New US Ban on Sale of Elephant Ivory

The real answer is for the animal rights people and the sportsman to realize they have the same goal

This goal is to place such a value on these creatures that land owners and the governments of Africa wake up and realize they must fight the poverty that fuels the poaching and promote a proper game management system that encourages..... I'll say it again game management

Place such a value on these creatures that all would consider even the poachers a pack of elephants young and old left rotting in the sun with their ivory chain sawed out a true waste of a resource

That even a poacher would see this as waste

If they have other means to exist maybe just maybe they will stop the slaughter

Until they have other means to exist any laws past are just a mute point and will mean nothing in the end
 
Do any of you realize the recent shut downs of hunting in many concessions are thought to be brought about by corrupt governments that are in coverts with the organized poaching rings

The idea is to get rid of the concessions that are operating their so that the poaching can go unimpeded

As these indigenous Africans loose their means of providing for their families they will resort to any and all means to feed their families

These are hunters and trackers and all they know is to do such

The right fight must be addressed here if there is any chance for a game plan that will work

Sorry to go on and on but I do care and I do not collect ivory handled knives I just care about the animals

My ivory collection consists off one small Ivory carved Budha purchased as a pair many many years ago. One I have and the other was given to Phill Hartsfield many decades ago and a few pieces of ivory from warhogs and elk

I do not want to ever hunt an elephant either so my only stake in this is the truth and love of the animals in question
 
One more example and than I will go away :)

Let's look at another thing that is very Much in the press about Africa these days

The Somalia pirates

These people have always been fisherman

Due to commercial fishing rapping their waters their way of life is changing

As they sit there starving they see billions of dollars floating by

They reach out and take that loaf of bread

In return instead of attacking the poverty issue and the cause of it we spend billions to now patrol that area

Do you know what it costs to keep a battleship running ?

Would the problem not be better served addressing it at the root ?

Do not think that I am on the pirates side. I even considered taking a job as an escort when a few contractor friends signed up

My point is making silly laws will not stop anything in a world of hunger and strife

Throw a country full of war lords and corrupt governments into the equation and yes things look truly bleak

Sadly Monetary value is the cure for all evils
 
As to the rest, your assessment is correct. Where we disagree, is on the criminalisation part. On the day the changes come in to effect, you will not be any more of a criminal than you were the day before, just by owning two ivory handled knives. Yes, if you break the new rules, you will have committed an offence, just like any other new law.

If you are stopped for some minor driving violation you are normally asked to prove your right to drive, that the vehicle is taxed, insured and legally owned. Changes are being made to legislation all the time, some of them relaxing existing measures and some tightening them (eg. switchblades). I can't see why there is a big deal with ivory, other than the fact that some people here have a vested interest.
Click to expand...

banksy,

You mention that this is a new law. It is not a new law or legislation, but a rules change.

The point is that I have not done anything illegal, but under the new rules, my existing right to sell a legal possession is eliminated. That is a big deal to me.
 
Steven65 said:
It was not my intention to insult you and if you feel I did, I apologise.

Please let me explain a few things to you without sounding patronising……..Mods it is not my intention to go political, I just want to explain a few things as basically and simply as I can.

You simply cannot appreciate the problems and realities of Sub-Saharan Africa without having seen it for yourself. It goes beyond any experience and logic you have.

In the rural areas of many of these countries almost nothing exists. There is no infrastructure to speak of and poverty of the worst kind is rife. Is it any wonder that people will poach animals in order to feed themselves and their families.

As a generalisation you cannot build schools in these areas because everything inside the school will be stolen almost immediately and there are no qualified teachers.
You cannot build businesses because no-one has any money to buy anything. You cannot build infrastructure and hospitals because there is no-one qualified to work in them and most of the time there is no power source. On top of this corrupt officials impose huge import duties and taxes as a way of lining their own pockets.

The only real investment in these areas comes from China as they build infrastructure to mine the raw materials. Only businesses tied to mining and raw materials for export can survive.

What happens when eco-tourism booms? This means game farms, game lodges and safari operators.

Operators acquire land in these rural areas. They MANAGE the land and the game on that land in order to maintain the population. Animals are guarded and observed. They then sell a tag to a US hunter who pays an exorbitant amount to travel to the lodge and shoot the animal. By doing this the hunter funds the operator………..What does this all mean in real terms?

