E-Bay bans all ivory sales!
 

Starting Jan. 1, 2009 there will be NO MORE IVORY SALES ON E-BAY!!!
Say goodbye to yataghans, kindjals, krises and pesh-kabzes....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081021...adecompanyebay
Shall we remove CITES guidelines from the site? It's like having a "no smoke" sign in the middle of a post-nuclear landscape...

Hi Ariel,

Wow, eBay sure knows how to ummmmm...

hmmmm. Actually, I read the full article. EBay will allow: ""will allow some antique (pre-1900) items that contain a small amount of ivory, such as a table with a small ivory inlay or an antique piano with ivory keys...Items which contain a significant amount of ivory, regardless of the age, such as chess sets, ivory broaches and ivory jewelry are not permitted under the new policy."

Anyway, I'd vote for keeping the CITES guidelines up. While we can't buy ivory on eBay, we can get it elsewhere, and it's good for everyone (especially newbies) to know about the law before they get stung by it and forfeit a perfectly legal antique to customs somewhere.

Also note that the ban applies only to elephant ivory. There are other forms of ivory out there (walrus, hippo, etc), and some of them are are also regulated by CITES. and CITES covers a lot more things than ivory, although it's our major concern here. Tiger claws, sea turtle shell, various furs, etc. similar in a weapon are also regulated under CITES

F

I don't know Ariel - legislation is worth nothing unless enforced. If a listing has a walrus ivory hilted yataghan, but the description and the title do not contain the word ivory, and instead the yataghan is marketed as "bone-hilted," do you really think eBay will interfere? If sellers want to sell ivory hilted swords and daggers, they will find a way to do it. eBay has done what it needed to do to avoid potential problems and a poor image, but I highly doubt the company will go to great lengths to stop listings which have ivory objects, as long as these listings are not blatantly obvious and easy to find.

Looks like there will be a lot of "white bone" handled blades on Ebay. Maybe more for sale here as well?

How does one tell the difference between marine and elephant ivory?

bbjw

Good point, TVV. I wonder what will happen to those "mammal toothed" materials as well? Wonder if anyone here will buy a sword from China with a "white bone" handle? :rolleyes:

BBJW: that's a good question, and I personally don't know the answer, beyond examining the piece with a magnifying glass or microscope to look for diagnostic structures. Here's a website that discusses the issue. I doubt that eBay will post pictures of the, ahem, "white bone" handles in microscopic cross section to allow us to ID the material prior to purchasing it.

F

I would assume that eBay use an automatic 'search engine'....to search for listings using "ivory" in the description/title. I have seen a number of weapons described as having iv*ry.........ivorry ....and ivery ...so either speeling isn't their strong point ( :rolleyes: ) or some sellers have the need to hide the 'word' already.
It suggests to me that a 'coded' form of 'ivory' will be used. Sellers would want you to know that it was more than 'mere' bone. Only trouble would be that if a dishonest seller gave you the impression (within the listing) using perhaps, the 'coded' word....that a sword was ivory hilted. Only for the buyer to discover that it was bone......you would have no re-dress through paypal for a refund. Plus the fact you would surely have to prove that the 'code work', say, for instance 'white bone', actually meant 'ivory'., if you tried other means to obtain a refund :shrug:

Regards David

I have mixed feelings about this.
It is far more defensible a decision on ebays part that sooooooo many others they've made.
I mean the list is literally endless.
The debacle about curved swords and Katanas, whilst continuing to allow millions of 'fantasy' knives when their own rules expressly forbid knives designed for combat.
Allowing an endless array of deadly items whilst banning antique guns.
No crossbows but bows are Ok, no BB guns but you can buy broadhead hunting arrows.

But the question of Ivory....
Well, there is still a thriving trade in China for illegally procured Ivory to supply western markets with faked antiques. Thats a good enough reason to try and stamp it out I think.
There's no point in continuing the system as is due to the huge amount of abuse and circumvention.
As David says though, it will have to be rigorously policed!


On a happy note though, Pesh-Kabz are nicer with stone handles!
;-)

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c5...IM000119-1.jpg

What is important in the e-bay stance is it's "matter of principle". Of course, sellers will use Iv@ree etc. Of course, one would quibble about the "amount" ( a full -piano set of ivory keys may be in fact more than a yataghan handle).
But we might be facing environmental activists scouring e-bay listings ( including "white bone" and spelling curlicues) and filing official complaints, and those listings will be taken off. This is not my fantasy: there are people who closely follow other categories. Try to sell a real medical human skull or something with a swastika...
I think this serves as a precedent whereby E-Bay went above and beyond the internationally-accepted laws. What will prevent it to ban something else?
Pakistani rugs (child labor)? Israeli olive wood carvings ( occupation policy)?
Turkish waterpipes( promotion of marihuana)? African artefacts ( colonial plunder)? And, yes, bladed weapons ( cruelty and homicide)?
There are many political groups pushing their agendas. E-bay just succumbed ( or at least paid lip service) to yet another one. But lip services tend to become real stances.
Even paranoiacs have real enemies...

