New US Ban on Sale of Elephant Ivory

[ron_m80]

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.

The Chinese protect their constitution (not the one on paper), better than most everyone does. You will not get western propaganda into that country. Even if we could do it legally.

 

[Mark Knapp]

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

This is pretty good, I think you covered it pretty well. I actually wrote my last post before I saw this.

 

[Mark Knapp]

The Chinese protect their constitution (not the one on paper), better than most everyone does. You will not get western propaganda into that country. Even if we could do it legally.

It seems like someone got a message to them about shark fins, it is my how that we could find out what they did right and do that, maybe get their' help. It's a possibility, no?

 

[banksy]

Jeremy,

Thank you for your post. You have correctly summed up part of my argument. The other part is, President Obama has stated he wants the US to be in the forefront of the world's fight to save endangered species. It would be hard to put put together a credible argument against the ivory trade, while at the same time allowing the unrestricted sale of ivory decorated pool cues and other trinkets over the internet. I support that initiative.

On the question of shark's fin, the campaign which resulted in a dramatic fall in demand for fins was promoted by an international organisation called WildAid, who are headquartered in San Francisco: www.wildaid.org As the article I posted says, they worked with sports personalities, celebrities and business people in China who brought about a change in public awareness such that demand for shark's fin soup fell by 70% in 6 years. So yes, in this case the international community did make difference. Why should the same not be possible for elephant ivory?

Finally, on the subject of ivory craftsmen in the US, I have asked but not received any reply to the question of how many people would be seriously affected. The 2007 report mentioned a minimum of 120, but that was a falling trend. If we assume 100 full time craftsmen who might have to give up working in elephant ivory and adopt other materials, that would be 2 individuals per state. Would that be 'worth it'?

Just to add, I should emphasise that these ideas are in no way a complete solution or quick fix, but part of a broad based approach to a very complex problem

 

[Rhinoknives1]

It seems like someone got a message to them about shark fins, it is my how that we could find out what they did right and do that, maybe get their' help. It's a possibility, no?

One of the things that from my seat here in the USA that helped turn the tide was that very tall professional Basketball player that's from china "Can't remember his name"" used his celib status to tell the people in china about how wasteful and damaging to the environment eating Shark Fin soup was and he publicly refused to eat it and told them why!

Mark & Banksy
In one of the documents that one of you posted, it said that buying ivory was pretty much flat until their government let a large "Legal" shipment in and that seemed to set off another buying craze for poached ivory.

I am sure that the fact that china now has more millionaires than any other country is part of that equation as well.

We need to get some highly visible people that the chinese like & will listen to talking & using that social media concerning buying ivory and the damage that the poaching is doing. This is just one part of the answer. Then there are many more.

 

[Mark Knapp]

Jeremy,

Thank you for your post. You have correctly summed up part of my argument. The other part is, President Obama has stated he wants the US to be in the forefront of the world's fight to save endangered species. It would be hard to put put together a credible argument against the ivory trade, while at the same time allowing the unrestricted sale of ivory decorated pool cues and other trinkets over the internet. I support that initiative.

On the question of shark's fin, the campaign which resulted in a dramatic fall in demand for fins was promoted by an international organisation called WildAid, who are headquartered in San Francisco: www.wildaid.org As the article I posted says, they worked with sports personalities, celebrities and business people in China who brought about a change in public awareness such that demand for shark's fin soup fell by 70% in 6 years. So yes, in this case the international community did make difference. Why should the same not be possible for elephant ivory?

Finally, on the subject of ivory craftsmen in the US, I have asked but not received any reply to the question of how many people would be seriously affected. The 2007 report mentioned a minimum of 120, but that was a falling trend. If we assume 100 full time craftsmen who might have to give up working in elephant ivory and adopt other materials, that would be 2 individuals per state. Would that be 'worth it'?

Just to add, I should emphasise that these ideas are in no way a complete solution or quick fix, but part of a broad based approach to a very complex problem

Hi Banksy, I have answered the issue about "the minimum of 120 craftsmen" that was from the 16 towns and cities that the study covered, so if you included all the cities and town in the US that the study did not include, there would be a lot of craftsmen in the US. They also counted 651 shops involved in the ivory trade from the 16 town and cities in the study, if you take the 651 shops with the clerks and the 250 craftsmen and included all the other people that were not a part of the study there would be a lot of people involved. I will still try to get the information you asked for but can you see that it doesn't mean there were only 250 people?

