Virginia Ivory Ban Bill Defeated

[Mark Knapp]

It just seems to me your drab pics of low quality mammoth shards don't really represent the entire mammoth ivory industry accuratly.

Those pictures are very representative of the mammoth ivory business in the U.S., accurate in every way when it comes to core ivory. I know you don't have a leg to stand on if you challenge me on that. I live in Alaska where we grow the stuff.

 

[Sosa]

Those pictures are very representative of the mammoth ivory business in the U.S., accurate in every way when it comes to core ivory. I know you don't have a leg to stand on if you challenge me on that. I live in Alaska where we grow the stuff.

I stand on my own two feet and think with my own brain. You live in Alaska where mammoth remains are scavenged and people have a stake in the ivory industry.

 

[Mark Knapp]

I stand on my own two feet and think with my own brain. You live in Alaska where mammoth remains are scavenged and people have a stake in the ivory industry.

You know I could show you a picture of a goat with two heads that I found on the internet, I would not try to convince you that they are common.

Again, I don't know why, just because I have a stake in the ivory business, my points of view, or knowledge in that area, are any less valid than any body else. Certainly not less than someone that has to get his pictures of ivory off of the internet.

And, why do you have to be snarky about it?

Good night, I'll catch you in the morning.

 

[Sosa]

You know I could show you a picture of a goat with two heads that I found on the internet, I would not try to convince you that they are common.

Again, I don't know why, just because I have a stake in the ivory business, my points of view, or knowledge in that area, are any less valid than any body else. Certainly not less than someone that has to get his pictures of ivory off of the internet.

And, why do you have to be snarky about it?

Good night, I'll catch you in the morning.

Come and visit Sanfranciscos Chinatown. I'll show you what I've been talking about.

 

[SidTheMuss]

I'm not sure if you're just ignorant of the facts, or you're ignoring them completely.

I can't put an exact number on it, but there's tens of thousands of knives that utilize mammoth ivory. Take for example, what most people would consider the best folding knife of our time - The Sebenza. There's a huge amount that have mammoth ivory inlays, or the highly sought after annual sebenzas with Mammoth. Should all those people be robbed of their valuables to make others "feel good"

There's a huge variety of mammoth used on Case XX knives, GEC's, and many others. Most of the best custom makers of our time use mammoth on their dress models. Think about the gravity of that for a moment. The top makers in our industry - The majority of their most well crafted pieces will becoming illegal to sell or trade.

But Hey - It doesn't effect you, so why should you care? It makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.

it's funny you would use the term "if you're just ignorant of the facts" then turn around and say "I can't put an exact number on it". am i missing something about what the word 'facts' means? and yes, it doesn't affect me. i don't give a rats ass about anyone that adorns their knives with ivory. that has nothing to do with knife rights, it comes down to greed and, as you like to say, ignorance.

oh and yes the 5.5" max length carry in texas is ridiculous. that's a fight worth fighting.

 

[SunOfAtom]

Sadly, this is a great example of why the lobbying system is broken. Doug Ritter and the Knife Rights organization gets way more money from special interest groups than they do from us common people. Mark and other ivory investors fill the Knife Rights coffers, Knife rights lobbies for pro ivory legislation. They both come out with money in their pockets and call it a win for democracy. Same thing goes on with the NRA. While they certainly could focus just on relevant knife issues, that is not where the money is.

 

[22-rimfire]

i don't give a rats ass about anyone that adorns their knives with ivory. that has nothing to do with knife rights, it comes down to greed and, as you like to say, ignorance.

Not really. Maybe they just like ivory?

Lobbying in Washington or in the legislative circles is all about special interests and it takes money. I have no issue with Knife Rights lobbying against portions of the ivory ban. Use of ivory is part of the knife industry just like it is part of the firearms industry. It is certainly not a dominant part of the industry, but in the custom knife (and higher end knives) and gun circles, ivory is used.

 

[22-rimfire]

Professions are full of journals where all of it is published for review.

