New US Ban on Sale of Elephant Ivory

[Mark Knapp]

There is no proposal to ban previously legal items. Maybe you should read the legislation.

No. Read the original post and the last 12 pages, this is why I say you do not have a grasp on the situation.

First of all, there is no law, second, the proposal by the president does exactly that, if passed,it would make it illegal sell any item or raw material that you could not prove was bought or made with ivory from animals killed before the ban. It doesn't matter if it was ivory that was in the US for two hundred years, you have to demonstrate that it is pre-act. And that's the major problem, since we don't know how they are going to define the word "demonstrate" it could mean only ivory with official government import documents. How many of your family heirlooms from 30 to a hundred years old can you provide the original import documents for. Also it assumes you are guilty until proven innocent, that's a huge problem for some of us. I am afraid you are drastically misinformed.

These are some of the things we are trying to prevent. I think we can.

 

[Mark Knapp]

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.

Again you are stating an opinion as a fact, you said, Banning ivory here would prevent elephants in Africa from being poached. Stating your opinion again is not proof that your statement is true. I believe I can show you a study that shows that when we banned the importation of new ivory to the US, it did not slow down the poaching of elephants in Africa, or trade to other countries. Can you show me a credible study that says otherwise, not some guys opinion, a study.

 

[Mark Knapp]

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.

This is all very well said, but it is your opinion, I have shown studies that shows the elephants being poached in Africa today are not coming to the US in numbers of any statistical significance. So though you are well spoken and sound to be highly educated, what evidence can you give that what you say is true, that if we ban the trade of ivory from animals killed thirty years ago, it will have an impact on the demand for ivory in China, I bet I can show you studies that strongly suggest otherwise.

 

[Mark Knapp]

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

I have heard the "sending a statement to other countries" before, what countries are you sending a message to, the African poachers don't care what messages we send, the smugglers don't care. I believe I can show you evidence that banning trade in the US as we did in '89 had no effect on poaching or trade. The danger here is, if what I say is true, that it will have no effect in other countries, we have allowed our government to take away the three major cornerstones of the foundation of American law. Innocence until proven guilty, the right to due process and the principal that the government cannot confiscate private property without just cause. It's like 911, we were scared, so we allowed the patriot act to go through without constitutional scrutiny or even reading it in congress. Now we are finding out there are a whole lot of surprises in there that are going to be very hard to undo.

All or most of the people speaking out for the ban are saying even if it only stems the demand for ivory in a very small way they are for it. That's very big of you, sacrifices are easy to make when someone else is making the sacrifice.

My stand from the very start has been, lets find out how much the use of pre-act ivory in the US is contributing to the poaching of elephants in Africa, if the number is very low, which I think I have been showing, we are wasting our time. Next we have to take measures that are constitutional. I have put my money where my mouth is, I hired a lawyer and the proposal by the president is unconstitutional as written, so we are wasting our time as for as saving elephants is concerned. I think it is a great use of time and money to keep from eroding away our constitution.

I have said, I think there is a better way to save elephants in my post entitled "Alternate Solutions to an Ivory Ban" Some of you care enough about elephants to let the government take away the rights privileges and property of the rest of us but no one seems to care enough about them to actually do something that could actually make a difference on the ground in Africa.

The real danger as I see it, and the only thing that these kinds of band aid measures do is give some American people the feeling that they are doing something. All the while things are only getting worse for elephants. It's a false sense of security we get when we pass these regulations that only really restrict our actions, not the actions of people in Africa. The only other thing it may do is garner votes for the party backing these actions.

The other thing that concerns me is, if regulations and laws are able to be passed on elephant ivory, even it is is shown that the reg's will not help solve the problem, it will set a bad precedence. What will they try to pass these laws on next, just to send a message. Recently, a petition to enter walrus into the endangered species list was filed, even though it was admitted by the petitioners that there were no population problems that could be resolved by placing walrus on the list. That's a dangerous thing to allow to happen because it has far reaching implications that effect a lot of people unnecessarily. I view the elephant ivory thing similarly.