Operators INVEST in the local land and area. They CONSTUCT lodges and living quarters. They EMPLOY locals in all aspects of their business, trackers, cooks, wardens etc……Locals need to be educated so they are trained to look after guests, educated in conservation as this is now their financial lifeline. Locals are now able to actually look after their families properly. Education and decent medical care usually follows this.

Lodges STIMULATE secondary business by being there. The lodges need supplies, they SUPPORT local businesses to purchase those supplies. Lodges need both road and air transport, those local industries are stimulated by this. Fuel is required so a gas station opens………etc…..etc.

Game lodges and safari operators do more for the local economy and combat poaching and trafficking far more effectively than anything else out there. All current anti-poaching initiatives are driven to a greater or lesser extent by these operators.

Is this a perfect solution to the problem? Of course not. There is none. There is only what there is to work with.

Banning 25 year old Ivory handled knives and existing Ivory in the US is pointless. By the time any "change in attitude" can occur in the US which hopefully will affect China, all the Elephants will be dead. Only managing the animals as a resource will save them.

Once again I apologise for any offence that I may have caused you.
Click to expand...

Steven & Joe etc..
Guys, First i wasn't winning about being called names, I am bigger than that and it's just really not very constructive and you aren't going to ever win anyone over to your cause that way are you?

Second, lets put the issue of "legal' ivory in the USA aside for a minute and I get that hunting can be used to benefit a species if done correctly and how this can build other opportunities for the locals. i have traveled to parts of asia and Mexico etc and have seen grinding poverty and corruption and realize these problems are complicated other wise they wouldn't be real problems right?

I have also had the pleasure of discussing these topics with many expates, mostly from S.A. and a few from other African countries from business people to doctors etc and of all complexions. I had a young bright black male nurse attend me in the hospital after my spine surgery a few years back that i could just tell wasn't from the USA and when I asked where he was from he said Tanzania, he had just arrives a few months prior and one of the first things he said was he still could not fathom the amount of food he would see people throw away in the UCLA Hospital Cafeteria, he said, sometimes back home there just isn't anything to eat for a few days! Also a few folks on holiday stop by my knife shop so I am a little more aware of these issues than you seem to be giving credit for.

So most problems get solved by approaching them by more than just one avenue and if many of these goverment officals are/maybe skimming or out right stealing "Hunting Tag" money how is this benefiting locals or elephants.
So once again i am not talking about ivory in the USA.

So, Do you have any suggestions of say giving grants, "just for a example" to people that want to run schools or anything else that we can constructily discuss an dpossibly do to help with the grinding poverty and bring some livelyhood to these people so that we can get them thinking further than their next piece of meat and poaching the animals we want them to protect?
 
Some contributors here - and others who are only following this thread - might want a bit more information on how a President can act on this ban without Congressional involvement, questioning the legitimacy of the use of Executive Order by the President. Actually, Executive Orders have been used by every President but one, all the way back to George Washington. I've cobbled together some online stuff that seems to provide a very clear explanation. Sorry it's lengthy, but maybe it will help provide more clarity on how the authority derives (I've divided this explanation over two posts, sorry, was just too long for the Blade Forums system:

"Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.

Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the Executive Power. Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.
 
Last edited:
Continued - Page 2

Many important policy changes have occurred through Executive Orders. Harry Truman integrated the armed forces under Executive Order. President Eisenhower used an EO to desegregate schools. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson used them to bar racial discrimination in federal housing, hiring, and contracting. President Reagan used an EO to bar the use of federal funds for advocating abortion. President Clinton reversed this order when he came into office.

Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution -- that no one should have power to act unilaterally. Nevertheless, Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program. In effect, this leaves the decision to the federal agencies involved and the President that stands at their head. When Congress fails to spell out in detail how a law is to be executed, it leaves the door open for the President to provide those details in the form of Executive Orders.

Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from "congressional intent" or exceeds the President's constitutional powers. In one such notable instance, President Harry Truman, was rebuked by the Supreme Court for overstepping the bounds of presidential authority. After World War II, Truman seized control of steel mills across the nation in an effort to settle labor disputes. In response to a challenge of this action, the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure was unconstitutional and exceeded presidential powers because neither the Constitution or any statute authorized the President to seize private businesses to settle labor disputes. For the most part, however, the Court has been fairly tolerant of wide range of executive actions.

