion is that there would be no benefit to outlawing either one, you now need to be able to demonstrate to me how outlawing use of pre-ban ivory in the US changes things in Africa. I have seen no evidence to support that it would, have you?
 
banksy said:
Did you read what I wrote? I said I support the ban on commercial ivory sales.
Anyway, the legislation excludes antiques over 100 years old, which I think would include Washington's effects.
Click to expand...

"If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor". Sound familiar?

How many musical instruments do you think have been made using ivory since 1914? How many pocket knives, bowies and fancy custom knives? Billard balls and cues, dominoes. Banning previously legal items is expostfacto law. And making law by executive order is unconstitutional. An unconstitutional law is null and void from it's inception and it imposes no duty upon a citizen to obey it, nor upon any officer of the government to enforce it. Per U.S. Supreme court case law.
 
Codger_64 said:
"If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor". Sound familiar?

How many musical instruments do you think have been made using ivory since 1914? How many pocket knives, bowies and fancy custom knives? Billard balls and cues, dominoes. Banning previously legal items is expostfacto law. And making law by executive order is unconstitutional. An unconstitutional law is null and void from it's inception and it imposes no duty upon a citizen to obey it, nor upon any officer of the government to enforce it. Per U.S. Supreme court case law.
Click to expand...

There is no proposal to ban previously legal items. Maybe you should read the legislation.
 
From the White House fact sheet on their website:

•Significantly Restrict Domestic Resale of Elephant Ivory: We will finalize a proposed rule that will reaffirm and clarify that sales across state lines are prohibited, except for bona fide antiques, and will prohibit sales within a state unless the seller can demonstrate an item was lawfully imported prior to 1990 for African elephants and 1975 for Asian elephants, or under an exemption document.

•Clarify the Definition of “Antique”: To qualify as an antique, an item must be more than 100 years old and meet other requirements under the Endangered Species Act. The onus will now fall on the importer, exporter, or seller to demonstrate that an item meets these criteria.
Click to expand...

If it is legislation, then it is being written in the house of representatives, voted on, passed and handed up to congress to be amended, voted on and passed, then handed to the President for signing? Otherwise, it isn't legislation. Which is done by our two houses of the legislature.
 
Mark Knapp said:
No, you simply repeated an opinion, my assertion is that there would be no benefit to outlawing either one, you now need to be able to demonstrate to me how outlawing use of pre-ban ivory in the US changes things in Africa. I have seen no evidence to support that it would, have you?
Click to expand...

I'm repeating myself. The benefit to Africa would come from the change in public awareness and perception of ivory, from a highly valuable and desirable commodity, to one that is unacceptable.
As for evidence, here is an example not so far removed from the elephant. Shark fin is another product illegal in most of the world. Like the elephant, the shark is killed only for its one valuable part; the rest is discarded. The campaign to change Chinese public opinion of shark fin as a delicacy to something not cool, started in Europe and Australia and eventually reached out to influential public figures in China. The result has been a 50% fall in demand. But it's hard to imagine the effect of a campaign to save the elephant, while the countries campaigning are making pool cues and other trinkets from ivory, whether it's old or new.
 
Codger_64 said:
From the White House fact sheet on their website:



If it is legislation, then it is being written in the house of representatives, voted on, passed and handed up to congress to be amended, voted on and passed, then handed to the President for signing? Otherwise, it isn't legislation. Which is done by our two houses of the legislature.
Click to expand...

I think some states are ahead of the game:

http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...ory-sales-draws-praise-conservation-group.htm
 
Mark,
Sorry, i didnt mean to make an offensive comment with the last statement a few pages back. I am not dodging out, if you want me to give my opinions. I was only saying i dont have any personal stake in the ivory trade. To me it really boils down to limiting the supply, and where you have free or even just restricting parts of the trade you are setting up a supply-demand relationship. The ban is a action to send a statement to the world and an attempt to constrict the pipelines that exist, on whatever scale it is. We can do it here. Let other countries follow suit.
I dont know myself how pervasive the ivory trade is in the US. I fail to see how this is truly important, if we are a part of the problem too.
How can this be a bad move? Because it doesn't do anything meaningful, as some suggest ? Maybe its just one piece of the puzzle.

I would like to know, Mark, why do you feel so passionate about this issue. I dont feel a limit on trade of an endangered species, of any kind, is such a bad idea. That is what most people would probable agree about too. Those who have a business selling ivory would not like it. And, there are others who feel they should have no laws. The govt is just about taking away their freedoms.
David
 
Last edited:
Good, the more we can discourage poaching elephants the better. I think elephants are a little more important than having an ivory handled knife.
 
banksy said:
I'm repeating myself. The benefit to Africa would come from the change in public awareness and perception of ivory, from a highly valuable and desirable commodity, to one that is unacceptable.
As for evidence, here is an example not so far removed from the elephant. Shark fin is another product illegal in most of the world. Like the elephant, the shark is killed only for its one valuable part; the rest is discarded. The campaign to change Chinese public opinion of shark fin as a delicacy to something not cool, started in Europe and Australia and eventually reached out to influential public figures in China. The result has been a 50% fall in demand. But it's hard to imagine the effect of a campaign to save the elephant, while the countries campaigning are making pool cues and other trinkets from ivory, whether it's old or new.
Click to expand...

Yes, thank you! It's the change in attitude which will be ever increasingly important! The trade in bear gall-bladers, tiger/rare animal skin, turtle shell, shark fin, rhino horn, rare butterfly wings for jewelery etc, etc....
The lack of concern/value shown for the wildlife itself is a sad testiment to the priorities of many who take greater pleasure owning something like a turtle-shell soup bowl, a trophy Polar Bear rug or a bottle of ground gall bladder than knowing that the preservation of wildlife, especially threatened species, has been aided by a conscious decision to refrain from perpetuating the trade and un-necessary harvesting of wildlife for...a commodity, spurious benefit or pretty possession.
The plight of much of the worlds wildlife in this 21st century is real and well documented. Hopefully a more wide-spread desire for long term preservation and stewardship of habitat and wildlife will take hold globally and affect a protective attitude change in government and individuals and the continual threatening and endangerment of wildlife will be replaced with concern for the future of our very interconnected and fragile environments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top