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

[Gadfly22]

Perhaps you should actually read my posts before you respond to them. Because in post #105 and #110 I clearly said that the ivory owners should pay for testing. And in post #112 where I specifically suggested that the ivory owners pay a fee for certification of their legally owned ivory. Nowhere did I say that tax payers should pay for anything. In fact, as I clearly stated, perhaps the certification fees, as well as the sales tax that the buyers of legal ivory products would pay, would help out a financially strapped New Jersey.

Think about how impractical your suggestion is. It would take 20-30 days and $177 per test per sample, no matter who was paying for it. And how big a chunk of ivory would be needed for that sample. We're not talking about a large amount of peat or an ancient log that someone could hack a piece out of. You're talking about what could be delicate art or -- more pertinently -- a finely wrought knife handle. Again, you're simply divorced from the reality of the situation.

 

[Gadfly22]

If the point of the law is to prevent the sale of poached ivory, reduce the illegal ivory trade, and prevent the killing of elephants, banning the sale of fossilized ivory from animals that lived and died hundreds of thousands of years ago, will not possibly save any elephants living today or have any impact on poaching.

Whether a piece of ivory came from a prehistoric mammoth, or a prehistoric elephant, is completely irrelevant to the subject of modern day poaching. Whichever animal the ivory came from, those animals are long dead, and they weren't killed by poachers. So there's no rational reason to ban the sale of their ivory in the name of poaching.

The proposed law doesn't ban the ownership of ivory, it prohibits it's sale, import, possession with intent to sell, etc. So clearly the lawmakers see nothing wrong with OWNING ivory, or even passing it from one generation to the next, the law is intended solely to prevent any trafficking in ivory.

And as far as any damage done to a piece of ivory from testing, whether or not a person is willing to sacrifice a very small sample of their legal ivory for testing would be THEIR choice. So I see no reason why you would care about that.

The point of the law is to make it economically NOT worthwhile to hunt and kill elephants, because neither you nor your buyer could sell within the banned market. There is no reasonable and economical way to tell mammoth ivory from ancient elephant ivory from modern elephant ivory. That's the reason for the blanket ban. If someone had a foolproof, fast, cheap test that could be used to deal with ivory articles -- ideally in bulk -- that would be great, and a more targeted law would be feasible. With the cost of current technology, the high chance of fraud and the amount of ivory potentially at issue, only a blanket ban is currently feasible, and wishful thinking about impractical "solutions" that would let you fix the law can't change those facts.

 

[killgar]

I think perhaps that some people aren't aware that the United States, as a country, has had a ban on imported elephant ivory since 1976. That ban is still in place today and is strictly enforced by the Obama administration. Whether the New Jersey law passes or not that federal ban will still remain in place, and no one here is saying that it shouldn't.

Since there is already a national ban in place, whether the New Jersey law passes or not will have no affect on poaching, or the lives of elephants, because the federal law already prohibits the importation of elephant ivory. A state law that affects only that one state isn't going to have more power than the federal law, or add any power to a federal law that already covers the entire country.

All the New Jersey law does is address the trafficking of ivory in that state alone, it has no affect on the trafficking of ivory in other states. More specifically, all it does is prohibit ivory from being brought into New Jersey, and prohibits people from selling legally owned ivory in New Jersey that is already in New Jersey. What it doesn't do is prohibit ivory owners from taking their ivory out of New Jersey and selling it in other states. Whether the law passes or not, the buying and selling of ivory will continue in other states.

What the law does do is deny citizens of that state the freedom to sell legally obtained, and legally owned property, as they wish in that state. And personally, I consider a law that infringes on the freedoms of a citizen of this country in such a way to be un-American. Neither a state government, nor the federal government should infringe on a persons right to sell legally obtained, and legally owned property, as they see fit, when that property can't possibly cause harm to anyone.

Furthermore, this law would require the criminal prosecution of people in that state who choose to sell their legally obtained, and legally owned property, despite the fact that doing so would not cause harm to anyone. If a person were arrested, prosecuted, and denied of their liberty because they choose to sell a family heirloom made of ivory, or any other item that contained even the smallest piece of legal ivory, I would call that an injustice.