IMO
 

Sort of a fly-swatter/shotgun approach to Ivory on their part . :shrug:

Don't worry, things can only get worse . :D

Ebay could certainly never be accused of evenhandedness or logic in their choice pf policy decision, but I'm prepared to see Ivory banned if it will help to conserve the remaining stocks of endangered species.

Soon (in the UK) the government will tighten the laws on bladed weapons (specifically to target cheap imported Chinese combat style knives) even though most fatal stabbings in the UK are committed with kitchen knives. I have no doubt that at that time ebay.uk will ban the sale of bladed weapons entirely.

Ebay Bans
 

Ebay could certainly never be accused of evenhandedness or logic in their choice pf policy decision, but I'm prepared to see Ivory banned if it will help to conserve the remaining stocks of endangered species.

Atlantia,

I am with you on this.

Royston

PS
I see they still allow " Morris Dancing " items. :eek:

oh, the horror, the poor morrises, how they have been mistreated by the evil englanders, being belled and danced to the point of distinction, and then being hit with them sticky things. why it's as shocking as all them poor polyesters that died to provide someone with a polyester fur coat - there oughta be a law! this could never happen in california.

here we have an evil gang of morris dancers in their traditional gang colours, the remains of a poor morris are on the wall above them.
http://www.communigate.co.uk/oxford/...cers/phpJpR4zL

here we have another, note the variation in their evil gang oriented clothing, this group being armed to the teeth with cudgels, knobkerries and other weapons of mass morris destruction. note the organization of these indoctrinated and practiced evildoers as they head smiling for yet another morris termination.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi....wells.arp.jpg

and here we have a northern variant, the yorkshire longsword morris dancers, armed with their evil and soon to be banned longswords, heading for a ritual decapitation. the poor ritual, a lesser hornless form of morris, they are also almost extinct due to this evil practice. rituals are considered tasty eating by some and often found in supermarkets gourmet section. the labour party has vowed to ban these evil gatherings.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Grenoside2.JPG
the leader of this gang has just been knocked over by a concerned hero of PETA.


oh, when will the horror cease?

i see ebay still sells polyester fur clothing in spite of the protests by concerned liberals everywhere, oh the humanity!
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s...w/humanity.jpg

Hi Ariel,

I happen to agree with Atlantia on this.

If the news article is correct, the US has the biggest black market for endangered species material, primarily ivory, and eBay is the biggest vendor for these products. Therefore, if one wants to conserve elephants, targeting illegal ivory sales on eBay makes sense from a conservation standpoint.

EBay seems to be saying (probably correctly) that they have substantial trouble distinguishing legal from illegal ivory sales, and so they're banning them all, except in cases where it's a trivial amount of ivory, and it's unlikely to be contributing to the current conservation problems. I almost hate to say it, but that's a reasonable strategy for them.

I'd also point out that helps to differentiate between the mainstream conservation groups and the extremists. The mainstream groups have learned the hard way to be pretty pragmatic about getting results. The extremists tend to have a more absolutist policies. The mainstream groups are generally willing to talk and negotiate.

If you want to get angry, you might want to target those who are running the illegal ivory and endangered species markets. They're the ones who are messing things up for the rest of us, and without them, we wouldn't need CITES. Blaming eBay is a bit like blaming a mall for hiring rent-a-cops to chase the gangbangers away.

F

Personally I have made several complaints about new ''artifacts" that were offered as antique and were made of CITES endangered species.
Not 1 single listing was removed, and I also never received an answer from ebay.
I even once asked a question to CITES about there policy towards ebay and never recieved a supply.
Protecting animals probabaly has a lot to do with politics.

As for ebay banning ivory, politics again. Maybe something to do with stock holders. I am quite sure that selling ivory netsuke from China combined with the (also not allowed) high shippingcharges will continue. with or without ban.

Lets take our own responsibillity and try to avoid buying new ivory objects.
And yes, i am only human and might be tempted, but lets do our best :o

Great pictures. It is an old thing many suppressed and confident "military by numbers" people encouraged martial training through dance. Here it is completely neutralised. They had fun, possibly to many drinks.

The world does not begin and end with ebay.

So what if they ban ivory sales?

Ivory sales have been banned in so many places for so long that this is just another minor annoyance--- and not just ivory sales, in some places and some instances, possession of ivory.

