Virginia Ivory Ban Bill Defeated

ncrockclimb said:
I have no reason to doubt that you are anti-poacher. However, I see a direct relationship between the poaching / the illegal ivory trade and the continued sale of "legal" ivory in the US. To me and many others who are not emotionally or financially vested in the continued sale of ivory, this relationship is obvious.

Like many others, I do not see this as an issues that impacts my right to own and use a knife, and I really wish I was not having this conversation. I would much prefer to talk about knives. However, I find it difficult not to state the opposing logical argument to the emotional infused propaganda that D Ritter and his ilk continue to post to support their position.
Click to expand...

Calling the pro ivory stance emotionally charged? Come on now, that's rich coming from you.
 
ncrockclimb said:
I have no reason to doubt that you are anti-poacher. However, I see a direct relationship between the poaching / the illegal ivory trade and the continued sale of "legal" ivory in the US. To me and many others who are not emotionally or financially vested in the continued sale of ivory, this relationship is obvious.
Click to expand...


When I was a kid, my brothers and I threatened to turn in our father for shooting an illegal deer. The situational aspects did not matter to me as I viewed it as a black or white issue. But in his case, it just happend to be a spike buck that the spikes were just a hair too short to be "legal". I am VERY anti-poaching to this day.

The correlation between legal and illegal elephant ivory may exist as you say, but I don't think you should throw away the dishes with the dishwater (or some similar analogy). It is up to fish & wildlfe and customs to deal with illegal imports of ivory. I am sure it is a tough job. But the quantities involved relative to numbers worldwide do not seem to me to be very signifcant. Oh sure, there was that one fairly large bust of illegal ivory in the US in 2012, but that was not common. Let the government do goverment things like enforcement and leave me the hell alone unless I break the law. The ban as proposed making the sale of ivory objects in the US is just plain wrong and there will be people impacted that have absolutely no knowledge of the law. But of course, ignorance is no defense.... until you get to a jury trial and then you have to have motive.
 
I actually prefer Irish Spring, but Ivory floats in the tub!












....oh come on that was funny....:D
 
22-rimfire said:
.... well, what does that have to do with ivory?
Click to expand...

Exactly. What does it have to do with ivory? You're making parallels to unrelated topics as if that in itself is proof of your position.


Ncrockclimb is asking for someone to back their arguments up with facts and all he's getting is I BELIEVE this or I BELIEVE that. "I believe" is weak sauce in an argument. And really is the end of it. You can't have a reasonable argument when someone is quick to throw out facts that are counter to their previously held beliefs. And name calling? The translation for that is "I don't like what you're saying but I have no argument to support myself so I'm just going to bully you." The weakest sauce of all.

That report that just came out on how divergent the US public is to scientists and the scientific method really wasn't a shock to me. How can it be when you read stuff like this all the time? Sad though it is.

I personally never really cared for elephants. They're mean and they smell funny.:D
 
Last edited:
John_0917 said:
I agree with about 98% of what posts #2 and 3 said...I really couldn't care less about ivory related legislation, I would much rather see lobbying groups like KR focus solely on loosening (as much as reasonably possible) restrictions on knife possession, carry etc. I don't financially support Knife Rights or the NRA for the same reason: while they do lobby for issues that I support, they push others that I either don't agree with their stance on or I feel ambivalent towards.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way. I've helped individuals financially but I don't give to organizations for exactly that reason.
 
Shotgun said:
Exactly. What does it have to do with ivory? You're making parallels to unrelated topics as if that in itself is proof of your position.


Ncrockclimb is asking for someone to back their arguments up with facts and all he's getting is I BELIEVE this or I BELIEVE that. "I believe" is weak sauce in an argument. And really is the end of it. You can't have a reasonable argument when someone is quick to throw out facts that are counter to their previously held beliefs. And name calling? The translation for that is "I don't like what you're saying but I have no argument to support myself so I'm just going to bully you." The weakest sauce of all.

That report that just came out on how divergent the US public is to scientists and the scientific method really wasn't a shock to me. How can it be when you read stuff like this all the time? Sad though it is.

I personally never really cared for elephants. They're mean and they smell funny.:D
Click to expand...

It is proof of my position. Bans don't work. I tend to apply common sense to my arguments rather than quoting some organization's "facts". If you don't accept my common sense argument, then you don't. I have no problem with that. I also see no reason to re-hash the entire mega thread on the pending bans in the other states. The argument is the same and either you accept it or you don't. Shotgun, I don't believe I have called anyone any names other than mentioned Al Gore. The parallels to the other semi-related comparisons is simply that bans do not work or as you said the scientific method (again... who's science?) does or does not support the personal arguments or opinions. The proposed ban in the US is political. What can one expect from politicians?
 
Thank you Doug! You not only have helped make it legal for me to carry autos but you are helping millions of Americans who own antiques and art that has old ivory.
No domestic mammoth ivory can be mistaken for elephant. A ban on legal ivory will not save any elephants. I want to publicly thank my friend Mark for defending the position us who use and appreciate this beautiful material.
 
does illegal ivory poaching still go on ?
yes, we all agree

does the fact that it still go on mean there is still a market for it?
yes, we all agree

does that market exist in the U.S.A. ?
Yes, it surely does, but this is where some agree, but would rather not state it because they have a dog in the fight imho. so, either as someone who wants to sell or someone who wants to buy.