As far as telling the difference between ivory products, there is a big difference between fossilized ivory and non-fossilized ivory. Fossilized ivory is ivory that has undergone a process of mineralization that takes at least 10,000 years. There are no expensive tests that need to be performed, and no carbon dating required to distinguish fossilized ivory from non-fossilized ivory. And it is impossible to fake the mineralization process that creates fossilized ivory. Therefore, since fossilized ivory can easily and definitively be distinguished from non-fossilized ivory, and since fossilized ivory didn't come from any poached elephants, there is no logical reason to prohibit trade in fossilized ivory, which this law does.

As far as legally owned items already in New Jersey that are made of non-fossilized elephant ivory, again, a simple method of certification that shows the item was in the state before the law, paid for by the ivory owner, could be used to allow them to sell their legally owned ivory in that state.

And then there are the non-elephant species of ivory that are legal to own and import into this country (walrus, boar, etc). Such forms of ivory are easily distinguishable from elephant ivory. The sale of such items has no impact on the lives of elephants. And once again, the New Jersey law would deny its citizens the freedom to import and/or sell such legal items inside that state, and make criminals of those who do.

As far as saving elephants is concerned, I'm all in favor of it, but there are other countries on this planet who have a high demand for ivory, and no law here in the US is going to stop that. The people outside the US who want elephant ivory are buying up as much as they can get, so it's not like the poachers will loose any business as the result of any US, or New Jersey state law. Even with the total import ban on elephant ivory here in the US, the elephant ivory trade is booming in other countries. And the laws of New Jersey aren't going to have the slightest effect on that, or save a single elephant.

 

[Sidehill Gouger]

I think perhaps that some people aren't aware that the United States, as a country, has had a ban on imported elephant ivory since 1976. That ban is still in place today and is strictly enforced by the Obama administration. Whether the New Jersey law passes or not that federal ban will still remain in place, and no one here is saying that it shouldn't.

Since there is already a national ban in place, whether the New Jersey law passes or not will have no affect on poaching, or the lives of elephants, because the federal law already prohibits the importation of elephant ivory. A state law that affects only that one state isn't going to have more power than the federal law, or add any power to a federal law that already covers the entire country.

All the New Jersey law does is address the trafficking of ivory in that state alone, it has no affect on the trafficking of ivory in other states. More specifically, all it does is prohibit ivory from being brought into New Jersey, and prohibits people from selling legally owned ivory in New Jersey that is already in New Jersey. What it doesn't do is prohibit ivory owners from taking their ivory out of New Jersey and selling it in other states. Whether the law passes or not, the buying and selling of ivory will continue in other states.

What the law does do is deny citizens of that state the freedom to sell legally obtained, and legally owned property, as they wish in that state. And personally, I consider a law that infringes on the freedoms of a citizen of this country in such a way to be un-American. Neither a state government, nor the federal government should infringe on a persons right to sell legally obtained, and legally owned property, as they see fit, when that property can't possibly cause harm to anyone.

Furthermore, this law would require the criminal prosecution of people in that state who choose to sell their legally obtained, and legally owned property, despite the fact that doing so would not cause harm to anyone. If a person were arrested, prosecuted, and denied of their liberty because they choose to sell a family heirloom made of ivory, or any other item that contained even the smallest piece of legal ivory, I would call that an injustice.

As far as telling the difference between ivory products, there is a big difference between fossilized ivory and non-fossilized ivory. Fossilized ivory is ivory that has undergone a process of mineralization that takes at least 10,000 years. There are no expensive tests that need to be performed, and no carbon dating required to distinguish fossilized ivory from non-fossilized ivory. And it is impossible to fake the mineralization process that creates fossilized ivory. Therefore, since fossilized ivory can easily and definitively be distinguished from non-fossilized ivory, and since fossilized ivory didn't come from any poached elephants, there is no logical reason to prohibit trade in fossilized ivory, which this law does.

As far as legally owned items already in New Jersey that are made of non-fossilized elephant ivory, again, a simple method of certification that shows the item was in the state before the law, paid for by the ivory owner, could be used to allow them to sell their legally owned ivory in that state.

