Update of the ban on legal U.S. elephant ivory.

Lorien

I'm kinda lost why a thread on a ban that effects a material that is used in the custom knife world to the extent that Ivory is would not be welcomed here

I do not collect Ivory handled knives in fact my preference is synthetic materials these days but many do collect Ivory and therefore it is relevant IMHo

Not trying to get an argument started but I have to wonder why you are so opposed to it being spoken of here
 
I've gotta stick in my two cents. Bottom line for me is that there is a widespread interest in this topic, such that it simply makes sense to cover it in this forum, whether or not it just happens to be mostly about handle material. I think a far-reaching, widespread desire is everywhere to have it, much less that of Lorien's.
 
Thanks Mark, I was just asking an ivory supplier a couple days ago about this and he was hoping to get an update soon as to where this was going. I'll inform him about your post so he can pass it along to his interested customers.

Bill
 
I think that this thread is very pertinent to this forum as it regards what is considered probably the high-endness of the materials.
That said, i hope that this material should be worldwide banned as soon as possible. Knifemakers will be using something else, human bones...i mean from pre ban dead people of course ;)
 
Mark, I too appreciate the update being posted here. It is of widespread interest to custom knife collectors and likely would never been seen by most if limited to the political forum. I for one have never even looked at that area. So thanks.
 
I suppose there are no rules regarding the discussion of political issues in this forum, so...if ya can't beat em, join em!
I'm posting this information for its own sake, hopefully it's found to be useful to all.


Here is a link to an article by a proponent for instituting ivory bans;
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...nts-trophy-hunting-poaching-ivory-ban-cities/

Here is a link to an article by an opponent of instituting ivory bans;
http://voices.nationalgeographic.co...lephants-survive-a-continued-ivory-trade-ban/


If you want information directly from the administration, here is the link;
http://www.fws.gov/international/travel-and-trade/ivory-ban-questions-and-answers.html


Here is the executive order;

COMBATING WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to address the significant effects of wildlife trafficking on the national interests of the United States, I hereby order as follows:

Section 1. Policy. The poaching of protected species and the illegal trade in wildlife and their derivative parts and products (together known as "wildlife trafficking") represent an international crisis that continues to escalate. Poaching operations have expanded beyond small-scale, opportunistic actions to coordinated slaughter commissioned by armed and organized criminal syndicates. The survival of protected wildlife species such as elephants, rhinos, great apes, tigers, sharks, tuna, and turtles has beneficial economic, social, and environmental impacts that are important to all nations. Wildlife trafficking reduces those benefits while generating billions of dollars in illicit revenues each year, contributing to the illegal economy, fueling instability, and undermining security. Also, the prevention of trafficking of live animals helps us control the spread of emerging infectious diseases. For these reasons, it is in the national interest of the United States to combat wildlife trafficking.

In order to enhance domestic efforts to combat wildlife trafficking, to assist foreign nations in building capacity to combat wildlife trafficking, and to assist in combating transnational organized crime, executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall take all appropriate actions within their authority, including the promulgation of rules and regulations and the provision of technical and financial assistance, to combat wildlife trafficking in accordance with the following objectives:

(a) in appropriate cases, the United States shall seek to assist those governments in anti-wildlife trafficking activities when requested by foreign nations experiencing trafficking of protected wildlife;

(b) the United States shall promote and encourage the development and enforcement by foreign nations of effective laws to prohibit the illegal taking of, and trade in, these species and to prosecute those who engage in wildlife trafficking, including by building capacity;

(c) in concert with the international community and partner organizations, the United States shall seek to combat wildlife trafficking; and

(d) the United States shall seek to reduce the demand for illegally traded wildlife, both at home and abroad, while allowing legal and legitimate commerce involving wildlife.

Sec. 2. Establishment. There is established a Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking (Task Force), to be co-chaired by the Secretary of State, Secretary of the Interior, and the Attorney General (Co-Chairs), or their designees, who shall report to the President through the National Security Advisor. The Task Force shall develop and implement a National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking in accordance with the objectives outlined in section 1 of this order, consistent with section 4 of this order.

Sec. 3. Membership. (a) In addition to the Co-Chairs, the Task Force shall include designated senior-level representatives from:

(i) the Department of the Treasury;

(ii) the Department of Defense;

(iii) the Department of Agriculture;

(iv) the Department of Commerce;

(v) the Department of Transportation;

(vi) the Department of Homeland Security;

(vii) the United States Agency for International Development;

(viii) the Office of the Director of National Intelligence;

(ix) the National Security Staff;

(x) the Domestic Policy Council;

(xi) the Council on Environmental Quality;

(xii) the Office of Science and Technology Policy;

(xiii) the Office of Management and Budget;

(xiv) the Office of the United States Trade Representative; and

(xv) such agencies and offices as the Co-Chairs may, from time to time, designate.