Prior to the CITES restrictions on ivory sales, specifically during the 1970's, ivory keris hilts could be bought in Indonesia for around the same price as wooden keris hilts, price of either depended on quality of workmanship and age, not so much on the material.

Guess what has happened to the price of ivory since the very wise CITES bans came into force?

Yeah, that's right:- same thing as happened to the price of alcohol during prohibition.

Want to push prices up?

BAN IT!!!

As for the protection of elephants, well, anyone notice beef cattle dying out?

Nope.

Why?

Because beef cattle have a use.

Since the ivory bans what has happened with poaching of ivory?

Do elephants have any use at all, except to make some of us---me included---feel good?

I'm all in favour of ensuring that elephants do not die out. I like elephants. Big, impressive, almost human in some respects---not that that is necessarily a recommendation---but yeah, elephants are good guys. Lets make sure they don't all get killed.

But this new age ratbag approach of the tree huggers and kangaroo cuddlers of banning the trade in ivory is simply not defensible in the long term on any logical or rational basis.

The banning of Ivory already HAS made a huge difference to the numbers of elephant stocks. In many countries where the ban has been for the most part successfully enforced, Elephant populations have boomed in recent years.
But there is still a market for ivory, especially in the faked/reproduction antiques trade, and it IS growing.
That should be a huge concern to every one of us for several reasons.

A significant (perhaps the main) market for illegally poached Ivory is China, and a significant market for the products produced from that illegally poached ivory are internet auction sites selling to western collectors.
If you could tell me 'hand on heart' that every piece of Ivory on eBay that is described as a 'genuine antique' or that comes with a piece of paper from a dealer stating it is 'pre ban' really IS legal, then there would be no problem.
But you know that is not the case.

Of course eBays decision willl not end the trade.
Just as the existing ban hasn't done so over the last 25 years.
But to draw the conclusion that such bans are not worth the effort because they are not 100% effective is simply ridiculous. They are a continuing fight, and if ebay feel that they cannot effectively differentiate between legal and illegal Ivory on their site, then they are doing the right thing by banning it all.

As has been said, I find it hard to believe that they will effectively enforce this new rule, but amongst their furball of mystifying decisions and 'thou shalt not' rules, this is generally a good one.

I think Ivory is a beautiful material, I love antiques and recognise and understand (albeit with some sadness) the use of endangered animal parts in antique items of extreme cultural significance and historic importance.
But despite this fact, there simply can be no comparison between the need for conservation of entire species and the needs of a handful of collectors.
We are not talking about a ban on ownership of genuine antiques, or their enforced destruction, just a measure being introduced to continue to combat a continuing destructive trade stemming from what is an indefensible practice.

Yes genuine collectors of real antiques will suffer a little. But the significance of every piece of ivory in every manmade antique from the Chryselephantine statues of the classical world to Steinway pianos and every piece of netsuke inbetween is absolutely NIL compared to the survival of an entire species.


I respect your right to disagree with this ban, and from your comments it seems you may even disagree with ANY ban on the sale of ivory?
But of all the angles that you could have chosen for objection, your argument that 'bans' dont do any good is simply wrong and your rather personal comments about those who support conservation: 'ratbag approach of the tree huggers and kangaroo cuddlers' is frankly offensive to me.

I sincerely hope those were hasty words on your part.

Reagrds
Gene

A.J. Maisey,
Completely agree!

My $0.02:

This argument would seem to imply that the ban of ivory has in some way created additional incentive to kill elephants, and that if we treated elephants the same way we did cattle, we could have our elephants and *ahem* kill them too. Quite simply, if the market existed for this to be true, it would have been done. The fact is that ivory is not a necessity, and so has a much smaller market to sell too than food like beef. Further, the lack of domestication combined with the enormity of these animals would make it fiscally untenable to do so. Which is why animals such as these were hunted to near extinction in the first place: they are profitable enough to hunt, but not to farm. As for the cost increase in banned items, well, of course the cost increases, since the risk associated with the aquisition is greater. But the reason these bans work is that there is a much smaller percentage of people willing to take the larger risk associated with illegal activity.