And then there are the non-elephant species of ivory that are legal to own and import into this country (walrus, boar, etc). Such forms of ivory are easily distinguishable from elephant ivory. The sale of such items has no impact on the lives of elephants. And once again, the New Jersey law would deny its citizens the freedom to import and/or sell such legal items inside that state, and make criminals of those who do.

As far as saving elephants is concerned, I'm all in favor of it, but there are other countries on this planet who have a high demand for ivory, and no law here in the US is going to stop that. The people outside the US who want elephant ivory are buying up as much as they can get, so it's not like the poachers will loose any business as the result of any US, or New Jersey state law. Even with the total import ban on elephant ivory here in the US, the elephant ivory trade is booming in other countries. And the laws of New Jersey aren't going to have the slightest effect on that, or save a single elephant.

Finally, a post with some common sense in it. Everyone seems to be forgetting the heavy handed way the same people went after musical instrument makers and tropical hardwood a few years ago. I get the impression Aspergers syndrome is a lot more common than I thought.

 

[Shotgun]

I get the impression Aspergers syndrome is a lot more common than I thought.

What does highly intelligent people who have a hard time communicating with others have to do with this discussion?

 

[Gadfly22]

I think perhaps that some people aren't aware that the United States, as a country, has had a ban on imported elephant ivory since 1976. That ban is still in place today and is strictly enforced by the Obama administration. Whether the New Jersey law passes or not that federal ban will still remain in place, and no one here is saying that it shouldn't.

And the federal government is now going farther -- though not as far as NY and NJ: http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleas...t-to-combat-poaching-wildlife-trafficking.cfm . But the states have the right to go that extra step.


Since there is already a national ban in place, whether the New Jersey law passes or not will have no affect on poaching, or the lives of elephants, because the federal law already prohibits the importation of elephant ivory. A state law that affects only that one state isn't going to have more power than the federal law, or add any power to a federal law that already covers the entire country.

But the states have a right to enact their own laws if they feel a stricter enforcement is useful. And NY and NJ are large markets. We're not talking about Wyoming.


All the New Jersey law does is address the trafficking of ivory in that state alone, it has no affect on the trafficking of ivory in other states. More specifically, all it does is prohibit ivory from being brought into New Jersey, and prohibits people from selling legally owned ivory in New Jersey that is already in New Jersey. What it doesn't do is prohibit ivory owners from taking their ivory out of New Jersey and selling it in other states. Whether the law passes or not, the buying and selling of ivory will continue in other states.

Nope. See above re new federal rules.


What the law does do is deny citizens of that state the freedom to sell legally obtained, and legally owned property, as they wish in that state. And personally, I consider a law that infringes on the freedoms of a citizen of this country in such a way to be un-American. Neither a state government, nor the federal government should infringe on a persons right to sell legally obtained, and legally owned property, as they see fit, when that property can't possibly cause harm to anyone.

Furthermore, this law would require the criminal prosecution of people in that state who choose to sell their legally obtained, and legally owned property, despite the fact that doing so would not cause harm to anyone. If a person were arrested, prosecuted, and denied of their liberty because they choose to sell a family heirloom made of ivory, or any other item that contained even the smallest piece of ivory, I would call that an injustice.

You are unfamiliar with landmark law, which severely restricts the ability to deal with real property. It's a far harsher result, but, under federal law and the law of all 50 states, regulation of property isn't an unconstitutional "taking" and may be felt to be unjust. But where there are countervailing interests (e.g., wildlife conservation or, in the case of landmarks, some historical significance) that need to be taken into account, regulation is perfectly permissible, despite perceived injustice.

As far as telling the difference between ivory products, there is a big difference between fossilized ivory and non-fossilized ivory. Fossilized ivory is ivory that has undergone a process of mineralization that takes at least 10,000 years. There are no expensive tests that need to be performed, and no carbon dating required to distinguish fossilized ivory from non-fossilized ivory. And it is impossible to fake the mineralization process that creates fossilized ivory. Therefore, since fossilized ivory can easily and definitively be distinguished from non-fossilized ivory, and since fossilized ivory didn't come from any poached elephants, there is no logical reason to prohibit trade in fossilized ivory, which this law does.