Bob

EDIT: Interestingly, the current President has issued fewer Executive Orders (170) than almost all Presidents since McKinley, which of course has no bearing at all on the issue we're discussing, just an interesting factoid. Theodore Roosevelt issued 1081, Eisenhower 484, Reagan 381. Highest was Franklin D. Roosevelt at 3522.
 
Last edited:
The sad fact is that realistically, elephant poaching will probably never stop. And the illegal trade is predominantly between Africa and China. Neither of those countries, let alone the individuals that are the problem give two hoots about the US and what we think.

Also, it is very difficult to raise enough money, and get it into the right hands even if we could, to really have the US make much of a dent in the overall poaching problem. As Laurence said, these are complex problems.

The other fact is, that the point of this discussion, originally, IS about legal ivory here in the US and how our rights could be infringed by this new proposed rule change.

As most of us pointed out, this is a 'feel good' (and look good but really do nothing) act that is as Steven65 said, 'Window Dressing'. And thus pointless.

But this affects many of us, here on our own soil, and we do have much more control over this issue. That's what this discussion is about.
 
Rhinoknives1 said:
Steven & Joe etc..
Guys, First i wasn't winning about being called names, I am bigger than that and it's just really not very constructive and you aren't going to ever win anyone over to your cause that way are you?

Second, lets put the issue of "legal' ivory in the USA aside for a minute and I get that hunting can be used to benefit a species if done correctly and how this can build other opportunities for the locals. i have traveled to parts of asia and Mexico etc and have seen grinding poverty and corruption and realize these problems are complicated other wise they wouldn't be real problems right?

I have also had the pleasure of discussing these topics with many expates, mostly from S.A. and a few from other African countries from business people to doctors etc and of all complexions. I had a young bright black male nurse attend me in the hospital after my spine surgery a few years back that i could just tell wasn't from the USA and when I asked where he was from he said Tanzania, he had just arrives a few months prior and one of the first things he said was he still could not fathom the amount of food he would see people throw away in the UCLA Hospital Cafeteria, he said, sometimes back home there just isn't anything to eat for a few days! Also a few folks on holiday stop by my knife shop so I am a little more aware of these issues than you seem to be giving credit for.

So most problems get solved by approaching them by more than just one avenue and if many of these goverment officals are/maybe skimming or out right stealing "Hunting Tag" money how is this benefiting locals or elephants.
So once again i am not talking about ivory in the USA.

So, Do you have any suggestions of say giving grants, "just for a example" to people that want to run schools or anything else that we can constructily discuss an dpossibly do to help with the grinding poverty and bring some livelyhood to these people so that we can get them thinking further than their next piece of meat and poaching the animals we want them to protect?
Click to expand...

Some very good points and yes the answer is replacing the monetary value the poachers are receiving with an other source of income

For this I do not have an answer other than sport hunting and tourism

But with concessions closing because of pressure to stop hunting a huge viable income will be lost

Let's face it the average African native could care less about the long term solution and they are only concerned with now

What can feed them now what can buy medicine now

When I see a rhino tag raise 350,000 dollars that will hopefully go toward safeguarding Rhinos this to me is something that is working now

The problem is people want to save the elephants but do not want to address the real problem which is the income that poaching provides for the poor of Africa

I know many are sick of my preaching animal conservation thru managed controlled harvest but it is my experience that this is the best way and it too is under attack and my fear is all will be lost

This is the Now solution for both sides to band together look at the facts and act accordingly

In the beginning of this thread sportsman were considered the same as poachers by many and this stigmatism still exists by the uneducated

This might upset many but it is the truth

When it comes to the African native by and large they could care less about conservation

They are living for the moment and dealing with things we have no understanding of

To a parent in Africa the lose of a child is commonplace because harsh realities are a daily occurrence. How can you expect someone in this reality to care about the elephants unless you give them a monetary reason to

I once sat with a safari operator who told me to my surprise and horror that most of his staff which was made up of the indigenous people in the area could care less about the animals or conservation

They would cut every tree down and not ever plant another, shoot every animal and never care what this attitude would bring . They are truly living for the moment with no regard for the future. Why do you think AIDs is so rampant. I once sat around a camp fire with one of the first men to open up sport hunting in what was than Rhodesia. He told me that a large portion of my camp staff would probable not be around in years to come do to the AiDs virus. They knew the risks of unprotected sex but live life with reckless abandon

How can you try and explain the circumstances to people with this mind set.