I said before if we knew that use of ivory in the States was shown to cause poaching in Africa, and tightening up of restrictions in the US would help, I would be for it. I have not seen any evidence to that effect and although there are well meaning people here that are for a ban, none of you have shown us anything to support your position. The best way to solve any problem is concentrate on the basis of the problem, people in Africa are slaughtering elephants.

Like I said before, in the end if there are no elephants or rhinos, and the next species is next, if all we did was pass some laws here to send a message to someone in China or Africa, we will not be able to say "We did everything we could do".

It will take a lot of us working together to solve a problem as big as this. We will not be able to work together if half of us are trying to take rights, privileges and personal property away from the other half.

 

[Mark Knapp]

Good, the more we can discourage poaching elephants the better. I think elephants are a little more important than having an ivory handled knife.

You are right, the more we can do to discourage poaching the better, elephants are more important than anything made of ivory. But the mistake you are making is you think what we do in the US is going to discourage poaching in Africa. I think, I am proving that that is not the case. Please read some of the studies I posted.

 

[akivory]

The allies in this fight are many . This act will destroy the value of hundred of millions of dollars worth of antiques and musical instruments. The trick will be getting together. In the last 30 years I have sold over 50,000 pounds of mammoth. I have never used or owned any elephant ivory. This ban is a first step. I do not think it can be stopped but we should try.

 

[Mark Knapp]

Banksy, here are your numbers, but first, you have changed my quote from "hundreds or thousands" to "thousands" to make my burden bigger, please try not to change what I say.

From page five of the link I provided for you

http://www.savetheelephants.org/fil... Martin & Stiles Ivory Markets in the USA.pdf

Executive summery

•The survey found 24,004 ivory items in the 657 outlets in the 16 towns and cities visited in the USA, most of which probably were legally for sale.

also from page five,

•The USA has a minimum of 120 full - and part-time ivory craftsmen. This is down from an estimate of 1,400 crafts men in 1989.

•The country consumes an estimated less than one tonne of raw ivory annually, down from seven tonnes a year in the late 1980s. Craftsmen each use an average of 8kg of ivory a year and say that the USA has an adequate supply.

•Craftsmen use mostly old, legal, raw ivory to manufacture new knife, gun and walking stick handles, scrimshaw pieces, cue stick parts and jewellery. They often use broken or damaged ivory items for restoration work.

•The USA has a good record of enforcing CITES regulations in respect of international wildlife trade and has reported the largest number of seizures of illegal ivory in the world, according to the Elephant Trade Information System.

•This study determined that the US ivory market has a small detrimental effect on elephant populations ,more from importing illegal worked ivory for retail sale than from local ivory manufacturing. Some contraband gets past Customs and there are no effective internal ivory transport and retail market controls.

This is all from a report written in 2007 on only 16 cities and towns. It stands to reason if they had visited more cities and towns there numbers of businesses and craftsmen would have been in the thousands. In the US, my research is showing me that since this report we have done even better. in the years from 2009 to 2013 the illegal import of elephant products to the US was a quantity below statistical significance. I will try to site the actual stats in the next couple of days. I have already sited the report that gave these figures.

 

[banksy]

No. Read the original post and the last 12 pages, this is why I say you do not have a grasp on the situation.

First of all, there is no law, second, the proposal by the president does exactly that, if passed,it would make it illegal sell any item or raw material that you could not prove was bought or made with ivory from animals killed before the ban. It doesn't matter if it was ivory that was in the US for two hundred years, you have to demonstrate that it is pre-act. And that's the major problem, since we don't know how they are going to define the word "demonstrate" it could mean only ivory with official government import documents. How many of your family heirlooms from 30 to a hundred years old can you provide the original import documents for. Also it assumes you are guilty until proven innocent, that's a huge problem for some of us. I am afraid you are drastically misinformed.

These are some of the things we are trying to prevent. I think we can.

