URGENT NJ ALERT: Call/Write Gov. Christie to Veto Draconian Ivory Ban Bill TODAY!

[killgar]

Here's a suggestion: check the post timestamps.

It's a lot of work trying to keep track of all of our various arguments .

Additionally, my own view is that this law will be like most of the others laws on the books: not helping anything or anyone. I also don't think that any politician is going to listen to what we have to say.

To a certain extent, I agree. But Kniferights does have a good record of successfully convincing politicians to repeal knife laws. And that is an impressive feat.

 

[killgar]

You didn't use the word idiot, I was summing up your post.

Your summation is inaccurate .

Although I don't think highly of the practice of forming opinions based solely on headlines, I wouldn't call the people who do it idiots, nor do I think such a thing in my mind. People are free to form their opinions any way they want to, and without being judged by me for it. My comments in my first post regarding people who form opinions based on headlines was not being directed towards any person on this forum. It was in fact a comment I was making directly to Bigfatts regarding the fact that there are "a lot of people" who make their decisions in such a manner (I addressed Bigfatts by name in the very first sentence of that paragraph) . If anyone was offended by my comments, that certainly wasn't my intent.

 

[22-rimfire]

...But since no one will be breaking down the doors of any citizens not dealing in illegal ivory (possession for the sake of possession of existing ivory products is still ok) and since a ban on trafficking is a step in the right direction, I'm fine with the law. If the U.S. is going to provide any kind of moral example to the rest of the world (I'm looking at you China), it's a necessary step. It's a sign of the times that a reasonable -- even if overbroad -- law like this one is taken as though it were the Intolerable Acts returned from 1774.

Like a lot of laws, it will likely be selectively enforced in terms of possession of ivory products. But you won't be able to sell something with ivory without breaking the law as I understand it. Hence, the law is way overboard and it is close to being an intolerable act. When has setting an example done the US any good what so ever? Countries laugh at the US now and the only time they want the US involved is when they need muscle like in Iraq. Most countries are only interested in what the US can give them.

 

[TAH]

It will not be illegal to own it or pass it on to familiy members.

 

[Gadfly22]

Like a lot of laws, it will likely be selectively enforced in terms of possession of ivory products. But you won't be able to sell something with ivory without breaking the law as I understand it. Hence, the law is way overboard and it is close to being an intolerable act. When has setting an example done the US any good what so ever? Countries laugh at the US now and the only time they want the US involved is when they need muscle like in Iraq. Most countries are only interested in what the US can give them.

The new "Intolerable Act" -- you can't sell ivory.

Compare with:

The original "Intolerable Acts" --

The Boston Port Act -- Closed the port of Boston.

The Massachusetts Government Act -- Changed the government of Massachusetts to bring it under direct control of the British government.

The Administration of Justice Act -- Allowed the Royal governor to order that trials of accused royal officials take place in Great Britain. George Washington called this the "Murder Act" because he believed that it allowed British officials to harass Americans and then escape justice.

The Quartering Act -- Colonies required to provide housing for soldiers.

Clearly, we are unworthy of our forefathers.

 

[22-rimfire]

Passing ivory onto family members is simply not good enough. As far as the intolerable act business, the law as proposed will simply not have the effect that politicians want, hence it is a feel good act to them and serves no practical purpose other than being punitive towards Americans who are not the problem in the first place.

As far as unworthy goes, we all have out political fights and they change.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

The topic itself is important enough to discuss.
Stick to it and stop discussing each other.

 

[straitr]

Banning Ivory, or anything for that matter, and thinking it will stop it's import, sale, and distribution is a lot like thinking legislation will win the drug war. Problems like this need to be solved at the source, and like drugs, we cannot control the sources outside of our borders, and try as we do, we simply don't have the resources to keep it from coming in. The other solution is to stop the demand, but that's not likely to happen either as people want what they want, and justify it anyway they can.

New "laws" seldom solve a complex problem, but simply make the masses feel better as well as give politicians a way to claim effectiveness in office.

Seems to me a ban on Ivory will merely drive up the cost, and consequently increase the poaching due to greater value.