I do not know what the solution is but I do know with sport hunting under attack and concessions closing the future of Africa's elephants and Rhinos looks pretty bleak
 
Banksy, I have done a pretty good job defending my position with facts, statistic and studies. The information is hard to ferret out, I am still looking and I will get you more.

What have you shown me to support your position? Nothing. Your opinion is no more valid than anyone else' without the backing of research, that's what separates a fact from an opinion.

You've really got to kidding me that you do not believe that hundreds or thousands of people will not be put out of the ivory business by this. Of course they can go into another business, they don't have any choice. I never said they couldn't do something else. My point is they shouldn't have to if what we do here has no effect over there.

The question is, will putting them out of the ivory business do any good for elephants in Africa. Can you show me a study that says it will?

Why are you and others here not willing to get behind any other program to help solve the poaching problem in Africa.

If the only thing you are willing to do is take away the rights, privileges and belongings of the rest of us, to solve the problems in Africa, then you are not willing to do much.
 
More so than tourism dollars most of the sub Saharan countries where ivory poaching is rampant need political stability. DRC, Nigeria, Cameroon, Sudan, etc are countries waging civil wars, undergoing genoicide and can not even prevent their citizens from being slaughtered much less animals. Without a stable government, nothing will change. The only non natives in those countries are volunteer organizations.

Some of the more industrialized nations like Kenya and South Africa may benefit from Western actions but they already have the infrastructure and government in place to bring in tourists and protect their animals.

I had the privilege to live in Kenya for 6 months back in 2006. I was there working on a clinical trial in conjunction with a local university. We were targetting underserved people out in the rural districts around Nairobi. Elephants were everywhere.

We did the major safaris at Nairobi National park, Tsavo desert, and the Masai Mara. I saw more elephants on the side of the road between Nairobi and Mombassa than I did on any of the safaris.

Most of the people I was able to speak with were all for the conservation of the animals. Parks brought tourists and tourists brought money into the area.

All of that has to happen within the boundaries of a safe and stable (relatively speaking) government.
 
Mark Knapp said:
Joe, I am not tired of you making your point.
Click to expand...

Thank you Mark

The real problem here is not how this effects our knife collections. In the big picture who cares really. It's also not how does this effect the US

This is a global problem and our duty as stewards is to protect these magnificent creatures and to try and understand why this is happening globally and what needs to be done globally to reverse something that has been coming like a freight train and we all turned our heads till it actually affected us
 
JustinR said:
More so than tourism dollars most of the sub Saharan countries where ivory poaching is rampant need political stability. DRC, Nigeria, Cameroon, Sudan, etc are countries waging civil wars, undergoing genoicide and can not even prevent their citizens from being slaughtered much less animals. Without a stable government, nothing will change. The only non natives in those countries are volunteer organizations.

Some of the more industrialized nations like Kenya and South Africa may benefit from Western actions but they already have the infrastructure and government in place to bring in tourists and protect their animals.

I had the privilege to live in Kenya for 6 months back in 2006. I was there working on a clinical trial in conjunction with a local university. We were targetting underserved people out in the rural districts around Nairobi. Elephants were everywhere.

We did the major safaris at Nairobi National park, Tsavo desert, and the Masai Mara. I saw more elephants on the side of the road between Nairobi and Mombassa than I did on any of the safaris.

Most of the people I was able to speak with were all for the conservation of the animals. Parks brought tourists and tourists brought money into the area.

All of that has to happen within the boundaries of a safe and stable (relatively speaking) government.
Click to expand...

I believe you have really mentioned the worst of the problems facing the people and then wildlife. The despots and corrupt thugs that control or don't control their countries along with civil war are a major source of what makes these problems so difficult to address and the majority of the expiates and students/visa people from that continent I have had a chance to discuss this with all see the value in managing and protecting the wildlife as a great asset but then this people have enough brains and education to have made it to the USA.
 