No your facts are incorrect. See this discussion: http://www.gia.edu/gems-gemology-Spring-2013-zuowei-ivory . A quote: "The two materials [fossilized ivory and modern elephant ivory] look similar, and it is difficult to distinguish them with the unaided eye, especially when the fossil ivory is relatively unweathered."

As far as legally owned items already in New Jersey that are made of non-fossilized elephant ivory, again, a simple method of certification that shows the item was in the state before the law, paid for by the ivory owner, could be used to allow them to sell their legally owned ivory in that state.

The proposed federal rules adopt such an approach: "We will finalize a proposed rule that will reaffirm and clarify that sales across state lines are prohibited, except for bona fide antiques, and will prohibit sales within a state unless the seller can demonstrate an item was lawfully imported prior to 1990 for African elephants and 1975 for Asian elephants, or under an exemption document." NJ wants to go farther. You may disagree, but the state may feels its own enforcement is more cost-efficient than the federal approach.

And then there are the non-elephant species of ivory that are legal to own and import into this country (walrus, boar, etc). Such forms of ivory are easily distinguishable from elephant ivory. The sale of such items has no impact on the lives of elephants. And once again, the New Jersey law would deny its citizens the freedom to import and/or sell such legal items inside that state, and make criminals of those who do.

Walrus, hippo and narwhal are clearly included. Boar certainly could be, but it isn't expressly mentioned. And yes, total freedom is being curtailed -- but in the cause of wildlife conservation. It's a balancing of interests that you may not like, but as I posted earlier, 80% of NYers polled were in favor of the proposed NY law. I'd be surprised if the result in NJ were different.

As far as saving elephants is concerned, I'm all in favor of it, but there are other countries on this planet who have a high demand for ivory, and no law here in the US is going to stop that. The people outside the US who want elephant ivory are buying up as much as they can get, so it's not like the poachers will loose any business as the result of any US, or New Jersey state law. Even with the total import ban on elephant ivory here in the US, the elephant ivory trade is booming in other countries. And the laws of New Jersey aren't going to have the slightest effect on that, or save a single elephant.

You keep harping about the ineffectiveness of the NJ law without recognizing that NJ presents a large and lucrative market and, along with NY, will contain a number of wealthy collectors. Knock out that metropolitan market, and you may affect the overall US trade (which will be helped by the federal ban) and you may well affect global trade. With the result that you do in fact save some elephants. A majority of citizens -- per that NY poll -- think it's at least worth the effort to try.

 

[killgar]

You keep harping about the ineffectiveness of the NJ law without recognizing that NJ presents a large and lucrative market and, along with NY, will contain a number of wealthy collectors. Knock out that metropolitan market, and you may affect the overall US trade (which will be helped by the federal ban) and you may well affect global trade. With the result that you do in fact save some elephants. A majority of citizens -- per that NY poll -- think it's at least worth the effort to try.

I certainly wouldn't want the laws of my state to be based on any opinion poll taken in New York. It wouldn't surprise me if 80% of New Yorkers were in favor of banning firearm ownership and the carrying of knives. If you are suggesting that because 80% of New Yorkers asked in an opinion poll said that they are in favor of a law, that said law is automatically a good thing, then I would have to disagree with you. I would need more convincing than just the opinion of some people in New York who took the time to answer some polling questions.

As far as the fairness of the proposed law in New Jersey and it's level of justice or injustice, we can agree to disagree on that. My opinion is that the infringement on personal freedom that would result from the law outweighs any benefits to wildlife. But that's my opinion, clearly we disagree.

As for your assertion that New Jersey is a "large and lucrative market" for ivory, can you provide any data to support that (I'm truly curious)? Is there any data to show that there is such a high demand for ivory in New Jersey that such a law is necessary?

