The Issue of Ivory

Laowang · 12th October 2017, 01:22 AM

Just to be clear, the proposed UK ban is in regard to the purchasing and selling of ivory, not the possession of ivory. The US ban is in regard to the purchasing and selling of African ivory, not the possession of African ivory. The burden of proof is on the seller/buyer, which certainly complicates things for people like us, who appreciate antique ivory, as the average customs agent cannot see the difference.

But, there is no discussion within the US about banning the possession of ivory, and to think that the US government, or agents thereof, will raid American homes and confiscate their ivory is sheer paranoia. I own a few ivory keris hilts, and I have no fear of their loss. As a matter of fact, I've purchased a couple off of eBay since the ban was put in place, and have yet to have a customs agent knocking on my door.

It is worth noting that South Africa will soon allow again the farming of black rhinos, which many people fear will exacerbate poaching. To farm rhinos (or elephants) for the purposes of harvesting their horns (or ivory) requires both land and capital; poachers often have neither, but in many parts of the world firearms are comparatively cheap, conservation rangers are scarce and underpaid, and rhinos and elephants can be found in the wild or on national parks, if you're willing to do the work and take the risk. The logic of the CITES agreement is that stopping all trade reduces poaching because you can't launder illegally harvested horn or ivory as legally-farmed horn or ivory. It's not a perfect solution, and undoubtedly has many flaws, but would we prefer a world where rhinos and elephants do not exist outside of zoos?

A. G. Maisey · 12th October 2017, 02:09 AM

Laowang,I believe that we are clear in respect of the present situation.

Certainly possession of ivory is not yet illegal.

However, unless one is party to discussion in all groups who are working against the trade in ivory, and one is also party to discussion within all government bodies who are involved in matters related to ivory, it is perhaps unwise to believe that there is no discussion, indeed has been no discussion in respect of making the possession of ivory illegal.

At the present time caution is advisable.

I was not given a collection of ivory hilts by a person who has deep connections within the museum and art communities, for no reason. In his informed opinion he had good reason to remove them to a place where it seemed unlikely that they will be destroyed in the foreseeable future.

David · 12th October 2017, 02:55 AM

Thank you Alan. You have convinced me that further discussion of this topic is both futile and perhaps even dangerous.

For now similar threads remain open on two other forums if people still feel the need to vent or philosophize on this subject further. This one is now closed.

12th October 2017, 01:22 AM	#1
Laowang Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: 40˚00' N, 83˚00' W Posts: 52	Just to be clear, the proposed UK ban is in regard to the purchasing and selling of ivory, not the possession of ivory. The US ban is in regard to the purchasing and selling of African ivory, not the possession of African ivory. The burden of proof is on the seller/buyer, which certainly complicates things for people like us, who appreciate antique ivory, as the average customs agent cannot see the difference. But, there is no discussion within the US about banning the possession of ivory, and to think that the US government, or agents thereof, will raid American homes and confiscate their ivory is sheer paranoia. I own a few ivory keris hilts, and I have no fear of their loss. As a matter of fact, I've purchased a couple off of eBay since the ban was put in place, and have yet to have a customs agent knocking on my door. It is worth noting that South Africa will soon allow again the farming of black rhinos, which many people fear will exacerbate poaching. To farm rhinos (or elephants) for the purposes of harvesting their horns (or ivory) requires both land and capital; poachers often have neither, but in many parts of the world firearms are comparatively cheap, conservation rangers are scarce and underpaid, and rhinos and elephants can be found in the wild or on national parks, if you're willing to do the work and take the risk. The logic of the CITES agreement is that stopping all trade reduces poaching because you can't launder illegally harvested horn or ivory as legally-farmed horn or ivory. It's not a perfect solution, and undoubtedly has many flaws, but would we prefer a world where rhinos and elephants do not exist outside of zoos?

12th October 2017, 02:09 AM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,989	Laowang,I believe that we are clear in respect of the present situation. Certainly possession of ivory is not yet illegal. However, unless one is party to discussion in all groups who are working against the trade in ivory, and one is also party to discussion within all government bodies who are involved in matters related to ivory, it is perhaps unwise to believe that there is no discussion, indeed has been no discussion in respect of making the possession of ivory illegal. At the present time caution is advisable. I was not given a collection of ivory hilts by a person who has deep connections within the museum and art communities, for no reason. In his informed opinion he had good reason to remove them to a place where it seemed unlikely that they will be destroyed in the foreseeable future.

12th October 2017, 02:55 AM	#3
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,209	Thank you Alan. You have convinced me that further discussion of this topic is both futile and perhaps even dangerous. For now similar threads remain open on two other forums if people still feel the need to vent or philosophize on this subject further. This one is now closed.