There are reserves in Africa, I'm told, where the elephant population has grown to the point where it actually has to be controlled through hunting. The time may come when other elephant populations will be in a similar situation, and at that time these bans can be lifted (under strict hunting supervision). But the notion that the free market will somehow save the elephants on its own, or that elephants aren't worth saving if the market doesn't save them, simply doesn't hold water with me.

just like clockwork:

threads like this becomes politically charged, lol.


i think that we should just stick to the topic at hand...

thank you

I also do not think Ariel's intent with this thread was to start a debate over the effectiveness of the eBay ban in the fight to save endangered species. I think he just wanted to let us know that starting January 1st, 2009, ivory hilted items will be harder to obtain and more expensive. The last part was pointed out in a very hard to dispute manner by Alan, actually.
Besides, we can argue our points of view in this thread forever, but I doubt anyone here will do anything to fight the ban. We may circumvent it by buying ivory (and rhino horn) hilted weapons from sellers, who disguise it, but since we (I hope, and I know for myself personally) are after genuine antiques, this would in no way threaten the existing elephant (or rhino) population.
As it was pointed out, at the end of the day it comes down to personal ethics and responsibility, and I for one have confidence in the members of this forum that we will continue to do the right thing, just like we have been doing it so far. For myself, I do not feel the intent of the ban was to stop me from bying ivory hilted yataghans that are a century and a half old, and therefore I really am not too concerned about the new rule.

Atlantia my dear friend, I support without reservation your right to hold your opinion in respect of ivory, and whatever else you may choose hold an opinion on.

If I have offended you because of my own opinions in respect of ratbag tree huggers and kangaroo cuddlers, then I guess you will just have to continue to be offended, because I do hold very strong views, both logical and emotional in respect of many currently unpopular and politically incorrect matters, and this elephant thing is one.

I can most definitely assure you that my words were not hasty. I expressed in a rather casual and polite fashion views that I have held for many years. Were I not so concerned with maintaining a warm and friendly persona, I could be vastly more vitriolic in respect of this issue.

I have no desire to debate this matter:- to do so would be tantamount to a radical adherent of one religion attempting to convert a radical adherent of a different religion to his own faith.

I do not see this "save the elephants" thing as a struggle between those who would collect artifacts made of elephant tusk, and those who would attempt to prevent the disappearance of a species. I see it as an irrational, illogical, and economically unsound means of controlling a commodity for which there is human demand. Quite simply what we are witnessing is the waste of a resource.

I have yet to see any ban that is effective at achieving what it sets out to achieve. Essentially a ban is a control, and any control as simplistic as a ban is just tailor made to be ignored. If the objective is to prevent the disappearance of elephants, then this objective should be subjected to risk analysis and a whole suite of controls put in place to ensure as far as possible the achievement of the objective. One such control would be implementation of quotas.

The ban mentality is in my opinion one of the insane blossoms of political incompetence.

If any of the views I have expressed above are offensive to anybody, then I suggest that you simply ignore those views, as I myself ignore those views which could be considered offensive.

I've found that I failed to comment upon something that I intended to comment upon, thus this postscript.

Atlantia, I do support intelligent conservation.
What is intelligent conservation?
An example could be the payment of subsidies by wealthy countries such as the USA and other developed countries to those countries which still retain large areas of forest, to conserve those areas of forest.

At the present time those of us who live in developed countries are getting a free ride for our lifestyles from the developing countries that still have forest. This forest is disappearing at a frightening rate, and when it has disappeared---as it will--- well, climate change? Global warming? Brother, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Elephants, whales, giant pandas, koala bears---yeah, politically popular, little issues that little people can relate to. Problems that are not too big to get your head around.

But if we want to conserve something that might make a real difference to the world we live in, its forests we should be looking at.

Hear hear ! (even though Elephant mostly live in savannah's)

IMHO, the ban on ivory sales in eBay is good news! Being an underwater photographer, I have a heart too for marine animals that are in danger. I think eBay should also ban Giant Manta Ray skins and dugong (asian sea cow) ivory/bone.

Nonoy

Well, AGM!
I actually wondered briefly if your whole reply was a joke? You did offend me with your earlier comments, but now you've made me laugh! And I can never have enough laughter in my life so jolly well done for that.

To try and reduce such an important issue to a question of political correctness really did make me chuckle.
To try and justify killing elephants for their tusks because there is a 'human demand', also another hearty laugh.
To imply that the conservation of entire species are 'little issues' that are 'not too big to get your head around', my sides were aching by that point!

You've reminded me of why the arguments FOR conservation of these species have already been won over and over.
Becuase there is no intelligent or logical opposition that can possibly be mounted.

A hugely entertaining reply from you which I am happy to leave now as I feel it not only makes your stance, views, and feeelings towards those who disagree with you very clear, but also makes my arguments for me without the need for further comments on my part beyond this.

Think I'll go cuddle a Kangaroo!

Gene.

Gene, I thank you most sincerely for your response to my earlier post.

This has aided me quite considerably in coming to an understanding of your nature.

I do owe you an apology, and that is for my seeming inability to write English in a way that is easily understood.

Please accept my apology for my inadequacy in this respect.

Had you understood what I wrote your amusement may not have been so intense.

