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

[Bigfatts]

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.

True enough in some cases. But just because an outright ban on everything that ivory can be confused with is an answer doesn't mean it is the answer. Toughen the laws we have, increase enforcement, increase penalties, etc.

 

[Gadfly22]

True enough in some cases. But just because an outright ban on everything that ivory can be confused with is an answer doesn't mean it is the answer. Toughen the laws we have, increase enforcement, increase penalties, etc.

Banning ivory trade IS toughening the law, we have no control over enforcement on the ground in foreign countries, and this law DOES increase penalties. Again, I've heard no practical alternatives to tightening control over the ivory trade on the demand side other than magical thinking about boots on the ground in Africa as though it's the size of the smallest county in Rhode Island. Africa is huge, it's politically complicated, not least because of its colonial history, and it's institutions are rife with corruption. The US can try to control only what it can try to control on its own, and that's the demand side of the equation.

 

[Fred Sanford]

Sorry but I just think that Knife Rights trying to defend Ivory looks bad. Most people will not read the details. They will simply see a "knife owner club" that is trying to keep using Ivory for the handles of the knives they like to buy.

I want no part of this. Thanks.

Maybe stick to actual "knife rights".....not handle material rights.

 

[Bigfatts]

Banning ivory trade IS toughening the law, we have no control over enforcement on the ground in foreign countries, and this law DOES increase penalties. Again, I've heard no practical alternatives to tightening control over the ivory trade on the demand side other than magical thinking about boots on the ground in Africa as though it's the size of the smallest county in Rhode Island. Africa is huge, it's politically complicated, not least because of its colonial history, and it's institutions are rife with corruption. The US can try to control only what it can try to control on its own, and that's the demand side of the equation.

It also creates penalties for non-ivory substances. That is the reason to fight this law. Not to say that the ivory trade is a good thing. I haven't seen one person in this thread say the ivory trade is a good thing. But why should we make everyday people into criminals by creating restrictions on non-ivory substances? Say you have a custom folder worth $3000 with mammoth bark on it and this law passes. Guess what, your investment is now worthless. You can throw it away or just forget you own it. The knife world would be full of this. And that's just one industry. Do you think all those people whose investments are turned into contraband will just let it go? No. Some of them will become criminals for no reason. That's why this law should not pass as it is. Improve it, rewrite it. Then bring it back. Don't penalize the American people for warm fuzzy feelings.

 

[Gadfly22]

It also creates penalties for non-ivory substances. That is the reason to fight this law. Not to say that the ivory trade is a good thing. I haven't seen one person in this thread say the ivory trade is a good thing. But why should we make everyday people into criminals by creating restrictions on non-ivory substances? Say you have a custom folder worth $3000 with mammoth bark on it and this law passes. Guess what, your investment is now worthless. You can throw it away or just forget you own it. The knife world would be full of this. And that's just one industry. Do you think all those people whose investments are turned into contraband will just let it go? No. Some of them will become criminals for no reason. That's why this law should not pass as it is. Improve it, rewrite it. Then bring it back. Don't penalize the American people for warm fuzzy feelings.

No your "investment" isn't worthless if you were interested in knives and not knife trade. You get to keep it, use it, and pass it along as an heirloom. You're not a criminal if you do any of those things. And, again, the number of people wanting to profit from selling their ivory-related knives is tiny, and the number of people in favor of the law is huge. As someone else pointed out above, this kind of over-reaction is what gives real concern over knife rights a bad name.

When they outlaw trade in SV30 or G10, let me know. Then I'll be concerned that knife laws have gone overboard. Ban trade -- just trade, not ownership -- of a handle material in a tiny minority of specialty knives, and I can still sleep at night.

 

[Bigfatts]

No your "investment" isn't worthless if you were interested in knives and not knife trade. You get to keep it, use it, and pass it along as an heirloom. You're not a criminal if you do any of those things. And, again, the number of people wanting to profit from selling their ivory-related knives is tiny, and the number of people in favor of the law is huge. As someone else pointed out above, this kind of over-reaction is what gives real concern over knife rights a bad name.

