Thread: Is it wrong to try to get my hands on some of this?

Why not just use bone instead?

It looks similar, isnt illegal, and readily available.

Ivory is cool and all ... but not that cool (to me anyways). Too much trouble and hassle associated with ivory.

This is an interesting thread. The take on the subject seems to be split just about down the middle. Half or us say the use of a little ivory shouldn't hurt and the laws are foolish because they are not working. The other half says the laws are just and reasonable and the use of any ivory is bad.

Here's were I come down on the issue. I am a firm believer in the old saw, "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." Perhaps you will be surprised to hear me say this isn't about the ivory itself. My concern is not for the elephants, directly. The governments of (from what we are told) most African countries are so corrupt, the people are starving and constantly afraid for their lives from either rebels or government troops. We have heard the more recent news of the massive attempts of genocide in the Sudan. The rebels against the government have been financing their wars with anything they can sell from diamonds to charcoal (that is pretty much the full range of the carbon spectrum). Whenever something on the entire content of Africa has been found to be marketable, the people of the country in which it is harvested suffer. This is true for oil, gold, diamonds, tantalum (and other minerals) big game animals, exotic lumbers (like ebony and zebrawood), slaves and of course ivory. Recently laws have been passed controlling the production of charcoal because it is so widely used for heating and cooking that people are damaging the rainforests and contributing to global pollution. Of course the people have no alternatives and bypass the laws by purchasing black market charcoal. In short, a global concern does not necessarily make it onto the lists of poor African fishermen and farmers. They are concerned with surviving through this day. So, if they can sell ivory to buy charcoal or food or seeds, they will do it. Although the population of the majestic African elephant has been reduced by more than 50% in the last twenty years, is it likely that a few laws will make the elephants repopulate? I doubt it. If you have ever been desparate you understand that laws mean nothing to a starving man. Ray Charles wrote, "I ain't a thief but a man can go wrong when he's busted." So in all likelihood, the slaughter will continue as long as ivory from African elephants can be sold. Do you care?

If you care, the answer is simple. Don't contribute to the problem. If you simply must have ivory, there is fossil ivory available. Personally, I think there are other materials that are far more beautiful and easier to work with than ivory.

Here's a little dialog from The Graduate:

Mr. McGuire: I want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Benjamin: Yes, sir.
McGuire: Are you listening?
Benjamin: Yes, I am.
McGuire: Plastics

Brad

I agree, this is an interesting thread, and speaks to many moral and ethical questions.

There are those who say that it is never OK to use ivory, those who say that it is OK if the animal was harvested in the correct manner, those who say that it is OK if a village harvested the animal to feed starving people, and those who say that it is OK as long as it was procured before the ban.

I am a hunter myself, one who uses animals for food, I won't call hunting a sport because I don't see it as such, and I despise poachers, and all related items. Even pre-ban ivory was probably procured by poaching, it just wasn't illegal back then. If there were farms set up to raise and harvest non-endangered elephants and used all of the animal (flesh for meat, hide for leather, bones for gelatin, etc...) would that be OK? I don't think I would have a problem with that.

That being said...I don't think that the person who started this thread should have been chastised by some as an evil elephant slaughterer for asking the question or thinking about it, if we all were judged on our thoughts alone, I don't think anyone would get along. We can state our points of view rationally and attempt to get others to see from a different perspective, without being too judgmental or cynical about it (which many have done beautifully and articulately). After all IMO he only asked a moral/ethical thought provoking question that many of us feel strongly about...now if he had said "Hey guys, I just got some illegal ivory for scales, and I don't care at all where it came from or how it was harvested, what do you think?" I could understand some of the harsher comments.

On a side note, I don't understand the concept that the animals are dangerous and that there are too many of them, could someone please elaborate?

Originally Posted by gentlemanly

On a side note, I don't understand the concept that the animals are dangerous and that there are too many of them, could someone please elaborate?

You can see my first post to see where i stand on this, which seems to be right where Nathan is after about 30 seconds consideration. To answer your question though:

My only area of experience has been the Kruger & Sabi Sands area of South Africa, an area of just over 7,700 square miles. Briefly, here's what i can tell you.
Elephants need to consume 200kg, or 440 lb of vegetation every day. The current population of the Kruger is 12-13000. Until a decade ago the population was maintained at a steady 7000. Although it sounds huge, the Kruger is only really capable of sustaining that number for any length of time. Any more & undue pressure is exerted on the environment & populations of other animals will begin to suffer. These include Black Rhino.
If you want to read more you can look here and here.
If they remain unchecked the numbers will continue to double every decade.

Here's a photo i took on my last safari in the Sabi Sands about six weeks or so ago. It's a playful young male, mock charging us. Barely enough to scale a razor there! I'm only including it because i can, really!