Still, this exchange is hopefully a valuable lesson for us all:- the nature of man is manifold, which is as well, were it not so there could be no improvement in the human condition.

Again I thank you for your contribution to my understanding of the nature of my fellow man.

Should you feel inclined to respond to this post of mine, you may rest assured that I am at this point more than happy to concede the final word to you.

Asomotif, the preservation of forests is not only about the preservation of elephants. It is about the preservation of life as we know it.

Throughout the history of the planet Earth, species have arisen, and species have disappeared. This in itself is neither good nor bad, it is simply the nature of the abstract concept of "life". For balance to exist, old entities must disappear and new entities must come into existence.

Humans have been here for only the blink of a gnat's eyelid, but during our time here, we have assumed the characteristics of a parasite that has changed the nature of our host, and is in the process of destroying that host.

As a species, in our present form and current distribution it is inevitable that we shall disappear.

Unless some very unpalatable decisions are taken by those who are in command of the destiny of our species.

Against such a backdrop, the disappearance of elephants, as unfortunate as this may be, is as nothing, when measured against the disappearance of life as we know it.

Regrettably it is the nature of humankind to see only that which is within its reach:- the preservation of an animal species is something that seems to be attainable; the preservation of Earth is too big, too hard, and something that is not attainable. The principal barrier to this is the very human nature that has placed us where we are today.

Hi AGM,

Hoo boy, gotta disagree with you on the elephants, sorry to draw you into a debate. I'll limit the argument to African elephants, although I believe that it also applies to Asian elephants as well.

Thing is, there are probably more elephants in the Congo rain forest than there are on the African plains (these are forest elephants, a different species than their savanna relatives). When I was getting my PhD in ecology, one of my fellow students was studying how elephants moved, and how this affected the distribution of a fairly common forest tree. The elephant at the trees' fruits, and dispersed the seeds in their dung. As these fruits were about the size of bowling balls and nearly as hard, elephants were the tree's major disperser.

In the African forest, there are a fair number of trees that are dispersed by elephants. Elephants also make many of the large trails in the forest, and they kill and eat some trees, as well as shrubs and grass. In short, if the elephants disappear from the forest, so do many of the tree species. Elephants are what have been called keystone species or ecosystem engineers. Remove the elephants, and the forest changes, just as if you overfish, you get a sea full of jellyfish.

I'm not going to end with an airy-fairy "gotta save everything, because everything's connected" speech, exactly. However, I will point out that one of the cheaper ways of saving a patch of forest might be to protect the elephants in it.

Getting back to the discussion at hand, the only conservation message I'd love to see this group espouse is this: "CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS." That's all.

I agree that ivory is a wonderful material. Is it worth a dead elephant? Perhaps to you, not to me. Is it worth having that elephant shot by some criminal gang for their own profit? You need to decide that too, because that's what we're talking about, in part. Cutting back the demand for ivory is one way to stop the trade.

We all focus on the weapons here, but these objects have ties into a broader community. It's worth being aware of those ties. It doesn't really matter whether we're talking about ivory for a keris handle, or whether we're wondering whether a friendship is worth more than a particular sword we're competing for. In ALL cases, we need to think about the consequences of our actions, and think about whether our swords are worth it or not. That's all, at least in my opinion.

F

Fearn, we are not in disagreement.

Please read my post again.

Elephants are a part of "life as we know it".

From the macro perspective elephants are probably no more, and no less important than Patagonian cockroaches---they're just bigger and more lovable.

Yes, elephants are important, I am aware of the arguments you have put, but they are only important in the preservation of a status quo, and the preservation of a status quo is not the nature of the planet upon which we live.

The simple, unadorned fact of the matter is that our own kind has become too numerous, and the means of disposing of the by-products of our existence have become too few, and are becoming fewer with every passing minute, whilst we become ever more numerous.

Earth will survive. We may not.

This is not at all about elephants.

I don't really want to continue this discussion. I have the tendency to think in very large perspectives. I think in terms of hundreds and thousands of years, and against historical backdrops. In matters such as this,I tend to think in broad sweeps and in philosophical terms. This makes for very boring general discussion.

I did try to make my initial post more or less light hearted and generalist, but now we have reached this point, I could only continue discussion if I became even less readable than I already am. I erred in opening this line of discussion, and I regret it. Could we perhaps move away from deathly serious matters to more entertaining ones?

Hi Alan,

I'm happy to end the "debate" too, with one last statement. Since I work as a professional conservationist often enough, I thought I needed to speak up, because we have differing views. I'm a bit more like a car mechanic, if we can make the strained metaphor that a forest is like a car. For me, elephants are like brakes or ball joints. Lose them and the car changes from a vehicle to a lawn ornament. Still useful perhaps, but drastically different in function, and drastically reduced in value.