(b) The Task Force shall meet not later than 60 days from the date of this order and periodically thereafter.

Sec. 4. Functions. Consistent with the authorities and responsibilities of member agencies, the Task Force shall perform the following functions:

(a) not later than 180 days after the date of this order, produce a National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking that shall include consideration of issues relating to combating trafficking and curbing consumer demand, including:

(i) effective support for anti-poaching activities;

(ii) coordinating regional law enforcement efforts;

(iii) developing and supporting effective legal enforcement mechanisms; and

(iv) developing strategies to reduce illicit trade and reduce consumer demand for trade in protected species;

(b) not later than 90 days from the date of this order, review the Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime of July 19, 2011, and, if appropriate, make recommendations regarding the inclusion of crime related to wildlife trafficking as an implementation element for the Federal Government's transnational organized crime strategy;

(c) coordinate efforts among and consult with agencies, as appropriate and consistent with the Department of State's foreign affairs role, regarding work with foreign nations and international bodies that monitor and aid in enforcement against crime related to wildlife trafficking; and

(d) carry out other functions necessary to implement this order.

Sec. 5. Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking. Not later than 180 days from the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), in consultation with the other Co-Chairs of the Task Force, shall establish an Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking (Advisory Council) that shall make recommendations to the Task Force and provide it with ongoing advice and assistance. The Advisory Council shall have eight members, one of whom shall be designated by the Secretary as the Chair. Members shall not be employees of the Federal Government and shall include knowledgeable individuals from the private sector, former governmental officials, representatives of nongovernmental organizations, and others who are in a position to provide expertise and support to the Task Force.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable domestic and international law, and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof, or the status of that department or agency within the Federal Government; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d) Insofar as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.) (the "Act"), may apply to the Advisory Council, any functions of the President under the Act, except for that of reporting to the Congress, shall be performed by the Secretary in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Administrator of General Services.

(e) The Department of the Interior shall provide funding and administrative support for the Task Force and Advisory Council to the extent permitted by law and consistent with existing appropriations.

BARACK OBAMA
 
Last edited:
We have covered this issue extensively in the past. What it all boils down to is weather or not a ban on pre-act ivory in the US will save any elephants. The experts agree that none of the ivory from elephants being poached in Africa today is coming to the U.S. "None" in this case means below the smallest quantifiable amount that makes it statistically negligible. It has been stated by the experts that laws controlling the use of ivory in the U.S. have no effect on the population of elephants in Africa.

The thrust of the ivory ban in the U.S. is based on emotion and is politically motivated, not on sound science by biologists and expert wildlife managers.

The main reason for the ban given by proponents of it is to send a message to the rest of the world.

It has not, and cannot be demonstrated that banning the use of pre-act ivory in the U.S. will save a single elephant. If it was so, I would be for the ban.

Changes in the law that effect so many people so drastically should be based in sound science and passed through legislative action not executive order.

We are talking about U.S. law in this thread. The laws we are talking about effect a lot of American citizens in some pretty profound ways. People that live in other countries are entitled to their' own opinions but they will not be effected in any way by the results of this ban, they do not have a background in American law concerning ivory and really have no basis for forming a viewpoint on this issue, that is, unless you've studied it.

It's fine if you don't like the poaching of elephants, I don't either, but to really have a meaningful conversation about what can be done about it and weather or not a ban in the U.S. would help, you need to be more knowledgeable.

I am happy to let wildlife management experts figure out a way to help save elephants in Africa. Politicians are not experts and Animal protectionist groups are not experts. It used to be that the US Fish and Wildlife Service made decisions concerning wildlife with a basis in science, that is no longer true. Now these decisions are politically motivated. Instead of taking direction from biologists they get there direction from politicians.

I have sited all of the references (studies and statistics) that helped me form my position before, if you like I will show them again. Likewise I will expect others to show studies that support their arguments. If you have a position, you should be able to back it up.
 
Right on, Mark!!! Back it up or shut up!!

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
Mark, your post was well stated and right on point, especially paragraph six. Thank you.

Paul
 
I apologize if I came off as arrogant in my last post, some times it happens. The problem is, sometimes people will talk about, and make flippant comments about things they know nothing about. These things are very important to many of us.

If you don't know that this is not just about whether or not Joe Knifemaker can use elephant ivory for a knife handle then you have no business talking about this issue.