 

[Mark Knapp]

One of the things that from my seat here in the USA that helped turn the tide was that very tall professional Basketball player that's from china "Can't remember his name"" used his celib status to tell the people in china about how wasteful and damaging to the environment eating Shark Fin soup was and he publicly refused to eat it and told them why!

Mark & Banksy
In one of the documents that one of you posted, it said that buying ivory was pretty much flat until their government let a large "Legal" shipment in and that seemed to set off another buying craze for poached ivory.

I am sure that the fact that china now has more millionaires than any other country is part of that equation as well.

We need to get some highly visible people that the chinese like & will listen to talking & using that social media concerning buying ivory and the damage that the poaching is doing. This is just one part of the answer. Then there are many more.

There is some debate among more knowledgeable people than us as to weather or not the "one off" sale of legal ivory increased or served to dampen an increase in sale of illegal ivory, it's a big deal and a matter of great debate.

The rest of your post is exactly the kind of stuff I am talking about.

 

[Rhinoknives1]

Mark,
Something has fueled the increased demand for ivory at all costs in china? Like most problems I am sure that there are several reasons?

My point here is to see if we can come up with ways to try to get it to swing the other way.

Is there anyone here that want's to help, that can speak, read & write Mandarin interested in working with us to see what's possible?

 

[gudspelr]

Jeremy,

Thank you for your post. You have correctly summed up part of my argument. The other part is, President Obama has stated he wants the US to be in the forefront of the world's fight to save endangered species. It would be hard to put put together a credible argument against the ivory trade, while at the same time allowing the unrestricted sale of ivory decorated pool cues and other trinkets over the internet. I support that initiative.

On the question of shark's fin, the campaign which resulted in a dramatic fall in demand for fins was promoted by an international organisation called WildAid, who are headquartered in San Francisco: www.wildaid.org As the article I posted says, they worked with sports personalities, celebrities and business people in China who brought about a change in public awareness such that demand for shark's fin soup fell by 70% in 6 years. So yes, in this case the international community did make difference. Why should the same not be possible for elephant ivory?

Finally, on the subject of ivory craftsmen in the US, I have asked but not received any reply to the question of how many people would be seriously affected. The 2007 report mentioned a minimum of 120, but that was a falling trend. If we assume 100 full time craftsmen who might have to give up working in elephant ivory and adopt other materials, that would be 2 individuals per state. Would that be 'worth it'?

Just to add, I should emphasise that these ideas are in no way a complete solution or quick fix, but part of a broad based approach to a very complex problem

Let me be clear that I am far from anything resembling overly knowledgable on ivory sales, etc. That being said, perhaps I'm not understanding some of what I've learned in this informational thread. Is it your contention, or a quote from the proposal that refers to the U.S. allowing "the unrestricted sale" of ivory items? I was under the impression that there were in fact a fair amount of restrictions regarding elephant ivory being brought into the country and then used by craftsmen? I don't think I remember a time where I've been in a store or place of business where I've actually seen ivory items for sale. Which of course doesn't mean there isn't plenty out there, I guess I'm just saying it's certainly a much more rare commodity than to be seen generally.

It sounds as if WildAid was quite successful in using a well thought out campaign partnering with all of those people to effect the change in one of the locations where the problem was at its worst. They out the resources in China, where the problem was. Perhaps that would be a far better use of money and support, directly combatting the problem where the primary market for the poached tusks goes? For something so common and eaten by all classes like shark fin soup, I wonder if it might not actually be easier to gain support from many there who likely can't even afford such an item? If everyone from the average guy in the street in China on up starts viewing ivory as nothing but a symbol of poaching and wasting an animal, I imagine that would start making the change most here are hopeful about. I know little about global economics and the like, but based on the success you cited, I can't help but think something similar would carry a much higher likelihood of success than the proposed changes.

I suppose one way to look at it/question to ask is this: Were China to stop buying the ivory because of a well thought out public campaign, would a very large market for poached tusks to down? If the answer is yes, then would the necessity for U.S. craftspeople whose livelihood was directly tied to legal ivory need to be shut down? Even if you're correct about only 100 people being effected (it's been noted that the study included only a fraction of all 50 states-it stands to reason there were many, or at least "more" living elsewhere), do they deserve no consideration at all? Some who view the craft as despicable because of their feelings towards elephants I'm sure care not at all. I still think they deserve at least some consideration. Even cities/states that suddenly change gun laws, making what was a day before now illegal, have been known to at least offer some type of "buy back" program.