As for the article you provided regarding the differences between fossilized ivory and modern ivory, the quote you provided from the begging of that article is correct "it is difficult to distinguish them with the unaided eye". But further on down the article clearly showed that UV light can tell the difference. UV lights are both common and relatively inexpensive. Many modern flashlights are available with UV light. And at the end of the article it said- "Microscopic examination of fossil ivory samples revealed broken lines, cracks, long channels, and grooves that were not seen in the modern ivory samples. The infrared spectrum of modern elephant ivory showed distinct absorption peaks related to collagen, while fossil ivory did not show these peaks". So it appears to me that all a person needs to tell the difference between modern ivory and fossil ivory is a simple microscope or a UV light. That doesn't sound all that difficult or expensive.

And the article you provided in post #78 says the same thing about telling the difference using UV light.

In the end, it will be the democratic process that decides the fate of the law, and not a debate on a knife forum. One of the great things about this country is that it's citizens have the ability to petition their elected leaders to pass or reject a law based on their beliefs and desires. In any event, I respect your opinion, support your right to have it, and support your right as an American to request that your governor pass this law. Democracy in action is a wonderful thing, even if I don't always agree with the outcome.

 

[Gadfly22]

I certainly wouldn't want the laws of my state to be based on any opinion poll taken in New York. It wouldn't surprise me if 80% of New Yorkers were in favor of banning firearm ownership and the carrying of knives. If you are suggesting that because 80% of New Yorkers asked in an opinion poll said that they are in favor of a law, that said law is automatically a good thing, then I would have to disagree with you. I would need more convincing than just the opinion of some people in New York who took the time to answer some polling questions.

No, a majority in favor of a particular law is not necessarily a good thing. But it does reflect a strong popular opinion that lawmakers would be hard-pressed to fight against, especially given the potential good that the law might do.

As far as the fairness of the proposed law in New Jersey and it's level of justice or injustice, we can agree to disagree on that. My opinion is that the infringement on personal freedom that would result from the law outweighs any benefits to wildlife. But that's my opinion, clearly we disagree.

Yes, we have to disagree on that.

As for your assertion that New Jersey is a "large and lucrative market" for ivory, can you provide any data to support that (I'm truly curious)? Is there any data to show that there is such a high demand for ivory in New Jersey that such a law is necessary?

I'm not in the art trade, but I do happen to review a number of appraisals of personal property in NJ and NY. You'll find a surprising number of dining ware settings with ivory handled pieces, carved art, picture frames and other pieces, especially from the Victorian era. Ivory is in a lot of places, and you don't have to be a fine art collector to have acquired some pieces. So personal experience rather than hard data is my guide on this point.

As for the article you provided regarding the differences between fossilized ivory and modern ivory, the quote you provided from the begging of that article is correct "it is difficult to distinguish them with the unaided eye". But further on down the article clearly showed that UV light can tell the difference. UV lights are both common and relatively inexpensive. Many modern flashlights are available with UV light. And at the end of the article it said- "Microscopic examination of fossil ivory samples revealed broken lines, cracks, long channels, and grooves that were not seen in the modern ivory samples. The infrared spectrum of modern elephant ivory showed distinct absorption peaks related to collagen, while fossil ivory did not show these peaks". So it appears to me that all a person needs to tell the difference between modern ivory and fossil ivory is a simple microscope or a UV light. That doesn't sound all that difficult or expensive.


And the article you provided in post #78 says the same thing about telling the difference using UV light.

None of that article suggested that any of the techniques used were easy or within the grasp of a non-expert. All were complex lab tests or required significant scientific equipment For example, ". Samples or sample portions from both ivory types were carefully ground with carborundum until they became nearly transparent thin sections for examination with the petrographic microscope. A Quanta 200 scanning electron microscope at the China University of Geosciences in Wuhan was used for this study." Or this re microscopic analysis: "Therefore, identification of fossil and modern ivories based on Schreger angles requires caution. Ivory ornaments cut from different layers of the tusk, or cut at a slightly different angle relative to the length of the tusk, can have varying Schreger angles. That's the exact problem." And certain of the tests required catastrophic damage to the items being tested (note the "cut from" in the prior quote or this re microscopic testing: "The authors were allowed to cut one bead in half for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) testing." So the fact remains: there is no ready, easy or cheap way to test ivory.