I am not misinformed. First, please read my post. I said proposal. I know it's not yet passed.
Again, there is no ban, proposed or otherwise, on ownership of legally held items. No-one is going to be criminalised as a result of the proposals. No-one is going to be made to give up or destroy any legal ivory. Please read the first post yourself. The proposed ban is on the sale of said items, across state lines. That is something completely different and shows that for some reason, you are desperate to put a spin on the facts and I have to wonder as to your agenda here.

 

[banksy]

Again you are stating an opinion as a fact, you said, Banning ivory here would prevent elephants in Africa from being poached. Stating your opinion again is not proof that your statement is true. I believe I can show you a study that shows that when we banned the importation of new ivory to the US, it did not slow down the poaching of elephants in Africa, or trade to other countries. Can you show me a credible study that says otherwise, not some guys opinion, a study.

I have given you a clear example of the effect of changing public opinion on wildlife trafficking. Not my opinion but a fact. If you wish to question it, please Google 'shark fin demand' or similar. To save you the bother, here is the Wiki entry; note particularly the last sentence. Please explain why the same should not apply to elephants?

Based on information gathered from the Hong Kong trade in fins, the market was estimated in 2004 to be growing by 5% a year.[28] Consumption of shark fin soup has risen dramatically with the middle class becoming more affluent, as Chinese communities around the world enjoy increasing income levels.[1][2][29] The high price of the soup means it is often used as a way to impress guests or at celebrations,[26] 58 percent of those questioned in the WWF survey said they ate the soup at a celebration or gathering.[25]
By late 2013, however, a report in The Washington Post indicated that shark fin soup was no longer seen as fashionable in China. The movement against shark fin soup began in 2006, when WildAid enlisted Chinese basketball star Yao Ming as the front person for a public relations campaign against the dish. The campaign was taken up by a coalition of Chinese businessmen, celebrities, and students, and began bearing fruit in 2012, when China passed a ban on shark fin imports.[30] In January 2013, China Daily reported that officials in Zhejiang province found that many shark fin soup restaurants were selling artificial shark fins, and that one-third of the samples that the officials had obtained contained dangerous amounts of cadmium and methylmercury.[31] Within two months of the China Daily report, China ordered officials throughout the country to stop serving dishes made from protected wildlife at official banquets, and in September, the Hong Kong government issued a similar order.[30] According to WildAid, consumption of shark fin soup in China has dropped by 50 to 70 percent since 2011. China's commerce ministry indicated that consumption of shark fin soup during the 2013 Spring Break holiday had decreased by 70 percent from 2012, and Hong Kong industry groups reported that shark fin imports were down by 20 to 30 percent from 2012.[30] Also, anecdotal evidence points to a worldwide drop in shark fin prices and a move away from shark fishing in parts of Africa.[30]

 

[banksy]

Banksy, here are your numbers, but first, you have changed my quote from "hundreds or thousands" to "thousands" to make my burden bigger, please try not to change what I say.

From page five of the link I provided for you

http://www.savetheelephants.org/fil... Martin & Stiles Ivory Markets in the USA.pdf

Executive summery

•The survey found 24,004 ivory items in the 657 outlets in the 16 towns and cities visited in the USA, most of which probably were legally for sale.

also from page five,

•The USA has a minimum of 120 full - and part-time ivory craftsmen. This is down from an estimate of 1,400 crafts men in 1989.

•The country consumes an estimated less than one tonne of raw ivory annually, down from seven tonnes a year in the late 1980s. Craftsmen each use an average of 8kg of ivory a year and say that the USA has an adequate supply.

•Craftsmen use mostly old, legal, raw ivory to manufacture new knife, gun and walking stick handles, scrimshaw pieces, cue stick parts and jewellery. They often use broken or damaged ivory items for restoration work.

•The USA has a good record of enforcing CITES regulations in respect of international wildlife trade and has reported the largest number of seizures of illegal ivory in the world, according to the Elephant Trade Information System.

•This study determined that the US ivory market has a small detrimental effect on elephant populations ,more from importing illegal worked ivory for retail sale than from local ivory manufacturing. Some contraband gets past Customs and there are no effective internal ivory transport and retail market controls.