I'd also argue with the idea that we're all doomed. My personal problem with that view is that it can be used to justify any activity. After all, if things are coming to the end, why should we care about the future? The Conquistadors reportedly had that view when they invaded the new world. They were expecting the second coming at any second, and so did not care about the humanity of the Indians. Considering that the Conquistadors had recently been through the Black Death and various wars, one can understand their bleak outlook. We're still living with the consequences of their world view.

So far as I can tell, there's no particular reason to think that the human species will become extinct any time soon. That means somebody's kids (possibly our own) get to live with the problems we're creating. That's reason enough to care about what we do, at least for me.

As you noted, Alan, we have different viewpoints, and I value yours. If you want to end the debate here, I'm happy to agree to disagree, and to get back to weapons.

F

Fearn, from my perspective, we are not debating.

We are discussing.

I am not attempting to change your point of view, nor anybody else's point of view, I am merely putting forward my own. Debate involves the idea of "winning" and "losing". I am here to do neither.

Insofar as your point of view is concerned, I say again:- we are not in disagreement, it is just that your perspective is limited , perhaps by the nature of your area of speciality.

As a professional in the field of conservation, you would be aware of the figures on forest loss better than most. You would also be aware of the vital role played by the world's forests in maintenance of our world as we know it.

I think that probably everybody except that hermit who has been meditating in a cave in the Himalayas for the last 50 years is now aware that our world is going through a period of change. What name or nature we give to that change still seems to be a matter for some disagreement, however, the one thing that nobody can disagree about is the role of forests, and the the rate of reduction of those forests.

It is simple logic that a species cannot change its environment, and continue to live in that environment in the same way that it has lived in it in the past. Equally, no species can continue to grow in numbers when the place where it lives is limited.

I agree that the human race is not doomed. Of course the race will survive, but it will not survive in the numbers or form that it now has.

I have already said that I think in macro terms. I also think in abstract and philosophical terms.

Throw your mind forward 3000 years.

And in terms of the life of the planet, 3000 years is nothing.

I'm going to leave this discussion here, not simply because it can only become even more depressing from this point forward, but also because I have some commitments to keep that will remove me from my computer for a few days.

Remember:- we are not in disagreement.

I AM FOR CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES ANIMAL SPECIES BEING ONE OF THEM. THE ECO SYSTEMS WERE SET UP BY A POWER MUCH GREATER THAN MANKIND AND WE ARE A PART OF IT. BUT LIKE THE ELEPHANT WE AS A SPECIES ARE UNDER THE SAME NATURAL LAWS.
TOO MANY ELEPHANTS FOR THEIR RANGE ? IF THEY ARE NOT THINNED OUT THE ENVIRONMENT WILL BE DEPLEATED TOTALLY AND ALL ELEPHANTS THERE WILL DIE. THE WAY IT IS CURRENTLY DONE IS A HERD OF ELEPHANTS THAT IS CLOSE TO THE SIZE CONSIDERED TO BE TOO MANY FOR THE AREA TO SUPPORT IS FOUND. IF THERE IS NO PLACE TO MOVE THEM, THEY ARE ALL KILLED AND THE IVORY BURNED. MANY TONS OF IVORY HAS BEEN BURNED SINCE THE BANS"VERY WASTFUL" IT COULD HAVE BEEN SOLD AND USED TO TAKE CARE OF THE REMAINING ELEPHANTS AND PERHAPS BUY MORE LAND.
ONE LAW WE AS A SPECIES CAN NEVER CONTROL IS (MORE OF US LESS OF EVERYTHING ELSE.)
THE MASTODON, MAMMOTH, GIANT SLOTH AND HORSE ARE THOUGHT TO HAVE BECOME EXTINCT IN NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA LARGELY DUE TO THE LARGE NUMBERS OF HUMAN HUNTERS. EVIDENTLY SOME SPECIES WERE MORE PREFERRED OR EASY TO HUNT BY EARLY MAN. PERHAPS THEY WERE SINGLED OUT BECAUSE THEY WERE LARGE AND FEARSOM OR BECAUSE ONE WOULD FEED THE ENTIRE VILLAGE OR THEY MADE BETTER STEAKS AND FUR COATS :shrug: FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY WERE HEAVILY HUNTED HERE AND COULD NOT WITHSTAND THE VARIOUS PRESSURES SO BECAME EXTINCT. EVIDENTLY THE IDEA OF DOMESTICATING ANIMALS DIDN'T CATCH ON IN THE AMERICAS AS WELL. WE HAD THE DOMESTICATED DOG AND I THINK JUNGLE FOWL WERE KEPT IN SOUTH AMERICA. HORSES WERE JUST TOO TASTY TO DOMESTICATE I GUESS :rolleyes: WE HAD TO SEND OUT TO SPAIN TO BRING US SOME MORE. :)

