Virginia Ivory Ban Bill Defeated

[Quiet]

Most boring bladeforums thread ever. Totally GAY!

Careful, your maturity level is showing.

 

[Sosa]

I think he drank to many zimas during the game.

 

[leghog]

Yes, experts in the professional fields write papers all the time and they are critiqued by professionals in the field. But this sort of article (most anyway) is more geared toward swaying opinions than presenting facts objectively for the most part. Professional papers are used to show that the data supports conclusions that the author is making versus trying to sway political opinion. Take for example Fish & Wildlife.... saying now that there is a lot of illegal ivory (I believe 6x what they catch through enforcement) that gets into the US has been presented as fact. It is a fact that it was said, but it is not a fact. Mark used Fish & Wildlife's pre-executive order data to show it was only a tiny amount getting into the US. And yet, this tid bit is used to sway public or BF member opinion.

I can't support a ban that makes it nearly impossible for regular people to sell pre-77 ivory in the US for any reason. Fish & Wildlife need to develop a practical way for people to certify that their ivory or ivory product is legal and being legal is permissable for re-sale versus handing it down to people within a family. Other than that I don't really care about the new ban and I believe it will be just as effective as the old ban in preventing the poaching of African elephants for their ivory in Africa.

It isn't only professional peer reviews of articles to be published. Experts in any number of fields float trial balloons or thoughts or and entire concept constructs to other experts, even those they know will have some disagreement. Sometimes especially to those they know will have some disagreement. They do this to ensure their methodologies, thought processes, and considerations are complete as well as solid.

 

[leghog]

There is no new tortoise shell ban to fight. We are fighting a new ivory ban. Leave the ivory ban the same as it was, we are happy.

No, you are fighting a ban on the ivory TRADE. Can't we at least be consistently clear on that?

 

[leghog]

I would like to have a double bit ax with an ivory handle and a sea turtle sheath. That would ROCK|! And maybe piss off a few tree huggers at the same time.

Tee huggers? So you want to paint everyone against the trade in ivory as tree huggers. Those are some mighty broad brush strokes you're using.

 

[BonhamBlades]

I think he drank to many zimas during the game.

LMAO! do they still make those?

 

[Sosa]

Apparently they must. Had to have set the mood for his post haha.

 

[22-rimfire]

It isn't only professional peer reviews of articles to be published. Experts in any number of fields float trial balloons or thoughts or and entire concept constructs to other experts, even those they know will have some disagreement. Sometimes especially to those they know will have some disagreement. They do this to ensure their methodologies, thought processes, and considerations are complete as well as solid.

Of course. But that doesn't mean that propaganda pieces are pier reviewed for accuracy other than probably an editor. You see, you really don't know what pieces are carefully done or not. I think the three articles (as I recall) Mark Knapp referenced off and on during this thread are pretty well done. Some of the other referenced pieces appear to be more news articles. The Fish & Wildlife website/piece was prepared to be consistant with the President's executive order because ultimately they have power of the purse over them (hence is not independant).

I don't question that poaching african elephants is a big problem relative to the future survival of the species considering the gestation period, age that elephants live, and age that they first can bear young. What I question is the relative significance of poached african ivory getting into the US. I would think that once elephant ivory has been carved or made into an object that it is nearly impossible to age that ivory at that point. I just write off that ivory as those elephants are already dead. So, I feel enforcement is the way to go near the source and to stop the actual poaching of the elephants and stop or regulate the export of the raw ivory.

It was mentioned that ivory is legal in China and as a result, there is no illegal ivory trade there. But the transport/export of ivory from some of these African countries is illegal as I understand it. It was said that even Chinese officials have transported ivory to China from African visits. Don't know if that is worked ivory objects or raw ivory. The proposed ban by the President will be no more effective worldwide than the previous US ban until China steps up.

I try to deal with things the way they are and make the better choices that would have the most desired impact. I do not support this more comprehensive US ivory ban. The poaching has to be stopped if the African elephant is to survive. Quarantining ivory in the US is not the solution, but it reflects the same kind of thinking as is commonly done by many politicians about firearms.... make ownership illegal ultimately by eliminating the legal sale of firearms and regulate their use within the US except for the people who are "supposed" to have them. But we know that has almost zero impact on crime which is the objective, or is it? We know that many politicans simply believe that they "gotta get those guns". Now, we gotta get that ivory to save those poor elephants. Elephants trump people. I want to save the African elephant from extinction. Control the poaching at the source and develop good conservation practices is the practical solution to a sustainable free roaming African elephant population.

