Proposed ban on all Ivory sales

[junyo]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougban...ou-ban-the-sale-of-ivory-you-ban-elephants/2/

Westerners see elephants as “charismatic mega-fauna,” majestic creatures to be preserved irrespective of cost. African farmers see giant rats and worse. When I visited Africa I observed how elephants stripped trees of bark as well as of foliage. Economists Erwin H. Bulte and G. Cornelis van Kooten estimated that “one elephant annually consumes as much forage as required to bring 4.7 cows to full maturity.” Farmer regularly die defending their crops from elephants.

When he was director of Kenya’s Wildlife Service David Western explained: “Elephants are the darlings of the Western world, but they are enemy number one in Kenya.” Indeed, he emphasized, “The African farmer’s enmity toward elephants is as visceral as Western mawkishness is passionate.”

This antipathy can be overcome, but only when elephants provide surrounding peoples with a monetary benefit. In most African countries elephants are the equivalent of the American buffalo. No one owns them and the people living closest to them make money by killing them. Reported the New York Times: “10,000 elephants in Gabon have been wiped out, some picked off by impoverished hunters, creeping around the jungle with rusty shotguns and willing to be paid in sacks of salt, others mowed down en masse by criminal gangs that slice off the dead elephants’ faces with chain saws.”

1) 'What caliber for elephants' is a non-theoretical question in Africa.
2) Prohibitions rarely work as anything other than price supports for the prohibited good/service.
3) This one boils down to the West imposing it's current values on other countries and cultures, without regard to the consequences on the ground. There are African countries (mentioned in the article) that have been responsibly managing their elephant populations, and humanely culling to keep the herds manageable, and then ultimately stockpiling the ivory because of the bans, rather than being able to reap the rewards of stewardship. High demand for ivory, in a sane world, would have elephants treated like a highly valued asset, like cattle - and we all know how famously nonchalant ranchers are about things that threaten their herds.
4) This isn't an attack on gun rights, it's a government that seems unable to grasp the fact that people respond to incentives.

 

[Armybrat]

My Dad wasn't even born when the source of these grips were kilt:

 

[Sol]

Want to cut down on elephant poaching and the illegal ivory trade?

Make stricter laws and more severe punishments for...the entire Asian continent.

Yeah the US I'm sure comes across a little bit of illegal ivory, but if it's illegal and comes from an animal the real market is in Asia. Ivory, rhinoceros horn, tiger penis, whale/dolphin/shark products are almost exclusivley Asian.

Besides, illegal ivory in the US is probably used mainly in expensive jewelry for high end customers not Bills' pistol grips or Martys' knife scales.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

I think the possible impact upon firearms owners is quite clear in potential effect relative to past LE behaviors along the lines of "protection".

I've dealt with this very issue on a state level in California. Regardless of age, "grandfathering" or whatever "yeah - but..." a fella wants to interject into the debate, if an item is - at the time - interpreted to be in "violation" the entire item has been confiscated.

Point is, if a pistol/knife has violation grips on it - in a transaction, they aren't going to ask you to remove them but rather take the entire firearm/knife and as seen in the past for dealers, the rest of his inventory might be in play as "evidence" as well.

I've been down this particular rabbit hole with California on state, county and municipal levels before.

The small step from sale transactions to any unregistered ownership has been made before.

Certainly not a gun ban but the effect can be quite harsh when mis-used through ignorance or deliberate mis-interpretation.

 

[silicosys4]

Someone needs to tell the administration that gun owners in the U.S. are not the problem.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Someone needs to tell the administration that gun owners in the U.S. are not the problem.

Someone needs to tell the NRA that policies on ivory have nothing to do with guns, guns just happen to be included in a policy to which covers a whole range of products.

Spin like this is so bad... Grasping at every possible straw, and worse than that some of you buy it.

 

[vamo]

Someone needs to tell the NRA that policies on ivory have nothing to do with guns, guns just happen to be included in a policy to which covers a whole range of products.

Spin like this is so bad... Grasping at every possible straw, and worse than that some of you buy it.

I agree with, but with a caveat. I understand why the NRA would appose this as proposed. Likening it to an assault weapon's ban is just silly. The statement from the NRA on this was way too extreme, and should have taken a tone more along the lines of:

"We understand poaching of elephants is a major international problem, gun owners many who are conservationist should do our part to combat it. However, we are against any new policy that would devalue legitimate ivory pieces whether they are part of a firearm or for another purpose."

 

[rcmodel]

and worse than that some of you buy it.

So, buying a 95 year old Colt SAA or S&W Schofield with orginial Ivory grips on it is somehow wrong in your eyes?

How about a 1960's Browning Superposed, or 1930's Parker Trap gun with an Ivory bead on the rib?

rc

 

[vamo]

So, buying a 95 year old Colt SAA or S&W Schofield with orginial Ivory grips on it is somehow wrong in your eyes?