 

[22-rimfire]

Straitr, I agree. It is my opinion that people will have a basic gut support or lack of support for such a law and seldom will comments on this forum change any or many people's minds or attitudes. So, my suggestion is to contact your political representatives, especially if you live in NJ and speak your mind...yeah or ney.

 

[Twindog]

We know that elephants are being slaughtered at a horrendous rate by poachers seeking ivory.

We know that the major demand for that ivory comes mostly from China, other parts of Asia and the US.

We know that the US imports tons and tons of illegal ivory each year, both as raw ivory and as products made illegally in China and other places.

We know that the current laws banning ivory after the ban date do not work because they depend on the honor system.

We know that knife groups and anti-ban advocates have no other solution.

So either we just sit back and watch elephants go extinct, or we fix our current laws by stiffening the ban to include the sale and purchase of all ivory. A total ban is far, far easier to enforce than a partial ban that is basically run on the honor system. It's time we wake up to our shortcomings as stewards of the earth and, as a species, begin to act honorably. We'll be doing ourselves a favor, as well as the elephants. We have more than 7 billion people on this planet -- going on 15 billion. We can't all do whatever we want.

 

[Charlie_K]

Oh like that's ever done any good. Even if we honorable, reasonable individuals give up our ivory, there's millions of people in the US who will still demand ivory, and still fuel the illegal importation of contraband ivory, furthering the poaching of elephants. What you support will ultimately do no good whatsoever. It's just another example of "I want others to think that I'm part of the solution so I'll do whatever sounds good, but ultimately will be nothing more than a joke."

 

[Gadfly22]

It would be just swell if we could patrol huge expanses of African wilderness or require sovereign countries plagued with poverty, militants and a dearth of resources to solve the ivory problem all on their own. But, despite some increased efforts against poachers, there isn't much that can be done effectively on the supply side.

So countries that hope to have some moral leadership on the issue have to do something on the demand side. So they enact a ban that affects a tiny minority of citizens in a miniscule economic way that might have some effect on the price of poached ivory and so some effect on the level of poaching. No, it doesn't solve the problem, which has to be tackled with diplomatic efforts, financial contributions and moral exertion, but it should have some effect on the illegal ivory market.

Aside from an outrage hungry fringe that resents even reasonable restrictions on what they perceive as a "right", the ivory ban has broad public support (e.g., 80% of NYers polled http://www.wcs.org/press/press-releases/new-york-state-ivory-poll.aspx). So I'm for it, and for any other reasonable step that contributes to stopping the slaughter of elephants and the flow of blood money that the ivory trade funds.

 

[Bigfatts]

But the very problem with this particular ban is that it's not reasonable. I don't care 2 craps whether elephant ivory is banned or not, within reason. Aged ivory is distinguishable from distressed ivory, from ancient ivory or from elephant ivory-like substances to someone who knows what they're looking at. So should we ban all these other non-illegal substances just because it's easier than training the people who will enforce these laws to be able to distinguish them? Do you think that every police officer just knows how to tell the difference between cocaine or other powdery substances? Between crack or meth vs a sugar or salt crystal? Nope. It takes training. But maybe banning is better because it's easier- and cheaper, than taking real steps to impact the problem without having a drastic negative impact on people just trying to live their lives.

 

[mk.ultra]

As long as there isn't an FRN or G-10 ban I'm quite content

 

[22-rimfire]

It would be just swell if we could patrol huge expanses of African wilderness or require sovereign countries plagued with poverty, militants and a dearth of resources to solve the ivory problem all on their own. But, despite some increased efforts against poachers, there isn't much that can be done effectively on the supply side.

I think that if there are so many in the US and Great Brittian so opposed to the poaching of elephants in these countrys, just maybe they could combine their resources (aka money) and hire competent wildlife security people who will enforce these country's laws on such things. Why penalize normal Americans because of the acts of a few? Call the UN....


As far as the importation of illegal ivory into the US, I'm sure it happens. But it is a tiny portion of the market for ivory in my opinion. We already have laws against the illegal importation of ivory into the US. Let law enforcement do their job. Blood money.... great term.... about like "assault rifle"; catchy.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

Ivory has great monetary value. That alone endangers elephants. How can we save them? By monetizing the elephants themselves, not just the ivory.