This ban, as written, will make billions of dollars worth of peoples personal belongings valueless. It will make priceless antiques worthless. It will change three basic tenants of American law. It's about government overreach. It's the first time that the federal government will try to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own personal property, legally obtained property. What was legal yesterday will be made retroactively illegal tomorrow.

If you don't know these things then you should not be talking about this issue. It's a big deal to some of us.
 
Mark, you've posted plenty of information in your past thread, and my last post was made in an effort to provide context for the situation that others who might not have seen your other thread, or who don't know much about the topic, can use to help begin to understand the issue more fully. I was sincerely trying to be helpful.

This ban became tangible through the executive order, so I cut and pasted it, as that's as good a place to start as any. My understanding of this situation is obviously inferior to yours, and to many here, but I started my research with reading the executive order. I've read a few other articles in addition to the ones I posted links to, but I found these ones to have information, and importantly references, that outline the issue in a coherent and logical way, without being overtly biased. Studies and data are also included as references, which can be helpful. I do want to understand this issue more fully, and that involves dialogue, research and an open mind.

I do not and cannot know whether the ban in question will have the desired effect, and therefore I have not formed an opinion on that particular issue. It's not likely I will, and as you rightly point out, it doesn't matter what my opinion is on American law.

With regards to nationality, the point I tried to make earlier is that this forum is worldwide. Participants are from all over. Threads oriented specifically to laws in the US are necessarily open to discussion with people from other places, if posted here. This is why I expressed the viewpoint that I did, and continue to stand by. Which is that politically charged issues relating to laws and regulations in the US can be problematic for the very reason you suggest; that if forumites are excluded from particular discussions based on nationality, but they have an opinion, the forum can become too biased. I greatly value the global nature of our forum. I think a locked, sticky thread with all the data pertinent to custom knives would be useful, so long as the content was factual and as apolitical as possible.

And sorry to go on and on, but I'll just finish by saying that if you don't think that federal law making in the US doesn't affect Canada, particularly something like this, then, well I guess you don't. But it very often does. I'm sure there are Canadian knife collectors who have knives made with ivory, Canadian harvesters of ancient ivory who might be affected, etc. The Keystone XL pipeline is an issue that points to this connection between Canadian and US laws. We conduct a ton of trade between our countries.

Lastly, I know I've gotten some of your knickers in a twist. I'm sorry for that. I do really try not to be a smartass, it's just that in some conversations my jaw locks and it's hard to let go. I hope you understand. We might not agree on much, other than having a passion for custom knives, but I love all you guys. That's it, I'm done. If you got this far, you're a champ:)
 
Lorien, My comments were not meant directly for you. They were meant for anyone that likes to comment on things they know nothing about, whether they live in the US or not. They were prompted by comments from two other posters. I realize you have given this issue more thought than most.

I know very little about the politics in many foreign countries. Generally, laws passed in other countries will not affect me. For these reasons I do not comment on those subjects. I try not to talk about subjects I no nothing about, if they interest me I research them so I can talk about them intelligently. I hope that others on this forum will do the same.

On the last go around we spent two months and 23 pages talking about the ivory ban. It takes a lot of time to answer all the questions and comments that come up. It's my hope that we would not have to rehash the whole thing all over again. All I ask is that people that want to comment in this thread know a little about the subject before they post here, regardless of the country they live in. Otherwise, it adds little to the conversation.

I would prefer to talk to you, and anyone else, about things we can do to actually save elephants. I have been in contact with people that provide much needed funds to people in Africa that actually keep poachers from killing elephants. If you want to solve a problem you attack it at it's roots. I am against the poaching of elephants so I have raised money and will raise more to help fund the protection of elephants from poachers.

It might surprise you to know that the organization that arguably has raised the most money for the protection of elephants is The Safari Club International. I'm talking about funding organizations that guard elephants from poachers, not campaigns to ban the use of pre-act ivory.
 
what do you think about the concept of creating a sticky, locked thread in this forum, where you can post the bills, policy suggestions, data, related articles etc related to the topic, and update as new information arises?

It wouldn't get buried under other threads, those interested in the topic wouldn't have to wade through a copious number of posts, and the information could be presented concisely to those who need or want it.

I think that would go a long way toward avoiding the type of heated political discussion that occurred over the course of the thread you last posted.
 
Mark Knapp said:
I apologize if I came off as arrogant in my last post....
Click to expand...
In my opinion your post was the same as usual, very informative. I appreciate your efforts to keep the knife community up to date.

I think locking the thread is a bad idea. Mark's posts make people think and ask questions. Locking the thread would put a damper on questions and information sharing.

Chuck
 
Lorien, brother....you are fighting windmills on this topic....let it go.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top