GAME MANAGEMENT SHOULD BE DONE IN A CAREFUL, LOGICAL, AND EFFECIENT WAY ANY RESOURSES SHOULD BE USED AND PUT BACK INTO THE OPERATION NOT WASTED. EMOTION SHOULD NOT BE A PART OF THE MAIN PLAN JUST STUDY THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ANIMALS THERE AND DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO KEEP THE SYSTEM WORKING AND ALL PARTS OF IT SHOULD PROSPER.
THE BAN IS A TOOL THAT SOMETIMES WORKS AND HELPS AND SOMETIMES DOES NOT. IF SOMETHING IS WASTEFUL OR IS NOT WORKING IT SHOULD BE REORGANIZED AND FIXED NOT JUST PUT A BAN BECAUSE IT IS EASY AND LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY. MY MAJOR WAS MARINE ZOOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY SO I UNDERSTAND HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK BUT THE SHOTGUN APPROCH TO ECOLOGY DOSEN'T WORK VERY WELL IN MANY INSTANCES. THE UNEDUCATED, EMOTIONAL, AND UNREALISTIC IDEAS OFTEN FORCE THRU BAD POLICYS THAT WORK POORLY.
FOR EXAMPLE
SOME PERSON OR GROUP WHO LOVES PANDAS BECAUSE THEY ARE CUTE AND CUDDELY LOOKING IS NOT THE ONES TO PUT IN CHARGE OF THE PANDA OR OF MAKEING UP THE RULES. SOMEONE WHO HAS STUDIED AND LIVED AROUND THE PANDA AND KNOWS HOW IT LIVES AND WHAT IT NEEDS IS THE PERSON TO MAKE THE RULES AND WATCH OVER THEM. I THINK THE CHINESE ARE FOLLOWING THE SECOND AND MOST LOGICAL CHOICE AS FAR AS THE PANDA GOES SO THEY ARE HAVEING SUCCESS PERSERVING PANDAS AND MAKEING MONEY DOING IT.
BUT IT WILL STILL COME DOWN TO (MORE OF US LESS OF EVERYTHING ELSE) WHEN MAN NEEDS THE LAND OR RESOURCE WHATEVER IS THERE MUST GO .
MOTHER NATURE IS WORKING ON THINNING US OUT WITH GERMS, VIRIUS AND OUR BAD INSTINTS THAT KEEP US HATEING THE OTHER GUY AND GOING TO WAR AND DESIGNING BETTER WAYS TO EXTERMINATE EACH OTHER. SO EVENTUALLY A BALANCE WILL BE REACHED DESPITE OF OR BECAUSE OF OUR TECKNOLOGY.

BANNING IVORY ON EBAY NO BIG DEAL
CONFICATEING A 100 TO 200 YEAR OLD IVORY MASTERPIECE AND BURNING IT SACRILEGE.!! :eek:

different viewpoints
 

It's interesting to notice that there are points of view ... and points of blindness :rolleyes:
And the worst blind is the one who doesn't want to see :shrug: .

Fernando
Ph.D. in empiricism :eek:

Either way, Alan and all. I don't call your view blind or short sighted, but I'll go back to the car analogy. In the long run, there will always be cars (I'm being facetious here, but we're in metaphor land, where ecosystems look a lot like cars). Therefore, the long-termer doesn't worry so much about his car. That's fine. Someone who lives day to day, and has to have a car to get to work, that person worries about their car.

I'm like a mechanic. I'll say "change the oil, get a tune-up, drive carefully, and your car will last longer." And if the car breaks down, I won't focus on fixing or replacing the car (too expensive!), but rather I'll focus on finding the part that's broken and replacing that. That's the cheap way of getting the car working again, and that's what we want.

Inevitably, the long-termers call me shortsighted, because I happen to care about keeping cars working, and that means knowing about the parts and how they interact. That's fine. They don't have to worry about the details, since there will always be cars of some sort.

I would point out that the people for whom cars will always be around are those who take the worst care of them. Wealth has its privileges. People whose livelihood depends on their cars usually learn the hard way that they have to take care of their cars, and so they do so.

This also applies to ecosystems. One reason traditional peoples often (not always!) had sustainable livelihoods was that their choices were stark: be sustainable or starve (and usually, they got to watch their kids starve before they died). Personally, I keep hoping we'll learn to be sustainable before we start starving, but I don't hold out much hope on the matter. Still, ehough people will learn to be sustainable that I'm quite sure our species will survive. Our culture probably won't, but hey, there will always be cultures, right?