This is all from a report written in 2007 on only 16 cities and towns. It stands to reason if they had visited more cities and towns there numbers of businesses and craftsmen would have been in the thousands. In the US, my research is showing me that since this report we have done even better. in the years from 2009 to 2013 the illegal import of elephant products to the US was a quantity below statistical significance. I will try to site the actual stats in the next couple of days. I have already sited the report that gave these figures.

You exaggerated the numbers to "hundreds or thousands" without even checking, which illustrates my point; that you are placing a spin on whatever small anecdote you can find.

The report you quote estimates that the number of full and part time ivory craftsmen in the USA is "minimum 120". This was in 2007 and states there to be a falling trend. There is no figure quoted as to how many of these few craftsmen would be out of business (as you claimed) and how many would simply use other materials. Please provide better sources.

A couple of other points. You claim there is negligible illegal ivory trade passing through the US, yet the source you quoted states,

The USA .....has reported the largest number of seizures of illegal ivory in the world, according to the Elephant Trade Information System.

Which is correct?

Finally, your source also states,

This study determined that the US ivory market has a small detrimental effect on elephant populations ,more from importing illegal worked ivory for retail sale than from local ivory manufacturing. Some contraband gets past Customs and there are no effective internal ivory transport and retail market controls

So,we can't really know the size of the trade at all, and why should we not try to remove any detrimental effect on elephant populations, no matter how small?
In any case, the report apparently missed the one ton of illegal elephant ivory that was seized from the New York dealer in 2010 (I am making an assumption here that the trader had been in business since before the 2007 report).

 

[banksy]

Mark, here is a recent press report from the same organisation you quoted (Save The Elephants). I suggest this further illustrates my point; that sale of legal ivory has a direct influence on desirability and demand for ivory generally, and therefore a detrimental effect on elephant populations. Please note my bolded text. (Also note the second paragraph which describes the US as the world's second biggest ivory market).

China destroys ivory stockpile in 'significant symbolic step towards saving Africa's elephants'

Press Release

06 January 2014

The Chinese government has taken a significant symbolic step towards saving Africa's elephants by crushing a stockpile of confiscated tusks. The demand for ivory is driving a wave of poaching that is driving many of the continent's elephant populations towards extinction. Most of the illegal international trade in ivory flows towards China, giving the country the key to the future of elephants

At the ceremony in Guangzhou on the 6th January, officials from the State Forestry Administration will make the strongest demonstration yet that China intends to end her role in the destruction of Africa's elephants. In December 2013 the US Government - which presides over the world's second biggest ivory market - also destroyed its entire ivory stockpile.

When Kenya burned the first ivory stockpile in 1989 it proved to be a crucial tipping point that helped shut off demand in America, Europe and Japan and so end the killing. Two decades on, elephants are now in the grip of a new crisis that is in many ways more serious, thanks to their shrunken numbers and a demand swollen by China's demographic and economic expansion.

Key elephant populations are plummeting across Africa. Last month a census of Tanzania's Selous National Park, until recently the second-largest elephant population in Africa, revealed that numbers there have fallen by an estimated 67 per cent in four years to little over 13,000 elephants. This week Tanzania's President Kikwete reminded his nation that in 1976 this population was estimated at 109,000 elephants, a figure that followed a census by Tanzanian and international scientists led by Iain Douglas-Hamilton, founder of Save the Elephants.

China observed the ivory ban for twenty years and has strong penalties for people caught trafficking, but a one-off sale of a legal stockpile in 2008 appears to have roused a dormant demand and ivory poaching in Africa began to surge.


"By burning her ivory China joins the body of nations that are taking firm measures to stem the haemorrhage of elephants out of Africa," says Dr Douglas-Hamilton. "With measures like this we can still save elephants from being driven towards extinction."

 

[J. Doyle]

I asked David, and I will ask you. I don't know what you do for a living but I am sure someone is doing it illegally somewhere, should we outlaw your profession to stop them?

I'm a photographer. I don't understand your point; it doesn't make any sense to me at all. How would outlawing photography achieve anything positive? The proposed restriction on ivory trade is intended to bring about a change in attitude, with an objective of reducing demand for ivory. It's not even in the same ballpark.