How about a 1960's Browning Superposed, or 1930's Parker Trap gun with an Ivory bead on the rib?

rc

No more than a chess piece, or jewelry from the same era. I think the point was that this is not a gun its an issue that happens to include a few gun parts. But the NRA is spinning this like its the 2nd coming of the assault weapons ban, and that's just not the case.

 

[texasgun]

the NRA needs to STOP to spin everything into the "the government is trying to ban guns!" theme.... because when they actually do, they cried "wolf" too often.

this ban is about ivory... plain and simple. ivory is used for MANY things and honestly gun grips are probably one of the lesser common applications....

 

[hso]

So, buying ...

He's saying we make ourselves look like idiots when we buy into the hysterical claims, not buying vintage ivory pieces.

 

[22-rimfire]

A US ban will do little to no good in terms of saving elephants from poachers. That has to be done by the countries having the elephant populations. Supposively if you take the market away, then the poaching will stop. It won't, because the market will remain. It will only make ivory more valuable and in the process make many US citizens criminals when they try to sell the old piano, a carved ivory statue, a gun with ivory stocks, a knife, or whatever. Only honest people pay much attention to laws, and poachers are not honest people nor are the people who will continue to purchase all the ivory that will be supplied to them in China and Thailand.

Elephants are doomed in the wild.

 

[wrc]

The perception management operation for this one relies on people not reading the source material.

Here's the link, provided in the first post.

There's some breathless NRA silliness there.

This is another attempt by this anti-gun Administration to ban firearms based on cosmetics and would render many collections/firearms valueless.

Yeah, that really sounds like an overreaction. There's probably plenty of other intent in the proposed regulation. Causing trouble for lawful firearm owners is just a side benefit.

But, if you read the NRA-ILA press release, the "deeds" section is what you should look at more so than the "words" section:

Please email and call the White House at 202-456-1111 and email and call the Fish and Wildlife Service at 1-800-344-9453, to let them know you oppose the ban on commercial sale and trade of legally owned firearms with ivory components.

So, the end result of this is that we, as lawful firearm owners, don't want to be basically "grandfathered out" based on the use of ivory in some component of the firearms we currently lawfully own. The NRA-ILA suggest we drive this point home with the executive.

The NRA-ILA, even with it's somewhat inflammatory rhetoric, has a point.

 

[goon]

Instead of pointless idiocy, the administration should encourage do-gooders to buy anything they can find made of ivory and ship it to Asia.
Asian markets get flooded - everyone and his brother has all the ivory he can find for dirt cheap - ivory is no longer an exclusive status symbol - elephants stop being killed for ivory.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Quotes:
One of the problems is when LE finds a stash of illegal ivory they hold it for awhile then destroy it. Instead they should flood the market with this recovered ivory which will drive its demand and cost down thereby reducing the incentive for poachers. Do they do this, no. They destroy it thereby increasing demand and the economic incentive to poach it. Just doesn't make sense.

Instead of pointless idiocy, the administration should encourage do-gooders to buy anything they can find made of ivory and ship it to Asia.
Asian markets get flooded - everyone and his brother has all the ivory he can find for dirt cheap - ivory is no longer an exclusive status symbol - elephants stop being killed for ivory.

There is so much wrong with these two ideas, but none of it is firearm related. In fact, the whole issue of ivory is just barely firearm related.

Summary:

If you have a gun with ivory, don't count on being able to sell it indefinitely. If that bothers you, get rid of it sooner than later.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

It sounds to me like the NRA is being straightforward and factual:

Any firearm, firearm accessory, or knife that contains ivory, no matter how big or small, would not be able to be sold in the United States, unless it is more than 100 years old. This means if your shotgun has an ivory bead or inlay, your revolver or pistol has ivory grips, your knife has an ivory handle, or if your firearm accessories, such as cleaning tools that contain any ivory, the item would be illegal to sell.

The legal Ivory trade has been great for elephant conservation. This is very misguided and counter productive.

Mike

 

[buck460XVR]

Last time I looked, Shotgun beads and handgun grips were mighty easy to replace, thus the firearms themselves are always sellable. If the firearm is 100 years old and a true collector item, it is also sellable. I don't see a real impact on the firearm industry or the shooting sports other than having to take the ivory grips off a modern handgun before you sell it. While it does make the selling of recently harvested ivory banned, it does not ban the possession. How many folks will truly be affected by this is questionable.

Still, I have my reservations as to how much this will do to curb the poaching of elephants. Seems the sale of legal ivory does and could do more for their conservation than banning it completely. As we have seen in America in the past, making the sale of something illegal does little to curb it, only drives the price up and creates a black market. There is not an easy solution and just banning the sale does not seem to be it.