Life and the world aren't "fair" and I understand that. It just seems that before people who have worked hard to abide by the restrictions put upon their trade are severely impacted, the other, good ideas such as the one you brought up could be employed. Their is always room to re-evaluate the situation if something fails.


Jeremy

 

[gudspelr]

Mark,
Something has fueled the increased demand for ivory at all costs in china? Like most problems I am sure that there are several reasons?

My point here is to see if we can come up with ways to try to get it to swing the other way.

Is there anyone here that want's to help, that can speak, read & write Mandarin interested in working with us to see what's possible?

Laurence-

I'm pretty uneducated about the situation, but the campaign Mr. Banksy brought up in regards to the shark fin soup issue that was based out of California might be worth checking into? If they already have a model and contacts, perhaps the ball could get more easily rolling? It's certainly a trend now for celebrities and others in the public eye to help with such things and people seem to follow a lot of what they do. I imagine the people in China (like most places) identify more with someone from their own culture, making the change of opinion more likely than coming from a foreigner? Just a thought.

Jeremy

 

[Mark Knapp]

Mark,
Something has fueled the increased demand for ivory at all costs in china? Like most problems I am sure that there are several reasons?

My point here is to see if we can come up with ways to try to get it to swing the other way.

Is there anyone here that want's to help, that can speak, read & write Mandarin interested in working with us to see what's possible?

It's almost universally accepted that the recent change in the ability of the Chinese people to earn and spend a bunch more money than in previous times (which I don't fully understand), fueled the dramatic increase in (people say) "demand". The demand was always there it's just the newly acquired buying power that changed things. I agree about changing it the other way.

 

[Mark Knapp]

Banksy, It is becoming more clear to me that I will not be able to find hard numbers on the information you want. The report from 2006 and more recent writing shows that craftsmen and shop owners were unwilling to divulge any information to investigators due to suspicion and mistrust. I think if you asked owners of semi automatic weapons to fill out a survey today, you might get the same result. I have put a lot of time into this and I think, I can make better use of my time.

Make of it what you will. But be careful, I may still find some numbers.

I'm going to spend my time trying to solve a problem.

 

[22-rimfire]

This article pretty much sums up my view on this new ban. I was somewhat surprised to see the opinions expressed via the Huffington Post of all places. Take a look if you haven't seen this. It's pretty long. I don't want to post the text. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/obama-administration-trea_b_4848867.html

 

[Mark Knapp]

This article pretty much sums up my view on this new ban. I was somewhat surprised to see the opinions expressed via the Huffington Post of all places. Take a look if you haven't seen this. It's pretty long. I don't want to post the text. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/obama-administration-trea_b_4848867.html

Wow, who'd a thought, The Huffington Post. I read other writings by the author but I had missed that one. Doug's a Doctor and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute Not sure what that means, I guess he's a smart guy. He said in one page what I have been trying to say for two weeks, and did a good job of it.

If anyone here would like to see what we have been trying to say but in a concise eloquent ways, read that article.

Thanks, 22

 

[Mark Knapp]

Let me be clear that I am far from anything resembling overly knowledgable on ivory sales, etc. That being said, perhaps I'm not understanding some of what I've learned in this informational thread. Is it your contention, or a quote from the proposal that refers to the U.S. allowing "the unrestricted sale" of ivory items? I was under the impression that there were in fact a fair amount of restrictions regarding elephant ivory being brought into the country and then used by craftsmen? I don't think I remember a time where I've been in a store or place of business where I've actually seen ivory items for sale. Which of course doesn't mean there isn't plenty out there, I guess I'm just saying it's certainly a much more rare commodity than to be seen generally.

It sounds as if WildAid was quite successful in using a well thought out campaign partnering with all of those people to effect the change in one of the locations where the problem was at its worst. They out the resources in China, where the problem was. Perhaps that would be a far better use of money and support, directly combatting the problem where the primary market for the poached tusks goes? For something so common and eaten by all classes like shark fin soup, I wonder if it might not actually be easier to gain support from many there who likely can't even afford such an item? If everyone from the average guy in the street in China on up starts viewing ivory as nothing but a symbol of poaching and wasting an animal, I imagine that would start making the change most here are hopeful about. I know little about global economics and the like, but based on the success you cited, I can't help but think something similar would carry a much higher likelihood of success than the proposed changes.