I am well aware of professional journals and previously subscribed to several. But even the journals are impacted by politics. It is not all science and certainly there are articles published in the various journals that have been documented later to be untrue. So, the mere fact that something is published does not make it true. Mark Knapp later mentioned that there is a segment of the ivory industry that does publish "professional" papers. The pro ban folks simply dismiss it as being something that supports their "greed". It comes down to personal opinion ultimately and whether you believe that the amount of illegal ivory getting into the US is significant. I personally do not relative to the worldwide trade of ivory. Let enforcement do what enforcement does. Mark Knapp has mentioned that he is visited by enforcement periodically as I suspect most of the users of ivory are in the US.

 

[ATwistedStaple]

Now, forgive me for being a bit ignorant here, is there a way to "age" ivory of any sort to appear as though it's mammoth?

I don't see any rational person having a problem with folks making use of ivory from an animal that's not just dead, but extinct unless it can lead to the poaching of protected species today... Myself included.

Enlighten me plz.

 

[Mark Knapp]

Come and visit Sanfranciscos Chinatown. I'll show you what I've been talking about.

What would it prove?

 

[Mark Knapp]

Sadly, this is a great example of why the lobbying system is broken. Doug Ritter and the Knife Rights organization gets way more money from special interest groups than they do from us common people. Mark and other ivory investors fill the Knife Rights coffers, Knife rights lobbies for pro ivory legislation. They both come out with money in their pockets and call it a win for democracy. Same thing goes on with the NRA. While they certainly could focus just on relevant knife issues, that is not where the money is.

Wait a minute, are you trying to say that the "pro-ivory" lobby is getting more funds donated than the "anti-ivory" lobby? You probably should re-think that.

I wanted to give Wildaid $5,000.00 dollars that some hard working knife makers raised (that happen to use ivory) for their Yao Ming project, because we think it is a very good approach to quelling the demand of ivory in China. They would not take our money for fear the word would get out, and it would cost them some real money that high rollers donate. They could throw our money away and not even miss it. In fact, that is what they did.

 

[Mark Knapp]

Now, forgive me for being a bit ignorant here, is there a way to "age" ivory of any sort to appear as though it's mammoth?

I don't see any rational person having a problem with folks making use of ivory from an animal that's not just dead, but extinct unless it can lead to the poaching of protected species today... Myself included.

Enlighten me plz.

The anti-ivory people will try to tell you that elephant ivory is faked to look mammoth ivory in order to make it legal for sale. The answer is in what is called Schreger lines, they are distinct to elephant and mammoth, they can not be faked. Here's the link.

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

It is not hard to tell the difference, I can do it, I can teach you to do it in five minutes.

 

[RedLynx]

I'm a bit surprised it passed by overwhelming majority... somehow I expected at least one detractor.

I wasn't even aware VA was currently discussing a ban/repeal. The other thread mentions WA, CA and IA (that's me!)

From what I gathered in the initial post of that thread, those were possible bans being introduced, whereas this was a current ban that was voted down, is that right? What other states are in the throes of similar ivory legislation at the moment? Does anyone know?

 

[Mark Knapp]

Some of you are kidding yourselves if you think the only people that have a financial stake in the ivory bans are the people that own and use ivory.

To the contrary the Animal Protectionist groups have a huge financial stake in it.

In 2012 the group Wildaid had a total operating budget of $168,256,003.00 USD. They paid out $1,062,007.00 in wages and benefits to their paid administration. $ 352,872.00 to the China/Africa program administrators.

Here's the link to their financial report. http://www.wildaid.org/sites/default/files/resources/2013 Financials_0.PDF

I'm not saying they don't care about elephants, I'm not saying they are misusing the money donated to them. What I am saying is that the groups on the anti ivory side of this issue have a much larger financial stake in it than any of us do.

So for anybody here say that because someone has a financial stake in an issue, their point of view in it is somehow tainted is not realistic.

Very little of what I do is motivated by money or greed. I have a fully operational machine shop, at times I have run it as a machine shop and made $125.00 an hour and still could. Instead, I have gone into full time knife making and use it to make knives for about $25.00 an hour. My small handle supply business helps pay bills too, but nothing like what I could make running my machine shop.