Encourage hunting, with the attendant jobs, and the fees and associated costs for travel and amenities in the wild, and poor nations will protect their elephant hunts more assiduously than they protect their elephants now. Because they will profit by it, and not leave the poachers to interfere with this.

 

[Gadfly22]

I think that if there are so many in the US and Great Brittian so opposed to the poaching of elephants in these countrys, just maybe they could combine their resources (aka money) and hire competent wildlife security people who will enforce these country's laws on such things. Why penalize normal Americans because of the acts of a few? Call the UN....


As far as the importation of illegal ivory into the US, I'm sure it happens. But it is a tiny portion of the market for ivory in my opinion. We already have laws against the illegal importation of ivory into the US. Let law enforcement do their job. Blood money.... great term.... about like "assault rifle"; catchy.

Sorry but your idea about hiring "competent wildlife security people" to enforce laws across sovereign countries on a huge continent is -- to put it mildly -- laughable. Maybe you should suggest using magic or wishing really really hard?

And yes, we have laws about the importation of ivory. And they're not working very well on the supply side. Hence the use of laws to limit the demand side.

As I said before, the number of toes being stepped on is very very small, and those toes aren't being stepped on very hard. No one is throwing your existing ivory products on a bonfire. Yes, the law has flaws. Here's a surprise: all laws do.

 

[Charlie_K]

No one is throwing your existing ivory products on a bonfire.

Not yet. But there's nothing to stop it from happening at a later date. And don't try to deny that fact.

 

[Bigfatts]

As I said before, the number of toes being stepped on is very very small, and those toes aren't being stepped on very hard. No one is throwing your existing ivory products on a bonfire. Yes, the law has flaws. Here's a surprise: all laws do.

You make the points against this law pretty well. It's a flawed law that if enacted will step on the toes of many more people than you think. But just because laws generally have flaws doesn't mean we should just push them through willy-nilly instead of trying to improve them. In the case of this law, the flaws outweigh the actual good it will do. Should it be altogether scrapped? No. Should this particular iteration of the law be rejected so that it can be rewritten? Yes.

Esav has a great point. The countries who allow trophy hunting have much safer elephant populations than those countries that do not allow it. Why? Because a trophy elephant tag averages between $60-100k from what I've seen. That money goes to the government. It funds wildlife officers to protect the now valuable game animals. It buys land that will be dedicated to hunting and conservation. I remember a couple years ago people going up in arms over an episode of Dangerous Game where the hunters were escorted by armed military personnel. They assumed the AKs these men carried were to somehow take game. It turned out that those men were there to deal with poachers if they ran across any. More eyes in the field watching game means safer elephants.

All the laws in the world will not stop the ivory trade so long as the elephants have no value in the eyes of the governments. We can lead by moral example all we want but nothing will improve until African governments stop turning a blind eye to what goes on inside their borders and start taking some of the responsibility.

 

[Gadfly22]

You make the points against this law pretty well. It's a flawed law that if enacted will step on the toes of many more people than you think. But just because laws generally have flaws doesn't mean we should just push them through willy-nilly instead of trying to improve them. In the case of this law, the flaws outweigh the actual good it will do. Should it be altogether scrapped? No. Should this particular iteration of the law be rejected so that it can be rewritten? Yes.

Esav has a great point. The countries who allow trophy hunting have much safer elephant populations than those countries that do not allow it. Why? Because a trophy elephant tag averages between $60-100k from what I've seen. That money goes to the government. It funds wildlife officers to protect the now valuable game animals. It buys land that will be dedicated to hunting and conservation. I remember a couple years ago people going up in arms over an episode of Dangerous Game where the hunters were escorted by armed military personnel. They assumed the AKs these men carried were to somehow take game. It turned out that those men were there to deal with poachers if they ran across any. More eyes in the field watching game means safer elephants.

All the laws in the world will not stop the ivory trade so long as the elephants have no value in the eyes of the governments. We can lead by moral example all we want but nothing will improve until African governments stop turning a blind eye to what goes on inside their borders and start taking some of the responsibility.

But the problem is that the US doesn't control those African governments or their policies, and those African governments can't possible control the huge land area at issue. I'm certainly in favor of EVERY policy that reduces illegal poaching. And trying to control the US market is one more arrow in the quiver.