I suppose one way to look at it/question to ask is this: Were China to stop buying the ivory because of a well thought out public campaign, would a very large market for poached tusks to down? If the answer is yes, then would the necessity for U.S. craftspeople whose livelihood was directly tied to legal ivory need to be shut down? Even if you're correct about only 100 people being effected (it's been noted that the study included only a fraction of all 50 states-it stands to reason there were many, or at least "more" living elsewhere), do they deserve no consideration at all? Some who view the craft as despicable because of their feelings towards elephants I'm sure care not at all. I still think they deserve at least some consideration. Even cities/states that suddenly change gun laws, making what was a day before now illegal, have been known to at least offer some type of "buy back" program.

Life and the world aren't "fair" and I understand that. It just seems that before people who have worked hard to abide by the restrictions put upon their trade are severely impacted, the other, good ideas such as the one you brought up could be employed. Their is always room to re-evaluate the situation if something fails.


Jeremy

Thanks for your contribution, the article in The Huffington Post sited in a post a couple up from here might interest you.

 

[Mark Knapp]

Laurence-

I'm pretty uneducated about the situation, but the campaign Mr. Banksy brought up in regards to the shark fin soup issue that was based out of California might be worth checking into? If they already have a model and contacts, perhaps the ball could get more easily rolling? It's certainly a trend now for celebrities and others in the public eye to help with such things and people seem to follow a lot of what they do. I imagine the people in China (like most places) identify more with someone from their own culture, making the change of opinion more likely than coming from a foreigner? Just a thought.

Jeremy

I think the basketball players name is Yao Ming. I was just at the Wildaid site, they have a pretty good campaign started for African elephants and rhinos. It's pretty good work, I'm going to get involved. You guys should check it out. Thanks to Banksy and Jeremy for pointing me there. Banksy, you have a first name we can use?

 

[gthouse]

Huffingtonpost article best yet. Everything that has been said. Every big game animal in the world can and will be saved by legal hunters. Every outfitter and guide I have hunted with in North America is a great animal conservationist. Their lively hoods depend on it. They put their kids thru college thanks to people like me.


I would much rather walk the remote woods to kill a trophy elk than set up
a tripod and telephoto camera in Yellowstone park.
I do not make excuses and I am closed minded about this. I have spent more on tags and in my state as a hunter than others. And most of that goes to conservation of trophy animals. I do not harvest, I am a head hunter. A grizzley bear mounted in my house does more for the protection of grizzlies than anything animal rights can do.
An outfitter in BC will do everything in his power to protect bears in his territory.

Sorry for the rambling but Mark and Joe speak the truth.

As a said before, the only way to save the elephant is thru legal hunting. Banning ivory killed in the 60's makes no sense.
No reason to respond to me.
Don't get me wrong, I eat all of what I kill.
Gary
If we really want to save the elephant we have to be political, you cannot save or change anything without politics.

 

[banksy]

One of the things that from my seat here in the USA that helped turn the tide was that very tall professional Basketball player that's from china "Can't remember his name"" used his celib status to tell the people in china about how wasteful and damaging to the environment eating Shark Fin soup was and he publicly refused to eat it and told them why!

That would be Yao Ming, a former NBA player: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...nmentalists-hail-chinas-banquet-ban-shark-fin

 

[banksy]

Let me be clear that I am far from anything resembling overly knowledgable on ivory sales, etc. That being said, perhaps I'm not understanding some of what I've learned in this informational thread. Is it your contention, or a quote from the proposal that refers to the U.S. allowing "the unrestricted sale" of ivory items? I was under the impression that there were in fact a fair amount of restrictions regarding elephant ivory being brought into the country and then used by craftsmen? I don't think I remember a time where I've been in a store or place of business where I've actually seen ivory items for sale. Which of course doesn't mean there isn't plenty out there, I guess I'm just saying it's certainly a much more rare commodity than to be seen generally.

It sounds as if WildAid was quite successful in using a well thought out campaign partnering with all of those people to effect the change in one of the locations where the problem was at its worst. They out the resources in China, where the problem was. Perhaps that would be a far better use of money and support, directly combatting the problem where the primary market for the poached tusks goes? For something so common and eaten by all classes like shark fin soup, I wonder if it might not actually be easier to gain support from many there who likely can't even afford such an item? If everyone from the average guy in the street in China on up starts viewing ivory as nothing but a symbol of poaching and wasting an animal, I imagine that would start making the change most here are hopeful about. I know little about global economics and the like, but based on the success you cited, I can't help but think something similar would carry a much higher likelihood of success than the proposed changes.