In the end, it will be the democratic process that decides the fate of the law, and not a debate on a knife forum. One of the great things about this country is that it's citizens have the ability to petition their elected leaders to pass or reject a law based on their beliefs and desires. In any event, I respect your opinion, support your right to have it, and support your right as an American to request that your governor pass this law. Democracy in action is a wonderful thing, even if I don't always agree with the outcome.

Well, we agree on something then.

 

[Gadfly22]

And one clarification re the NJ law, from the legislative history: it "specifies that the import prohibition does not apply where the import is expressly authorized by federal license or permit". So the NJ law will not supersede federal law to the extent that importation is expressly permitted.

 

[TAH]

Although I mostly agree with killgar, I have to compliment both killgar and Gadfly22 for keeping their debate civil, respectful and polite. I've enjoyed reading both sides and Gadfly does make some good points too. You are both well spoken gentleman and it's a pleasure to read your posts.

 

[killgar]

Well, we agree on something then.

It doesn't surprise me that you have seen as much ivory as you have. I'm sure you know that ivory was once a very common and popular material for making everyday items back before plastics were invented. But I wouldn't assume that simply because people possess heirloom pieces of ivory that there is any demand for NEW ivory in New Jersey.

As far as the methods for distinguishing fossil ivory from modern, you are right that it was an electron microscope. My mistake on that part.

But as far as the UV light testing, it was not necessary to cut or damage the samples in order to conduct the tests (the pictures themselves show that). I didn't see where any exclusive type of UV light was used for the test. What I read in the article in post #78 is "It is of interest to note that when the discoloration is barely perceptive to the eye, the use of a hand-held ultraviolet light source causes the blemished area to stand out".

Whatever the case may be regarding the type of UV light required for the test, since there is a means to identify fossilized ivory without damaging it, I think that the owners of fossilized ivory should have the option to pay out of their own pocket to have their ivory tested and certified as fossil. An all-out ban would deny them this option. I understand that an all-out ban might be easier, but since there is a way to identify fossilized ivory from modern ivory, and at no expense to the tax payers, then in my opinion, simple fairness should give the citizens that option.

And like I suggested earlier, have people pay a fee to the state if they want to import or sell fossilized ivory (just like bar owners need to pay for a liquor license, gun dealers need to pay for a gun dealers license, etc, etc ). Perhaps the money collected from those fees could even be contributed to organizations devoted to saving elephants.

 

[rexromic]

The only way to stop poachers, and the incredible atrocities they commit, seems to be to stop the demand for ivory. If that's the only way, so be it. I'll take the preservation of elephants over pretty ivory every time.

:thumbup:

 

[killgar]

Although I mostly agree with killgar, I have to compliment both killgar and Gadfly22 for keeping their debate civil, respectful and polite. I've enjoyed reading both sides and Gadfly does make some good points too. You are both well spoken gentleman and it's a pleasure to read your posts.

On behalf of myself, thanks.

There are two things I often say on this forum- "We can agree to disagree", and "Men of respect can respectfully disagree". Words I live by.

I occasionally enjoy a spirited, yet civil debate. I believe this has been one. And if it has provided others with any ammount of entertainment, then so much the better. We all need to be entertained once in a while.

 

[Gadfly22]

It doesn't surprise me that you have seen as much ivory as you have. I'm sure you know that ivory was once a very common and popular material for making everyday items back before plastics were invented. But I wouldn't assume that simply because people possess heirloom pieces of ivory that there is any demand for NEW ivory in New Jersey.

As far as the methods for distinguishing fossil ivory from modern, you are right that it was an electron microscope. My mistake on that part.

But as far as the UV light testing, it was not necessary to cut or damage the samples in order to conduct the tests (the pictures themselves show that). I didn't see where any exclusive type of UV light was used for the test. What I read in the article in post #78 is "It is of interest to note that when the discoloration is barely perceptive to the eye, the use of a hand-held ultraviolet light source causes the blemished area to stand out".

Whatever the case may be regarding the type of UV light required for the test, since there is a means to identify fossilized ivory without damaging it, I think that the owners of fossilized ivory should have the option to pay out of their own pocket to have their ivory tested and certified as fossil. An all-out ban would deny them this option. I understand that an all-out ban might be easier, but since there is a way to identify fossilized ivory from modern ivory, and at no expense to the tax payers, then in my opinion, simple fairness should give the citizens that option.