When they outlaw trade in SV30 or G10, let me know. Then I'll be concerned that knife laws have gone overboard. Ban trade -- just trade, not ownership -- of a handle material in a tiny minority of specialty knives, and I can still sleep at night.

And if it was only knives concerned it wouldn't be such a big deal. And what about people who do deal in knives? What about big name dealers whose bread and butter is specialty custom knives? How big of a hit would people like Arizona Custom knives take? Or the other big retailers who deal in custom knives? Or the makers who spent a big chunk of change to be able to offer that fossil as an option? But we don't care right? Make all the arguments you like, it won't change the fact that this law is poorly thought out and will have a negative impact far beyond our little corner of the internet. I can't say I have the solution in my pocket, I don't. But I have enough common sense to Recognize a bad idea when I see it. And the reality is, what we think has little bearing on whether laws pass or not.

 

[plue]

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.

Great summary, hopefully the whole world can smarten up and this type of ban can go global. Way to step up America.

 

[RedLynx]

And if it was only knives concerned it wouldn't be such a big deal. And what about people who do deal in knives? What about big name dealers whose bread and butter is specialty custom knives? How big of a hit would people like Arizona Custom knives take? Or the other big retailers who deal in custom knives? Or the makers who spent a big chunk of change to be able to offer that fossil as an option? But we don't care right? Make all the arguments you like, it won't change the fact that this law is poorly thought out and will have a negative impact far beyond our little corner of the internet. I can't say I have the solution in my pocket, I don't. But I have enough common sense to Recognize a bad idea when I see it. And the reality is, what we think has little bearing on whether laws pass or not.

Bolded point above is, sadly, the most truth in the entire thread, whatever stance we take. Personally I must admit, I don't very much care but, Bigfatts, would you happen to know what portion of sales custom makers like those you mentioned do based on ivory-handled items? I mean as opposed to others... I don't own any custom knives and am unfamiliar with all of the options for handles but I know there must be other popular ones. I suppose ivory is quite popular, but I don't know the custom market as well as I do production, perhaps you could enlighten me as to just how popular it is, particularly for those small custom shops whose business it is. I'd be quite interested.

(Totally not being facetious at all so I hope it doesn't come across that way).

 

[Bigfatts]

Bolded point above is, sadly, the most truth in the entire thread, whatever stance we take. Personally I must admit, I don't very much care but, Bigfatts, would you happen to know what portion of sales custom makers like those you mentioned do based on ivory-handled items? I mean as opposed to others... I don't own any custom knives and am unfamiliar with all of the options for handles but I know there must be other popular ones. I suppose ivory is quite popular, but I don't know the custom market as well as I do production, perhaps you could enlighten me as to just how popular it is, particularly for those small custom shops whose business it is. I'd be quite interested.


(Totally not being facetious at all so I hope it doesn't come across that way).

Man, I honestly couldn't even begin to guess at the inventory custom knife dealers keep. From what I have seen, I don't think elephant ivory is a very common handle material at all. I think this is due mostly to the scarcity of preban ivory available and the overwhelmingly negative stigma attached to it. I see it only occasionally and mostly on art knives that involve scrimshaw. And I've seen that even a lot of scrimshaw artists no longer use elephant ivory, turning instead to the alternatives this law would also affect.

Mammoth/mastodon however is pretty common, even production makers use it. I have seen William Henry, CRK and other mainstream knife companies use it. So it isn't just the small custom makers or people who collect their works that would be affected. And like I said earlier, I don't care too much about banning modern elephant ivory, I have no interest in owning anything made with it. But a William Henry or something similar with Mammoth bark is something I would someday like to own. The nonelephant ivory items the law would mess with are pretty much my only concern.