JParanee said:
This is a global problem and our duty as stewards is to protect these magnificent creatures and to try and understand why this is happening globally and what needs to be done globally to reverse something that has been coming like a freight train and we all turned our heads till it actually affected us
Click to expand...

I disagree with you there. I don't claim to know the fix to much of anything, however I do believe wholeheartedly that the residence of free men on this planet cannot remain free by imposing its will on the other nations of this world. We are simply out numbered globally. Asking the rest of the world to be democratic with us (under our laws and ideals) is not a numbers game we can win. We can't even control our own people, how could we recondition a culture who's history predates any written history on earth? It simply cannot be any more successful than "they" would be coming to America and telling us to trade our daughters for cows and goats.
 
JParanee said:
Thank you Mark

The real problem here is not how this effects our knife collections. In the big picture who cares really. It's also not how does this effect the US

This is a global problem and our duty as stewards is to protect these magnificent creatures and to try and understand why this is happening globally and what needs to be done globally to reverse something that has been coming like a freight train and we all turned our heads till it actually affected us
Click to expand...

Thank you for having the cojones to actually say that this really IS more important than an elephant ivory handle on our three blade trapper or custom made knife. We do have a duty as stewards to do our best to leave things better than we found them and if you do come across another legit ways to work to keep these animals in the wild for our children's children please contact me and if I can help with a donated knife etc I will do my part.

And that to me is where we need to develop ways that all can help. Not just those that can or want to drop 50 large on a hunting trip. I am not knocking it. Its just that we need to do more so that everyone that wants to can contribute and help.
 
ron_m80 said:
I disagree with you there. I don't claim to know the fix to much of anything, however I do believe wholeheartedly that the residence of free men on this planet cannot remain free by imposing its will on the other nations of this world. We are simply out numbered globally. Asking the rest of the world to be democratic with us (under our laws and ideals) is not a numbers game we can win. We can't even control our own people, how could we recondition a culture who's history predates any written history on earth? It simply cannot be any more successful than "they" would be coming to America and telling us to trade our daughters for cows and goats.
Click to expand...

You have a point there

I've been trying to trade my daughters for some good goats and I can't get any takers :)
 
Rhinoknives1 said:
Thank you for having the cojones to actually say that this really IS more important than an elephant ivory handle on our three blade trapper or custom made knife. We do have a duty as stewards to do our best to leave things better than we found them and if you do come across another legit ways to work to keep these animals in the wild for our children's children please contact me and if I can help with a donated knife etc I will do my part.

And that to me is where we need to develop ways that all can help. Not just those that can or want to drop 50 large on a hunting trip. I am not knocking it. Its just that we need to do more so that everyone that wants to can contribute and help.
Click to expand...

Laurence

Like I said I respect and admire your passion and commitment

I hope I was not offensive I to am passionate about the subject and hope I have helped shed some light on the subject from my perspective

Thank you
 
I have followed this thread with great interest from when I first saw it posted and have somewhat mixed feelings on the subject. On the one hand, I understand that for the greater good (fill in the blank on any number of issues), there has to be some level of restriction(s) placed upon the actions/wishes of people. Since this topic is directly related to animals, let's use that as an example. Deer, elk, and many more North American wildlife need a system that allows for their existence. Look at the Bison-it darned near got hunted to extinction in a very short period of time. In order for their preservation, restrictions on what species and sex can be harvested, when, where, and how are all imposed upon citizens via laws and regulations. But, we see this as a necessity for healthy wildlife that are an integral part of the eco-system. The trade off of fewer "rights" (i.e., just go and shoot what I want, whatever time of the year) for the benefit of the wildlife is worth it.

Mr. Banksy-

It seems this is where your primary concerns/arguments in this debate come in. Paring away all of the peripheral arguments, am I correct in that your basic premise is something along these lines: By further limiting any commerce of elephant ivory, in whatever form, within the U.S., it will strengthen the notion that ivory should not be used and people's opinions will be changed and/or strengthened towards that end. This, in turn, will help change more opinions of others around the world, ultimately helping reach the goal of no more elephants being poached through awareness and less end product ivory crafts being purchased, effectively closing the market for it globally. (Please correct any of this if I am not perceiving your argument correctly).