It's not the same at all. As I said, not even in the same ballpark.

There is no benefit to outlawing photography.

Child pornography is illegal. As is trafficking it. Yet there are disgusting people that photograph it. (kind of like disgusting people that poach elephants) You probably have pictures of kids, grandkids, nieces, nephews, brothers or sisters or maybe close family friends that are of minor age in your house. What if the government proposed a ban on sending ALL pictures of ALL minor age children period across state lines (like to aunts, uncles and grandparents) simply because somebody, somewhere has photographed inappropriate and illegal pictures of minor children? Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn't it? And yet that's EXACTLY what we have going here with legally owned and documented elephant ivory. Ridiculous indeed and thus:

There likewise is no benefit to outlawing legally owned and documented preban ivory and ivory items inside the U.S.

I guess the photography and ivory examples aren't so different.

Mark, you're doing a fantastic job here and are the best resource we have on this. Please don't get frustrated by the emotional responses of a few and stay the course. :thumbup:

This proposed ban is a 'feel good' movement that, as Mark has shown, is HUGELY misdirected in it's efforts and does nothing to stop the poaching problem in Africa. Instead it infringes on the rights of many law abiding folks here in the US who are doing nothing wrong but makes them guilty, meanwhile, the poaching and black market trade of ivory continues, mostly on foreign ground, far from here.

How this concept is not ABUNDANTLY clear by the great information posted in this thread by Mark, Joe, Steven and others blows my mind.

 

[banksy]

Child pornography is illegal. As is trafficking it. Yet there are disgusting people that photograph it. (kind of like disgusting people that poach elephants) You probably have pictures of kids, grandkids, nieces, nephews, brothers or sisters or maybe close family friends that are of minor age in your house. What if the government proposed a ban on sending ALL pictures of ALL minor age children period across state lines (like to aunts, uncles and grandparents) simply because somebody, somewhere has photographed inappropriate and illegal pictures of minor children? Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn't it? And yet that's EXACTLY what we have going here with legally owned and documented elephant ivory.

Can't you see it's not the same thing at all?
First of all, there is a clear and obvious difference between a legal photo of your grandkids and a pornographic picture. This is not the case with ivory which is very difficult to identify as legal or illegal. Currently, the onus is on the authorities to prove that ivory is illegal. This is extremely time consuming and expensive. The proposals would seek to shift the responsibility on to the owner, should they wish to sell their ivory.
Secondly, banning legal photos of kids would have no effect whatever on pornography. There would be no benefit, as I said twice already. Just as there would be no benefit to banning teachers, accountants etc.
There is, on the other hand, a link between the sale of legal ivory and the illegal trade. One encourages the other and keeps up the price of both, thereby encouraging poaching. Please read my posts above.

 

[Doug C]

Can't you see it's not the same thing at all?.

Neither is shark fin soup.
Strawman much ?

Doug

 

[J. Doyle]

Banksy- if I may call you that- justify it anyway you need to. You asked how it was the same thing, I put it into terms that were exactly the same as the ivory issue and kept it on point with the rest of topic of the thread. You seem to want to stir up trouble and will get no more of my time.

 

[Idlewild]

This is all very well said, but it is your opinion, I have shown studies that shows the elephants being poached in Africa today are not coming to the US in numbers of any statistical significance. So though you are well spoken and sound to be highly educated, what evidence can you give that what you say is true, that if we ban the trade of ivory from animals killed thirty years ago, it will have an impact on the demand for ivory in China, I bet I can show you studies that strongly suggest otherwise.

I never suggested that trade in present stock piles of Ivory etc. should be banned. There is, I suppose, an arguement to be made for not wasting that which has already been taken, but I believe the continued trade in any "commodity" originating from endangered/threatened animals will only help to perpetuate the desire and trade of these ivories etc. and do little if anything to affect an attitude change concerning the 'harvesting' of wildlife for personal profit or possession, especially when that trade does negatively impact the continued healthy survival of an endangered or threatened species.