The problem with the UV light test is that -- to a trained eye -- the light may show differences between fossil ivory and modern ivory, but the differences varied by the amount of weathering. And fossil ivory itself vary in the amount of weathering. So I don't think it's an easy test to administer. Bear in mind that the differences in the figures in the article are the differences between long-wave UV and short-wave UV on the same sample. Just shining UV light on a particular sample is just going to cause stronger or weaker fluorescence, based on the amount of weathering. It's not like fossil will fluoresce and modern ivory won't.

And like I suggested earlier, have people pay a fee to the state if they want to import or sell fossilized ivory (just like bar owners need to pay for a liquor license, gun dealers need to pay for a gun dealers license, etc, etc ). Perhaps the money collected from those fees could even be contributed to organizations devoted to saving elephants.

I think the practical problem with this idea is that there is no funding for the bureaucracy to administer the testing, the fees and the oversight. There's an existing ABC liquor authority in NJ and police departments to oversee gun licensing, but the idea of a state authority for ivory identification and licensing is just economically impractical. I understand the idea, but it's the implementation that just won't happen.

 

[newknif]

Leading up to this bill, Governer Christie has quietly swallowed several mastodons.

 

[killgar]

I think the practical problem with this idea is that there is no funding for the bureaucracy to administer the testing, the fees and the oversight. There's an existing ABC liquor authority in NJ and police departments to oversee gun licensing, but the idea of a state authority for ivory identification and licensing is just economically impractical. I understand the idea, but it's the implementation that just won't happen.

I agree that it won't happen. Just me spitballing ideas off the top of my head.

Oh well, I'll guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.

At heart I believe that we possess the same concern for elephants. I think it is a horrible tragedy what has happened to them, what is happening to them, and what I fear will inevitably happen to them. We just have different opinions on how this law will affect the problem of poaching.

I'm not a member of PETA or any group like that, I eat meat everyday and I own a lot of cow leather, but I am genuinely disturbed and disgusted by the senseless slaughter of not only elephants, but whales, dolphins, sharks, tigers, gorillas, and the list goes on.

It's been good debating with you.

 

[Gadfly22]

I agree that it won't happen. Just me spitballing ideas off the top of my head.

Oh well, I'll guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.

At heart I believe that we possess the same concern for elephants. I think it is a horrible tragedy what has happened to them, what is happening to them, and what I fear will inevitably happen to them. We just have different opinions on how this law will affect the problem of poaching.

I'm not a member of PETA or any group like that, I eat meat everyday and I own a lot of cow leather, but I am genuinely disturbed and disgusted by the senseless slaughter of not only elephants, but whales, dolphins, sharks, tigers, gorillas, and the list goes on.

It's been good debating with you.

Thank you, sir. I don't doubt that we do indeed have the same concern for elephants and other endangered animals, and I'm sure we share the hope that something effective can be done somehow. This debate has been most enjoyable and informative.

 

[Sidehill Gouger]

Good editorial in the WSJ today on the subject of the proposed national ban on ivory but a antique cane collector. And my point about Aspergers is that those individuals claiming it only care about their own wants and desires with no concern to how that affects other people around them. I haven't heard much sympathy or understanding for those that own pre-ban or antique ivory here. And as far as I'm concerned a ban on mammoth ivory is way out of line.

 

[Insipid Moniker]

Good editorial in the WSJ today on the subject of the proposed national ban on ivory but a antique cane collector. And my point about Aspergers is that those individuals claiming it only care about their own wants and desires with no concern to how that affects other people around them. I haven't heard much sympathy or understanding for those that own pre-ban or antique ivory here. And as far as I'm concerned a ban on mammoth ivory is way out of line.

Thousands of slaughtered elephants > grandma's old piano

I don't have a strong opinion about the ban as I don't know enough to judge how effective it will be, but trying to pull my sympathies that way is just laugh. I'm a bit more sympathetic to those that trade extensively in ivory that is currently legal, but even then...

 

[leghog]

In the end, it will be the democratic process that decides the fate of the law, ....

But isn't that precisely what you are railing against in this very thread.