Thread: Ivory

Originally Posted by WJF

I've been doing some research since this thread started. The WWF Global (not wrestling) site indicates that poaching, habitat destruction and human-elephant conflicts are responsible for the decline in elephant populations. However, they specifically state that the poaching is the LEAST of the problem. By the way, meat is listed along with ivory as the reason for poaching. It seems that damage to crops and other property brings elephants into conflict for survival with humans and therefore is the biggest problem. The website also states that there are areas where elephant populations are stable and even increasing. Just another take on this situation.

This was exactly what I found also, Poaching and Illegal Ivory trade was a distant cause for the Elephant population decline... hence my very first post that this is a feel good law, that will have little effect on the Elephants lives

Man's Overpopulation of the planet is basically the reason for most of the problems we face either directly or indirectly...

Originally Posted by gssixgun

This was exactly what I found also, Poaching and Illegal Ivory trade was a distant cause for the Elephant population decline... hence my very first post that this is a feel good law, that will have little effect on the Elephants lives

Man's Overpopulation of the planet is basically the reason for most of the problems we face either directly or indirectly...

Then again, if we would just stop putting so much effort in killing each other over whose great grandfather killed whose grandfather, whose God is best or where some line used to run on a map, we'd have very little problem supporting the current population.

Even when the human population of the earth was less than a tenth of which it is now, genocide was a common thing. Heck, even in the stone age when you had to put some real effort in finding another tribe and you had to travel long time to just find another populationcenter, did people go out of their way to kill each other. I think it has less to do with over population and more with the fact that as a species, we're just greedy and vindictive bastards.

Pretty sure the extinction of man would be the best thing for the planet, not advocating that of course as I enjoy living, but its true....sadly.

Originally Posted by DennisBarberShop

Pretty sure the extinction of man would be the best thing for the planet, not advocating that of course as I enjoy living, but its true....sadly.

Perhaps an interesing read apropos to the extinction of man ........ John B. Calhoun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Bruno

Then again, if we would just stop putting so much effort in killing each other over whose great grandfather killed whose grandfather, whose God is best or where some line used to run on a map, we'd have very little problem supporting the current population.

Even when the human population of the earth was less than a tenth of which it is now, genocide was a common thing. Heck, even in the stone age when you had to put some real effort in finding another tribe and you had to travel long time to just find another populationcenter, did people go out of their way to kill each other. I think it has less to do with over population and more with the fact that as a species, we're just greedy and vindictive bastards.

It's not that so much as we as humans developed to live in small clans with everyone related and tied to each other. We view everyone outside our clan read family with suspicion and the further away others get from us the more suspicion. We were never designed to live in cities or in close proximity to each other and it's only the thin veneer of society and it's laws that keeps us from exterminating each other. That's why in area of the world you see tribes killing each other and religions battling it out. Anything we can find to categorize someone else as inferior to us or unlikeable is reason enough. Even in countries where the population is relatively homogeneous they always find a way to put down those from this city or region of the country.

However getting back to the original topic of ivory. You will all note primary enforcement responsibility goes to Fish and Wildlife and I know Fish and Wildlife and the chances of them even beginning to do real enforcement of the law is about as great as an Elephant dancing ballet. They simply do not have the money and the manpower to begin to enforce the law. Any enforcement will be very very very limited and you can take that to the bank.

This is another of those laws that get great initial press and then quietly goes away. You will see a few instances widely publicized where they go after some big importer and that's it.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

It's not that so much as we as humans developed to live in small clans with everyone related and tied to each other. We view everyone outside our clan read family with suspicion and the further away others get from us the more suspicion. We were never designed to live in cities or in close proximity to each other and it's only the thin veneer of society and it's laws that keeps us from exterminating each other. That's why in area of the world you see tribes killing each other and religions battling it out. Anything we can find to categorize someone else as inferior to us or unlikeable is reason enough. Even in countries where the population is relatively homogeneous they always find a way to put down those from this city or region of the country.

However getting back to the original topic of ivory. You will all note primary enforcement responsibility goes to Fish and Wildlife and I know Fish and Wildlife and the chances of them even beginning to do real enforcement of the law is about as great as an Elephant dancing ballet. They simply do not have the money and the manpower to begin to enforce the law. Any enforcement will be very very very limited and you can take that to the bank.