Incidentally, I drive a 1984 Ford flat bed and my wife and I live in an apartment over my shop. I'm not complaining, it's the life I chose. I only say these things to illustrate that people in the ivory, or at least the ones I know, are not carving a fat hog. So please be careful when you throw around accusations of greed and financial stake.

 

[Mark Knapp]

I'm a bit surprised it passed by overwhelming majority... somehow I expected at least one detractor.

I wasn't even aware VA was currently discussing a ban/repeal. The other thread mentions WA, CA and IA (that's me!)

From what I gathered in the initial post of that thread, those were possible bans being introduced, whereas this was a current ban that was voted down, is that right? What other states are in the throes of similar ivory legislation at the moment? Does anyone know?

Those are good questions Lynx, I will try to find out.

 

[Twindog]

The anti-ivory people will try to tell you that elephant ivory is faked to look mammoth ivory in order to make it legal for sale. The answer is in what is called Schreger lines, they are distinct to elephant and mammoth, they can not be faked. Here's the link.

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

It is not hard to tell the difference, I can do it, I can teach you to do it in five minutes.

Nobody is "anti-ivory." We're pro-elephant. We don't want to see the African elephant go extinct -- or suffer from the continuing devastation that poachers are inflicting on the species.

The link that you show is a good one, but the testing method that it demonstrates requires a polished cross section of the ivory, with multiple tests and multiple measurements and a photocopy machine. The multiple tests are required because single measurements can make elephant ivory appear to be mammoth ivory and vice versa. If you don't have a polished cross section, which is going to be the case on most finished products, you'll probably be stuck with destructive and expensive DNA testing.

When inspectors go into a shop or warehouse where there are thousands of ivory products, they have no practical way to test everything -- neither the manpower nor the money for testing. And how do you tell pre-ban from post ban blood ivory?

There is no practical way to prevent the ivory industry from using blood ivory if the ban on ivory is not an across-the-board ban.

What this post deliberately tries to obscure is that USFW, after years of trying and failing to enforce the federal partial ban, has found that only a total ban on all ivory is enforceable. Partial bans are being used by your industry to facilitate the flow of blood ivory into the US.

 

[Mark Knapp]

Sadly, this is a great example of why the lobbying system is broken. Doug Ritter and the Knife Rights organization gets way more money from special interest groups than they do from us common people. Mark and other ivory investors fill the Knife Rights coffers, Knife rights lobbies for pro ivory legislation. They both come out with money in their pockets and call it a win for democracy. Same thing goes on with the NRA. While they certainly could focus just on relevant knife issues, that is not where the money is.

Doug Ritter has been trying to respond to this, but for some reason it won't take. He asked me to try, so here it is.


WOW! With all due respect, something that you apparently don't ascribe to, you are so far off base I have to wonder if you are slandering us out of malicious intent, but perhaps you are simply misinformed.

I don't normally post here other than to provide updates on our efforts to forge a Sharper Future (TM) and such simply because I have limited time and resources. Those inclined to debate issues as a result of these posts are certainly welcome to do so, I just have other priorities. However, when you slander us with something to far off base, I am compelled to correct your misrepresentations, regardless of whether they are simply misinformed or otherwise.

As with all non-profits, our annual Form 990s are open for inspection. They can be readily viewed online at https://www.citizenaudit.org/743197990/#2011_09_EO/74-3197990_990EO_201009.pdf.

And, just to clear (up) about those "pockets," I take no salary for my Knife Rights work, much to the annoyance of my wife. She, by the way, also contributes hundreds of hours a year with no compensation.

We certainly don't get much money at all from good folks such as Mark or other "ivory investors" as you want to refer to them. As I recall, the only donation Mark has ever made to Knife Rights was that of two small slabs of pre-ban, documented ivory that were used in a collaboration knife that was auctioned off to raise money for this fight (purchased by a collector). Mark has never, to my knowledge, made any direct financial donation to the organizations, nor has anyone else in the wholesale ivory trade, or at least nothing substantial enough to have come to my attention. Some few have made donations of ivory or mammoth ivory for knife handles, but that's about it. We have had a few collectors of ivory handled knives and mammoth ivory handled knives make some modest contributions earmarked for this fight, but, quite frankly, it is a drop in the bucket compared to our funds already expended fighting this.