 

[Armybrat]

I will pass my Colt Texas Sesquicentennial 45 (made in 1985) on to one of my sons regardless what any government bureaucrat dictates.

 

[Old Fuff]

If you have a gun with ivory, don't count on being able to sell it indefinitely. If that bothers you, get rid of it sooner than later.

Why? If the ivory in the stocks on my handgun or knife pre-date the current laws (which I support) what justification is there to penalize me for having them? This move by the Obama Administration has nothing to do with protecting elephants, and everything to do with hurting those who have various firearm or knife accessories that were made from ivory that was legal at the time.

Are you proposing that all artifacts made from legal elephant ivory should be, for all practical purposes, made worthless?

If this is the government's intent, they should have to pay the owners of such objects full market value they held before the new regulations went into effect.

Which of course is highly unlikely.

 

[vamo]

It sounds to me like the NRA is being straightforward and factual:
Quote:
Any firearm, firearm accessory, or knife that contains ivory, no matter how big or small, would not be able to be sold in the United States, unless it is more than 100 years old. This means if your shotgun has an ivory bead or inlay, your revolver or pistol has ivory grips, your knife has an ivory handle, or if your firearm accessories, such as cleaning tools that contain any ivory, the item would be illegal to sell.
The legal Ivory trade has been great for elephant conservation. This is very misguided and counter productive.

I have no problem with that statement but they also said:

This is another attempt by this anti-gun Administration to ban firearms based on cosmetics and would render many collections/firearms valueless.

And that is a dumb statement and that's where I have an issue. I said it in another thread the NRA needs to start talking to people like they're literate adults instead of making wild claims that can be debunked with a google search.

This isn't about gun control, its about the ivory trade. The ivory trade happens to affect a small number of guns so of course the NRA should advocate for the people who own those guns, but they immediately lose credibility when they imply that gun control is the reason for the regulations.

There's a lot of good points to be made about the best way to conserve elephant populations and prevent them from being solely killed for tusks, none of which has much to do with guns.

 

[Old Dog Man]

My understanding of the present law, is that if it has art work on it is not covered by the possession law. I don't know if this is true. My Walrus tusk has art on it and also the tag from the Alaska Game Dept. I think it should be legal to own. Al

 

[HoosierQ]

I think this will be a non-issue for gun and knife owners unless you a) try to transport the item in or out of the country, or b) use an ivory handled gun in a SD shooting and come under scrutiny that way.

This type of law has had a very big impact on musicians. A lot of musical instruments are made of woods that are protected. Musicians are getting their guitars confiscated coming and going from the US. It is so bad that some of them have special "border friendly" instruments that will make it. This is really a much bigger problem for musicians in that these rare and/or protected woods have a very profound effect on the performance of the instrument. Ivory (also very common on musical instruments) will have little if any impact on the performance of a firearm.

Heirlooms will be safe but they are not going to be very "portable" I think.

I would argue that nobody needs ivory to make a gun today. I don't think that argument holds up for ebony and other woods that are very important to the making of musical instruments.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

This move by the Obama Administration has nothing to do with protecting elephants, and everything to do with hurting those who have various firearm or knife accessories that were made from ivory that was legal at the time.

Oh gosh what a load of baloney.

Here, go watch the hearing for yourself.

http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hea...ng-threats-conservation-and-national-security

Report back how much of law has to do with guns and how of it has to do with elephants.

 

[Old Fuff]

Oh gosh what a load of baloney.

My point:

I support domestic statutes and international agreements that will interdict and stop the trade in illegal ivory. However any attempt to sanction legal ivory, or ivory objects made from this material that dates from 1914 to present will do absolutely nothing to protect elephants today. I would equate this proposal as being an excellent example of throwing a baby out with the bathwater.

To pick an example, how do the owners of handguns or knives (or anything else) that have elephant ivory stocks or handles prove when the material they are made of was imported? It is my understanding that current makers of ivory artifacts do (or can) provide evidence showing that the material they use came from legal sources and when, but this is a relatively late development. I suggest that the burden of proving illegality should rest on the government, and not on those who are expected to be able to show that whatever they have wasn’t fashioned from contraband.

If you have a gun with ivory, don't count on being able to sell it indefinitely. If that bothers you, get rid of it sooner than later.

And how is the cause of elephant preservation served if owners of handguns (or whatever) have to remove any ivory stocks or grips and replace them with something else before they can sell the firearm itself?

 

[Sol]

Reminds me of a famous quote by Martin Niemöller:

"First they came for the sperm oil, and I did not speak out
Because I did not use sperm oil.

Then they came for the cocobolo, and I did not speak out
Because I did not use cocobolo.

Then they came for the ivory, and I did not speak out
Because I had no ivory.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me."

here's the original quote for anyone interested:

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me."