This is another of those laws that get great initial press and then quietly goes away. You will see a few instances widely publicized where they go after some big importer and that's it.

What you say may be true on a national level,but far from true in my state.
It was the DFG that Raided Slewinskys auction house in scotts valley last year,confiscated a huge amt of so called preban Ivory artifacts.
You go to any major Gun show,The DFG is always there,Dealer got busted 3 weeks ago at the cal expo gunshow for selling Walrus Ivory.
He may face a $50,000 fine.Friend of mine got busted several yrs back at the San Jose gunshow for selling an antique stuffed ross"es Goose, $600 fine,Is Financial incentives for the DFG to enfource the laws.
Importation has been banned for decades,the new law has nothing to do with importation.

Gibson Guitar Settles Federal Case That Resulted in 2011 Armed Raid; Pays $300,000 Fine - Hit & Run : Reason.com

+ they lost a couple of hundred thousand in wood, ivory and what have you .......

Originally Posted by WJF

Spoken like a true bureaucrat! Are you equating water from a river with my neighbor's grass-fed milk cows?

Whether or not I drink creek water is irrelevant, but since you asked I'll say that in a FREE country I am allowed to make my own decisions whether good or bad and face the consequences. Your previous posts indicated that you believed that only "large" dealers would be effected. I intended to demonstrate that any supplier or individual for that matter (even Amish) was open to being raided and prosecuted anytime. They have already done this with private transactions for milk and they will do it with ivory or anything else.

If I choose to buy milk from the farmer down the road whom I know and trust to have better milk than the processed, trucked and nutrient stripped stuff I get from an "authorized" source I'll thank the powers that be to kindly butt out. I certainly trust my own judgement when it comes to my own health and welfare over some lobbyists for large milk producers. I simply used the milk as an example of how far the authoritarianism and control has grown. It is clear that many people have no objections to any amount force being used to impose control for our "safety" or to do good in the world.

JimmyHAD's post says it all.
totalitarianism, A form of government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of the individual’s life to the authority of the government.

Sorry this is not about ivory or elephants, but it is certainly relevant to the post about the law that began this thread. My previous post addressed the facts about elephant populations and why the laws were ineffective. I should have stopped at that.

Wow... between this comment and some of the others in this thread, I really can't help but wonder why the Libertarian Party isn't larger. So many people in the U.S. feel this exact same way, myself included, which is why I'm a libertarian. All I could think of while reading through this thread was:






This law, and others like it from ordinances against buying raw milk, to drugs, to guns (not starting an argument about gun control here, just using an example), to wearing your seatbelt in a car, to your choice to risk not buying health insurance all lose sight and diminish a very healthy lesson that we as a culture have lost sight of: taking your own personal responsibility and well being into your own hands, being accountable to no one but yourself if something doesn't work out well for you. I'll give an example of what I mean...

Is your coffee so hot from McDonald's that it could scald the ever living crap out of you? Instead of getting injured and litigious, how about grab the cup from the bottom and make sure the lid is tight?

The bottom line for me, personally, is that I don't want the government to have to nanny me in every little thing I do. Nor do I believe that they should nanny the entire country over every little thing, especially something so trivial (yes, I said it because that's my opinion) as ivory. Does that make me a cold hearted SOB who sounds like I don't care about elephants? No, it doesn't because the bottom line, to me anyway, is that if there is already an existing supply of ivory imported before a certain date, than I should be able to use it in any fashion I choose, and the burden of proof that it is post ban should be on the government. I don't support the slaughtering of elephants for ivory, but as the great Stephen King wrote in his novel "Insomnia", "Done bun can't be undone." Let me use the supply I already have without interference.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Gibson Guitar Settles Federal Case That Resulted in 2011 Armed Raid; Pays $300,000 Fine - Hit & Run : Reason.com

+ they lost a couple of hundred thousand in wood, ivory and what have you .......

heheheh... then, Gibson got even....

Gibson.com: Government Series II Les Paul

Somehow reading WWF - Threats to African elephants I do not get the feeling that illegal poaching of elephants is the least of the threats to the decline in elephant populations in Africa. My take away is that it still is a great concern along with other factors such as the encroachment of people in traditional elephant range spawning conflict between the two and for bush meat.

Bob