ETA:
Something else I just thought of. If you like classic European and safari styled rifles as I do and you are building or restoring a rifle an ivory bead front sight is almost a must. Now unless you score a rifle that has one a new sight is your only option. Ivory no longer really being an option there are companies making beaded fromt sights from Warthog tusk and other ivory alternatives. Just one more little thing that would be affected.

 

[RedLynx]

Man, I honestly couldn't even begin to guess at the inventory custom knife dealers keep. From what I have seen, I don't think elephant ivory is a very common handle material at all. I see it only occasionally. Mammoth/mastodon however is pretty common, even production makers use it. I have seen William Henry, CRK and other mainstream knife companies use it. So it isn't just the small custom makers or people who collect their works that would be affected. And like I said earlier, I don't care too much about banning modern elephant ivory, I have no interest in owning anything made with it. But a William Henry or something similar with Mammoth bark is something I would someday like to own. The nonelephant ivory items the law would mess with are pretty much my only concern.

That really clarifies things/your position for me, thanks.

 

[HappyDaddy]

If NJ bans it, doesn't that leave more for the rest of us?

 

[Gadfly22]

And if it was only knives concerned it wouldn't be such a big deal. And what about people who do deal in knives? What about big name dealers whose bread and butter is specialty custom knives? How big of a hit would people like Arizona Custom knives take? Or the other big retailers who deal in custom knives? Or the makers who spent a big chunk of change to be able to offer that fossil as an option? But we don't care right? Make all the arguments you like, it won't change the fact that this law is poorly thought out and will have a negative impact far beyond our little corner of the internet. I can't say I have the solution in my pocket, I don't. But I have enough common sense to Recognize a bad idea when I see it. And the reality is, what we think has little bearing on whether laws pass or not.

The only flaw in the law that you point out is the inclusion of mammoth ivory. If that inclusion is a flaw at all it's a minor one that doesn't justify scrapping the whole law or the concept. And it may not even be a flaw. It could be that the idea is not to put the burden on law enforcement or customs officials of deciding whether a material is banned ivory or ok mammoth. Maybe the traffickers in mammoth ivory are some of the biggest traffickers in banned ivory.

In any case, the benefit is to do something to strangle trade in ivory on the demand side, the to the cost to the economy is minor and the number of people affected is minuscule. For knife people to put their desire for a particular William Henry above a broad and serious attempt at wildlife conservation makes us look like the worst kind of selfish extremists who can't bear the smallest perceived intrusion on their so-called "rights".

 

[Salo]

Is holding on to something made of ivory just because it's "pretty" worth pushing a species to extinction to do so? I think the world would be a better place if ppl voluntarily surrendered their ivory pre-ban or not. There are other alternatives and sometimes you need to do what is right rather than what is fair.

 

[TAH]

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.

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.

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..

Bingo! Proper game management. :thumbup:

 

[Bigfatts]

The only flaw in the law that you point out is the inclusion of mammoth ivory. If that inclusion is a flaw at all it's a minor one that doesn't justify scrapping the whole law or the concept. And it may not even be a flaw. It could be that the idea is not to put the burden on law enforcement or customs officials of deciding whether a material is banned ivory or ok mammoth. Maybe the traffickers in mammoth ivory are some of the biggest traffickers in banned ivory.

In any case, the benefit is to do something to strangle trade in ivory on the demand side, the to the cost to the economy is minor and the number of people affected is minuscule. For knife people to put their desire for a particular William Henry above a broad and serious attempt at wildlife conservation makes us look like the worst kind of selfish extremists who can't bear the smallest perceived intrusion on their so-called "rights".

Part of your point is exactly what I have said over and over. We don't need to scrap the idea altogether. But this particular iteration of the law should not pass as it is currently written. Fossilized Mammoth is just one material that would be affected. I referenced it quite a bit in my previous comments because it is what I and others are probably more familiar with as it pertains to the knife world. Other ivory like substances from other nonendangered animals are also included in the law right alongside ivory and Rhino horn. Just because it will only negatively impact a few people is no reason to pass a flawed bill.