 

[Codger_64]

I never suggested that trade in present stock piles of Ivory etc. should be banned. There is, I suppose, an arguement to be made for not wasting that which has already been taken, but I believe the continued trade in any "commodity" originating from endangered/threatened animals will only help to perpetuate the desire and trade of these ivories etc. and do little if anything to affect an attitude change concerning the 'harvesting' of wildlife for personal profit or possession, especially when that trade does negatively impact the continued healthy survival of an endangered or threatened species.

But again, how does a total ban of the trade and use of legal ivory here in the U.S. affect the price of tea... I mean ivory and it's demand in China and the rest of the far East? I submit that it does not since far Eastern ivory importation is already banned here. What is here is here. What is there can only legally be sold elsewhere, not here. We are not the market for ill-gotten ivory.

 

[J. Doyle]

Here's the real problem, the poachers don't care about rules and regulations. As Joe Paranee stated, a dollar or a scrap of meat is their bottom line. Much wisdom can be found in Joe's posts if people would bother to read them and think about it. Those poachers don't care about poaching if they're offered legitimate jobs with good steady pay, like as trackers and processors for professional hunters and guides. Read some books by Peter Hathaway Capstick. He covers this very issue in many of his books about being a professional hunter in Africa. He paid those people wages that we'd laugh at but made those poachers filthy rich, by their standards, and turned them into ex-poachers.

The bottom line is criminals bent on breaking the law, regardless of reasons, are going to break the law and they'll break new laws that are trying to enforce existing laws. Do you think one poacher says to another, "Boy I'd sure like to go poach an elephant today but there are new laws in the US that ban interstate sale of ivory." Laughable.

It's the exact same reason why gun control measures won't stop violent crime......................CRIMINALS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LAWS! They only care about their bottom line. Only innocent, law abiding citizens obey laws.

This will not save one single elephant's life. Not one. History and past experience have taught us that the best way to increase the value of something, is to ban it. Place further bans on elephant ivory and the price of it on the black market will sky rocket and it will be even more worthwhile for poachers to take it and traffic it. And it's the law abiding knifemakers who will lose out on a pretty substantial avenue of income and become assumed guilty by default. And still the poaching will continue.

As I've said before, the reasons behind this proposed ban and it's aim is horribly misguided.

 

[jdm61]

I had another thought about seized illegal ivory in the US. Anyone who has taken an international flight out of Concourse E at Atlanta has seen the confiscated contraband display cases. Some of the stuff is new and obviously illegal, like boots or knock off Nike sneakers made from elephant hide, "medicine" allegedly made from certain animal parts, etc. Others are not so obvious, like otherwise legal animal horns (antelope, etc) that did not have proper paperwork and tins of say Petrosian beluga caviar, a species which was recently put on the naughty list in the US. Almost all of the ivory they show is elaborate carved stuff typically looking like it came from somewhere in South or Southeast Asia. I don't know how much is new and made say in Thailand or China and how much is antique, but it doesn't matter, You can't even import the antique stuff. What I would guess is that the people who bought it problem thought that it was antique and legal for the most part. Yet it shows up in the seized figures as it should. I would not be surprised in the least if the vast majority of our seized ivory consists of pieces like that which wet actually declared when the people came back into the US. Remember what happened to Rodrigo Sfreddo a couple of years back. he bought some fossil walrus at Blade and put it on a big knife the following year. He was forced to pry the scales off in customs at Atlanta so that he could keep the rest of the knife. Legally purchased in the US, but once he took it out of the US, it essentially became contraband.I say that we seize the most ivory primarily because we are actually interested in seizing the most ivory.

 

[banksy]

Banksy- if I may call you that- justify it anyway you need to. You asked how it was the same thing, I put it into terms that were exactly the same as the ivory issue and kept it on point with the rest of topic of the thread. You seem to want to stir up trouble and will get no more of my time.

Any argument opposing your own and difficult to counter is 'stirring up trouble'. That would be quite funny if this were not such a sad subject.
No more of your time is fine with me; you have a good day.