Are people making the argument that the end buyer shouldn't be affected by their actions of buying illegal ivory, because they didn't know it was illegal/didn't care if they did. well, it seems as though they are making such an argument. As if the producer of an illegal item should only be punished, and not those who they produce the item for.
It's like saying just take care of those opium field workers and lock them up and destroy their lives. Don't lock up the distributors and make sure not to lock up the end sellers or users though. Sounds stupid when i say it like that doesn't it lol. That's just fodder for the stupid war on drugs.

Yet, the war on ivory's continued use is a sham for all those who benefit from the sale of ivory in one fashion or another. Most folks don't care about the elephants at all . like one poster said "elephants are mean & they smell funny" he meant that I'm pretty sure, even though said in jest too imho. The fact that elephants aren't mean became an irrelevant lie in the argument over Ivory's status; & the reason why they are killed.

why did i choose to point out that tid bit? it is because we see posted here what many folks all over the world think. if said issue is not personal to me/mine than i don't care. we want someone to care when it's us that's being wronged though. the folks who do care have to choose how they deal with folks who don't care, and also help to make a bad situation worse because of it. this goes for animal conservation, as well as preservation of natural resources and all other issues that affect us as humans. All of it comes down to our hearts and what we care about or not .
 
Twindog said:
Of course, what Doug Ritter doesn't say in all the "bright light of truth and facts" is that US Fish & Wildlife's current position is that the current limited ban serves as cover to support a strong and growing trade in the United States for blood ivory. Ritter doesn't say that in previous posts, it has been shown that tons of blood ivory are coming into this country and in places where enforcement has been pushed in the US, such as Los Angeles, more than half the seized ivory was blood ivory.

Ritter says the ban on mammoth ivory is "emotional," when in fact he knows that USFW itself says that its few agents do not have the means to distinguish from blood ivory and mammoth ivory without extensive training and enforcement resources that are not available.

It's virtually impossible to stop poaching, and it's extremely difficult to even stop trade in blood ivory because of corrupt countries like China and because of ill-motivated pressure brought by special interest groups like Knife Rights.

This issue is not about knife rights. It's about money and the special interest groups that profit from the blood ivory trade.

It's not surprising to see politicians cave to the money that feeds them, rather than serve the people who elect them.
Click to expand...

Prove that is any serious quantity of "blood ivory" ( cool hipster phrase like blood diamonds right?). Yes, I know some people get busted for bringing back souvenir trinkets, but I have yet to see anyone point to an arrest for a large bulk quantity being brought in. Your zero tolerance attitude goes right along with the zero tolerance rules for anything resembling a knife in schools.
 
I didn't read through the other thread, but I will just say this. I tend to see it the same way Twin Dog and ncrockclimb do, however that said, I DO think it's crap that the Government can pass laws against something that people already own. That is unConstitutional. I am having trouble remembering which Amendment it breaks, to declare something formerly legal as suddenly illegal and then prosecute the folks who own that now-illegal item, and I haven't studied the Constitution in awhile. Can anyone refresh my memory?
 
No part of the legislation that I have seen makes ownership of "pre ban" ivory illegal. If you own it now, you can keep it. It will not be confiscated. The legislation just bans the sale and trade.
 
22-rimfire said:
It is proof of my position. Bans don't work. I tend to apply common sense to my arguments rather than quoting some organization's "facts". If you don't accept my common sense argument, then you don't. I have no problem with that. I also see no reason to re-hash the entire mega thread on the pending bans in the other states. The argument is the same and either you accept it or you don't. Shotgun, I don't believe I have called anyone any names other than mentioned Al Gore. The parallels to the other semi-related comparisons is simply that bans do not work or as you said the scientific method (again... who's science?) does or does not support the personal arguments or opinions. The proposed ban in the US is political. What can one expect from politicians?
Click to expand...

You didn't call anyone names. The other guy did. Sorry, the whole post wasn't directed at you. Just the first bit. I should've multi quoted. My bad.:D

However, it's not common sense reasoning. You're comparing apples and oranges. You can't compare ivory to something like an addictive drug. WAY different things. I don't trust politicians either but that doesn't mean there isn't any facts/data in this argument. Or any other argument. Ignoring the whole thing or just saying HELL NO because a politician is involved isn't to my way of thinking about a subject. Having politicians or industry involved means having more BS to sift through but data is still there. But anyway. I don't really have a dog in this fight. Just find it amusing.
 
ncrockclimb said:
No part of the legislation that I have seen makes ownership of "pre ban" ivory illegal. If you own it now, you can keep it. It will not be confiscated. The legislation just bans the sale and trade.
Click to expand...

Which is just as bad. Who is the Government to decide who I can and can't sell items I legally obtained to? That's my problem with this issue.
 
I don't care a hoot if they ban the sale of elephant ivory that is not currently in the US tomorrow. It is the stuff that is already here that is the issue and I have a huge issue with making it illegal to sell something you already own that was a legal product when it was purchased or obtained and that applies to a business or an individual.

My opinion boils down to this. There is already a ban on post 1977 ivory except for hunter trophies. I don't think a new ban will be any more effective that the old ban. I do not agree that ivory or products made of ivory should be restricted in the US if it is legal ivory. It is up to the government to prove that something is illegal and hence a crime. IF they can't prove it, then it's legal ivory here. If the consumer does not want to buy the products, they will eventually not be sold as they will be viewed as having no value.

It is a innocent until proven guilty versus with the proposed ban guilty until proven innocent thing on the sale of ivory.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top