 

[Gadfly22]

Part of your point is exactly what I have said over and over. We don't need to scrap the idea altogether. But this particular iteration of the law should not pass as it is currently written. Fossilized Mammoth is just one material that would be affected. I referenced it quite a bit in my previous comments because it is what I and others are probably more familiar with as it pertains to the knife world. Other ivory like substances from other nonendangered animals are also included in the law right alongside ivory and Rhino horn. Just because it will only negatively impact a few people is no reason to pass a flawed bill.

I'm afraid you have it backwards. Just because a few people are negatively affected by a law is no reason to scrap it if it has overriding beneficial effects. And this proposed law -- to put it simply -- does more good (in restricting trade in substances from endangered animals) than harm (preventing a tiny minority of luxury knife owners - themselves a small minority of knife fanciers -- from trading in those substances).

And for the record, the reason for the mammoth ban is exactly as I supposed:

"By prohibiting currently-legal transactions of antiques and mammoth ivory, the bill closes two of the loopholes most commonly used by ivory traffickers: pretending their items are mammoth or old, and thus legal, when they’re really from often recently-killed elephants."

Referring to a NY bill: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/epepper/new_york_bill_would_ban_elepha.html

In short, there was a very good rationale for including mammoth ivory in the overall ban, so it isn't at all the flaw that you have tried to paint it. It's just that illegal traffickers in ivory (shock!) can't be trusted to label their materials truthfully.

 

[Bigfatts]

I just don't see how a modern piece of ivory can effectively be passed off as a fossil. Maybe to someone who doesn't know what they're looking at, but to someone who is familiar with the differences, as the people who enforce these laws should be, the distinction should be there. And I still think a law of this nature is taking the easy/cheap way out instead of taking a hands on approach to weed out the scumbags. But I guess that's why we never get to have nice things, there's always someone willing to muck it up for the rest of us.

Either way, I'm afraid the wild African Elephant's days are numbered in many African nations, and that for sure is a sad thing. If history has taught us anything, it's that man doesn't care about what is not important to him personally, especially when it comes to animals.

 

[Gadfly22]

I just don't see how a modern piece of ivory can effectively be passed off as a fossil. Maybe to someone who doesn't know what they're looking at, but to someone who is familiar with the differences, as the people who enforce these laws should be, the distinction should be there. And I still think a law of this nature is taking the easy/cheap way out instead of taking a hands on approach to weed out the scumbags. But I guess that's why we never get to have nice things, there's always someone willing to muck it up for the rest of us.

Either way, I'm afraid the wild African Elephant's days are numbered in many African nations, and that for sure is a sad thing. If history has taught us anything, it's that man doesn't care about what is not important to him personally, especially when it comes to animals.

Well, there are certainly ways to differentiate mammoth ivory from elephant ivory -- but it's not as easy as just eyeballing the stuff:

http://www.fws.gov/lab/ivory_natural.php#elephant

Now imagine using Schreger lines on multiple items in a crate full of ivory-like material. I think the practical difficulty of doing so makes the law as proposed inevitable.

And the "scumbags" -- poachers, corrupt officials, smugglers -- are far away in countries the US has no control over. I'd like the poachers wiped from the face of the earth too, but the officials charged with monitoring the huge expanses at issue are outmanned, outgunned and outspent.

It's a sorry state of affairs, but such is the way of the world.

 

[22-rimfire]

Has banning some of the other materials from currently endangered species been effective? If not, what's the point?

 

[Gadfly22]

Has banning some of the other materials from currently endangered species been effective? If not, what's the point?

I think the answer is "yes", but I don't have hard numbers. But consider this: would the shrinking populations of leopards and tigers even be at their currently small levels if the trade in skins (e.g., for coats and other apparel) had not been banned in the US decades ago?

http://www.endangeredspecieshandbook.org/trade_spotted.php