I can agree with the idea of that and would like to support the notion. However, I'm just not sold that this idea would in fact make the change that it would seem pretty much everyone involved in this thread can agree on-no more poached elephants. But again, I can see the logic you have in this argument. I think it boils down to this for several of the people who have posted in this thread: Would these proposed changes be affecting the desired outcome (no more poached elephants)? You, and others, feel it is a step that likely could help make that change. Many others believe it would not and have stated their reasons, including studies showing the U.S. had such small quantities of illegal ivory over the last several years to be considered statistically insignificant. This leads those people to believe that the current regulations/laws are doing a pretty good job at keeping the U.S. from being any kind of meaningful supporter leading to the poaching of elephants.

You mentioned an article in reference to shark fin soup and how much decline it has seen because of international pressure of opinion. I remember watching documentaries/nature shows showing sharks being tossed into the sea, sans fins, and much of the discussion of shark fin soup before I went to Thailand in 2002. I spent just under 5 months there and was at a Buddhist funeral in north Thailand where shark fin soup was served to everyone (and there were quite a few people in attendance). It sounds as if the trend has declined since then, which is a good thing for the sharks. I hesitate to say much of what, for instance, the U.S. had to say about shark fin soup had to do with any of that, though. No one at that funeral seemed to care one bit about where the soup came from, let alone what a country that (predominantly, if at all) didn't eat the soup had to say about it.

I suppose this all goes back to my original comment in regards to putting restrictions on ourselves to save our (North American for the U.S.) wildlife-it is worthwhile and the results are easily seen. The rub with the proposed changes, I think, is that more restrictions (already many restrictions) are being put upon people without anywhere near the easy to see results. It's not possible to say with certainty your argument wouldn't work without trying it. Some might then say it should be implemented to see. But again, the rub is that people then lose out on their current (limited) ability to use that which is currently legal to do and the results of more poached elephants could just as easily continue. This makes those people REALLY want some kind of evidence that giving up some more rights to those restrictions is going to be worth it.

I understand your argument that those dealing in legal ivory could switch to other materials. But, can you also agree that doing so could be a very difficult thing? Cause a family to at the very least go through some hard times? Simply switching materials isn't going to be that easy-it would mean possibly a different market, having to gain expertise in different materials, and suppliers of those materials to you, gaining inventory, etc. Perhaps there isn't a large percentage of the working public who would be effected by this. Even so, should we not care about that when making these decisions? Should no concessions be made for them? We as a nation seem to burden the many for the few all the time-why not for those businessmen and women? Perhaps we should subsidize them through some process showing their craft/trade has been significantly impeded based on the proposed change?

I don't have any ivory, haven't made a knife with ivory, and maybe never will. I know Americans get more than a bit picky about what they perceive as their rights in various ways getting restricted. A healthy debate about what we all agree to do (we are a democratic republic) should be welcome and expected. Sorry for the long post. Respectfully,

Jeremy
 
Hi Laurence, David and Banksy, and anybody else. If I said anything to you that offended you, I am sorry, as I said in an earlier post, my wife will tell you that I sometimes come on too strong. For that I apologize.

I propose we start to talk about what we agree on. Poaching in Africa is a problem. An overwhelming percentage of the ivory poached in Africa today goes to China. It is illegal to bring ivory to the US with a couple of exceptions.

I would be in support of and would be active in any movement that would help stop or slow down the poaching of elephants, the smuggling of ivory and the importation of any illegal ivory into the US.

First, we should investigate the idea of petitioning the US government to institute a program like The Piece Corp, or on the international scale The UN to teach the people in Africa how they can make a living with their' resources without poaching elephants.

Second, find a way, through social media or what ever means possible to reach the people in China with an ad campaign to educate the people about the implications of the trade in illicit ivory.

Third get behind legislative action to tighten the borders to make sure no illegal ivory gets through, and to prosecute offenders.


The US is already active in the global fight against wildlife trafficking but we can do more with technology we have.

We also have radio tracking technology that would be useful, I have just begun researching this stuff but they are talking about it in "Elephant Summits" around the world.

To continue talking about things we can't agree on will get us nowhere. I think everyone can get behind some of these things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top