(Still having trouble posting this, to be continued)

(also, as a side note, I was director and orchestrator of a knife build project that I and some of the top knife makers in the world built that raised over $13,000.00 for Kniferights. It was left up to Doug to use the money how he wished)

 

[RedLynx]

Doug Ritter has been trying to respond to this, but for some reason it won't take. He asked me to try, so here it is.


WOW! With all due respect, something that you apparently don't ascribe to, you are so far off base I have to wonder if you are slandering us out of malicious intent, but perhaps you are simply misinformed.

I don't normally post here other than to provide updates on our efforts to forge a Sharper Future (TM) and such simply because I have limited time and resources. Those inclined to debate issues as a result of these posts are certainly welcome to do so, I just have other priorities. However, when you slander us with something to far off base, I am compelled to correct your misrepresentations, regardless of whether they are simply misinformed or otherwise.

As with all non-profits, our annual Form 990s are open for inspection. They can be readily viewed online at https://www.citizenaudit.org/743197990/#2011_09_EO/74-3197990_990EO_201009.pdf.

And, just to clear (up) about those "pockets," I take no salary for my Knife Rights work, much to the annoyance of my wife. She, by the way, also contributes hundreds of hours a year with no compensation.

We certainly don't get much money at all from good folks such as Mark or other "ivory investors" as you want to refer to them. As I recall, the only donation Mark has ever made to Knife Rights was that of two small slabs of pre-ban, documented ivory that were used in a collaboration knife that was auctioned off to raise money for this fight (purchased by a collector). Mark has never, to my knowledge, made any direct financial donation to the organizations, nor has anyone else in the wholesale ivory trade, or at least nothing substantial enough to have come to my attention. Some few have made donations of ivory or mammoth ivory for knife handles, but that's about it. We have had a few collectors of ivory handled knives and mammoth ivory handled knives make some modest contributions earmarked for this fight, but, quite frankly, it is a drop in the bucket compared to our funds already expended fighting this.

(Still having trouble posting this, to be continued)

Thanks for posting that for Doug, Mark.

I may be pro-ban-ish, but I'm 100% against the spread of misinformation on either side of any issue.

 

[Mark Knapp]

(More from Doug)

And, just for the record, I do sincerely appreciate Mark's and others' willingness to engage you and others in this debate.

We fight against the ivory ban because it is a reprehensible attack on the property rights of honest Americans (including many of our members) and because there is no demonstrable benefit from the ban to saving the elephants in Africa that would outweigh that abridgement of their rights. We can certainly disagree on that, but I am comfortable with our position. We fight the ivory bans because a significant majority of our grassroots membership, who are the ones actually supporting our organization with membership and modest donations, have indicated that they support us in this fight. It would be pretty shortsighted for us to pick a fight that the majority of our supporters did not support.

Having said that, certainly there are some members who aren't happy with our position, or would simply prefer we avoid what they consider a "toxic" subject that they view as not central to our primary mission. But, the fact is that our membership has been growing steadily and we have seen no notable drop in members form our ivory ban opposition. Most satisfying is those who disagree with us on this particular subject, but understand that this is a small subset of what we work on to enhance knife owners rights in America and they continue to support us because they can see the bigger picture. I respect that and I sincerely appreciate the few emails I have gotten in that regard. I certainly don't agree with all the positions of every advocacy organization that I support, but I do so because they are effective in the bigger picture at protecting the things I believe in.

I and my wife have personally supported efforts to directly attack poaching in Africa and to support conservation efforts because we find it reprehensible, as have many others on my Board of Directors and Advisory Board. An ivory ban that punished honest Americans to no good end is not a productive solution at all is just an example of "feel good - do bad" politics at its worst.

I trust that I have set the record straight on your false accusations.

That is all. Please continue on with your debate....

Doug Ritter

 

[akivory]

I can attest to Mark's representation of Alaskan mammoth ivory. I have handled more of it than anyone.
The good news is there are groups that have an intrest in preseving thier investments or thier livelihood that are getting involved.
I