I suppose one way to look at it/question to ask is this: Were China to stop buying the ivory because of a well thought out public campaign, would a very large market for poached tusks to down? If the answer is yes, then would the necessity for U.S. craftspeople whose livelihood was directly tied to legal ivory need to be shut down? Even if you're correct about only 100 people being effected (it's been noted that the study included only a fraction of all 50 states-it stands to reason there were many, or at least "more" living elsewhere), do they deserve no consideration at all? Some who view the craft as despicable because of their feelings towards elephants I'm sure care not at all. I still think they deserve at least some consideration. Even cities/states that suddenly change gun laws, making what was a day before now illegal, have been known to at least offer some type of "buy back" program.

Life and the world aren't "fair" and I understand that. It just seems that before people who have worked hard to abide by the restrictions put upon their trade are severely impacted, the other, good ideas such as the one you brought up could be employed. Their is always room to re-evaluate the situation if something fails.


Jeremy

Jeremy,
The truth is, I don't know how many would be affected. If I were to guess, I would say that most full time ivory craftsmen would be located in the centres of high Chinese population and therefore most would have been included in the study. I doubt if there are large numbers spread across the states. But as I say, I am guessing.
For those craftsmen who are part time workers, which would include knife makers, I cannot see why it would be such a hardship to use other materials; micarta or mammoth for example, to continue to make knives. In my experience, most custom knife makers who are any good are very busy, with long waiting lists, whether they are working in ivory or not. I honestly doubt if a single one would be put out of business as a direct result of these changes. Yes, there would be a reduction in their income from no longer being able to buy and sell elephant ivory. I think we have to accept that.

 

[gudspelr]

Jeremy,
The truth is, I don't know how many would be affected. If I were to guess, I would say that most full time ivory craftsmen would be located in the centres of high Chinese population and therefore most would have been included in the study. I doubt if there are large numbers spread across the states. But as I say, I am guessing.
For those craftsmen who are part time workers, which would include knife makers, I cannot see why it would be such a hardship to use other materials; micarta or mammoth for example, to continue to make knives. In my experience, most custom knife makers who are any good are very busy, with long waiting lists, whether they are working in ivory or not. I honestly doubt if a single one would be put out of business as a direct result of these changes. Yes, there would be a reduction in their income from no longer being able to buy and sell elephant ivory. I think we have to accept that.

Mr. Banksy-

You may be right, there could be few full time craftsmen that would be put out of business. I'm not sure there is a good way of getting an accurate count, perhaps the actual number itself doesn't hold significant meaning. Instead, I think what I find myself wondering about is how much the minority matters?

You said towards the end of your post that this could result in a monetary loss for even the part time knife makers (I would add to that other part time craftsmen who use ivory). You ended with "I think we have to accept that." This is the difficult statement for me. When I am on the side of whatever rule, law, etc., I find it very easy to say or have the same sentiments. When I agree with it and would not be out any money (let's face it-when it hits us in the pocket it matters more), I can more easily disregard the objections of those on the other side. Sometimes I struggle to be sympathetic to others (ask my wife...), but again, I ask-how much do we care about the minority that is effected?

There has been much talk of finding a way for poachers to meet the needs of their families so they won't go shoot an elephant for its tusks. If craftsmen enjoy working with ivory and wouldn't seek different materials on their own, perhaps those with similar opinions to your own could work towards helping them transition out of the trade? Farmers globally are subsidized by governments to grow crops of wheat, etc. instead of drug crops that pay them more. Were the opinions or business practices changed of those craftsmen in a positive way (instead of regulated out of business), I'd imagine the change of opinion you seek would be that much further ahead. Just think of someone previously selling elephant ivory now educating past clients with a positive view on it all.

Clearly, there is no magic bullet or solution-as previously said, it's a very complex problem. I'm thankful for the discussion and that I live in a place where even the minority voices get to be heard. Sometimes it seems they can tend to be the loudest or get the most attention. I believe this topic to be one that stirs feelings in many people, on both sides. Thankfully, one thing all agree on is looking toward a long term solution of no poached elephants. And as is the case in general, "the devil is in the details".

Mr. Knapp-

Thank you for taking so much time in researching and posting your findings. And thank you for looking into the WildAid site and sharing it here. Sounds like they've already got things going. The avenues of reaching the goal can be different and people can disagree on how it should be done. I think you (and others here) are a great example of someone concerned about what's happening who does something about it.


Jeremy