Getting back to ecosystems...

Anyway, elephants do have a massive effect on the forests and savannas they live in, and if they disappear, habitat for a number of other species will also disappear. That's why they are valuable. Alan's patagonian cockroach (thanks for the lovely image!) probably has much less impact on other species, and thus it is metaphorically more like a cupholder in the car of life.

F

Hi Vandoo,

Just wanted to speak 'briefly' about the deliberate destruction of illegal ivory.

It is certainly breathtakingly sad to see a pile of tusks going up in flames.
For many reasons.
From the POV of someone who has marvelled at antique carved ivory since childhood I can see the destruction in terms of potential lost art.

But this ivory is different. No matter what use it was ever put to, it would always carry the stain of being taken in what should be a more enlightened time, against all reason from a species of beautiful and intelligent creatures barely able to absorb the loss of the individuals it represents.

The problem with stopping this trade is of course demand.
I believe there have been instances where illegally poached Ivory was sold on by the authorities concerned and the proceeds ploughed back into conservation. But the problem is still the demand, and legally or illegally sold ivory may well still end up in the same places feeding the same demand, and therefore encouraging more poaching leading to the unimaginable horror of the loss in the wild of these incredible creatures.
The choice to destroy or resell to fund better protection (in often very poor nations) must be an agonising one for those involved. Remember the Tiger pelts a couple of years back?

My personal view is that as hopefully somewhat enlightened people we understand better now than did past generations the issues involved in owning an item made from one of our fellow creatures, and where ever we personally choose to 'draw the line' we must do so weighing up all the issues involved.
For me, there can be no justification for modern Ivory, therefore I would personally not want to own any, and I sincerely hope that there will come a time when people marvel at antique pieces and say 'wow I cant believe they made that out of an elephants tusk'.
I realise that is still (even after all these years) a pipe dream. But I think that if we could stop the trade for long enough that those potential 'consumers' have never known Ivory in any other context than antique curios, they might not see it as a desirable 'commodity' for its own sake.
Rather like other formerly widespread items made from endangered species, which now would be unacceptable to consumers.
I can only imagine the look on my Gal's face if I bought her a fine perfume and then told her after she'd put some on that it was made using 'ambergris' from Sperm Whales! (I know thats a daft example but its the first that sprang to mind)
Changing attitudes is certainly not easy or quick.
And of course the biggest problem (Affecting us as antiques collectors) is the fake antiques trade.
Certainly whether they realise the deception or not, all the while there are western collectors buying 'genuine antique Ivory' items made in China, then there will be a demand for black-market ivory to supply the carvers making a living off of it.
Hopefully if this ban is enforced, they can go back to carving 3000 year old Jade daggers! ;-)

My main worry is that ebay are not going to effectively enforce it.


Regards
Gene

I thought I'd add this article from Slate .
http://green.msn.com/Home/eBay-Ivory...ion/?gt1=45002

Just for fun ........ :D

Hi Rick,

While I agree that the transparent sale of ivory might help save elephants as a species, I think there's another big problem, amply covered in An elephant crackup?, an article from a couple of years ago in the New York Times. Basically, it's about the problems elephants are causing for humans in Africa (like, for instance, raiding their farms and killing them), and how these problems are growing.

Why are they growing? In part it's about population pressure, but it's also about the nature of elephants. See, they're smart and long-lived, and because of they're smart and long-lived, they have a culture. They survive because the elder elephants know where the water is, where the food is, what the threats are, and so on, and pass them on to the younger elephants. Elephant culture is also strongly gender divided. There are matriarchal herds of females and younger offspring, and there are bands of males, and the two largely come together to mate.

The problem with the ivory trade is that it targets the bigger, older males with the biggest tusks. The old bulls are the carriers of male society, and what ivory poaching leaves behind is a group of leaderless, young bulls.

Ditto, unfortunately, with culling, which is more interested in killing a set number of elephants than with keeping elephant social structures intact.

You might want to consider how much this sounds like the problems of ghettos and war zones, where angry young men are growing up without a strong, peaceful, male role models. Heck, just imagine what would happen to this site if someone started killing our old bulls to get the gold fillings out of their teeth, and discarding their collections and libraries in the process.

Anyway, that's the problem with both poaching and culling--it promotes social fragmentation in elephant herds. While I can't say for sure that vengeance or PTSD are things elephants deal with, I am quite sure that elephants who don't know better will raid crops, will kill people, and will be much more of a problem than were previous generations who were taught by other elephants how to deal with people.

So what do we do? I don't have an easy answer, but I do know that it's complicated, and neither poaching nor indiscriminate culling are the answer, whatever E-Bay does.

Best,

F