 

[Sidehill Gouger]

There will be no sustainable, free roaming elephant populations if the African populations keep growing and the animals have no economic value to the locals. Large numbers of elephants are culled from the herds now, including in Kruger National Park, just to keep the numbers down and them out of farmer's crops. Making Americans feel all warm and fuzzy about "wild Africa" is not a plan that will work in the long run.

 

[Mark Knapp]

Every major group that does not have ties to the global ivory industry and is working to protect the few remaining elephants comes to a vastly different conclusion than Mark, the ivory dealer. US Fish and Wildlife say that the illegal ivory trade in the US is a significant issue. We have posted a plethora of sources showing that the illegal ivory trade is alive and well in the US, which is the #2 market for ivory in the world. The current federal ban that we have had since 1989 is NOT acceptable to almost everybody, Mark. For you to say this is quite simply a lie. Most notably, the USFW is against it. The USFW says that the current loopholes that allow for the trade of pre-ban ivory, mammoth ivory, walrus ivory, etc create an environment where enforcement is extremely difficult and smugglers can easily operate. Those are the facts.

The question was, How does Kniferights feel about the the current federal ban. My response was addressed to that question, most of us on this side of the issue do not have a problem with the current federal ban.

 

[ron_m80]

No, you are fighting a ban on the ivory TRADE. Can't we at least be consistently clear on that?

No, not even close.

The Ivory trade only exists outside the U.S. We already live under a ban on Ivory.

 

[Mark Knapp]

No, you are fighting a ban on the ivory TRADE. Can't we at least be consistently clear on that?

I assumed people new that, sorry

 

[Mark Knapp]

There was a question about which states have new ivory trade bans either in deliberation. Here are the ones we know about;

CA
CT (4 bills)
HI (2 bills)
IA
WA (2 bills)

If you live in these states you should find out about these bills, if you don't like what they say, contact your representatives. That's how this system works.

 

[ron_m80]

There will be no sustainable, free roaming elephant populations if the African populations keep growing and the animals have no economic value to the locals. Large numbers of elephants are culled from the herds now, including in Kruger National Park, just to keep the numbers down and them out of farmer's crops. Making Americans feel all warm and fuzzy about "wild Africa" is not a plan that will work in the long run.

Regional instability, coruption of pretty much all services local and international, geographical economics and politics, terrorism, black market shippers, and paochers are what hold the elephant on endangered status.

Only by stopping those things and instituting game management on the African continent can the elephant be saved. I worry it will never happen because the wrong people stand to make a ton of money on saving rhinos next, while they again ignore the real perpetrators of the crime.

Edit; http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_meat

Elephants are also one of the top ten deadliest animals in Africa.

 

[navman]

Regional instability, coruption of pretty much all services local and international, geographical economics and politics, terrorism, black market shippers, and paochers are what hold the elephant on endangered status.

Only by stopping those things and instituting game management on the African continent can the elephant be saved. I worry it will never happen because the wrong people stand to make a ton of money on saving rhinos next, while they again ignore the real perpetrators of the crime.

Edit; http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_meat

Elephants are also one of the top ten deadliest animals in Africa.

I wonder what it tastes like.........

 

[RedLynx]

Tee huggers? So you want to paint everyone against the trade in ivory as tree huggers. Those are some mighty broad brush strokes you're using.

Agreed. Not all conservationists chain themselves to trees. Or live in them. But even if they did, I look at those people with a much more enlightened eye than I once did. I'm not into such avenues of protest, but I don't condemn those who are, either.

I don't understand doing something just to piss off the sensibilities of another group of people, at least in most cases. Aside from eco-terrorists, a small fraction of the "eco" crowd, no one is deliberately attempting to tick off or make the lives of non-eco-friendly people worse just for the sake of it.

It's amazing how unclear that seems to be though.

 

[22-rimfire]

What you say is probably true about the "tree huggers" or eco-people (classic Sierra Clubers, Greens Peace, etc) not necessarily wanting to make life miserable for folks that don't agree with them. But they are the enlightened group and know best. That is where I have a problem.

As far as related kinds of things, including ivory usage, I feel that there are resources that are there to be used and you modify the use based on practical concerns like for example African elephant populations and their sustainability. The US EPA is all about "sustainable" these days and of course they know best. They have no problem costing businesses millions of dollars just because they feel it is important or is in keeping with the directives given to them by the current administration.

I am for conservation and responsible exploitation/development of the earth's natural resources. Ivory is another resources to be used by man and exploited. But you have to have a population of African elephants to maintain that resource. The poaching has to stop at the reported levels (8% African elephant population reduction per year) or there will be no more free ranging African elephants.

I was doing an exploration project and literature from something like 1915 showed the presence of a particular darter in the stream there. It was thought to be extinct. We did a stream sampling effort and guess what... we found them. A few got pickled in the process, but it was for science, right? Anyway, you can imagine what that finding caused relative to the planned exploration effort.

 

[RedLynx]

What you say is probably true about the "tree huggers" or eco-people (classic Sierra Clubers, Greens Peace, etc) not necessarily wanting to make life miserable for folks that don't agree with them. But they are the enlightened group and know best. That is where I have a problem.

I agree, I don't think any group is necessarily enlightened over another, and dislike when its members try to appear so.

 

[Mark Knapp]

There has been some discussion about how difficult it is to distinguish between elephant and mammoth ivory. The description on the USF&W identification page seem overly complicated to me. Here it is

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

It was written by a scientist and sometimes they take things pretty seriously. I don't think its that complicated so I did it myself and took some pictures.

This is how the mammoth ivory typically looks when I buy it. I think we can all agree, it looks nothing like elephant ivory. I think you would have go to great lengths to make elephant ivory look like mammoth ivory. I have never seen raw mammoth ivory that could have been mistaken for elephant ivory.

This is a batch of mammoth ivory scales that I just got ready for sale. I wanted to show you the whole batch so no one would think I selected out just a few pieces that make my point well. Down in the lower left corner is the only piece of elephant ivory I own (and have ever owned) next to it is a piece of interior mammoth ivory, what is sometimes called "core". That set of scales is as big as I can ever hope to get from any mammoth tusks from Alaska, occasionally I can get some big enough to make a single hidden tang knife handle from but it is pretty rare.

I think that most of us would agree that the scales, except the interior ones, could not be confused with elephant ivory. I suppose someone could try to fake the colors and make white ivory look like ancient ivory. It's pretty easy to tell when they do that because the color on real ancient ivory goes into the ivory. If it was faked, the color would only be on the surface. It's kind of like fake damascus, the texture is only on the surface, if you check the spine of a fake damascus blade it will be shiny instead of showing layers. All of this ivory is naturally colored, no stain was used anywhere.

Here's a closer look at the lower left corner.

I sanded the ends on some of the scales to 400 grit so that my camera would be able to show you the Schreger lines. I sanded about ten sets, I polished just a few of them. Out of thirty seven sets of scales, I could see the Schreger lines, what we call cross-hatching, on 31 of the sets. That was with just sanding with a 36 grit disk sander on the ends of most of them. If I had finish sanded all of them, I am sure I could have seen the lines in almost all of them, with just my naked eyes.

These pictures were all taken with my regular point-and-shoot camera, that I bought for less than $100.00. The camera was set on Macro mode.

This is one that I polished as well as sanded.

This is the set of interior mammoth ivory scales, you can see the lines pretty clearly, I used no stain or magnification on any of these.

This is the end of the piece of Asian elephant ivory. It's the only one I own. Right now it's legal for me to sell this if I want. I have an affidavit from the guy I traded for it from to account for it's origin. If the federal ban on trade passes, I would not be able to sell it. You can see the lines pretty easily, again nothing fancy, no stain, no photocopy machine.

Here, I used a pointy marker to mark the mammoth ivory.

and the Asian elephant.

Then measured it, the angles in this piece, the Asian elephant measure 103.6 degrees.

This is the interior piece of mammoth ivory. It measures 90 degrees.

This is one of the exterior scales (we call bark). It measures 79.3 degrees. Mammoth ivory bark scales are always cut from the outside of the tusk so they always work for measuring the angles. If you have interior scales or material cut from the middle of the core the angles will be even sharper so they won't be mistaken for elephant.

Anything that measures over 100 degrees should be elephant, anything that measures under 100 degrees should be ancient ivory.

I can do this with virtually every piece of ivory in my shop without any fancy equipment.

I think that only very rarely mammoth ivory could be mistaken for elephant ivory to the casual viewer but remember, our fish and wildlife personnel are not supposed to be casual viewers, they are supposed to be trained. In a very small percentage of the cases would you need a science lab to know the difference. And since most pieces of ivory art work are already polished, you should be able to see the Schreger lines without having to harm the piece in any way.

Anyway, that's the way it is in my world, many of you will disregard what I say because I have a "financial stake in it" Some of you will think I did something to make it look easier than it really is. There's nothing I can say for those people.

Hope this clears thing up for some of you.

 

[Sidehill Gouger]

Good post Mark. I have never seen mammoth ivory that looked anything like modern elephant and I can think of no reason why anyone would try to make modern look like prehistoric. But a number of people here have made it plain they could care less about any monetary loss to current property owners. The ends justify the means.